Talk:Israel/Archive 95

Permanently tagged article, and WP:BRD?
Prior consensus version:

Tombah edit:

See above the version added unilaterally by Tombah on 26 Feb, without discussion. It is shorter than the prior version (good) but has a clear POV favouring one narrative in multiple areas (bad). I have been here long enough to be certain that such an approach to editing will not achieve consensus. We can and must achieve a form of words consistent with both Israeli and Palestinian narratives. We all want to remove the tag from the article; that needs broad acceptance that we have achieved NPOV. with your latest edit, reverting to Tombah's version while the discussion is ongoing, you are damaging the cordial atmosphere that built up over a long period here - please don't undermine it now. We need to respect WP:BRD, and let the discussion play out properly. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * First you need to stop calling it "Tombah's version" when in the week since Tombah's contribution, no one but you has objected to it in any way. On the contrary, several editors have either started to improve the new version, or have explicitly stated their support on this talk page, because it's an obvious improvement. If you have an objection to a part of it, and it's not supported by the community, you shouldn't try to reverse all the progress by restoring that largely inferior version. I don't see how the following sentence is not neutral, especially to the point that you need to restore everything else: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 war." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have raised seven separate objections in the thread above, all of which have been discussed here recently and have an explicit lack of consensus:
 * Mentioning the land as the birthplace of "the Jewish people" but ignoring the Palestinian people
 * Blaming Arabs for sparking the 1948 civil war
 * Blaming Arabs for sparking the 1948 Arab-Israel war
 * Making the first history paragraph primarily about Jews
 * Writing about the Palestinian Nakba as if it was a population exchange
 * Deleting the "world's longest occupation"
 * Not mentioning annexation
 * Regarding your revision to that one sentence, I wrote above: 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. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the usual story here, been like this for years, and good faith talk page discussions intended to improve things (2 RFC pending) are ignored in favor of POV editing. The history section and the lead are still way too long. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Triggerhippie4: Needless to say, there is no 7-day rule whereby POV edits becomes legit. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hardly news to any regular editor that I don't take neither a pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian view, and especially so in this case. Rather than saying one version is categorically better than the other, I see good and bad points in both. As already stated, I have a lot of sympathy for Onceinawhile's objection of singling out Israel as the birthplace of the Jewish people. On the other hand, I don't understand the complaint that the text puts the blame of the 1948 on the Arabs. Sorry, but that's a fact. There was a UN plan, one side accepted it and one rejected it. Trying to obscure that would fail NPOV. So again, I don't prefer one version over the other. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The message that the rejection of the UN vote was the primary cause of the conflict is the problem.
 * The fighting pre-dated the vote, see for example Shubaki family assassination. The moment the British stated their intention to leave, it was clear a conflict between Jews and Arabs was on the cards.
 * Equally you could say that the actual problem was the UN voting on a plan that was clearly not acceptable to both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I, like Once, object to it being oversimplified in this manner in the lead devoid of the huge amount of historical context at play. Without any of the context, including the multiple rounds of negotiations rejected by both sides and any mention of the highly inequitable division of land proposed in the iteration dismissed by the leaders of neighbouring countries, the oversimplified statement is not just POV, but a rather well-known and tired example of a constantly regurgitated POV talking point on the subject. To avoid this, any kind of assertion to this end is best avoided in the lead and instead left to the body where the detail and context can all be expounded in full. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

It is impossible to cover the history of Israel, various claims, and all the events in the lead. And even in this version, the history paragraph is relatively long compared to the lead of other countries. In my opinion, this version is much better although it is not perfect for the reasons you mentioned. but it is much better than the previous one. Qplb191 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Looks like we need a para 1 RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you note that the article states the Arabs were to blame for 1948. This is a highly synthetic POV, and a very familiar one, that ignores any other way of reading the events by a principle of exclusion of other relevant facts.
 * The Holocaust survivors in Europe were denied mass open entry into Great Britain and the United States, with Truman stating England should accept 100,000 and Bevin rejoining that the Yanks should try dumping that number of Jews in New York. This repeated the antisemitic restrictions on Jewish entry to those countries prior to the war. Worse still, GB then passed a law allowing 275,000 Polish troops to emigrate to England (March 1947), while with the US, organizing the Partition Plan's approval, which entailed heavy lobbying of Caribbean mini states among others, which had no historic connection to the area. The UN plan gave 32% of the immigrant Jewish  population of Palestine 56% of the land, including its best agricultural resources, while the indigenous Palestinian 66% were assigned 44% of the land, in the rockier areas mainly. Of course this was absolutely unacceptable to Arabs, and they unanimously rejected a plan that would effectly place under the jurisdiction of an ethnically Jewish state the vast assets which were under Palestinian title. The acceptance by Ben-Gurion was premised on the upcoming war which would allow even more land than the Partrition Plan envisaged. The refusal by Arabs was grounded in the fact that outside powers were resolving 'their Jewish question' in Europe by thrusting the onus of relocation on Palestine, which entailed the destruction of the Arab majorities aspirations for the area. To blame the Arabs for assessing realistically that the proposal meant selling out their patrimony for chicken feed is a widespread viewpoint, the blame them-we are the victims strategy of victors in a cynical great power game of shuffling off their responsibilities to the victims of the Holocaust.Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, if we reduce very complex historical contexts (the above is also a simplification) to a sentence of the type, 'the Yishuv accepted Partition, the Arabs rejected it', all the cogent whys of history disappear to favour one POV by a selective pointing of one result that feeds into the Abba Eban spin about Arabs never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. NPOV is quashed. Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 100%, not to mention that it was rightly pointed out that the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine violated the spirit of the organization proposing it, i.e. the principle of national self-determination in the UN's own charter. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural note I hope we all can agree that while this discussion is ongoing, the prior long-standing version should remain. That is the correct procedure regardless of personal preferences. (Onceinawhile already said that, so just adding my voice of support to that view). Jeppiz (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Triggerhippie4, @Dovidroth, @Eladkarmel: Suffice to say that edit warring to maintain edits that have been reverted and clearly challenged on talk is in violation of WP:BRD. That this is a contentious topic area only makes this more problematic, and the assertion that the 7-day life of the edits is an excuse simply goes directly against WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, i.e. policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the content, I think we all agree that the lead should be shorter. Each new version should be much shorter than the existing one and especially the history paragraph which is simply too long and even a bit confusing. Qplb191 (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that a much shorter version should be made than the existing one ,that would also detail the Palestinian connection to the "Land of Israel" and would be neutral overall. Qplb191 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about the same – what is the shortest possible for these two paragraphs on history? What is the minimum content required? There is a “magnification” problem of spelling out either side’s ancient connection to the land – both need to be contextualized / positioned in due weight in the context of the rest of the history of the land. So every 10 words removed on “historical connection” probably allows us to remove 40 words overall. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is a big problem to detail everything, especially because there are a lot of controversial things and the history of the place and the region is so ancient and long. It cannot be ignored that the history part is too long and even a bit confusing. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to mention every kingdom that ruled the region and specific years, etc... The first paragraph is very long and mostly unnecessary. Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is very difficult to explain the whole thing and give different arguments, you only need to refer and write neutrally, and also briefly explain that the Palestinians have a great affinity and connection to the place as well. We can shorten the lead by half and it will make it much more organized and less confusing. Qplb191 (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the lead should be short and to the point. and significantly shorten the part of the history that is too long and unnecessary, and also mention the perspective of the Palestinians. Qplb191 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I made a new version, considering the suggestions above:

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is an excellent version, short and to the point, also gives the perspective of the Palestinians and is neutral overall. Qplb191 (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While there are parts I could quibble with, overall it's a significant improvement over what is on the Israel page now, so I'm going to skip my quibbles and just say I support this. Levivich (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm ... I'm not sure I can skip my quibbles. The "also" in the first sentence is a grammatical anomaly absent from the previous version. It is either "in the region known as" or "also known as" - not both (should be the first I think). The above also skips the whole Babylonian, Achaemenid and Seleucid phase (maybe Macedonian and Ptolemaic can be dropped, but not the rest). I'm all for cutting, but here, too much also remains of the previous flawed version. The demographic stuff involves the conflation of various historical factoids. There were variously Samaritan, Judean and specifically Jewish expulsions, massacres, etc. at various points in time. The above is oversimplified and pointed. 'sizable number' of Palestinians remains a risible means dodging the annunciation of the very precise numbers of Palestinians that were forced to leave their homes. The detail on East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights should probably not be skipped over - the Golan in particular forms the basis of a whole separate state of ongoing conflict with Syria, separate to Palestine. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree but it is definitely unnecessary to mention all the different empires that ruled the region. This version is much better and is a good basis for future improvements. Qplb191 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dovidroth: Why are your unilaterally inserting parts of the proposed wording while the discussion is ongoing? The 'sizable number' language is probably the worst part of the proposal. It is a clearly euphemistic vaguery. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks appreciate the good faith effort. I also have quibbles that I can skip for now, but unfortunately it has also crossed a few areas that are unacceptable and contravene the discussion of the last two months. For the sake of clarity I will ignore the quibbles on focus only on the structural points:
 * Para (1) First and last sentences are fine. The second and third, constituting 50% of the paragraph, are about Jewish history. That is simply not a reasonable reflection of the region's 3,000-4,000 years of recorded history, as can be seen graphically here.
 * Para (2) Is moving in the right direction, but (a) Annexation is missing; (b) the Arab rejection sentence jars with the high level of the rest of the paragraph, and would be better replaced with a broader description (e.g. after the "constantly grew" we explain the with the UN Partition plan and the announced British withdrawal these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war, resulting in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory.)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In the end, it should be completely neutral, the affinity of the Palestinians to the place and the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem should be added, but beyond that, in my opinion, it is an excellent lead and a very good basis for improvements in the future. It cannot be denied that the existing lead is too long and cumbersome. It should be short and simple. Of course, it is impossible to explain the long, complicated and controversial history of the region, so specific main points must be chosen that give perspective to the Palestinian side as well in brief. Qplb191 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer both Iskandar323 and Onceinawhile.
 * Regarding the word "also" in the first sentence - the region beyond the state borders is also known as Israel, see the Land of Israel.
 * I agree to add Egyptian, Babylonian and Achaemenid empires to the list.
 * I don't understand what is wrong with the population sentence. The Jewish population has indeed decreased throughout antiquity.
 * The lead is supposed to be a brief glance of the subject and shouldn't mention specifics such as demographic numbers, especially only for Palestinians who are not the focus of this article. (And the numbers are actually not "very precise.")
 * East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the occupied territories, which is already mentioned and linked.
 * Onceinawhile, I didn't understand your last point (b). Could you suggest a text? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. TH4 PROPOSAL: ...tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine and the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence were rejected by Arab leaders. During the 1948 war, a sizable number of Palestinians were expelled or fled. Since the 1967 Six-Day War... ONCE PROPOSAL: TH4 PROPOSAL: ...tensions between the Yishuv and the Palestinian Arab population constantly grew. Following the UN Partition Plan and Britain's decision to withdraw from the territory, in 1948 these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war. The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory, within which the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled and were refused return. Since the 1967 Six-Day War... Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The 700,000 Nakba figure is attested in a frankly ludicrous number of sources. When you are talking about 80% of the pre-existing population, that's not a 'sizeable number', that's the 'vast majority', plain and simple. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe change from "a sizable number of Palestinians" to "about half of Palestine's Arab population" Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not 80% relative to the whole of Palestine; it's 80% relative to the area from which Palestinians were driven out. As the page currently specifies, fewer than 150,000 remained in Israel. It's a statistical sleight-of-hand to defer to the population of the entire geography, when it is the area from which people were expelled that is the concern with these particular statements. Hence the current text contextualizes it as in "the territory Israel would come to control". Iskandar323 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's difficult and unnecessary. "About half of prewar Palestine's Arab population" will do. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Well I think you've hit the nail on the head of why we use the number. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be the only number in the text, and thus meaningless to readers. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cannot agree more. There's no need for specific numbers here, that's clearly not an essay about the 1948 war, and this is definitely not the place to "right great wrongs", but briefly summarize the most significant moments in the history of the region, particularly those that are crucial for understanding modern-day Israel. That's what our readers are here for. "About half of prewar Palestine's Arab population" sounds like a reasonable compromise. Tombah (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are missing Iskandar's point. It's not about the denominator, not the numerator. If there is an objection to using a percentage like 80% we can replace it with words like "vast majority", so the sentence would be "The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the territory Israel would come to control, and were refused return after the war." Onceinawhile (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a valid suggestion, in the end this version is much better. Anyone have any other fixes to suggest? Qplb191 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be added that the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are occupied territories and their annexation, in addition to the Palestinians' connection to the region beyond that, I think this is a good version. Qplb191 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's what The Levivich Five say about Nakba (none use the word "Nakba"):
 * Oxford 2014: "Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled."
 * Riches 2016: Not mentioned
 * Hill 2017: "During the 1948 war, there was a massive flight of an estimated 800,000 Palestinians.", "There followed a mass flight of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs abroad, partly at the urging of foreign Arab leaders and partly owing to actions of Israeli forces."
 * Ellicott 2020: Not mentioned
 * Dilworth 2022: Not mentioned
 * Levivich (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Triggerhippie stated above that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are part of the occupied territories, which is already mentioned and linked in his proposal. Two problems here: (1) That statement is not true under Israeli law; (2) These annexations fundamentally changed the de facto borders of Israel and therefore are highly notable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead section is for readers to have a cursory glance at the subject of the article, not for editors to insert as much POV as possible. It doesn't matter which parts of the occupied territories Israel annexed and which did not in two short paragraphs summarizing thousands years of history. All this information is easily accessible via the link or below on this page. That's not how a lead is written.
 * And it's the half of the Palestinians who fled in the war not the "vast majority." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Triggerhippie4,there may indeed be some controversial things to correct or add as you mentioned, but in the end it is clear that we all agree that the proposed lead is a significant improvement over the existing one. Qplb191 (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How are major annexations POV? Those are obvious, major, landmark alterations of the geography governed by the country according to its own laws. Hence, no shit, Russia's annexations are in its lead. This information is about 200x more important to the lead of this article about a modern country than literally any of the guff about iron age kingdoms and the Hasmonean dynasty etc. What is distinctly POV is this ongoing 'half fled' rhetoric. Once's suggestion above is ok, or we can stick with exact figures. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are your three options: the 700,000 Palestinian fled from the areas that Israel came to control option, the only 20% of Palestinian were left, a.k.a. the 80% fled option , or the "Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area under Jewish control..." option . What is not going to happen is the 'bury the Nakba' option. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But none of those articles are articles about Israel. They're all about the exodus specifically. Find an article about Israel, the country, an article that is an overview of the country, and show us what it says about the Nakba. I mean, you can't seriously be suggesting that those three articles are the only three options? Given that I've posted five others above, that all say something different (three go with "bury the Nakba" option). Levivich (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the best option is “"Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area..."( “Jewish control” it’s unnecessary ) Qplb191 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, yeah, great, let's just wipe the slate clean. And while we're at, let's head along to the Turkey page and quietly remove all that uncomfortable talk of Armenian and Assyrian genocides. Just details. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should be neutral. In the end I am in favor of mentioning the sentence you suggested but "Jewish countol" is simply not a good term. Qplb191 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that part is only really necessary if it is otherwise thought to be confusing as to which geographical area this refers to - although, judging by this thread, that confusion is very much alive. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should bury it. Based on the sources I've seen so far, I think we should update the article with Hill 2017 and say 800,000. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There's seems to be some pretty widespread opposition to exact numbers here, and 800,000 is different again from the prevailing 700,000, so presumably even more contentious still? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And why three sources from the 1980s? Seems dated. Levivich (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is preventing anyone from finding their own sources. I just found three different wording options from some serious sources. This stuff is frankly such ludicrously common knowledge that even the doggedly factually non-committal Chat GPT is happy to provide a figure: "The exact number of Palestinians who were expelled from the area under Jewish control in 1948 is a matter of debate and controversy. The estimates of the number of Palestinian refugees range from 700,000 to over 1 million people, who were displaced as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Nakba (Catastrophe in Arabic). The displacement of Palestinians occurred in various ways, including forced expulsion, intimidation, and massacres. Some Palestinians fled their homes in fear of the violence, while others were forcibly removed by Israeli forces. Many of them ended up in refugee camps in neighboring countries, where they and their descendants remain to this day. It's important to note that the exact number of displaced Palestinians is a contested issue, and different sources provide different estimates." Iskandar323 (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “Almost the whole of the Arab population fled or was expelled from the area”
 * I think it's a good compromise. Qplb191 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * TBH, I think that's almost too vague in the opposite direction (almost the whole, in my mind, means something more akin to 90+ or 95+ %), so 'vast majority' still works for me if numbers are an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ChatGPT is not a serious source, and really, for this topic, neither are journal articles from the 1980s about Palestine. Those aren't even close to "the best sources for the Wikipedia article 'Israel'". We should be using scholarship from the 21st century, it's not like there is any lack of it, there's probably three new books published since this discussion started. We really shouldn't be doing backwards editing ("The article should say X, here are sources that say X."), we should be doing it forwards ("Here are the best sources about this topic, they say X..."). Levivich (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was. BUT, it is an excellent aggregator of information and its results reflect a sort of modal form of the information out there in the ether. I was using it as food for thought. On the three sources above, while I wouldn't particularly rate the other two, the Simha Flapan source is good. This isn't fast-paced stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This lead is a big improvement. 1. The fact that this is the longest military occupation in modern history is mentioned. 2. on the occupied territories (East Jerusalem, the annexed Golan Heights) and the West Bank. 3. It is mentioned that the construction of settlements, annexation and occupation are not acceptable according to international law and the international community does not accept them. 4. At the beginning of the lead it is written that the Palestinians and the Abrahamic religions have a high connection and importance to the place, as does the Jewish people. Regarding the 1947-1948 war, I think it's really not worth delving into it and writing about it so much because there are many controversial things and also because the lead should not be only in that.
 * Do you have any other suggestions for change? Qplb191 (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's agree that the proposed lead is an improved version (if anyone has more comments or changes to offer please say). It can't be 100% perfect or everyone will be satisfied, but it can be as good as possible (without a doubt this version is much better). Regarding the Nakba, first of all, there are no exact official numbers like @Levivich mentioned and this is very controversial. Secondly, demographic numbers are not mentioned in the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Qplb191 (talk)

What do you think about this?Qplb191 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The 'rejected by Arab leaders' bugbear is still there, and 'faded out' seems like an unnecessary colloquialism that could be phrased better. Maybe the annexation could specify "Palestinian and Syrian territories" - the whole Golan/state of war with Syria aspect shouldn't just be written out as if it is a footnote. Unfamiliar readers might think this only refers to Palestinian territories. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A new version according to your suggestion, what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Qplb191 (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Definitely better, but regardless, it's time to let some other editors give their tuppence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, does anyone have ideas/comments to improve the lead? Do you support the lead in this version? Qplb191 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there are problems with false balance here. "were rejected", by whom? This language is weak. As we seen above, most sources outlining the history of Israel mention that those were rejected by Arab leaders/Arab League/Arab states, etc. It is missing. Additionally, the 1948 war resulted in two significant demographic changes: the mass aliyah and the Palestinian exodus, why did we remove the first one? Tombah (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Minor amendments to Qplb191's version:

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE for the too detailed Palestinian experience of 1948. What about the Aliyah? the Jewish exodus from the Arab world?These are other significant events that are occurring at the same time for comparable causes. And again, this is not the article on the 1948 war, we don't need to get into too much detail in this lede.
 * I thought we were reaching consensus for the above proposal. What are the arguments opposing it? Tombah (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You've already heard the arguments against both the rejected part and the statistical softening of the Nakba part. You can choose to ignore them and keep banging the same drum if you like, but don't pretend you haven't heard them. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On the immigration, around what time exactly? The text above already mentions the immigration before 1948, so I presume you mean the later immigration post-1948 through to the early 1970s, so "over the next three decades"? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just reflecting on the "tensions grew" point, we imply that the mandate catalyzed these tensions. Yet as early as 1891, thirty years before the mandate, Ahad Ha'am was able to write: The Arabs, especially the urban elite, see and understand what we are doing and what we wish to do on the land, but they keep quiet and pretend not to notice anything. For now, they do not consider our actions as presenting a future danger to them... But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily... [Describing the early Zionist settlers:] They deal with the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass unjustly, beat them shamefully for no sufficient reason, and even boast about their actions... But when these people feel that the law is on their rival's side and, even more so, if they are right to think their rival's actions are unjust and oppressive, then, even if they are silent and endlessly reserved, they keep their anger in their hearts. And these people will be revengeful like no other.
 * The tensions point would be better included with the prior sentence about Zionist immigration.Onceinawhile (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought while writing this. Yes, I suppose you are right; if we're sticking with "tensions," we should move it to the first sentence. Another choice is to switch "tensions" to "clashes," which more closely describes the Mandatory period. I'd go with the first one. Tombah (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm kind of a 'hard no' on this draft. This is not how the sources present this history. "Tensions grew into a civil and then regional war"? I don't usually say these things, but that's whitewashing the history. It's also extremely vague. A civil and regional war between whom? This article about Israel; Israel never had a civil war. "The war resulted in the independence of Israel" is factually incorrect. Independence was declared on the day before the neighboring Arab states invaded in 1948. And it's not like the 1948 war ended with recognition by Arab states of Israel's independence. "almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return" isn't how most sources describe it. In fact, in this discussion, I've only seen one source that says that, and it was a journal article from the 1980s. Not enough to establish this description as the mainstream view that we would say in Wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With appropriate wikilinks:
 * Independence was declared at midnight on the territory assigned to the Jewish state by the UN partition and de facto recognition of the new state given by the US contemporaneously. Five Arab states invaded the next day and specify them.
 * See 1948 Palestinian exodus for a slew of refs describing that as fled and expelled including the UN mediator in September 1948, take your pick, the refused return bit is unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See 1948 Palestinian exodus for a slew of refs describing that as fled and expelled including the UN mediator in September 1948, take your pick, the refused return bit is unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we can really argue forever. But in the end this is the best version, which includes all the changes/fixes you suggested. Do you agree that the proposed lead is a significant improvement over the existing one and can be added?Qplb191 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm still a no, for the same reasons I said above. Levivich (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Me too. Try again. these tensions grew into a civil and then regional war in 1948 is atrocious and The war resulted in the independence of Israel with borders covering most of the former mandate territory is worse. You can just ignore what is being said if you like, then we will definitely be arguing forever. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree with you. What do you think should be written instead? Qplb191 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * “After the UN declaration that was rejected the 1947-1948 war begin.”
 * “During the war Israel occupied the green line territory ,the Palestinian territories in the partition plan.” Qplb191 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The fundamental issue we are stuck on here is the Israeli government narrative incorrectly asserts that the war between Jews and Arabs in 1948 resulted from Arab rejectionism.
 * Actually what happened is that a successful insurgency between Jews and the British turned into a conflict between Jews and Arabs after the British gave up. Then when the British disappeared altogether at the point that the Jewish forces were close to taking over the entire of Palestine, the neighboring states (all still financially controlled by either Britain or France) stepped in to fill the vacuum and attempt to restore balance to an unequal fight.
 * Any sentence that suggests that the fighting resulted from rejection of the advisory-only vote at the United Nations is creating a false picture. The issue was the British departure.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What happened in 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."
 * 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."
 * What happened in 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."
 * Of course these are not the only sources like this, but these are Oxford, Gale, and Brill specialist encyclopedia entries (from encyclopedias of countries) about Israel published in the past 10 years. This is top shelf sourcing for this article. We can't just ignore it and write something different. I really think we need to start looking at top academic works about Israel from the past 10 years, and summarizing what they write, and not something different, even if we think what they write is wrong. Levivich (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * From The Statesman's Yearbook 2023's (Palgrave Macmillan) entry on Israel, which is available on WP:TWL (TWL Link): "In 1947 the United Nations intervened, recommending partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency (not representative of all Jewish groups) but rejected by the Palestinian Arab leadership; inter-communal war followed. On 14 May 1948 the British Government terminated its mandate and the Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel. No independent Arab state was established in Palestine. Instead the neighbouring Arab states invaded Israel on 15 May 1948. The Jewish state defended itself successfully, and the ceasefire in Jan. 1949 left Israel with one-third more land than had been originally assigned by the UN." Levivich (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * +1, better. I would still specify which states attacked per several of the texts above. I guess the US recognition is to be found only in more legally oriented sourcing but since it is integral to the legitimacy question, it ought to go in somewhere methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree specifying the states is better than saying "Arab" because not all Arab states attacked. I don't agree about US recognition in the lead; I think it's Americentric, and rather insulting to any country to suggest that US recognition is a major part of that country's history (and I'm American). I also don't think the sources suggest US recognition is such an important part. Important enough for the body IMO but not the lead.
 * BTW, here is what Statesman's Yearbook 2023 says about Nakba (doesn't use that word though): "After Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, Arab League troops invaded the former British Mandate for Palestine. The first Arab–Israeli War (known in Israel as the War of Independence) ended with an armistice in July 1949. Under its terms 77% of Palestine came under Israeli control (56% had been allocated by the UN Partition Plan of 1947). Around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or to neighbouring countries. Up to 150,000 Palestinians remained in Israel."
 * What I like about it is that it explains where they were "displaced" (I don't like that term btw) from, and where they were displaced to. IMO a better version would clarify that the Israel that was declared independent in 1948 didn't include WB/Gaza, and that Palestinians were fled/expelled/displaced/etc. from the declared borders of Israel, to WB/Gaza. This then puts into context why what happened in 1967 is "occupation". Levivich (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s the most neutral understandable version so far, what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The Arab states invaded bit is propaganda, they invaded Palestine, not Israel.  nableezy  - 01:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 1. Adding the fact that the longest occupation in modern history. 2. The refusal of the Arab leaders was removed. 3. Briefly adding about the Nakba what is not written in the existing lead. 4. All the corrections you suggested have been attached. I think you agree that the lead of such a controversial country cannot be perfect, but the proposed version is much better than the existing version that blames the Palestinians for the outbreak of the war and everything... It is possible to agree that the proposed lead (even though it is not perfect) is a substantial improvement with perspective as well of the Palestinians. Qplb191 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Almost the whole of the Arab population were expelled or fled and refused return." - This is false.
 * Nearly 1,400,000 Arabs lived in Palestine when the war broke out. The heavily sourced opening sentence in 1948 Palestinian exodus states that "more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Palestine's Arab population – were expelled or fled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you make another version? Qplb191 (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is about Israel not Palestine. The 1.4m is not relevant. The area that became Israel had 850,000 Palestinian Arabs. 700,000 / 850,000 = 82%. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ding ding ding. Its a game with numbers. The Arab population of the territory that became Israel was nearly entirely expelled or fled and denied their right to return to their homes. On the order of 9:1.  nableezy  - 15:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We all agree that the current version of the lead is too long, not neutral and not clear enough. We can continue to argue, but can you offer a compromise that will bring to an objective, short lead that reflects both sides? Qplb191 (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please, stop spamming the page with these repetitive messages. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That version doesn't say when Israel declared independence, which seems like such a key point I can't imagine we'd leave that date out of the lead of any country article. I'm also not sure about Arab leaders rejecting the plan because they opposed an independent Jewish state, as opposed to for other reasons (including but not limited to opposing the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine [as opposed to elsewhere], or opposing the plan's treatment of Arabs), or (most likely) a combination of complicated reasons. It strikes me as weird to say during 1948, people fled from the territories within the 1949 borders. I mean, when they were fleeing, it's not like they were thinking "hey, we need to get out of the borders they're going to establish next year!" It doesn't say exactly who fled, where they fled from, and where they fled to (and/or expelled). Levivich (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing: I fundamentally don't like having the paragraph start with Zionism and end with I-P stalling, with independence buried in the middle there. The single most important date in the history of pretty much any country is its date of founding or independence (if it has one, which I think most do). Pretty much every country lead should have a paragraph that starts with "[Country] declared independence on [date]". The paragraph that follows that sentence should be a summary of the history of the country. The paragraph that precedes it would be any relevant pre-history, e.g. events leading up to independence. This is how the lead is currently organized, and I like this organization. Levivich (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing
Everyone is having a go, so I will as well:

(This bit with whatever history is eventually agreed): Late 19th century Zionism led to increased Jewish immigration to Ottoman Palestine. After World War I, the British Mandate for Palestine contained an ultimately unworkable dual obligation to establish both a home for the Jewish people and an independent Palestine. The British turned to the UN and in 1947 the United Nations recommended a partition of Palestine and an international administration for Jerusalem. The plan was mostly accepted by Jews but rejected by Palestinians leading to inter-communal war.

(This bit with the hr criticism to be included): On 14 May 1948 Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel on the territory assigned in the partition plan for a Jewish state contemporaneously with the end of the British mandate. An independent Arab state was not established, instead the neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state on 15 May 1948. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan. During the war a majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled. The 1967 Six-Day War, led to Israeli occupation of and creation of settlements in the Palestinian territories, actions rejected as illegal by the international community.While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have met with no success. Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think best one I've seen yet. "Ultimately unworkable" strikes me as editorializing, and I think "the next day" reads better than giving the 15 May 1948 date. Levivich (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is, "The "dual obligation" to the two communities quickly proved to be untenable; the British subsequently concluded that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences." See Balfour Declaration. Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A few things to say about that:
 * "unworkable" doesn't mean the same thing as "untenable"
 * The British concluded it was impossible to pacify two communities ... using different messages, which isn't the same thing as the dual obligation itself being unworkable (even if it was untenable, for the British)
 * All of that is "just" the opinion of James Renton in The Zionist Masquerade. That book has been positively reviewed  , but all reviewers agree that what his book does is put forth a novel interpretation, that Balfour was purely propaganda. I'm not sure that this is the mainstream view (although it is my view). But what Renton argues is quite the different from "ultimately unworkable", it's that Balfour was a lie: the dual obligations were obligations Britain never intended to keep. Which leads me to last point:
 * "ultimately unworkable" is euphemistic. Like, "an ultimately unworkable dual obligation to his wife and mistress".
 * But if we're citing Renton, we gotta say what Renton says: the Balfour Declaration was pure propaganda. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Not just Renton "The Palestine Royal Commission – in making the first official proposal for partition of the region – referred to the requirements as "contradictory obligations",[349][350] and that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation" Selfstudier (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC) There are other sources saying similar (about the Mandate, which contains the BD).Selfstudier (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Contradictory dual obligations" is much better than "ultimately unworkable" IMO. Levivich (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My preferred wording would be something more like: "In order to get their support in WWI, Britain made contradictory promises of an independent homeland in the Holy Land to both the Jews and the Arabs." Levivich (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, np. However it is phrased, it's the reason for the "tensions". Selfstudier (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, I assume you would want HR criticism line to be at the end of the paragraph? Levivich (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably, still need to agree the sentence at some point.Selfstudier (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Might as well drop this here. The 2022 US State Department report on human rights is out and confirms that this continues to be a problem for Israel and "significant human rights issues," including "credible" reports of "unlawful or arbitrary killings," "arbitrary or unjust detention, including of Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories" and "punishment of family members for alleged offenses by a relative." Selfstudier (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's my go at it, without links, building on Self's and prior versions. Levivich (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The text refers to Israel as it is located in the Holy Land, but in the following paragraphs say Palestine instead of Holy Land. Isn't it better to call the region by the name Palestine from the beginning of the text? Perhaps next to the name Land of Israel.

There were not "several" independent Jewish kingdoms in the region, only four or three. The term "Palestinians" before 1948 also referred to Jews living in Palestine, could we replace "Palestinian leaders" with "Palestinian Arab leaders" and "majority of Palestinians" with "majority of Palestinian Arabs"? What do you think? I think it's important to say that the Palestinian territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip were occupied by Egypt and Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Mawer10 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Mawer10. To your four points: (1) I copied the first sentence straight from the existing lead, but I'm also fine with the alternate that was proposed above: Is that an improvement? (2) How about  instead of "several"? (3) I'd be fine with  and . (4) How about ? Is it historically accurate to say "occupied by Jordan/Egypt" or were these "part of Jordan/Egypt" at the time? Levivich (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be more inclined to use "rule" rather than occupation, since in theory both territories were being held in trust for a Palestinian state in due course. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Only Egypt attempted to create a Palestinian state, while Jordan annexed the West Bank and claimed it as its territory until 1988. In fact, there was no really serious attempt by either country to create a fully independent Palestinian state. I don't understand why not use the de jure term "occupied". Mawer10 (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jordanian occupation of the West Bank redirects to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank despite recent attempts to change it to occupation.
 * The Act of Union recognised the title of sovereignty that had been vested in the people of Palestine by Article 22 of the League Covenant, when the government required their consent to implement the union with Jordan. The Act of union declared "Its reaffirmation to preserve full Arab rights in Palestine, to defend those rights by all lawful means in exercise of its natural rights but without prejudicing final settlement of Palestine’s just case within the sphere of national aspirations, inter-Arab cooperation, and international justice." and
 * "On 12 June 1950, the Arab League declared the annexation was a temporary, practical measure and that Jordan was holding the territory as a "trustee" pending a future settlement".
 * And that's what happened, 1988, Jordan gave its rights to the Palestinians.
 * This makes it clear that it is not an occupation (as in "belligerent"). the Egypt structure was different but with the same intent. Idk from where the idea that it was the responsibility of Egypt or Jordan to create a Palestinian state comes from. How would such a thing even work? Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jordan did not want to anger the other members of the Arab League and therefore agreed that it was only holding the territory 'temporarily' pending the creation of a Palestinian state, but in reality Jordan made moves to make the West Bank an inseparable part of its territory. So these diplomatic statements do not match the actions on the ground. Using the term "held/rule or any other" instead of "occupied" seems like a play on words to assuage the 'sins' of Egypt and especially of Jordan. Also, Egypt's occupation of Gaza is described as an occupation in its respective article, Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic. The statement "Jordan only ruled the West Bank temporarily because..." for me is not very different from "Israel holds the Golan Heights temporarily because of... Hum, Syrian Civil War". Mawer10 (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can source what I said, which is quite clear. It can be called an annex if desired, that's fine, because it was, a kind of "friendly" annex that was not condemned by the UN. In the case of Egypt, there is "The Gaza Strip is an indivisible part of the land of Palestine and its people are part of the Arab Nation. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip shall form a National Union composed of all Palestinians wherever they may be - its aim being the joint work to recover the usurped lands of Palestine, and the participation in fulfilling the call of Arab Nationalism. The National Union shall be organized by a decree from the Governor-General." By all means call that an occupation, since it was military rule, Egypt claimed it did not annex because of the desire to keep the territory for Palestinians, while Jordan did annex and claimed the same. I don't really see either case as crucial for the lead as the article is supposed to be about Israel. If it is to be there then wikilinking the relevant articles is enough.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Levivich: (1) Canaan is a very old name for the region before the existence of the Jews, I think it's better this way: "Israel is located in the Holy Land, historically known as Palestine or Eretz Israel." (2) Maybe it's because English is not my first language, I really don't see any difference between "multiple" and "several". "It was home to independent Israelite and Jewish kingdoms" is good.(3) Ok. (4) It's better, but we can improve it more. Yes, it's correct to say "occupied by Jordan/Egypt" just like Western Sahara. Mawer10 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Jordan and Egypt, as well as being different cases per what I wrote above are also completely distinct from the situation in the Western Sahara. I have no idea what "like Western Sahara" means. Do provide a source saying otherwise. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's an English thing, but "multiple" and "several" do mean the same thing. The reason we should specify that is because just saying "home to Israelite and Jewish kingdoms" implies there was one Israelite kingdom, and one Jewish kingdom. In fact, there were several, or multiple, of each type. See List of Jewish states and dynasties. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it good? Mawer10 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s way to long. Qplb191 (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We can delete "a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions". We can change this "...Islamic, and—after a brief Crusader period—the Ayubbid, Mamluk" to "...Islamic, Crusader, the Ayubbid, Mamluk". Aren't Ayubbid and Mamluk Islamic?. This "which would have given a majority of the land to the minority Jewish population" we can change to some like "seen as unfair by Arabs Palestinians". And "Jewish immigration from the Arab world and elsewhere" to "Jewish immigration from around the world." Is "an international administration for Jerusalem" really necessary? This part "The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state. A January 1949 ceasefire left Israel with one-third more land than originally contemplated by the partition plan" can be improved/summarized too. Mawer10 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, the lead should be summarized, there are many sentences (as you mentioned) that are not necessary. Qplb191 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

We previously established a consensus for the conflict paragraph, and it included the numbers being removed with specious reasons. The idea that the ethnic cleansing of native population should be papered over with such a euphemism like a sizable number of Palestinians is absurd. Beyond that, we already established a consensus for that, and changes to it require a new one, not a set of users attempting to edit-war their whitewashed version in to the article. That material was stable in this article since July 2022, and we had wide agreement on including both the Palestinian expulsion and flight and the incoming Jewish immigrants resulting from the flight from Arab states. See versions from July 2022 until this attempt at whitewashing this history began in February of this year. That edit has never had consensus, and editors have been edit-warring to impose it since.  nableezy  - 19:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * please see the above and please self-revert.  nableezy  - 05:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please discuss here with Dovidroth and reach a consensus so that no more reverts happen on the Article page. Thanks  Pg 6475  TM  06:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats all well and good, but the version you reverted to is the one being edit-warred in to the article. Please return the last consensus version, based on the discussion linked to above, and stable in this article for some 6+ months.  nableezy  - 06:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy agreed but kindly reach a consensus with Dovidroth so that further reverts do not happen.  Pg 6475  TM  06:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense, kindly restore the prior consensus version instead of edit-warring it in to the article.  nableezy  - 06:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nableezy: I understand there is consensus to name both Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish immigrants from Arab countries in lead, but is it really necessary to give specific cherry-picked details regarding numbers, despite the fact that that's not lead-material? It's not enough to have links to more specialized articles? After all, there were other and bigger waves of Jewish immigration that aren't mentioned. Moreover, saying that 260,000 Jews immigrated from the Arab world is misleading, since the actual number is closer to 650,000 in a longer process that lasted until the 1970s. I tried a compromise before by writing that 'most' Palestinians fled or were expelled from Jewish controlled areas during the war. Dovidroth (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picked? Are you kidding me? That number appears in countless sources, among them Benny Morris's Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. It isnt cherry-picked, that is a widely cited and agreed upon number. And it represents considerably more than the verging on inflammatory a sizable number of Palestinians. As far as the number of Jews coming from Arab countries, that paragraph is about 1948, not about immigration over decades from not just the surrounding Arab states but from all Muslim majority countries. You would realize that this number was cited in sources as the number that occurred from the Arab states in that time period if you read the prior discussion that established the consensus that you keep edit-warring to ignore. As far as your supposed compromise, most is considerably less accurate than nearly 90% of the Palestinian Arab population in the territory Israel would come to control being expelled or fleeing and disallowed the right to return to their homes. You are simply eliding past what could easily be cited as ethnic cleansing as a significant number fled or were expelled.  nableezy  - 06:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want to have a good faith discussion the basis would be not edit-warring the change in to the article. The numbers have been stable for over 6 months and were only recently edit-warred out. Kindly self-revert. I did not attempt to edit-war in to the article the change that included material on Israel's human rights record (a change I could have swore you agreed to actually), when it was challenged I left it for discussion. That is how things are supposed to go here. We had a discussion that settled including those numbers and it had been stable. Somebody changed it, it was challenged, it should remain until there is consensus to change it.  nableezy  - 07:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, 700,000 out of 850,000 is closer to 80%, not 90, which is 'most' (aka the majority). Second, the number 150,000 (for those remaining) was your unilateral addition, not part of the consensus. Third, there is no reason to have those specific numbers in lead of Israel when they can clearly be covered elsewhere, that's what links are for. Dovidroth (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Youre counting the 46k present absentees. Feel free to restore it absent the 150k remaining if you insist, but either way restore the prior consensus please. The reason to have those numbers in the lead is that both set of numbers is foundational to both Israel's founding and current existence. It both set the stage for the Jewish majority and the enduring conflict. That is why to include both sets of numbers, which is certainly more relevant to the modern state of Israel than the Crusades.  nableezy  - 07:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted the consensus version back in but editor Tombah has reverted it back out as per the whitewashing of this history that began with the same editor in February. Selfstudier (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. We have an established consensus for one version. That is being challenged. Cool. Establish a new consensus for your change. Edit-warring to try to push it in is a violation of our policies on WP:DE and WP:EW. And most of yall aint even discussing this in the talk page. If it continues Id expect more than 1 AE report in the near future.  nableezy  - 04:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus version covers it best, at the cost of a dozen or so additional words. We could shave a bit more off with Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem I have with eventually is that eventually includes the entire West Bank. Idk, thinking of a pithier way of saying Israel proper at the end of 1948 for that line. But agreed that this is much better than the bordering on purposely outrageous significant number of Palestinians fled  nableezy  - 15:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the issue. It's also present in "would come to control". How about "... the territory that Israel controlled by 1948"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think would come to control has a more limited range to the present paragraph, whereas eventually is just whenever after. I think we can just say in Israel tbh.  nableezy  - 18:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead
Can we agree with this? I think this is fine: it doesn't exaggerate Jewish history with the controversial alleged expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, it summarizes ancient history to focus on modern controversial points, and it doesn't blame the Arabs. Maybe we can put that Zionism arose because of the persecution suffered by the Jews, but I'm not sure about that. I left the numbers for the expulsion of Palestinians because there seems to be no consensus to exclude them. Any suggestions for improvement? Mawer10 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, and how could I forget: The Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora => and conversion. Synotia (moan) 21:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I honestly (seriously) don’t get it, are you trolling about the article being biased toward israel and western interests or the opposite or what exactly ? Stephan rostie (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you accusing him of trolling? Synotia (moan) 10:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing him of anything i literally don’t understand what he mean or want properly. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think he was saying that the sentence "the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora" is not good because it suggests that the decrease in the Jewish population was caused only by a voluntary or forced diaspora, and ignores other reasons such as conversions or assimilation. But the impact of these other events is unknown, with wars clearly being the main cause. I think the phrase is great, but if anyone has a better suggestion... Mawer10 (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure i agree, honestly almost every jewish wikipedia page always ignore the historical conversions from judaism to christianity and islam and the conversation of other historical groups to judaism. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah because it's less convenient... ben-gurion used to look at the palestinians and see them as descendants of the ancient jews, before abandoning that potentially dangerous idea Synotia (moan) 17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source to support this claim? eyal (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ben-Zvi and Ben-Gurion advanced this idea in this book from 1918. (didn't find a pdf, sorry) This has been mentioned by Shlomo Sand for example Here and there. Someone else mentioned this here. Synotia (moan) 15:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This formulation is a good option too. Mawer10 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not bad. However I have some things to add:
 * Must: mention the religious significance of the area, especially Jerusalem.
 * Possible: Mention/link to the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, Balfour Declaration, Sykes-Picot Agreement, perhaps also the Arab League somehow.
 * Also, you can indeed add a short line saying that Zionism arose as a response to the contemporary rise of European nationalisms that systematically excluded Jews – as a matter of fact, Zionism saw the establishment of an independent Jewish state as the only viable solution to this problem. I've proposed this prior actually.
 * Regarding the Zionism and immigration thing, I prefer your first version, it's more nuanced; initially the Zionist movement also proposed places like Argentina, but over time Palestine ended up winning the hearts due to its significance to the Jewish people. Synotia (moan) 21:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in the Holy Land", well, I think we can all agree that the term Holy Land speaks for itself in terms of the religious significance of the region. The goal is to summarize as much as possible, but keep the points relevant. Isn't the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence about the British promise of an independent Arab homeland in Palestine? Mention the Arab League how exactly? Is it accurate to say that the Arab League declared war on Israel in 1948? When the paragraph says Britain "promised a Jewish homeland there" this is already an indirect mention of the Balfour Declaration. The Sykes-Picot Agreement could indirectly be referred to as "the Ottoman Empire was divided between France and Britain with the latter getting Palestine", but I think that's not necessary. On the rise of Zionism I think "after centuries of persecution Zionism emerged..." or "Jewish nationalism emerged promoting..." is enough, any addition could be too verbose or POV, but if you have a good way of expressing it... Mawer10 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think we should even be saying holy land in the narrative voice. Lots of people find nothing particularly holy about that patch of land, and this isnt Abrahmicfaith-opedia.  nableezy  - 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Perhaps something like "in an area known as the Holy Land, of religious significance for the Abrahamic religions/Jews, Christians, and Muslims" Synotia (moan) 07:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Palestine is the 'official' name of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, this name is used by all serious sources and other names are in minority use. However, putting only "Israel is located in the region of Palestine" in the introduction can lead to a misunderstanding by the reader or supposedly not be neutral since the term is very politicized by conflict Israel-Palestine. ("if the region is called Palestine, then it belongs to the Palestinians, what are Jews doing there?" or "so, all of Israel is an occupation of territory of the State of Palestine".) Although the following paragraphs of the introduction use Palestine, there seems to be a consensus to use more neutral terminology at the beginning or to use several different names at the beginning. Judea and Canaan are very old names, so we can disregard them. Let's try this: "Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel". Now we only have the Israeli/Jewish/Christian/pro-Israeli name and the Palestinian/Muslim/Arab/academic/world/pro-Palestinian name, without the religious term. Is it fine? Mawer10 (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think its OK, can't wikilink Palestine though (or it must be to something in the disambig). Selfstudier (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Palestine (region) ? Synotia (moan) 10:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The term is ancient (the concept of a land made holy by the presence of God, i.e. a "holy land," is present in Judaism before the 600s BC; the first Christian referral to the "Holy Land" is ca. 160 AD by Justin Martyr ). While it has its roots in religious belief (first Jewish, then Christian), its usage today is secular (roughly encompassing both the State of Israel as well as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank) rather than religious, and used to denote a geographic territory rather than a belief of the perceived holiness of said territory. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a valid geographic identifier.Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are right. According to GPT Chat: «''The term "Holy Land" can have both religious and secular connotations. Religiously, the Holy Land refers to the region in the Middle East that is significant to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as the birthplace of their respective faiths. However, the term "Holy Land" can also be used in a more secular context to refer to the historical, cultural, and geographical region of Israel and Palestine. This includes popular tourist destinations like the Dead Sea, Masada, and the Sea of Galilee. Therefore, while originally a religious term, the Holy Land has emerged as an important cultural and tourist attraction in the modern world.''» But "located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel" is a good sentence too. Mawer10 (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I think your last is better. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel
 * The name Palestine has no religious significance. Synotia (moan) 10:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence doesn't say that it does. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Everybody needs to stop quoting ChatGPT. It is well know that it makes things up. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed - ChatGPT, in my opinion, is not yet a reliable/credible source, except in cases where it directly cites reliable sourced material. Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not even reliable when it directly cites a reliable source, because it will literally invent a quote, and even invent a source. Feel free to test it out yourself, you can even ask it to provide the ISBN or DOI numbers of the source, and it'll give you a quote with a citation with a source and an ISBN or DOI... and it's all just made up. No such source, no such quote, the DOI points to something else, etc. Formatted great, looks real, but not real. Levivich (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I experienced this myself, that’s indeed true Stephan rostie (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, these are called "hallucinations". Levivich (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's try again.


 * 1) The rule of several Arab empires was labeled as "Islamic", I changed it to "Arab".
 * 2) I removed the bit about the British promise of an Arab homeland in Palestine because Palestine was already an Arab territory, naturally it should have become an Arab state. The cause of the current situation was the promise of a Jewish homeland there. #"The plan was hesitantly accepted by the Jewish Agency". Is anyone against using the word 'hesitantly'?
 * 3) I changed "inter-communal war" to "civil war", it's shorter and seems to better describe what happened. Any objections? Mawer10 (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe the 150,000 Arabs figure is in the immediate aftermath of the war.
 * And for the Jews gradually became a minority in the area as a result of the diaspora, I'd personally write as a result of exile and conversion. Synotia (moan) 13:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Palestine was already an Arab territory" is not true. The Ottomans were not Arabs. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Ottomans were not Arabs
 * Levant arabs were ottomans themselves and had ottoman citizenship. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be "Islamic", not "Arab". Levivich (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * When I said that Palestine was already an Arab territory I meant that its inhabitants are mostly Arab, without outside interference it would have become an Arab state, not a Jewish state. Therefore, citing the British promise of an Arab state in Palestine seems to suggest that this territory was not Arab before it. I have no objection to using "Islamic", I changed it to "Arabic" because I thought it was an improvement. As for the diaspora, this was caused by various events over centuries and we are not sure how much impact each event had. Can we agree with something like: Jews gradually became a minority in the area as the Jewish diaspora increase. Mawer10 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're saying just isn't what the RSes say. What the RSes say is that Britain made a "dual obligation" to both Jews and Arabs that it couldn't keep. This is a key part of the history of Israel. The dual obligation was discussed not too long ago on this page somewhere, when we added the line about it to our working drafts. Levivich (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, there is too much (complicated) detail about the I-P conflict in the end of the 2nd paragraph; I definitely prefer the earlier draft language we've been going with. Levivich (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ... and rejection of the partition plan is not what led to civil war (as we've discussed not long ago on this page in response to an earlier draft). Sorry, but I see this draft as overall moving in the wrong direction. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Inter-communal war" was linked to 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine. Because of that I suggest the change to "civil war". Mawer10 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I think my amendments about it don't change much, I could be wrong but as far as I know the "dual obligation" involved Arabs outside Palestine and Britain never really tried to fulfill that preferring her deal with the Jews and the French. The mention of the British promise to the Jews is the point that really matters while the British promise to the Arabs over an already predominantly Arab territory does not seem to have had any significant impact. Mawer10 (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The "dual obligation" was the one made to Arabs starting in the 1915 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence, and the one made to Jews in the 1917 Balfour Declaration. See, e.g., 2nd paragraph of this: . In between those two was the secret 1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement, in which the imperialists agreed to divide the territory amongst themselves. Not the best RS but another quick Google find, aptly named "McMahon, Sykes, Balfour: Contradictions and Concealments in British Palestine Policy 1915-1917": . I contend a reader won't understand the creation of Israel if they don't understand what Britain did in 1915-1917 to win WWI. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Peel Commission was an attempt to "fulfill that" and the reason the British dropped the hot potato in the UN lap was because they couldn't find a way to reconcile the dual obligation. This is fundamental to everything that came after. Some background at Permanent Mandates Commission (Palestine). Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think that the phrase Britain... promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there is not good because it suggests that the British promise to Arabs and Jews are equivalent, but no, it's completely different. The promise to the Arabs was that Palestine, a territory already Arab for millennia, would be an independent Arab state or part of a single Arab superstate along with Mesopotamia, Syria and most of the Arabian peninsula. The promise to the Jews was that Britain would give an Arab territory (Palestine) to other people, basically foreigners (Jews). The promise to the Arabs did not have much impact on the Arab-Jewish conflict inside Palestine because even if the promise to the Arabs never existed, the story would be much the same: native Arabs and newly arrived Jews at war. To me it doesn't make sense and it doesn't even make any difference in the text to cite the British promise to the Arabs, because the territory was already Arab and if it weren't for Britain it would be an independent Arab state today. I prefer my version because it makes clear that Palestine was mostly Arab when Britain promised to give that land or part of it to another people, with it clear the tensions between Arabs and Jews were to be expected and unable to resolve the mess Britain turned to the UN. Mawer10 (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

What does your silence mean here? Mawer10 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Probably that your last response is original research, rather than what reliable sourceses say. Look, you're right that two "homeland promises" to the Arabs and the Jews were different in that one was about pan-Arabism, whereas the other was about a Jewish homeland in Palestine. And maybe you're right that even if the Arab state promise never happened, maybe there would still be an Israel, and still an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But where you're wrong is in two places: first, you've missed the point that but for the Arab state promise, the Arab Revolt might not have happened, and thus the Mandatory Palestine may never have happened--the Ottoman Empire might still exist, who knows, we're talking about alternate history.
 * But the second place is the most important place where you're wrong: reliable sources talk about the importance of Britain's dual obligation to the history of Israel (I linked to one example above). So, when we summarize reliable sources as we do here, we're going to mention the importance of Britain's dual obligation to the history of Israel. Levivich (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If you agree with me, at least partially, we should create a new sentence. Let's try something more or less like this: Britain seized the land during or after the World War I? Or both, seized during and legalized after? I saw the two versions. I think we should delete "in order to gain their support" because this is in the context of WWI and Britain promised the same things after the war, also in this point of the text the war looks finished. Can we include the mention about the creation of the Mandate?. Mawer10 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)