Talk:Israel/Archive 96

3rd lead paragraph (March 25)
Links omitted. This draft keeps the status quo 700/150, and introduces "Green Line" to describe migration. In my view it's getting kind of long, but not too long. Yay or nay? Levivich (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

..."while an independent Arab state was not established" Ok. The "the following day, neighboring Arab states attacked the newly formed state" is controversial too, I have nothing against that phrase, I think it's accurate, but there was many discussions about this and apparently there wasn't any consensus and because of that I changed it to "the day later, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states". The number 260,000 disregards a large number of Jews that Israel absorbed later, "Israel absorbed many waves of Jews in the following decades" seems better. "settlements in the Palestinian territories" What Palestinian territories? The text does not mention what they are. It is also not clear from the text that the West Bank and Gaza are the remaining territories of the British mandate that did not fall into Israeli hands after the 1949 war. I have nothing against using the term "Islamic", but you should give a justification for using it instead of "Arabic". I'm sorry about the supposedly excessive excerpts of text about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this conflict has not ended and has shaped Israel's history since its existence basically. Mawer10 (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to the Jewish exodus from the Arab world, I prefer your previous version "absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere", since mentioning only 260,000 is misleading and not representative of the many immigratory waves that happened afterwards. The Palestinian exodus, in contrast, occurred during the war itself. Also I don't like the fact that you ommitted the other empires that ruled the region (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, etc). Dovidroth (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with "During and immediately after the war, Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere" instead of "During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel".
 * I'll add Assyrian, etc. to the 2nd paragraph draft in the section above. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel never declared itself a state on the borders of the partition plan. The declaration contains no commitment on borders or following the plan, and by the time it had occurred the Yishuv had already depopulated several sites within the Arab state's boundary under that plan.  nableezy  - 05:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Says "on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan" which is vaguer than "on the borders of" but in either event, how about just ending that sentence at "proclaimed the State of Israel" since Green Line is mentioned later? Levivich (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * declared its independence is what id go with, and on the territory assigned has the same meaning as within the borders specified. But either way it isnt what was declared.  nableezy  - 06:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Levivich (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends how you look at it https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:Letter_from_Eliahu_Epstein_to_Harry_S._Truman,_May_14,_1948.jpg Selfstudier (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Letters by politicians are not declarations of independence. Yishuv leaders specifically debated including anything about boundaries or abiding by the plan and voted against it. See the source cited at Israeli Declaration of Independence here, or a better source here (and later in that book discussing this very letter here).  nableezy  - 07:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree they are two separate documents, still that is the document on which the US based its (immediate) recognition of the new state. Selfstudier (talk) 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with this?  nableezy  - 07:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is wrong to say that Israel declared its independence on the territory established in the UN partition plan (although, as I said, it depends on how you choose to look at it). Selfstudier (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another ref for interest, this also confirms the "incompatible promises" thing in passing. Selfstudier (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is factually incorrect, and sources say both that the letter was either born of ignorance or deception, and that Israel specifically did not declare any limit to its territory. Your own source says my own view is that Israel committed a major blunder in not stating the borders of the new state in the declaration of independence. How do you get that it did declare some borders? Epstein said something that was not true, that is confirmed by both my source and yours, but you claim what he said was true anyway?  nableezy  - 07:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not claimed that anything in particular was true, there are two facts, the declaration and the letter. There is nothing new by way of facts other than these, all that varies since 1948 is the interpretation that historians put on these two documents (mistake, chicanery, blah blah). If we want to say there was a borderless declaration that's fine because that is a fact but then we need to say as well that at the same time there was this letter declaring borders (most sources mention both things). Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that makes no sense, because a. the letter isnt a declaration of borders by a state, and b. the sources say the letter was wrong and didnt matter, so why would that be mentioned in the lead of the article on the country? Some ambassador wrote something that wasnt true? Thats what you think should be in the lead of the country's article? Here, what reliable secondary source says Israel declared its independence on any borders or in any limited territory? Because between your source and my source theres two sources that say they did not and 0 that say they did.  nableezy  - 09:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Another ref and and anotherSelfstudier (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody disputes that an Israeli diplomat announced that Israel did something that Israel in fact did not do. All of these sources confirm that Israel did not do this thing. None of them support the notion that Israel actually declared any borders or territory. An Israeli diplomat said something that is not true. That is so far from important enough to mention in the lead of the article on Israel, and it has no relevance to whether or not Israel actually declared any borders (it did not, again each source youve brought agrees on this point). This is a minor detail that doesnt even belong in this article at all, much less the lead. And it is a complete distraction.  nableezy  - 09:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree. We should not just ignore something that sources discuss at length at the same time as the Declaration. To meet your objection we can say something like "and....requested recognition from the US based on the borders of the UN partition plan". Anyway, I will just go with the majority on the point.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually writing leads consists in ignoring a mass of sources which discuss everything at length. So in terms of method, eliciting just one document out of hundreds if not thousands that gives a particular slant (challenged by Zionist leaders later) is egregiously WP:Undue. Neither side accepted the Partition Borders: in the sense that the Arab world rejected it, rationally, because the map defeated the expectations of the majority, while the Zionist world accepted it 'provisionally' as achieving official legal status and international recognition on a part of Palestine which, as the war planning since 1947, they had every intention of fighting to assume eventually total control. The only change historically has been the acceptance unilaterally by the PA, and later, Hamas, of the pre-1967 borders as the basis for a future state. So your suggestion really amounts to saying that the Yishuv/Israel recognized borders in that letter. It didn't. On the ground, militarily it fought throughout Dec 1947 to May 1948 (Gush Etzion) to retain, consolidate and extend de facto control even in land that the UN Partition Plan assigned to Arabs. Neither side accepted the core corpus separatum outlined in the Plan. So this was politics/geopolitics/ and hard realism in which pro-forma undertakings were tactical. To mention them, in a stripped down lead text, is to freight it with more unresolved problems, because such an addition will only lead to further counter-proposals to re-established the lost balance.
 * It is not a matter, either, of going with a 'majority' when we are engaged in establishing a majority where arguments and proposals are fluid. Going with a majority here means, 'well, I disagree with Nableezy, on this point, so as long as a majority disagrees with him, I'm fine with the outcome.' None of us will be satisfied with whatever text emerges (in terms of personal viewpoints). What we are doing is attempting to negotiate a text acceptable to all, sufficiently succinct and 'unpointly' to ensure stability.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the Arab states attacked the newly formed state is inaccurate. Its only true if one says that Israel made up the entirety of the Mandate territory. Now this is certainly coming from a biased source, but biased towards Israel, but it is a reasonable summary of this: The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. The Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel.  nableezy  - 06:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The only way to get a workable compromise here is, as virtually always, not to squeeze in details (the letter, for example which has a whole minor literature on it), Selfstudier. With sources, again, we have a vast range of texts with variations on a standard narrative that has endured for several decades, but whose thrust is known to be now, if not false, then a caricature. The parallel between the expulsion/flight of Palestinians and the expulsion/flight of Jews in Arab countries is utterly misleading. Both were outcomes desired by Zionism and the new government. The former was implemented strategically over a brief period of time, the 'exodus' was organized for well over a decade, an invitation to aliyah.
 * So editors must try to par down, certainly the lead, account to the bare minimum. British withdrawal, declaration of independence of Israel, the outbreak of a formal war between Israel's army and those of the Arab states (Jordan unlike Yishuv/Israeli forces, had withdrawn only to reenter essentially the West Bank on Israel's declaration). Throughout all this time, offensives were operative that had no interest in respecting Partition 'borders'.Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a hard no on that point based on the six sources I've posted here. In my view it's beyond dispute that on the day after Israel declared independence, Israel was attacked by its new neighbors. That's what all the mainstream sources say and I feel I've well proven this point already. Another reason I'm a "hard no" on this is because to say the "Arab states invaded Palestine" implies that the Arab states attacked Palestinians, which of course isn't what happened. That "Israel was attacked" on 15 May 1948 is not debatable. (Fwiw I also don't really like "newly formed state" either because on 15 May 1948 it wasn't exactly "formed" yet. I think "declared" would be better. But that's a minor point.) All that said, do you have alternate language to suggest besides "attacked Israel" or "attacked Palestine"? Levivich (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have alternate language to suggest: I think that's clear enough while avoiding the issue. Levivich (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel.
 * I'm not sure how you define Palestine and Israel here? Synotia (moan) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Palestine being the territory of the British Mandate for Palestine. Israel being to be determined at that point. Unless you claim that Israel is the entirety of the territory under the mandate then the Arab states did not invade Israel. And thats why sources focused on 1948 say invaded Palestine. There were certainly attacks on Israel and Israeli forces, but no invasion of Israel.  nableezy  - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "The following day, neighboring Arab states attacked leading to 1948 Arab–Israeli War, which concluded..." OK, I think It's good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawer10 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The attack didn't "lead to" the 1948 war, it was the start of the 1948 war. Levivich (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the difference? It sounds the same for me. Mawer10 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution, and Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel while the planned Arab state failed to materialize." It's so simple, removing "on the territory assigned in the UN partition plan" doesn't make much of a difference. I agree that Arabs attacked Israel, even though Israel technically had no borders, Arabs fought Israeli soldiers in the war, and the UN plan had no impact on how the war was fought on the ground. Mawer10 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a hard no on "while the planned Arab state failed to materialize". States do not "materialize". And "failed to materialize" makes it sound like it was Palestine's fault, like they just didn't try hard enough to materialize a state. "Planned" is vague: planned by who? Israel? Palestine? The UN? Not everyone planned on an Arab state. I also don't like connecting the two with "while", which implies there was a parallel process. In fact, it wasn't really that parallel. The Jews and Palestinian in 1948 were in vastly different circumstances, their respective paths to statehood were unique. And even suggesting two paths to two states is just one POV (another being one path to one apartheid state). Levivich (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel and/while the planned Arab state was not established." The Arab state in Palestine alongside with the Jewish state was planned by the UN, the text talk this some words before. Mawer10 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No, still implies that Jewish leaders had some responsibility for establishing an Arab state. It also still implies a parallel process. I would avoid any construction that suggests that both the Jews and the Arabs were assigned homework (form a state), and the Jews finished their homework but the Arabs didn't. That's why two sentences is better IMO. Levivich (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish leaders proclaimed the State of Israel; the planned Arab state was not established/declared." Is it good? Based on your argument, I suppose that you agree with me about the phrase "Britain... promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there". Mawer10 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer Logically, the first sentence connects three thoughts that are in fact connected, that all happened on the same day: 14 May 1948, British Mandate officially ends, Israeli independence declared. The second sentence gives a separate thought: the fact that an independent Arab state was not established (I'd be fine with "Palestinian" rather than "Arab" here, but some will argue that "Arab" is more accurate than "Palestinian" at this point in history). I think it's important for the lead to connect end of British Mandate with Israeli independence (same day), and doesn't imply that there was a parallel or contemporaneous deadline for establishing an Arab state; rather, it should convey that an Arab state was not established, without making such implications. Levivich (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Based in the UN plan, in the end of the British mandate should be created an Arab and Jewish state together. Because of that I think that the end of the Mandate, Israeli declaration of independence and an Arab state not declared in that day should in one sentence. And since the text said clearly that the Palestinian leadership view the plan as unfair and refused it, I don't think that link the three thoughts in a sentence really implies something. But, I'm going to agree with your suggestion. Mawer10 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

. Are there percentage numbers for this? or looks better. Mawer10 (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC) "I'm a hard no on that point based on the six sources I've posted here. In my view it's beyond dispute that on the day after Israel declared independence, Israel was attacked by its new neighbors." Yawn. That's the Zionist schoolboy version, reflected yes, in numerous RS. It's not the way we've come to understand that moment - one thinks of Matthew Hughes, David Fieldhouse and many other historians, who have striven to detach themselves from the meme-ridden story to see this in larger context. Hughes, for example, reviewing Benny Morris's history of that conflict, repeated that it was yes, a David and Goliath narrative, only that the data indicate that the Goliath was, in the face of the 5-7 'Arab armies invading Israel, the Arab forces, totally unprepared, unlike the Zionists, for war. The best neutral description of this particular week I know of is Bickerton's. "Just before midnight . .14 May 1948, King Abdullah of Trransjordan, standing on the eastern side of the Allenby Bridge across the River Jordan, fired his revolver into the air, so signaling his army, the Arab Legion, to enter and occupy the area on the west bank of the river the UN had allotted to the Arab state. Early on the morning of May 15 troops from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, together with volunteers from Saudi Arabia and Libya, entered Palestine to support local Palestinian irregular forces and the Arab League’s Arab Liberation army. The Arab League of Arab states informed the UN Secretary-General on 15 May that their aim was to create a “United State of Palestine’ in place of the two-state UN plan. They also claimed it was necessary to intervene to protect Arab lives and property. The first Arab-Israeli war had entered as new phase. On 15 May the first of around 1,000 Lebanese, 5,000 Syrian, 5,000 Iraqi and 10,0000 Egyptian troops, with a few Saudi Arabian, Libyan and Yemenite volunteers, crossed the frontiers of Palestine with the intention of establishing a unitary Palestinian state. Pp.79-80 The primary goal of the Arab governments, according to historian Yoav Gelber, was to prevent the total ruin of the Palestinians and the flooding of their own countries by more refugees.80 IDF established on 26 May ‘managed to mobilize more troops that the Arab forces. By July 1948 the IDF was fielding 63,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,0000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949 p.80. Ian J. Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History, Reaktion Books, 2009 ISBN 978-1-861-89527-1" In short the hordes weren't at the gates with a five pronged army attacking Israel, which was at the time still engaged in an ongoing state of war with Palestinians and assorted irregulars. The Arabs had legitimate interests in the area, and only shared with Israel the same basic goal, of a unified state, binational as opposed to an ethnocracy. And the Jordanian army mostly kept to its remit, to ensure the area set out for Palestinians in the plan, at least on the West Bank, would retain its teritorial integrity. Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * binational as opposed to an ethnocracy
 * Source please? Synotia (moan) 19:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've bolded the allusion to this binational state view which you seem to have missed in the quotation from Bickerton above. I don't know why one needs to source common knowledge, but if one wants the same datum, spun from the opposite point of view, see Benny Morris,1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, Yale University Press 2008 ISBN 978-0-300-14524-3 pp.65-66
 * Ethnocracy doesn't need sourcing. It is all over Zionist thinking, and Israeli historical praxis from day one.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a "Zionist schoolboy"? Levivich (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many definitionss. One is that the terms refers to a young student inculcated with a highly selective set of simplistic '48 stories of how a 2nd holocaust at the hands of Amin al-Husayni's neo-Hitlerian Palestinians and Azzam Pasha's genocidal predict5ions was averted, and never hearing that, in those months, Hungarian and Israeli negotiators were haggling over the pricing of each Jew's ransom to allow aliyah, with the Israeli team refusing to take older Holocaust survivors because, for a country selecting for fit soldier material (like the holocaust-surviving lads who died uselessly at Latrun at Ben-Gurion's insistance), the aged Jews were considered 'inferior merchandise'.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I put together :
 * Oxford 2014: "Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria invaded, but the Haganah successfully defended the state."
 * Gale (Hill 2017): "The next day, the Arab League states—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria—launched a concerted armed attack."
 * Gale (Elicott 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."
 * Palgrave Macmillan (Statesman's Yearbook 2023): "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."
 * These encyclopedias weren't written by Zionists, and the mainstream view, though challenged by some scholars, is still the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * we do not base our articles on tertiary sources. Beyond that, it is silly to pretend that this is mainstream view when numerous sources have been provided showing that it is a disputed view, with many sources saying that the Arab states invaded Palestine, not Israel.  nableezy  - 23:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TERTIARY: Levivich (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SECONDARY: May help evaluate does not mean base our article on.  nableezy  - 00:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We're like two people quoting the Bible at each other. Levivich (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are notoriously lazy and dated. In this wikipedia is no exception. All those entries repeat what was written widely from the 1950s onwards for decades. It was the standard line, a meme picked up and repeated endlessly. Compare Bickerton - he actually differentiates and gives details, and he doesn't drool on confusing 'Israel' with Palestine. Anyone can google enough RS to get the generalisation they prefer. What counts is whether these generalizations match up with the detailed critical literature over the past decades.Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * There's been a discussion about this before, is it really necessary to repeat it? Let's try to use a less controversial phrase. What about "the following day, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states" or other phrase? Mawer10 (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are many definitions, can you give me one example of anyone using the phrase "Zionist schoolboy" anywhere? Because I could not find any examples. Levivich (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He was saying that the paragraph you wrote is the Zionist mythology taught in schools. If you want to report it somewhere go do that, but this tangent has nothing to do with the article so kindly take it elsewhere.  nableezy  - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see you recognize it as something somebody might report somewhere. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I see it as something that you might report somewhere. But I also see it as off-topic and not relevant to the article and request, again, that this talk page be used for its stated purpose.  nableezy  - 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Am I not "somebody"? Levivich (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, youre a specific body. Anyway, still not on topic, and the on topic thread is more interesting to me so Ill leave you the last word in this one.  nableezy  - 02:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good, because I have no time for this, I'm a busybody. Levivich (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Levivich you can act like the sources you brought are the foremost works on the subject, but they are not. And you can be a hard no all you like, doesnt really matter to me tbh, but you are mistaken on the meaning of invaded Palestine, and professional historians routinely use that phrasing. For the view that what the Arab states invaded in 1948 was Palestine, not Israel, you can see things like Or  There were certainly attacks on Israel and Israeli forces, but not an invasion of a state that had no borders or defined territory. But the idea that because Wikipedia editor disagrees that the phrase "invaded Palestine" is accurate that means that noted scholars like Benny Morris and Spencer C. Tucker are wrong is a non-starter.  nableezy  - 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is, they invaded. Whether you call the place they invaded "Israel" or "Palestine" is not anything I care to debate. Levivich (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the distinction is fundamental one has little option in vetting phrasing on these core issues other than to address the point, because Israel makes the text conform to Israel's national storytelling, whereas Palestine reminds the reader that the picture is more complex (Arab interest in intervening in a war where 13,000 Palestinians eventually were killed and 700,000 were being systematically eradicated from their homeland). 'Invaded' has to be accepted, even though it still creates a POV disparity: the Yishuv was defending or gaining 'invasive' positions (Gush Etzion) outside of its Partition area right down to May 14. Jordan's army re-entered Cisjordan, having earlier withdrawn under British request, and occupied, apart from Jerusalem, the area designated for a future Arab state. I don't expect editors to adjust their reliance on dated or lazy sources which repeat a known meme, but they should be aware that this showcases a standardized narrative which is, in light of the facts, question-begging. It only serves to buttress the old 48 meme: 'we wuz the victims of an assault by nasty neighbours who butted in to muss up our house when we were just going about settling into our new home'Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

How's this? Avoids stating the borders at declaration and naming the place that Arab states attacked. I also changed the line about Nakba/Green Line to (I hope) clarify. Levivich (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not terrible, though I would say logically an independent Arab state was not established makes more sense following the war, not at the start. The During and immediately after the war, Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere. is vague for no reason other than, from what I can tell, an objection that it does not include the numbers for decades of later migration. So I would return that number too. But the current location of no Arab state seems disjointed.  nableezy  - 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, trying it with those changes, and both versions of the Jewish immigration sentence. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I like the specificity of the 260k number as well; Jewish immigration in later years could be addressed later in the lead. Levivich (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I dont really like de facto borders for Green Line, needlessly wordy and imprecise. Ill write up a suggested version after taraweeh tonight, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK I'm gonna check to see what the thesaurus has for "temporary line of demarcation". Levivich (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the changes I made have made it longer, but I think you cut out some crucial bits earlier. Im sure it can be tightened a bit though, just my first go at it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. And between this and the 2nd paragraph above, I think they're better written than what's in the article now. However, I'm not sure we've shortened it at all. Levivich (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can cut a bit I guess here:


 * <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dovid. The 260k figure is only for the years 1948-51. The total figure stated of refugees stated in that article is 900k (including Iran however) over the years; the antisemitism in Arab countries was kickstarted as a result of the war and it never ended, I'm sure you know this.
 * I would write it something like Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled, with over 400 towns and villages becoming permanently depopulated. The war started a continuous massive exodus of Jews from Arab countries, leaving most Arab countries devoid of Jews by the 21st century. Synotia (moan) 07:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Those largely were not refugees, and it had nothing to do with the war, and the war did not start any massive exodus. 900k includes every Jewish immigrant from every Muslim country for 30 years. That is not relevant, and many of them didnt even end up in Israel. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * it had nothing to do with the war
 * See for example Iraq. Synotia (moan) 16:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You know those numbers are included in the 260k right? The later waves of immigration that adds up to 900 total leaving (but not all to Israel) is what I was talking about. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I find your first version more complete in terms of coverage of territorial changes. Synotia (moan) 07:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure but this isnt an article on the 48 war, it is an article on Israel. So I was fine cutting out the non-Israel specific parts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but these territories are still linked to Israel through occupation, conflict, colonisation... so I personally find it relevant enough nevertheless. Synotia (moan) 19:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it before, but we shouldn't say termination was announced on 14 May 1948, as it was announced before that. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My problem with the 260,000 number is that it doesn't present the picture correctly, as I explained before, since most of that immigration to Israel from the Arab world happened after that war and it was much bigger (closer to 700,000). It's much better to make a general statement and provide a link to the article: "Israel absorbed many waves of Jews who emigrated or fled from the Arab world and elsewhere." In addition, it should say "...the rest of the territory of the FORMER British Mandate", since the Mandate didn't exist by 1967. Other than those two objections, I'm willing to accept your version as a reasonable compromise. Dovidroth (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, because the paragraph is about 1948 and its immediate consequences. Not about later immigration. And 700k is from the entire Muslim world over decades, not just the surrounding Arab states. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 06:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are presenting a misleading picture by omitting later waves from the Arab world and hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors who immigrated at the time from European refugee camps, instead of simply providing a link and adding "elsewhere" to sentence. No consensus for your version, then. Dovidroth (talk) 07:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Again we are in meme territory, this time the invention of a counter-narrative to create a false balance between the 700,000+ Palestinians driven off or fleeing in 1948, and the Jewish exodus from the Arab world 1947-1973, which was a consequence of 1948, not coterminous. The number of aliyah refugees and others entering Israel from 14 May to the end of that year, in the several months while hostilities were underway was 103,000, mostly from Europe.Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * With all this number counting, and what seems like the wish of some editors here to right great wrongs, I think we'll never reach a consensus. Let's leave the numbers out, or we'll never get done with it. " A large number of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled the area during the war, and around the same time, many Jews emigrated or fled from the entire world to Israel" would be just perfect IMHO. Tombah (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as we wikilink 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, I don't personally care whether the number is there or not. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, thanks. We're getting closer to consensus. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Self. That is the second time in this thread I see the expression 'I don't (personally) care'. Tombah. That's a silly crack, as if ascertaining the relevant facts for a specific historical period, if they don't line up with the narrative one wants, must be discarded because they appear or threaten to lend equal weight to the victims and the victors, whereas history is what the latter write (POV). I get the impression here that editors get their information as often as not from other wiki pages, esp re these numbers. In anycase 'fled from the entire world' is comical. If you take the time to familiarize yourself with any relevant works, in this case, Dvora Hacohen's Immigrants in Turmoil: Mass Immigration to Israel and Its Repercussions in the 1950s and After, Syracuse University Press, 2003, you would see how immensely difficult it was to 'gather in the exiles', with selection bias and the reluctance of many communities. Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reading material, Nishidani, but please read the suggestion again. We're saying the Jews "Emigrated or fled". It covers all cases. Tombah (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. 'emigrated or fled' is a dull, vapid and inaccurate cliché modelled on 'were expelled or fled', and is a false analogy. Those who read extensively would know that both the Yishuv and Israel devoted intense efforts to getting Jews to emigrate; that the war rendered life for Jewish communities in the Arab world difficult, and that it was a core policy to get as many of them to Israel. So, 'A top priority for the new state was to assist Jews in the diaspora to relocate to Israel. Great numbers from the Arab world, whose social conditions had worsened as a result of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, subsequently made aliyah'. But of course the textual outcome won't be that.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The effort to expunge the numbers and claim "some number of Palestinians fled" is only being pushed because one wants to whitewash what occurred. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And also, I promise the next person to edit the lead without consensus after full protection expires is getting a trip to AE. We had consensus on the current paragraph, and you may not force through your "some number fled" attempt through edit-warring. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just watering things to a point of meaninglessness. Synotia (moan) 11:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that wasn't around the same time, it was over the next 25 years, so that would be gratuitously imprecise and exactly the kind of false balance that Nishidani has now had to re-explain more times than I can count, but definitely ad absurdum. Also not sure how 'large number' and 'many' are improvements on actual numbers. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What about: Mawer10 (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Something along those lines would be better, yeah. Also 'hundreds of thousands' surely? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at mine above? Synotia (moan) 14:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also has good parts, but the 'mass' part of the exodus was over just a few decades, as above, and Mawer suggested 'Arab and Muslim world', because it included Iran (although just 'Muslim world' works on its own too). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont get how people are conflating the topics here. How are you introducing decades of immigration in the paragraph on the 48 war? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because really what drove them to leave is either direct political policies in response to Israel's declaration of independence (see the Iraq example), or the massive antisemitism that erupted as a result of it and still permeates in the Muslim world to this day. (In Algeria, the Jews having sided with the French did not help their case, but they moved to France rather than Israel) Synotia (moan) 19:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That isnt accurate, but even if it were it wouldnt go with material about 1948. And, again, the Iraq example is already included, those numbers are part of the 260k. The pertinent and relevant counts are included. And Jewish immigration to Israel absolutely belongs in the lead, it is a foundational topic. But connecting decades of migration to the war is only being done because of the material on the expulsion and flight of the Palestinian Arabs. Its an attempt at both sidesism, and it just isnt accurate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * [[File:100 years of Aliyah (Immigration) to Mandatory Palestine and the State of Israel, between 1919 and 2020.png|thumb|100 years of Aliyah (Immigration) to Mandatory Palestine and the State of Israel, between 1919 and 2020]]
 * Correct. If we are going to talk about post-war Jewish immigration to Israel in the lead, then the story in this chart is what needs to be described: a significant increase in immigration from various regions due to the opening of the borders and the end of hostilities. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) "After centuries of persecution, in the late 19th century Zionism emerged leading to increased Jewish immigration to Palestine"
 * 2) "As the Jewish population in Palestine grew, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew as well, and unable to... dual obligation Britain turned to the UN"
 * 3) "In the decades following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, especially from the Arab and Muslim world"

, What do you think? Mawer10 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fine with 1 and 2. Re 3, the chart on the right shows that "especially from the Arab and Muslim world" is inaccurate. More correct would be something like: "primarily from Eastern Europe and the Muslim world" (I am assuming Russia fits in Eastern Europe, and the Arab world fits in the Muslim world). Onceinawhile (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

OK, "In the decades following its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from Europe and the Muslim world". Mawer10 (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Three points
Three other problems with the version being discussed above:
 * Blame for 1948: five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War: We don't say "Israel attacked, beginning the Six-Day War", so why do we assign blame for 1948? The Arab armies viewed themselves as replacing the British, not least because their two main armies (Egypt and Jordan) were still being financed by Britain. This entry of the neighboring states needs to be described neutrally.
 * International community's rejection of the occupation: Israel has... established settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community. This wording suggests the international community's problem with the occupation in the non-annexed areas is that Israel has simply taken control of a little bits of land to put its people on. The actual issue is that it has restricted the native population to tiny enclaves in a permanent state of subjugation, while its citizens control and settle almost two-thirds of the land. The wording needs to point to the real issue.
 * Gaza: No mention of the now permanent siege of Gaza.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I had suggested before something like: "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and its [five] neighboring Arab states". The phrase "five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War" was suggested by Nableezy and/or Levivich. "Israel has... in the occupied territories, actions rejected as illegal by the international community", Is it better? Or something like: "Israel has... established settlements in the occupied territories, actions criticized by the international community for making it difficult the implementation of the two-state solution". But, the "occupied territories" doesn't refer only to the Palestinians territories, but also to Golan Heights and for a certain time the Sinai. Mawer10 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Re 1948, others should comment.
 * Re occupied territories, the challenge for the lede is both explaining and encapsulating all the key points in a short sentence. We could boil it down to three words: annexed (EJ and Golan), blockade (Gaza), and enclavization (rest of the West Bank). The wider term occupation applies across all of these, and settlement to all except Gaza.
 * How about this for a construct that encapsulates all of these:
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has [since] established settlements in the occupied territories, except Gaza which has been under [an Israeli-Egyptian] blockade since 2007, and effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, [all these] actions are rejected as illegal by the international community [under international law].

I didn't put in about the enclavization of the West Bank to avoid too much detail. Mawer10 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd lead paragraph (March 25)
Links omitted. Do we have agreement on everything except the first sentence, or not yet? Levivich (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Once again, shorter is not always better... I like your writing about the peace plan, but I overall prefer something of similar depth as the other guy proposed.
 * Also, I stand by my proposal of "as a result of exile and conversion". Synotia (moan) 16:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "exile" is the same as "expelled". And I don't think "conversion" is, for lack of a better word, correct. The sentence is describing what caused the diaspora; conversion is not among those causes, because conversion doesn't result in diaspora. Aside from what caused the diaspora, if we want the sentence to instead be about what caused reduction in Jewish population in the region, the idea that there were fewer Jews there because some converted to Christianity is also incorrect, for a number of reasons, one of which being that Jews who convert to Christianity are still ethnic Jews. You know... Christ was Jewish and all that, Jewish Christians were still Jews. And that's also without getting into which conversions were free or forced (unknowable). Levivich (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Jews were expelled or fled the area" is controversial. "Unable to deliver on this contradictory dual obligation", the tensions between Jews and Arabs would be better. Mawer10 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've added "Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic" to the draft above per comments in the next section. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead before begins by naming the powers that have controlled Palestine since the fall of the last independent Jewish state to Rome in 63 BC. This is why the other empires were disregarded, as the empires that controlled post-Jewish Palestine seem to be more important since under Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Hellenic empires there was a strong Jewish presence in the region. Mawer10 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to name the empires in the lead at all, and have made that argument a couple months ago somewhere on this page. I also felt that "Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other empires" would get the point across more succinctly. But I'd agree to naming them all (as drafted above), or omitting the pre-Roman empires, or whatever reasonable variation. Levivich (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I've replaced the "[First sentence.]" placeholder with the suggested "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions." The current status quo is "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions.", which is the same but with "Holy Land". I think we can just link Holy Land under "region of great significance". The first paragraph of the lead gives location, so I see no need to talk about the name of the location again in the second paragraph; the point is the significance of the region, not what it's called. Levivich (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"Israel is located in a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions known as Palestine or Eretz Israel" was the consensus before. The name of the region where Israel is located is important because anyway the name is cited after as "Palestine". Mawer10 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the consensus before" but "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories are located in the Holy Land, a region of great significance to the Abrahamic religions." is what's in the article right now. Levivich (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

? Levivich (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with it.Dovidroth (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Approved as kosher by the Synotia (moan) 06:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good by me as well, with the possible exception of omitting the phrase "and the Israeli-occupied territories," which is unnecessary in this context and has no impact on the text's meaning. We're not ignoring the occupied territories - they are already mentioned in other lede paragraphs. I would also remove the part "who viewed it as unfair" - there is no need for apologetics here; We should not discuss the motivations of each side, but rather use general descriptive language. Thoughts? Tombah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, Tombah. After all, they said clearly they wouldn't accept ANY partition of the territory, as I have been saying all along. Dovidroth (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian Arabs were right to reject the partition of Palestine and accept only a single Arab state with rights for the Jews (still a minority), after all it was their homeland for centuries. Palestine is also the homeland of the Jews, maybe they had the right to have a state in part of it, but most of the Jews there at that time had arrived recently, let's stop trying to blame the Palestinians. Mawer10 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is not a forum Synotia (moan) 11:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) You said Jews were just an ethnic group back then and Jews who converted to Christianity were still Jews. So, what would be more correct would be "assimilation" or "religious conversion"? Arabization, Hellenization?
 * 2) The text talks about Jews being the majority in Palestine at the beginning, so when the text mentions Arab majority wouldn't it be better to use "then" instead of "where"?
 * 3) "promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there". We didn't finish talking about this above in the "Lead" section.

The rest is ok. Mawer10 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "Several empires came to control the region over the course of history, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Crusader, and Ottoman empires." becomes a little odd at the end - the Crusaders weren't really an empire, and the Ottoman empire was also Islamic (on paper). So I would suggest something more precise along the lines of: "Several regional powers came to control the region in antiquity, including the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenic and Roman empires, followed by the Islamic caliphate, Crusader states, Ayyubids and Mamluks in the medieval period, and the Ottoman empire in the early modern period." Iskandar323 (talk) 11:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I like your version, Iskandar. It's much better. Dovidroth (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Below is a version including Iskander's changes, with two minor amendments - I have moved the Israelite and Jewish kingdom bit after the longer list, to create better flow for the Jewish demographic story, and I added Egypt to the long list:

My remaining concerns are:
 * Jewish expulsion: We say Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion, religious conversion, and migration, resulting in a significant diaspora. Two problems (1) putting expulsion first conflicts with the scholarly position, which states expulsion was a very small amount, and (2) the conversion vs diaspora language is confused, as conversion in Palestine did not contribute to the diaspora, only conversion outside, but the latter did not reduce the population of Palestine.
 * Muslim and Christian population as discussed in earlier threads, the word "most" is not a reasonable reflection of 95-98%. There was previously a resistance to including actual numbers, so "vast majority" is perhaps ok.
 * Partition plan leading to civil war as discussed in earlier threads, the partition plan was not the cause of the war. The civil war was an outgrowth of the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) I think we should mention the creation of the Mandate.  or
 * 2) I said earlier that the phrase "promised both Jews and Arabs an independent homeland there in order to gain their support" is not good because it suggests that there is an equivalence between the British promise to the Arabs and the Jews, but they are completely different. Also, 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, and in this point of the text the war looks finished. What about
 * 3) . Christians were a significant minority, and why use religious terms? What about:.
 * 4) I understand this way: "Jewish population gradually decreased due to expulsion (by Assyrians in 722 BC, by Babylonians in 586 BC), religious conversion (Religious conversion hardly ends the identity of an ethnic group, I prefer "assimilation" as it also includes Hellenization and Arabization), and migration (to other prosperous centers in diaspora as Babylon and Alexandria because of the Greco-Jewish, Roman-Jewish wars and destruction of the Jewish religious center/s), resulting in a significant diaspora". Mawer10 (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

3rd paragraph, again
"On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence. The next day, five neighboring Arab states attacked, beginning the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. [The Jewish state defended itself successfully and/The war concluded with] The armistice agreements [that resulted/in 1949] left Israel in control of over [one-third/X%] more territory than [originally assigned by the UN plan/the partition plan had called for], and no independent [Palestinian] Arab state created, [with Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying, and later annexing, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem/as the rest of the territory of the former British Mandate (as the Palestinians territories), West Bank and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.] During the war, over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled from [the territory Israel came to control/Israeli territory] to [the West Bank, Gaza, and the] neighboring Arab countries, with fewer than 150,000 [Palestinian Arabs] remaining [within/in Israel]. [In following decades after the war,] Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, especially from the [Arab and Muslim world]. The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the [rest of the territory of the former British Mandate, along with the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights/Egyptian Sinai Peninsula, the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip.{note- whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement in 2005 is disputed.} Israel has [since] established settlements in the occupied territories, and effectively annexed [both] East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, [though these] actions the international community has rejected as illegal [under international law]. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and [more recently] normalized relations with several Arab countries, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded."

I think it will be easier to talk now, I've highlighted all the passages in the text that are controversial, or a little long, or can be deleted or added, or are not important, or can be summarized better between [] or in italics. Mawer10 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Without looking at the rest of it, "The British announced the termination of the Mandate on 14 May 1948" is factually incorrect. That's the date it terminated, not the day they announced the termination. I believe the announcement was made in September 1947. Also, the British couldn't implement the UN partition plan even if they had wanted to. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per End of the British Mandate for Palestine, Two weeks later, on 11 December [1947], Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would terminate on 15 May 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What about: "The British ended the mandate on May 14 1948" + "without a resolution". Mawer10 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Like, "On 14 May 1948, the British ended their Mandate without a resolution and Jewish leaders declared Israel's independence"? Levivich (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Perfect, I made the change in the text. Mawer10 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

...No independent [Palestinian] Arab state [was] created:
 * 1) as Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupied [and later annexed] the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
 * , with Egypt occupying the Gaza Strip and Jordan occupying [and later annexing] the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
 * 1) as the Palestinians territories, West Bank [including East Jerusalem,] and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
 * 2) as the remainder/rest of the former British Mandate territory, West Bank [including East Jerusalem,] and Gaza, were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively.
 * 3) as Egypt and Jordan occupied the remainder/rest of the former British Mandate territory, i.e., Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Which one should we use? Any other suggestions? Mawer10 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the statement should be linked to any of those, it should just stand by itself (unless you have sources that specifically say that the reason is because of the Egyptian and Jordanian control of the territory. Like here "The Palestinian Arab State envisaged in the partition plan never appeared on the world’s map and, over the following 30 years, the Palestinian people have struggled for their lost rights." (Doesn't have to be exactly like that but should just just stand by itself). Selfstudier (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs to talk about the results of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Israel gains more territory than it should by the UN plan and Jordan and Egypt capture the remaining territory of the former mandate which are seen as the territories of an Arab Palestinian state that was not created at that time. Mawer10 (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I will limit the options, merge 1 with 3 and delete 2 because just like 1 it repeats the same word (occupied/occupying) twice and ignore the small detail [later annexing/annexed]. Delete the adjective "British", and merge 5 with 1. Only 2 options, it's more easy. And two choices too: we create a phrase based on them or we create a better one. no independent [Palestinian] Arab state [was] created
 * 1) as Egypt and Jordan [respectively]? occupied the [Palestinians territories of/rest of the former Mandate territory], [respectively]? the Gaza [Strip] and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
 * 2) as the rest of the former Mandate territory, [respectively]? the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza [Strip], were occupied by Jordan and Egypt [respectively]?. Mawer10 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Palestinian Arab state envisaged in the UN plan was not created as the rest of the former Mandate territory were occupied by Egypt and Jordan, respectively the Gaza [Strip] and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem." Isn't so verbose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawer10 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This is still ascribing the non creation as being due to...why do you think that is the case? In September 1946, at a conference with the British in London, the Arab states were demanding the creation of an independent Arab state no later than 31 December 1948. That was always the consistent position of the Arab states, that Palestine as a class A mandate, was supposed to become (as happened with the other Class A's) an independent state. The Jordanians and the Egyptians both claimed to be holding the territory on behalf of Palestinians.
 * Also implicit in the proposed wording is that the Jewish state as envisaged in the partition plan was created, no it wasn't, instead Israel was declared without borders and without consideration of the Jerusalem aspect of the partition plan.
 * An acceptable alternative to stand alone statement is to simply remove the statement about non creation of an Arab state altogether since it is entirely obvious that one was not created. Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

? Mawer10 (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That's the same. There should not be any linkage. Or there should not be any statement. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we all paddling in the same direction?
I think we should significantly shorten the existing lead in order to make room to significantly expand the lead with what's missing. This is in response to many editors saying the lead is too long in the two most recent RFCs about apartheid and human rights. Those two RFCs were launched in January. The Jan 6 version of the lead was about 700 words (not including footnotes). MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 300 words, which is far too short for this topic, but the RFCs suggest 700 words was too long.

The lead needs to summarize the body, including these sections, in less than 700 words:
 * 1) Geography/environment
 * 2) History
 * 3) Government/politics (domestic and foreign)
 * 4) Demographics
 * 5) Economy
 * 6) Culture

Today's version is about 650 words, in four paragraphs:
 * 1) 125-word paragraph covering geography and capital city
 * 2) 225-word paragraph covering history from antiquity to independence
 * 3) 240-word paragraph covering history from independence to present day
 * 4) 65-word paragraph for everything else

This is highly imbalanced. While history can and should take up a larger proportion than the other sub-sections (geography, government, economy, etc.), it can't be 475 words of history in the lead, it should be less than half that.

My most-recent suggested 2nd paragraph in the section was 180 words. Shorter than the current paragraph, but still too long. Onceinawhile's suggested 2nd paragraph in that same section was longer, just under 200 words.

My suggested 3rd paragraph in was about 180 words, still too long. Nableezy's suggested 3rd paragraph in that same section was longer, over 200 words. Mawer's 3rd paragraph in was even longer, over 300 words (including bracketed material).

If we are to shorten the history section to make room for other stuff in the lead, we would need to eliminate a lot of detail. For example:
 * 1) We can spend a few sentences, tops, on everything before the country was founded. That means we cannot name every empire (or maybe even any empire) that ruled this land since the dawn of time.
 * 2) We don't have room to talk about changes in ownership of the occupied territories. We probably should somehow combine wars and the territorial changes resulting from them (1948, 1967, 2005).
 * 3) We don't have room to get into the reasons why various people/groups did various things (make a dual obligation, accept partition, reject partition, go to war, etc.).
 * 4) Similarly, we don't have room to go into the reasons that various peoples migrated at various times (fled, exiled, assimilation, displacement, etc.). We need to condense population shifts into a sentence or less for each major shift (diaspora, Zionism, Nakba, Aliyah).
 * 5) Links can do a lot of heavy lifting and save a lot of words.

These are just some of the details that strike me as unnecessary in the lead; I recognize others may feel differently about specific details. But a fundamental question: are we all paddling in the same direction: significantly shrinking history in the lead, so we can add more other stuff? If you've read this far, you've just read 520 words. The lead should be about this length. Levivich (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * One very obvious thing to do would be to calve off everything pre-Zionism into a vague handwave-y statement about the region being steeped in history and having notable significance to all Abrahamic faiths alike as well as totemic significance to the Jewish people, with links to History of Palestine and one of History of Israel/History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Levivich (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I support Levivich’s proposal to make the lede reflect the article. Less focus on the history will make consensus easier to achieve. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree, and yes having this much material on ancient kingdoms for a state established in 1948 makes no sense. Ill take a stab at tightening my proposed 3rd para above again. Can probably get it down closer to LV's proposed length. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request
~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2nd Citation Needed (It's in the foreign relations section talking about GNI spent on development assistance):
 * I found a source for it (https://www.oecd.org/israel/israels-official-development-assistance.htm.) where I believe it was an implied citation:


 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)