Talk:Israel/Archive 99

Excessive quoting in references
Refs 644 and 645 (link) have very long quotes, which look to me like they might violate copyright. We should limit them, and any others with similar concerns, to only the text needed to support the claims made in the article. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2023
Hey, can u please update the ethic group and population to 2023 data?

73% - Jews 21% - Arabs 6% - others Population - 9.795 Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-population-numbers-9-795-million-on-rosh-hashanah-eve/amp/ 2A06:C701:457A:CA00:E84A:68D6:AA2C:7EED (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Was done by Qplb191 on October 7. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR CONTIUNED WATCH / VANDILISM WATCH
Some people may vandalize this page due to the Isreali conflict. I believe it is a threat to this page. Makerofepic (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is already protected to prevent vandalism, and is monitored by probably thousands of editors. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 2,719 watchers. Check "Xtools" in Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance . Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

On 7 October 2023, Palestinians from Gaza launched a major attack on Israel.[274]
Wouldn't be more accurate if "Palestinians" is replaced by Hamas? 2A02:A210:29C1:9580:20CB:F1A8:7AE9:755B (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No, because it involved multiple groups. It could say "Hamas-led". Iskandar323 (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, agreed, Hamas-led is a valid option and describes what really happened, if replaced in the initial text, in the future, any wikipedia users, will learn what really happened. 2A02:A210:29C1:9580:20CB:F1A8:7AE9:755B (talk) 10:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was poorly worded. I've tweaked the sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023
After World War I, the allied powers assigned the Mandate for Palestine to Britain, which during the war made a declaration of support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Following World War II and the Holocaust, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and placing Jerusalem under international control. In the final months of the British Mandate, a civil war broke out between the Palestinian Arabs and the Yishuv, beginning the first stage of the 1948 Palestine war. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence that day. 69.166.116.239 (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. lizthegrey (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Time for the 'a'-word yet?
The more time that passes since the landmark reports in 2021-2022, the more remiss it feels to not mention the greatest criticism of the country in recent years (the 'a'-word) in the lead, and it seems like it would be most apt to continue on from the end of the third paragraph where it says "have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" by specifying ", including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid." The current softballed phrasing of "drawn condemnation for violating human rights" alone is pretty much the coyest terminology possible - to the extent of being borderline euphemistic. The UK, for instance, could equally be said to have "drawn condemnation for violating human rights" vis-a-vis its treatment of refugees, etc. Drawn down to this level of vagueness, where all specifics are abandoned, almost all meaning is lost. Israel stands accused of operating an open-air prison, a litany of human rights violations and crimes against humanity - are readers meant to simply read between the lines here? The literature on the topic is now legion. Time surely, to give the most prominent specific? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a neutrality tag on the article for a while now and this is at least a part of that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of times the word appears in the text and the separate article, seems reasonable to be mentioned in the lead. It will meet with stiff resistance. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Makeandtoss: re: the wording of the RFC below. Did you see this thread and the proposed wording? Just wondering. Also, might be worth including more of the preceding sentence for context. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just saw it and edited accordingly. Seems like this discussion is being avoided, so an RFC seems appropriate and necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

False information
Israel occupied Palestine🇵🇸 so Israel wasn't named Palestine Under the British Mandate and don't forget that not everything written Is true there can be mistakes (I will not talk about Israel and Palestine wars ect) any way......160.177.158.201 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If the sources cited in this article are not being accurately summarized, please detail the specific errors in how they are summarized. We don't claim that what is presented is the truth, only that it can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. Only you can determine what is true for you. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not neutral
In this article, it says that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. That is not neutral. In different religions, Israel belongs to certain groups. For example, in Muslim religion it might say Israel belongs to the Palestinian people. However, in the Christian religion, Israel belongs to God’s people, the Jews. As well, it mentions the Palestinian people having their human rights violated by Israel, However, in the bible, it says that actually Israelites have been consistently attacked for being God’s people. The Egyptians had even enslaved the Jewish people. Hence the pyramids. So this is not a neutral article, unless you account both religions and change it to also acknowledge the Christian/ Jewish religion not just the Muslim. please support both sides not just the Palestinians, as this is more of an opinion rather than a fact. thank you. Caitace (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Most independent reliable sources state that Israel occcupies Palestinian territory. They also note that Israel disagrees with this view. You are free to personally feel differently, but here we summarize what independent reliable sources say. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about religions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Israel delinked
@Triggerhippie4: Please help me understand this edit - you say in this edit that "countries don't have this" in reference to linking Criticism of Israel, and I'm struggling a little with the ontology of this. The criticism page clearly exists, so I assume you are saying that there is some sort of either spoken or unspoken rule that countries with dedicated criticism pages shouldn't be linked to them through criticism sections, even though that is how you normally link an obvious child article. If this is the case, I would appreciate it if you could direct me towards the policy or consensus stating this, or otherwise explain. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There are no such sections in articles about countries. The attempt to add one is an example of bias and demonization of Israel. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement above is not true. Other countries do have such sections, they are usually nested under (approx.) "~Politics § ~Human rights" (see e.g. the articles for China or Russia).
 * Having said that, a section titled "Criticism [...]" is indeed unusual, and not appropriate for the encyclopedic article of a country; countries are not works, people or entities which you can just criticize as a whole, they're not a monolith. — A state and its government (regime), its official and unofficial bodies, may be criticized, their actions may be criticized, but "criticizing" a whole people (a country and its inhabitants) is kind of weird if you think about it, and doesn't make any sense. Any criticism of an entire country seems entirely out of place, discriminatory even (since you're at that point judging an entire group by the action of individuals or subgroups).
 * Think about it from another angle: Criticism is often subjective, i.e. coming from a specific person or viewpoint. If we list criticism in an article or mention controversies, we attribute that criticism, and are specific, i.e. note what was criticized and for what reason, under what circumstances (context). If we examine the removed section, we find that it mainly deals with the conduct of Israel as an occupational force, as well as its conduct under international law, meaning the "Criticism" is exclusively devoted to "Government and politics". Why should we include an additional section called "Criticism" for the whole country, if only the politics and government of Israel are being criticized?
 * Also note that we already have a section titled "Apartheid accusations" under "Government and politics", as well as a section titled "International opinion", meaning critical voices are already present in the article. This is how "criticism" is appropriately placed in the article of a country, see also WP:CRITICISM. Any additional material which merits inclusion in the main article should be added to those sections. TucanHolmes  (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given Criticism of Israel is a clear "Criticism of X"-style child article, it seems extraordinary to not link it to its clear parent. Open to alternative suggestions as to where it can be linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Link should be restored, obviously. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments should hold no sway here. Besides, if other countries have criticism articles, they should likely be summarized in and linked from the parent per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking the above, at least for now. I did think this was just about a link, based off a misremembered diff from days ago. I don't yet have an informed opinion about the more substantive addition. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Country articles normally fallow the best approach as per WP:STRUCTURE....that is an Integrated Style Criticism. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Criticism should be integrated throughout the article; a brief skim suggests this is already the case. I don't know why this discussion is framed as being about a link, when the revert wasn't about a link, it was about a full top-level section being added (and added boldly; I checked the archives and multiple past discussions opposed it). The Criticism article is already linked in a See also hatnote under the "Government and politics" heading (I see it's been added more than a decade ago) so this reframing of the dispute as being about linking has no basis. DFlhb (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Two things in need of fix
First, in the Legal System section:"...citing concerns about the ability of the court to remain free from political impartiality." is an OBVIOUS error! "free from impartiality"? LMFAO! Second, the Religion section fails spectacularly to mention the FACT that the basic foundational laws of Israel state it is the Jewish State. That that religion is the ONLY one directly supported by the legal system. Who can honestly argue that this factoid should be ignored when discussing religion in Israel??? 98.17.44.45 (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "impartiality" sentence - the problem there was a function of allowing a Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement to act a source: it allowed the public relations spin to slip through the gaps. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2023
Minor correction in the Economy section: "It has the highest number of billionaires in the Middle East ranked 18th." Was very likely meant to be something like "It has the highest number of billionaires in the Middle East and is ranked 18th in the world." Kab95 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I used even clearer wording than yours. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Does number of billionaires living in a given country meaningfully reflect or have bearing on that country's economy? I.e. the "process or system by which goods and services are produced, sold, and bought in a country or region." Do the Economy sections for other countries include the number of billionaires? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.121.81 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Chief Justice Update
I request the infobox for the Chief Justice be updated to Uzi Vogelman (acting) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 20:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs)


 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Expulsion of Palestinians in the lead
, please see that the lead has contained material on the expulsion of Palestinians for over a year (here, based on this discussion). You are right that it wasnt an RFC, it was a well attended discussion that ended with a consensus for inclusion and the material has been stable since. You are edit-warring it out now, along with a couple of users who have been using disingenous edit summaries. Kindly self revert and seek consensus for your change from the stable consensus version we have.  nableezy  - 14:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking. I read the previous discussion and I agree with those who said that it should be mentioned, just not in the lead. Since it's impossible to add it without the entire context, which would make it too long. It's already mentioned later on, with a lot other details. Atbannett (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can seek consensus for that as you wish, but right now you and Eladkarmel are edit-warring and that is not an acceptable tactic to change an article.  nableezy  - 16:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support a return to the status quo ante. Edit warring to re-enforce a new change to the article is disruptive, and I urge Eladkarmel to self-revert. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As this is an article about the State of Israel, I would expect the lead to include a reference and/or quotes from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Specifically, I agree that the tensions between the non-Jewish population and the Democratic state is a central characteristic of Israel, and should be mentioned in the lead. The following quote from the Declaration is one way of mentioning the fact that this challenge was obvious to the founders from the beginning of the State:
 * "WE APPEAL - in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions."
 * (Disclaimer: I am a "newbie" in the wikipedia world, so I apologize in advance if I have inadvertantly strayed from correct practice. Would appreciate gentle guidance) Ettig65 (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

are you going to self-revert your continued edit-warring without discussion or consensus? Just need to know so I can decide what would need to be reported.  nableezy  - 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Does my editing violate some rule that I don't know about? If so, of course I will revert it. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just the general WP:EW and WP:CON rules, not a one-revert rule. But edit-warring is prohibited, and if it is not self-reverted I intend to report it. Guess we can find out if playing tag-team works or not if you want *shrug*.  nableezy  - 19:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eladkarmel, it does not belong in the lead. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats cool, we can have a discussion and see where consensus goes. But as of now that is the consensus version of the article and edit-warring to change it is not acceptable.  nableezy  - 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm on Wikipedia to add knowledge, not to fight. I did a self revert. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  nableezy  - 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Classy move! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There must be some rule against the bad spirit and the hostile way nableezy interacts with users here. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the consensus for the previous version, as it's not clear from Nableezy's link. Nonetheless, it's apparent that many editors support a change in the current version. The existing content is too detailed, unfocused, and unnecessary in its depth regarding 1948 population movements. Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Lilach5, and Homerethegreat share a similar sentiment, and I agree with them on this matter. Let's collaborate to avoid hindering progress, and stay clear from stone-walling. The preferred direction for improvement couldn't be clearer. HaNagid (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No one is stone-walling or attempting to hinder progress. Just following guidelines. Your direction is not clear to me. The events a few wish to remove are at the heart of decades of problems. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The history of Israel goes beyond the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This article is not about those "decades of problems", but about the country named Israel. Focusing only on the conflict is a mistake and goes against Wikipedia's principles. Our goal is to share neutral and objective knowledge, not to correct historical wrongs. Let's focus on a balanced representation and avoid unnecessary details about population movements. We cannot talk about the 1948 movements without mentioning atrocities such as the 1936-9 revolt and the 1929 riots. Endless debates about blame and atrocities have no place here. Let's shift our focus to neutral and constructive information without getting caught up in assigning fault. The proposed version cuts through all the noise and achieves that goal seamlessly. HaNagid (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did I suggest that we "focus on the conflict"? Where did I talk to "blame and atrocities"? Where did I talk to "assigning fault". Where did I talk to "correcting historical wrongs"? Accusations of stone-walling and strawmen do not contribute. The stable text talks to the formation of Israel. Rather an important part of an article on Israel. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1948 exodus isn't more significant than the 1929 Hebron riots, 1936-1939 pogroms, and the Al-Aqsa Intifada, all of which are excluded. There's no justification for including the 1948 exodus when these events are not covered. HaNagid (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The population movements are a huge part of the formation of the state of Israel. I'm in favor of shortening the lead history summary where possible, so who has a proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can add me to the users you listed above. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue is the need to focus the text on Israel . The text should be about Israeli history, Israel's initial socialist period, Israel integrating about 1 million refugees in its first few years... There's no mention of this at all in the summary text. One ought to expect that the article focus on Israel . In a similar sense, the summary on The State of Palestine does not mention the Jewish refugee problem, the holocaust and more Israeli topics.
 * It only makes sense that the article on Israel focus on Israel.
 * If one wishes to include more details regarding Palestinians then of course do so in the history section in the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel's entire history pivots on an expulsion event, much as Turkey's does (also with similar denial). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Who says? Israel's history pivots on a long list of events, each carrying a huge mark on its trajectory. See my below answer to Nableezy. HaNagid (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Israelites are one of the ancient inhabitants of the Israel/Palestine territories. There is a belief they were ultimately expelled out by the Roman Empire. From Origin of the Palestinians wiki page “ During the Bronze Age, it was inhabited by the Canaanites. In the early Iron Age, the Israelites emerged as a separate ethnoreligious group in the region,”  Also I read somewhere  on Wiki that some of the Palestinians are also descended from Israelites. Also from the Origins of the Palestinians Wiki page, I found this “In recent years, genetic studies have demonstrated that, at least paternally, Jewish ethnic divisions and the Palestinians are related to each other.” So there is a shared common ancestor. History of Israelites people living in the territory and there expulsions far outdates 18th century and later. However,  If you want to exclude ancient history expulsions, should this article be renamed to “Israel (18th century to current)” with Ancient Israel being a separate page? Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * History of Israel is a different page. You can go haggle about ancient history and its relevance there. Israel is a modern country and its modern history begins with expulsion. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping the number of expelled Palestinians in the text, but I think using percentage data would be better: "During and after the 1948 Palestine war, more than 80% of Palestinian Arabs were expelled from or fled Israeli territory to neighboring Arab countries, [with around 150,000 Palestinian Arabs remaining within Israel]." As for the number of Jews who emigrated to Israel, I find the current number to be very misleading because it doesn't provide the whole picture. A vague phrase like "In the decades after its independence, Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world" or a more precise one like "In the X decades after its independence, Israel absorbed X thousands of Jews who emigrated or fled from many countries, primarily from the Muslim world" would be more ideal. Mawer10 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The focus is on Israel, the expulsion and flight of the Palestinians formed the basis for a Jewish majority in the territory Israel would come into control of. Major works about Israel focus on those events and their foundational relevance to the topic of Israel. You want to include ancient empires that had and have nothing to do with the modern state but excuse material about its defining features, which include its conflict with the Palestinians.  nableezy  - 22:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Off of the top of my head, the sources that treat the removal of the Palestinians as a significant topic in the foundation of Israel, we have
 * 1948 by Benny Morris - devotes substantial space to the removal of Palestinians and the barring of their return
 * Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (and Revisited) by Morris - I dont think I need to be specific on how much space he devotes to the issue (all of it)
 * The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappé - I dont think I need to be specific on how much space he devotes to the issue (all of it)
 * Mythologies without End by Jerome Slater - devotes substantial space to the expulsion, to the concept of transfer among early Zionist and Israeli leaders, and to the denial of a right of return
 * These are all full length books that deal with this topic extensively and all treat it as foundational to modern Israel. Im fine with reworking how it is included if people want to work on that, but there has not been any actual justification based on anything besides personal feeling as to why the expulsion of the Palestinians should not be included.  nableezy  - 03:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1948 population movements are just one event among many that impacted Israel's history. The Second Intifada, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon Wars, endless waves of terror attacks, the 1977 Israeli legislative election, the 1990s post-Soviet aliyah and more have had a significant impact on Israeli history, lasting to this very day. However, these events are not included in the lead. While there are books emphasizing the importance of the 1948 movements on Israel's history, similar books and reliable sources make similar claims about each of the mentioned events. It's unclear why all of these are excluded, and only the 1948 exoduses are included, unless you approach Israel's history from a Palestinian perspective. Nevertheless, this paragraph focuses on the history of Israel, not the Palestinian viewpoint on Israel's history. HaNagid (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s simply assertion, not evidence or argument. Those are books on Israeli history, none written by a Palestinian, so I’m not sure how you can fairly describe them as a Palestinian viewpoint on Israel’s history. And why wouldn’t we include that viewpoint even if it were true? NPOV demands the inclusion of all significant views. Do you think the displaced are not holders of a significant view? Which of those events do sources treat as foundational to Israel? Which of those continues to reverberate to now? The right of return remains an intractable dispute. Hell, of the 2.1 million people in Gaza 1.7 million of them are Palestinian refugees. You think the dispute with Gaza isn’t relevant to the topic of Israel?  nableezy  - 05:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The current situation in Gaza has been shaped by a series of events, not only the 1948 exodus, but also the Egyptian occupation, the rise of anti-Semitic Islamist militant organizations, the 2005 disengagement, the violent Hamas takeover in 2007, and more. While the right of return is a disputed issue, there are many other factors not mentioned in the lead. The 1990s post-Soviet aliyah, for example, brought approx. 1 million migrants to Israel, but you still insist the Palestinian exodus in more important. Prioritizing one over many may not be justified, considering this article is focused on Israel, not the Palestinians. The proposed new paragraph mentions the conflict in general details (competing national claims, remains unsolved after progress made in the 1990s, and the human rights criticism thing). That should be more than enough. HaNagid (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that this article covers Israel in general, while all of those sources cover a narrower topic (the broadest, Mythologies without End, covers only the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts), I don't think they are ideal for determining what is WP:DUE in the lede. I would suggest using sources that cover Israel in general; one that may be indicative is Britannica; they make no mention of the expulsion in their lede. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Benny Morris is a reliable source, Pappe has been shown (by Morris himself) to make things up completely and lie in his book. He should be considered a Partisan source not WP:RS Jacker1968 (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This isnt an article in which only avowed Zionists may be cited, sorry. Pappe is an excellent source as WP:SCHOLARSHIP and what you wrote is a BLP violation. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:31, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It's evident that a consensus to add the 1948 population events no longer exists, (and there might not have been one to begin with). Seven editors (including myself, BiledMammal, TaBaZzz, Eladkarmel, Atbannett, Lilach5, and Homerethegreat) are opposing its inclusion. HaNagid (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you can remove yourself from that list. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's stable content that has been in place for more than a year, and there is no consensus for its removal. You're totally welcome to launch an RFC on whether the Wikipedia community wants to affirm reflecting the facts of Israel's origins in 1948, as covered in all reliable sources on the topic, or to indulge in Nakba denial. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that from the view mentioned above, the 1948 sentences are not to be mentioned in the lead. Ovedc (talk) 07:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the new changes, the updated version is much more neutral and balanced. Snorka2 (talk) 07:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this isn't a vote, and if it were an internal project discussion, which is still about consensus, not voting, non-WP:ECP editors such as yourself would not be able to participate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead has to focus on Israel. The 1948 population movements are important in understanding the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And clearly they have to be included in the article. But this is just one issue related to Israel's history and many other important, even crucial topics, are not mentioned. For example, the Holocaust, where around 6 million jews were killed - a pivotal event for undertanding the background for the establishment of Israel - is not mentioned in the lead.
 * To sum up: I think the sentences about the 1948 population movements are not to be mentioned in the lead, only in the main text. GidiD (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is not "background" information. It partly began prior to the Israeli Declaration of Independence, with the likes of Plan Dalet, executed by the men who would become the senior leadership of Israel, and similar strategies continued throughout the 1948 Arab–Israeli war. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The removal of Palestinians from the territory which became Israel is foundational to the country, and must be in the lede. In the mid-19th century there were only 3% Jews in the country. By 1947 the area which was to become Israel in 1948-49 had 40% Jews (vs. 33% in the wider Mandatory Palestine), so still a minority. If it had not been for the expulsion of Palestinians, Israel would not have been a Jewish majority state when it first came into being. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It should also be made clear that the expulsion of Palestinians was the causus belli for the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The current drafting assigns blame to the Arab side for "starting" that war, so is unacceptable. Given the tragedy of what we are currently living through, it should be clear to all of us that assigning unilateral blame to either side for "starting" almost any conflict is unlikely to be NPOV. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ive struck the comments of a sock of a banned user. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I support the version in which the story of the deported Arab / Palestinian population (in 1948 war) isn't in the opening of this article. Such a complicated topic deserves a long historical introduction before it is discussed- therefore I believe it should be discussed only in the history section of the article. I also find the newer version (the one that I support) more neutral and therefore more fitting to Wikipedia. Omri2424 (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The long historical introduction is at the corresponding wikilink. Integral to Israel's founding and consequently leadworthy. Selfstudier (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not simply re-revert to the stable version, as I probably should have, but I have toned down the hagiographic material that was inserted. And I see no reason presented why the number of Palestinians forced from their homes should be removed, so I added seven to the start of the hundreds of thousands sentence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead section
Several editors are trying to make the overblown lead shorter, so I want to remind that the most recent and extensive discussion about what should be in the lead was in March and is spread across several archives: 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98, but I don't see it implemented. It should be continued from there to finally shorten the lead. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please note that some of the information presented is inaccurate and liable to be misinterpreted. For example, Israel has disengaged from Gaza in 2005. Furthermore, the second paragraph seems to deal much more with the Palestinians than with Israel's development. Of course there is place to speak of the Israeli-Arab conflict, yet it doesn't define Israel.
 * Indeed, one must assume that the deifinig features of that era for Israelis is the transition from a Socialist Economy in which Agriculture and industry were the main economic engines into a Free Market economy in which the Service sector and High Tech industry now play the major role.
 * Furthermore, I find it astounding there is no mention the Great Aliya/immigration from the former Soviet Union into Israel, another defining moment.
 * I therefore must insist that the lead is not ample and unbefitting and does not reflect or teach one regarding Israel's development. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Gaza Strip is still considered occupied territory under international law, so this is irrelevant. Perhaps a note on Gaza's disputed status could be included in the text, but I don't see that as so important. Mawer10 (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Creating consensus
I propose adding the text above to the introduction. Excluding notes, hyperlinks, and references, it has 2,862 bytes compared to the previous version's 3,273 bytes. I've highlighted some points in the text that could potentially be discussed. As for the information it provides, I considered inputs made in the article's edits and on this discussion page. Mawer10 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Balfour Declaration need to be brought up as well, in my opinion. Leaving it at "Under the British..." is too vague IMO. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good this way? Mawer10 (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed answer. Yes, sounds good to me. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am slightly confused, why is Israel referred to as having universal suffrage?
Can those in Gaza and the West Bank vote in Israel's elections? I think perhaps there should be some clarification here on what is meant by universal.

If they cannot vote, then I can't see how that claim is true unless you adopt a tautological approach that everyone that can vote in Israel can vote.

The British Empire never had universal suffrage, for example, even when British men and women could vote, since Indians never had seats in the British parliament. 2A02:C7C:37B8:BF00:F493:27E1:7A05:6758 (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * What matters is not our own interpretation of who can vote in Israel, but what independent reliable sources describe as who can vote. If the sources provided say that Israel has universal suffrage, then thats what we say. If the sources are in error, that needs to be taken up with them. If the sources are not being accurately summarized, please detail those errors. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The picture is certainly more conflicted in reliable sources than the page previously prevented, and given this, I have clarified the discussion around this and removed the wikivoice claim in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The comparison to the British Empire is flawed at best, and that actually goes to the root of the question regarding Israeli universal suffrage. Gaza and the West Bank (outside of East Jerusalem) are not considered part of Israel by either the international community (which doesn’t recognize East Jerusalem either) or Israel itself (which, outside of East Jerusalem, does not officially or legally consider the West Bank or Gaza as part of Israel itself, individual Israeli citizens’ opinions not withstanding). Israel has only annexed the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem (international recognition of such annexations also notwithstanding). US citizens in Canada can vote in US elections, but Canadian citizens in either the Canada or the US cannot. The definition of universal suffrage regards the extension of the right to vote to the citizens of said country, and not those who are not citizens. While the Palestinian Authority has chosen to not hold elections since 2006, Palestinians were able to vote in those elections, and Israeli citizens living in the West Bank were not. Which makes sense, since those Israelis living in settlements in the West Bank were obviously Israeli citizens and not Palestinian citizens, and thus rightfully should not have been allowed to vote in Palestinian elections. This is where your comparison to the British Empire breaks down, as Britain ‘’did’m formally and legally annex those territories of the Empire, but did not extend the right to vote in those annexed territories it legally considered to be a part of the British Empire. It may seem a small difference, but it is an important one specifically for the discussion of suffrage. I would add that Arab-Israelis (Arabs who have Israeli citizenship, constituting about 1/4th of Israel’s population), including those who call themselves Palestinians, do have the right to vote in Israeli elections. They have political parties and, when winning enough votes, representatives in the Knesset. In the government immediately preceding the current one, an Arab party was even part of the ruling coalition. So, yeah, is it a sticky issue that depends very much on specific legal issues? Absolutely, but the same is true in most countries with “universal suffrage,” including the US (with issues of access to voting locations, eligible voter list purges, those convicted of felonies that have served their sentences still being extra-judicially denied the right to vote, etc). There are other topics of human rights where these specific legal principles likely do not take precedent, but in the issue of suffrage, they do. Universal suffrage is the right to vote among all citizens, not those without citizenship. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. No matter what their gender, religion, orientation etc. is... You can refer to Knesset Election Law. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All Israeli citizens above 18 can vote. But who can become a citizen? Palestinians are not allowed to return to their homeland, despite UN declarations, and become citizens under the Law of Return. Permanent residents who are not Jewish and not already citizens cannot become citizens without swearing that it is a Jewish state. The definition of Jewish is complex under the Law or Return excluding many who believe they are Jewish but not orthodox or of mixed religions. This is not as simple as your one sentence. Hence the confusion of universal suffrage. Of course we will still go by RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence you're is not "well cited" as it gives a broken link. And it misleadingly suggest that some Israelis can't vote, and introduces a fringe description of ethnocracy, while most reliable sources call Israel a democracy. I also believe that you violated the remedies by reverting me twice. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The link isn't broken. It is behind a paywall on that site. It can be found at and citating literature (141 cites) can be found at . O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Israel Studies is available on JSTOR as well, which you can access through the Wikipedia Library. You can access it here if you register for the library access. The quote is on page 261 and is as follows:"settlers remain fully enfranchised Israeli citizens while their Palestinian neighbors have no voting rights and no impact on Israeli policies that control their own regions. This has somewhat changed following the Oslo agreement, although most Palestinian residents and lands in the territories are still under Israeli control to various degrees."Also, two consecutive reverts are counted as one, so no I did not violate a thing. Read WP:EW for further explanation on what a "revert" is. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is given undue weight in the article. This is far from being a scholarly consensus, and now most of the paragraph just restates this particular article. Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bald assertion with no evidence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Undue in the sense of what exactly? The scholarly sources are insufficient? You would like to see more? The disparities raised here are widely broached in sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a due weight issue. Now the position of those who "question" whether Israel has universal suffrage has a disproportionate weight in the section. One article is definitely not sufficient. Alaexis¿question? 06:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would be an exaggeration for there to be an article on whether or not Israel has universal suffrage. A paragraph would suffice. Israeli citizens above 18 have the right to vote. Palestinians above the age of 18 have the right to vote for their own government (although there haven't been elections for several years). Homerethegreat (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The point is Israeli settlers in the West Bank get a vote on who manages the Israeli occupation of the West Bank while the Palestinians in the West Bank do not get a vote on that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did Israeli settlers vote in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election? As far as I am aware, they did not. That the Palestinian Authority has not held an election since then is an issue to be taken up with them. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The settlers arent governed by the PLC, Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration, therein lies the difference. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:00, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's quite a generalization. Hamas, as far as I am aware, governs Gaza, and at least within Area A of the West Bank, the Palestinian National Authority is the governing body. So no, you cannot make the blanket statement that "Palestinians are governed by the Israeli Civil Administration." We aren't living in 1985. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is talking about the West Bank, and yes all of the West Bank remains Israeli-occupied and is under the authority of the Civil Administration. Yes, the PNA has some responsibilities, ones that can and are usurped at will by the Israelis. And the source is post-Oslo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose you need to correct several other articles here, then, because that is not what is reported on Wikipedia at all. Also, aren’t Palestinians in Gaza still, you know, Palestinians? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good place to start would be a paragraph at Elections in Israel about suffrage? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All the personal opinions aside, do reliable sources say that Israel had universal suffrage or not? To the best of my knowledge, they do. Jeppiz (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliable source cited in the article says otherwise. Again, here (Wikipedia Library link). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is already in this article in the section regarding criticism of the status of universal suffrage. So... what are we discussing here? Seems NPOV is well established as the article is currently written on the topic. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody removed it. Then it was restored. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So again I ask, what are we discussing here? —OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2023
Few months ago, I felt the sentence, "...and technological center of the country, while its seat..." has a misplaced comma, and should be broken into two different sentences. Then, the now second sentence should either (a) remove while and keep although, or (b) vice versa, as in removing although.
 * "...the country. While its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."


 * "...the country. Its seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, although Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognized internationally."

P.S. Apologizes for the previous request, which has been removed, as I wasn't aware of edit requests at the time. JumboSizedFish (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcomed! JumboSizedFish (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Herrenvolk Democracy or Apartheid on the Wikipedia page
while it may be disputed, both the United Nations and Amnesty international have deemed Israel an Apartheid State, The right of return Law grants all Jews automatic rights to Israeli citizenship yet a muslim born in Tel Aviv in 1930 would not have that right to live or have citizenship, this is very reminiscent of some forms of Segregation and Apartheid, but you don't need to hear it from me we have an entire page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid here are the sources: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/ https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/ https://www.btselem.org/publications/202210_not_a_vibrant_democracy_this_is_apartheid https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/06/israel-imposing-apartheid-on-palestinians-says-former-mossad-chief https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Israel%27s%20Apartheid%20Against%20Palestinians%20Report%20-%20Amnesty%27s%202022%20report.pdf?VersionId=s0fIB_wt.dMwGiAksB8nnlG_irQIqf67 https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-01/Report%20Public%20Q%26A.pdf?VersionId=.fMOTVAJ0AA32bXXsTKOabLlHVsz2XFu https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/2022-05/Briefing%20to%20DIT%20on%20UK-Israel%20FTA.pdf?VersionId=RLHFEKXZoeZR8Li9kzuPM2q3yItgwXH_ https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/iiclr/pdf/vol2p221.pdf https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/is-israel-an-apartheid-state/ https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israeli-apartheid-legacy-ongoing-nakba-75-enar https://jacobin.com/2022/02/israeli-apartheid-amnesty-international-report https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/34924/israel%E2%80%99s-apartheid-regime Gorgonopsi (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Um, this is just a speech, right? Not actually looking to improve or asking for an edit to the article? Most editors here are aware of this already. Selfstudier (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i was requesting that the government be updeated to include apartheid or herrenvolk democracy rather than it being portrayed as a normal state per se, i don't see how this was so hard to grasp Gorgonopsi (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A dozen other countries have the right to set its own law of return. Law of Return is just the Israeli name. A list of countries with similar laws that promote the return of descendants of a national group: Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain (interesting case, I recommend reading about it) and more.
 * The nationality laws of several countries have special provisions in them to simplify naturalization of favored ethnic groups. The laws in these countries appear to reflect a desire by governments to guarantee a safe haven to diaspora populations, particularly those assumed to be living under precarious conditions. A non-exhaustive list of such countries laws follows.
 * Every soverign nation has the right to determine it's own migrations laws. Israel, Germany, Ireland, Armenia, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Spain all give preferntial migratory rights and some form of automatic citizenship to decendants of national group. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Context is important, this isn't the same as Ireland, Germany etc, someone who's family hasn't set foot in like 2000 years has more right to live in israel due to a belief system than a Palestinian born in Tel Aviv in 1937 per se, it's not the same as any of the countries you mentioned, it would be like if rhodesia granted citizenship to random white Christians who merely identified as rhodesian Gorgonopsi (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before we get completely off the track, if there is no edit request in the form add, change, delete (something), etc that can be discussed and implemented, this should just stop right here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have permission to request edits.... you might. i don't. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * we should go by what the UN has said, and Amnesty International as they are very reliable. Gorgonopsi (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You do have permission to request edits and shortly this will be the only way that a non EC editor can edit the talk page of CT articles like this one. Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I literally don't, you make a new account and try request an edit, and you will see what its like for all of us. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RFED Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Spain and Portugal give citizenship to descendants of exiled Jews who haven't lived in Spain since the 15th century. Regarding Germany, that's relevant to German populations who were moved in the 20th century and hadn't lived in Germany for centuries. (Two examples that came to my mind just now)
 * I understand this may be confusing. But every country has the right to determine to whom it grants citizenship. Granting citizenship based on a national group is very common. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Except this law of return allows anyone who converts to Judaism a right to Israeli citizenship, it's semantics to contest the ruling by multiple higher bodies Gorgonopsi (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gorgonopsi It's actually a rigorous process and not every Jew is granted the Right of Return. There have been cases that this has been rejected. Chavmen (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Capital
the limited recognition as Jerusalem should be removed. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel it is a fact. All govt functions are based there.96.81.123.61 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Limited recognition means that a limited number of countries recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Only 6 countries recognise it, and two of them qualify it as West Jerusalem, so the tag is definitely valid. Whether the government functions from there or not is irrelevant to external recognition. AryKun (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Limited recognition designator with regard to the capital of Israel being Jerusalem should be removed. There are nine UN countries that officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, not six. They are: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, and the US (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/22/middleeast/jerusalem-vote-united-nations-list-intl/index.html). However, this is again inconsequential as other countries do not decide where a sovereign nation can or cannot place its seat of government. "Limited recognition" here is inappropriate. That would be like Great Britain deciding to tell Ireland that Dublin could only be given "limited recognition" as multiple territories in that area have been the subject of generational armed conflicts for centuries. 141.126.64.83 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sovereignty over Jerusalem is disputed, technically it is a Corpus separatum and there are many UN resolutions declaring any change to character of Jerusalem as illegal and void. Selfstudier (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a fair and valid argument. Too bad these biased left wing moderators and editors are unable to see past their inconsistent logic 2604:2D80:4302:5D00:180F:D46B:E8FC:1BBB (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The place were the govt functions are based and were the capital is are not automatically the same thing. For example the Capital of Netherlands is Amsterdam but the Government is in the city of The Hague. Switzerland's government is in Zürich but it doesn't have a capital. Bolivia had it's government functions based in La Paz, but the capital is Sucre. Also the UK very much recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland, as far as i could find every single official UN member-country recognitions Dublin as the official capital of Ireland. Atomicegalewing (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who recognizes it. The govt functions are there. Too much anti-semitism is being allowed on this page.2607:FB91:D7F:4B67:20B3:3087:CDD:7C91 (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)


 * proper neutrality and factual truth for encyclopedic purposes is not anti-semitism (and neither is anti-zionism but that's a different story), stop mending the definition of words to hide the truth.
 * it's simply true, there is limited recognition on the proclaimed capital of israel by a significant number of countries - 28 in fact - and that's worth noting in the encyclopedia, just as how it's worth noting that palestine's capital also being proclaimed jerusalem has limited recognition too - by about 55 countries - check both pages if needed, they both have 'jerusalem' with '(limited recognition)' next to it. <b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#C41E3D">ballads</b> <b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#1E2D2F">one</b> 22:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as the capital, it is where the National Govt is located. That is aNational Georgraphic refrence which has a lot more basis in fact than the opinion of the socalled international community. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/capital/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unselfstudier (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

International recognition is not a requirement for the capital designation. This is just more of the holding Israel to a different standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.7.174 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please show another article about a nation that has a dispute over its capital, where that nation is treated differently. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Admin note: The following user comments and debates represent Wikipedia user views and do not discuss empirical verification or cite specific issues with documented citations. Both users suggest bias but do not cite specific portions of the full entry. Contested historical events may and should be cited with competing sources, but the users do not do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MandelaKingFanon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is not neutral
Clearly the text mainly talks about the “crimes” of Israel, I’m sure when you go to a Wikipedia page about the US you don’t see the stuff they did first thing in the article, and they did a lot. 2001:4DF4:308:3A00:C431:A077:A2BB:D2A0 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The US page may have the wrong balance, although it certainly mentions slavery. Not mentioning the only historic use of nuclear weapons on civilian populations is a bit of an omission though. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As usual, concerns about 'Israel's wrongdoings' are both way out of sync with the reality, scope and context of the actual situations, and they consume far, far more of its general description than wikis of dozens of countries who are truly, consistently and endemically awful human rights abusers with problems that are worse by orders of magnitude in terms of scale, brutality and normalization by sanction of policy. Wikipedia is in general a purveyor and amplifier of misinformation, division and hate, and little more. 208.98.222.25 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP is not a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lack of parity with the articles for other countries is at least in part because Israel is not simply the name of a country. It is also the name of the site of significant international political turmoil and in some ways an active war zone. The idea that its representation in an encyclopedia should be identical to that of a country significantly less embroiled in conflict misses this fact. This is not just an article about the nation as a political entity. It is also about the land it claims and the things that happen there. It is also about the people that reside there and the things they have done. Anything less is deceit in the form of reductionism. ZephyrCubic (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please discuss concerns about the United States article at its talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don’t be dishonest. They’re identifying an inconsistency across pages. Zanahary (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And they should go to Talk:United States to address those inconsistencies or start a broader discussion at WP:VP. Bringing up inconsistencies means little without proposals for action.  Thanks for your views. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The implication is that the crimes ought to be de-emphasized in the Israel lede. Not that the U.S. article ought to have its crimes emphasized in lede. Zanahary (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would this be the correct course of action? De-emphasizing the crimes of any state is a disservice to the people who suffered them as well as to people who wish to learn about them. Sophie (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I am evil. I am the evil Wikipedia editor and I make changes to the project to mess with victims of state crimes. I'm covered in hair that is not mine. Zanahary (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * [Comment removed per WP:ARBECR].
 * Perhaps so but please make sure you comply with WP:ARBECR before commenting further. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment
The IP user is correct if they indeed identified an inconsistency in how different nations are treated with regards to crimes against humanity mentioned in the lead section. Inconsistencies between how Israel is covered and how comparable nations are covered in comparable situations, especially in the Middle East, is indeed inappropriate and constitutes a double standard, which is unacceptable. However, this alone doesn't justify either downgrading the mentions in this article or upgrading the mentions in the US article, if no consistent standard is yet defined or can be applied. To prevent this discussion from going round in circles, I suggest that

(a) editors stick to relevant policies and guidelines. If no consistent policies/guidelines exist, editors should not make up standards on the fly but discuss the problem of standards centrally, at the appropriate place in Wikipedia. The talk section of this article is not an appropriate place.

(b) all editors remind themselves that these are controversial topics, and that Wikipedia oftentimes suffers from Anglocentrism (because many sources and editors have an Anglo-centric viewpoint and bias; this includes a US bias), which means a comparison between the leads of Israel and the US or Great Britain is especially inappropriate, due to potential double-bias problems. A more apt comparison would be the lead sections of, e.g. Turkey or China.

(c) inconsistencies are pointed out specifically, with examples, in the form "page A mentions X but page B doesn't mention Y, even though these are comparable". TucanHolmes (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest you strike your suggestion of antisemitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Clarified my point. TucanHolmes  (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removing the word and replacing it with a link to an article on antisemitism is no better. I could just as well argue that the double standard is anti-Arab. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, you appear to have a bone to pick. So lets pick it: I did not just [remove] the word and [replace] it with a link to an article on antisemitism, my aim is to put the IP user's issue with the article into context. So yes, the suggestion of secondary, Israel-focused antisemitism remains. That's why I immediately qualified my comment by adding point (c) to make clear that if demonstrable instances of a double standard can be found, the situation should of course be resolved; but that the discussion can and should proceed only on such a factual basis, and not on the basis of a vague "but other articles". I do not understand why you have a problem with that, and I also do not see how this is anti-Arab. I am well aware that this definition of antisemitism is also weaponized to silence criticism and critics of Israel, but that is not what's at stake here. This is about how we cover, in the lead of an encyclopedic article, the complex geopolitical history and human-rights situation (to put it mildly), as well as the current status (de jure and de facto) of the territories of Israel and Palestine, referencing the history of crimes against humanity, as well as past and present conflicts. This current conflict as a whole has a simple, evidently colonial core (resistance to Zionism), with a complex, tangled, muddied web of additional factors on top (religion, racism, imperialism, ...). This is all a lot to cover, but it is also not much more complicated than other national histories involving a lot of crimes against humanity. We should neither heighten nor downplay the c.a.h. of Israel relative to those mentioned in the article leads of other nations, because heightening them could be construed as antisemitic, just as downplaying them is rightfully construed as anti-Palestinian/Islamophobic. Israel is of course not a country just like any other country, but so is Northern Cyprus or the PRC, or Northern Ireland for that matter (no, I do not want to open that can of worms). Covering these entities and conflicts – especially in a neutral way – is never easy.
 * See, this is why I insisted on only discussing this issue on the basis of demonstrable instances of a double standard. Otherwise, ours are just empty words, theoretical follies, completely inconsequential, leading us nowhere, in circles. TucanHolmes  (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No bone to pick. But thank you for the clarification. I still have a problem with the paragraph linked to. I'll look at that entire article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This should be corrected
Gaza is no longer occupied by Israel, but the infobox shows it as occupied.

Parham wiki (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is why I say that the current depiction of the map of Israeli territory is invalid. I think the current Wikipedia is not neutral at all because it does not depict the actual facts. Mahawijaya Wisnuwardhana (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Neutrality is especially important considering the situation currently, and we are talking about territory here. Xradicon (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That Gaza is considered occupied is clearly sourced in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gaza's consideration as occupied territory is disputed in mainstream accounts. Zanahary (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Majority sourcing considers it so and current "boots on the ground" is proof positive of same. Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2023
Lead request == Isn't it a bit ridiculous to mention the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries without mentioning other immigrations which were much more important and influential? And anyway, since there were so many immigration waves, it's impossible to mention them in the lead. And besides, isn't it easier to mention : "most of the Palestinian population were expelled or fled" The lead seems complicated and incomprehensible. 地球和风 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the lead is rather difficult and warrants work. But please try and formulate a proper edit request :). Thank you for taking time to look at the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not an edit request. Please read the template. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Changing from Name -> Ethymology
I think it's the standard in Wikipedia to have etymology and not Name. Upon a quick look on random wiki articles of countries, etymology seems more common and also it was the terminology used until very recently.

Spain, Poland, Portugal, Mexico...

Either how, the name Israel does warrant an etymological explanation. There is a very interesting story regarding the word.

Don't see in opening an RFC on this. I think a nice discussion could do work out the section title :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Canaanites
You didn't fix anything, you just removed mention of any Canaanite civilization and states; which is elaborated in the article in two paragraphs, enough to garner, at the very minimum, a brief mention in the lede, preceding mention of Jewish states. Please restore, again, at the bare minimum, a mention of these Canaanite civilisations, per MOS:LEDE, which states that the lede is a summary of body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Makeandtoss please be politer in your intonation. Sentence was very long, shortened and restored prior version. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There’s no impoliteness in my message, how you interpreted it is your own responsibility, not mine. Again, you didn’t “shorten” anything, you just removed mention of Canaanite civilization, despite it taking a chunk of the antiquity historical section, and still haven’t provided any legitimate counterarguments. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This page is about Israel - lead is a summary, should directly refer as well as possible to Israel and its history? Therefore, ancient history which cover a 3000 year period should deal mostly with Israel. Ancient kingdoms, destruction, rebellion, destruction, time passes until Zionism and up until 1948 - next chapter. The ancient Israelite and Jewish kingdoms are crucial for understanding modern-day Israel whilst the Canaanite city-states are not. The historical overview should not go over each and every historical period in the history of the region, only those significant for understanding modern-day Israel. This is not an article about the history of the southern Levant...
 * Here an example of an historical paragraph on Greece:
 * Greece is considered the cradle of Western civilization, being the birthplace of democracy, Western philosophy, Western literature, historiography, political science, major scientific and mathematical principles, theatre, and the Olympic Games. From the eighth century BC, the Greeks were organised into various independent city-states, known as poleis (singular polis), which spanned the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Philip II of Macedon united most of present-day Greece in the fourth century BC, with his son Alexander the Great rapidly conquering much of the known ancient world, from the eastern Mediterranean to northwestern India. The subsequent Hellenistic period saw the height of Greek culture and influence in antiquity. Greece was annexed by Rome in the second century BC, becoming an integral part of the Roman Empire and its continuation, the Byzantine Empire, which was predominantly Greek in culture and language. The Greek Orthodox Church, which emerged in the first century AD, helped shape modern Greek identity and transmitted Greek traditions to the wider Orthodox world. After the Fourth Crusade in 1204, Latin possessions were established in parts of the Greek peninsula, but most of the area fell under Ottoman rule in the mid-15th century. Greece emerged as a modern nation state in 1830, following a war of independence.
 * It is focused on Greece, not on the pre Doric populations in Greece.
 * Here an example on France
 * Metropolitan France was settled during the Iron Age by Celtic tribes known as Gauls before Rome annexed the area in 51 BC, leading to a distinct Gallo-Roman culture. In the Early Middle Ages, the Germanic Franks formed the Kingdom of Francia, which became the heartland of the Carolingian Empire. The Treaty of Verdun of 843 partitioned the empire, with West Francia evolving into the Kingdom of France. In the High Middle Ages, France was a powerful but decentralized feudal kingdom, but from the mid-14th to the mid-15th centuries, France was plunged into a dynastic conflict with England known as the Hundred Years' War. In the 16th century, the French Renaissance saw culture flourish and a French colonial empire rise. Internally, France was dominated by the conflict with the House of Habsburg and the French Wars of Religion between Catholics and Huguenots. France was successful in the Thirty Years' War and further increased its influence during the reign of Louis XIV.
 * Many French see themselves as descended from the Gauls, note Nicolas Sarkozy's comment "Nos ancêtres les Gaulois"
 * Shall I continue? Not everything is due in the lead. The lead should focus on Israel and important historical periods and processes crucial for understanding the modern-day country. Do you not agree?
 * The lead is a summary of the article's body, but should not list every single item mentioned in the body, only the most relevant and significant details regarding the article's context. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD: Lede is a summary of the body. Mention of Canaanite civilization will be eventually put back, so please put forward the phrasing that is acceptable to you. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Different versions of the lead do mention Canaan or Canaanite kingdoms. Don’t want to put too much extra emphasis on them because there were then a whole bunch of regional powers. Also Makeandtoss used the word “please” which is polite, although sometimes his words do hit you like a bomb. He was pretty polite this time. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between mentioning that the region was called Canaan; and that a Canaanite civilization/states existed and then there were Jewish kingdoms. Your criteria to inclusion of information in the lede contradicts MOS:LEDE completely, which states that the lede is a summary of body; there are two paragraphs on Canaanite civilization; and two paragraphs on Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. I'm not even arguing for proportionate highlighting; but the bare minimum: a mention. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I hear you but I think there’s actually 1.5 paragraphs on the Canaanites not two. Also it seems around that time the area was actually controlled by Egypt: “large parts of Canaan formed vassal states paying tribute to the New Kingdom of Egypt. As a result of the Late Bronze Age collapse, Canaan fell into chaos, and Egyptian control over the region collapsed completely.”
 * Also welcome back Makeandtoss!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a history of the Jewish people in the territory Israel occupies. And much of the history you want included took place outside of Israel and in the Palestinian territories. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It did? I was under a different impression based on the current sentence “Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I think you’re wrong Nableezy, if you read the body paragraphs on the history it talks about each of the powers conquering the Israeli kingdom. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Wh15tL3D09N
 * Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. (Directly related)
 * In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. (ancient Jewish kingdoms of the Jewish people that later founded Israel)
 * Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. (Different powers that ruled the region)
 * During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. (What happened to the Jewish people that had Jewish kingdoms and later founded Israel)
 * The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire. (Different powers that ruled the region)
 * The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, a movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine. (Explanation regarding the movement that would come to found Israel)
 * Under the British Mandate placed by the League of Nations after World War I, Jewish immigration to the region increased considerably, leading to tensions between Jews and the Arab majority population. (Context before independence in region)
 * The UN-approved 1947 partition plan triggered a civil war between these two peoples. The British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, and Israel declared independence on the same day. (UN 1947 partition...)
 * Following this breakdown, it appears it's all the most relevant info to history of Israel.
 * (I personally think we should include a bit more info regarding the Jewish Roman wars or some of the Jewish uprisings that came later (in my opinion there is some info lacking there) but in all that's what it is). Homerethegreat (talk) 07:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * honestly I think no one average reader really care about different powers ruled the region thousands of years ago also it does not improve the lead instead it could be simply written “ruled by different powers” Qplb191 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the age different powers ruled the region. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule.”
 * isn’t much more understandable? Qplb191 (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. We’re not omitting 2,000 years of history. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed my previous view on that. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans are all mentioned in the body paragraphs, as well as the Canaanites. I see no harm in mentioning all of them by name once. I think previously I tried to shorten it was because some editors thought the ancient history was unnecessary or that it took up too many paragraphs, but it is important since it is in the body paragraphs and does cover thousands of  years as Makeandtoss says. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We could probably try to shorten the names for the region, Definitely we would want to keep Palestine and Land of Israel. (there is archaeological evidence for both of these). I feel maybe, we could drop Canaan from the list of regional names IF we decide to add mention of the Canaanite civilization. I think it is appropriate to have some form of the word Canaan appear once in the lead but not more. They do not appear to be a very much of a regional power if they paid vassals to an Egyptian Kingdom so again I don’t want to mention the, more than once. It’s so interesting there was an Egyptian kingdom! But it makes some sense if you go to the Wiki page for the Merneptah Stele, it says Canaan was part of Egypt’s possessions. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the mentioning of the land being known as Canaan is enough. I'm not certain we want to mention city states that existed prior to Jewish kingdoms that directly related to the topic. I for one would like the lead to be focused and follow the examples of articles such as Greece or France as mentioned above. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Homerethegreat "Canaan" is a name that was known as the name of the region in ancient times, in the Middle Ages and in modern times the most common name for the region is "Palestine" or "Syria-Palestina" and the Holy Land.
 * “Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. “ what do you think about that? Qplb191 (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * " Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. "
 * Is a bit inaccurate and I don't see why omit Assyrian rule (which destroyed the kingdom of Israel) and the region later came under Crusader rule (Which is a big famous story) and the Ottomans as well. I would not mention brief Sassanian rule... Homerethegreat (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I Agree my bad I believe that one is better what do you think? @Homerethegreat
 * The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire Qplb191 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire.
 * It's not too different from the current one :). Overall I agree on the formatting. The Achaemenids were the ones who allowed the Jews to return to Israel from exile. In truth I think the current section is very optimal in describing 3000 years of history :).
 * Can you explain what you think needs changing? I just want to better understand your request. Sorry if I'm a bit unclear. I appreciate your effort to improve of course :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Homerethegreat Yes, of course, at first I thought that mentioning the different empires was a bit unnecessary, but in other hand it is true that it is a history of 3000 years and it is important, I have suggested below some minor changes that I think can make the lead more understandable and less complicated for the average reader, you are welcome to take a look:) Qplb191 (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@ Wh15tL3D09N what do you think about that?
 * “Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as, Palestine, and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea, and is referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the, Babylonians,, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine. The region later came under Byzantine and Arab rule. “
 * as I said I believe mentioning the different powers is unnecessary but if you insist we could mention the most important ones that influenced the most such as Babylonians, Romans and Greek. Qplb191 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Tagging @Makeandtoss because he may want to add a small mention of the Canaan civilization. Also @Andrevan because he may also want the Assyrians, etc. I am fine either way with caveats as I have stated above but it’s not my decision. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

, you have been reverting some edits to the lead recently. here, here, here, and here. Instead of just reversing, shouldn't you participate more in the discussion about this to help reach a consensus? Could you comment on whether the Canaanites should be mentioned in the text, for example. Mawer10 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding Security Threat Sentence to 3rd
Following @Mawer10 comment above. It seems very notable to add the following to the lead:

"While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, Israel has faced security threats including acts of terrorism and conflict with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah"

This is a notable inclusion due to its ability to summarize the multiple conflicts and wars Israel has had in recent decades as well as the advancement of peace efforts. Please infer your support for this phrase. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Just making it clear. I support this. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I likewise support adding it. It shows the multiple threats Israel faces. Dovidroth (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the security threat of Israel's own settler movement . Iskandar323 (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think maybe some editors are objecting to the words “security threat”? It was Palestinian militant groups that started launching rockets into Israel in September 2005 after the disengagement, but since Israel retaliated shortly afterward, I think analysts consider this to be continued conflict. Maybe something like the below sentence would convey a similar idea without mentioning “security threats”, adding that the conflict was ongoing. Of course, terrorism from either side of conflict is reprehensible.
 * “While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalized relations with several Arab countries, Israel has faced acts of terrorism and ongoing conflict with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah" Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was Palestinian militant groups that started launching rockets into Israel in September 2005 after the disengagement that isnt what happened. Why wouldnt we include Israel has been a threat to international peace and security through its occupation of the Palestinian territories and its violations of international law from bombing Iraq to forcing the displacement of a native population? Why is this framed as Israel is facing something as opposed to Israel has caused these actions through its decades long policies in the occupation? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * huh? I think Palestinian militant groups did fire the first rockets after Israel’s disengagement
 * List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel in 2002–2006 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wiki page says,
 * September 12, 2005
 * Several hours after Israel withdraws the last of its troops from the Gaza Strip two Qassam rockets are fired by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip. The first lands near the Israeli town of Sderot, while the second lands near Kibbutz Yad Mordechai.
 * Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Rockets started prior to the disengagement with the occupation of Gaza being the reason given for them. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your meaning. "Why is this framed as Israel is facing something as opposed to Israel has caused these actions through its decades long policies in the occupation?"
 * From what I understood from your statement you are suggesting Israel has brought about Hamas, Hezbollah other security threats which threaten Israel.
 * I imagine it's not your meaning since it seems a bit of conspiracy stuff. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well yes Israel has played a hand in the emergence of Hamas, but no I mean why would we not include that Israel has repeatedly attacked and invaded other countries and poses a threat to them, eg Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and has carried out assassinations on foreign territory. You keep trying to frame this as poor Israel alone in this world of enemies who threaten its very existence and the leads of other articles you try to skew the lead to monstrous enemies of humanity and all that is good in the world. By themselves either pov push would just be pov pushing, taken together its more blatantly tendentious than just pov pushing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As opposed to countries that don't face security threats, i.e. none? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything controversial about it. Israel does face more serious security threats than most other countries, as in multiple organisations committed to destroying it. It should be easy to find sources for that. The information in the lede should generally summarise the article, so we should first cover the threats in the body of the article. Alaexis¿question? 20:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think there is no arguing that Israel has faced more wars and security threats than usual for a country in the late 20th and early 21st century. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Drsmoo (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * this isnt a vote? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed minor changes in the lead
Hey, could you please vote for minor changes that some have requested. '' “ Qplb191 (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I tried this before, here. Perhaps discussing the pieces of text that are specifically being disputed at a time is the best strategy. Anyway, could you highlight what is different about this 'new' lead? Mawer10 (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mawer10It’s not really different only a bit shorter and in my eyes more understandable, it’s minor changes, I believe that can make the lead more understandable to the majority of people. I think also that most of the editors agreed that there is no need to mention the various empires that ruled the region thousands of years ago, many also commented on the population numbers and the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries. Qplb191 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mawer10 do you support proposed changes?
 * (Without Jewish immigration from Islamic countries and omitting some of the empires that ruled the region) Qplb191 (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. As I said before I don't like the first sentence, but I like the version that Triggerhippie4 inserted into the article recently although I think it would be better to remove the names Canaan and Holy Land. And I support the inclusion of the Canaanites in the text, which is being discussed above. And I also support another wording for the part of the text about Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. As for the numbers of expelled Palestinians, this needs to be discussed, there are other alternatives. Overall, I prefer this version: Mawer10 (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * i think most editors agreed it is problematic to mention the Jewish immigration from Islamic countries. Many editors claimed that it can not be mentioned while there were more important immigration didn’t mention(like the imagination from Soviet Union ) and also for the average reader it make the lead a not understandable. What do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The exodus of Jews from Islamic countries was a direct consequence of the establishment of Israel, so I think it should be mentioned. As for immigration after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I don't think it's that important. Mawer10 (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure about the wording “the Canaanite civilization emerged in the region and later, their successors established several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms”. I think it introduces ambiguity because it makes it sound like Israelites directly descended from the Canaanite civilization, which is not accurate according to Britannica: “The Israelites occupied and conquered Palestine, or Canaan, beginning in the late 2nd millennium BCE, or perhaps earlier”. https://www.britannica.com/place/Canaan-historical-region-Middle-East Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The biblical narrative about the origins of the Israelites is a fairy tale. Modern archeology indicates that the Israelites are descendants of the Canaanites. Mawer10 (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Got the quote from Britannica, not the Bible. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article about the Israelites says: "Modern archaeology suggests that the Israelites branched out from the Canaanites through the development of Yahwism, a distinct monolatristic—and later monotheistic—religion centred on the national god Yahweh." I know Wikipedia is not reliable, but take a look at the sources that provided this information. I'ts very interesting. Anyway, you don't need to believe that the Israelites are descendants of the Canaanites to understand that they are successors of the Canaanites. Mawer10 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s interesting. Yes, I have seen Wikipedia editors go around correcting other editors misrepresentation of sources, or correcting factua. I definitely appreciate those editors!l numerical misrepresentation  Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I am on an iPad. It completely messed up my response. Basically I appreciate editors who fact check. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mawer10 From a logical point of view, Jewish immigration from Islamic countries has nothing to do with the existence of the State of Israel or its establishment. There were previous immigrations that had a much greater impact on the establishment of the state and the Israeli-Arab conflict or on the State of Israel. It is completely unnecessary to mention Jewish immigration from Islamic countries, and many have mentioned it. Qplb191 (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The creation of Israel led to anti-Jewish sentiment in Muslim countries; about half of Israeli Jews are Jews from Muslim countries. Furthermore, this text specifying Muslim countries has been in the introduction for a long time. The "many" editors you refer to are not that many. Mawer10 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mawer10 If you look, you will see that the early immigrants from Eastern Europe would have had an impact on the conflict and on the shaping of the future of Israel, (most of the Prime Ministers of Israel come from these immigration ) In addition, this is also mentioned in the body of the article, in my opinion it is unnecessary Qplb191 (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mawer10what I meant to say it could be confusing to the average reader because non Jewish immigration is mentioned, only the this one . Qplb191 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How about: The first Arab Israeli War resulted in the expulsion and flights of Jews and Palestinians leading to a population exchange between the Muslim world and Israel.
 * Regarding the second sentence I think it's too much... Overall there is still no mention of Israel's transition from Socialism to Free Market. Or the reintroduction of Hebrew as a modern language which is incredibly important in Israel's society and culture. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed lead overhaul and edit warring
These sweeping changes to the lead, which are now being edit warred in over and over again without any attempt at discussion, clearly need consensus given the volume of alterations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You all should probably stop edit warring unless you want an admin to freeze the page for three days like on Gaza Strip. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In what world is attempting to tag team in a set of controversial changes in to the lead of this article an acceptable method of editing? In what world is "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories." an acceptable summary of the occupation of the Palestinian territories? Im tempted to take this to AE right now, but the next editor to attempt to edit-war in controversial disputed changes is going to be reported, I promise that. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if there was ever a consensus in the first place, but if there was, I think it has changed. There seems to be a critical amount of editors who agree with the new version. The new version gives a much better background such as the holocast, which is crucial to the establishment of Israel, as well as multiple aspects such as economics, demographics, security and technology. I see no reason for the recent revert by Trilltrollet. GidiD (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * By critical amount you mean three editors tag-teaming an entirely new lead that doesnt even use the word "occupied"? Yeah, no, that isnt how consensus works. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course the Holocaust is relevant and should be included in the lead. But we must also include the Palestinian exodus, which was essential for the creation of Israel as a Jewish state. And the occupation is probably the most notable aspect of recent Israeli history, so it needs to be included too. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 22:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The new lead is better overall. More comprehensive, yet shorter (which is long overdue). Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That is just an assertion. How is it better? It includes literally nothing about the occupation, it doesnt even say that Israeli occupied any territory, just that it "In the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured territories". It uses halting and short sentences to string together what would normally be a a single sentence for a chain of related thoughts. It uses POV language like "Israel has confronted severe security threats" (as opposed to causing severe security threats?), and is generally written from a decidedly pro-Israel perspective. It devotes more space to ancient history that has literally nothing to do with the modern state of Israel than it does with material that sources treat as foundational to the topic. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what you are referring to. Currently, the lead does not have the sentence "Israel has confronted severe security threats", it does mention " settlements across the occupied territories, actions which were rejected as illegal under international law," and it keeps the wording about the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian Arabs that you added. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Im talking about the lead that was being tag-teamed in, here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Triggerhippie4 was talking about the current new lead (the one that she worked on). The ancient history is important. In ancient history, the region was populated by Jews, they became a minority, and later the region came under Arab rule. If you delete that portion that Jews also lived in the region (many groups did, not just Jews), that would be 2023 "pro-Palestine" political POV pushing. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I meant the shorter version (I'm a he, btw). But mention of the occupation should be added there. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, I am so sorry Mr. Triggerhippie4! I am really not the most knowledgeable about the occupation history so will defer to the other editors on here about this. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And for the record, people insist on these long running RFCs for a single sentence change, but edit-warring in an entirely new lead is ok now? Huh. Maybe people should do that with the apartheid sentence? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Significant edits have been made to the lead since October 12th, on average 1.74 days have passed between one edit and another since then. I identified around 14 editors who made some edits with some level of relevance to the lead during this period. Here are the most disputed points that I identified in the text:


 * Israel's localization: "Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land."


 * . 'began entering' or 'invaded'? MOS:WEASEL?


 * Number of Jews absorbed by Israel after 1948; some suggest that the numbers should not focus on Arab countries particularly and others even suggest adding Jewish immigration from the Soviet Union in the 1990s.


 * Israel's violation of Palestinian human rights, which is already being discussed above.


 * Significant additions to the text since 12th October:


 * Israel's challenges in the first years: the integration of hundreds of thousands of holocaust survivors, Jewish refugees and immigrants into Israeli society and Israel transitioning from socialism to a free market economy.


 * Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005


 * Israel's security threats: Mawer10 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

please, stop hiding 'Land of Israel' from list of names in the next sentences. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As said above, there needs to be consensus for edits post the November 19 edit warring . As for the phrasing in the second paragraph, the name is not hidden, but simply stated to be of Jewish tradition. Duvasee (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are taking away 'Land of Israel' from the list of names to another sentence, making it read as if the area was historically known by other names, and 'Land of Israel' is just some less important second-rate tradition, which is misleading and biased. You have also a relevant wikilink. Please, revert. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is just a lot of history pertaining to the Jews: The Holocaust was important but is important enough to be on the Wiki page for Israel? The Jewish diaspora wikilink: is it important? The Jews themselves were expelled from the land of Palestine/Israel, not just once but I believe several times and became a diaspora all around the world. Then comes the Holocaust and then afterwards Britain tells them they can have a land of their own, then they come back to Palestine/Israel and there are now other groups there in their “ancestral homeland” here we are again today fighting over the land that has been fought over since ancient history. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Although technically, I think this particular area was Canaan and both modern day Israelites and Palestinians have Canaan DNA. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have discussed the "excess history" before but nothing came of it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Was this back in October? Some of it probably could be trimmed. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But it would have to be someone who is actually really knowledgeable about Jewish history to trim it. Not nableezy or selfstudier or me or Triggerhippie4 or Iskandar, it would have to be someone like Homerthegreat who actually knows the stuff to do the trimming Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region, so it does not make sense to group it with the common names in English over time. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I had to web search for this. Apparently the noun “Israel” occurs 2,507 times in the Torah and Jerusalem (Hebrew: ירושלים‎) appears in the Torah 669 times. There is also the Merneptah Stele.
 * Palestine also appears in some Egyptian hieroglyphs but I read this somewhere on Wiki and can’t remember where. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

or Both sentences are better than an arbitrary list with many names as if they all have the same value in historiography. Mawer10 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is some discussion that the section is too excessive. Another option would be to trim the extra names out entirely? Initially I would prefer someone who has knowledge of Jewish history to trim the ancient history section, but editing it down seems easy enough:
 * Israel is located in the Southern Levant. In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over the ages, the region was ruled by powers such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans. During Roman rule, Jews were dispersed and became a minority in Palestine. The region then came under Byzantine and Arab rule. In the Middle Ages, it was part of the Islamic Caliphates, the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I could cut the third sentence down even further to: Over the ages, the region was ruled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Achaemenids, Greeks, and Romans.  Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the name Palestine should be used when describing the geographic area where Israel is located because that name appears elsewhere in the lead anyway. Adding an alternative name to add "neutrality" is not so necessary, but if we add it, it would be better to just use the Jewish/Hebrew name like "". As for cutting the list of empires, I think it's a good idea.


 * 1) In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over time, the region was conquered by many regional powers such as the Mesopotamian, Persian, Hellenic empires. During Roman imperial rule, Jews became a minority in Palestine.


 * 2) In antiquity, it was home to several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms. Over time, the region was conquered by many regional powers before coming under Roman rule, during which Jews became a minority in Palestine. Mawer10 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, Mawer10! I actually tried to change list of empires to “regional powers” but got reverted yesterday. I think the ancient history section is also contentious among Wikipedians, and probably quite a few of them probably like the way it is currently. It would be helpful if Wikipedia had a polling option where you could suggest multiple choice options and then people could vote. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Wh15tL3D09N Made a new lead almost identical to the current one from points u guys made . What do u think?



Qplb191 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this captures the major points. I am fine with this version for the second/third paragraphs. I know there are important political and human rights issues going on right now, and Qplb191's version seems to summarize/capture the major points without overwhelming readers with details. I know the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is important, but this is a page about Israel, and the topic and history of Israel is not just limited to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel is the only majorly Jewish nation in the Middle East, and I have heard others say that it is "surrounded by its enemies." Paraphrased from the BBC, "It has been locked in conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours over ownership of land since its creation in 1948... Israel faces hostility from much of the Arab region... Some of the borders remain in dispute." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14628835 I can definitely understand its desire for self-preservation, and I also recognize that certain of its policies have infringed upon human rights and damaged the livelihood of its Palestinian neighbor. Courtesy pinging @Trilletrollet @Nableezy @GidiD @Triggerhippie4 @Mawer10 @Duvasee @Selfstudier @Homerethegreat @Dovidroth @Eladkarmel @M.Bitton for input on this shortened version specific to the second/third paragraph (input is welcome, but not mandatory).  Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians" relates to the ongoing RFC, needs to have ", including the crime of apartheid." added to the end of it.
 * No comment on the rest of it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. It’s chaotic in here, I think now we have even newer proposed paragraphs and it would probably be more efficient for people to just directly edit the article at this point. You may be right about the apartheid. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead reading: "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism..."
Is it necessary to describe what Zionism is in the lead? The link to Zionism page explains in the first sentence. I'm more for something along the lines of "Due to rising anti-Semitism in Europe, the late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism, during which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine."

Or keep it short and sweet, "The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in which the Jewish people began purchasing land in Palestine."

Thoughts? Michael0986 (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you're being too picky with this one. Personally, I would appreciate the brief explanation for the rise of Zionism, and would not want to click on the Zionism page to read more... :) Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Zionism isn't just the result of anti-Semitism... Homerethegreat (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the current version isn't too long . The explanation is probably helpful for the general reader. Your version omits the establishment of a homeland, which has been an integral part of most strands of the Zionist ideology. Alaexis¿question? 12:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed the concept of returning to the ansectral homeland of the Jewish People is a central tenant. The name Zionism actually derives from the name Zion, which is another name for Jerusalem or for the Land of Israel as a whole. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)