Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 21

Recent changes
These recent edits should be discussed.

1. Addition of text: "From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah." 

2. Addition of text: "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries. The local Arab population rejected the Zionist movement, primarily out of the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. The Zionist movement's effort to garner the support of an imperial power culminated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration"


 * Reverted

3. Significant change of text


 * From: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was never implemented but its announcement led directly to the 1948 Palestine war. During the war, Zionist militias depopulated hundreds of Palestinian villages, culminating in the expulsion or flight of the majority of pre-war Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population."


 * To: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arabs, triggered a civil war between these groups which would see the expulsion or fleeing of most Palestinians from Mandatory Palestine."

4. Removal of text: "Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This early Jewish immigration and settlement was accompanied by the development of colonial relations with the Palestinian population, which included exploitation of the relatively impoverished locals in addition to mutual dependence and racism. The Palestinian fear of displacement and dispossession would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah. "


 * Readded


 * Removed again

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The justification for revert [3] was about neutral framing. Someone will need to explain why they think the reverted text is more neutral.
 * The edit summary for change of text [4] was about "attributed sole blame for the 1948 Palestinian exodus to one entity,". But the text did not attribute sole blame to one entity, it explained that villages were depopulated (which is a fact) and that eventually 80% of the population fled or was expelled (which is also not contested). Nowhere does the text claim this is the only reason people left. DMH43 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The WP:ONUS to achieve consensus is on those who add content. My concern here is that quite sweeping statements about colonialism, exploitation and ethnic cleansing are added based on a single, even if quite respectable source. For starters, could you provide page numbers for all these claims? Alaexis¿question? 23:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes I can add page numbers, there are also plenty of sources which corroborate the claims which I can also source if needed. I realize onus is on me to explain the addition, but in this case the neutrality is being challenged, which I need someone to explain why it's not neutral in this case. DMH43 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if significant content should be removed based on only vague personal concerns. You even admit the source is "quite respectable". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * actually, page numbers for [3] and [4] arent needed since this is a summary of the body. I will provide page numbers for [5] DMH43 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I requested page numbers for the passage that starts out with the words "Land purchases" whose sole source is Benny Morris's book (#4 in the list above).
 * As to #3, the problem with the current version is that the acceptance of the partition by the Jews is never mentioned. This is a significant fact that all sources about the period cover.
 * Also, the current version of #3 mentions the depopulated Arab villages but does not mention the Jewish settlements depopulated as a result of the conflict (see Category:Jewish villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War). Alaexis¿question? 14:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It was myself who removed the Jewish acceptance part because, as you are well aware, having participated in the discussion at the partition plan article, what was there did not properly reflect the situation, not a simple acceptance, so best to leave the complexities of that to the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to omit it entirely though. This is not a reasonable standard; many agreements were accepted with one or both sides being unhappy and wanting more. That doesn't make the acceptance any less factual. It'd be like saying that Russia didn't really accept Budapest memorandum because many Russian officials kept saying that Crimea was Russian and eventually acted upon this view. It doesn't change the fact that the agreement was accepted.
 * I'm sure many sources could be found that mention the acceptance. I'd rather not waste everyone's time but if needed I'll look for them. Alaexis¿question? 20:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, there is a wikilink for the details of the partition plan including detailed explanations of why Arabs rejected and why Jews accepted, omitting those details here is just POV designed to push the Israeli narrative (that's all it is) of Arab rejectionism. Selfstudier (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The sources make it clear that the Zionists were happy with the plan and the Arabs weren't, as Morris puts it "The Zionists and their supporters rejoiced; the Arab delegations walked out of the plenum after declaring the resolution invalid" (1948, p. 63). He discusses the reasons for that on p. 65 and we can probably summarise them in the article. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * All the relevant Morris quotes are in the partition article, not just the one you like. Selfstudier (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Re mentioning Jewish settlements that were depopulated, that would be a serious BALASP violation.  nableezy  - 15:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm using the word 'depopulated' in a straightforward sense. Settlements like Kalya and Kfar Etzion were populated before the war and were not populated after, and as a result of it.
 * I don't see any BALASP issues if we made it clear that there were much fewer Jewish settlements that suffered this fate.
 * Just noticed another issue, btw. Not all Palestinian villages were depopulated by the "Zionist militias" (see the breakdown here), so this wording is simply inaccurate. Alaexis¿question? 20:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Check the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight, opening sentence "In 1948, more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs – about half of prewar Mandatory Palestine's Arab population – fled from their homes or were expelled by Zionist militias and, later, the Israeli army" - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Onus requires policy based reasons, not just saying no. What specifically is the dispute? The source is impeccable, the material doesn’t have any sources disputing it. What exactly is the cause for removal?  nableezy  - 06:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, could you bring light to this discussion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I see 4 lines in the OP. Of those, I don't see any objection to #1 or #2 in the above discussion unless I've missed something.
 * For #3, I don't really have an opinion on which one I think is better, because I see problems with both:
 * I agree "Zionist militias" is inaccurate; it was regular forces as well, the Haganah and IDF (and they were more responsible for expulsion/flight than the militias); I would go with "Israelis," "Israeli military," "Israeli forces," something like that
 * I wouldn't say the depopulation culminated in the expulsion/flight because the expulsion/flight was the depopulation; "depopulation" and "expulsion/flight" are kind of the same thing; I prefer "expulsion/flight" which I think is less euphemistic, clearer, and used as often or more often by the sources
 * Mentioning depopulation of Jewish villages in the lead would be a big WP:BALASP violation IMO. The sources do not give that anywhere near as much weight as the depopulation of Arab villages.
 * As to the accepted/rejected issue, two things:
 * It should mention "Palestinian" reaction to Resolution 181, not "Arabs"
 * Simply saying Israelis accepted and Palestinians rejected is over simplifying it. It's tough to explain succinctly but here is the line from Nakba:
 * For #4, is the only issue the page number? Land purchases and transfer is easily sourced, more can be added if needed (but I'm generally opposed to cites in leads as unnecessary clutter if the body is doing its job). Levivich (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of examples of expulsion and flight were in the first stage of the war, before there was an Israeli army or an Israel, making Zionist militias, including the Hagannah, more accurate. I wouldn’t be opposed to Zionist militias and later the Israeli army though.  nableezy  - 00:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or just "Zionist forces"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Although I still think "Israeli" is better, I'd be fine with "Zionist forces." Levivich (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree Nabs, I think the sources say more people were expelled after May 15 than before. Khalidi 2020 for example gives 400,000 after May and 300,000 before. Morris explicitly says expulsions increased as the war went on (as did their brutality). I think Pappe says the same thing but would have to double check. Also, I disagree with the characterization of the Haganah as a "militia," I think the sources describe it as "regular" or "paramilitary" forces, whereas the "militias" or "irregular" forces are Lehi, Irgun and such. I could be wrong about any of this, of course, but that's my impression. Levivich (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the last thing I remember reading about numbers:  nableezy  -  02:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good literature review on the point. Slater sums that up as (p. 81) 300-400k in 1st half out of 750. I would summarize that as "half" expelled in the first half. But there's still the question of "by whom." Slater in that quote says "the Israeli armed forces drove out many of the Palestinians," but doesn't specify between (what I call) militia groups like Lehi and Irgun, Haganah, and IDF. Morris treats Lehi/Irgun as one thing, and Haganah/IDF as another thing. You can pin all the post-May expulsions on IDF, i.e. half of all expulsions; do we say that the first half was by "militias"? I feel like that's not as accurate or faithful to the sources. If Haganah=IDF="regular troops," then most of the expulsions were by Israeli regular troops. If Haganah=Lehi=Irgun="militias", then half by militias and half by regular troops. But I feel like "Zionist" implies pre-Israeli, and "militias" implies "not the regular army," whereas the sources say that the regular army was responsible for half or most of the expulsions. Levivich (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it there's also the issue that it wasn't just military or militia forces that expelled Palestinians, the sources say that Zionist/Israeli civilians shared some responsibility, either (depending on the source/specific expulsion) directing it, being complicit in it, approving of it after the fact, etc. I'm still fine with the "Zionist forces" suggestion above (and there are other variations I'd be fine with too) but I still think "Israelis" is the best label for the lead of a high-level article like this. "Israelis" and "Palestinians" (and "Arab states"). Levivich (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Zionist, and later Israeli, forces? I don’t think we should be calling things Israeli before there was an Israel, the Hagannah was the closest thing to the regular army of the Yishuv but that wasn’t Israel.  nableezy  - 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm good with that, I've definitely read the construction "Zionist, and later Israeli," many times in various sources. I still don't like it tbh, it suggests on May 15th the Zionists left and the Israelis showed up, when in fact it was the same people on May 14 as on May 16, it's just a name change. In my mind it's different when you're talking about earlier periods of time, but -- again, my opinion here -- Israel became a "thing" when the UN voted, even if its independence was declared months later, and it's simpler to just talk about the entire generation of Zionists that fought in the War of Independence as "Israelis," and prior generations as "Zionists." But end rant, "Zionist, and later Israeli" works. Levivich (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the addition "but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN" satisfies NPOV. Out of the sources that you have provided, Morris (2008) and Pappe (2012) say that they planned to expand Israel's border if it was attacked by the Arabs (Morris:, Pappe: ). The proposed text omits this. Alaexis¿question? 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, read Morris at the partition article "p.101 ... mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders" There is no simple method, other than cherrypicking, for avoiding the wikilink (and IDHT of course). Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "if the Arabs initiate war" is what Morris said Shertok said, not what Morris is saying: "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, “we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold.”" And in that cite is Sa'di quoting Morris saying that Zionists only accepted it as a "stepping stone." I don't agree with your reading, "this could be achieved in the event of an overall war" doesn't mean "we will only do this if there is a war." Also, both Morris and Pappe say that everyone knew there would be a war. And even if you put Morris and Pappe aside altogether, there are still the other cites there. Cohen 2017 (quoted in that cite) is the only example I know of that says explicitly that Zionist acceptance of partition was genuine, and I think he acknowledges his as the minority view. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there are two issues here.
 * Was the Zionist acceptance genuine? Here we need to consult more sources, I will try to do it.
 * Is the genuine-ness of the acceptance relevant for this article? Plenty of agreements made one or both sides unhappy and seeking to undo the perceived unfairness. We don't usually mention this when discussing other agreements, so why do it here?
 * In the meantime, let's use your proposed wording. Alaexis¿question? 09:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the reason to mention it is, like anything else, because the sources mention it. Like a core conflict in the historiography is the one between New Historians Pappe and Morris, with Pappe saying, essentially, ethnic cleansing was always part of the plan, and Morris saying no, it was "fog of war" (and, later "should have finished it"). That debate is well covered in the sources, and I think is the evidence that the motivations of the parties is relevant to the conflict (and of course it would be). So if the Zionists accepted the partition but planned to take more than what was allocated to them, I think that's very relevant to this article. Just as relevant as the fact that they actually took more than what was allocated (and the how and why). Levivich (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On the importance of the genuineness of the acceptance, Masalha 2012 p. 150, my emphasis: "Central to this revisionist historiography are debates on the 1948 Palestinian refugee exodus (expulsion versus flight), the impact of the British Mandate on Palestinian Arab and Jewish societies, the regional balance of power in 1948, the questionable nature of Zionist acceptance of the 1947 UN Partition Plan, and the revelations about early secret peace negotiations between Israeli and Arab leaders." Levivich (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

#4. Land purchases and everything else
, thanks for your comments. Let's keep the discussion of #3 in the thread above and here I'll answer your question about #4. Land purchases themselves are indeed easily sources and aren't contentious. My concerns are about the characterisation of these events as "colonialism" and "exploitation", as well as about the ethnic cleansing plans. In addition to page numbers in Morris's book, it would be good to check that other sources also describe it this way and consider it notable. Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree about splitting the two; thanks, and also thanks for explaining the concerns about #4. I am reproducing the text of #4 to save everyone some scrolling:
 * "Colonialism": It's actually not "colonialism," it's "colonial relations." I'm not really in love with that phrase, as it sounds like a euphemism for something. I've seen it used in sources on this subject but I don't think it's a widespread term of art, and even if it was, strikes me as WP:JARGON. In terms of what this article should say in the lead or body about Zionism and colonialism, I'm not sure. I posted some sources about settler colonialism at the bottom of Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 2. I'm not sure what the sources say about non-settler colonialism. I feel like that's a bigger discussion that would require gathering and looking at more sources than what I posted in that other thread. I'd be fine with taking out "colonial relations" but would support including "colonial" something, just not sure what without ever having done a source review on that subject. There are of course plenty of sources like Colonizing Palestine (Stanford) so I'm sure it's a significant WP:ASPECT and leadworthy, I'm just not sure exactly what to say in wikivoice about it.
 * "Exploitation": This is another that's like easy to source but also requires a more in-depth source review. For one thing, I know the sources also say that Zionists froze out Palestinian labor, e.g. Patrick Wolfe's 2006 paper "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native" (7,000 Google Scholar cites, the paper that launched the field) talked about the Zionist "conquest of labour," which Wolfe expanded on elsewhere (e.g. Wolfe 2012). Ilan Pappe also talks about Zionists pushing Palestinians out of the labor market (e.g. Pappe 2017 p. 48). Those are two I remember off the top of my head, I'm not sure exactly what is a balanced summary of the sources vis-a-vis Zionists and Palestinian labor; it requires looking at more sources than just Wolfe and Pappe.
 * "Euphemism for ethnic cleansing": This I think is easily and widely sourced. Some examples:
 * The Wolfe 2012 paper linked above, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
 * Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
 * In the Slater 2020 book Nableezy quoted in the previous section above, p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
 * Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
 * Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"
 * So basically I think all three are significant enough WP:ASPECTs to be included in the body and the lead. Levivich (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will review the sources. Just to clarify, I see that they don't include Morris's Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict which was the source added with this passage. Does it mean that this information isn't found there, or are you simply providing additional sources? Alaexis¿question? 09:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It just means I haven't looked at it because I've never really read any works from the 90s. I've read Morris 2004 and 2008 but nothing older (because I think 20th century is too old to represent current scholarship). Levivich (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! Alaexis¿question? 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On Zionism, colonialism, 'transfer' and labor, saw this at Masalha 2012 p. 59: "The Yishuv’s leadership was fully aware of the South African model of colonisation with its exploitation of cheap indigenous black labour by the European white settlers. Evidently its determination not to replicate the South African model, and its policy of employing exclusively Jewish ‘labour’ and excluding the indigenous inhabitants from the Jewish economy and land purchased by the Jewish National Fund, were linked in the minds of David Ben-Gurion and other Mapai leaders with the concept of ‘transfer’ as a key component of Zionist ideology and strategy (Masalha 1992: 22–3). Therefore it is precisely these distinct features of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine, the ‘exclusive’ nature of the European Yishuv and creation of a pure Zionist colony, which led to the destruction of Palestine and the Nakba; as we will see below, Zionist ‘ethnic cleansing’ and the premisses of ‘maximum land and minimum Arab’, and Arab ‘transfer’, led to the massive Zionist ‘territorial expansion’ in and conquest of Palestine (from 6.6 per cent in 1947 to 78 per cent by early 1949)." Levivich (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Since there are newer sources that you're using, I suppose that it's better to consider these topics on their own, rather than discussing the text from the change #4.
 * Regarding the refusal to employ Arabs practiced by some Jewish settlers for certain periods, the facts themselves are not in dispute. If there are sources that clearly link it to the conflict, they should be mentioned. Masalha treats it more as a symptom of the attitude rather than a cause of the conflict, so I'm not sure if it counts. I also think that it's a bit weird to call it exploitation, that is, taking unfair advantage of someone. The sources you've provided do not use this word, but even if some of them do, I think we should stick to the facts.
 * As to the transfer, Pappe's words are about the 21st century and so cannot support any claim about the Zionist movement in general "from early on." The quote from Shlaim comes from his discussion of Masalha, which he describes as an alternative view to that of Benny Morris. So per NPOV we shouldn't say it in wikivoice but rather attribute it, assuming it's not a fringe view.
 * The word colonization is already mentioned in the article.
 * Possibly it's worth opening a separate thread for each topic. Alaexis¿question? 22:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation DMH223344 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * (It may be worth having separate threads to collect sources on each of these points.) Masalha 2018 p. 317: "Ahad Ha’Am (Asher Zvi Ginzberg), a liberal Russian Jewish thinker who visited Palestine in 1891, published a series of articles in the Hebrew periodical Hamelitz that were sharply critical of the ethnocentricity of political Zionism as well as the exploitation of Palestinian peasantry by Zionist settler-colonists", and p. 345 "In the 1920s the Zionist Labour leadership also began to develop a boycott strategy in Palestine. Thus, in 1929, Ben-Gurion wrote of the need for an ‘Iron Wall of [Zionist] workers’ settlements surrounding every Hebrew city and town, land and human bridge that would link isolated points’ and which would be capable of enforcing the doctrine of exclusive ‘Hebrew labour’ (‘avoda‘ivrit) and ‘Hebrew soil’ (adama ‘ivrit) (Masalha 1992: 24‒25)." So I think he covers both exploitation and exclusion. (Is 1929 "early on"?) Levivich (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. We can't say in wikivoice that there was exploitation of Palestinians based on Ahad Ha'Am's 1891 article. If we're discussing the first sub-section of the Background section, then the events of 1929 (which are related to the violence of that year) are out of scope.
 * The exclusion itself is notable, I just think that it should be tied to the topic of this article: how it caused or was caused by the conflict. Alaexis¿question? 21:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For "early on":
 * From Pappe (ethnic cleansing):
 * That should probably be enough to show that there is consensus on "early on". So I think the only point left to agree on is the use of "exploitation". I'd suggest to have a more detailed discussion than the brief comment in the original edit. So for now I would propose the following addition:
 * Land purchases, the eviction of tenant Arab peasants and armed confrontation with Jewish para-military units would all contribute to the Palestinian population’s growing fear of territorial displacement and dispossession. This fear would gradually be replaced by a broader sense of Palestinian national expression which included the rejection of the Zionist goal of turning the mostly Arab populated land into a Jewish homeland. From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population out of the land for the purpose of establishing a Jewish demographic majority. The idea of transfer, Benny Morris describes, was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism". The Arab population felt this threat as early as the 1880s with the arrival of the first aliyah.
 * This could be followed by a description of the relationship with labor and the local population during the pre balfour period. DMH223344 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @DMH223344, sorry for the delayed response. I've found the pages where Morris discusses the history of the idea of the "transfer" (139-144). I still couldn't find these exact words ("inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism"), so I would suggest to use Morris's wording from page 139 . We could write as follows I think this is a fair summary: the transfer was indeed discussed by many of the founding fathers of Zionism but others, according to Morris, believed in coexistence until the late 1920s. Pappe also calls it an option in the quote by u:Levivich above.
 * As to the rest of your proposed text, it looks alright. Naturally, we need to make sure that each sentence is supported by sources. Alaexis¿question? 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * For "inevitable and inbuilt" see "Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge: 2004)." page 60 DMH223344 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the conclusion starting at p. 588 ("But the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise.") until 600. Levivich (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This change has now been made. DMH223344 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This change has now been made. DMH223344 (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a very unaccurate segmant
46.116.204.115 (talk) 07:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC) This very very very unaccrate segmant the conflict start way before 1948 read a little
 * 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. — Czello (music) 08:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This being discussed above in "Scope of article / Beginning of conlict". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to add “ethno-nationalist” into first sentence
Mirroring the lede of The Troubles. I would just do this, per WP:BEBOLD, but the fact it’s not there already makes me wonder if this would be contested. The claim can, of course, be extensively sourced. Yr Enw (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * If there’s no objections, I’m just going to do this Yr Enw (talk) 07:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd object without more work being done because WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so before "ethno-nationalist" can be in the lead, it should be in the body (with sources of course). And before we add it to the first sentence of the lead, I'd want to see that the vast majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as an "ethnonationalist" one (and not about colonialism or religion, for example). I'm not sure it's as simple as The Troubles, where we can just say "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ethnonationalist conflict". From what I've read, people agree that this is part of the conflict but not all of it, but maybe my impression is incorrect. Basically, if you took three leading modern day history books about the conflict (say, one by a Palestinian, one by an Israeli, and one by neither), and all three described the conflict as an ethnonationalist conflict right away in the introduction, then I'd be convinced we should do the same. But my guess is you won't find three books like that (though I could be wrong as I've never checked). I think it might be due for the lead, but only after the body is developed on the point, and I'm not sure about the first sentence. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting points to mull over, I’ll do some thinking and try to engage.
 * On the Troubles comparison, however, it may be worth saying I don’t think the majority of scholarship defines the entire conflict as ethno-nationalist, there was definitely also the element of colonialism too. Yr Enw (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's something to be said about ethnonationalism in the article, I'm just not sure exactly what. Thanks for taking this on! Levivich (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Yr Enw: I just stumbled upon Nadim Rouhana's 1998 paper with 547 Google Scholar cites called "Psychological dynamics of intractable ethnonational conflicts: The Israeli–Palestinian case" so there's one example on point :-) Levivich (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A perusal of the sources has led me to a couple of findings. Firstly, not many papers I can find explicitly try to "define" the conflict, as such. Nobody has (yet) done a paper synthesising and assessing particular frames (as has been done for the NI conflict). And secondly, the term "national conflict" or "nationalist conflict" or identifying "nationalism" as the key theme of the conflict are much more abundant than "ethno-nationalist" specifically.
 * But some important findings, which will build into what I propose:
 * (a)
 * (b)
 * (c)
 * (d)
 * So, my thinking is we definitely need to say something about nationalism, probably just reflecting one of these above views. The article, at present, just sort of launches into the areas of contention without framing the conflict. But I am a bit unsure how to do this at present. Are we overreaching if we say "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing nationalist political and civil conflict in the Levant. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" ? That it is political and civil is obvious (and therefore superfluous), in my view. But I do also agree with the need to also incorporate this into the body as well, so I'll have a think about that. Yr Enw (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * An alternative might be "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts" Yr Enw (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Levivichdo you think there’s something useful in this we could say? Yr Enw (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but unfortunately I'm not sure exactly what :-) I agree with your comments about political and civil being obvious and covering nationalism in the body and lead. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes it would be useful to get other editors input as well on my proposed wording:
 * "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing political and civil conflict in the Levant over national self-determination in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Beginning in the mid-20th century, it is one of the world's longest-continuing conflicts". It keeps the civil and political wording, though Yr Enw (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This FP piece argues that it is increasingly a religious conflict in addition to nationalist. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though I'm a bit hesitant about that framing, personally. I know that academic scholarship tends to shy away from "religion" as an explainer. Dov Waxman is one name that comes to mind. Yr Enw (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'd have no objection to the bolded part as an addition to the lead sentence. A minor tweak, I don't think we need the language "in the territory of"; "in former Mandatory Palestine" says the same thing just as clearly (IMO) with fewer words. The rest of this comment is about the rest of the lead sentence, but if you wanted to add the bolded part to the lead sentence, that'd be fine with me, my other objections notwithstanding.
 * As for the rest of the lead sentence, I don't think we need to keep "in the Levant" if we add "in the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine". As mentioned above, I don't like "political and civil" for a number of reasons: it omits other aspects, like "religious" as Self points out above, but it's also a violent conflict, an "actual shooting war" as they say, not just a political, civil, and religious conflict. It's also a colonial conflict, an imperial one, at least according to a large if not majority group of scholars. So maybe it's better to just say But "political and civil" is a separate discussion probably from the bolded addition, which is what you're asking about.
 * While I'm on the subject though, I think it'd be even better to go with something like,, because saying that the I-P conflict is a conflict is redundant, as is saying that it's a conflict between I and P, so let's just get on with it in the lead sentence.
 * However, doing this gets us to another part of the lead where I have a big objection, which is what's after the "began ...". Saying (as the lead does now) that the conflict began in the mid 20th century as opposed to earlier (early 20th or late 19th c.), is, in my view, not an accurate summary of the scholarship. I'm in favor of something intentionally-vague like "around the turn of the 20th century". So to put it all together with some tweak for readability, my preferred lead sentence, including the bolded addition above, would be something like this:
 * Levivich (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with pretty much all of those points. I'll mull over that wording. My slight worry about my own proposed "self-determination" -- is it WP:OR to go from "nationalist" to "national self-determination" or are the sources clear enough that that's what we're talking about? Yr Enw (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My take is that both sides want a nation for themselves (a fact widely supported by top RS, and probably the central issue in the conflict), and this is accurately described with the words "national self-determination". Levivich (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So, it seems there are two broad aspects of a proposed change: On the first point, I am happy with the way you've formulated it. I think saying "over/about national self-determination" is perhaps better than saying "nationalist conflict" because, like you and Self have pointed, we don't necessarily want to exclude other framings. I share your opinion that the word "conflict" is redundant, although - interestingly - this is how the Kashmir conflict article is worded. But am I correct in thinking the second aspect was recently (or perhaps still is?) debated at length here? I'm not sure whether the current second paragraph "has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement" is a result of that? While I agree with your points, I wonder if maybe the solution is to eliminate any exact date in the first sentence, and just have the second paragraph the way it is? Which would leave us with:
 * The mentioning of national self-determination
 * The historical timeframe

I'm not hugely keen on the word "over", but I can't think of a better word. Yr Enw (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree it's redundant to mention when it started twice (I hadn't looked below the infobox lol), your tweaks look good to me. I can't think of anything better than "over" either. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Add mention of who performed the expulsions in lead
Right now the lead reads: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1948 Palestine war, which saw the expulsion and flight of most Palestinian Arabs, the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively."

Propose to update this to: "The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine triggered the 1947-1949 Palestine war, which saw the establishment of Israel on most of the Mandate's territory beyond what had been allotted to it in the UN partition plan, and the control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan, respectively. During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of expulsions carried out by Zionist militias and para-military." DMH223344 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * From Finkelstein 1995: Indeed, according to the former director of the Israel army archives, ‘in almost every Arab village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’. The number of large-scale massacres (more than 50 murdered) is put by the archivist at a minimum of 20 and small-scale massacres (an individual or a handful murdered) at about 100. Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs’
 * From Shlaim (iron wall): Although the wording of Plan D was vague, its objective was to clear the interior of the country of hostile and potentially hostile Arab elements, and in this sense it provided a warrant for expelling civilians. By implementing Plan D in April and May, the Haganah thus directly and decisively contributed to the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem.
 * Finkelstein 1995 quoting Morris: The attacks themselves were "the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages... This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack."
 * Masalha 2012: In 1948 more than half of the Palestinians were driven from their towns and villages, mainly by a deliberate Israeli policy of ‘transfer’ and ethnic cleansing.
 * Also Shlaim (iron wall): There were many reasons for the Palestinian exodus, including the early departure of the Palestinian leaders when the going got tough, but the most important reason was Jewish military pressure.
 * Ben-Ami (2005) describes "hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were evicted from their villages" DMH223344 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's good except I'm not sure about the "by Zionist militias and para-military" part, as "the other half" of the expulsions (post-May 15) were carried out by the IDF, including, among others, Lydda and Ramle and Operation Hiram. I'm not even sure about saying "military" because Israeli civilian leaders also approved if not orchestrated the expulsions. "By Israel" encompasses all of it: militia, para-military, regular military, civilian leaders, ordinary Israeli Jews, etc. But I think saying the expulsions of Palestinians was committed "by Israel" is maybe redundant in the lead of the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict." I think readers will assume "Palestinians were expelled" means "Palestinians were expelled by Israelis." Levivich (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good points. What about:
 * "... by Zionist militias, para-military and the IDF"
 * I was also considering:
 * "... initially by Zionist militias and para-military, and later by the IDF"
 * I'm not too concerned with including civilians and civilian leaders, since I'm guessing those weren't really a primary source of expulsions? DMH223344 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it crucial? If a reader wants all the gory details they can just follow the wikilink. Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Ben-Gurion was a primary source of expulsions (and Plan D), and I would count him as a "civilian" leader and not military, as his primary role even when giving orders to Haganah was as head of the Jewish Agency. The idea to convey is that the para-military/regular military weren't doing this "on their own" but in response to orders from political office holders like Ben-Gurion. (Or, at least, so say some scholars, the "it was planned all along" school... Morris says the opposite, it was "fog of war".) Levivich (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "During this period, most Palestinians in the area of the Mandate would be driven from their towns and villages, primarily as a result of forceful expulsions." ? DMH223344 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Change of scope/timeline
The article's scope/timeline was changed per this dicsussion.

The beginning of the conflict was changed from being "May 14 1948" to "Late 19th/early 20th century".

The implementation of this change should be reviewed to make sure that all relevant details were changed accordingly. Other articles have also likely been affected, such as the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example, and should change to accord to this new timeline. The Arab-Israeli conflict should remain the same as it began with the start of the First Arab-Israeli war on May 15 1948.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of article / Beginning of conlict
Can this conflict really be said to have begun on May 14th 1948?, making the first half of the Palestine War only background?

It seems like saying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began only with the declaration of the State of Israel is a too literal interpretation of the word "Israeli" in the title, and is quite arbitrary.

Either there should be a broader article about the "Arab-Jewish Palestine conflict" (or just the "Palestine conflict") or this article's scope/beginning should be expanded to include the entire history of the conflict. I support the latter option, especially considering the fact that this article already covers all the history pretty thoroughly - much of the information will just have to be moved from "background" to "history" and the infobox date changed. I also doubt there are many reliable sources about the conflict which take May 14th, 1948 as the beginning of the conflict.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree, the infobox date, "mid-20th" in the lead, etc., should be changed to match the "late 19th/early 20th" stated elsewhere in the lead and the body, which I think is supported by, e.g., these sources:
 * Benny Morris 2001, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998 (1,554 Google Scholar cites)
 * Mark Tessler 2009, A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (1,029)
 * Ilan Pappé 2022, A History of Modern Palestine (1,017)
 * Rosemary Sayigh 2007, The Palestinians: From Peasants to Revolutionaries (863)
 * James L. Gelvin 2014, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War (488)
 * Norman Finkelstein 2003, Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict (467)
 * Nur Masalha 2012, The Palestine Nakba: Decolonising History, Narrating the Subaltern, Reclaiming Memory (437)
 * Rashid Khalidi 2020, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 (252)
 * My take-away is 1881-1917 is the range, so "late 19th/early 20th". Levivich (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Starting point for the IP conflict is 1948, or 1921. However, as pointed out, this doesn't negate that there is a background to this conflict since 1881, as demonstrated in RS. So this should be all-encompassing. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that?, and what is the significance of 1921? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to implement this change, but obviously not without consensus. Do you feel strongly about your opposition, @Makeandtoss? Levivich provided multiple RSs to support my proposal so it seems within reason to consider making that change. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Levivich on this although obviously there was no "Israeli" component until 1948. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I'd like to implement this change, but will again ask @Makeandtoss: Could you discuss this further so we can reach a more complete consensus? I don't understand the basis of your objection nor how strongly you feel about your objection. Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Should we consider renaming the article? Morris uses "Zionist-Arab conflict" for example which is more accurate. "Jewish-Arab Palestine conflict" or something like that could also work. That being said, if RS refer to it as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict even though technically "there was no "Israeli" component until 1948", we have to follow RS - Verifiability, not truth. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The majority time wise is now IP, whereas the former period is more by way of lead-in/context. We have Arab Israeli conflict similarly. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean here. Are you in favour of changing the scope/timeline or leaving it as is? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, I agree with Levivich on the timeline, and yes the current RS go with IP, like or not. Selfstudier (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Think it would be appropriate to implement this change? I hesitate since it's rather drastic. But there's a decent consensus here and based on RS. The only dissenting voice hasn't participated or given reasons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously in favor. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Implemented ✅ - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before saying IP conflict in the period before 1948 is weird. So the obvious solution is to keep the scope 1948-now; but with the consideration that everything before 1948 until something around 1880s as background. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Reworking of lead
Recent changes have been made to the lead which should be reviewed.

@Yr Enw, I think we can improve the wording of "surrounding national self-determination" in the opening sentence.

Also, I think a lot of the lead can be improved and better organized - something I plan on working on. Any and all input and feedback is welcome.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. There is a discussion above. I’ll have a think. I’m not particularly keen on the word “surrounding”, but I couldn’t think of a better alternative presently. Yr Enw (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I should also say, as I expressed in the above discussion, we absolutely need to mention National self determination in the first sentence because the reverted sentence does not explain anything and repeats the words “conflict” redundantly. Yr Enw (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I changed that sentence a bit. Did you intend something specific by "national self-determination"? Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean? Yr Enw (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * National self determination is a thing, usually. Did you intend it or did you mean as in "nationalist"? Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Either is okay, to me. Nationalism is the advocacy of national self-determination (no?), I guess the latter wording is a bit broader. but I went with national self-determination because that seemed to align with the sources cited. Yr Enw (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are different interpretations of self determination, take a look at https://www.jstor.org/stable/24675372. I would leave the national bit out unless it is explained clearly in the body. Nothing is lost by leaving it at just self determination, since nowadays everybody kind of gets that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For now, I agree. And thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Although I do think we need to say something about nationalism/national self-determination, and I'd certainly welcome input from other editors on it, because that is - certainly for a lot of scholars (for eg Gelvin and Waxman) - the kernel of the conflict. Of course religion, territorialism, etc. still have their place within that. Yr Enw (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't have much problem with the changes as you've made them. Although I think "political and civil conflict" is a bit redundant, but I'm not that bothered as long as the essential information (ie. what the conflict is actually about - national self-determination) is there. So we'll just have to see if we get any reverts disagreeing. Yr Enw (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

What about something like this for the lead?: "The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, is an ongoing military and political conflict regarding competing claims over the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine." (Claims can also be qualified as "national claims" or the like) Also, whether or not we should speak of "the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine" or "the region of Palesine" may be discussed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What are the "competing claims"? Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do think we need to qualify it with "national(ist)", or else it still sounds a bit ambiguous to me. Just re the last bit, I'd favour "Mandate of Palestine" over "region of Palestine" because the latter is a bit more vague, and although territorial ambitions of some nationalists in the area certainly exceed the boundaries of the Mandate, for the most part this has been the recognised extent of any state boundaries (Israeli or Palestinian) proposed in peace processes. Yr Enw (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning "immigrants and settlers" in the lead instead of just "settlers"?
The lead mentions "The conflict has its origins in the arrival of Jewish immigrants and settlers to Palestine in the late 19th and 20th centuries and the advent of the Zionist movement."

I propose we remove "immigrants" since it doesn't add anything here as far as I can tell. The bulk of jewish immigration during this period was part of the settlement associated with the zionist movement, not individual jewish immigrants void of zionist ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. As @Makeandtoss made the same point in "Zionist settlers" above. Also because we should also be striving for brevity in the lead of this massively complex article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It just mentions immigrants rather than just settlers now, was it changed? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It just says settlers. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I meant says Jewish settlers rather than Zionist? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 March 2024
I want to change add some important facts regarding the article. Facts like the latest number of casualties and loss and exact data updates 89.149.119.115 (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:EDITXY for guidance on how to request changes to the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of "total blockade"
@Pdhadam please explain why you've replaced the quote "total blockade" for "tightened its blockade", which is now unnecessarily vague. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214201280&oldid=1213874446 DMH223344 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is to correspond with how it's described in the lead of the Israel–Hamas war article: "In response, Israel declared a state of war, tightened its blockade and launched one of the most severe bombing campaigns in modern history, before commencing the ground invasion on 27 October with the stated objective of destroying Hamas." Pdhadam (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There have been developments in the status of the blockade, so "tightening" does seem reasonable in the context of that lead. Here though we are talking about actions taken on oct 9. DMH223344 (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The concerned section in this article covers the Gaza blockade as a whole, which has not been ceased or loosen in anyway since its implementation, so "tighten" is appropriate. Using "announce a total blockade" could imply that the previous blockade had been ended at some point. Pdhadam (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe the phrasing: "On 9 October 2023, Israel declared war on Hamas and imposed a "total blockade" of the Gaza Strip. This measure was a tightening of the already existing blockade that had been in place since 2007." DMH223344 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
Add hyperlink on first use of word "aliyah" to aliyah Wikipedia article Unrefined Gasoline (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: A wikilink to aliyah already exists in the article. Shadow311 (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

casualties section
i propose to add casualties of the period between 1949 and 1956, which is the start of Palestinian fedayeen movement, 2700-5000 Palestinian were killed and 400-967 Israelis were killed. 212.34.22.8 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Need a reliable source for the casualty numbers. Levivich (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What is Ottoman Palestine?
The term 'Ottoman Palestine' is not widely recognized and was not an official administrative region within the Ottoman Empire. It might be more accurate to refer to this area as 'Ottoman Syria' or 'the territory corresponding to modern-day Palestine.' The term 'Ottoman Palestine' seems to be an invention of pro-Palestinian supporters, aimed at asserting a longstanding Palestinian identity. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. Just a quick preface to say that I don’t think editors with less than 500 edits (and accounts younger than 30 days) can make posts on Talk pages relating to Israel-Palestine, except in specific edit request formats. So, while I am not going to do it, don’t be surprised if someone just deletes this without explanation. You may have to repost it using the edit request template.
 * 2. You’re right that Ottoman Palestine didn’t constitute a specific administrative unit, but I think “Ottoman Syria” would confuse lay readers unnecessarily, as they may not know about Syria as a region, and instead think the reference is mistakenly about the current Syrian state. The term “Palestine” was in use in the late Ottoman period, regardless of whether or not it corresponded to an administrative name used by the Ottoman government. Personally, “Hamidian Palestine” is one I would favour, as it’s more time focussed and used by a lot of scholarly historians working on the period. Yr Enw (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Plan to expand Israel's borders in 1947
The claim that 'Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN' is not supported by the provided source. The source indicates that mainstream Zionist leaders considered expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders, but this was contingent on Arab actions. As Shertok conveyed in September 1947, if the Arabs initiated war, 'we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we think we can hold.' Thus, the conditional nature of this expansion should be noted in the text. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You'll have to address why you think the quote from Morris does not support the claim. DMH223344 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. Please read the second, third, and fourth sentence of my request. Thank you. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is the quote "Second, the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders. As Shertok told one interlocutor already in September 1947, if the Arabs initiate war, "we will get hold of as much of Palestine as we would think we can hold." The critical condition "if the Arabs initiate war" is omitted in the article. I suggest an edit as follows: "Zionists accepted the partition but planned to expand Israel's borders beyond what was allocated to it by the UN in the event of Arab aggression." (bold text indicates the proposed change) Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But Morris does not state it as conditional. The sentence is: "the mainstream Zionist leaders, from the first, began to think of expanding the Jewish state beyond the 29 November partition resolution borders." DMH223344 (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you capable of reading more than 1 sentence? Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminder, you are a non EC editor and the ramifications of that have been clearly explained to you on your talk page, so zip the unhelpful commentary. Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Morris 2001 p. 138 says Weitzmann and Ben-Gurion "saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine." (Quoted in Sa'di 2007 p. 291.)
 * Morris 1998 is often quoted for this: "While the Yishuv's leadership formally accepted the 1947 Partition Resolution, large sections of Israeli [Yishuv] society — including the Ahdut Ha’avodah party, Herut, and Mapai leaders such as Ben-Gurion—were opposed to or extremely unhappy with partition and from early on viewed the war as an ideal opportunity to expand the new state's borders beyond the UN earmarked partition boundaries and at the expense of the Palestinians." (Quoted, e.g. in Masalha 2012 p. 58.)
 * These and more quotes are at Nakba ref 26. Levivich (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your first quote refers to the Peel Commission of 1936, which is also sometimes termed a partition plan. However, it is not the same as the UN partition plan of 1947. The second quote further supports my original edit suggestion by pointing out that the war was viewed as an ideal opportunity for expansion, emphasizing the war as a precondition for such expansion. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be more precise to say that they hoped to expand, and the war provided the opportunity. That's not accepting the partition, so your proposal is not correct. Zerotalk 12:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If they saw partition as a stepping stone to expansion since 1936 then that view definitely wasn't contingent on Arab aggression in 1948. Besides, everyone expected war since at least Feb 1947 (when the British announced they were leaving), and it was the Yishuv that pushed for partition in 1947, because it was a stepping stone. In 1947 (if not earlier), the Yishuv made a secret pact with Jordan to split all of Palestine (with no Palestinian state, UN be damned). And that's just one author (Morris), there are many others, many who go further than what Morris says. Patrick Wolfe famously wrote that 1948 was "Zionism's first opportunity" to take land by force. Don't bother arguing about whether the Zionists wanted land or not because it's too well documented that they did. The goal was "as much land as possible with as few Arabs as possible" since the early 20th century if not earlier. Even Morris writes that expansion and expulsion were explicit war aims. Israel took half the land allocated to the Palestinians by the UN plan, it didn't happen by accident. Levivich (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"transfer" as "ethnic cleansing"
@Zohariko1234 please explain the deletion of "(a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)" here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&curid=46216&diff=1214422981&oldid=1214201280

You mention "neutrality", but how is it neutral to omit an explanation of what "transfer" refers to? DMH223344 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Particularly when the sources explicitly state that "transfer" is a "euphemism for ethnic cleansing," see discussion above at (or just search this page for "euphemism"). Levivich (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Big surprise there. The main article population transfer treats the topic as a type of forced displacement. "Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (adopted in 1949 and now part of customary international law) prohibits mass movement of protected persons out of or into territory under belligerent military occupation:
 * "Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.... The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
 * Dimadick (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @DMH223344 Claiming "transfer" is an euphemism is personal interpretation; there's no scholarly consensus on whether the early Zionists intended "transfer" to mean ethnic cleansing or not. It's possible to prove or disprove that the IDF committed such a cleansing during the 1948 war, but the interpretation of the textual works by the Zionist leadership that preceded them is not something that can be done objectively, and the wide dissensus in the relevant scholarly literature reflects that. Zohariko1234 (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You'll have to provide the "relevant scholarly literature" which disagrees that 'transfer' was a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a strong claim, which you'll have to present strong support for. If transfer doesn't qualify as ethnic cleansing, then I wonder what you think it means.
 * Wolfe 2012, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
 * Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
 * Slater 2020 p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
 * Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."
 * Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"
 * From Shlaim (Iron Wall): "...“transfer” or forced deportation of Palestinians.": https://archive.org/details/ironwallisraelar00shla/page/486/mode/2up?q=deportation
 * DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * also page 408 of benny morris' book 1948, he refers to transfer as "what would later be called ethnic cleansing".
 * I think this collection is strong enough to revert your change. You'll have to demonstrate otherwise in order to delete the text again. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Combining these sources, the clear euphemistic POV usage that they identify and the precepts of MOS:EUPHEMISM, it seems clear that the bare minimum that should be done here is the flagging or noting of the euphemistic term. That may yet be insufficient per NPOV. Since we now have sources clearly identifying the Zionist terminology of "transfer" as being inseparable with ethnic cleansing, any claim to the contrary must be supported with equally reliable sourcing refuting the same identification. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, instead of writing "transfer (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing)," I would write "ethnic cleansing (which Zionists euphemistically called 'transfer')," or something like that. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I like that better as well (also I wonder if you found the above list familiar (it is something you put together :) )) DMH223344 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course you got that from Levivich 😂 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gathering sources and quotes is like the only useful thing I do around here :-D Levivich (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's honestly extremely appreciated. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How could Zionists have coined a euphemism for ethnic cleansing before the term itself existed? The concept of 'ethnic cleansing' only emerged in the 1990s. Accusing Zionists of using euphemisms to conceal their actions requires substantiation. While it's possible to describe their actions as 'ethnic cleansing' based on contemporary definitions, claiming that the term 'transfer' was deliberately used to obscure their intentions demands specific evidence. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you read the thread? DMH223344 (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. It doesn't answer my question. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The thread demonstrates that this characterization comes from the literature, it is not something we have constructed ourselves. DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The term 'transfer' might have served as a euphemism for expulsion, but not for ethnic cleansing, as the latter term didn't exist at the time. One cannot have a euphemism for a term that has yet to be established.
 * Nevermind, the whole thing has to be rewritten anyway. Let me get to 500 edits and then we talk. The current state of the article reads like Finkelstein's books and you seem to have contributed to it quite a lot. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not for you or me to determine what is expulsion and what is ethnic cleansing—this is coming directly from the scholarship. DMH223344 (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The concept of ethnic cleansing predates the exact terminology in English. Transfer is euphemism for the concept, regardless of the precise term. Expulsion is another term. Forcible displacement. "Transfer" is how money gets from one bank account to another. People who have been forced from their homes are not things; they are not pieces on a board. "Transfer" has always been euphemism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Convo with non EC editor can terminate at this point, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, probably. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Israelis actually called it "cleansing" at the time, as Morris sourced many times. Zerotalk 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1972 Olympics
Shouldnt the history section contain bits about the Munich massacre, wreath of god bits and related stuff? Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2024
Edit the "The Zionist movement garnered the support of an imperial power in the 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by Britain, which promised to support the creation of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine"." to

"The Zionist movement garnered the support of Britain via the 1917 Balfour Declaration issued by them. The declaration promised to support the creation of a "Jewish homeland in Palestine"."

The phrasing of this sentence implies that Israel is a colonial project started by Britain, even though it was never intended to be their colony. Referencing Britain as "the imperial power" is unnecessary CorrectingCorrector (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not done. It is very common in sources to see this description of Britain at that time in relation to the Balfour Declaration. The phrasing of this sentence implies that Israel is a colonial project started by Britain, even though it was never intended to be their colony is OR. Selfstudier (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2024
Since 2006, Hamas and Israel have fought five wars, the most recent of which began October 7th, 2023 when Hamas entered Israel and killed 1,139 civilians, raping women and taking 252 hostages. The conflict is ongoing as of May 2024.[40] 107.219.195.142 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done, undue for lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a "conflict" isn't accurate
Looking at the history of the region,how Israel forcibly removed Palestinians from their home land and established an apartheid state, its not fair to call it a "conflict". When theres been massacre after massacre and a genocide, the label isn't accurate. Ethaninthevoid (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your edit will likely be deleted, as you have to have an account older than 30 days and with 500+ edits in order to comment on talk pages related to this topic. Although your arguments are somewhat merituous and being increasingly debated in the scholarly sources, we nevertheless have to follow what sources say, or else we risk falling foul of WP:OR. Yr Enw (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would have deleted it but I can't because you have replied to it. Let's leave it there tho. Selfstudier (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The ICJ did not rule there was plausibility of genocide
Hi,

Just was reading through this and belief the following sentence needs correction: "The court ruled there was plausibility of genocide, but did not order a ceasefire."

I do not think that is correct. As the former president of the ICJ during the initial ruling--Joan Donoghue--says here (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3g9g63jl17o) "The test is the plausibility of the rights that are asserted by the applicant in this case, South Africa. So the court decided that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had the right to present that claim in the court.It then looked at the facts as well. But it did not decide, and this is something where I am correcting what is often said in the media, it didn't decide that the claim of genocide was plausibl e. It did emphasize in the order that there are was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide. But the shorthand that often appears which is that there is a plausible case of genocide isn't what the court decided "

I am not allowed to edit myself, so would appreciate if it can be edited to correctly reflect court decision by someone that does have those rights. 2405:6580:2D60:2B00:64AF:78FE:594C:9290 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The relevant material can be found at South Africa's genocide case against Israel, no need to take the individual judges view, the material and spources about what is and isn't plausible can be found correctly in that article, suffice it to say that the IP is correct in so far as the court did NOT rule there was plausibility of genocide, that is an inaccurate statement. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've used the wording from that article, it looks accurate and neutral. Alaexis¿question? 08:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

timestamp needed
this sentence: "As reported by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, since 29 September 2000 a total of 7,454 Palestinian and Israeli individuals were killed due to the conflict." should probably start with "According to a 2010 report by the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem" or similar. the lack of a timestamp presents a misleading impression. 130.180.88.101 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Could do with updating that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)