Talk:Israel

Lead: paragraph on culture

Many people seem to feel the lede of this article focuses too much on the conflict rather than the country of Israel, and I have to say I agree. I think there does have to be another small paragraph, at the end of the lede, which summarises the culture section, although I'm not in a place to write it so if people agree I hope we can make one. It's also positive and offsets the negativity from the previous paragraphs so that the article is more in line with WP:NPOV Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my concerns seriously! FortunateSons (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This should not be considered part of NPOV, but the basics of writing a proper WP:LEAD. It's not just Culture, the final paragraph squashes up Government, Economy, and Demographics, 3 of the 7 main sections (although there is a slight bit of coverage in the first paragraph too). These could all along with Culture use more fleshing out, currently everything is lopsided towards one section (History) taking up two paragraphs (including one massive one). CMD (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's just such a contentious and contemporarily relevant subject. I can start a new topic and we can work on trimming it down without ignoring the relevant content? Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's a productive use of anyone's time to start a new discussion on trimming when there is an active RfC looking to expand. Better to craft a new paragraph on Culture and other items. CMD (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay we'll do that first Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, we can only have four paragraphs max, so adding another whole paragraph is not a good idea. I also think maybe the Culture section of this article or all the Safed quarter subgroup communities could be trimmed if an editor once again decides to tag this article as being too long. Trimming the history was contentious, the other suggestions may be less controversial. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

We should add it into the 4th paragraph then, I was thinking something a little smaller than the second paragraph Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I do agree the Safed bit in the history section can be trimmed, however I really like the list of different communities. I think the sports section can be trimmed, otherwise the content of the article seems appropriate imo idk Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

My thinking for structure is to have a couple sentences summarising Jewish culture and the diversity/variety of traditions, and a few summarising or referring to the literature, music and dance, cinema and theatre, arts, architecture, cuisine, and sports sections Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The four paras is not ironclad, it can be five if justified. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Wafflefrites says only 4 paragraphs. So cut down from paragraph 3, it is the size of all the rest combined. O.maximov (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Or add culture to the small 4th one? Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a wish to trim 3 down, however that'd be after the RfC Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• We can obviously expand paragraph 4 to include culture. I would suggest each editor propose just one sentence to be added, we collate the proposals, vote on them and include the top one or two agreed upon sentences. starship.paint (RUN) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not the best placed to write this, but my proposal would be:

Israel's culture is synonymous with Jewish culture, with elements coming from within Judaism and also from interactions with various previous host populations, and others still from the inner social and cultural dynamics of the community. Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences.

I don't know what to put next Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

That does not read as a summary of the relevant section. To be fair, the relevant section is bleakly short (in full: "Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, such as architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.") before it gets into specifics too detailed for much summary. Nonetheless, working with that, you'd add something like "Israel has a diverse cultural mix, with cultural traditions present from from various Jewish diaspora communities intermingled with Arab influences." Ideally there would also be a word or two for each subsection, but that assumes they have been crafted with due weight and as with the lack of development in the broad coverage the subsections don't appear to have been carefully curated. That said, if there is something which talks directly about general Jewish culture (instead of alluding to it regarding holidays) that should be added to the Culture section and could be considered for a better lead. CMD (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'll add that to the proposal. I'm not sure how best to summarise each subsection Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish culture article needs to be summarised at the start of the culture section, and discuss traditions in Judaism, particular features from the diaspora, and national holidays imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I oppose any such mention as this does not summarize the lede, is too detailed in the body, and is never mentioned in any country WP articles. Again, the lede should be made of four well-composed paragraph per MOS:LEDE. The recent expansions are entirely out of place, and further expansion will only add to the current chaos. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about culture? If so, many people disagree with you. Of course the culture section should be detailed in the body, if anything the opening paragraph in the body isn't detailed enough. MOS:LEDE specifies that the lede should summarise the body; the lede currently gives undue weight to the history section. Anything that we agree to add here to the lede will then be expanded on in the body and some of the subsections trimmed. To be clear, we are not talking about the history section here, but the culture section and how best to summarise it/have it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary and concise overview of the article. We have one entirely unrepresented body section, Culture. There's no reason why we cannot have at least one sentence on Culture. Lead paragraph 4 is short and there is space there. In fact, by failing to have any lead content on Culture, we would be giving credence to the notion that the lead lacks balance and fails WP:NPOV. starship.paint (RUN) 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV relates to different positions, not balancing positives with negatives. If Israel had wars and controversies for the entirety of its existence, then that's just how its WP article and by extension its lede will be. It's not up to us to do such "balance". Again, this is not done for any other country, and would overstretch the already overstretched lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No other country has half of their lede dedicated to controversy Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly because other countries do not have a 75 year record of controversy. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

There are many countries that have 75+ years of controversy, but not reaching a point of climax today Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This may not be a good idea, but maybe we shouldn't discuss the wars or history in detail in the lede and instead go into detail in the body and in the lede just use pagelinks (including the nakba pagelink) and go into detail about the migrations in the body Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that's trying to do too much at the moment. We should simply focus on adding a sentence or two on culture. starship.paint (RUN) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed I was just spitballing Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I easily managed to find examples from every continent where their nations had content on culture in the lead. Sometimes it was one sentence, sometimes more.

• China is known for its cuisine, culture and has 57 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
• South Africa is often referred to as the "rainbow nation" to describe the country's multicultural diversity, especially in the wake of apartheid.
• Brazil is the only country in the Americas to have Portuguese as an official language, and is by far the largest Lusophone country in the world. Brazil is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse nations, due to over a century of mass immigration from around the world ... Due to its rich culture and history, including its global influence in music, sports, literature, dance, and the visual arts, Brazil ranks thirteenth in the world by number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
• New Zealand's culture is mainly derived from Māori and early British settlers, with recent broadening of culture arising from increased immigration. The official languages are English, Māori, and New Zealand Sign Language, with the local dialect of English being dominant.
• Mexico's large economy and population, global cultural influence (particularly in cuisine, media, and art), and steady democratization make it a regional and middle power
• As a reflection of its large cultural wealth, Spain is the world's second-most visited country, has one of the world's largest numbers of World Heritage Sites, and it is the most popular destination for European students.

Thus, discussing culture in the lede has wide precedent. There should not be any issue to have at least a sentence. starship.paint (RUN) 13:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• From looking at the content above, I'm guessing, if we were to have a sentence, it should link Culture of Israel, Jewish culture and Hebrew language / Modern Hebrew. Not sure if we could work in Arab culture in Israel or Culture of Palestine. starship.paint (RUN) 13:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Only Culture of Israel is currently in the body of those, although again the body does need significant improvement in that respect. I am going to add the Arab citizens of Israel#Culture link now, there is an obvious place for it already. CMD (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  You did great, CMD. My current thinking is to have this in the lede: Israel is the only country to have Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while Arab cultural influences are also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Better than mine, although it should mention traditions and holidays within Judaism Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Idk whether your edit is correct, the Arab influence would’ve come from the Arab host nations and Arab/Muslim controlled Palestine, not from the remaining Arab citizens Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the history section that is, and always has been, the main inappropriate hogger of space. The history section should begin with the rise of Zionism in the 19th century and mirror that in the lead. State of Palestine shows you how it's done. Everything before that is only present due to POV-pushing by editors along manifest destiny-type lines, but is actually the history of the region, not the modern nation state. Until this is adequately resolved, the lead will forever be a skewed summary. The description of all the bordering territories should also be heavily simplified. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. We can start a section on how to better organise this article after the RfC, however we need to include people of diverse opinion Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with most of that. The historical significance of prior cultures and countries (particularly jewish ones) is of great importance to modern Israel and it's self-perception, and reflected in both the (claimed) founding motivations and the RS coverage of the history. This is, among other, exemplified by the debate around borders and the status of groups as indigenous. FortunateSons (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes but surely the history before zionism can be summarised in a small paragraph, with pagelinks to the articles Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the only country to follow the Hebrew calendar and have Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while Arab culture is also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Good, but I think “elements of Arab culture”, so the two aren’t separated as culture can’t be compartmentalised Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Jewish culture is dominant in the culture of Israel, while elements of Arab culture are also present. starship.paint (RUN) 14:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, if anyone has any further edits/additions feel free to edit your comment/proposal Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It will be good to hear from actual Israelis on this. They would know the culture best. Also note, the above is 34 words. That's close to that of Japan's 32 words: Japan is a cultural superpower as its culture is well known around the world, including its art, cuisine, film, music, and popular culture, which encompasses prominent manga, anime, and video game industries. starship.paint (RUN) 14:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Support as well, I really like this proposal, but I'm not Israeli, so...

I'm guessing that no-one wants to re-open the can of worms that is the question of "only jewish-majority country"?

Minor question: not being a native speaker, the first half of the second sentence in the suggestion sounds slightly clunky to me (double reference to culture). Is that just me? FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My English isn’t the best! Anyone can propose a better version. We could always send it to the copyedit squad on-wiki. Jewish-majority country… that isn’t culture though? Its demographics? starship.paint (RUN) 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s kinda both (with the overlap being the demographic impact on culture, through Jews who continuously lived there combined with the immigration, expulsion and flight of Jews from the diaspora to Israel), but yes, I’m guessing it’s closer to Demographics.

Your English is great, it’s quite plausible that it’s just me, don’t worry. FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is reasonable, the second sentence isn't special as Arab culture is dominant in the culture of Saudi Arabia, it doesn't add anything of value really. I would support the first and oppose the second. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for an alternative second sentence? FortunateSons (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe: Israeli culture is often synonymous with Jewish culture with elements of Arab culture from citizens and previous host nations, also involving cultures of other ethnic minorities. (clause on Judaism, Islam, Druze etc., clause listing the subsections) Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The statements on culture are not at all ok to me. If anything, they already mildly fallacious, and at minimum, generalising. Israeli culture isn't the same thing as Jewish culture, and obviously we don't need a sentence saying Israel is dominated by Israeli culture. The ethnic division version is even weirder. Why would we follow the Israeli government's racialised dividing line of Jews and Arabs? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Now if you said something along the lines of "Israeli culture combines elements of European and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture" then you might actually be getting somewhere, while avoiding the subject of cultural appropriation. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s probably nitpicking, but there is also non-European/ME Jewish culture with some pretty significant influence. FortunateSons (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

That's much better tbh, but needs to include the culture of the ethnic minorities, see my proposal above which has a bad start Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. I am not so sure if we need to mention the Druze in Israel, Circassians in Israel or Armenians in Israel and Palestine. The Circassians and Armenians number at around 5,000 each, very few. not lede-worthy in my opinion. The Druze are much more (140,000+), but according to a survey from 2016, 71% of Druze identify as ethnically Arab. By mentioning Arab culture, we've in a sense already included the Druze. starship.paint (RUN) 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

How about mentioning that Israel includes lots of holy sites of different faiths? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You want it? You word it. I'm not sure how to. starship.paint (RUN) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I would also be opposed to mentioning this part about holy sites as it would be factually inaccurate and misleading, given that the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are within the occupied and annexed territory of East Jerusalem, and not within Israel, according to international law and the international community. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Israeli cuisine fuses Jewish cuisine and Arab cuisine. Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories also have a plethora of historical and religious sites important to many Abrahamic religions. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

If you look at a featured country article, like Japan, the way that the culture section is usually done is mainly as a list of culture, cuisine, music, etc. linked to the child articles. As you see, this allows for a summary of the culture without a granular focus on every separate aspect. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe list the others after that? Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not western religions; and as mentioned before many of these sites are not located within Israel, so this would be misleading. Furthermore, it would be unbalanced to mention Israeli cuisine without mentioning the cultural appropriation controversies which has been extensively discussed by RS. So I would also oppose both of these sentences, and support the one about the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They are western religions? See western religion and eastern religion, the difference in nature is really interesting. It isn't misleading, look at the page linked to. I wasn't aware of such controversy, however the statement is still correct. The body can discuss the controversy. Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the western religion article they are more accurately called Abrahamic religions; and again there are no prominent Christian or Muslim holy sites in Israel anyway, as the Dome of the Rock and the Church of Holy Seplechure are not in Israel. The lede should too as it is a summary of body including any prominent controversies per MOS:LEDE. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

How about Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories ? I think that works Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This article geographically is about Israel and not the occupied Palestinian territories which has its own standalone article. The mention of occupation in this article only comes from the aspect that the Israeli state is the perpetrator. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is about the state of Israel, which controls the occupied territories Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right indeed, it controls it, but does not encompass it. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why the distinction is made Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the point were we are at the “which parts of Israel does this article include” moment of the discussion again. It isn’t ideal that we consider it as covered for the claims regarding apartheid but not for the cultural parts, and would prefer if we did either both or neither. FortunateSons (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Selfstudier (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As already argued, the mention of the occupied territories and apartheid comes from the fact that the Israeli state is perpetrator, not from the perspective that the occupied territories are geographically part of the Israeli state. And again, by Israeli state, here we mean the 1948 borders, according to RS and international law. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s not entirely true; while a minority opinion, some argue that the apartheid is between Israel proper and the occupied territories too. However, as this is indeed a view not supported by the overwhelming amount of scholarship, the outcome does remain the same.

International law does not make a conclusive statement on any specific borders (instead likely deferring to negotiations over the return of occupied territories), but this would go beyond the depth wanted for this article anyway. However, a majority of RS do, so this point is moot anyway FortunateSons (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that apartheid is also being used to describe 1948 Israel, of which the Israeli state is perpetrator, this is actually an additional point on why this should be mentioned here. International law is clear in saying that acquiring new territories by force is prohibited. Anyway, the point is clear: Israel article is about the Israeli state which officially exists geographically on the 1948 border and exercises further powers beyond to the 1967 occupied territories, which it controls but it does not encompass. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That’s technically true, but not really the point here, as the masterpiece that is United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 is not clear on anything. In addition, the RS who consider Apartheid to apply to Israel proper are a small minority.

But as this is a question of article scope and not law, the actual point is the RS coverage, meaning: are some or all of the holy sites unambiguously considered part of Israel proper, to which I believe the answer to be no, instead being part of the West Bank and not Israel proper.

Regarding including the religious and cultural places, the question would be if long-lasting effective control is enough to include, along the lines of The territory controlled by Israel contains a plethora of places with great religious significance to all three Abrahamic religions. or something similar. FortunateSons (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Abrahamic instead of western would be more appropriate Alexanderkowal (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, Abrahamic religions. Selfstudier (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the apartheid section needs to specify which laws amount to apartheid, or discuss the nature of it a bit, and then just summarise the accusation part Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You mean in the article body? Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf and specify what you would like to add. I think the accusations are already summarized, no? Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it should probably focus on the substance of the allegations, rather than mostly on the legitimacy of the claims, I think that paragraph might be better as a list of bodies that affirm it, with preceding information on the specifics of Israeli law and enforcement.

This: These include the Law of Return, the 2003 Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, and many laws regarding security, freedom of movement, land and planning, citizenship, political representation in the Knesset (legislature), education and culture, as well as the Nation-State Law enacted in 2018.

might be good, from the main article's lede. This article Israeli law needs a section on the relevant apartheid allegations, and the other articles on politics and security Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will leave you to fix other articles, I am only interested in this one and I am not that clear what it is you want to add, specifically. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tbh it's mainly political representation in the Politics of Israel article, I'll do Israeli law Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about including cuisine, I think that’s too much. As I showed above, even “cultural superpower” Japan only has 32 words for culture in the lead. We really want to stress only the most significant points. Israel is the only country which follows the Hebrew calendar and has Hebrew as an official language. Israeli culture combines elements of European, African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture. The territory controlled by Israel contains many places with great religious significance to all three Abrahamic religions. 49 words, would probably be on the higher end of any nation’s lead on culture. The second sentence in a sense covers cuisine already. starship.paint (RUN) 01:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are more than 3 Abrahamic religions, just 3 major ones Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the first sentence. A large number of countries can be described as "the only country having X as an official language". Using the Hebrew calendar is indeed unusual but it's not that consequential, after all it's mostly used for religious purposes and holidays. Alaexis_¿question? 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What's the controversy with saying it's the only Jewish-majority country? This implies other minorities Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about the import of an Official language. "On 19 July 2018, the Knesset passed a basic law under the title Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which defines Hebrew as "the State's language" and Arabic as a language with "a special status in the State" (article 4). The law further says that it should not be interpreted as compromising the status of the Arabic language in practice before the enactment of the basic law, namely, it preserves the status quo and changes the status of Hebrew and Arabic only nominally. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This article's geographic scope is about Israel and not the territory controlled by Israel. So again, I would oppose mention of religious sites in lede here. As for the sentence regarding culture, it does not add anything of much value. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the article has a geographic scope, it is on the state of Israel, and the Palestinian territories are occupied and governed by the state of Israel Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to divide Jewish culture, then it is best to use the more appropriate adjectives: Ashkenazi and Mizrahi/Sephardi. African Jews (from sub-Saharan Africa) are an extreme minority in Israel, and Jews from the Middle East and North Africa are basically the same. But since the different Jewish cultures in Israel are merging into one, the division only makes the sentence longer than necessary. Mawer10 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed in 'Demographics', but it should be discussed in the context of culture as well imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Ashkenazi/Mizrahi divide isn't a proper classification of Jewish culture, but an ethnic classification created by the Israeli state. Usage of the term Mizrahi Jews only arose prominently from around the 1980s. It's quite unlike the term Sephardim which actually has a long and well-defined cultural history. Mizrahi Jews is just a proxy term for all of the different and quite varied Jewish groups that came from across the Middle East, including Sephardim. It is therefore of little use in actual cultural classification, and aside from being a POV label, is in fact a poorer and less natural descriptor that basic geography. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic classification terms can also refer to culture. Mizrahi is not an invalid term because of its origins, it is commonly used in various sources discussing things about Jews, especially those from Israel. The concept makes more sense than the American terms "Latino" and "Hispanic", for example. We even have Wikipedia articles about Jews using this division extensively, like Mizrahi music, Mizrahi cuisine, Sephardic cuisine and Ashkenazi cuisine. Mawer10 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It remains less natural descriptively than geography, and anachronistic. If no one was talking about something before Israel was created, Israeli culture can hardly be blended from it. Whatever terms Israel has invented since is its business, but that doesn't redefine the past. That's revisionism. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

How about:

Israel is the only Jewish majority country in the modern period, with Arab, Druze, Circassian, Armenian, and Samaritan minorities. Israeli culture combines elements of European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jewish culture and Arab culture, as well as those from other minorities.

Britannica [1] states "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period" Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to say that I oppose this addition, we already have a paragraph on culture that talks about it in detail, I don't think it should be in the lead which should be include the most important parts .

Beyond that, only a few months ago there was a discussion about adding "the only Jewish country in the world" and most editors opposed this addition. Qplb191 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Qplb191. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#Rule of thumb says that if something gets its own section, it deserves to be summarised in the lede. I did put feelers out for that description but didn’t hear any arguments against, Britannica describes it as such. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons, Chipmunkdavis, Wafflefrites, Selfstudier, O.maximov, Starship.paint, Iskandar323, and Mawer10: I'd rather not do an RfC on this, pinging editors that have participated in this discussion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of a paragraph about Israeli culture, based on the discussion I imagined something along the following lines: Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have Hebrew as an official language. The country contains many historical and religious sites with great significance to the Abrahamic religions. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures, encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art. Mawer10 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am happy with this. Better than nothing. starship.paint (RUN) 02:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The spoken language sentence is pointless: this is not notable. Romania is the only country where Romanian is spoken, etc. The official language of a nation is mundane information that is already clearly displayed in the infobox, alongside population information, land area, etc., and does not need to be repeated in sentence format in the lead. That's just bloat. Also, a culture including "cuisine, music and art" is not "encompassing diverse elements"; those are just the basic constituents of a culture. Fluffy wording. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d say the revival of Hebrew is notable Kowal2701 (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If that is what is notable then the lead should link revival of the Hebrew language and state that Israel is the only country to speak a revived language. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Most historical and religious sites are actually in Palestine and East Jerusalem. I’d say change country to region Kowal2701 (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a page about the country, not a region. This is why that statement is a bit vague and problematic. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s a page about the State of Israel which would include their administration of occupied territories, I agree it’s problematic though Kowal2701 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As discussed before, this article is about the State of Israel, whose geographic scope is the 1948 internationally recognized border. Mentions of the occupied territories here does not come from a perspective of geographic scope, but from a perspective of that the Israeli state is the perpetrator of the occupation and the apartheid; per ICJ.

I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, as is the case with any other country's lede. I find so far the point about Hebrew being revived and the Hebrew calendar to be the most appropriate for inclusion, as a middle ground solution, and so we can finally move on from this point.

This is the proposal: "Hebrew is the country's official language, a revived language, and the only country that uses the Hebrew calendar. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, your opinion is just one person’s opinion Kowal2701 (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Aren't the 1967 borders the internationally recognised borders, as again just determined by the ICJ case? Why are you harking on about 1948 (1947 UN partition proposal technically)? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the green line, so indeed better called the (pre-)1967 border. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but no one still talks about the green line, except in reference to 48 Arabs. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's also Modern Hebrew; Hebrew links to Hebrew language in general. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Kowal2701s alteration to @Mawer10 suggestion here, because it’s controlled by the country, despite not being within what most consider the de-jure borders. FortunateSons (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

By "most" you mean international law and the intentional community? That's not something we just hand wave aside. The occupied territories are no more part of Israel than Crimea is a part of Russia. And you haven't addressed any of the other points, which does not really help us build consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Would “wider region” be more appropriate, provided we can agree on the scope here? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would we bring that up in the lead about a specific country? A lead is meant to reflect the absolutely most specific and critical information about the subject, not peripheral material. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Because the wider region is under Israeli administration Kowal2701 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, and ... ? Crimea is under Russian adminstration. Does Russia now contain and get to claim everything Crimean? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Crimea would be within the scope of Russia imo Kowal2701 (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that does depend on your specific interpretation of 242 regarding any or every specific area, and the status of Jerusalem, etc., as well as a wide range of other factors. But I do feel like most is the appropriate term here, considering my argument is based on de-facto status, not law. FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

As of Friday, East Jerusalem is illegally occupied according to the ICJ, which is the highest legal body of the UN. If we're not dealing in legal terms, we would have to state that "Israel claims ownership of ..." Iskandar323 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing sounds clunky, but the content is fine IMO, even if I would stick with facts rather than claims, focussing instead on what is happening on the ground, being less subject to change. What is the phrasing used for other long-term occupations/effective control on other pages? Tibet uses “under the administration of”, Taiwan uses “The combined territories under ROC control”, both sound reasonable to me when used here. FortunateSons (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many religious and historical sites of great significance in Israel proper, so there is no need to consider the occupied territory in this statement. See. Mawer10 (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is vague and avoids mentioning if these religious sites are Al-Aqsa mosque and Nativity church, which Israel advertises as within its territory, while they are in fact under occupation. This vagueness would be misleading. There are no parallels to these two sites within Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the historical site mention on when current culture is the intended topic. They're not mentioned in Israel#Culture at any rate. At any rate, if that's what's holding back the addition of a very basic mention of Culture in the lead, add the rest and discuss that sentence more if needed. CMD (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I object to adding the culture paragraph, for the reasons listed above there are not enough supporters of it and there are opponents. I don't understand why add this to the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your objection needs to be based on policy Kowal2701 (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Also @Makeandtoss opposed to adding that. Qplb191 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No he didn't, he opposed the sentence on religious sites which was removed Kowal2701 (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless it is 4/5 to 1/2 which is clear consensus. You've also just violated 1RR Kowal2701 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: regarding your earlier quote I oppose any inclusion of a sentence on culture beyond a sentence, as is the case with any other country's lede. - that's absolutely false, and I already proved it above with quotes, CTRL-F "Brazil", "New Zealand". starship.paint (RUN) 02:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think adding the sentence about lead culture is problematic, Israel is among the most heterogeneous countries in the world, there are minorities of Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Druze, Circassians, Russian Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, immigrants, , secularists, ultra-Orthodox, and more... There is no way to sum it up succinctly, it must be detailed, and it is not fit for the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is detailed in the article body (although it can use more). Per WP:LEAD this needs to be summarized in the lead, as it is with any other heterogenous country. CMD (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between a heterogeneous country and Israel which is a heterogeneous country that is in conflict with the indigenous people of the land. Qplb191 (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No difference that affects WP:LEAD. CMD (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference , we can’t mention only the culture of Israel without mentioning the Palestinian culture. Qplb191 (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The addition you reverted twice already specifically mentions both Jewish and Arab influences. CMD (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine @Mawer10 O.maximov (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Just wanted to say that my latest edit summary was partially incorrect, this is not longstanding content. I got confused since there is another sentence starting in the same way ("Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world") in the Demography section. Alaexis_¿question? 08:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Relating to the recently added sentence: "Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world, and is the only country to have a revived language, Modern Hebrew, as an official language. In many aspects, Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures, encompassing diverse elements like cuisine, music, and art."

How is having the largest Jewish population in the world lede worthy; India has the largest Hindu population in the world; what value does that add? How is "Israel's culture is a blending of Jewish and Arab cultures" even neutral when Israel is consistently characterized as engaging in cultural theft and destruction? [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] And about "cuisine, music, and art"; all cultures encompass cuisine, music and art so how does this add anything of value to the lede?

Why were these contested sentences added despite the clear lack of general agreement, i.e. consensus; not a headcount? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Because there was clear consensus, although not a complete one. Most people agreed with the proposal, yours and Qpib's opinions are in the minority. Also I really don't think your points hold water. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to propose improvements rather than tearing everything down Kowal2701 (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss: It would be constructive to differentiate descriptive statements from normative statements, evaluation, and opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

How about: "Israel is the only country to have a revived language, Modern Hebrew, as an official language. The culture of Israel is predominantly Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.

Predominantly addresses the initial first sentence. The wording of the last clause could be improved Kowal2701 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding a fix (Because there are many different types of Jewish cultures). The culture of Israel is composed of diverse Jewish with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art.

Do you like it? O.maximov (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes but just a little tweak:

The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art. Kowal2701 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no minority and majority on WP, as WP is not a democracy; WP operates by consensus, and consensus is achieved by following guidelines and RS and valid compromising. If RS are stating that Israel has engaged in cultural theft of Arab culture, and we are here incorrectly portraying it by claiming Israel's culture encompasses elements of Arab culture, then this is a completely misleading POV that runs counter to RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a factual statement. "with elements of Arab cultures" implies they've been taken from elsewhere, and the context given earlier implies the climate Kowal2701 (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a factual statement because "encompassing" implies it is intrinsic to it, and not culturally appropriated per RS. This is similar to how we do not say that Israel encompasses the West Bank; it actually illegally occupies it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, but encompassing is not in reference to the Arab elements. I'm struggling to find a word that is more direct and doesn't imply intrinsicality. "Involving" as an improvement? Kowal2701 (talk) 13:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the current sentence accurately represents the culture, at least according to Britannica.

Here is what I added to the Culture of Israel Wikipedia article:

There has been minimal cultural exchange between Israel’s Jewish and Arab populations. Jews from Arab-Muslim Middle East communities brought with them elements from the majority cultures in which they lived. The mixing of Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Middle Eastern traditions have advanced modern Israeli culture, along with traditions brought by Russian, former Soviet republican, Central European and American immigrants. The Hebrew language revival has also developed Israel’s modern culture. Israel’s culture is based on its cultural diversity, shared language, and common religious and historical Jewish tradition. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

What is even the source for the claim that Israeli culture encompasses elements of Arab culture? A quick google search for the terms "Arab culture" and "Israel" only reveals articles about cultural theft and destruction. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Falafel. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I like it. A good balance. O.maximov (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be specific. I like Kowal2701's "The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, encompassing cuisine, music, and art." O.maximov (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t like this paragraph at all it’s not supposed to be at the lead and it’s not mentioning the Palestinian culture Qplb191 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the article about modern Israel, not Palestine or the British Mandate. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They are part of the Arab minority, which also includes the Druze Kowal2701 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And also Arab Jews who never left the region, I suppose you could call them Palestinian if you want, as well as Arab Jews from the diaspora. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s can not be summery , it is complicated and there are many minorities ethnic and religious groups, the relation between ultra orthodox and secularist is much more important today . Qplb191 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Also it’s very debatable, we are not mentioning Arabic , Russian languages (which they are the second and third most spoken languages in Israel) not mentioning religious groups like ultra orthodox, and minorities, for example some Druze don’t see themself as Muslim and Arabs , I think it’s horrible sentence. Qplb191 (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We are also not mentioning the Palestinian culture , @nableezy what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Qplb191 made a new good point. Israel has its culture divided between the secularist and Ultraorthodox sections of its predominantly Jewish society. Consequently, the culture wars, relating to the role of religion in public spaces, the drafting of the Haredim, the charachtar of the state; these are all much more relevant to Israeli culture than the culture of its Arab minority. Even this Arab minority's culture, it is part of Palestinian culture, and not part of Israeli culture; even if Israel attempts to portray it as such; and even if a minority of Jewish Israelis are from Arab backgrounds. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The Mizrahi Jews ("Arab Jews") are the largest ethnic group in Israel, about 40% to 45% of the population. They brought many things from Arab culture to the country, especially in cuisine. So not everything Arabic in Israeli culture comes from the Palestinians. Mawer10 (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bringing things to the country does not mean that the country's culture is now made up of it, especially when we have RS saying that Israel is appropriating parts of Palestinian and Arab culture as its own. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You could say “culturally appropriated”, or you could say the Israeli version was “influenced” or “inspired by”. For example mandu, piergoi, kreplach, jiaozi all possibly have Silk Road origins or some even hypothesize Middle East origins [8]. Or that Taylor Swift was culturally appropriating/was influenced to create her own version of congee.[9] Or that Starbucks’ and Dunkin Donuts’ new popping boba/bubble drinks are culturally appropriating / influenced by the Taiwanese bubble tea. [10] Wafflefrites (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I got it. When y‘all were saying Palestinian, I was thinking about the Palestinians that were expelled, but yes some of them did remain, Israel does have a 20% Arab minority, which would include those that identify as Palestinian as well as the Druze and the Negev Bedouin. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The view that Arab citizens of Israel and other minorities do not count as Israelis is a relatively fringe POV. I'm surprised to see it is being promoted here, and it certainly should not guide the crafting of this article. CMD (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I dont care. nableezy - 15:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that we can agree that this sentence is extremely problematic.

1. the relations between secular and ultra orthodox is not mentioned.

2. there is Palestinian culture not Arab

3. what about the culture of other groups like Russians Ashkenazi etc….

4. What about minorities which do not see themselves as Muslim /arabs like Druze and Circassians

5. the Arab/Palestinian culture is rejected by the state of Israel ,so this is a very twisted sentence, there are tense relations between the Palestinians and Jews so it is incorrect to say that their culture has mixed. Qplb191 (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No we can't, stop putting your own opinion on a pedestal.

1. that more due for politics, not culture, notice how USA doesn't mention culture wars even though theirs are more pronounced

2. Palestinians are part of the Arab minority

3. Russians and Ashkenazi are included in "diverse Jewish cultures"

4. Druze are included in Arab, as I already said. Circassians are a tiny minority, 5000, it'd be undue here

5. There is no mention of Palestinian culture

I think this is really pathetic. You should WP:Drop the stick Kowal2701 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

No, this sentence is just extremely inaccurate and misleading, it’s just not true Arabs in Israel are Palestinians, not just Arabs there is Palestinian tradition.@Makeandtoss do you agree? Qplb191 (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to get a 3O here? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is coherent Kowal2701 (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The elements of Arab culture brought by the "Arab Jews" who now constitute 45% or more of the Israeli population are not Palestinian. Palestinian culture being a subsection of the broader Levantine and Arab culture needs no special mention. Israel does not reject Arab culture because is a well known fact that Israeli Jews have incorporated many elements of Arab culture into their culture even if some do not recognize the Arab origin of these elements. And the ultra-Orthodox are a minority in Israel, their mention is not important in a paragraph that is supposed to be a summary. Mawer10 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the points 3 and 4 and the last part of 5, I think this is enough: "The country's culture is primarily characterized by the Jewish and Arab cultures, but it also includes Western and Eastern influences." What do you think? Mawer10 (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, Ashkenazi "Western" cultural influence is much more dominant than "Arab-Jewish" influence. There has not been a single prime minister who was of Mizrahi origin, beyond that the ”conflict “with the ultra-Orthodox is much more significant and is being discussed, there is a real cultural "war" between secularists and ultra-Orthodox in Israel, and Israel is one The countries with the greatest religious tensions (Christians, Jews and Muslims) in the world, not mentioning it would be problematic. Qplb191 (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The distribution of prime ministers is more a function of the historic and persisting hierarchical racism in Israeli society than a useful indicator of general cultural influence per se. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And even if the culture of Ashkenazi Jews was the most dominant in Israel, so what? This does not necessarily need to be in the lead, it's not important. Mawer10 (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence simply does not describe "culture" in Israel correctly. There are many different groups in Israel, and within that there are religious tensions between religious groups, and tensions between secularists and ultra-Orthodox, the law must include this and currently it is lacking. Beyond the fact that it is not about the Palestinian culture and to say that Israel is a mixture of Arab culture is simply not true. Qplb191 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 we reach consensus and then add that , you can’t add that when some editors object that. Qplb191 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can if arguments have been exhausted and most people support it. We can continue discussing, but people are not going to be incentivised to reply if the same points, that have been addressed, keep being made Kowal2701 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Most people don’t support this current vision please self revert Qplb191 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please give us a version of what you would like the culture paragraph to look like. This will help this discussion progress more productively. Mawer10 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that simply in a heterogeneous country with an ongoing conflict with so many ethnic/religious groups, it is impossible to summarise the culture and the cultural and religious tensions between the different groups within one sentence, therefore in my opinion its need to be in the culture paragraph and not in the lead. This sentence is just incorrect and misleading… Qplb191 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTADEMOCRACY so we can please drop the "most people support it" claim. This is not even sourced to any RS and having re-added it despite clear lack of general agreement -consensus- does not bode well in this topic area. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

All of your points have been addressed comprehensively. I suggest you start editing the culture section of the body if you’d like the summary to be changed Kowal2701 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

None of them have; this sentence is not even sourced! Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Makeandtoss that it needs a source that is not Wikipedia. The culture introductory body section needs to be checked for WP:SYNTH. Also the sentence about Arab influences being in many spheres needs attribution and has unbalanced emphasis towards the Arab influences (when really Israeli art, music and architecture is primarily influenced by the Jewish diaspora). The mixing of the Jewish diaspora culture is the dominant culture. It hasn’t mixed with the non Jewish Arab culture, they just exist alongside each other. Wafflefrites (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD does not need a separate source or attribution. If there are issues, take it up with the sources in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations usually are not needed for the lead, but sometimes citations may be added on a case by case basis per MOS:LEADCITE and “ any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.” Wafflefrites (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, but it does not need a separate source. It is summarising the Culture section and can use the sources there, if there are issues with those sources they should also be dealt with in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem is the handwave-y statements characterising what makes up the culture, which is currently not really sourced anywhere. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Handwavey statements is the subject of the first paragraph in the Culture section. CMD (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you’d like to do an RfC, we can do one, but it’d be very unnecessary imo Kowal2701 (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

ONUS of achieving consensus is on the inserter, i.e. you, not me. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, ONUS is about content that is sourced. And it is not about what sourced content belongs in the lead. Surely you understand that even controversial or despicable facts may be described in the lead summary. SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

[11] This looks like a good source to back up the sentence.

[12] also on multiculturalism. O.maximov (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Those both look good, feel free to add them Kowal2701 (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way like @Makeandtoss said this sentence never reached consensus, can you actually get consensus and then change the lead? Qplb191 (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a summary I made based on the section on Israeli culture in the Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Israel's culture is characterized by the convergence and intermingling of different Jewish traditions from the diaspora. This diverse cultural heritage and the revival of the Hebrew language played a crucial role in the country's cultural development.

This summary says nothing about Arab influence on Israeli culture because Britannica did not elaborate on this very well. So I found this paragraph in another source:

Israel's diverse culture stems from the diversity of the population: Jews from around the world have brought their cultural and religious traditions with them, creating a melting pot of Jewish customs and beliefs... Israel's substantial Arab minority has also left its imprint on Israeli culture in such spheres as architecture, music, and cuisine

These two sources help to create a good summary, I have not yet found any source talking about the Israeli culture that included mentions of religious conflicts. Mawer10 (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of the encyclopaedias (Britannica for example)do not include the culture in Israel at the beginning of the article , but in a separate paragraph (like in Wikipedia). Relatively if we are talking about cultural influence , Israel does not have such a globally influential and developed culture that includes famous composers and artists (like Italy and France for example) .

There are many different cultures in Israel and many tensions between the different groups (between Jewish groups , and between Jewish - Christian and Muslims) , so if we talk about culture we must also mention that (which is not possible to summarise in the lead in my opinion).

I don’t think it’s really necessary to include that. Qplb191 (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

1) The lead of Wikipedia articles does not necessarily need to present the same information presented in other encyclopedias. 2) We are not talking about global cultural influence, a country does not need to have cultural influence to deserve at least a simple mention of its culture in the lead. 3) The proposed sentence does not deny the existence of other cultures or subcultures in Israel; if you think it does, it shouldn't be difficult for you to suggest an improvement to the sentence in that regard. "if we talk about culture we must also mention that" . Mawer10 (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I simply do not understand why culture need to be mentioned on the lead ,when much more important topics are not mentioned, even in the lead of countries with much greater influence such as Sweden or the Nederlands culture does not mentioned , Furthermore culture in Israel is much more problematic we can not mention only culture without the ongoing cultural tensions between different groups which is to my opinion do not need to be on the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Because per MOS:LEAD relative coverage in the lead should be similar to the body, and the body has an entire level 2 section on the topic of Culture. CMD (talk) 05:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, culture should be summarized in the lead just like the other sections of the article. If other articles or encyclopedias don't do that, someone should fix them. Levivich (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There are paragraphs that are not covered in the lead such as geography or demographics which are much more important than culture... as I also said , in other countries that have a much greater cultural impact , culture is not covered in the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And please @Kowal2701 stop adding this sentence before why actually get consensus! Qplb191 (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments are not only not based on policy they are directly contradicting it! Stop wasting people's time Kowal2701 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The lead should summarize all the sections, including geography and demographics, and culture. This isn't up for debate, we have long-standing global consensus that leads summarize the body. Stop edit warring, and WP:DROPTHESTICK, culture will be summarized in the lead of this article (and all articles that have a culture section). Levivich (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

there is clearly no consensus about this certain sentence, can you please stop adding it? Furthermore this sentence has no reliable source and is clearly controversial, you have never received consensus for this and keep adding it…. Qplb191 (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There are much more important paragraphs that are not mentioned, while most countries doesn’t even have “culture “ in their lead. Qplb191 (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same arguments over and over; these arguments have been addressed above. Levivich (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes but you have never reached consensus as well, this sentence has no reliable source and it’s extremely problematic Qplb191 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

You actually have never reached agreement to add this specific sentence Qplb191 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop, the poor horse is done FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry but this has never reached consensus @Makeandtoss and others users object that, can you also bring reliable sources that actually claims that Israeli culture has “Arab elements”??? Qplb191 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

See maximov's links above Kowal2701 (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not reliable though Qplb191 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Why not? FortunateSons (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The sources already on the page? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The split between Jewish and Arabic culture in the latest proposal above is simplistic. Sure, there are just Palestinian Arabs in Israel today, but early on, there were also Arab Jews, including Palestinian Jews and Arab Jews from across the region – who all obviously had both Jewish and Arabic culture already, and were responsible for bringing in not just Jewish, but all sorts of Arabic cultural elements from across the region, including Arabic food from all the corners of the Greater Middle East. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This sentence is just incorrect claim. Qplb191 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This Washington Post source says the Israelis adopted the popular street food from Palestinians (hummus, falafel, msabaha, baba ghanoush, knafeh) but not msakhan, maftool, maqlubeh and mansaf.[13] It says kebabs and shakshuka were brought from North Africa and the Balkans.

For the longest time, I thought hummus, falafel, tabbouleh, baklava, pita, and dolmas were Greek food, but turns out they are also Mediterranean/Levant/Middle Eastern. Apparently the Greeks inherited some of those from the Ottomans (one of the regional powers that conquered Palestine). Wafflefrites (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Food is not really culture if we are talking about culture in art music etc… there is no reliable article that claim that Israeli culture has Arab elements Qplb191 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Except the RS cited in the article, like this book, which is about Arab elements in Israeli culture (and specifically uses food as an example). Levivich (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to iterate on it Kowal2701 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There is literally no consensus on adding this sentence and yes I will repeat that again, news paper are not reliable sources Qplb191 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 can you self revert until we reach consensus on sentence ( like you should have done) Qplb191 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus occurs in a process that involves taking into account our policies and guidelines, it is unlikely to be greatly shifted by arguments against accepted WP:LEAD practice and against accepted WP:RS practice. CMD (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s was actually proven that other countries doesn’t have culture in their lead (while also other paragraphs are not included in the lead) this sentence has never reached consensus like @Makeandtoss said. Qplb191 (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So we have myself, @Qplb191: and @Wafflefrites: opposing this phrasing, with @Iskandar323: saying it's too simplistic. So why is this still on the article? The way forward to resolve this clear dispute is through an RFC, and not through the power of the majority, as WP is not a democracy.

We have multiple RS saying that Israel has been engaged in cultural appropriation of Arab and Palestinian culture, and here we are ignoring these RS and whitewashing this appropriation by claiming Israel's culture is actually made up of elements of Arab culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to do an RfC, but personally I don’t feel the opposing arguments hold any weight Kowal2701 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we'd have an RfC, but it might be a waste of the community's time if the differing quality of the arguments regarding policy is clear. Of course a summary is simplistic, it's a summary per MOS:LEDE. Of course there are Arab elements of Israeli culture, these come from the Mizrahi and Musta'arabi, as well as the Druze and Palestinian/Arab citizens. That controversy is barely WP:DUE for the body. Feel free to iterate on the wording, but the content is fine. Kowal2701 (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the word "appropriate" anywhere in Israel#Culture or Culture of Israel. Levivich (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The words Israeli cultural "appropriation" and "theft" of Arab and Palestinian culture should exist in both; we have plenty of RS documenting this relating to food, attire, music and others. [14] [15] [16] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you edit the first paragraph of the culture section which mentions Arab influences and add a couple sentences on where these come from, personally a clause for the controversy would be due, not a sentence Kowal2701 (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: The WP:BURDEN to do an RfC is on the inserter of the material, which would clearly not be me. Simplicity should not be misleading; as demonstrated before we already have numerous RS relating to Israel's appropriation of Arab culture. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There was and is weak consensus to add it and it's been added. I'd say the onus is on you. I'm not denying those sources, but you're ignoring the genuine Arab elements of Israeli culture (which lots of RSs discuss) and seem to be pushing a political POV. Numerous people in a previous RfC said that this article was over politicised, and I think this is an example of that. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @Makeandtoss this sentence has no actually reliable source it is extremely misleading and problematic and most importantly this never reached consensus, you need to reach consensus before you change the lead not after. Qplb191 (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with @Makeandtoss, this sentence should be removed, because it is extremely problematic, there are many editors opposing it as well. Qplb191 (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I was not sure about “The culture of Israel is predominantly composed of diverse Jewish cultures, with elements of Arab cultures, involving cuisine, music, and art.” I liked “ The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art” better because I think it’s more precise. The bolded info can be sourced to Britannica’s article. Both versions link to the culture section under Arab citizens of Israel, so the Palestinian culture is included. The second version uses “alongside” which I think is an accurate description and doesn’t mean mixing. The cultures and people do exist alongside each other.

I don’t really care if the info is included or not. Although am not sure why the Hebrew language revival sentence was problematic and removed as well. I’m not sure of the objections to that sentence unless there is some mos guideline saying languages from the infobox should not be in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Minority cultures should not be highlighted, as is the case with any other country's lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

How can it avoid mentioning the Arabic cultural influence that is based on the combination of the Arab population, Arab Jewish culture and appropriation? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't since the sentence already mentions "Jewish diaspora influences" which includes the Jews of Europe and other places. No need to specify Arab while avoiding mentioning the cultural appropriation and theft aspects. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not appear constructive to repeatedly invoke "theft" etc. at the expense of parsing the issues under discussion here. "Theft" reifies cultural factors as if they were bags of booty criminally acquired. Regardless of whether some people believe that, it's not descriptive. We don't talk about Christian or Islamic "theft" of Hebraic religious teaching, e.g. and we need a more nuanced and subject-appropriate manner of describing the merger of cultural factors and practies. Proposals along that line would be helpful.18:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Agreed. "We have RS that say..." is never a strong argument for inclusion of anything. Of course there are RS that talk about Israeli cultural appropriation, and there are RS that dispute it, and there are RS that say that cultural appropriation isn't even really a thing. There are also RS that say that other countries and cultures engage in cultural appropriation. Should every country article mention cultural appropriation in the lead? The word "appropriation" isn't in United States, for example. But more the point, the word "appropriation" isn't in Israel. So why are we talking about putting it in the lead? (Surely, none of us would advocate for including info in the lead that isn't in the body in one article, while simultaneously removing info from the lead of another article because it isn't in the body...) "Appropriation" doesn't even appear in Culture of Israel (and Israel is mentioned once in cultural appropriation). I believe there is enough RS coverage to make a section on appropriation WP:DUE for inclusion in Culture of Israel, and that could probably be summed up in a sentence or few sentences in Israel#Culture. Whether it's DUE for the lead of Israel, I'm not sure at all. The only thing I'm sure of is that the lead should summarize Israel#Culture. Editors who think they can improve that summary should suggest the improvement or WP:BEBOLD; editors who think the body section needs expansion should expand it, IMO. But talking about not summarizing culture at all in the lead is ridiculous, and talking about including cultural appropriation in the lead is premature. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean to argue for the inclusion of the material on cultural theft and appropriation to the lede. Rather, I was arguing for the removal of the so far poorly-sourced and highly contested claim that Israeli culture actually is/encompasses Arab culture as being ridiculously overly simplistic and therefore misleading. WP is not a reliable source so the argument that it does not feature/feature enough in other articles is not a good argument. Actually, there is enough RS and significant coverage to make an an entire article on Israeli appropriation and theft of Palestinian culture, and not just a mini-section. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This thread would have gone much more smoothly is people had actually started by reading what's written and sourced in the overview of the actual culture section on the page, which covers the diverse Jewish cultural origins and Arab influences already ... And again, is sourced. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The lede is different from the body. In the body there is an opportunity for nuance, while in the lede there is an opportunity for simplistic oversimplifications that are misleading. The body mentions "Arab influences" which is fine and keeps the weight reasonable somewhere within the large body of text. But adding "Arab elements" in a sentence in a prominent place such as the lede would be entirely misleading for the reasons mentioned previously. [Influence is much more reasonable than elements] And of course the culture section misses the controversies relating to cultural appropriation and theft. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My point was that if anything, the lead sentence should be a summary of the existing summary. "Arab influences" is reasonable to mention if it is well-sourced. (I mean it's kinda obvious: half of the cuisine is Arabic or Arabic influenced – both adopted from the locals and from Arab Jewish immigrants.) Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the overview paragraph at Israel#Culture:

Israel's cultural diversity stems from its diverse population: Jews from various diaspora communities brought their cultural and religious traditions with them. Arab influences are present in many cultural spheres, being found in Israeli architecture, music, and cuisine. Israel is the only country where life revolves around the Hebrew calendar. Holidays are determined by the Jewish holidays. The official day of rest is Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.

Here is the sentence in the lead:

The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.

It seems like this sentence does a fairly good job of summarizing the overview paragraph. I'd be fine with changing "alongside elements of Arab culture" to "alongside influences from Arab culture." I don't really see the difference between "elements" and "influences," so either one would be fine with me. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the wikilink for “Arab” is pointing to Arab citizens of Israel, I think “Arab” should be changed to “Arab-Israeli” to match the ethnic group in the link destination. There were many Jews from other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq and Egypt, who brought Arab influences from those countries too, but they don’t fall under Arab citizens of Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Or just link to Arabic culture and make it less weird? The Arabic influence also comes from Arab Jews: it's not even remotely solely about modern Arab Palestinians. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Turkish and Iranian culture among many other cultures are influenced by Arab culture so still not sure how this would be suitable for the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why in these cases you refer to "influence" rather than "theft"? Is this implicit or is it supported by the weight of mainstream RS? SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, these three cultures were under one Islamic culture. In the case of Israel and Palestine, there is no overall shared culture, and there are two opposing identities. RS have made the theft claims relating to Israel, not me. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, alongside elements of Arab culture, involving cuisine, music, and art.

This captures very well. I think it is good, short and balanced. O.maximov (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we can say, culture of Israel is composed of a variety of different Jewish cultures instead of first half. O.maximov (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added an under discussion tag, as clearly there is no generally agreed upon version here. The way forward now is an RFC, and the onus of reaching consensus is on the inserter of this material. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This sentence about “culture” is so unnecessary and never reached consensus, btw I want to see a reliable source that actually claims that Israel culture has an Arab element Qplb191 (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your concern with the body sources? CMD (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't have an RfC every time an editor or two editors doesn't like something. You two need to suggest some revisions or drop the stick. Levivich (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Many suggestions have been proposed: the bare minimum of changing “elements” to “influences,” and more ideally, removing the material all together to avoid simplistic narratives that ignore prominent controversies. This is based on RS, not on personal preferences. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich this sentence has never reached consensus actually . Qplb191 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anyone objecting to changing "elements" to "influences", I'm pretty sure you could make that change boldly, especially since "influences" is the word used in the body. We don't need an RfC for that. Levivich (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned this would be the bare minimum. The main issues remain: this is undue for lede, poorly sourced, misleading, oversimplistic, and lacks consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What is your MOS:LEAD-compliant suggestion for changing the language then? Levivich (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"The culture of Israel is composed of Jewish culture and Jewish diaspora influences, involving cuisine, music, and art."

This version would simply mention "diaspora influences" of which Arab, among other cultures, is clearly one, but without overstressing this aspect or ignoring the cultural appropriation aspects. (Given that I still find "involving cuisine, music, and art." to be redundant but I don't feel strongly about removing it.) Makeandtoss (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

While I don't think it's an improvement, I'd be fine with it. If nobody objects, I think that change can just be made boldly. Levivich (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Waiting one more day to see if there are any objections to that part's removal. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No objections at all to its removal? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I am against this removal, this would be the erasure of 20% of the Israeli population or 65% of the population (Palestinian Israelis + Arab Jews). Mawer10 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually you should argue for the insertion of this recently-added material, and not argue against its removal, per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the culture section needs to be summarized in the lead, just like other sections of the article. Wikipedia articles about countries such as Brazil, South Africa, and Mongolia include at least a sentence about culture in their leads, in accordance with WP:LEAD. There is a clear consensus to keep a mention of Israeli culture in the lead. If you disagree with the current phrasing, you should propose only improvements rather than advocating for its removal. Arguing that we can mention Israeli culture in the lead only if we mention Palestinian culture, cultural appropriation, the culture of other minorities like Druze and Circassians, religious tensions, or some other controversy is not a proper argument. Mawer10 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: That is not what was being discussed. The latest discussion here revolves around removal of "Arab influences." Do you support that while keeping the rest of the sentence on Israeli culture? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The removal of "Arab influences" is hard to justify given that most Israeli Jews have origins in Arab countries and the country has a substantial Arab population within its borders. The country is literally an island of Jewishness surrounded by an immense ocean of Arabness, how can we ignore this? The disputed concept of cultural appropriation is not enough to justify omitting Arab cultural influence, which would make the sentence an incomplete summary of the culture section. We could change the sentence to something like "Israeli culture is marked by the blending of various Jewish diaspora traditions and has also been influenced by Arab culture in many aspects", which is better than the current phrasing but still keep the Arab influences. Is it inaccurate, misleading, or oversimplified? I don’t think so, it is well-sourced. Mawer10 (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: Again, no adequate RS have been provided, there is no consensus for it, and it is undue for lede. Please verify this information first per WP:BURDEN and then gain consensus for its inclusion via an RFC per WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Which part of the sentence lacks consensus, has no reliable source, and is undue for the lede? The part 1 "Israeli culture is marked by the blending of various Jewish diaspora traditions" or 2 "and has also been influenced by Arab culture in many aspects". Mawer10 (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: #2. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich this sentence has never reached consensus actually . Qplb191 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Stop repeating this, you are spamming the page. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

References

RFC: How should the Nakba described?

How should the Nakba described?

1. The Palestinians were ethnically cleansed, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
2. The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
3. The Nakba should be described. But neither of the sentences above should be used.
4. The Nakba shouldn't be mentioned.

Which version should be included in the lead? KlayCax (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In both version 1 and version 2, the first comma is unnecessary and interrupts the flow of the sentence. I'd prefer version 2 wihout "made to flee" or the comma. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Like LaundryPizza, I'd support Option 2 without "made to flee" or the comma, followed by Option 1 without the comma. Loki (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  'Expelled' and being 'made to flee' are not the same thing even if they may be inseperable parts of the same operation. In this instance, as in many similar mass movements of people in response to political events, if you 'expel' a relatively small number of a target group sufficiently violently, very large numbers of the remainder of the target group, will prefer 'flight' to 'fight', knowing that the odds would be stacked against them if they did fight. To that extent ethnic cleansing is an accurate description, but is less clear and simple and borderline euphemistic. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Are there any options without an entirely redundant "an explusion known as the Nakba", verbiage that could easily be a pipelink: "...Palestinians were expelled or made to flee...". CMD (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good point, it’s just that the page link to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight is more of a history page, whilst the Nakba page is more of a perspective on the history Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we take the wider definition of Nakba as the primary definition, then both Version 1 and 2 are misleading as they provide it as an alternative name for the 1948 expulsion. CMD (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  True, although the other components of the wider definition are seen as consequences of the expulsion. Maybe “core part of the Nakba”? Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm wondering how correct the article is that the wider meaning of Nakba is the primary one, the concurrent RfC at Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples also uses Nakba specifically as a name for the events of the 1948 war. CMD (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Version 2/3 2 might be too much detail although I don’t know what “paramilitaries and the IDF” can be replaced by Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Israeli forces" or just "Israel." One quibble I have with specifying paramilitary/military is that civilian leaders were also responsible for the Nakba. Some people say we shouldn't call the Yishuv "Israel" before Israel's independence declaration (14 May 1948) though I don't think it's a problem, still another option is "by the Yishuv and later Israel". Levivich (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"By Zionists" is another option but today's lay reader may perceive that word as loaded language, like some kind of insult. Levivich (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I didn't put 'zionist paramilitaries'. Maybe just Israelis? I agree it would be pedantic to oppose saying Israel or Israelis just before declaration Alexanderkowal (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support the way it is now (Version 2) and this is a wholly unnecessary RFC, the previous discussions on this page show no disagreement with this by anyone other than opener. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think the issue was that my edit was made without prior discussion, and this is to ensure wider input Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Edits do not require prior discussion any more than post discussion, unless they are subject of a dispute. This is just a waste of editor time. Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Idk I'm very on the fence about whether WP:BRD should apply to contentious edits on contentious topics, it feels wrong Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Nothing to do with BRD, which addresses an edit in dispute, not the case here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Meant bold editing for controversial edits Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's only controversial if it's disputed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree, people can assume what is controversial based on arguments seen elsewhere, I remember reading that in policy but can't find it Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  The entire topic area is a CT, if that's what you mean. And no, you cannot assume a particular something is controversial without any evidence or we would be having RFCs all day long. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the need for this RfC as opposed to just a discussion or regular bold editing about how the Nakba should be covered in the lead. But if I had to pick I'd say #3, and there are a few problems. The status quo sentence is fine with me at least for now, as a start. But it probably should say that the expulsion was "part of" the Nakba and not "known as" the Nakba, as pointed out above. I don't think "made to flee" should be divorced from "expelled" because those two are so often joined in the literature. A much larger problem with the status quo IMO is that because of the sentence's placement, the lead incorrectly implies the Nakba happened after May 1948, when it actually began earlier. Thus I don't think this RfC is asking the right questions, and it's probably more productive to just have a more open discussion, and if really needed, an RFCBEFORE before launching any RfC. Levivich (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

First choice #3 for reasons above. Second choice #1, to match the lead of Nakba as supported by the sources in the third paragraph of Nakba#Displacement "Nakba is described as ethnic cleansing ..." (permalink). I think those sources support the statement in wikivoice in this article just as in that article or any other. Third choice #2 because I oppose #4 per Aquillion and starship. Levivich (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(3) or (4). (1) and (2) seem oversimplified and misleading: "The Palestinians" is overbroad, ignoring those who stayed, and "an expulsion" ignores the flight component of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. More nuance is needed if this is to be included in the lede. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to update my !vote to (4), only because I'm convinced the same facts can be conveyed in a more neutral and objective language, as in the current text:

The war saw the expulsion and flight of many Palestinians due to various causes.

Nakba is a less-neutral term since it's innately tied to the Palestinian perspective, and while this perspective is notable, I think the lede of Israel should stick to describing facts in neutral language. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli perspective of Independence War is in the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't quite follow what you mean, but if there are concerns that the current summary of Israel's creation isn't neutral, I would think some minor wording tweaks could address that. For Israel's lede, I would argue we should stick to one brief factual summary rather than getting into different viewpoints. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 4 This is an article about "Israel" and not about the Nakba, so there is no reason at all to refer to it in the "lead" of the article.Eladkarmel (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the article on Israel, but Israel perpetuated the Nakba. For you to claim no reason at all is very puzzling. starship.paint (RUN) 02:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• 2, followed by 1 and 3 in that order; oppose 4 in strongest possible terms. The expulsion of the Palestinians is a central aspect of Israeli history, as well as a core part of understanding events today, and is therefore clearly worthy of inclusion in the lead; I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise (some people might reasonably disagree with the framing, but that would be option 3 at most - option 4 is absurd and indefensible.) The problem with option 1 (and a suggestion for option 3) is that using the words ethnic cleansing might make sense due to that descriptor being central to the underlying dispute, but would probably require some form of attribution. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• 2, then 3, then 1, oppose 4. I largely agree with Aquillion. The Nakba is simply highly relevant and important to Israel, as it resulted in longstanding and current Palestinian unrest within Israel, to the point of the current war. Even now some consider there to be an Ongoing Nakba with Israeli settler violence. Unfortunately there is Nakba denial, one reason due to the Nakba damaging the legitimacy of the founding of Israel. Option 2 follows the titling of our Wikipedia article on the expulsion and flight, though I am open to other viewpoints. starship.paint (RUN) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

4, I oppose 1,2,3 - if the Israeli War of Independence isn't mentioned, then it makes no sense to mention the Nakba. Both are not politically neutral terms. O.maximov (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC) Banned sock [17] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

3/4, I oppose 1,2 - The flight and forced expulsion of Palestinian Arabs following the establishment of Israel did not exist in a vacuum. It specifically occurred after the 1948 Palestine war, in which horrible atrocities were committed by both sides, ended in Israels favor. Additionally any definition of the Nahkba would also have to include mentioning of the fact that not all Palestinian Arabs were forced to flee or forcibly expelled, but that many also fled themselves out of fear of repercussions or one of the various other reasons listed in the Nahkba-article alongside forced expulsions. Vlaemink (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Nakba article. It began before the war started, not after it ended. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The current version is fine, I don't think there was good reason for this RFC since there was no major disagreement over it that was discussed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

4, we already mention the 1948 Palestinian flight and expulsion which sums up the issue, we don't need the narrative version of the same event. ABHammad (talk) 06:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

4, opposing the other options, I don't see why we should use contested terms. If we don't use the Israeli term 'Independence War,' so there is no need to use the Palestinian term 'Nakba.' HaOfa (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that addition okay? Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think your edit in the lede proposes a false equivalence behind the causes of the Palestinian exodus Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

It also goes against already established consensus Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think if “a core part of the Nakba” were added it’d be fine, since there’s now the “Independence War” included Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• 3 or 4 . 3 because 1 and 2 are not improvements compare to the current version. 4 per the argument by ABHamad just above. As of note, the current version is erroneous grammatically. "fled by Zionist militias"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The current one doesn’t mention militias or the Nakba Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• 4 and I prefer the version of the text XDanielx mentioned. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• 1, considering the academic consensus of the Nakba as ethnic cleansing (barring the previously mentioned grammatical errors, of course) GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• 3 is the most neutral way to approach this. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Version 2 without the loitering comma, or some similar formulation (3) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - the way the sentences are written sounds like all the Palestinians were expelled or fled but I have heard that some Arab citizens of Israel consider themselves to be Palestinians so the proposed sentences need to have the word “majority”. Proposed sentences need to be written “The majority of Palestinians…” Wafflefrites (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax tagging you, can you please add “majority” or some other clarifier? Not all of the Palestinians were expelled or fled, some stayed. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is making things too complicated, about half of the expelled/fled was before Israeli state was declared. Then there were the 1948 Palestinian expulsion from Lydda and Ramle and 1949–1956 Palestinian expulsions as well. Selfstudier (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba page and short description and says it occurred since 1948. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Look in Nov 47 to May 48 section "On 14 May, the Mandate formally ended, the last British troops left, and Israel declared independence. By that time, Palestinian society was destroyed and over 300,000 Palestinians had been expelled or fled."

Although I agree it is not as clear as it should be in the lead, needs to be fixed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The introductory/summary section above that in the Nakba article says, “About 750,000 Palestinians—over 80% of the population in what would become the State of Israel—were expelled or fled from their homes and became refugees. “

I just remember nableezy back in October putting the actual numbers in the lead after an edit war. ^__^ Wafflefrites (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba did not start or end in 1948 says "In less than six months, from December 1947 to mid-May 1948, Zionist armed groups expelled about 440,000 Palestinians from 220 villages." Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

See here nableezy wrote the number [18] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, it needs fixing up. For purposes here, I see little point in delving into what happened to those that stayed. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice I didn’t say anything in about putting information about the Palestinans who became citizens of Israel. I just suggested to add the word “majority”. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

vast majority? Majority implies 60% to me Kowal2701 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that’s better. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not an RFC option tho, so you can ask for it as part of your !vote else ask for RFC to be amended and everyone who !voted to be pinged. If you do ask for an amendment then I would prefer a specific number and a % of the population and some mention of the subsequent expulsions as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s so complicated.

Given the options, I would vote 3 or 4. The options 1 and 2 are missing “vast majority” or “80%.” If 1 &2 did contain “vast majority” or “80”, I would pick option 2 over option 1. To me though, I don’t really personally care whether or not Nakba is in the lead since the expulsions are already in the lead so that is why I vote both 3 and 4. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's OK, we are used to the need to make 3 or 4 RFCs about the same thing before it is accepted. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think it’s better to change “made to flee” to “fled” or some other wording that sounds less awkward. Usually people flee do to fear, threat or danger so I don’t think it’s necessary to write “made to flee” which sounds a bit weird. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

yeah 'fled' implies they didn't want to, I think that wording is more to counter some Israeli revisionist histories where they claim the Palestinians left willingly Kowal2701 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If they had left willingly, I think the word “emigrated” would have be used instead of “fled”. That would be revisionism, not “fled”. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@everyone: This is a bit complicated. There were about 1.5 million Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine when the Nakba began. About 900k lived in the parts of Mandatory Palestine that later became Israel. (This portion includes the 54% of Mandatory Palestine assigned to Israel by the UN partition, plus about half of the remaining 45% that was supposed to go to a Palestinian state, totaling 78% of Mandatory Palestine in all.) About 750k Palestinians were expelled/fled. This is "over 80% of the Palestinians in the land that would become Israel" (750k/900k) and "about 50% of the Palestinians in Mandatory Palestine" (750k/1.5M). It wasn't a "majority" of all Palestinians everywhere in the world. But the "over 80%" figure is widely reported in RS because the point is that Israel cleared out almost all of the Palestinians within the land that it was given/took. There are lots of different ways to say this, but "a majority of Palestinians were expelled/fled" without qualification would be incorrect. I think the more important figure is the "over 80%" because the point isn't how many Palestinians were kicked out, but that almost all Palestinians in Israel were kicked out. It's of course possible to say something like "over 80% of Palestinians in Israel and about half of Palestinians overall," but that might be overly long/awkward.

It should also be noted that the 150-160k Palestinians who were still in Israel at the end of the war -- the "'48 Arabs" or Palestinian citizens of Israel -- included an unknown number who were internally displaced persons ("IDPs," meaning they didn't just stay in their homes throughout the war, they were expelled/fled from one part of what would become Israel and ended up stuck in another part; they were trapped, they didn't remain in their homes, and they didn't choose to remain in Israel). Levivich (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

“Over 80% of Palestinians that had been living in the region that would become Israel were expelled or fled.” Wafflefrites (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment if the Nakba is in the lede then 'Independence War' needs to also be in the lede for NPOV

Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

1948 Arab–Israeli War (its name) is already there and linked. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I know but if we're including the Palestinian POV on the war, we should include the Israeli POV as well Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Nakba" is not "the Palestinian POV on the war." The Nakba and the war are two different things. Also, WP:NPOV doesn't mean if we include the Palestinian POV we must also include the Israeli POV; WP:NPOV is not false balance. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how this is false balance. Israelis see the war as the Independence War. Palestinians view the war in the context of the Nakba. I don't think it's controversial/undue weight to say "termed the Independence War in Israel". That says nothing on the war or the expulsion, other than it gained Israel its independence, which is fact Kowal2701 (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, this would be right after 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It's not to provide a different POV on the Nakba, but just to include an Israeli POV when we're including a Palestinian one Kowal2701 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba is not the same thing as the war. The Nakba started before the war, and continued after the war. "Nakba" is not an alternative name of "War of Independence." And, again, NPOV is not about including the POV of both sides in a conflict; read WP:NPOV, it's about the POV of sources, not the POV of states or groups of people. And in any event, both the war and the Nakba are mentioned in the lead. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

sources say the Israelis view the war and the Nakba in the context of the War of Independence. It doesn't excuse or negate the expulsion Kowal2701 (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

As you say, it's actually an Israeli POV to view the war and the Nakba as merely two sides of the same coin, or competing POVs, i.e.: that very framing is POV. And it is ultimately one of the forms of Nakba denial, albeit one of the more subtle and crafty ones. It's the Benny Morris route, i.e.: " sure there was an ethnic cleansing, but it was a necessity". POV. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that speaks for itself. No one claiming any morality can dismiss ethnic cleansing as ‘unavoidable’, you pare it back to the circumstances that led to it and identify the mistakes. I think we’ve got to have faith in the reader to discern this Kowal2701 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In Nakba lead, it says "The Palestinian national narrative views the Nakba as a collective trauma that defines their national identity and political aspirations. The Israeli national narrative views the Nakba as a component of the War of Independence that established Israel's statehood and sovereignty." Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You're right they are connected, I was wrong to separate the two. That excerpt adheres to NPOV and I feel these proposals might not. The war and the expulsion are already mentioned, these two additions are perspectives on the series of events if I'm not mistaken. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4. We mention the expulsion already quite prominently in the lede. As far as I understand the term Nakba usually encompasses more than the expulsion/flight of 1948-1949, so the options 1 and 2 can be misleading. Not sure about 3, since we already mention the key components (the wars, human rights issues, dispossession), I don't see convincing RS-based arguments why we need to mention this term specifically. This could potentially cause NPOV issues, since if we are to mention and wikilink a Palestinian perspective then we should mention and wikilink Jewish/Israeli ones (War of Independence, settler ideology, etc.). The lede is long enough already. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 then 2 then 3. Strong oppose option 4. The Nakba, and the ongoing Nakba, is a central aspect of Israel's establishment, and continuation; as per overwhelming majority RS discussing the topic; and thus cannot be ignored in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Why strongly oppose 3? Levivich (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

By mistake, fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4. Since this paragraph is about history, we should stick with concrete events, like the 1948 flight and expulsion, rather than narrative terms like Nakba. If we include Nakba, we’d have to bring in more narratives, like the Independence War, as mentioned above. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Banned sock [19] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The 1948 Arab–Israeli War is already mentioned. I'm not sure what you mean by your point about the Nakba being a "narrative term", but the notion that this is countered by Israeli narratives about the war is the first and most primal example of Nakba denial, as detailed most explicitly under the bullet point on the work of Michael R. Fischbach beginning: the "war is war" theme. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 4 I agree with UnspokenPassion and Alaexis above. Including Nakba would be POV. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sovereignty over east jerusalem in lead

The sentence in the lead says "though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law" which with the recent ICJ advisory opinion is an understatement. The full sentence should read: "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." DMH223344 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. More generally, I think the ICJ opinion justifies saying "illegal occupation" in Wikivoice. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

In contrast to specifying "under international law"? I'm not sure I agree, since just saying the occupation is illegal could be interpreted as an Israeli court ruling. DMH223344 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

No, not in contrast, I'd be fine with "illegal under international law." I think "illegal occupation" implies illegal under int'l law, not Israeli law, but I have no problem with the clarification of "under int'l law." Levivich (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

+1, there is now an authoritative statement as to the law from the ICJ that the occupation (including EJ) is illegal. That the annex is illegal has been the case for a long time by way of UNSC resolutions and now it is confirmed by the court. It's not just a case of not being recognized anymore, the new requirement is "vacate". Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Though is a MOS:EDITORIAL word to watch. Instead of though, I think the sentence should be rewritten using “which”. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

"which" doesnt work here grammatically unless we say something like:

"Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem which is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel."

I removed the "seat of government" phrase since it just makes the whole thing wordier and I dont think it really adds anything. DMH223344 (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What about splitting the sentence? Would that help with the grammar? “Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. This includes East Jerusalem which under international law is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.”? Wafflefrites (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I am ok with using “though” mostly because I don’t think the grammar is right using “which”. I am confused about whether the which is modifying Jerusalem or East Jerusalem in the sentences. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So what happened here? Did this go to RFC and I missed it? DMH223344 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Need to keep going down the page to see how it came to the current version. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This removes "illegally" with edit summary "Removed point of view. Status of Jerusalem is explained in article. Here, it is unfair to say East Jerusalem is "illegally occupied" - that is not obvious enough to state it simply. See NPOV" Although it was clear enough before, it is now certainly obvious enough, there is a clear cut ICJ statement of the matter. Don't tell me we now have to an RFC on this as well. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s in the infobox, the lead still says illegally. I think it’s because the lead clarified that it’s illegal under international law, but the infobox didn’t. The occupation is not illegal under Israeli law. Personally I don’t care whether or not “illegally” is in the infobox or not, maybe the other editor was wanting clarification on the international law part. “Illegally” is still in the lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

id rather not try to decipher that incomprehensible edit summary. in any case, WP:NPOV is just not applicable here. As was done by someone else, I would just revert this kind of edit. DMH223344 (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not governed by the opinions of some legal elites but by what reliable sources say. The qualification of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is the result of a longstanding consensus.

Perhaps we could satisfy all by ditching the rest of the roundabout language ("governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital") and say something like "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but its control over East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation." PrimaPrime (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

First, there is no recognition at all of Israeli sovereignty so that's wrong and "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is also wrong because Israel has merely claimed that and it is not recognized. WP:CCC and probably should in this case, subject to RS dealing with the interpretation of the ICJ opinion (there is already plenty on the requirement that Israel vacate the OPT, for example). Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel says Jerusalem is its capital. If America says Washington is it's capital, than damn so be it. If Israel has its parliament and government in Jerusalem and says its the capital, it is the capital of the country. If only some of the world recognizes it as the capital, then only some of the world recognizes it as the capital. You understand?

The current phrasing is a compromise between everyone. Compromise is good, compromise is the Wikipedia way. I think there will be a million opinions on this. Let's leave this version, unsatisfying as it is. O.maximov (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The current phrasing is "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.

This is the compromise version. The new thing was one way and not a compromise. O.maximov (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what they meant. The last consensual version. I'm also against the new version, it's really biased. HaOfa (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Biased how? Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

HaOfa, I was talking about:

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally. O.maximov (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's the old version. Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.

is better O.maximov (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be even better:

Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. HaOfa (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You think it's better. Selfstudier thinks something else is better. Again we are going to talk and talk. I think

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.

was a good compromise. O.maximov (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, illegality and limited recognition are different facets and both are needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

"Not recognized under international law" is what the status was before the recent ICJ decision. Now, the status is "illegal under international law." Violating int'l law is different from being unrecognized under int'l law, imo. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert? O.maximov (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

PrimaPrime I like the way you explained yourself. Do you think:

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.

Is a good consensus? O.maximov (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, the usual edit warring begins with the usual suspects, time for an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

The usual suspects? You are wrong. I am not the one who introduced again challenged material without consensus. HaOfa (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have made one revert and several comments in this discussion. Afaics there is an agreement that following the ICJ opinion, the EJ occupation is illegal and now the reverters are arguing there is no consensus for this change so an RFC would seem to be the way to resolve this. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

He was talking about DMH223344. But yes, not a great tone. O.maximov (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, why are you talking like this about DMH223344 ? If you have a problem with him say it nicely. O.maximov (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Per my comment above, I am nicely suggesting an RFC as there is no consensus, your point I believe. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Check you have all the versions people suggested and previous consensus one. O.maximov (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagged POV inline, pending RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Suggest we wait for more comments before we proceed, there is no rush. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Are we going to be doing an RfC? I think

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though international law considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

should also be an option. I slightly changed a few words. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the difference between a governmental seat and a capital? Isn't every country's seat of government in its capital? Levivich (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know. The only words I changed to were “considers” and “to be”. The rest are not my words. The reason I used “considers” is because there is no law that says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory, rather the judges have interpreted the law and considered the territory to be for a future Palestinian state, I used “to be” because again, there is currently no Palestinian state, and it is unknown if there will be one in the near future. So “to be” seemed more appropriate than “is”. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

because there is no law that says East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory Please cite the law that says West Jerusalem is Israeli territory.

the judges have interpreted the law and considered the territory to be for a future Palestinian state Citation please.

there is currently no Palestinian state What's Palestine?

ICJ says Israel has committed illegal annex(es) and is conducting an illegal occupation. Of whom/what? Selfstudier (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oslo Accords wiki page says “ The Oslo Accords did not create a definite Palestinian state.” Wafflefrites (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

And? nableezy - 13:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This is also from the wiki page “ Seth Anziska argued Oslo provided the "vestiges of statehood without actual content", formalizing the "ceiling of Palestinian self-rule". Pointing to statements from Rabin that referred to a permanent solution of Israel existing alongside a Palestinian 'entity' that was (in Rabin's words) "less than a state", “

If the Oslo Accords didn’t create a state and were considered a failure, then what Accord created the Palestinian state? Wafflefrites (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The wiki page also says “ Although the Oslo Accords did not explicitly endorse a two-state solution, they did create self-governing institutions in the West Bank and Gaza, and as such have been interpreted as anticipating a two-state future.” Wafflefrites (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is an Accord necessary to create a state? Levivich (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure but that would be a good question for the Oslo Accords organizers. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The Oslo accords are dead, and yet Palestine exists, as recognised by the UN. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I see, so Palestine became a state sometime after the Oslo Accords when the UN recognized it as a state. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn’t seem like Palestine has been recognized as a full state by the UN. It is a United Nations General Assembly observers state, which also applies to international organizations. Many countries do recognize Palestine as a sovereign state , but it doesn’t seem like the UN has recognized it as such yet. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan is not a member of the UN, it's still a state. Switzerland was a non-member observer (same as Palestine currently) until 2002, but it was definitely a state before 2002. There have been a number of states that had non-member observer status before being fully admitted; United Nations General Assembly observers has the details. Levivich (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The UN doesn't recognize states, what it did was to upgrade Palestine status from an observer to observer state and changed its designation to SoP at the UN. Palestine's application to be admitted a member state has been blocked by US veto in support of the invalid contention that statehood has to be negotiated with Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I still think using “to be” is not wrong in the sentence since Palestine was upgraded to observer state which is a step towards becoming a UN member state. Like you said self determination does not require negotiation, it can be determined by force through wars, which is how Israel became a state. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Not any more, it is expressly forbidden (although Israel seems not to have heard about it). Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Same could be said of Hamas and their proposed 10-100 year truce, or temporary stop of fighting. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Hamas is not a state. Selfstudier (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you're confusing a Palestinian state existing with a Palestinian state being recognized by Israel. Don't forget that Israel is not recognized by about 30 states... it still exists. Palestine is not recognized by about 40 states, by comparison. So they have about the same level of international recognition. Levivich (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn’t know that Palestine was already a state especially the words “two state solution”. I thought the two state solution was to create the second state, but looks like that’s not really what that’s about. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about getting Israel to recognize Palestine. (Which would require Israel to stop occupying it.) That's the thing that hasn't happened yet that (almost) everyone has been trying to get to happen for 75 years. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988, and admitted as a non-member state in 2012. International recognition of the State of Palestine has the details. Levivich (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel attempts to make it such that the Palestinians are required to negotiate their own independence, aided in that by the US that also insists on "negotiations" as a prerequisite to a Palestinian state but that is not required, negotiations can take place without this condition. And as the ICJ said (102) "The Court observes that, in interpreting the Oslo Accords, it is necessary to take into account Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which provides that the protected population 'shall not be deprived' of the benefits of the Convention 'by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power'. For all these reasons, the Court considers that the Oslo Accords cannot be understood to detract from Israel’s obligations under the pertinent rules of international law applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, self determination doesn't have to be negotiated. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Palestine was declared as a state well before Oslo. This has nothing to do with anything though. nableezy - 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Was confused about the critics of Oslo who said it failed to give Palestinians a state, so I thought it was stateless but I have been informed that it is a UN observer state, and I think that it established itself as a state in ‘88. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There is even currently a section in the Oslo wiki article called “ Undermining Palestinian aspirations for statehood”. This was very confusing because all this time I thought Palestine was trying to create a state, didn’t know it already was a state. I suppose the statehood is referring to the full UN status, so there are different definitions for “state” Wafflefrites (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That just relates to the Israeli refusal to recognize. States are states when they meet a few conditions (which people play around with a bit) and/or when other states recognize them as states. The US turns to the "conditions" part (Montevideo) and says "not a state" (which suits us because we and Israel are best friends an all) while 3/4 of world states say we recognize it as a state because that's cool and they deserve it.

Some people argue (not a bad argument but an old one now and not likely to get tested) that Palestine was a state in waiting as a class A mandate and that it became a state when the mandate ended and from there, multiplications, 64, 74, choose your poison. Oslo was more like promising recognition as a state and then reneging on the deal. Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The PLO declared the State of Palestine in 1988, and it was recognized by some 70 states within a month. In the 26 years since it has been recognized by a total of 145 other states. Now it exercises no sovereignty, and all of its recognized territory is held by Israel under military occupation, but it *is* a state because the only group that determines if a state is a state is other states, and they do that by recognition. The so called "peace process" is about establishing Palestinian sovereignty. But, once again, this has nothing to do with anything here. nableezy - 17:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Got it, basically Oslo has nothing to do with Palestinian statehood, and its critics were talking about recognition of statehood. Conversation arose because I wanted to use “to be” in a sentence. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Palestine has been a state since it was recognized as a state by other states. nableezy - 12:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This may be a good time to mention that the State of Palestine is recognized by 75% of the world. Levivich (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, less waffle, more accepting the facts. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not only person “waffling”, about the Palestinian state. Reliable sources write things in June 2024 like “Why is there no Palestinian state, despite so many states recognizing it?” and talks about protestors calling “for the creation of a Palestinian state.” [20] So I thought there was no state.

This 2022 Cambridge source on international law says “The issue of whether Palestine is, at present, a State remains controversial.”[21]There are legitimate reasons behind the “waffling”. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For every source that says it isn't, there is a source that says it is. At the end of the day, it is difficult to argue with 3/4 of UN member states, it is only recently that another 3 Euro states joined their number, with the possibility of more. And this still has nothing to do with Israeli illegalities, which I believe is what we are actually discussing here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing my pre RFC proposal:

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though international law considers East Jerusalem to be Palestinian territory illegally occupiedby Israel. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Renewed focus at last, that's three proposals now. Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that I am thinking about it, I think I want to change “to be” to “as”. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though international law considers East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel.

I think it sounds less awkward, and also I realized the sentence is not talking about a Palestinian state or future state, it’s talking about Palestinian territory. To be would be appropriate if it was talking about a state. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

international law doesnt consider anything, it is considered Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law. nableezy - 22:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

International law considers many things [22] Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not consider individual circumstances. That link is a definition of international law. Sheesh. nableezy - 22:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the link is to all the Google search results with sentences that use the phrase “international law considers”. So that phrase is used, but Selfstudier is more the international law expert currently in discussions so I will defer to his opinion if that phrase is not being used accurately. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The first one is from a chapter in a Springer book chapter, which says International law considers the norms that govern these relationships (and many other important transactions). The next one is an overview of an OUP book which says 'Implementing international law' considers the different ways in which international law is implemented. Which isn't quite what you say it is. The others are giving views on general topics (what international law considers to be a free election and so on). I think your suggestion is poorly phrased, and it implies that international law itself is making some consideration. And it is not. nableezy - 23:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though the ICJ considers East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law.

CNN is attributing the ruling to the court opinion [23] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It is more than the ICJ, it is nearly the entire international community. nableezy - 01:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You can add that to your RFC proposal then. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There isn't really one in colloquial use, it's an official distinction only in the Netherlands and a couple other countries. Here it's just superfluous language which I've proposed removing for the sake of clarity and brevity. PrimaPrime (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The qualification of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem is the result of a longstanding consensus. you of course are missing that the "longstanding consensus" is irrelevant given the recent ICJ advisory opinion. Not only is it described as "limited recognition", EJ is considered Palestinian territory and illegally occupied by Israel. And of course RS do not say that "Jerusalem is the capital"--it is the *proclaimed* capital. DMH223344 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia consensuses are not overturned because some UN lawyers gave an *opinion* orthogonal to the relevant question.

The capitals of countries are indeed set by proclamation. And the word "Jerusalem" of course implies no specific borders. If those desired by the ICJ were implemented, the Israeli capital would still be there. In deference to this reality plenty of competent reference maps mark Jerusalem with a star for the capital (not "seat of government and proclaimed capital") whilst adhering to the Green Line as a border.

I reiterate my proposal for a new compromise:

"Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its occupation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal annexation of Palestinian territory."

(Or something to that effect.)

PrimaPrime (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia is not a vote, it is determined by fidelity to our policies. And these are not some UN lawyers who gave an *opinion*, it is the highest body in international law saying what international law means. And not orthogonal, actually directly related. nableezy - 18:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

some UN lawyers I think you meant to write "International Court of Justice judges"? a.k.a. "The World Court." Levivich (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Aka, a panel of lawyers who work for the UN and wrote something explicitly called an "advisory opinion". It's of course a notable reflection of current world politics - that's all "international law" has always been - but it doesn't require us to pretend that up is down or that the Israeli capital isn't in Jerusalem.

I would like to hear an actual case against the wording I proposed, which I would point out drops the ambiguously incorrect notion of "limited recognition" for Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem in particular. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to hear a case against the wording that has been reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe my proposal incorporates the gist of it, that East Jerusalem is internationally deemed to be usurped Palestinian territory. I agree this is better than the current vague version.

I also think saying Israel's capital is in Jerusalem would be better than the current vague version. I don't see how one could seriously disagree with removing all the euphemistic cruft here about "proclaimed seats of government" and "limited" recognition where none exists, and instead getting straight to the facts: the capital is in Jerusalem but the UN says East Jerusalem is rightfully Palestinian. PrimaPrime (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a panel of judges, and they represent an organ of the United Nations, they don't work for the UN. It is an "advisory opinion" because it is *advising* the UN General Assembly on what international law says about this topic. nableezy - 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess the US Supreme Court is just a panel of lawyers working for the US. But guess what they get to do: rule on what is and what is not illegal. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

SCOTUS has ruled that "advisory opinions" are illegal for failing to present an actual case or controversy. The Wikimedia Foundation being registered in the US, perhaps we could take that opinion under advice.

Or we could recognize that "international law" isn't akin to domestic legal systems, namely because it is based on the principle of recognizing each domestic legal system as equally sovereign. The UN isn't the World Government and we should treat its missives accordingly: notable, not prescriptive. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

How about we treat SCOTUS as not prescriptive, since that's a partisan, parochial legal lemon? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

At least its partisans are chosen by legitimately elected politicians and not the dubiously elected regimes which dominate the UN. But this is off-topic. PrimaPrime (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter in the end what we think of the ICJ, what matters is what the world and third states in particular, think of it.

Germany’s Reaction to the International Court of Justice’s Palestine Advisory Opinion: 'The Opinion Confirms Our Positioning in Many Points'

"It was further asked whether the federal government now recognised that the Israeli occupation as such was unlawful. The spokesperson for the Federal Foreign Office replied:International law is not an à-la-carte menu – international law applies. There is now a non-binding opinion from the highest court of the United Nations that says exactly that. In this respect, there is ultimately little room for interpretation." Selfstudier (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And that's a wrap. Because blinkered as even the German government might be on Middle East issues, they don't want to be actively on the wrong side of international law when it has been so clearly and expressly outlined. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh. Relevance to my proposal? PrimaPrime (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, the most obvious objection is that the annexation is not recognized at all, by anyone or the ICJ. The territory is instead considered illegally occupied. And the removal of "proclaimed" another unnecessary tweak since the actual proclamation/purported annex are both illegal as well, Note that this has nothing to do with recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital by third states which carries no sovereignty implication over all or any part of Jerusalem, it's just like saying well done you (those few that have said that). Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

So is it "not recognized" or do recognitions carry "no implication"? (Personally I'd go with the latter, "recognition" politics are silly.)

How about "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory."

Stating the fact that Israel has annexed East Jerusalem isn't an endorsement thereof, quite the opposite in international law terms. Or we could just say "control of East Jerusalem" if you prefer.

"Proclaimed" is an unnecessary word since all capitals are proclaimed and as you said, whether they're "recognized" or not is beside the point. It would only be a relevant distinction if the seat of government was in fact elsewhere. The phrasing "in Jerusalem" precisely avoids implying Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem and is thus NPOV. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Literally the two of those links which describe jerusalem as the capital (the third does not, it only has a star on the map) qualify that it is the proclaimed capital. Let's move on from this point now. DMH223344 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I also think that "proclaimed" shouldn't be there. Most sources don't use it. If we do an RfC this should be asked too. Alaexis_¿question? 20:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not separately, need to choose one of the options. I'll relist them shortly if no-one else has any more. Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Current status

Just to keep things on track, I see three proposals atm, any more?

1. "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel." (the reverted one)

2. "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory." (PrimaPrime)

3. "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though the ICJ considers East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law." (Wafflefrites)

(Existing is "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.") Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to change my proposal, please, (following Levivich’s input/feedback below) to: “Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. The ICJ has ruled that Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law.”Wafflefrites (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, you forgot all the ones that don't mention the Palestine word and also the old consensus version:

The old consensus version (I propose it, because it is the best compromise and looks like it was a good consensus for a long time):

Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.

Also HaOfa said this

Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited.

Also you forgot PrimaPrime

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, but its control over East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation." O.maximov (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Prima Prime proposal is included at No 2. The "old consensus version" is the existing version mentioned at the bottom. Do you actually read before you type? Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops my mistake. The other two you need to include. Maybe you can say instead of " Do you actually read before you type?" something that is nicer in tone?? O.maximov (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw I strongly dislike all of them as I think they're all very wordy and awkward. First part should be: Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. Which could just be a sentence on its own (for the lead), and doesn't need a "though" clause following it. We don't have to argue the conflict in each and every sentence. If we do have a second sentence or clause, it should be something like ... but international recognition is limited. Israel's occupation of EJ doesn't really need to be in the same sentence as the one about the proclaimed capital. I'd rather just a straight up Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied WB, EJ, and GH, and, until 2005, Gaza. The fact of occupation should be in the first paragraph. Levivich (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what Fwiw means.

But this is what was proposed by people and Selfstudier needs to add it. O.maximov (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't even understand what that means? (fwiw means for what it's worth). Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What don't you understand? O.maximov (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What I need to add? Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining fwiw O.maximov (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an option without “though” is good. Did the ICJ rule that the occupation has been illegal since 1967, or was it initially legal and then became illegal sometime afterwards? What does the ICJ say? Wafflefrites (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You want to change "though" to "however"? to "but"?

Sure. O.maximov (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The occupation became illegal by virtue of all the reasons given in the opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No problem (for me) to have separate sentences, capital + occupation. Gaza might be troublesome tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Gaza remains occupied. nableezy - 13:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure the RSes would support "remains occupied" (surely something happened in 2005) but we could mention the blockade 2005-present, and maybe re-occupation 2023-present though I'm not sure if this is an "occupation" or just bombing/shooting. Levivich (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No, the view of the UN and the ICRC (The ICRC considers Gaza to remain occupied territory on the basis that Israel still exercises effective control over the Strip, notably through key elements of authority over the strip, including over its borders (airspace, sea and land – at the exception of the border with Egypt)., RULAC: Following the implementation of the 2005 Disengagement Plan, Israeli armed forces were no longer present in the territory of the Gaza Strip. For this reason, some reject Israel’s classification as an occupying power.
However, international practice and the majority of scholarly opinions have long considered that, even after its withdrawal in 2005, Israel has continued to occupy the Gaza Strip by virtue of the control exercised over its airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, the supply of civilian infrastructure, and the exercise of key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry. ... This view has been supported in relation to the Gaza Strip by several reports and declarations by relevant international bodies, such as the UN, the ICC and the ICRC.) Scholarly opinion is more split than it is for the WB/EJ, but the majority view is that Gaza has continued to be occupied despite the disengagement. The ICJ ruling also included In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip. nableezy - 14:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, strike "until 2005". Levivich (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip aka the "functional approach", see The Occupation of Gaza in the ICJ Palestine Advisory Opinion Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Israel's seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is widely recognized as Palestinian territory held under military occupation. ... (further down in the lead) The International Court of Justice has found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law.

  nableezy - 13:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's two more options, (Levivich) and (Nableezy), I make that 5 in total (or 6 if we count the existing as an option). Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Selfstudier, do not forget to add these options:

  1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally.
  2. Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited.

  The first option is what I think is the best compromise. It is the old consesus version.

  Wafflefrites if you want it can be "however" or "but" instead of the word "though". O.maximov (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  The first one is already included in the 6, I don't remember any discussion about the other but if it is included as well, that's 7. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  No I was responding to Levivich who said “ Fwiw I strongly dislike all of them as I think they're all very wordy and awkward. First part should be: Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem.Which could just be a sentence on its own (for the lead), and doesn't need a "though" clause following it. ”

  But, however, and though are all MOS:EDITORIAL words to watch. I agree with Levivich that the sentence should be split into two sentences. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Reading his additional sentences, he does later propose “but”. Ahhh! If I had to choose, I prefer “though” to “however” and “but” because it’s closer to Britannica’s Israel article. Britannica uses “although”. The wording is actually really similar to Wikipedia. Britannica writes: Israel, country in the Middle East, located at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded to the north by Lebanon, to the northeast by Syria, to the east and southeast by Jordan, to the southwest by Egypt, and to the west by the Mediterranean Sea. Jerusalem is the seat of government and the proclaimed capital, although the latter status has not received wide international recognition.Wafflefrites (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Quickie straw poll

One sentence or two? Should the sentence "Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem." be a sentence separate from the occupation material?

Atm, Levivich, wafflefrites in support, I don't mind either way. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the same structure necessarily has to apply to everyone’s proposal. Others can use “however” “but” “although” “though” if they want. They can also include additional information if they want. I just simplified my proposal and left out the “Palestinian territory” part because I think it’s too much detail and info/content that needs to be dealt with in the body. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If this bit has consensus separately then we don't need to include it in any RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

one sentence and the use of "though" makes it immediately clear why we are saying "proclaimed capital". If this becomes two sentences I can also easy see a few weeks from now someone coming in an moving the second sentence further down in the lead, and another edit removing "proclaimed". The sentence is explaining the status of Jerusalem which at this point really is straightforward enough to present in a single sentence. DMH223344 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, since nableezy isn't on board there either, no consensus and it will have to be part of the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t realize RFCs were this complicated. Thanks, Selfstudier, for keeping us organized. I think once RFCs have been voted on, we are not allowed to change the wording/remove words unless there’s another RFC. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Revised current status

Currently, the article says "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally."

Here is a list of the proposals for change so far (If I got anybody's wrong, just change it):

1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. (the reverted one)

2. Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, but its annexation of East Jerusalem is internationally considered to be an illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. (PrimaPrime)

3. Israel's capital is Jerusalem, and the ICJ has ruled that East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law. (Wafflefrites)

4. Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem. (possibly but not necessarily with "but international recognition is limited.") as a separate sentence from "Since 1967, Israel has illegally occupied WB, EJ, Gaza and GH." (Levivich)

5 Israel's seat of government is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is widely recognized as Palestinian territory held under military occupation AND (further down in the lead) The International Court of Justice has found that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip is illegal under international law. (Nableezy)

6 Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (Maximov)

7 Israel's capital is Jerusalem with limited international recognition, and the ICJ has ruled that Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem is illegal under international law. (Wafflefrites’ version 2)

As for "proclaimed" (currently in the article), the proposals include 4 with and 2 without, if that is a sufficient choice for that matter. Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier Thanks for the overview. I would drop the word "proclaimed", as I don't think it means anything. All national capitals are proclaimed, if you want to say that, but nobody ever does. Also, there is no such thing as international recognition of a capital. We recognize countries, they choose their own capitals. I don't see the problem with saying simply that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. That doesn't in any way conflict with also saying (preferably in a separate sentence) that Israel's claim over east Jerusalem is controversial. Doric Loon (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Atm, just collecting different proposals for an eventual RFC since there is no consensus on what the article should say. As things stand, in such an RFC, you could choose one of the four options that does not contain the word "proclaimed". Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

five options now, since Wafflefrites can't make up his mind. Selfstudier (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s four. I think you need to double check your counting. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you need to add any more alternatives or are you done now? Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s nice to give people more choices. Since this is an RFC, I think the wording is important since we can’t change it once it is implemented without another RFC. Actually, I think the original edit warring was whether or not the wording should be changed from “limited recognition internationally” to “being illegal under international law”. It’s probably easier to do an RFC first on the limited recognition vs illegal under international law part first, but since it seems we want to do more than one thing in the RFC, I think more options for people is good. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Jerusalem isn’t in Israel, or at least a large portion of it. nableezy - 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors' WP:OR about int'l recognition of capitals is irrelevant; the issue is whether reliable sources use "proclaimed." "Nobody ever does" is quite easily disproven when it comes to Jerusalem. Levivich (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to tell me to shut up and stop overly complicating things, but... would it be better to approach this more piecemeal, rather than voting on a series of complete alternatives? Meaning, instead of a series of options, should the RFC ask a series of questions, and then we can form a final sentence based on the answers to those questions? Questions such as:

1. Should it say "proclaimed"?
2. Should it say "seat of government" in addition to "[proclaimed] capital"?
3. Should it say "limited recognition"?
4. Should it say "illegal occupation of EJ"?
5. Should it attribute to ICJ?
6. Should it specify "under int'l law"?

Maybe those aren't the exact questions, but you get the idea. Not sure if this approach is better or not. Levivich (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

In an ideal world, there would be some number (seven is a lot, eight if you include existing) of alternatives that had some traction in talk, unfortunately what we appear to have here is everybody's favored alternative, regardless of whether it had traction.

What I would ask (not demand, ask) is whether the proposers (I will take option 1 as mine, since we haven't a name to go with that one) can have a little think and maybe plump for a version they could live with rather than insisting on their own ie if you couldn't have your own, which one would you go for? (Wafflefrites excepted, you have to pick an alternative that is neither of your two alternatives).

So I will kick off, if I cant have 1 (the reverted one), then I would go for 2.

Selfstudier (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

5 then 1 DMH223344 (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I pick #2 (PrimaPrime). Wafflefrites (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

4 then 2 Levivich (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

1 (reverted one) then 2. It is an indisputable fact in RS that EJ is under occupation since 1967, that was only re-affirmed by the ICJ. We do not to attribute facts. Facts are also not up for democratic voting.

Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

2 or 3 are fine by me. PrimaPrime (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Looked at after this, altho not everyone has pitched in, Options 1 and 2 are currently the only options mentioned more than once (conveniently, one has proclaimed and one not) and no-one seems interested in the existing wording.

Anyone object to running an RFC based on those two options? Should we add 3, 4 and 5 as well, each mentioned once, for a total of 5 options? Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

2 and 3 O.maximov (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"seat of government" in addition to "[proclaimed] capital" + "limited recognition"

Basically old consensus version. O.maximov (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The elephant in the room, currently we have this in the third paragraph:The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is widely considered illegal under international law, and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. To avoid repetion, I think that the first paragraph should keep a sentence like "Israel's proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, but Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem remains largely unrecognised internationally." while anything about East Jerusalem and the other territories being Palestinian and illegally occupied should be in the third paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Choose an option from the available 8 (along with a secondary, assuming you could not have your first). Selfstudier (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmm sounds good. But I also think we have to mention that one says it is Palestinian illegal, others say Jews have a right to Jerusalem and the region because it is their ancient homeland. That way, we have both. But I agree it should be explained in 3rd paragraph and kept very brief in first. O.maximov (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Option 4, including in the lines "but international recognition is limited". Mawer10 (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

An option 9, then (and no secondary). At which point I hand the baton to @Levivich: as there is no consensus on the long form options for an RFC, would you care to try your series of questions method instead :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is going to be way too unwieldy, need to focus on individual choices, and not that many of them. nableezy - 15:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: (and everyone else) Which individual choices would you suggest we focus on, and in what format? (Questions, proposed drafts, or something else?) Levivich (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Should Jerusalem be described as the capital, the proclaimed capital, or seat of government in its proclaimed capital? Should it also include "largely unrecognized", "limited recognition", or nothing further?
2. Should East Jerusalem be described as occupied, illegally occupied, or not at all? nableezy - 14:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on your list of seven options above I would ask only 5 questions instead of 6 as Levivich did.

1. Should it say "proclaimed"?
2. Should it say "seat of government" in addition to "[proclaimed] capital"?
3. Should it say East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel under international law or something similar?
4. Should it say only that Israel's control over East Jerusalem have limited recognition or is largely unrecognized?
5. Should it exclude East Jerusalem from the sentence and just say that Israel's claim of Jerusalem as its capital have limited recognition or is largely unrecognized? Mawer10 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

   Simple. Proclaimed ... Capital ... EJ annexation both illegal and internationally unrecognised. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

   I am in favour of 2. Government + capital. I think 4 is the best reasonable one. It is unclear if it is occupied from Jordan, from Mandatory Palestine, others say there is no occupation. So it is 100% disputed. Best Neutral thing to say is that there limited recognition because there is the significant recognition of America. O.maximov (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier! You put HaOfa's version! Not mine.

Mine is the original one from before all this.

1. Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally. (Maximov)
2. Israel's governmental seat is in its capital, Jerusalem, which Israel asserts as its undivided capital. However, international recognition of its sovereignty over East Jerusalem is limited. (HaOfa)

There is a difference. O.maximov (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has moved on since then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying there is no place for versions proposed earlier?

Why?

I have to speak here every day? O.maximov (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I was telling you got mixed up. You put one version by another editor and not mine! I was involved in the talk, so why is mine not here? O.maximov (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

All gone quiet, how about

"Israel claims Jerusalem as its capital as its although most countries maintain their embassies in Tel Aviv. Palestine claims illegally occupied East Jerusalem for its capital." Selfstudier (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

based on the votes above, isnt 2 the obvious winner? DMH223344 (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be the most popular among the choices. If anyone is strongly opposed to it, I'd be curious to hear why. Levivich (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I put it in, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean 2 is the bare minimum even though I have reservations about " is internationally considered," which is effectively a redundant attribution for what is widely an undisputed fact among relevant RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you not just tag people involved in discussion? You said we are heading for RFC. Now you do this? Bro. Do the RFC with different opinions. I don't understand why you just put this after prior discussion we said we are doing an RFC. Also from what I know many people have been saying different things and there is no agreement. So if you feel it is not advancing. Do the RFC. Start the vote. But you need to keep the old consensus version until vote end. O.maximov (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Unbelieveable. I reverted to the old consensus version. Disputed changes should follow discussions, not precede it. @Selfstudier, this looks like a recurring issue. Please stop it. HaOfa (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Selfstudier (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No MDH RFC is to call different people right? O.maximov (talk) 06:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Different people who are not always in topic and then there are more opinions. O.maximov (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Altho there is no consensus for an RFC, there is a rough consensus for PrimaPrime version so, we are trying that to see what objections there might be. So far, no-one appears to be objecting. Selfstudier (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already raised an objection, the occupation of East Jerusalem is already mentioned in the third paragraph, so it would be more appropriate to mention that this territory is considered Palestinian in this part of the text and leave in the first paragraph only that Israel's control over East Jerusalem is not recognized. This way, the information would be presented in a properly encyclopedic and contextualized way. Mawer10 (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Best keep all Israel's illegalities together in one place, that what you mean? But shouldn't all of them be mentioned in the first para, what with them now being a defining feature and all that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my vision for the 1st paragraph: "Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is largely unrecognised internationally."

For the 3rd paragraph: "The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in Israel illegally occupying the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as well as the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and the Syrian Golan Heights. Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and has established settlements across the occupied territories, which is illegal under international law." Mentioning that East Jerusalem is considered Palestinian territory under illegal military occupation under international law in the first paragraph lacks context, but the third provides the context.Mawer10 (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Better in the first sentence to not pipe the link but use "the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem", rather than Easter egg above plus inserting "sovereignty" in wikivoice in the context. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So put it in, see what happens, else we we will be here for a year discussing it as before. Selfstudier (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's redundant to have the issue split up, however it's also factually incorrect to say "Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is largely unrecognised internationally" as it is completely unrecognized internationally. Even Team Trump was very careful not to touch that.

So how about...

"Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is part of the occupied West Bank."

Strictly geographic, all stuff about "legality" in para 3 to avoid any weighting problems. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Strong support to the proposed phrasing of "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is part of the occupied West Bank." which largely reflects most RS. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Point of information - Do most RS concatenate those two facts in their publications, or is the proposal that wiki editors should do so? If the latter, it is classic SYNTH, made worse by the use of "although". I neither know nor care much about Jerusalem, but IMO this page is replete with sloppy wiki-editing practice. SPECIFICO talk 15:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, sure is, been like that for years, we better fix it. Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I perhaps did not state the issue clearly enough. In order for WP to juxtapose the two facts as proposed, we would need to determine that--when the Jerusalem capital of Israel" bit is reported in the WEIGHT of mainstream RS sources -- they make the same juxtaposition. Not merely that they report both facts, but that each such RS juxtaposes them in such a way. Otherwise it is SYNTH, which we all are bound to avoid. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Most RS absolutely note the "controversy" over the city's status. And juxtaposing two facts is only SYNTH if we then state some original conclusion unsupported by the predicate sources in Wikivoice (like, say, the current version someone's just put back where we imply "limited" recognition of Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem where none exists). But we don't have to silo every sourced fact in its own sentence. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

PP: No. It's SYNTH when the conclusion is not stated. The issue is the concatenation. i.e. is "illegally annexed" used as a predominant epithet whenever 'capital Jerusalem' is mentioned.

I had forgotten this detail, but it can be solved by simply removing the word "largely". Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is unrecognised internationally. If the sentence say "the Israeli annexation of EJ" instead of "Israeli sovereignty over EJ" we could consider removing the mention of the annexation of East Jerusalem in the 3rd paragraph to avoid repetition. Mawer10 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What now?

@Galamore:, who didn't participate in any of the above discussions has reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I like the way the sentence is now, it's basically what I proposed earlier. The part "and only has limited recognition internationally" should be removed because is misleading. Mawer10 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So we are back to considering an RFC of some description then? Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think making an RCF about this could turn into a popularity contest between different versions and might not lead to the best version being chosen. The main issue seems to be whether Israel’s control over East Jerusalem should be called "illegal occupation/annexation" and "of Palestinian territory" according to international law. I just realized that my proposed version isn’t very different from the original version being challenged. But I think it's ok to just say "Israel’s control/annexation/sovereignty over EJ is unrecognized..." is the 1st paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Your proposal was in two parts, remember. Anyway isn't what is happening right now some sort of popularity contest? Put in, revert, repeat. Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

A possibility is to first have an RFC asking whether all the material in the two parts should be together and in which para it should be. Selfstudier (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing any arguments against the strictly geographic version Make and I (who are not usually of the same persuasion) seem to agree upon: "Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, though East Jerusalem is part of the occupied West Bank."

No need to keep going in circles about "recognition" politics. PrimaPrime (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: is arguing above that it's synth which seems rather dubious, we are discussing the lead, that is a summary of the body, if those elements are in sources and all we do is summarize them, then that's not synth.

Although I am not entirely happy with the way Palestine claim in Jerusalem is dealt with, that might be a little complicated for the lead, so with a view to making progress, any sort of progress, I will support this version as well. Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that has the same problem, due to the use of "though". See WP:WORDSTOWATCH regarding concatenation with although.. The occupied and annexed territories should be listed and describealthough. I must say that while PIA editors are overall better informed than, e.g. American Politics editors, the tenuous grasp and frequent misapplication of PAG's on these pages greatly confuses and undermines collaboration here. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As long as it is a fair summary, "although" doesn't matter, its only a problem if its being used to argue, there is no argument tho, it's factual info. If it bothers you that much, we can write it as two separate sentences, one after the other, no although and no synth. But that's just silly. Selfstudier (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

That would actually be much better, silly or not we cannot say. But what would be NPOV and best descriptive content is to group all the occupation, annexation, apartheid and settlement content together and not parsing a fragment to insinuate the larger issues in a geolocation of the capital statement. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, one or two have us have been discussing around that but the proposition doesn't seem to have much traction. Mind you neither does anything else, seemingly. Selfstudier (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I had another crack at it (both bits). Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

LGTM, in the interests of putting this to bed. Although I'll say it still reads as weird to me, like saying "The proclaimed capital of East Germany was Berlin." and not saying that it was divided city until two paragraphs later. But in the interests of consensus: support. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a word to watch because of course SYNTH is more than mere juxtaposition.

But sure, let's shunt mention of East Jerusalem as such down to para 3 if that will move things along here and go even more geographically purist:

"Israel's capital is in Jerusalem, which straddles the border with the West Bank".

PrimaPrime (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That asserts Jerusalem is Israel’s. You cannot introduce all of Jerusalem as being Israeli territory, explicitly or implicitly. nableezy - 03:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It explicitly asserts the city is not all Israeli, instead it is divided by the Israel/West Bank border and the Israeli capital is merely "in" part of the city. That I think we have a soft consensus for. PrimaPrime (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a bonkers edit, Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not simply unrecognized in international law, it is widely recognized as Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Disputed Nakba content

This edit dispute needs to be discussed. Multiple editors have changed and reverted this wording now.

The version reading "Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled for various reasons" is Nakba denial, minimizing the expulsions by vaguely suggesting there were "various causes".

The version reading "Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinians were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled from the territory Israel would come to control" is the more accurate. In fact, "or were forced to flee" would be more accurate than simply "or fled". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The various causes version has been restored with edit summary of simply "there is no consensus for this new change"[24] -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This content has been edit warred over since at least June 23[25]. I don't know which version was the "status quo" version but it really shouldn't matter that much. I'd like to point out WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING and WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on which version, but your edits are highly problematic for two reasons. (1.) The sentence is based on a source, yet you change the sentence while keeping the same source. Can you point out which sentence in the source support your wording? If there's none, you violate WP:OR (whereas if there is, this first point can be ignored). (2.) You speculate on the motives of other editors, which violates WP:NPA. Jeppiz (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR? See the article 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight and all the sourcing there. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My question was where in the articles by Ghanim, Stern, and Cleveland you find that claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This content continues to be edit warred over without being discussed. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC) @Alaexis, @Levivich. 20:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a still open RFC since 9 June on this? Selfstudier (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point. June 9 version, when #RFC: How should the Nakba described? was started, was this: The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba. That's what it should go back to, and stay at, until the RFC is closed. I'll put it back myself in a couple of hours unless Alaexis or someone else beats me to it. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

+1. Absolutely. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that the version I reverted to is better as it wikilinks the Causes articles and gives the reader the opportunity to read more about it. However considering that there is a RfC is progress we should wait for its result, you're right. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

OTOH if there are issues with the sourcing (see @Jeppiz's comment above) than we should remove badly sourced info without waiting for the RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I added the quotes from Ghanim and Cleveland, removed Haaretz and Nakba 60, and added Slater 2020, also with quote. I don't think there's any issues with the sourcing for the pre-RFC version (there are issues for the bold June 23 change). Also I've asked HaOfa to self-revert on their user talk page, because they reinstated a bold edit made June 23, during the RFC. Levivich (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideally there’d be a way to link to the causes article without mystifying what modern scholars agree was the primary cause Kowal2701 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This was never stable, the RFC was started, AFAI-can remember, due to constant changes. HaOfa (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It was stable until a totally unnecessary RFC was opened, which was when all the trouble started. Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: info box Establishment

In the Establishment section of the info box, for Basic Laws, it says “1958-2018.”

This formatting might be interpreted as saying that the Basic Laws existed from 1958 through 2018. But it’s actually that the first was passed in 1958 and the most recent Basic Law was passed in 2018.

This may not be the most perfect of solutions, but maybe it would be more accurate to change the date range to a list of the years each Basic Law was passed: “1958, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2014, 2018”

source for years is https://m.knesset.gov.il/en/activity/pages/basiclaws.aspx 174.247.80.94 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I did this: First Basic Law passed in 1958. Most recent Basic Law passed in 2018

Hope you are good with that. Thank you for your contribution. O.maximov (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Historical names

@PrimaPrime: [26] Thanks for your bold edits, but note that your changes to the historical names have mixed up the chronology and gave less than due weight to the most commonly used name throughout history: Palestine. Note that this part had already been discussed and consensus was formed on the previous version. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: [27] Mention of the Holocaust has already been discussed and there is no consensus for its inclusion in the lede, particularly as framed in the latest addition, which confuses situation in Palestine civil war with that of the one in Europe. Also, the relationship between the two is disputed in RS, so this is more of a POV than on a factual basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't just say "is disputed in RS" and therefore take it out. Zionism = colonialism is also disputed in RS. Lots of things are disputed in RS. Not that I'm an expert, but that is the first paper I've personally ever come across that dispute the importance of the Holocaust in the creation of Israel, and I've read several Holocaust/Nakba books like Goldberg's. Pretty much everything else I've ever read mentions that world opinion post-Holocaust was a significant factor in the passage of the partition plan. Even the RS you cite says this is a common view, though the RS disputes it. I think it's worth including on this basis. Levivich (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't think the situation is analogous. The text concerned here is a lede paragraph about the history of the state of Israel that is exclusively factual.

It is a fact that Britain set up Mandatory Palestine in 1920, that Jewish immigration increased 1920-1948, that the UNGA approved a partition plan in 1947, that a civil war broke out 1947-1949. These are all facts. But it is a thesis that somehow the international community felt guilty about the Holocaust and so voted in favor of the partition plan; a thesis that is disputed and impossible to verify; and which is written in an implicit way by the sheer mention of it.

Why insert a disputed thesis in a paragraph of facts? If this is a special disputed thesis why not insert the thesis that Zionism is a settler colonial movement as well? Why not the thesis that the expulsions of 1948 were ethnic cleansing? Why not the thesis that Israel's ongoing war in Gaza constitutes genocide? These are all thesis about event that occurred in Israel and are much more detrimental to Israel than whatever happened in Nazi Germany, some 5,000 kilometers away.

This should be removed first, and the consensus sought for it second. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not so much the Holocaust as a completed event but I believe (I would have to check sources, it's a long time since I read up on this) it is true that the US ("displaced persons") and turning away of fleeing Jewish refugees, ignoring what the Nazis were doing for a long time, these elements I am reasonably sure played a part in the post war decision making back then. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

US is only one country and the UNGA consisted of the entire international community. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Antizionist polemicists routinely fault Western Holocaust guilt for the GA vote and ultimately the Nakba. We literally have a whole article making the analytical connection. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: That is their opinion, not a fact. Why is this opinion featured in a sea (paragraph) of facts? Why not feature other prominent opinions? And what is your elaborations on your changing of the chronology of names? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Your source acknowledges the Holocaust (specifically the refugee problem it created) weighed significantly on the UN debate. So this is another fact. PrimaPrime (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: Debates and not outcomes. Also I am not sure why you are ignoring my questions relating to the chronology of names in the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Evaporation123: Canaan indeed was a geographic region so I do not understand your latest edit. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

You are right, I made a mistake. Evaporation123 (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if it's mentioned, it needs to be done carefully. Some Zionists argue that the Holocaust made the foundation of Israel harder rather than easier. While Israel benefited from reparations payments, in 1939, there were millions of Polish Jews who wanted to immigrate to Palestine. In 1945 they were mostly dead. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Nakba lede

How does the cited quote align with the text?

The majority of Palestinians were expelled or made to flee due to various causes. Slater: "It is no longer a matter of serious dispute that in the 1947–48 period—beginning well before the Arab invasion in May 1948—some 700,000 to 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from or fled their villages and homes in Israel in fear of their lives—an entirely justifiable fear, in light of massacres carried out by Zionist forces."

Makeandtoss (talk) 09:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I tagged this as vague previously, but one could argue that it's both vague and intentionally euphemistic. Either the sentence should just cut short before this vaguery (perhaps best), or it should provide some semblance of tangibility. Just having it exist purely as a peg to the separate causes page is not reason enough to retain it unless it provides some meaning and value. The causes page says that violence was the cause, so it should be "amid the violence" or nothing really, since readers can get to the causes page through the expulsion page in any case. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

"Various causes" is WP:WEASEL Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with both that it should be removed. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's very WP:WEASEL, akin to writing "the US civil war was fought over various causes" instead of "slavery". Levivich (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That bit had previously had consensus on this page about for and has been repeatedly been edit-warred in. nableezy - 15:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: did you mean to remove the Slater 2020 cite? Levivich (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Did not will restore it. nableezy - 15:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Levivich (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime your edit is not cleanup, it is putting in inaccurate material. The majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled by Israeli forces or fled in what is known as the Nakba. is not true. A large number of them were expelled prior to there being an Israel during the civil war, the expulsions in Haifa for example were carried out by the Haganah in April 1948. Please restore the prior language, what you changed it to is just wrong. nableezy - 16:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: economy in lead

There’s 2 versions of the economy sentence being discussed.

I think the problem we’re running into is with the term ‘advanced economy.’ That’s just a descriptive term assigned by the IMF. An economy can either be advanced or developing. But it’s not quantifiable, can’t be ranked.

I suggest we change this bit to:

”Israel has an advanced economy, has among the highest GDP per capita and standards of living in the Middle East and Asia, and has one of the most developed technology sectors in the world, spending proportionally more on research and development than any other country.

“technology sector” should be the link to Science and Technology in Israel. “Developed sector” is the language used there so I went with it.

Removed ‘size of its economy’ because that information is covered by GDP per capita. 174.247.80.74 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Done, changed to the requested proposal. Qplb191 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede summary proposal 1

From: "The State of Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948. On 15 May, the armies of neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandate, beginning the First Arab–Israeli War. The majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled in what is known as the Nakba. The 1949 Armistice Agreements established Israel's control over 77 percent of the former Mandate territory. Over the following decades, Israel received an influx of Jews who emigrated, fled or were expelled from the Muslim world. "

To: "The State of Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948. It was formally established over most of the former mandate territory following the end of the 1948 Palestine war, which saw almost half of the predominantly Palestinian Arab population being expelled or fled in what became known as the Nakba. The 1967 Six-Day War..." Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"almost half of the predominantly Palestinian Arab population"? 160k remained, certainly far more than half were driven out. DMH223344 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "almost half" refers to the Mandate as whole and "the majority" only to the parts of the Mandate that became Israeli territory. Mawer10 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My propose:

"On May 1948, Israel was declared as an independent state, which was followed by the First Arab-Israeli war. During the conflict, almost half of the Arab Palestinian population were either expelled or fled from the Mandate. In 1949, the armistice agreements formally ended the war and established what became Israel's internationally recognized borders. The following decades was marked by a massive increase in Israel's population as the country absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees from the Muslim world." Mawer10 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you think this summarizes the body and is representative of RS? DMH223344 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: "In 1949, the armistice agreements formally ended the war and established what became Israel's internationally recognized borders." is just an overlcomplicated way of saying "It was formally established over most of the former mandate territory following the end of the 1948 Palestine war," Also "The following decades was marked by a massive increase in Israel's population as the country absorbed Jewish immigrants and refugees from the Muslim world." this does not summarize the body nor is due for the lede; Israel received more significant numbers of Soviet Jewish immigrants in 1990s, which neither this is due for lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

also, israel never declared its borders, so what is "internationally recognized borders" supposed to mean anyway. DMH223344 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede summary proposal 2

From: "The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, contrary to international law, and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in moves largely unrecognized internationally. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt—returning the Sinai in 1982—and Jordan. In the 2020s it normalized relations with more Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and the country has engaged in several wars and clashes with Palestinian militant groups. Israel's practices in the occupied territories have drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes against Palestinians from human rights advocates and United Nations officials."

To: "The 1967 Six-Day War saw Israel occupy the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Egyptian Sinai Peninsula and Syrian Golan Heights. After the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt—returning the Sinai in 1982—and Jordan. In the 2020s it normalized relations with more Arab countries. Since 1967, Israel has established and continues to expand illegal settlements across the occupied territories and has effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in moves largely unrecognized internationally. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and the country has engaged in several wars and clashes with Palestinian militant groups. Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is currently the longest military occupation in modern history, and evolved into a system of institutionalized discrimination against its population, drawing sustained international criticism." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

"moves largely unrecognized internationally" is of course a serious understatement. As per "lead summarizes body" it should say something like "rejected" rather than "unrecognized" DMH223344 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1. "The 1967 Six-Day War resulted in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights."
2. "Israel effectively annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and, since 1967, has established and expanded illegal settlements in the occupied territories."
3. "Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the interim Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and there have been several wars and clashes between Israel and Palestinian militant groups. Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories is currently the longest military occupation in modern history, and has drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes and institutionalized discrimination".

I stroke some parts out because concerns about the excessive emphasis on the conflict have been raised in previous discussions. Mawer10 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively: "Israel's presence in the Palestinian territories has drawn sustained international criticism, including accusations of war crimes and institutionalized discrimination. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict after the Oslo Accords have not succeeded, and wars and clashes between Israel and Palestinian militant groups erupt intermittently." Mawer10 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair and constructive suggestions, which I would also support. However, why did you switch the chronology in point 2? Also relating to point 3 Israeli apartheid is no longer an accusation, and an established fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed the order because the phrase "has effectively annexed" seems imply an ongoing process of annexation rather than a completed action. As for 3, that Israel has committed war crimes is also an established fact, isn't it? I've never seen a serious source say otherwise. Despite this "including accusations of" has been kept in the lead without any problems, English is not my native language but this phrasing/writing does not seem problematic. Mawer10 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: I don't think it gives off that implication, I think the better emphasis is on chronology because the ideas would flow better that way. As for war crimes, yes, indeed is an established fact. Would you support removing accusations all together? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay. But as for 3 I prefer to keep the language neutral, this wording came as a result of an RFC if I'm not mistaken. Mawer10 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: The RFC was completed before the ICJ opinion which ruled affirmatively of the existence of Israeli apartheid. It is only the cherry on top source, among a sea of RS saying the same thing. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not really accurate, the AO did not specify apartheid (some of the individual judges did but some of the individual judges also negated it). That can got kicked down the road to CERD for them to decide whether the Article 3 breach is in fact apartheid. Selfstudier (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

For context, from Aeylal Gross: "While it held that Israel's actions amount to systematic discrimination, and violate the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination prohibition on "segregation and apartheid," the ICJ stopped short of determining whether the situation constitutes "only" segregation or, in fact, amounts to "apartheid." Presumably this ambiguity was deliberate, allowing as many judges as possible to join the majority – regardless of their view on this point." DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel is a settler colonial state, with the Israeli settlements similar to say the Plantation of Ulster and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland by England, the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, or the creation of Indian reservations in the United States.

The war crimes and apartheid, including accusations of genocide, are in a larger context of irredentism, not merely armed conflict. Miriam Adelson, one of Donald Trump's and Netanyahu's main backers, wants Israeli annexation of the West Bank and the elimination of the Palestinian authority. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Latest edit

@SPECIFICO: Why did you re-add demographics to the opening paragraph and delete the second lede paragraph? [28] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: What is the rationale behind restoring demographic information to the opening paragraph? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Basic Laws in info box

The most recent edit to this is not grounded in facts.

The Basic Laws are just a set of laws. There are 14 Basic Laws that have been passed over the years. Each one is different. None have been repealed, so every Basic Law is “current”.

Options are to change the line from “current basic law” to “Basic Laws” and then include either a list of 14 separate years of passage:

“1958, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 2001, 2014, 2018”

OR something to the effect of

“First Basic Law passed in 1958. Most recent Basic Law passed in 2018” 174.247.80.43 (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

ARBPIA

@PrimaPrime: Kind reminder that this is an article subject to discretionary sanctions, as it seems on one hand you are engaging in WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING relating to your recent changes to the historical names of the region [29], and on the other hand engaging in WP:EDITWARRING by reinserting disputed material relating to Dead Sea being lowest point on earth in opening paragraph, [30] [31] and the Holocaust in the lede.[32] [33]. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's disputed that the Dead Sea is the lowest point on Earth? Or that Jewish immigration increased in the leadup to the Holocaust? Moving the reference to it in response to a concern raised at talk would of course be the opposite of edit warring.

Be the change you wish to see, I always prefer to boldly improve off what others have done rather than nitpick like this. PrimaPrime (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: No one disputed their factuality, what was disputed whether they belong in lede or not. Instead of tackling this disagreement on the talk page you chose to ignore it and edit war your preferred version, twice, and continue to status quo stone wall the historical names aspect, after having been asked for the third time now. Please demonstrate good faith by self-reverting and then gaining consensus for your disputed insertions per onus. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@FourPi: I don't think that was an improvement; a state is surrounded by states, not territories. West Bank and Gaza Strip are notable exceptions as they are within the former mandate territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If Mandatory Palestine is the reason then Golan Heights is even more exceptional. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinai was an unsuccessful attempt to be consistent. It's the only other commonly recognisable name that describes the whole border region, and it was previously disputed, so I included it to match the other three. But in retrospect it's probably more consistent to make that one Egypt, since there's three disputed territories and three mutually agreed international borders. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

But someone changed both before I could change just Egypt. FourPi (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel's settlements are irredentist, similar to Russia's annexations of Ukraine.

I'm proposing comparing Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine to the Israeli settlements, which are both motivated by irredentism--see Russian irredentism and Greater Israel, wishing to recreate the Soviet Union or the Land of Israel. Both Russia's annexations and Israel's settlements are illegal under international law. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you have that use the term "irredentist" with regards to Israel? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and this appears to be the musings of a user, with no references to support it. Of course both are illegal, and we already say that, but the proposed "comparison" is just a NF-violation. Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The musing user is here, who has over 8000 edits and an extended-confirmed account. Israel itself is a creation of irredentism and settler colonialism with respect to Zionism--see Zionism as settler colonialism and Balfour Declaration--, similar to Russia claiming Ukraine as part of the historical Kievian Rus. The United States, for what it's worth, is a creation of settler colonialism-see the animation on the page. I used the Ireland example because Israel is causing the Gaza Strip famine in an analogous way to how Britain caused the Great Famine in Ireland. Israel is nothing special in its actions, which are par for the course in the history of colonialism.

Israel is doing what Russia has done since the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, but in the Palestinian Territories--Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip; in the West Bank, Bezalel Smotrich is engaging in open land grabs, much like Putin annexed Crimea and then Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For years, RS have discussed Israeli irredentism, and Palestinian irredentism, and specifically compared it to Russian irredentism, including the comparison of the West Bank and Crimea (long before Crimea was annexed). These RS can be found with a Google Scholar search for irredentism "west bank" crimea, for example:

• Ian Lustick (1996), "Hegemonic beliefs and territorial rights" [34] (free PDF)
• Lustick again 10 years later, "Making Sense of the Nakba: Ari Shavit, Baruch Marzel, and Zionist Claims to Territory" [35] (free PDF)
• Peter Krause and Ehud Eiran (2018) "How Human Boundaries Become State Borders: Radical Flanks and Territorial Control in the Modern Era" [36] (free PDF)
• Lars-Erik Cederman, et al. (2022), "Redemption through Rebellion: Border Change, Lost Unity, and Nationalist Conflict" [37] (free PDF)
• Mischa Hansel & Alexander Reichwein (2023), "A Dangerous Responsibility: Towards a New Authoritarian Interventionism?" [38] (available for free via WP:TWL)

@JohnAdams1800: feel free to summarize these sources and any others you might find, but I think an extended discussion of irredentism or comparative politics is probably WP:UNDUE for this article (except perhaps for a very brief summary, like one sentence in the body maybe), but it would probably be WP:DUE for other articles, like Irredentism, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. (It's interesting to me that the words "Israel" and "Palestine" do not appear in the Wikipedia article about Irredentism.) Levivich (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&curid=9282173&diff=1244115330&oldid=1244064860

enumerated based on reverted sentence order in the diff:

1. It is well established that the "return to Zion" was entirely quietistic until the 19th centure (avineri)
2. Palestine is the term used in RS in this context, not "Land of Israel"
3. This sentence was added to fully represent the quoted source and to maintain WP:BALANCE
4. Morris describes the expulsions as the primary cause for the exodus
5. absolutely undue. The cited source mentions one discussion. This presentation is fringe.

DMH223344 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we undo the revert. @Galamore in case you didnt see this DMH223344 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore is absolutely correct in his revert.

1) There were always Jews who returned to the Land of Israel and yearned to do so. Starting from the Book of Lamentations through ancient, mideaval and modern sources, this has always been a central theme in Jewish religion, history, and liturgy. It was not yet a political movement, but this fact provides vital context and is absolutely DUE.

2) Use of the "Land of Israel" in this context is more accurate, and reflects the langauge used by the Zionist leaders themselves.

3) Simply not true. The Palestinians objected to any possibility for self-determination of Jews.

4) Not true, there were multiple causes, including panic. Can you show a quote from Morris where he says that this is the primary cause?

5) Absolutely true, and this is a well-known fact that appears in all relevant scholarship. PeleYoetz (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1. "Jews did not relate to the vision of the Return in a more active way than most Christians viewed the Second Coming. As a symbol of belief, integration, and group identity it was a powerful component of the value system; but as an activating element of historical praxis and changing reality through history, it was wholly quietistic." from Avineri. Please bring a source that you think is more authoritative than Avineri.
2. See Shapira. She uses "Land of Israel" in very limited contexts. For example (also related to the previous point): It might seem that the idea of returning to the Land of Israel had been part ofthe Jewish people’s spiritual beliefs from time immemorial. After all, the Jewsprayed every day for the return to Zion. Every Passover they recited, ‘‘Next year inJerusalem,’’ and on every Ninth of Av fast they mourned the destruction of theTemple. In the seventeenth century the Jewish world had been galvanized by theappearance of a false Messiah, Shabbetai Zvi, who promised to end the exile andrestore the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Yearning for Zion was certainly anintrinsic component of the Jewish psyche and sentiments.But there was an essential di√erence between this yearning and Zionism. Forcenturies the Jews had focused on a miraculous redemption, occurring as part ofa cataclysmic event that changed the existing world order. Until that time, whichwas shrouded in the mists of the future, they were to live their lives in the Dias-pora and not force the issue. The ideas that began circulating among both secu-lar and religious Jews in the nineteenth century were entirely di√erent. Instead ofpassively awaiting the coming of the Messiah, the Jewish people would take theirfate into their own hands and transform their situation through their own action.This concept met with bitter opposition from conservative religious circles, whosaw it as opposing divine will. The left, on the other hand, objected that this concept was based upon religion—something enlightened Jews should keep their distance from.
3. Just read the quote in the cited source instead of coming up with OR
4. We have been over this many many times. The Panic of course was caused by.... expulsions... and atrocities. "In general, in most cases the final and decisive precipitant to flight was Haganah, IZL, LHI or IDF attack or the inhabitants’ fear of such attack.", "But while military attacks or expulsions were the major precipitant to flight, the exodus was, overall, the result of a cumulative process and a set of causes.", "Undoubtedly, as was perceived by IDF intelligence during June, the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages, was the Haganah/dissident military attack on each site. 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."
5. even the cited quote doesnt use the word "Jews". You'll certainly need to provide sources showing that inclusion of this content is due.

DMH223344 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your five reasons; 1- is written in a simplistic misleading way 2- Palestine is used by RS 3- a significant point of view 4- several causes is misleading 5- some leaders is both misleading and unnamed. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All the changes are not as agreed. Everyone knows that the Jews always aspired to return to Israel. It is clear that the use of the term 'Land of Israel' in the context of Zionism is more accurate than 'Palestine'. The rest of the opposition to have no basis. Galamore (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All the RS use Palestine, so that's rubbish. Ditto it has been established how the expulsions occurred so that's more rubbish. This looks like POV editing to me. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I think you need to revert yourself. You're getting into an edit war while the discussion is still happening. From what I know, we are not supposed to push through discussions like this, and if the changes are disputed and reverted, you should wait and finish the discussion before restoring them, especially when other editors disagree. You shouldn't hold others at gunpoint. Please self-revert, thank you. PeleYoetz (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

MT and I are not the ones doing the gunpoint here. Mass reverts like this are invariably POV and this is no exception. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Galamore initial multirevert edit summary says "Reverting, these edits removed important historical facts" which is not an explanation for the reverts. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, I can see two editors above, including the original reverter, explaining the revert on this talk page, each providing their own reasoning, yet you opted, again, for edit warring by restoring disputed changes while discussions are still ongoing. This isn't the first time I have seen you do this ... I urge you to self-revert. ABHammad (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I urge Galamore to give a proper explanation for his initial multirevert. "All the changes are not as agreed. Everyone knows that the Jews always aspired to return to Israel. It is clear that the use of the term 'Land of Israel' in the context of Zionism is more accurate than 'Palestine'. The rest of the opposition to have no basis." is not that.

"Between 1947 and 1949, 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled, primarily as a result of expulsions by Zionist, and later Israeli, forces." This is correct so why revert it? Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1 and 2. Zionism holds that since the existence of the Jewish diaspora, many Jews have quietly aspired to return to the region.

3. neither is adequate. A new sentence needs to be proposed.

4. Totally agree, various causes does not represent the modern scholarship, as verified in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

5. Totally undue and POV, its inclusion would have to be mirrored by Israeli rhetoric which again is undue anyway Kowal2701 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For 3. Reasoning for rejection is very much due Kowal2701 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The source for that addback actually says "Palestine" (as do most other sources). The region? Since when do we ignore scholarship to placate POV pushers? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You can put Palestine if you want, I just felt ‘the region’ was clear enough and neutral. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral doesn't mean what you think it means, NPOV means reflects sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See above, Shapira uses Land of Israel in this context. The region is a placid compromise Kowal2701 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

She is very clearly using "Land of Israel" in a religious context. DMH223344 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, the statement "Zionism holds that since the existence of the Jewish diaspora, many Jews have quietly aspired to return to the region" is so incredibly incorrect. Please read any text about Zionism. Literally any text. DMH223344 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 And yet you're not providing improvements. You removed cited material that is clearly due without good reason. "not supported by source" when it clearly is. We can revert back to the original if you're not going to be constructive. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, Zionism did not appear until the 19th century. The sentence you insist on including is incorrect on multiple accounts AND is out of context since this paragraph is about 16th/17th centuries. DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence says that "Zionism holds", as an attribution for the POV. It's not meant to say Zionism existed at this time, but I can see how you've read that. Also "quietly" isn't supported by the source. The sentence is far from perfect, but it's better to shift the discussion to improvements rather than inclusion and exclusion which produces edit wars. Your edit is much better. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, Zionism does NOT hold that. Zionism is literally not about that. If anything it's the opposite. Once again, please read any RS about Zionism and you will see this very clearly. DMH223344 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't be editing in this topic area, but there's not enough mediators of discussion, anyone intimate with the literature becomes polarised. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here (I get asked on RfCs from time to time). Let's go back to the original diff, the original thing you're adding, and the source cited for stating something along the lines of Zionism, a desire to return to Israel, is ancient. The source being cited, Rosenzweig 1997 p1, indeed begins its intro paragraph with something to that effect, giving a couple (rather airy imo) examples of some kind of return-to-homeland reference across several centuries. But in that same paragraph, the author eventually gets to the point of all this setup: However, in real life almost nothing happened ... Zionism, ... which had been reiterated throughout generations, seemed to be utterly unrealistic. This transitions to the next paragraph, In the 19th century..., which is where ancient history ends. So a single paragraph on ancient history, with a scattered few quotes separated by hundreds of years, to conclude that this was never considered something real until the 19th century, which sets up the entire book on the 2nd paragraph of the 1st chapter.

By my reading of the one source alone, it does not support the proposed text addition -- the paragraph is not attempting to argue any type of ancient origin for modern Zionism in an academic sense (you can't do that in half a paragraph, and that's not the point). Rather, he appears to use the scattered ancient context as an contrasting way to introduce the 19th century origin, which covers the next 8 pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

History scope

@DMH223344: Thanks for your interesting recent additions, they are not exactly within this article's scope however. The history of the state of Israel, like any history of any other state in the world, is about the history of its territory, and the history of that territory is the history of Palestine, not the history of Jews and Zionism in Europe. History of the territory of the state of Israel is that of the Crusaders, and Umayyad, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman caliphates; that of Zahir al-Umar in 1700s who built a proto-state in Palestine/Land of Israel, constructed Acre's fortifications, re-established Haifa, and made the region a major trading center of soap and cotton to Europe; that of the 1834 Peasants' revolt in Palestine which included Galilee and Jaffa. We should reconfigure our research accordingly, otherwise we risk wasting precious space, and unfilled gaps, with a sociopolitical study of European Jewry. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, what about an abridged version of those additions? DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing your issue is mostly with that full paragraph that was added? DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My issue is long-standing and I have raised it several times here so don't worry; adding further material only worsens the current situation. I think it's outside of Israel's geographic scope and therefore not relevant to the article, not sure where we could move it elsewhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The history of and development of zionism is out of scope for an article on the modern state of israel? DMH223344 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting since Zionism was of course a European idea, which developed in a European context. Is the proposal to just introduce the arrival of Zionist settlers without context for why they came? DMH223344 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing beyond a sentence as simple as "amid rising European antisemitism", and other directly related things such as the 1882 Aliyah, Herzl's 1893 book, Zionist congress choices, in a concise way. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can accept that. I would clarify that antisemitism is not seen in RS as the main driver for the development of Zionism. From Avineri: [Zionism] was a response to the challenges of liberalism and nationalism much more than a response merely to anti-Semitism DMH223344 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's one guy's view, but is that the mainstream view? Levivich (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, although if you have sources which I should check please share (no need to fish out specific quotes unless you want to):

Shimoni: "In sum, itmay therefore be said that antisemitism may be regarded as acritical causal factor in the ignition of Zionism as a movement butis inadequate as a causal explanation of Zionism's genesis."

sternhell: "Liberal individualism suddenly appeared as a real threat to the continued Jewish people's existence as a homogenous and autonomous unit. Thus, Zionism was not only a reaction to increasing insecurity but also a Herderian, not to say tribal, response to the challenge of emancipation."

shlaim: "Modern Zionism was a phenomenon of the late nineteenth-century Europe. It had its roots in the failure of Jewish efforts to become assimilated in Western society, in the intensification of antisemitism in Europe, and in the parallel and not unrelated upsurge of nationalism. If nationalism posed a problem to the Jews by identifying them as an alien and unwanted minority, it also suggested a solution: self-determination for the Jews in a state of their own in which they would constitute a majority."

Stanislawski: "But once more, it is essential to understand that the fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution."

Rabkin: "The historians of Zionism emphasize that the founders of the movement were assimilated Jews. Avineri writes:" at which point he quotes the avineri quote I shared above along with it's surrounding context

Although possibly this is too detailed for an article on Israel rather than on Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick nits, but it seems that, e.g., Shimoni, Sternhell, and Shlaim (say that three times fast!) are saying antisemitism was not the only factor, but it was still a main factor, at least equal to nationalism and liberalism. Avineri, Stanislawski, and I guess Rabkin, are saying it was a less important factor than nationalism and liberalism. I think it would be OK for our purposes in this article to not have to say which were the more important factors, and just list them as causes/factors (antisemitism, nationalism, liberalism). Levivich (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

yup i agree, i never meant to say that antisemitism wasnt important. DMH223344 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. What happened in Europe in the 19th/20th century is far more relevant to the history of the modern state of Israel than what happened in Palestine in the middle ages. The history of Israel is not, in my view, a history of the region, but rather a history of the state. By way of example, the history of the United States is not the history of North America, and when I look at United States#History, it seems to be the right balance between pre-colonization and post-colonization history. Same with Mexico#History. What the English are to US history, what the Spanish are to Mexican history, is what Zionists are to Israeli history: they're the settlers that created the state. They're basically the beginning of the history of the state. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened in Europe in the 19th/20th century is far more relevant to the history of the modern state of Israel than what happened in Palestine in the middle ages. Agree 100%. The history of modern Israel basically begins in Europe in the 19th century. nableezy - 19:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I'm just not looking at enough sources, but I havent seen Zahir al-Umar or other of the topics discussed in any history of the state of israel DMH223344 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, history of the state. What is a state? A state are a set of institutions governing a geographic area. What is the history of these institutions and geographic area? Few of them can be traced directly to Europe. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The history of the state of Israel is what sources say the history of the state of Israel, and that largely begins with the Zionist movement in Europe in the 19th century. We have an article on the geographic area, it isn’t this one. nableezy - 14:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

A few sources:

• Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel (2022) TOC, Part One: Historical Overview, begins with Chapter 1: "Zionism Between Despair and Hope"
• Routledge Handbook of Modern Israel (2013) TOC (PDF), begins even later, in 1948
• Barry Rubin's Israel: An Introduction (2012) Chapter 2: History begins 4,000 years ago, and gets to Zionism by the end of the next page

I prefer Rubin's approach: a brief pre-history, then Zionism. Levivich (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Barry Rubin is an Israeli writer who is uncritical about Zionism, I wouldn't prioritize a single work and especially not his work. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)