Talk:Israel

Israel's Correct Geographical Location

Israel is located along the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea. It is bordered by Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza/Palestine and Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.179.7 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

History section

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states. The region was ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic ,Roman, Arab rule, Islamic Caliphates, Crusader, and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support. After World War I, the Ottomans were defeated and the Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestineincreased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs.[24] The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population.

what do you think? Qplb191 (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@ FortunateSons what do you think about the proposed history section? Qplb191 (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you do a mark up of what you are changing, preferably by bolding anything new? I’m not at my laptop for the next few days. FortunateSons (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes sure.

“ The region was ruled by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid, Hellenistic ,Roman, Arab rule, Islamic Caliphates, Crusader, and Ottoman empires.”

This are the most important empires there is no need to mention all of the empires that ruled the region that didn’t have a big impact.

Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land or the land of Israel in the Jewish tradition. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states. Better wording and more orderly

“ The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support. After World War I, the Ottomans were defeated and the Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920. Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestineincreased considerably, leading to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs.[24] The 1947 UN Partition Plan triggered a civil war between the two groups, which saw the expulsion and flight of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population. .”

same as now Qplb191 (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of those look good to me on content; I would maintain the original sentence order (as in the article, not the last comment) and change the first sentence (in your last comment) to clarify that it’s a non-exhaustive list. Let’s wait for some others, but no major objections on my end. FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you will want feedback from @Makeandtoss for this as well because he added the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the only change here in the proposed text above is the empires. There is no such things as Arab rule and Islamic Caliphates. I don't see a problem with naming them. Also check the talk page section on how downplayed is the 7AD+ history of the territory of the State of Israel which is the History of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires, Hasmonean kingdom, Herodian rulers, Romanand Byzantine empires, Arab Caliphates(Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid), Crusaders, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottomanempires

I have a problem with the empires mentioned, it is already written that the place was home to Jewish kingdoms, and this is confusing. The Hasmonean kingdom and the Herodian kingdom were actually the same kingdoms (Herod continued the Hasmoneans and also married with them) and they were not empires either, these were only local rulers under Rome, many of the empires shown didn’t have a great impact on the region ,and it doesn't add up to mention them.

Qplb191 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Byzantine Empire, it is actually Rome that is already mentioned and in my opinion there is no need to mention it again regarding the Arab Caliphate rule, you can simply write it without mentioning it in depth and those who want to be interested can simply go to the link. (In my opinion now it’s very confusing) Qplb191 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

We could use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a basis here:

“ ...The region that now falls within its borders has a lengthy and rich history that dates from prebiblical times. The area was a part of the Roman Empire and, later, the Byzantine Empire before falling under the control of the fledgling Islamic caliphate in the 7th century CE. Although the object of dispute during the Crusades, the region, then generally known as Palestine, remained under the sway of successive Islamic dynasties until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, when it was placed under British mandate from the League of Nations. ” — Encyclopedia Brittanica

Following the example of this encyclopedia, we would exclude the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires because Jewish political entities continued to exist in Palestine during these empires. "In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite, and later, Israelite and Jewish states [which were destroyed by the empires A and Z]". After that, we would move on to the Roman empire, which destroyed Jewish sovereignty in the region and continue talking about the Arab and Turkish empires in a more elaborated way. Mawer10 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

i think it’s a good idea. Qplb191 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

“Israel is located in a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to several Canaanite and later, Israelite and Judahite states which were destroyed by the Roman Empire .Later the region was ruled by Arab Caliphates, Crusaders, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman empires. The late 19th century saw the rise of Zionism in Europe, a movement seeking a Jewish homeland, which garnered British support during World War I. During the war, the Ottomans were defeated and the British Mandate for Palestine was set up in 1920.”

Do you think it’s a good virsion? Qplb191 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good FortunateSons (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Canaanite city states were destroyed by Israelite states; so why are we mentioning on thing but not another? We shouldn't mention any of these ancient empire transitions, which are by definition violent.

I don't know why Arab Caliphates, 700 period of history at least, is linked to "Arab conquest of Levant" while the article is about Muslim conquest; while no other empire has its conquest linked, such as Pompei's campaign for example. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that @Mawer10 proposal is better , this is what appears also in Britannica. I don’t see a reason to mention every possible empire in the lead, Mawer10's version is more understandable, for the article context it is more relevant that these states were destroyed by the Romans. Qplb191 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. These states were not "destroyed" by the Romans. What you are referring to is the Bar Kochba revolt which was an uprising by an ethnic group in the Roman empire and not by an existing state. We don't need to mention every possible empire, but we should at least mention the main ones. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want, you can omit it, in my opinion there is no need to mention all the empires, certainly not specifically . beyond that, as I have already mentioned, the Hasmoneans were not an empire and Herod himself married them and continued them. How is it necessary to delve into this as you wrote, in most of the countries in Wikipedia, all the empires that ruled the region are not specified, only the central empires that had a presence and had influence. Qplb191 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

And what makes you think that ancient Jewish kingdoms more than 2,000 years ago which lasted no more than a century had more presence and influence than Arab caliphates just a millennia ago that ruled Palestine for more than half a millennia? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant that I don't think it is necessary to mention the Jewish kingdoms that ruled. Qplb191 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the influence on the region and history, the Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arab and Ottoman empires had the greatest influence, so I recommend mentioning only them. Qplb191 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This version appears to forget about the Assyrians and Babylonians. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit chronologically weird isn't it? In the Iron Age there were Canaanites, Israelites and Philistines, then it was Assyrians and Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians/Seleucids, the Hasmoneans, the Romans, etc. History didn't skip from the Israelites to the Hasmoneans to the Romans. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10: Following Britannica, wouldn't we exclude a lot more? Britannica's version is actually blissfully slimmed down and without any undue emphasis on anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Britannica presents the history of the region after the Romans very well, it is certainly more informative than just a list of every empire that controlled the region. As for pre-Roman history, Britannica leaves out a lot. But if we left the mention of the Canaanite, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms in the introduction I don't think we would be omitting much, we would just be focusing on the native political entities of the Palestine region instead of the foreign empires that controlled it. Mawer10 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mawer10 is it really necessary to include all these empires? , what do you about including only the Babylonian, Hellenistic , Roman , Arab , crusaders, and ottoman empires ? Qplb191 (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Also I don’t think that we need to include the Jewish states. Qplb191 (talk) 10:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish states are of relevance due to their connection to the current ones, arguably the same can be said about some of the Arab/muslim one. The rest is often of limited significance if you ask me. FortunateSons (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we already mention the Jewish states that existed, there is no need to mention it twice, the empires I mentioned had the greatest influence, so in my opinion there is no need to mention all the empires. Qplb191 (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, I think we should do it and then fix the details FortunateSons (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

“ After the collapse of the Canaanite civilization, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerged in the region. The area came under the successive rule of various empires until achieving a brief independence under the Hasmonean dynasty, but soon was incorporated into the Roman Empire as the province of Judaea, later known as Palestine. In the 7th century CE, the Byzantines lost control of the region to the Islamic caliphate. Although the object of dispute during the Crusades, Palestine remained under the sway of successive Islamic or Arab dynasties until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, when it was placed under British mandate from the League of Nations. ”

I created this version based on the Britannica Encyclopedia, and added the pre-Roman history of the region that Britannica omits. It can be shortened, but as you can see a list of empires is not necessary. Mawer10 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Britannica is not a bible. This lede abruptly jumps from 1st century to 7th century, and from 7th century to 21st century. This is not a summarization of the history of the region that the state of Israel was established on in 1948, aka not a summary of the History of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If that's not a summary of the region's history, I don't know what is. It's pretty similar to the first three paragraphs in History of Palestine#Overview. And since Wikipedia editors can't agree on anything in the various discussions about the lead, I think it's a good idea to use Britannica as a source of inspiration. Mawer10 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Politically, between the 1st century and the 7th century, the region remained under Roman control and its continuation under the Byzantines. With the exception of the Jewish revolts, nothing very relevant occurred during this period that deserves mention in the lead. And the claim that the text jumps from the 7th century to the 20th century is not entirely correct, the text makes mention of the crusades (12th century) and Ottoman rule (starting in the 16th century). Mawer10 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A random Jewish revolt 2,000 years ago is not more relevant than several empires that had controlled Palestine throughout the millennia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention of this revolt in the text I created, what is your suggestion? A list of empires? Mawer10 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Mawer10 . Qplb191 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's also dumb jumping from the iron age, past the lengthy Persian and Greek periods to the brief Hasmonean period. The only fix to the excessive history is to remove the majority without leaving any undue weight on a few historical fetishes. There is also the still glaring "history of the region" versus "history of Israel" problem. E.g. The iron age kingdoms are, for example, more directly related to the history of the West Bank than the history of modern Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"The area came under control of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Achaemenid and Hellenistic empires until achieving a brief independence under the Hasmonean dynasty, but soon was incorporated into the Roman Empire..." Even if the other empires are added to the text, it makes sense to differentiate the Hasmonean rule from the others because the Hasmonean kingdom was a Palestinian kingdom, native to the region, while the other are foreign powers. The current lead is more problematic by summarizing the history to a list, the crusaders seem to be an empire in the list. And I disagree with your idea that Israel and Judah are more directly related to the history of the West Bank than to that of modern Israel; the two are located in the same geographic and historical space so it is dumb to see them as separate. Mawer10 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

History operates within defined borders. When you recount the history of Portugal, you don't recount the history of the entire Iberian Peninsula. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think history operates within defined borders, especially if such borders are not natural borders like rivers, deserts and mountains. Also the Palestine region is very small compared to the Iberian peninsula. But tell me, how should the introduction be following the modern borders? Mawer10 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the last history talk thread, what the history section should actually be doing is referencing high quality secondary, academic reference works, such as Israel: A History by Anita Shapira (2015) – "Written by one of Israel's most notable scholars, this volume provides a history of Israel from the origins of the Zionist movement in the late 19th century to the present day." Iskandar323 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

you make a very good point, could you please present an example of such a version ? Qplb191 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Since Zionism did not appear out of the blue, I imagine that such an example has a context. Mawer10 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to Shapira's work, but Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn (2016) by Daniel Gordus (Harper Collins) gives a preview of the first few chapters. It likewise starts with a recounting of the awakening of Zionism in the late 19th century. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 do you agree that we should erase the Herodian and Hasmonean because it is already mentioned that there were Jewish kingdoms and they weren’t empires as well. Qplb191 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed versions discussion - March 24 2023

@Makeandtoss @FortunateSons @DMH223344 @Alaexis @Mawer10

Hi guys, here are the latest versions we have for discussion:

VERSION A: When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.

VERSION B: When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.

I think the first point of discussion is if we want to mention and use "invasion/invaded" former Mandatory Palestine or if we want to use another word. I think one source of confusion was whether or not there was an invasion. Based on the Khalidi source provided by DHM22334, we determined that Khalidi was talking about the 1947 partition plan borders, not the Mandatory Palestine borders, so the Arabs did cross the borders into Mandatory Palestine but not the borders of the partition plan.

Based on Makeandtoss' sources, his sources acknowledge that there was an invasion: "Flapan set the agenda when he reduced the historiography on the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 to seven myths:......that the Arab invasion made war inevitable". Flapan is not disputing the invasion, but he is saying that it is a myth that the war was inevitable due to the invasion. Makeandtoss elaborates on this point when he wrote, "These two renowned historians have refuted the myth that placed the responsibility of the 1948 war on the Arab side".

The arguments so far for including "invasion" is that many reliable sources use this word, and we want to avoid using a euphemism per MOS:EUPHEMISM. Which brings me to the second point of discussion: how to rephrase VERSION A (that includes invasion) so that the burden of responsibility is not placed on the Arab side.

Here are some examples I found on the internet for brainstorming:

From Britannica: “The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine and five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel."[1]

"The Arab-Israeli War of 1948 broke out when five Arab nations invaded territory in the former Palestinian mandate immediately following the announcement of the independence of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948."[2] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time!

A is better.

Invaded and attacked are both good, entered (in the context of the armies) is ok when used in the context of it being the last causal link of the war, but it’s more of a euphemism and less used unless in very specific contexts, so it’s worse than brittanica/state.gov.

Someone used internationalising above, that could be useful if choose invaded or attacked to be extra careful when maintaining NPOV. FortunateSons (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion option B is better Qplb191 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Option C: simply stating the war erupted; exactly as we do for the Six Day War, in which we don't mention that Israel attacked and invaded four sovereign Arab nations (the pre-emptive argument is a myth given Israel's plans for such an attack had been formulated since at least early 1950s).

And also again, it's not a matter of voting, consensus depends looking at reliable sources and what they say (we have a prominent RS calling the inevitability of war due Arab invasion a myth). Makeandtoss (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Said prominent source is also referring to it as an invasion, so that would be an argument in favour of the usage, not against. FortunateSons (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

So does every prominent source refer to Israel's war in 1967 as invasion of four neighboring Arab states. Do you want me to add that to the lede to maintain consistency? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, Brittanica generally uses other discriptors FortunateSons (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no use of denying the fact that Israel invaded three Arab countries and occupied its territories in 1967, which has been extensively documented in RS, why not add that to the lede as well, for consistency's sake? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The question is what RS use, we don’t think in black and white categories of invaded and not invaded. We can use pre-emptive attack/strike for 67 if you prefer, that seems to have RS backing FortunateSons (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, why are we insisting on black and white categories of invaded or being invaded? Why do you want to mention that Palestine got invaded in 1948 but without mentioning that the Zionists were planning to take over all of Palestine; which has RS backing? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The specific war aims in context are disputed, the invasion into the mandate is not. As I said, I’m happy to add pre-emptive strike for 67. FortunateSons (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I was about to write that Option A is better but then I looked up the word the word "intervene" [3]

“ intervene: to intentionally become involved in a difficult situation in order to improve it or prevent it from getting worse ”

It originally meant "to come between" in Latin, probably that's why we have "humanitarian interventions" but no "humanitarian invasions." Anyway, my point is just the word has additional connotations, and considering that it's not widely used by the sources I don't see why we should use it.

Looking at the sources in the old thread (Morris, Pappe, Shlaim) and at the tertiary sources you've added, I think that the word "invaded" (or maybe "attacked") is both widely used and accurate, to the extent that one word can capture a messy reality. Alaexis_¿question? 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

+1, that is an important point FortunateSons (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I am ok with “intervened”. The reason is because an editor on the Nakba Wiki article was describing the events leading up to the war here in this edit [4] Wafflefrites (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think “intervened by invading/attacking” would be a fair compromise, unless someone is opposed. The point made in 55 is slightly misleading: the partition plan was not accepted and was therefore not respected by any side of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"The First Arab–Israeli War erupted after the British terminated its Mandate, Israel declared its establishment and forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict by launching an attack against Israel." Wafflefrites (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with using intervened. There was an existing conflict, amid which independence was declared. Intervention in such a context is understood as being military in nature. The language of attack/invade is POV, just as the other POV of acting in defence of fellow Arabs is POV. The intervention came in the specific context of widespread violence against Palestinian villages by Jewish militias – a context of pre-existing violence that makes it very un-straightforward to put a finger on exactly who was attacking/defending at the time. The answer depends almost wholly on POV, and so the NPOV path is to not assign this agency. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Alaexis posted a definition of intervened. Intervened also has a POV. I am starting to strongly agree with FortunateSons that both intervened and invaded, or some other balancing language is to be used, if using “intervened”. Either that or keep it vague as in Version B. The history is extremely complicated and even historians have different opinions Wafflefrites (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I thing a balanced compromise is most appropriate, considering we are deviating pretty far from past consensus, which is: Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt respectively. FortunateSons (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The part "forces from neighboring Arab states intervened/got involved in the ongoing conflict in the former Mandate" by itself implies that Arab forces entered or invaded the territory of the Mandate. It would be impossible to enter the conflict without entering the Mandate since Israel did not attack neighboring Arab countries. So, a B like version is not vague. Mawer10 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Or “entered the conflict” as you said. entered is a neutral word Wafflefrites (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the clarification is beneficial to the average reader. FortunateSons (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is how Avi Shlaim writes it “ The following day the regular armies of the Arab states intervened in the conflict, turning a civil war into the first full-scale Arab-Israeli war, a war which ended in defeat for the Arabs and disaster for the Palestinians.”[5] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason I want to keep things neutral either by being vague or by being balanced is because of the Arab motivations for entering the conflict. Yes, they got involved partly due to hearing about the expulsions and killings, but another reason for their involvement was rejection of the Partition Plan and preventing the formation of a Jewish state. [6] So that is why I am thinking intervened may not be entirely appropriate without some other balancing aspect per Wikipedia:Balancing aspects Wafflefrites (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of dailyhistory.org. Appears to be a wiki and therefore should not be used. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s what popped up when I searched Why did Arabs atrack Israel 1948. Here is what I found from Business Insider which cites an author named Steven Pressfield “ When Israel became an independent nation on May 14, 1948, the armies of four Arab neighbors — Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq — immediately invaded the new country to prevent its creation.” https://www.businessinsider.com/four-israeli-aircraft-stopped-a-huge-arab-army-in-1948-2014-5?op=1 Wafflefrites (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Britannica version does not assign the blame to the Arab side. It is saying all 3 events triggered the war: UN Partition, Declaration of Independece, Arab attack:

“The first war (1948–49) began when Israel declared itself an independent state following the United Nations’ partition of Palestine and five Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—attacked Israel."

Maybe another proposal could be:

"The First Arab–Israeli War erupted after the British terminated its Mandate, Israel declared its independence, and forces from neighboring Arab states launched a military coalition against Israel." Wafflefrites (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Launched a military coalition is still vague, I think using invaded/attacked while including all 3 per Brittanica is a fair compromise? FortunateSons (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also going to be the issue of whether independence is the right word or not, which I think it is, but will be a somewhat dogmatic dispute over optimal phrasing. FortunateSons (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

“ When the British terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, the First Arab–Israeli War broke out when forces from neighboring Arab states:

• [intervened got involved in the conflict within the former Mandatory territory
• entered invaded the area of the former Mandate]."

”

The only difference between version A and version B is that the latter omits the part "by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine", that supposedly blames the conflict on the Arab side or/and uses euphemistic language. Mawer10 (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The second version better represents RS consensus and is preferable. FortunateSons (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed my mind. The verb "intervene" seems to be the most appropriate as there was already an ongoing conflict and ethnic cleansing of Arabs in the territory before May 14, 1948. It remains clear that the Arab forces entered/invaded the old Mandate without using the verbs "invade" and "enter". I'm not gonna use "attack against Israel" as suggested by Wafflefrites because it was uncertain at that time where Israel's borders were and Israeli forces were already acting militarily beyond the territories given by the UN to the Jewish state: "When the British terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its establishment as an independent state. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict in the former Mandate, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War."

Alternatively, we could write "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and forces from neighboring Arab states who entered in the territory of the former Mandate" or "The following day, a war broke out between Israel and neighboring Arab states, which concluded with an armistice in 1949...". Both are acceptable to me. Mawer10 (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s like Makeandtoss’ Version B. I think I just like Version B OR using “intervened” along with “invaded”. Depending on the reader, military invasion can be inferred, but it does not remain clear that the Arab forces entered/invaded the old Mandate without using the verbs "invade" and "enter". Maybe "When the British terminated the Mandate for Palestine on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its establishment as an independent state. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the ongoing conflict and crossed the borders into the former Mandate, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War."

Wafflefrites (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Version B is the same as version A, but without the "by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine" part. I didn't want to remove this part of the text, but then I realized that it doesn't make any difference. The use of the verb "get involved" also works in place of "intervene in the conflict" as I suggested earlier. Mawer10 (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

FAQ box

The FAQ box asks why Jerusalem is considered Palestine's capital, but the answer only refers to Israel. Also, of course, this talk page is about Israel and not Palestine. I take it the reason it says Palestine was low-level drive-by POV editing, but I await consensus before changing it to Israel in case I'm grossly mistaken. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

should be changed that Israel is a country with partial recognisation

Countries like Kosovo are listed as "a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition" while West sahara is listed as "a partially recognized state."

Objectively speaking, this applies to Israel. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be included? Genabab (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Israel no longer a full UN member? Moxy🍁 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Moxy That doesn't really have a bearing on if it is partially recognised.. Genabab (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So no sources? Moxy🍁 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you asking if there are no sources saying Israel is partially recognised? Genabab (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Unless there is an equal push to insist upon the same for “State of Palestine” (which both does not list it as “partially recognized” in the lede nor is there any present push on that page), this feels like an undue and politicized upheaval of a well balanced status quo between pages. Mistamystery (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind Palestine being considered partially recognised. Because, it is.

I don't see how it makes sense to say that it is politicised. It's just the truth that Israel is recognised only by some countries, but not others. Genabab (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To adjust the lede when there are already appropriate sections in both articles that cover this seems excessive (and yes politicized) given how stable both articles have been in this regard.

I would actually push for shifting of the "partial recognition" items on the according Kosovo and West Sahara pages you mention. As there are pro- and anti-legitimizing elements pushing to guide the perception of such states on wikipedia, it seems more appropriate to insist upon a more neutral placement of international recognition than leading with any mention partiality of recognition in the lede (which seems to favor anti-legitimists and may perhaps not be appropriate nor neutral per WP). Mistamystery (talk) 02:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the way recognition is described in various contexts is a bit random, but I don't think "Objectively speaking" is how this kind of content decision is made in Wikipedia. We just follow the sources and try to compress any diversity in terminology down to something that captures the balance. I don't think reliable sources normally refer to Israel as partially recognized, do they, regardless of the numbers? Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Another way of saying this I guess is that Wikipedia content doesn't speak objectively, it reflects the bias of the set of sampled reliable sources. Wikidata is the speaking objectively thing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sean.hoylandThanks for clearing up how this works. I was really confused at what seemed to be a double standard. But at least there seems to be a reason behind Genabab (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I find it confusing too. There's a reason, but I'm not convinced it's the best way of doing things. Sensible people like you spot the problem immediately because essentially the same property of something, which is just a number in this case, is described in different ways in different articles. It produces a tension between articles. And this information is used to train large language models. If someone asked an AI about a property of two states, population for example, and they have the same population size, and it only described one as large, it would seem weird. On the other hand, just reflecting sources allows you to avoid having to think about what quantifier words like 'partially' mean precisely. But I think it's better to avoid these situations and just provide the facts not the quantifiers e.g. if you want to talk about recognition, just say x is recognized by n states. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Israel is a full UN member so this is unnecessary. Recognition by individual nations is Irrelevant. SKAG123 (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose those are criteria primarily relevant for countries which aren’t UN-members, we wouldn’t do that id Russia and North Korea stopped recognising the UN. FortunateSons (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel’s government acting since 1901?

The current version of the article says, “Since 1901, Israel's government reforestation program has planted over 260 million trees to replace the original "cedars of Lebanon".”

This doesn’t make much sense, since the state didn’t exist in ‘01. The references say that the NGO Jewish National Fund has been doing it since ‘01 (back in Ottoman days — how cool is that!?) and suggest that perhaps other entities have also joined in since then.

I propose the following rewording: “Since 1901, reforestation programs have planted over 260 million trees to replace the original "cedars of Lebanon".” I’d do it myself, but I’m not extended-confirmed. Lereman (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the material as erroneous. If something cogent to the subject can be redrafted, it can be re-added. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I like @Lereman new suggestion, are you opposed to that one? FortunateSons (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's supported. 1901 isn't a date I saw in the Britannica entry, and the JNF is a primary source for claims about its own activities. Also, I would really be expecting to see an academic source for claims around reforestation - this implies that we are talking about areas that were historically forested and have been restored. These are significant claims. If its not the restoration of traditional landscapes, it's just forestation, not reforestation. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

1901 is set as a starting date for the JNF by some sources, so it’s plausible (but not sure which of those are RS [1][2][3][4][5][6] FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure they started immediately in 1901, so I'd change it to "since the beginning of the 20th century" which is supported by [7]. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed FortunateSons (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As to re- vs afforestation, this is what Alon Tal says in his All the Trees of the Forest. Israel's Woodlands from the Bible to the Present

“ It is worth pointing out that, in the more temperate areas of Israel, woodlands flourished in the past. Technically, this would make many of the tree planting projects attempted in Israel during the past century reforestation efforts. In contrast, no woodlands of any density ever grew in Yatir or in the arid Negev region. Most of Israel’s dryland forests today are examples of afforestation: trees were never able to survive before the ancient techniques of water harvesting were brought to bear. ”

He doesn't say whether most of the planting is the former or the latter. Considering that this is the main country article, we shouldn't go into detail here. Again, I would suggest rephrasing "Israel's modern forests are all hand-planted. Since the beginning of the 20th century, Jewish National Fund's forest planting program has planted over 260 million trees." Alaexis_¿question? 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Support FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Was no machinery used to plant 260 million trees? Otherwise, the notion of hand-planted is bogus. And is 260M figure confirmed by a source outside of the JNF? Also, is this even particularly useful information to mention as the only information surrounding forests in the geography section? As opposed to, say, some topline information on the actual level of overall forest cover... Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that "hand-planted" is used as the opposite of "naturally grown" (old-growth?) rather than to assert that no machinery was used. Happy to hear suggestions how to rephrase it.

I'm definitely for starting with the general statistics, but the massive planting program is certainly worth mentioning, as many sources on the nature of Israel do. Alaexis_¿question? 20:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Manually planted? Or just planted? FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Levant or Southern Levant

Should this article (and Jordan too) be referred to as Levant or Southern Levant? Technically all of Israeli land (inclusive of undisputed and disputed) are in Southern Levant, so will it be more specific to refer to the title as Levant region or Southern Levant region? Josethewikier (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wording about historical names in the lead

@Makeandtoss: your edit makes the sentence read as if the word "Israel" has less historical relevance than the other names, while it has been used to refer to the region not less frequently than "Canaan", and for a longer time than "Holy Land" or "Palestine". Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It does have less historical relevance than other names, that's why the main article on the region is Palestine (region) and Canaan while Land of Israel is about biblical heritage. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The name "Israel" is what the indigenous people called their land for centuries, and it has more historical relevance than "Holy Land." Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel, as well as Judea, are not less historical than other names. They were the primary names at least since the early Iron Ages and until the mid 2nd century. They are the most relevant names to the article, while there is still room to mention other names with the right historical context. But the problem is wider, most of the paragraph seems too insignificant to be mentioned in the lead. Israel is a Jewish nation state and its foundations based upon Jewish identity, regional history, culture, language and religion, and yet it is almost completely absent from the paragraph in favor of a generic regional description that teach almost nothing about the state's most relevant historical background. Infantom (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Please verify that the Land of Israel was a common name for the geographic reason throughout recorded history per WP:BURDEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Apartheid in Lead

I think it's time for us to have this discussion.

I propose that the apartheid allegation be explicitly mentioned in the lead. This is an incredibly well-sourced allegation, and I think the current lead which vaguely talks about "crimes of humanity" and "war crimes" is avoiding the core of the issue — precisely which crime is Israel being accused of? Apartheid is the principal one.

Specifically, I propose that the current version "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." be replaced with "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism. It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials." JDiala (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Option A: Mention apartheid.

Option B: No change.

Option C: Other.

Survey

• Bad RfC we already had a recent discussion regarding the language in the lead. No significant change has happened since. FortunateSons (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we wait for an action by the ICC or the ICJ before discussing this issue again, as that will probably influence the situation drastically. TucanHolmes (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a binding decision by one of those could be such a significant change. FortunateSons (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

A court decision by the ICJ supporting apartheid charachterization would turn the claims in to factual reality; i.e. Israel is maintaining an apartheid system, rather than Israel is accused of maintaining an apartheid system; i.e. Israel and apartheid would be turned into Israeli apartheid. In both cases this has nothing to do whether this should be mentioned in lede, because the lede is a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You voted in the wrong place, and you misunderstood my comment: As there is no significant change (and a decision would be such a change), there is no reason to re-open a discussion so soon. FortunateSons (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support of option A: this mention is long overdue and this is pretty much the elephant in the article. This is supported by the world's leading human rights organizations, including HRW and Amnesty International which are RS per WP. The lede is a summary of the body and given that we have a subsection on apartheid charges, then the least we could do is provide a simple mention of this. WP:LEDE specifically says any prominent controversies should be mentioned; the charges of apartheid is obviously and most certainly a prominent controversy, which has its own WP article Israel and apartheid, and is being mentioned in international forums including the ICJ genocide case. We are quite literally beautifying the horrors of this long-standing occupation and increasing settlement construction by not mentioning the findings (yes findings, not accusations) of major human rights groups. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option A Per Makeandtoss. JDiala (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate you reformatting the RfC; would you be so kind as to actually do it by fully next time, by not excluding my vote? could you please include my vote next time?FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Your snarky attitude towards honest mistakes is not congruent with policy. I refer you to WP:GF, WP:CIVIL. JDiala (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn’t meant to be (overly) snarky, I just wanted my second correction regarding formatting to be less aggressive, I’ll fix the tone. :) FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  there should also be a reference to apartheid in its government type. Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  That being said, just a technicality: it’s not an AGF violation (as no bad faith was assumed) and likely not yet a civility violation (those require a de minimis bar to be crossed that wouldn’t have been reached even if I had meant it in a mean way). However, I definitely could have gone for a nicer phrasing, and apologise for that. FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC per FortunateSons. Marokwitz (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: as a compromise, I would support the wording proposed by DMH223344 on 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC):

“most human rights organizations consider Israel to enforce an apartheid system in the occupied territories."

This wording had received consensus from ~5 editors. I would oppose the wording suggested in this RfC. Wafflefrites (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

‘’’Support this’’’ as well as Makeandtoss’ reasoning. In order to employ more explicit wording there needs to either be a monopoly of sources or a high court judgement imo and we don’t have that at the moment Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment There is an upcoming ICJ ruling on Israeli practices in the OPT. As per The Implications of An ICJ Finding that Israel is Committing the Crime Against Humanity of Apartheid during the recent public hearings, "24 States and three international organizations made the further claim that Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination.". Personally, I would like to wait for the ICJ deliberations on this matter to conclude before addressing what should be in the lead (although it being in the body is straightforward). Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective, apartheid is already a fact since Amnesty and HRW are reliable sources, without regard to what western governments are claiming. Given this contradiction we have chosen to treat these conclusions as allegations. But in either case, whether conclusions or allegations, apartheid as a fact or as a claim should be in the lede as a summary of the body. Currently, the least we could do is have it described as a claim. After the ICJ deliberations, if affirmative, I think we would all be inclined to treat it as fact. So I would view it more of how to describe apartheid in the lede for now and later as two separate discussions. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

When saying lede are you talking about the first paragraph or the third? The allegation of apartheid should be in the third if there are many reliable sources for it, it fits with what's already there in the same vein. If the ICJ concluded it was apartheid then it could be included as a fact imo Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEDE is the summary of the body that is present before the article's contents; i.e. the four paragraphs. The first lede paragraph is under MOS:OPEN. Here I am referring to the third lede paragraph indeed. and I agree with your reasoning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually like the ICJ wording. The ICJ was careful in how they worded it, and the wording is more accurate. Apartheid is linked to race, and "Palestinian" is not a race, so the apartheid accusation is not really accurate. The ICJ wording doesn't say "there is apartheid" but that the system amounts to apartheid. Human Rights Watch also used "amounts to" up in DMH223344's comment on 00:21, 22 March 2024.

The ICJ wording:

"Israel’s policies and practices amount to a system of institutionalized racial discrimination and domination breaching the prohibition of apartheid under international law and/or amount to prohibited acts of racial discrimination."

I would also prefer to wait for the ICJ deliberations. The current info in the Wikipedia Israel article about apartheid is not very good because it is basically "here is are bunch of organizations accusing Israel of apartheid.. a quote from a 2021 survey... these accusations were criticized by governments...here is a opinion by a Canadian law professor." Written like this, the content is not very lead-worthy, but content supported by more well-rounded/balanced ICJ deliberations and findings would make the apartheid accusations more lead-worthy. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition of race: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know. I use duck.com as a default browser on this device and when I typed in Is Palestinian a race it said “ Palestinian is not considered a distinct race. Palestinians are an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant, sharing broad religious, linguistic, and cultural practices with other Arabs, with variations unique to Palestine. They are part of the broader Arab world and encompass Muslims and a minority of Christians.”

Also ethnicity and race are not the same. Hispanic/Latino is an ethnicity but not race. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes but no one in this discussion has talked about whether Palestinians are a race except yourself. It is imo not germane to the discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid is a system of racial segregation. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But according to the second definition in the American Heritage dictionary race is , “ A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.” So it could work if we go by that dictionary picking the second definition. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid (South Africa version) and the Crime of Apartheid are not the same thing. In addition, the definition of racial group nowadays is more fluid. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I may have gotten confused from looking at the US census race categories. Middle Easterners are supposed to fill in White as their race [8]. The census definitions for race and ethnicity are different and more strict. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Apartheid has never been that cut and dry, by that argument, Rhodesia wasn't an apartheid regime because it was largely wealth based voting, the apartheid comes from its treatment of the west bank, which it treats like a Bantustan, infact a nickname for the west bank is "bantustan" it is Segregation... Gorgonopsi (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Not just a bunch, a lot of weighty opinions on the matter and over a long period of time, this is not going to go away. Btw, that's not the ICJ wording, that is the wording used by the JustSecurity source, you would need to look at the individual country submissions to see what wording they actually used.

Amnesty view is the most authoritative finding so far "The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention."

I don't think the "amounts to" is significant, is there a source for that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

See, Amnesty is also using “amounts to “

“ and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law.”

JustSecurity used “amounts to “ twice, Amnesty used it, and Human Rights Watch used it. I was trying to figure out why they used “amounts to” instead of is. One definition of “amounts to” is adding up. So maybe that is why they are using it instead of the race thing. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

International law is named after the most famous example, separation of European/non-European peoples. So I suppose sources on Israel use ‘amounts to’ instead of ‘is’ for language reasons. I think they are saying it fits international law because the actions taken in South Africa and Israel are materially the same, even if it isn’t the identical groups undergoing separation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Israel Hebrew Name

in the Hebrew name of Israel the vowels are very hard to read. Rishypeasy (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rishypeasy not everyone can read niqqud. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

A few missing historical names

Bellow all the formal stuff we put on every country it mentions the names israel had been called historically, but it's missing some like Judea. 2A06:C701:9DA2:3100:1085:ACF8:8D6B:247B (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not obvious what you mean by "missing". In the Classical antiquity section, for example, Judea is mentioned 4 times. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

English

Just like Arabic, English is also a recognized language in Israel. Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. Here are the sources, as added to the article List of countries and territories where English is an official language.

MylowattsIAm (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Please add English alongside Arabic in the "recognized languages" section in the infobox. The sources I already gave. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: English is not a de jure official language in Israel as stated in your cites. The article text appears to cover this correctly. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why not add it as a de facto recognized language with these citations and footnotes explaining it? It's stared that it's use comes even before Arabic so it makes no sense to leave it out of the infobox. MylowattsIAm (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a very large number of languages spoken in Israel as can be seen in the article on this at: Languages of Israel linked to in the languages section of this article. We cannot put them in an infobox. Please stop reopening this request. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

But English has a completely different status. One of the sources literally states "after Hebrew but before Arabic". It's not just another language used by someone in Israel, it is a working language of the state, a bit less important than Hebrew but more important than Arabic. Some articles use a row titled "working language" so perhaps we could use that here. I will reopen the request again for the last time. MylowattsIAm (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to support this suggestion. More sources are needed to back the claim of English as the working language. Ahri.boy (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

English is used around the world, somewhat like French centuries ago. I've been to many countries in South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific and had little problem using English. {OK, some difficulty in parts of the US.) This is partly due the prevalence of tech related documents written in English, and partly due to pop music and movies, and partly due to the annoying American tourists countries put up with. Israel is a special case. But these factors still exist. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Historically accurate information removed

User:Makeandtoss, who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias, has removed historically accurate information to perpetuate an inaccurate viewpoint. While the original article may have addressed the remaining territory, it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This information holds significant importance for maintaining neutrality.

Compare:

The [[1949 Armistice Agreements]] saw Israel's borders established over most of the former remaining Mandate territory, which is not including the 77% which was previously used to establish [[Jordan]] on 11 April 1922, while the rest, the [[Jordanian annexation of the West Bank|West Bank]] and the [[Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic|Gaza Strip]], were taken by [[Jordan]] and [[Egypt]] respectively.

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I stopped reading at: who clearly edits with a pro-Palestine bias. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply examine his edit history to either invalidate or validate my claim? EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

He promptly archived my talk post, which called out his edits, indicating a clear intention to conceal actions that could be viewed as biased editing from initial viewers. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please cease your ad hominem attacks immediately before action is taken against you. Archiving talk pages is within my right, which is even optional and not mandated by Wikipedia that even allows blanking talk pages. As for my editing is supported by reliable sources and according to WP guidelines, unlike the last recent edit you tried to insert without a source. If it is an "indisputable fact", then I am sure it would be easy for you to provide a reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/05/opinion/is-jordan-palestine-of-course.html

80%, it's an obvious fact for anyone with any knowledge of history of the Levant, here's your reliable source. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I will gladly provide 100 more if you'd like... EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not reliable sources. And if it exists it is a fringe viewpoint in the literature. Doesn't belong in the lede as a summary of the body anyway. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a geographical fact, geography is not an opinion. The British Mandate for Palestine included both "Palestine" and "Jordan". Jordan constituted 80% of the British Mandate for Palestine. This is not an opinion, this is fact. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Here I have provided additional sources to support the geographical fact that Jordan comprised roughly 80% of the british mandate for palestine. Do you think this is satisfactory to update and correct the article?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf

https://embassies.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Maps/Pages/The%20League%20of%20Nations%20Mandate%20for%20Palestine%20-%201920.aspx?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template#:~:text=The%20territory%20of%20the%20British,separate%20administrative%20entity%20called%20Transjordan.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

it's essential to note that the combined territory of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza constitutes only 23% of the British Mandate for Palestine. Rubbish, this is the propaganda nonsense that includes Jordan in the Mandate. Selfstudier (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Your response is completely unconstructive and baseless. Jordan was indeed a part of the British Mandate for Palestine, ummm Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

And excluded from the Zionist provisions for nearly all of it, administered totally separately, and the border was not set until later so it wasn't even Jordan, it was just the other side of the Jordan. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance between that and the fact I am trying to include for the sake of neutrality. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Me either, stop writing rubbish and I won't respond to it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The administration of the area that constitutes Jordan today does not alter the historical fact that approximately 77% of the land allocated under the British mandate was used to establish the state of Jordan. The timing of border agreements made by outside additional parties does not negate the established borders and the allocation of land. Your argument appears to rely on a strawman fallacy EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source showing this 77%. When you can't find one, let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Are these not Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/28/dueling-histories-debate-over-historic-palestine/

https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/cmenas-assets/cmenas-documents/unit-of-israel-palestine/Section1_BritishMandateInPalestine.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2023/israel-palestine-gaza-west-bank-borders

EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Idk, you tell me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. They are obviously reliable sources. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned the Mandate for Palestine -> "Whilst the Mandate for Palestine document covered both Mandatory Palestine (from 1920) and the Emirate of Transjordan (added in 1921), Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine." and 4 reliable sources cited to that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, from strawman fallacy to now changing the goalpost. :) I provide reliable sources, now they are not good enough. We're not talking about Mandatory Palestine, my edit CLEARLY said British Mandate for Palestine. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

British Mandate for Palestine was a document, but your edit falsely and misleadingly makes a geographic connection with the area size. This point is irrelevant as far as the literature is concerned. And it still does not belong to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)