Talk:Israel/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Bias in the lede

1- "international recognition of the state's sovereignty over the city is limited" gives undue weight to a not so important factor while completely ignoring the illegality of the occupation and annexation of East Jerusalem according to international law.

2- "the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina" makes the false implication that this was the first time the region was called Palestine, which is not true.

3- "Jewish presence in the region has persisted to a certain extent over the centuries" ambiguous statement that fails to mention they were a minority.

4- "remained in Muslim control until the First Crusade of 1099" biased wording that ignores the fact that it was under Muslim control from the 7th till the 20th century, with the exception of the Crusade.

5- "rejected by Arab leaders" oversimplified, failing to mention why and failing to mention the Arab leaders who did accept partition in secret, i.e. Abdullah I of Jordan, whose country was the most prominent actor in the war.

6- The entire article fails to mention anything about the apartheid characterization by Israeli NGO, HRW and the UN.

My suggestions:

1- change to "international recognition of the state's sovereignty over the eastern part of the city is limited and its legality disputed"

2- change to "the renaming of the region from Iudaea to Syria Palaestina, although some sources called the region Palestine prior to the renaming"

3- change to "Jewish presence in the region has persisted as a minority over the centuries"

4- "remained in Muslim control until the 20th century with the exception of the First Crusade of 1099"

5- "rejected by most Arab countries" while adding a note on why it was rejected, other than the three present quotes.

6- mention to the characterization of apartheid doesn't necessarily have to be in the lede. South Africa has it in the lede. China has accusations of human rights violations in its article's lede. Israel's conveniently doesn't, while it makes sure to mention how happy, educated and militarized its citizens are?

The article has had the exact same wording as I remember reading when I joined Wikipedia 6 years ago. It's time for these biases in the lede, which is the most read part of any article, to be fixed. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". The amount of space given to each subject should roughly correlate to the amount it's given in the body of the article.

1. Status of Jerusalem is WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lead at all. Alleged occupation of West Bank, including disputed annexation of East Jerusalem is discussed in the second half of a rather large third paragraph of the lead.

2. While names such as "Peleset", "Palashtu", "Philistia" have been used earlier to refer to various parts of Land of Israel or nearby territories, they were not usually used to describe Israel's territory until Roman emire renamed Judaea to Syria Palaestina. This article is about Israel, not Timeline of the name "Palestine".

3. The word "presence" does not imply either majority or minority, it specifically links to History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel so the reader can see details. Changing it to "minority" would be misleading, since it wasn't always a minority; just as misleading as writing "majority" just because somtimes it was a majority.

4. The paragraphs follows the history, as the area was conquered by Babylonain, Persian and Hellenistic empires, Roman Repblic, Byzantine Empire, "Muslim control" (which perhaps should be split give more details), First Crusade, etc. Some of these occupying forces were varyous types of Muslim, why is it important to mention in lead article on Israel? The article describes the history if Israel as it happened, it does not attempt to create a false impression that this is Muslim land.

5. First Abdulla I of Jordan's acceptance of the division plan should be mentioned in the body of the article, then maybe it will be due to mention of the lead.

6. There is a separate article dedicated to allegations that Israel practices apartheid in the West Bank. This article is about Israel, not about the disputed territories, therefore of course this slander has no place in the article, and especially not in the lead paragraph.

“WarKosign” 13:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely Rose-colored glasses here. Perhaps note here for the benefit of passing readers that this article should be read in conjunction with informed sources for efficacy.Selfstudier (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1- Nothing specific about East Jerusalem in the third paragraph other than the mention that Israeli law was applied to it, a nice way of saying it was occupied and subsequently annexed.

2- False. Many sources prior to the renaming mentioned Palestine specifically, in reference to that specific geographical area, which can be seen in the timeline article.

3- Jews were always a minority west of the Jordan River ever since the expulsion and until 1948, which is the context of that sentence and not a general statement.

4- 1400 years of almost uninterrupted Muslim rule is considered unimportant? But a few years occupation by the crusaders is more important? The information is already there, but it is written in a misleading way. I don't want anything added. Emphasis on the various Islamic empires is entirely neglected.

5- Glad we agree that the current wording on this specific detail is inaccurate.

6- Israel is the occupying power of the "disputed" territories. It has been accused of this "slander" by its own local NGOs and by reputable international human rights organizations. It is astonishing how it is completely left out in the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Question What exactly is "Muslim rule"? What does it mean? And what is its significance? And then, after you define it, can you please put forward your case for why you would want that be stated, anywhere, let alone in the intro paragraph? TomReagan90 (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Even Israel Supreme Court says it is the occupier, naughty court!Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1. Supreme court also says that Jerusalem is annexed, so we're fine. Seriously, this is undue for the lead. A minor legal dispute that takes a very small part of the article does not deserve a more prominent mention in the lead that it already has.

2. You are making a straw man argument. I did not say that the name "Palestine" or its variation were not used before, I said that it was not the common name for the area of Israel.

3. "Always a minority", except when they were the majority. Are you going to argue that Jews were minority in Kingdom of Judah? Or perhaps when it was called Judea by the Romans?

4. "Almost" uninterrupted rule of different Muslim fractions fighting and replacing each other is only important when you're trying to create a false narrative of continous Muslim rule.

6. Again, alleged occupation is mentioned and there are links to the appropriate articles. Despite you feeling otherwise, unresolved problems in the disputed territories are not the most important characteristic of the State of Israel, this article has a lot of much more important and interesting matters to cover.

As Makeandtoss wrote, the lead has been pretty stable and there's a good reason for it - it's pretty balanced and good, and most editors do not feel the need to change it. “WarKosign” 17:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1- Minor legal dispute? The status of Jerusalem is literally at the heart of the conflict.

2- It is actually you who is making the strawman argument. I explicitly said some sources called it Palestine and did not make any claims about a common name whatsoever.

3- Strawman argument here again. I specifically mentioned from the expulsion of Jews and till 1948, I did not mention anything about pre-history.

4- And why does it matter that these different Muslim factions were fighting? This standard does not seem to apply to the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel who were also fighting, but despite existing for only a few decades, they take a significant proportion of the paragraph in question.

6- Occupation is mentioned in nice terms without any mention of apartheid and the various human rights violations. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

WarKosign, the lead is unbalanced, and not just the points being discussed here. It is because this is the single most “brigaded” article in the topic area, and gaining consensus on changes is extremely difficult. The points made by Makeandtoss are digestible so I think they can work, with a few minor modifications. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The current lede is a rather good compromise respecting NPOV, while the proposed changes all would push it a bit more towards a certain POV. Jeppiz (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Compromise with who?Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly news that there are users who push a more Israeli POV and would like the lede to reflect that POV, and users like yourself pushing for a more Palestinian POV. The current lede is a relatively good compromise between those two POVs without tilting too far to either side. Jeppiz (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That's according to your POV, right? The tilt lights are flashing afaics.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it's my point of view that the current consensus is a compromise. As someone rather uninvolved in the situation, it's also my point of view that my POV might be a bit more neutral than that of users who almost exclusively dedicated themselves to this one topic and might lack the perspective, regardless of whether they hold an Israeli or a Palestinian POV. Jeppiz (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

See definition of consensus. It's usually achieved when there is a compromise between fellow editors who may have different opinions. In my (and many other editors') opinion the article deals with status of the disputed territory way too much, in some other editor's opinions it deals with it too little. “WarKosign” 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The specific edits I suggested are not neutral, they fully represent the Israeli POV without any regard to the Palestinian one. For the rest of you who is wondering, Wikipedia is neither a democracy nor a bible. Everything can be changed within consensus. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the edits you suggested are not neutral. They are intended to shift the article from current NPOV toward a more biased state. Current state of the article has long-standing consensus; the burden of gaining a new consensus for your proposed changes is on you. “WarKosign” 20:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

CCC. And in this case, it should. Designations as an apartheid state, CERD process ongoing, ICC investigation launched, illegal activities in East Jerusalem and it's all water off a duck's back. One wonders what actually has to happen to allow that CCC.Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, the artcile does not even mention Anti-Zionism/New antisemitism or the UN's obsession with Israel. Something that needs fixing to make the article less biased. “WarKosign” 04:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree about the UN, it should be made totally clear that Israel never complies with any UN resolutions, relies on a US veto and is the reason why the UN continues to pay attention to the Palestine question. Feel free to add as much antiZ filler as you want, no objection from me.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not neutral, no way. The suggested changes are just over the top. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The current version is not neutral either. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

::The current version sounds pretty neutral, actually. Also probably the result of long-standing consensus after many years. Better to leave it instead of starting a whole mess that will probably make things worse.--SoaringLL (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Things have changed, not that it matters to those think the article is supposed to be static regardless.Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No its not neutral, it is oversimplified on purpose to reflect a certain POV. None of the points I mentioned above have been addressed properly. Long standing consensus can be challenged. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier and Makeandtoss, you are subjected to WP:AGF like everyone else. You are perfectly entitled both to dislike the current version and to propose changes, that's perfectly fine. Making snide remarks about other users' motives is never ok, and even less so on a talk page under ArbCom sanctions. Makeandtoss, I'm sure everyone has noted that you find the current version to be POV. Again, you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion, but that doesn't mean there's any obligation to change it. I don't have strong personal feelings on this matter and I could certainly consider supporting a new consensus if one were to be elaborated. The first step towards that goal would be start working with other users. Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

And why exactly are you implying we are not working with other users? If we had that in mind, we wouldn’t be on this talk page discussing, but rather on the article edit warring. Let’s not shift the discussion into something else. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly.Selfstudier (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Readability issue with map?

When I click to enhance the image File:Israel - Location Map (2012) - ISR - UNOCHA.svg (image in the infobox) to readable size, some of the letters overlap one another making it difficult to read. Is anyone else having this issue, and does anyone know a way to solve it? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I notified the map uploader on Commons. Zero^talk 06:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Any update on this? This is one of the lead images on a major page, and still displays terribly. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC

Talk:Ilhan_Omar#RFC has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Benevolent human (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

{Israel noob

N denied; edit is unconstructive BasedMises_{Mont Pelerin} 04:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editor History

With regards to edit, with the summary "There are enough American politicians on country pages already," I wanted to bring to the attention of other editors that the editor here, B. Fairbairn, has a long history of this behavior of trying to remove pictures involving the US or US politicians from foreign relations sections in various articles. It's something I thought they'd given up on years ago, but clearly they are back to their old habits. B. Fairbairn has had multiple ANI conversations about this [1] [2] [3] [4] and has been blocked at least 3 times for this behavior. Hopefully, this isn't the resumption of that trend. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Former US Presidents

Can someone please explain why there is an image of only one former US President (Trump) in the article about Israel? B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do you care? Why should anyone care? --Calton | Talk 14:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's one too many. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If there is a photo involving a US president that would actually merit inclusion in that section then something from Rabin and Arafat signing the Oslo Accords with Clinton is the only one that makes sense imo. A random press conference is not it. nableezy - 14:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, just gonna switch the trump shot with File:Bill Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, Yasser Arafat at the White House 1993-09-13.jpg. nableezy - 14:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Support this. Clearly more significant than the previous president's visit. Zaathras (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

History section

Modern archaeology has largely discarded the historicity of the narrative in the Torah concerning the patriarchs, The Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan described in the Book of Joshua, and instead views the narrative as constituting the Israelites' national myth.

I don’t have issue with it entirely. But I have an issue with the mention of Exodus. It’s stance on Exodus is simplification. Most scholars agree that Exodus does indeed have some historical basis, it’s just they agree that the Exodus account in the Torah is a mythologized version of it.CycoMa (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, please provide some good quality sources to support it. “WarKosign” 21:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

WarKosign the article on the exodus mentions that. Just give me a minute.CycoMa (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

USA and Israel

I remember watching videos in school in the 90's in Canada, where they showed the US victory over Syria, with politicians shaking hands on the tarmac and US warplanes parked, after the six day war that lead to the creation of Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.219.208 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Everything you wrote there is incorrect. First, the US hadn't had a military conflict with Syria prior to or during the 1990s, so you could not have seen footage of warplanes on the tarmac following US conflict with Syria. Second, the US wasn't involved in the Six-Day War, to the point that the US even imposed an arms embargo on all sides, so there would not have been US military aircraft on a tarmac in the Middle East as part of any victory over Syria. Third, the Six-Day War did not lead to the creation of modern State of Israel; Israel was established as a result of the 1947–1949 Palestine war (or "War of Independence" in Israel) in ~1948, nearly two decades prior to the Six-Day War of 1967. As far as I am aware, the Canadian education system is nowhere near bad enough to have committed so many errors, so I do not think you were shown any such video in school. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

2001:4DF4:3E3:CD00:E14D:709C:D7BD:D369 (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Add the golan to the map

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciaton

Who calls it "Is-re-al" and why? Its just wrong, the letters are a, then e. "Is-ra-el" is the only way to pronounce it in my opinion. Any answers? KhlavKhalash (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a fairly common American pronunciation. Deku link (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

With three syllables? "Is-real", sure, but "Is-re-al"? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah i know its common. I asked, why! It doesnt make sense, cause it is spelled the other way round. Where does it come from. @jpgordon: maybe this is an explanation. Israel hast 3 syllables, but US Americans feel, it should be 2 cause of the similarities between rael and real. Any ethymologists here? KhlavKhalash (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion that's really better suited for the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Zaathras (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we may be conflating different things. In Hebrew, it is pronounced "Yis-rah-el," three syllables. The English spelling may be derived from that, but I've never heard an English speaker (including Israeli's speaking in English) pronounce it with three syllables in English. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I apppologize but in the word יִשְׂרָאֵ֫ל the stress mark ֫ is on the letter א. therefore, it should be pronounced "yis-rah-EL", not "YIS-rah-el"2A02:ED2:F000:C6F8:6596:33E6:F119:7044 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, lets skip the syllable thing. You could discuss, if the last part is one or two. It acually is two "Ra-El", but in some dialects may sound as one. About the pronunciation, every Israeli I know, calls it "Is-Ra-El". Some of my israeli friends even made fun of the american pronunciation of "Is-Real", calling it wrong. KhlavKhalash (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Israel as an Apartheid Regime

It should probably be addressed in the introduction to this article that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime or of committing a cultural genocide of Palestinians by a number of experts including the UNHRC, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, among others. SpaceSandwich (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel has been accused of many things and criticism of the occupation is already in article (both in lede and the article's body). However, the nature of its regime has been discussed until exhaustion and the consensus is that it's a democracy, not apartheid. For more information, take a look at the last RfC. As far as "cultural genocide", it's the first time I hear it (I know what an actual genocide means, though, such as what the Chinese Communists are doing to Uyghur Muslims or what Stalin did to the Ukrainians in the 1930s). Perhaps you could provide us a source.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock

9 July 2020 Michael Sfard, via Yesh Din, "The conclusion of this legal opinion is that the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank,"

12 January 2021 B'tselem A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid

21 January 2021 Nathan Thrall The Separate Regimes Delusion Nathan Thrall on Israel’s apartheid

Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A criticism is not a fact. A separate article already appears to exist for this particular canard, the somewhat clumsily-titled Israel and the apartheid analogy. Zaathras (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Calling it a canard rather gives the game away. B'tselem has moved on from criticism and now states it as a fact and all the newsorgs are happy to report that. How many messengers are needed to turn criticism into a fact? I suspect it will make no difference. Shooting the messenger is also possible, you could do that. Or you could cite Kontorovich/the usual list of deniers. But the X-files has the last word "The truth is out there".Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If that page ever gets retitled "Israeli apartheid", then there's a discussion to have. While the topic is still more about those who make the analogy and the reasons behind them, it has no place in the Israel article. Zaathras (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention we just had an RfC about that! WP:Deadhorse.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock

@User:Watchlonly first of all, there is no official consensus that the Ukrainian famine was a genocide (nor the Uyghur situation), not that its relevant at all to this discussion. second, apartheid South Africa was considered to be a "democracy" by westerners such as yourself, so the previous consensus is nonsense. It should at least be addressed in the introduction that Israel has been accused of being an apartheid regime. It also seems that there is a double standard that the same sources that I cited are used to describe human rights abuses in the intros of various articles such as China, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela SpaceSandwich (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making assumptions about me. I've never considered apartheid South Africa a democracy, since black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population, and there were different laws for people according to their race, including segregation in buses, bathrooms and hospitals. I thought you were familiar with that since non-voting and political repression is a characteristic feature of Communist countries. After all, USSR was murdering dissidents in Eastern Europe at the same time than the Pretoria government was shooting down protestors. Fortunately both regimes fell almost simultaneously, and democracy won. Even more so, I met South African Jews who told me that the reason why apartheid fell in the end was precisely because the Soviet Union came down first. If not, there would still be apartheid (it lasted a long time, 46 years! You can thank the Cold War for that).--Watchlonly (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock

A Stalinist lecturing people on human rights, is this for real? _ ValiumColoredSky [talk] 00:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@User:ValiumColoredSky Stalinism isn't a thing, (Personal attack removed). also, @User:Watchlonly, it appears that you have been sanctioned before for making unconstructive pro-Israel edits to a number of articles, as such, you should refrain from further editing on pages in this topic. Also, I don't care about your South African Jewish friend's (Personal attack removed) opinions. -- User:SpaceSandwich (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion, comrade. But I think I'll keep editing in this topic extensively. I hope it doesn't trigger you.--Watchlonly (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Blocked sock. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the analogy article does need retitling: Holmes, Oliver (27 April 2021). "Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, rights watchdog says". the Guardian. Retrieved 27 April 2021."A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution". Human Rights Watch. 27 April 2021. Retrieved 27 April 2021. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No, certainly not in the way that the indefinitely banned user suggested. The HRW report is important as such, but not official. It would take a UN declaration that a regime is an apartheid for WP to claim it as a neutral fact in the lede. Jeppiz (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Which indeffed user? It was Zathras who said that any changes to this article would be contingent on a change to the other article. I agree with him and I am thinking that there is now a case to be made for doing just that. The CERD (UN) investigation is well underway, I would think the outcome is a foregone conclusion after Btselem/HRW reports.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

No offence intended but please take editing a bit more serious, it's not other's job to point out obvious facts. This discussion was started by SpaceSandwich, an indeffed user. Five seconds of checking could have told you that. Jeppiz (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, aren't we snippy, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding It was Zathras who said that any changes to this article would be contingent on a change to the other article, I stated that in a manner similar to "monkeys might fly out of my butt". What is the tipping point between "Israel is accused of..." and "Israel is..." ? I, personally, do no know...it is one of those I'll know it when I see it" things. HRW has a long, long history of anti-Israeli bias, so, their call on this amounts to a bit of a nothingburger. Zaathras (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Predictable response. You can repeat that for the UN when their report comes out.Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite as predictable as a gleeful rush to try to rename a contentious article that has been stable for what appears to be a decade (the logs are unclear) based on a biased org's opinion, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No rush, situation has changed so something to discuss and we are going to do that. Bias is a pretty standard allegation as far as I can see anybody leveling any criticism at all is instantly classed as biased, including the UN. So I don't think that will form a meaningful part of any discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

isn't it a double standard for China to have a subsection for its human rights abuses and "accusations" whereas on this page it must be suppressed until "proven"? Eomar2828 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In short: yes it is. 2603:8081:7803:E900:2CBE:B439:AB6D:2B9F (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

One only needs to see the number of socks that edit/comment here to realize the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

There's gramer problems 197.165.134.96 (talk)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Attacks ---> Bombing

is it possible to change "On 22 July 1946, Irgun attacked the British administrative headquarters for Palestine," to "On 22 July 1946, Irgun bombed the British administrative headquarters for Palestine," technically the King David Hotel bombing was a bombing. --LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Material on Israeli settlements in the lead

Israel's settlement enterprise in the occupied territories is one of the most discussed characteristics of its occupation. It has drawn repeated condemnation, including by the UN Security Council (United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 465), the International Court of Justice in the Wall case (see page 184, The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law), the ICRC (see example statement), countless scholars, human rights organizations, international bodies. Does anybody dispute that the controversy over Israel's settlements and the accusations that they are in breach of international law is a "significant controversy"? And if so, who disputes that this controversy should be covered in the lead of the article? nableezy - 15:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree they're inadequately covered in the lead. I think it's part of a broader problem with the lead – some parts are poorly written and overly technical, and it could do with a thorough copy-edit for readability/accessibility. At the moment the first mention of settlements is a non sequitur at the end of a technical explanation of pipelining (as an aside, I suspect the application of Israeli law in the settlements isn't significant enough by itself to warrant an entire lead sentence, as it does now – perhaps it can be reduced to being mentioned as one factor within a sentence outlining the other main issues related to the occupation)? I think the settlements need to be properly introduced immediately after the occupation is first discussed, although this explanation doesn't necessarily have to take up a lot of words. The question of whether to add explicit criticism of the occupation/settlements is a separate issue in my view – I haven't yet read the above discussion and I don't want to weigh in on that argument here. The lack of a proper explanation of what the settlements are is simply an oversight/problem with the existing text, as it fails to introduce an important issue for/of modern Israel. Another aside, but I think some things could be cut from the lead as too irrelevant to Israel as a whole, such as the short sentence about Italian bombing in WW2 and the excess descriptive detail at "amidst growing tensions with the conflict-weary British" – perhaps this space could be used to better introduce/explain more recent history (without needing major additions of content)? Jr8825 • Talk 16:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Having read this section of the discussion and the one above it, I feel quite lost. I don't really get the purpose of this article. Is this an article about Israel or a human rights report about Israel? Is it meant to describe Israel as a country in the Middle East or to present the conflicts in which Israel is involved? Now, I see references to previous discussions about these issues, and it is very hard to follow this information, but that begs the question - have you already decided what the purpose of the article is? Also, wouldn't it be wise to engage more people in these discussions? With the current audience, you seem to get nowhere. Why won't you invite people who weren't involved in these discussions so far to give their comments? I hope this helps a bit. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

By purpose you mean the scope, normally the first sentence(s) of the article define what an article is about. And then reliable sources define it further. Very simplistically, if there were altogether 100 reliable sources about Israel and 10 of them were about human rights and 90 of them about something else, then 10% of the article ought to be about human rights. We don't need to invite anyone to talk, WP is open to all for talk, there are restrictions on editing and formal discussions for some subjects, including anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. You were here without an invite, where is your response to the question put? Hope that helps a bit more.Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No offence, but this is not how using reliable sources works. If using sources worked the way you suggested, then the article about the US should deal first and foremost with the crisis of healthcare and the struggle of African Americans for equality. Clearly this is not the case, because a person who wish to read a description about the US needs plenty of other information before they approach any of those issues. And besides, you need to prove that 10% of the articles about Israel deal with human rights issues. You also have to prove that these sources are not agenda-driven or biased. Do you have a meta-analysis of this kind? Now, I realize I'm talking basics here, and you probably want to tell me to read the discussions you already conducted or to mind my own business. But perhaps it would be useful to take a step back and think why this article is here to begin with. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing the article Israel, Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Please tone down your replies. We don't know each other personally, so we have to treat each other with due respect. Now, I didn't say anything about my personal opinions and I don't intend to. You offered a piece of interesting information - you estimated that 10% of the articles available about Israel deal with human rights issues. I would like to see where you've got this information from. Could you direct me there? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

What would you estimate the percentage to be? My best guess is: "not zero percent" and that zero coverage in the lead is therefore an NPOV problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up. Indeed, the weight given to Israeli settlements in the lead is completely out of proportion. The section "Israeli-occupied territories", which contains most of the mentions of settlements is about 7% of the article. The content dedicated to occupation and settlements in the lead takes 13% of the lead section, almost twice as long as it should be per MOS:LEADREL. Let's see which parts can be safely trimmed and which are important to keep. “WarKosign” 19:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

That percentage is only true because of the repeated censorship of material in the body. nableezy - 15:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This section at least intends to focus on criticism of the settlements, not the whole occupation. There is no settlement criticism discussion in the lead (I am not counting the mention in relation to application of Israeli law). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't just that there's no criticism of settlements in the lead (again, whether there should be more criticism in the lead is a contentious and separate question), the problem is that the settlements aren't introduced or explained at all in the lead, and I think they warrant that. Jr8825 • Talk 19:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have to interject again, but is this an article about Israel or about the conflicts in which Israel is involved? Clearly people here have views and opinions about these conflicts and about the Israeli policy, and they can perhaps direct to good resources that discuss these issues, but does it serve the purpose of this article? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply I gave earlier.Selfstudier (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, stop being dismissive and stop misconstruing what the IP is saying. They're discussing nothing but the article and their opinions are worth just as much as yours. (try reading WP:BITE, WP:CIV) - Daveout(talk) 05:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that the article about Israel should not include material on Israel's conflicts, and the view of the international community on what they consider to be repeated and sustained violations of international law, is not in keeping with out policies on NPOV and WEIGHT. nableezy - 15:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction to Israeli settlement in its own dedicated article is 33 words, which if copied here would become 4% of current lead - way more than it deserves by prominance within this article. This article is about State of Israel and not about the settlements. Despite what some people think, the conflict with Arabs is a minor quirk in Israel's history and not a defining feature. Most of the subjects discussed in the article are not defined in the lead, this is not the purpose of the lead. For example, why won't you suggest to define Israel Space Agency in the lead paragraph, too? “WarKosign” 22:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"the conflict with Arabs is a minor quirk in Israel's history and not a defining feature" is definitely going to be the most ludicrous thing I read on Wikipedia today. With debate happening at this level, I see no way to move forward without an RfC. @Nableezy: do you have a specific language proposal? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

WarKosign is right. We'll have to be, at the same time, more informative and succinct when summarizing the occupation and settlements issues in the lede (Which are not the main focus of this article by a long shot; we already have a couple of articles dealing specifically with those). - Daveout(talk) 05:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is supposed to summarize those articles, not use them to suppress material that reliable sources establish WP:WEIGHT for. nableezy - 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason why there are a "couple of articles" (more in fact) about those issues is because they are a notable and defining feature of Israel since 1967 ie for most of Israel's existence. 2334 is the current position so it is only a question of how to summarize it.Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Notable? Certainly, per WP:GNG. Defining feature? Says who? “WarKosign” 12:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"the transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied territory has, for a prolonged period, been an overt and organised state policy, executed on a large scale and in a systematic manner, such that it is a defining feature of the military occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory." Kearney, Michael G. (2016-12-18). "On the Situation in Palestine and the War Crime of Transfer of Civilians into Occupied Territory". Criminal Law Forum. 28 (1). Springer: 1–34. doi:10.1007/s10609-016-9300-9. ISSN 1046-8374. nableezy - 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Specific language proposal? Sure. Among the most controversial features of Israel's occupation is its establishment of Israeli settlements. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. nableezy - 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. This discussion has been very interesting so far, but I suppose you want to reach a conclusion, so why won't we see where we've got so far. First of all, from what I could see, and according to what you all said, this is not the first time you conduct this discussion without reaching an agreement. Now, clearly there are people here who believe the opening words (or lede, as you call it) should be different, but they couldn't convince others to make the change. It is a bit unfair to raise the suggestion again and again hoping your colleagues would eventually get tired and say, "alright, get on with it". But let's leave this point aside and examine the facts. Those who suggest the change say there are valuable resources saying that Israel's human rights issues are "a defining feature of Israel" (as one of you put it). However, none of you was able to bring a reliable resource that supports such a claim. Off the top of my head, I can bring serious human rights concerns in the US, France, Poland, Hungary and many other countries. Countries like the US, Russia, perhaps also Turkey and Armenia, if I'm not mistaken, are involved (or were recently involved) in some form of occupation. All I'm asking here is why Israel is different in your opinion, and if it is indeed different, how do you plan to base this claim? And please stick to the point - it is not about whether Israel's policy is right or wrong. Clearly, there are many people who think it is wrong. But this article is not about Israel's policy, but about Israel, as you all agreed in this discussion. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

One other thing - Nableezy, thank you so much for suggesting an addition and an interesting resource, but I'm afraid it doesn't bring this discussion forward. What you suggested is a criticism of Israel's policy. Fair enough, but is this the purpose of this article? And if so, are you going to add the Israeli justifications to its policy? Also, the resource you offered was merely an opinion. True, it is an educated valuable opinion, but you cannot present it as a fact. You can say, perhaps, that a certain British scholar believes that Israel is involved in war crimes and say that other scholar think otherwise, but then the article would become a debate rather than a description of Israel. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

No, what I suggest is adding who criticizes an Israeli policy. The international community. That Israel's settlement program has been condemned by the UNSC and the GA and the ICJ and the ICRC is significant controversy about Israel, and it is routinely noted in reliable sources. Our policies require us to give that its due WP:WEIGHT. The resource I offered is not "merely opinion", it is a WP:RS, written by an established expert in the field and published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. The sentence I intended to add includes Israel's disputing that the settlements are illegal. But that the international community considers an official policy of the Israeli government to be in violation of international law is a noteworthy aspect of the country and it belongs in the lead. The what about the US, France, Poland, Hungry argument is both irrelevant and wrong, in that there is not this sustained and widespread condemnation of these countries being guilty of ongoing war crimes. What is the difference? The difference is in the weight of the coverage by reliable sources. Israel's settlement policy is indeed a defining feature of the occupation, and the occupation is indeed a defining feature of Israel. This is not a travel guide, this is not a promotional project of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. An encyclopedia article on the topic Israel includes the things that Israel has been criticized for. So does its lead. nableezy - 16:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't see how it leads us anywhere. I ask you again - what is the purpose of this article? You have a very strong opinion about Israel's policy and you know how to establish it. That's wonderful, but this is not why we're here. We are not here to summarize the opinions of the GA or ICJ or ICRC about Israel. Since you know about this topic more than I do, you must be aware of the fact that many other scholars have different opinions about Israel, and that international organizations themselves changed their views several times with regard to various aspects of Israel's policy and the conflicts it's involved in. Only recently, four Arab countries that didn't recognize Israel at all decided to recognize it and sign cultural and economic agreements with it. Is that relevant to this article? Not at all, but it shows how careful you must be when you describe opinions, even well-established ones, even official statements. Writing an overview about the Arab-Israeli conflict and its various aspects would be very interesting, and clearly you are capable of this task, but does this article meant to be an overview of this kind? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I dont intend to spend a whole lot of time explaining our policies on due weight and that the lead "includes mention of significant criticism or controversies", or that yes we are indeed supposed to summarize the coverage of the views of the UNSC, UNGA, ICJ, ICRC where those views are given coverage in reliable sources and in relative weight to other topics. Nobody has suggested making this article an overview of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it very much should include a summary of such an overview. And that summary includes the international condemnation of the settlement enterprise. Finally, I have not once offered any personal opinion here, I have provided the material found in reliable sources. Kindly stop using this talk page as a WP:FORUM to discuss personal opinions, and reference our policies for what our article is and is not supposed to be. nableezy - 17:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I think this is a good start, although I don't think "among the most controversial features" is necessary – the second half of the sentence (about intl. law) conveys this quite clearly, so it's simply repetitive. Why not something more straightforward and less judgement-based, along the lines of "One of the main features of Israel's occupation is..."? Jr8825 • Talk 16:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good start, and I'd support it if this is the best proposal we can get. I agree with Jr8825 that the first clause could go, although I don't much prefer "main features". I am not confident enough in the sources to be able to rank the settlements against (for example) _targeted killings, the blockade, air strikes, etc. I strongly support the second sentence of the proposal, and think it could stand on its own. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure, one sentence is fine. I actually think most of the paragraph is terribly written and would suggest a rewritten one that includes this instead. nableezy - 17:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You say you don't have much time, and neither do I, so I'll be brief. Two people here suggest changing one of Wikipedia's most important articles, while there are several other people who object this change. They are going to make this change based on resources that they selected themselves and no one else had the chance to read and review, based on their own views of what is important and what is not, and while the article itself is locked for most people who would like to add their own information. Now, how exactly is this going to help? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It is more than two people, and please read WP:AVOIDYOU. Anybody is able to read the sources cited. It may require a trip to the library, but nobody said life was easy. nableezy - 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible RFC question wording

"Should the lead include material about the "settlement project" (meaning the entire enterprise as, for instance, described here)? Please indicate yes/no for this question independently of any other comments. If no, say why. If yes, suggest which aspects should be mentioned." Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)