Talk:Israel/Archive 104

Archive 100

←

Archive 102

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

→

Archive 108

Combined Version #3

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, the First Arab–Israeli War began. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

My reasoning for these changes:

1. This version avoids mentioning that several neighboring Arab nations mobilizing their armies starting the war because the role of Transjordan was not so clear cut and there is also the argument for casus belli.
2. This version keeps the word “or” rather than using “and”. There were a portion of Palestinians who were not forcibly evicted (they fled their villages before encountering any Jewish forces due to rumors or other reasons). AP News, The Guardian, PBS, Time use “or” [1][2][3][4]

Thoughts? Suggestions? @Makeandtoss@DMH223344@FortunateSons@Alaexis Wafflefrites (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this provides significant improvements to the original version. It’s less precise, violates NPOV, is vague on historical facrs such as the beginning of the war due to the invasion, and makes expulsion look bigger than it was. That being said, it is an improvement over the last version. FortunateSons (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. On 15 May 1948, several Arab armies from neighboring states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled.

@FortunateSons@Makeandtoss@Alaexis@DMH223344 This an alternate version Wafflefrites (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Better, but doesn’t make clear that the entry is the beginning of the war, not that it happens at after the beginning FortunateSons (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone summarize what the developments have been on this. I wish wikipedia had better support for discussions. This is a nightmare. DMH223344 (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll add a textdiff comparing the text proposed by u:Wafflefrites to the current article, hopefully it'll help other editors to evaluate the changes. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an endorsement of the changes.

−

The 1947 [[United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine|UN Partition Plan]] triggered [[1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine|a civil war]] between the two groups, which saw the [[1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight|expulsion and flight]] of most of Palestine's predominantly Arab population. Israel declared its [[Israeli Declaration of Independence|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 [[1948 Arab–Israeli War|First Arab–Israeli War]].

+

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups. Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. '''On 15 May 1948, several Arab armies from neighboring states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.''' By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and paramilitary units or fled.

Alaexis_¿question? 22:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Approve of this version with the suggested change of using "marking the start...". DMH223344 (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that it's an improvement. The phrase "Arab armies ... entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War" sounds awkward. I don't see problems with the current wording (starting the First Arab-Israeli war). If we define the 1948 Arab–Israeli War as the international phase of that conflict, then by definition it started when other countries entered the conflict. I'm also open to other options, for example marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Oooo… I like “marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war”. It sounds very official and is neutral. 👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Alaexis_¿question? 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That fixed most of the issues at hand, support FortunateSons (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

“ In 1947, the United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, sparking a civil war between the two groups. When the British terminated the Mandate on 14 May 1948, Israel declared its independence. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. As a result of the conflictsDuring the conflicts, the majority of Palestinian Arabs were either expelled or fled from territory that came under Israeli control. The armistice in 1949 left Israel in control over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively ”

. Mawer10 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ohh nice! I like this one too! 👍👍 Wafflefrites (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"As a result of the conflicts" is misleading DMH223344 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, we can change that to "during the conflicts". Mawer10 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No, this is classic historical mythology debunked by the new historians, which places the burden of the 1948 war on the Arab side, and claims that the expulsions were a result of that war; even though Zionist militants had been engaged in ethnic cleansing since December 1947, and were aiming for the takeover of all of Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I changed the complicated part, anything else to say? Mawer10 (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

“ The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, leading to the First Arab–Israeli War. By the war's end in 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population had fled and were expelled by Israel, which was founded on most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

”

I support something closer to the original proposal by Wafflefrites. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Your version has dropped the link to the 1949 Armistice agreements though. You need to add that back. Also your version makes it sound like the Declaration of Independence led to the war.

“marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war” doesn’t necessarily mean the Arab armies started the war. Based on the sentences and their placement, the Arab armies mobilization could also be interpreted as a response to the Declaration of Independence. But “at the beginning of” could be a better option, meaning the Arab army mobilization occurred at the start but was not the action that started the conflict.

I think the two options could be:

“ The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. By 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. 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.

”

Or:

“ The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine at the beginning of the First Arab-Israeli war. By 1949, the majority of Palestinians residing in Mandatory Palestine were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. 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

”

Wafflefrites (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Also Makeandtoss, your version at 13:40, 12 March 2024 uses “fled and expelled” when reliable sources use “or”. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a significant issue @Wafflefrites, thanks :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with this version based my comments outlined above.

FortunateSons (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I put up two versions. One using “marking the start” and the other using “at the beginning”. I hope that we all will be able to come up with a version that everybody can support. The U.S. Constitution is 4543 words and took four months to write over a period of 5 years and 9 months. Our edit is about 90 words, so it could take us 2.38 days over 1.37 months (about 41 days) Wafflefrites (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Marking the start is better. But yes, we do have time. Thank you for the productive contribution :) FortunateSons (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about the demographics of Palestine, "the majority of Palestinian Arabs were either expelled or fled from territory that came under Israeli control" gets straight to the point and appropriately emphasizes the territory that Israel came to control after 1949. And it is necessary to use the term "Arabs" after "Palestinian" because there were Palestinian Jews at that time. Mawer10 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

To make it explicit, I support the first option (with "marked") suggested by Wafflefrites on 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC). I'm also okay with minor changes like changing Palestinians to Palestinian Arabs if that ends up to be the consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 21:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss I think we have general consensus from all the other editors for Version 1 of my comment at 14:43, 12 March 2024.

This new version does not use the word “invaded”. It says “marked the start”, which is official-sounding and neutral. And I think the others have said this is historically accurate and not vague. Also because it is official sounding, I think it brings dignity to the Arab military side - it was an official and legitimate movement.

The new version explicitly states that Zionist militias and parliamentary expelled Palestinian Arabs, which addresses your concern about the expulsions not simply being a result war. This is also historically accurate and not vague.

I think these were the two main concerns with the current version in the lead.

From WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS “The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group.”

I don’t think this version fully satisfies everyone, but would you agree to this version? Do you have any other suggestions? Wafflefrites (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this work. approve of version 1 of your 14:43 comment DMH223344 (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with using „marked the start“ FortunateSons (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus involves putting forward compromises. I will put forward a compromise to avoid implying that Israel's declaration of establishment led to the war (even though I didn't intend to mean that, I meant that the British termination of the mandate); and a good compromise to come from the opposing view is to avoid implying the war was started due to the Arab invasion. A good middle ground would be:

“ The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By the war's end in 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population had fled or were expelled by Israel, which was founded on most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively."

”

As for fled and expelled, rather than fled or expelled, that's the name of the WP article, not my formulation: 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about both (expulsion AND flight), but the relevant action/mode of removal is referred to as OR in the article. Additionally, your version removes significant information about the course of the conflict.

Lastly, the war may or may not have started because of the invasion, but definitely was started by the invasion FortunateSons (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Prominent historian Eugene Rogan and Israeli historian Avi Shlaim, one of Israel's New Historians, have explicitly called the claim "that the Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth. [5] This is clearly a matter of POV that should not be in the lede. As for the matter of "and" or "or", I have changed it to "or", as per your arguments. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t access your source; is it possible that it is geolocked/requires permission? FortunateSons (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is: The War for Palestine by Rogan and Shlaim. The myths are elaborated in page 3. The link is a PDF file that takes a few seconds to load and is accessible. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I used a VPN for the source, found the place describing it as a „founding myth“, but can’t find the place where an alternative narrative is described. Would you be so kind as to provide a page number? FortunateSons (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss I have put 3 additional versions down below, version A is similar to your version. I think there is a problem with the first sentence of the version you have put up:

"Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted."

The above sentence uses 2 commas. In your sentence, it looks like the commas are setting off a nonessential element/nonrestrictive clause.[6][7] The commas make it look like the British mandate termination is a nonessential part of the sentence and can be removed, therefore "Israel declared establishment --> and the First Arab-Israeli War erupted."

I have tried to fix this issue in Versions A/C below by using the commas in list format rather than marking off a nonessential/nonrestrictive clause. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“ By this stage, however, the military situation was developing rapidly in Palestine itself as the Haganah and Palmach prepared for the offensive that would lead to the capture of Tiberias, Jaffa, Safad, and Haifa by the end of April 1948, as well as opening up the corridor linking west Jerusalem to the concentration of forces around Tel Aviv. These events finally led the Arab League to take seriously the possibility of military intervention. Transjordan announced that the Arab Legion would enter Palestine on the expiry of the Mandate and won Arab League approval, on condition that the entry of Arab armies did not lead to permanent annexation. King Faruq made a similar pledge on behalf of Egypt, although the Egyptian government was more non-committal. Since war was now inevitable, King Abdullah agreed with the regent that Iraqi troops should enter Transjordanian territory. ”

p.136

These two renowned historians have refuted the myth that placed the responsibility of the 1948 war on the Arab side by highlighting how it was a response for the Zionist organizations offensive plans that were aiming to takeover the whole of Palestine. The myth is clearly POV to be included in the lede; and I have already made a compromise to avoid stating which side is responsible for the war; and I expect that the same is done in good faith so that we move forward. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is assigning responsibility, marked merely refers to the starting event. One can credibly argue that Israel „started“ the war in 67, but the responsibility does not lie with them. In the same vain, just because the invasion of the Arab states marked the beginning of the war does not necessarily mean that the invasion was unjustified, merely that it was the start. FortunateSons (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A war was already ongoing in 1948 - the 1947–1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine: the intervention of foreign forces merely internationalised the existing conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Which marks the beginning of what is generally referred to as the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, no? FortunateSons (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe there are competing narratives. The Arab countries perspective is that they were merely intervening to protect the beleaguered Palestinian population, which was on the back foot against the Haganeh/IDF; Israel's perspective is that they were suddenly invaded (as if out of the blue). Both narratives can only be understood in the context of considerable political nuance. But yes, the intervention is where historians delineate the second phase of the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The one that is often referred to as a different name, and also the line between a civil and an international war. FortunateSons (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

VERSION A (03-13-2024) (based on Makeandtoss' recent version):

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By the war's end in 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population had fled or were expelled by Israel, which was founded on most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

VERSION B (03-13-2024) (uses DMH223344's wording about Zionist militias, the 1949 Armistice sentence is closer to the current lead):

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate. The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine as an extension of the civil war, marking the start of the First Arab-Israeli war. By 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements established Israel's borders over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt.

VERSION C (03-13-2024) (same as version A -uses "erupted" per Makeandtoss, keeps the 1949 Armistice sentence closer to the current lead, uses DMH223344's wording about Zionist militias):

The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population were expelled by Zionist militias and parliamentary units or fled. The 1949 Armistice Agreements established Israel's borders over most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were ruled by Jordan and Egypt.

What do you think of these versions? @Makeandtoss

@:DMH223344

@:FortunateSons

@:Alaexis

Wafflefrites (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You missed out on the „marking“, that was a good addition, and A is the least bad version. Otherwise, it still feels like we are moving farther away from what one would call clear language and into vague territory.

I understand the argument against using invasion (even if the term is technically accurate), but the discussion regarding erupted/started is moving away from what an educated person not specifically familiar with the subject would perceive as reasonable and started being about getting a phrasing so vague that nobody technically disagrees. We are adding complexity and vagueness where there really isn’t any, the entry/Invasion marking the beginning of that stage of the conflict is not generally disputed (to the best of my knowledge.) FortunateSons (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that military invasion is a technically accurate term. I also prefer the current lead version because it easier to picture what happened. However, Makeandtoss and others' arguments is that the current version does not give a historically accurate impression in regards to the Arab side. Also the sources differ per DMH223344's source about only Egypt invading. I suppose another argument against using "invasion" is there is some negative connotation. Makeandtoss (and I think DHM223344, as well as user Objective3000......) have brought arguments that the start of the war was not the invasion (casus belli). I would prefer a link to the 1949 Armistice agreements that actually says 1949 Armistice Agreements per MOS:NOPIPE. I will add in "marking" (i had replaced with signifying). Wafflefrites (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are objections to "forces from neighboring Arab states later entered the area of the former Mandatory Palestine", we can write "neighboring Arab states mobilized their armies", "neighboring Arab states activated a military coalition", or another alternate wording/phrase. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A choice of language that was installed in a previous version, and which did describe the situation quite well, was to say that the entry of the Arab armies into the territory of former mandatory Palestine "internationalised" the conflict (i.e. the civil war) - you could then use "marking the start of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war". Also, the "by the end of the war" part could be made less vague by starting with "Between 1947", so "Between 1947 and the end of the war.../the 1949 armistice agreements", since this helps clarify that this refers to both phases of the conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This would just put the burden of the war on the Arab side, a founding Zionist myth which was debunked by the new historians. Being aware of giving such implications, we are better off avoiding it. Both armies mobilized. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a democracy and instead works through consensus which involves putting forward compromises. You can't take my version in which I gave several compromises and put it next to an initial biased version with no compromises up for democratic voting. That's not how Wikipedia works. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My intention was not to put it up for democratic voting, but to compare with other variations that had also received some consensus. All versions need improvement with grammar, probably, and your version has a piped link. If we did want to achieve consensus by voting, it would require an RFC. Also there is no initial biased version with no compromises because all three versions have compromises when you compare it to the current lead. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: No such thing either as consensus by voting through an RFC. Everything on WP works through consensus which involves taking legitimate concerns of editors and making compromises. Thanks for clarifying that was not your intention, now we should focus on improving the existing iterations. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you revise your version from 10:15, 13 March 2024 using the feedback I gave you at 01:16, 14 March 2024 about nonessential/non-restrictive clauses and using a link to the 1949 Armistice agreements that says 1949 Armistice Agreements per MOS:NOPIPE? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What about “On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, Israel declared its establishment, neighboring Arab states later activated a military coalition, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.”

It is in chronological list order. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m opposed to that, it’s both vague on phrasing and lacks detail (invasion into the mandate, it causing the war) FortunateSons (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and only one of the two factions invaded the area of the mandate, which was the reason why the previous version was stable. Additionally, the so-called myth is not broadly „debunked“, and is in fact often considered to be accurate within Israel/the West.

Another phrasing can be valid, but regardless of moral legitimacy, the start of the war (or its phase, depending on how you differentiate) is causally derived from and began with the entry/invasion of the Arab armies. FortunateSons (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“ The 1947 UN Partition Plan led to a civil war between the two groups.

Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948, the day the British terminated the Mandate, and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted. By the war's end in 1949, the majority of Palestine's predominantly Arab population had fled or were expelled by Israel, which was founded on most of the former Mandate territory, while the rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively."

”

@Wafflefrites: Thanks for the reply, I have added a few relevant links above. MOS:PIPE relates to redirects and isn't related to this. As for the commas thing I am not sure what exactly you are trying to say?

As for the Arab invasion in 1948 starting the war (which has already been called a myth by two of the most prominent historians in the field), we don't (rightly) describe Israel as having started the 1967 war (even though it did based on claims of "preemptive"). It is best to leave these POVs out of the lede and focus on basic facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the war began after the Declaration of Independence and the invasion of the Arab armies into the mandate, those are the two direct causes of the beginning (alternative phrasing from above “internationalisation”) of the conflict. That is broadly supported by RS, including in the article you linked, and has been acknowledged as such by editors with a wide range of experiences. It was also described as a founding myth, you have failed to specifically cite a case of it being referred to as false. FortunateSons (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, here are some additional sources on nonessential clauses. I think the two commas you have are structurally offsetting a “nonessential clause”:

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/how-to-use-two-commas-in-a-sentence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/usage-of-essential-and-nonessential-clauses

A nonessential clause is something that can be removed without changing the core meaning of a sentence. Since you placed two commas around the British Mandate portion and since that portion is grammatically removable, that portion is a nonessential clause… if you remove that portion, the sentence becomes “ Israel declared its establishment on 14 May 1948 and the First Arab–Israeli War erupted.” So I recommend, changing to list format to avoid writing something that creates a meaning that we may not want . Maybe change that sentence to list format

“On 14 May 1948, the British terminated the Mandate, and Israel declared its establishment.”

In the above sentence, the British Mandate is not nonessential because when you remove the portion in between the two commas, the sentence no longer makes grammatical sense :

“On 14 May 1948 and Israel declared its establishment.” Wafflefrites (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of this proposal in the first place was to describe the Zionist involvement in the expulsion. This version should not be considered without specifically mentioning expulsion at the hands of Zionist forces. DMH223344 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It does say "by Israel", but the phrasing gives much more weight to Fleeing rather than the expulsion. Which as we showed many times was the primary reason for the exodus. DMH223344 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

That really was not consistently shown, direct expulsions are still often considered to be the a smaller mode of the exodus compared to flight, and while some RS disagree, there really isn’t broad consensus that direct expulsions were the majority compared to flight. FortunateSons (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, i never said majority. I said primary reason. DMH223344 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/primary It’s not the main/more important than anything else mode of the exodus, that is flight. It is an important mode, so its inclusion in the suggested format is valid. FortunateSons (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

More important than anything else? Yes it is. People fled because of the expulsions, not because of some vague fear of Jews. We've discussed this many times in this thread. You are the only one still confused about this. DMH223344 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

People fled because of fear, including of war and expulsions, atrocities (some true, some amplified), and a wide range of other reasons (and this is already beyond what the so-called old historians believe, so we are already moving towards 'your' direction of interpretation). Fleeing because of justified fear is still flight, if there was no significant reason to leave, we would call it immigration.

Again, a person not familiar with the subject would not be able to tell from your versions that direct expulsion accounted for less than 20 percent (I think it’s about 60/370, but I could be wrong on this) of villages. FortunateSons (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of irrelevance being discussed here. The push factors here for the expulsion and flight are a combination of being murdered versus fear of being murdered. The exact combination is not really the point: the point is that some people were murdered, and others got out of the way before the same fate at the hands of the same lunatics also befell them. There are then a variety of different formulations of words, some more mincing and euphemistic, to describe these events – in which the belabouring of "flight" (as something of an Israeli PR move) is one of the means used to attempt to diminish this ethnic cleansing event – as if people pre-emptively moving their families to safety to prevent them getting murdered (as elsewhere) makes the course of the events less onerous. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Will this require an RFC? This way Makeandtoss, DMH223344, FortunateSons, and any other editor can each put up their versions in an organized manner, other editors can comment, and then one of those third party Wikipedia people can evaluate what is consensus? I was trying to combine everyone’s versions, but there are competing asks, and specific wording preferences for each variation, so I don’t think a combined version is possible anymore. Wafflefrites (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A combined version is possible and we haven't still reached any deadlocks.

@DMH223344: I don't think it shows fleeing as primary reason, it just simply lists both, and for the sake of sentence structure, fleeing comes first, so that expulsion by Israel is explained within context of it being established over most of Mandatory Palestine.

@Wafflefrites: I still don't understand the point regarding non-essential information? It seems you are overthinking this part, since there's no intention on my part to put the termination of British mandate as non-essential information. It is just additional information that flows normally with the sentence.

It is more appealing for the paragraph to start with the "Israel was established part" rather than the date of 15 May 1948 (since it sets the scene for the flavor of the third paragraph), don't you agree? Also do you have any other feedback or just these two points? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss I want to make sure the grammar and sentence structure is right to avoid reader misinterpretation. It’s possible I may not understand the grammar rules either so I will ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse Wafflefrites (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also in regards to ”both sides mobilized their troops”, did the Arab side first mobilize? Is that why we had that part about Arabs mobilizing troops? Was it a surprise attack? The 1948 Arab-Israeli War page says “ The invading forces took control of the Arab areas and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.”Wafflefrites (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A civil war was already ongoing at the time of the declaration - it might be more pertinent to say something along the lines of the "neighbouring Arab forces joined the war and moved to secure Arab areas and engage Israeli forces", or something on those lines. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

“entered areas of mandate assigned to the arabs in the partition plan” would be more accurate, as some Jews lived in the areas.

Regarding the proposal itself, that is true, but the war is still seen as a separate event from the civil war, and should be described as such; you can make the argument that it was a legitimate invasion, but it was definitely an invasion/attack/entry into an area outside of your borders without the permission of a sovereign government. We can try to be neutral beyond what is commonly used, but we are reaching the point of obfuscation what is broadly considered fact. FortunateSons (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"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/civil war] by entering the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War." Is this proposal acceptable for all? Mawer10 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I like this version! I am still awaiting feedback from the Wiki Guild of Copy editors on the grammar for the nonessential clause version. Your version does not seem to have a grammar issue. Also "intervened" seems to be an accurate word. Seems like an appropriate way to show that the two conflicts were separate yet related. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, prefer conflict but both options are acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems alright, I'd also prefer "conflict." Alaexis_¿question? 22:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is headed in a good direction, yes. "Conflict" is probably better, as others have mentioned, to avoid ambiguity/confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Although I disagree with mentioning the Arab invasion given the lack of mention for Zionist forces mobilization, as described above by two of the most prominent historians on the topic, the least we could do is just say "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War." This is a good middle ground and everyone's legitimate concerns would have given compromises per WP:consensus.

One last thing: Israel declared its establishment not independence, contrary to the name of the document, which is a PR tactic; since Israel did not exist prior to that day. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No, as this leaves out the invasion/entry into the mandate, which is a significant and undisputed fact. We have an NPOV version, and there is consensus for some variety of inclusion, I think it’s best you WP: drop the stick on this part. The invasion into the mandate is what makes this historical stage significant, and there is no valid reason for exclusion as we have already found a middle ground which states “entry into the mandate” instead of “invaded Israel”.

Independence is broadly used, and can therefore be used here, as it is used by many other countries after they decolonised. Additionally, what you declare is (within reason) what you say you declare, this argument would have more merit if we were calling it “became independent” FortunateSons (talk) 10:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But on an accuracy note, Israel did not declare its independence (because there was nothing to be independent from); it declared its establishment. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Another significant and undisputed fact is that Zionist forces were mobilizing, leading to Arab intervention, as per the RS above. It is indeed POV to mention one thing and forgo the other. Dropping the stick is on editors who are insisting the inclusion of myths into WP articles, and have provided not RS to support their claims. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The significant part is the invasion/entry into the mandate, which the Zionist forces didn’t do because they were inside the mandate. If the US had joined the war on Israel’s side, I strongly doubt that you would have an issue with the same phrasing we are using here to refer to them. FortunateSons (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The language above what l already says intervention, not invasion, but yes, it should be "establishment", not "independence", since the declaration is one of establishment - it has become nicknamed as referring to independence, but this does not accurately reflect the historical declaration, nor is it an accurate way to describe the event, because independence has to involve becoming independent from something - you can't become independent from a power vacuum. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding invasion vs. intervention, that’s my point: it’s already a compromise which is broadly agreed upon, so moving it further into the other direction will have less consensus than this version.

Perhaps “declared its establishment as an independent state” is a compromise here? It is broadly referred to as a Declaration of Independence, even if it technically isn’t one, so this should cover both, no? FortunateSons (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Compromises are made when there is supporting RS; please provide any independent RS in the scholarly field that have used this specific phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We don’t copy and paste from scholarship when it comes to phrasing.

Here is a knesset source referring to it as Declaration of Independence, using the phrasing “ DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”

Here are contemporary references referring to it as Independence:

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. FortunateSons (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

We are obviously not quoting the Knesset, which doesn't even support the independence claim made.

NYT source calls it country’s founding, while mentioning Independence as a common name. There is scholarly consensus that this was "independence". If this was independence then Mandatory Palestine would've been Israeli-ruled, which cannot be further away from the truth. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The word is used 10 times (title and caption included) by the NYT, so it’s definitely a common name. When it comes to the use by the knesset, it would be accurate use if we are using “declared”. If you are going with “was founded/established”, that is also accurate (as it would be for any county), but independence is the commonly used name. FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME Common name guideline refers to WP articles' titles, and not the content. Israeli Declaration of Independence article itself says "it declared the establishment" not the "independence". The declaration itself also doesn't even mention state independence. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The knesset, NYT, and many others do call it independence, and the day is referred to as Independence Day (Israel). While WP:COMMONNAME does only refer to title, we should use the common name in articles as well where appropriate, which it is here. FortunateSons (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Israel declared its establishment as an independent state" or "Jewish leaders declared the establishment of Israel as an independent state" is a good middle ground between "declared its establishment" and "declared its independence". This phrasing is used in many sources, and is clearer. See here and here. Mawer10 (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, it is a good compromise. Waiting to reach a similar compromise on the myth of the 1948 war being caused by an Arab invasion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The Arab invasion/entry/intervention is conditio sine qua non for the war, and there is consensus for inclusion. It being a founding myth doesn’t make it untrue. FortunateSons (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

RS have explicitly said as demonstrated above that the claim that the "that the Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth that was refuted by numerous historians including the writers themselves in the same book; nothing was said about it being a founding myth. Compromise is a two-way street. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Then you would have no issue citing where it says those words, no? But even if it did, it’s still the cause, as there would likely be no Arab-Israeli war outside the area of the mandate. Both sides already made compromises by adding it without the use of invasion, that is the middle ground. FortunateSons (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Use control F to find the word invasion, where the myth was described as such, and in the following comment where the relevant passage from the book was quoted. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

On page XV, pdf page 107, 113, 114 it’s called an invasion, should we then refer to it as such? I can find 5 uses of the words “Arab invasion”.

PDF page 28 speaks of both-sided foundational myths, not of myths in the sense of being wrong. Additionally, I cannot find a place referring to the statement as false or inaccurate (and no, calling it a foundational myth isn’t it). Please be so kind as to actually cite your sources, preferably with a quote. FortunateSons (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The entry of any troops from their home territory into another territory in a war is invasion; no one is disputing that the Arab countries invaded in 1948; what we are disputing is that the Arab-Israeli War was started because of the Arab invasion, which is explicitly described as a myth in this source:

“ Simha 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 ”

This paragraph clearly states how each of the new historians turned these myths; aka labelling them false and providing a more accurate narrative. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The burden of legitimating national actions in the Palestine War, in the halls of politics as well as in the classroom, has conflated history writing and patriotism in the Middle East in what might best be termed "official history."? This political invention of history is common to both Israel and the Arab states, though for markedly different reasons. Arab official histories seek to advance state interests by mobilizing citizens disillusioned by the defeat of national armies and the loss of Arab Palestine, while Israeli official histories seek to reaffirm a sort of Zionist manifest destiny while diminishing responsibility for the negative consequences of the war. This practice has led a recent generation of critical scholars to view the official histories of 1948 as a fabric of myths. Since the late 1980s, a group of Israeli scholars has led a charge on Israel's foundational myths. The new critical Israeli history was catalyzed by Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, when the Likud government sought to establish historic continuity between their controversial actions in Lebanon and the actions of Israel's founding fathers in Palestine in 1948. this is referring to so-called “official history”, but is not necessarily false. Please cite the actual place in which the historian states the claim that you are making, and does not merely refer to your claim as part of Israel’s founding myth. FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not making any claim, I am directly quoting from page three of the book which called that the " Arab invasion made war inevitable" a myth that was debunked by the new historians. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is referencing founding myth and not myth in the sense of misinformation, it’s quite possible that there is an RS that refers to it as not being the causal (in contrast to moral) cause of the war, but this isn’t it. On the other hand, it being generally considered the cause is proven by your citation which describes it as a foundational myth. Please provide a precise or different citation or drop it, as we otherwise have consensus. FortunateSons (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.” I am also fine with the “entering” version that also had some consensus.

I am confused though because User:DMH223344 had posted up a Khalidi quote on March 7 that said only Egypt and Syria entered the territory on 15 May, and then there were temporary advancements per FortunateSons.

So would another possible wording be to say that neighboring Arab forces advanced towards or entered the area of the former mandate, marking the start? Wafflefrites (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The @Mawer10 version with “conflict” is 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. , which I would consider best. The Khalidi-quote is focussed on the area assigned to Israel by the UN; this isn’t an issue as we are addressing the former area of the mandate, so we do not have to bother with that (particularly considering this is already a somewhat biased framing, which someone above described as partially inaccurate (but again, we aren’t disagreeing)). As most forces entered the mandate, we can say that the Arab forces did, we only can’t say “all Arab forces”. FortunateSons (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we have more consensus for "The following day, forces from neighboring Arab states intervened in the conflict, marking the beginning of the First Arab–Israeli War.” than other versions, especially considering the view of RS on this issue. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really, as the entry is a core part and supported by RS as we are referring to the mandate. I am opposed to any version that does not mention the entry or invasion. FortunateSons (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Per RS, Israel started the 1967 war and invaded four Arab countries; do you think we should we also add this in the sentence about the Six Day War? For consistency's sake. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Not quite analogous, as there was credible information that an attack was somewhat imminent. That bei said, we already use occupy in the lead (as 67 is of somewhat lesser importance than 48, such balance is DUE. FortunateSons (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Entirely analogous actually; there was credible information that a Zionist attempt to takeover all of Palestine was somewhat imminent. Why are we selectively including these POVs in the lede, instead of just a factual analysis? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, and I’m not saying that Palestinians invaded the mandate. However, to the best of my knowledge, there were no plans for large scale attacks on any of the invading countries in 47-49 FortunateSons (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Given there was a partition plan, and the Deir Yassin massacre, any plan to take over all of Palestine is by definition an invasion, and an act of aggression that necessitated Arab intervention; again this is POV, but so is the argument that Israel did a "pre-emptive" strike in 1967. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-emptive has broad RS consensus, with some details being disputed, but it’s generally quite clear.

Any plan to take over even all of the former mandate would not be an invasion, as the people were already within the mandate, just as Palestinians capturing some area would not be an invasion, it was a civil war over control of a territory. In the same way, if the US had militarily intervened against one of the Arab states in 48, it would also have been in invasion despite the fact that they had invaded the area of the mandate (and Israel, depending on which state) prior. FortunateSons (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

So does the fact that Arab intervention was to protect Palestinians from massacres and prevent Jewish takeover of Arabs part of Palestine has broad RS consensus. It is still POV; an interpretation. Given the partition plan making two Jewish and Arab states, a takeover of all of Palestine would have inevitably meant an Israeli invasion; just as the entry of Jewish forces into Jerusalem, and even East Jerusalem, was considered an invasion since it was supposed to be an international city. This is all POV; let's stick to facts. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t believe that we will find consensus among the two of us here, as we have specifically contradictory interpretations of RS coverage. As the version favoured by me (with a different phrasing) has found consensus here, I do not believe that continuing this discussion provides any value here. FortunateSons (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus, especially when we have RS calling the claim you are trying to insert a myth. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the third (and last) time I’m asking you for an RS that doesn’t merely refer to it as a founding myth. We also do have consensus from all editors but you. FortunateSons (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Due to contention, I think we should avoid using the word “invaded” and use “entered”, which was in Mawer10’s proposal. I think Makeandtoss may be confused because of sources like Khalidi saying that not all the Arab states invaded the UN partition lines, when as you pointed out, it was the British Mandate lines. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I know what the confusion is! Makeandtoss provided a source that said it was a myth that Arab invasion made war inevitable. So his source is not disputing that there was an invasion; it seems his source is arguing that the war was not inevitable from the invasion. The source acknowledges there was an invasion.Wafflefrites (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which adds to my point that there is consensus for one of the phrasings other than his, meaning that we have broad agreement for inclusion, yes? FortunateSons (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually supported both versions. Makeandtoss’ new version was introduced a little later so I don’t know if others had a chance to review it for feedback. Seems it’s just you, me and Makeandtoss.

:

This source says that there was an Arab invasion and war broke out https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war. But this source which is Britannica, is saying “ 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. ” https://www.britannica.com/summary/Arab-Israeli-wars. So Britannica’s saying the declaration also was a part of the the war’s start.Wafflefrites (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to have both causes with the word invaded, but removing both the word and the cause goes beyond NPOV in my opinion. FortunateSons (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Mawer10 and @Alaexis because they seem to be good at picking words. “Invasion” is used by reliable sources. It does seem to stir up contention among Wikipedia editors, but on Wikipedia we’re supposed to avoid euphemisms.. is “entered” a euphemism? Britannica used the word “attacked” and did not use “invasion”. The history.state.gov used “invasion” + “war broke out”. Also tagging @DMH223344 @Makeandtoss Wafflefrites (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm a bit lost already. What version are we discussing? Maybe you could create a subsection "Proposed version - March 24 2023" and add the proposed text there? It's hard to give a definite opinion about the choice of words without the context.

Still, I think that the word "invasion" is used by the majority of the sources, including those critical of Israel such as Pappe (The Making of the Arab-Israeli conflict) and Shlaim (Iron Wall, The War of Independence). Btw Shlaim's opinion that the invasion was not inevitable has been used as an argument here, but I don't see how it's relevant - the invasion may have been avoidable but it did happen in the end. Alaexis_¿question? 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel only Jewish State in the World + population mentioned in first paragraph

Lead worthy to mention Israel is the only Jewish state in the world, since its a central tenant of the country's character. Also, following other wiki pages on countries. population always appears in the first paragraph. Therefore, it should be mentioned in first paragraph, will help upgrade and raise the quality of the article. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also if possible, state if you support or not. I personally Support. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I support this, but as Iskandar323 pointed out, it is probably best practice to put this somewhere in the body paragraphs as well. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I support: “With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." Mawer10 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would support if phrased in just that way. Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is an encyclopedic way of phrasing it. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Dovidroth (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Added :) Homerethegreat (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose having the only Jewish state statement in the lead per MOS:INTRO and WP:SS, and placement of the population sentence seems fine. We should wait for more editor input before we go ahead and implement the changes. Duvasee (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It is worth noting that if it does not appear in the body yet, that should be the priority, as always. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Added, following one more editor input as requested per your statement. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"More editor input" does not equate to just one editor. This is a major change to the lede and more editors should have the chance to weigh in and voice their opinions on it, no need to rush things. Duvasee (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat, if you yet insist on the changes, I suggest starting a WP:RFC as per here and the above. Duvasee (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that it appears that every editor other than you seems to have indicated support for the inclusion of the following: With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population. Please read WP:RFC which says:

RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC.

As it seems there is consensus for inclusion (all editors who expressed their voice have supported except thee), I do not see why there should be an RFC. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I support the phrase suggested by Mawer10. Also, I agree with Iskandar323 that the body should reflect this fact. I suggest that we put it in the Demographics section, after the details of the demographics in Israel ( Jewish - 73.6%, Arabs - 21.1%, Other- 5.3%). GidiD (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's constantly being removed which I don't really understand why...

It also appears in the body:

Israel hosts the largest Jewish population in the world and is the only country where Jews comprise the majority of the population. As of 31 December 2022, Israel's population was an estimated 9,656,000. In 2022, the civil government recorded 73.6% of the population as Jews, 21.1% of the population as Arabs, and 5.3% as "Others" (non-Arab Christians and people who have no religion listed). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Qplb191 is it possible you can do a partial self rv? Homerethegreat (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes sure I didn’t see the consequence. Qplb191 (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I support: “With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, . (Date not needed - in infobox) Israel is the only country where Jews constitute the majority of inhabitants."Moxy- 20:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Worthy to remind everyone here that Wikipedia is not a democracy and we do not insert content by head counting; lede are summaries of the body, and what is considered to be Israel is a matter of dispute (does it include occupied territory and its illegal settlements; yes according to maps by Israel's prime minister and other state media). The recent addition to the lede is not representative of the body and ignores the realities which I am not sure if are discussed by any other better source than i24news. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure about supporting this anymore. While it is true that Israel is majority Jews and that Zionism was for creating a Jewish state, there are also other ethnic minorities living in Israel including the Druze. These ethnic minorities also serve in the IDF. I would rather there be an additional phrase/sentence that includes the diversity rather than just highlighting Jews without mentioning the other ethnic and religious minorities that also serve the country. Maybe Mawer10’s phrase + additional details about the diversity. Where is @Mawer10?? He’s good at phrasing things. Wafflefrites (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

By ignoring subdivisions among Jews, Israel is not very ethnically diverse. The only other relevant population to mention in the lead would be the Israeli Arabs. Druze are counted as Arabs as well. Mawer10 (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong support, but as mentioned, inclusion into the lead should follow inclusion into the rest of the article. FortunateSons (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, please read above, there is clear consensus, and there are other sources than i24. Why remove the content? It seems a bit drastic a measure. Also I guess it's makeandtoss because you removed it but you forgot to sign your message. Also please take time to read the discussion in which 8 editors have voiced and supported the phrase. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

If you can self rv that could do well, but please note that now there is no mention of the population of Israel in lead. Whilst in most countries' leads, population is mentioned. See UK for example. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Also I'm a bit uncertain what is meant by ignores realities. Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority. I really don't understand why this is such an issue, especially after having garnered consensus. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

What is even Israel? In theory, there is no definition of Israel, as the country does not have a constitution. In practice, Netanyahu, the country's prime minister, thinks Israel is all of Mandatory Palestine; which would mean, no, Jews are a minority there. Let's avoid this contentious characterization, which is not even mentioned in body, going against MOS:LEDE. Consensus is achieved through taking editors concerns based on WP guidelines into consideration; it is not achieved through a head count. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A constitution is a legal document. Not every country has a constitution, the UK and Canada don't also have.[8] Israel is guided by the declaration of independence and basic laws. Also Israel did not decide it controls the Mandate of Palestine. Israel formally annexed the Goldan, Jerusalem not West Bank and Gaza Strip. Eladkarmel (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Not every has an occupation either, so your analogy is not fitting to this situation. Israel's declaration of independence nor basic laws define its borders. See? You say Golan and East Jerusalem are part of Israel; Netanyahu says everything is Israel; Israel says nothing about what is Israel; so what really is Israel for us to make a statement that it is a majority Jewish state? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss: "Israel hosts the largest Jewish population in the world and is the only country where Jews comprise the majority of the population" — article's body, section Demographics. Mawer10 (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Mediocre source. What is even Israel? Because you will get a dozen different answers if you ask four Israelis. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand how the last sentence is relevant to encyclopedia. Now getting to encyclopedia, What I understand is that you want a different source to i24 which you feel is more trustworthy? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

[9] I added here Yedioth Ahronot, you can google translate. If one includes all of historic Palestine it's 52% Jews, if one takes out Gaza Strip then its 60% majority Jews, if one takes out the West Bank it's about 80-75%. Again I do not see the reason to enter hypothetical boundaries since it is clear that is Israel has only officially annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (of course and 1967 Green line Israel).

I hope this sorts it out... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Jews are a 47% minority in all of historic Palestine [10], which casts further doubt on the source you mentioned, which I would already not use anyway, as independent secondary RS would be required for this claim. I think the definition of Israel and the nature of the conflict is too controversial for us to make such claims, better to be avoided all together. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Makeandtoss we're not talking about historic Palestine that's another article. This is an article on the state of Israel. It's not up to us to decide what Israel is or to ask 4 random Israelis as you said. But to act according to source. Makeandtoss I think 8 or 9 editors have supported the sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Again WP is not a democracy so please stop mentioning that. It is you who mentioned historic Palestine in your comment: "If one includes all of historic Palestine it's 52% Jews", to which I responded that it is in fact a 47% minority. We need better sources for this claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

WP acts by consensus, this article is not about historic Palestine but about the state of Israel! (Again), Makeandtoss I realize you may see Israel as encompassing all of historic Palestine but according to sources and Israel itself it has officially incorporated into it's territory only the Jerusalem area and the Golan heights. It feels like you may filibustering. Please note (again) that if I'm not mistaken 11 editors have participated in this discussion and 9 have supported. On a positive note, Happy New Year :). Homerethegreat (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes by consensus, which means taking into consideration arguments made based on WP guidelines. It's not me who is saying that Israel is not just 1948 Israel, but a wider one; it is Netanyahu, his government, and the settlements. I am sorry you feel that way; I have already proved this is an Israeli view and not mine, and proved how the 52% figure is factually wrong and thus casting doubt on the mediocre source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry Makeandtoss but though I don't feel I can explain this to you, I'll try again... Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005 (here is a source for thought) [11]. And here is another source regarding legal framework overall. [12]. Again, Israel formally annexed Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. For clarity a Vietnamese government minister can say Vietnam should rule Cambodia, but it doesn't mean it does and suddenly there is no Vietnamese majority in the country. (Weird example, just tried to think of a random place, hope you liked the metaphor). Hope I managed to clear this up. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a government minister, it is the country's prime minister for the past 20 years. It is the Israeli state itself. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

A) One man is not the entire state. B) He has not been PM for the last 20 years, he hasn't even been PM for the all of the last 15 years, and was not PM between 15 and 20 years ago at all. C) A "statement" from a PM is not law in this (or most) contexts, period. Was it a bill passed by the Knesset? I am unaware of such a law passed by the Knesset annexing the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (outside of Jerusalem). There is the Jerusalem Law passed by the Knesset regarding Jerusalem., and the similar Golan Heights Law regarding the Golan Heights, but there are not similar laws passed by the Knesset regarding the Gaza Strip or West Bank outside of Jerusalem. That includes Israeli settlements in the West Bank outside of Jerusalem; they have not been legally annexed by the Israeli government/State, and not personal statements by any prime minister changes that fact according to Israeli law. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

One man is the embodiment of the executive powers and the most important position in the state, who has been PM on and off for most of the past 20+ years. Was a bill passed by Knesset defining Israel in 1948 borders? This is your opinion that Israel=1948+annexed territories. Many RS simply disagree. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try again to explain. You're suggesting that when Yair Lapid and Netanyahu switched as prime ministers, Israel's borders changed. I hope you can see why it doesn't make sense and take no offense. I think @OuroborosCobra's explanation also well explained. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

As shown by the Jerusalem and Golan Heights Laws, annexation is a legislative and not an executive power, so your argument that the PM represents the executive powers of the state is moot. We are not discussing the 1948 borders (which weren’t set in 1948, but in 1949, see our articles on that and the legal process therein), that is moving the goal post. RS disagree? Well, those same RS that disagree would entirely disagree with your position of including the entirety of Gaza and the West Bank as “Israel,” so that’s very much a losing argument for you. There is no RS providing for a legal description of their annexation. If there is, provide one. Lastly, no one would say that Biden has been the “US president for the last 5 years,” I even if it is the majority of that time, as it’s silly. He hasn’t been. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to keep talking about what is de jure truths while ignoring de facto truths on the ground, namely the illegal settlements. The burden is on you to provide high quality reliable independent sources to support your argument and insert it in the article properly, not mine. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not the one who started us down this path with “what even is Israel” and then started only presented patently moot claims. If you are ok dropping this stick, then so be it. Sources have been presented below my comment. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Israel country profile in BBC: "A country on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, Israel is the only state in the world with a majority Jewish population."

Encyclopedia Britannica: "The State of Israel is the only Jewish nation in the modern period"

Pew Research Center: "Israel is the only country with a Jewish majority".

DW: "Israel... is the only state in the world with a majority Jewish population." Mawer10 (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is from country profiles which do not discuss the topic at length. We have a reality in which the Israeli state (which this WP article is supposed to talk about) controls both Israel and the occupied territories, and thus rules over an Arab majority. This is best summarized in this HRW report:

“ Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them. [13] ”

We are not going to use this piece of information without giving due context on how Israeli state also rules the occupied territories and maintains a regime of apartheid - knowing that when we proposed an RFC a few months ago to include a short sentence to give that context, it was rejected without regard to WP guidelines, namely WP:LEDE which states that the lede is a summary of body, including any prominent controversies, of which apartheid is certainly one. A controversy which takes up an entire section, and not a short sentence in the demography section. Including this piece of information on Israel being a Jewish majority state without elaboration on the rule over the Israeli occupied territories and thus the apartheid charge in the lede will be completely misleading and will not be acceptable. I would be willing to support the inclusion of this sentence only if apartheid is mentioned in the lede, giving the full picture, not a misleading one. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is not occupied territories, but about the State of Israel. When the Republic of Artsakh still existed, the article on Armenia did not include it in its statistics. The article about Russia does not include the occupied populations of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia, and only includes Crimea in so far as the official Russian census does, but then includes the Russian population without Crimea as well. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If this is, as you say, an article about the State of Israel, then it is proper to include information about the State of Israel, including the Jewish majority within it. The occupied territories are, by virtually any RS, not considered a part of the State of Israel. The statement in question isn't about who "controls" or "governs" whom, which is also a more complicated question then you make it out to be (Area A, Area B, Area C, for example). Furthermore, I'd like to remind you of a few policies. First, as you asked for, reliable sources were prevented. Your rejection of them should not be based on Trying to Right Great Wrongs. If RS reports the State of Israel as majority Jewish, it is not up to Wikipedia to reject that because of other political realities extending beyond the borders (whether they include Jerusalem and the Golan Heights or not) of the State of Israel. We can provide further context in the article itself, and link to that context from the lede, but it isn't our place to right some great wrong that you feel the reliable sources are misreporting. Furthermore, it is worth remembering WP:OWN. I don't think you are violating that policy yet, but I do think with this line of discussion, you are getting close to it. You seem only willing to accept an article status that meets with your personal view of what it should contain and how it should be phrased, as opposed to consensus among editors, which overwhelmingly appears to disagree with your demands. That this is supported with some strange claims or questions ("what even is Israel?" "Netanyahu IS the State of Israel" and a few others), it's bordering on WP:OWN, or if not, maybe over emotional investment in this topic that detracts from an ability to achieve consensus with other editors. I get that, this is a topic that rightly and greatly brings out people's personal feelings; I think we all would not be human if that wasn't the case. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making false equivalencies. The case of Israel is unique with regards to: being the longest military occupation in modern times at 56 years; a Jewish minority of 47% ruling over an Arab majority; the existence of settlements that have torn the occupied territories; the geographic reality in which you can cross from the river to the sea by car in less than an hour; and in which one state controls everything: Israel.

This article is about the State of Israel, and the State of Israel has been charged with maintaining control over the occupied territories (including its population) in a system of apartheid according to RS which are included in the body already.

Avoiding mention of this reality in the lede while including half truths about the State of Israel being a Jewish majority country contradicts MOS:LEDE completely, and is a disproportionate and selective summarization of the body.

I would like to remind you that WP is not a democracy and that decisions are made by consensus, which is defined as taking all editors legitimate concerns based on WP guidelines.

I base my arguments on MOS:LEDE and I have opened dozens of constructive talk page discussions on this article over the past ten years and I reject the misrepresentation of my position into “overemotional investment” and a sense of “ownership”, which are meant to distract from the main topic here. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is clearly a consensus to add this. Think best all move on. Moxy- 21:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't find a consensus, you achieve one. No one has yet responded to the legitimate concerns that have been made. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss it's alright if you don't agree, but I really do think there is a consensus to include the sentence...

I've put the sentence before and it was removed is it ok if I restore the sentence or is it best to wait for another editor to restore it? Homerethegreat (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Any comment? Homerethegreat (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is not a summary of the body, and is a half truth, considering the refusal to include a summary of the apartheid section in the lede, despite the lede being a summary of the body. Legitimate concerns have not been addressed, not by a single initiative. I have proposed a compromise which would see both sides represented in the lede, but I am yet to see a single compromise on this issue. Consensus is achieved by taking editor's legitimate concerns into consideration, and not by a headcount. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss this discussion is not on apartheid. Your concerns were addressed above by several editors. From what you wrote above I infer you believe Israel emcompasses or should emcompass all of historic Palestine. Sources say otherwise. Either way even that is irrelevant to the discussion.

The discussion is on the population of Israel, if CIA world factbook, BBC and other RS say Israel's population is near 10 million and is majority Jewish than so be it. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss, can you post your suggested compromised sentence? Wafflefrites (talk) 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Should be restore as per this talk and our lone editor should Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Its clear we have a WP:DISRUPTSIGNS #5 Moxy- 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think @Moxy explained well. Should I restore the sentence? I'm not certain if it would be considered edit warring or not, since I've restored the sentence prior and it's been removed by Makeandtoss. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Please allow me to elaborate my concerns in a new section, as this is part of a bigger problem. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't need my permission. But please lets avoid going over things again and again... Either way, I think this Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies in this case as explained above. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose. I fundamentally disagree with this as "only Jewish state in the world" tends to be a claim made in pro-Israel propaganda to juxtapose it against the dozens of Arab and Muslim countries in the world, thus promoting a David v. Goliath narrative. India is the only Hindu country in the world, but that is never mentioned by anyone. JDiala (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t really see it as propaganda. As commented by Mawer10 on 11:26, 3 January 2024, four reliable sources mention the state being majority Jewish, and I don’t think any of those sources are propaganda. Regardless, the user who was wanting this sentence included is currently topic banned. I am uncommitted to its inclusion/exclusion. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I earlier agreed to Mawer phrasing, viz "With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." I definitely do not agree with the "Jewish state" formulation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I still support the sentence, the problem related to the number can be simply solved by adding a note or just changing it to "more than 9 million". Since the first paragraph makes it explicit that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not parts of Israel, I see no reason not to include the phrase. Mawer10 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose any and all such additions, due to

(a) the qualifier only [national state] being unnecessary. As others have pointed out, we don't do that for any other national entity, and there are no other entities which claim to be a Jewish majority state, so the statement in question – the singularity of a particular entity – isn't disputed, and should need no affirmation.

(b) the ambiguity around what constitutes Israel proper, and the contentious nature of the extent of Israel, which also renders statements such as "With a population of nearly 10 million people, as of 2023, Israel is the only country where Jews constitute a majority of the population." meaningless at best and wrong at worst.

I get the sentiment; Israel as Jewish nation state is a historic and singular entity with an exceptional history, no matter how you relate to that. But this proposed change would be unencyclopedic. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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."[14]

"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."[15] 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" [16]

“ 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 [17] 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.”[18] 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. [19] 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)

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 [20]. 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)

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)

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)

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)