Talk:Israel

RFC: How should the Nakba described?

How should the Nakba described?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See here nableezy wrote the number [2] Wafflefrites (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

That’s so complicated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 4. Since this paragraph is about history, we should stick with concrete events, like the 1948 flight and expulsion, rather than narrative terms like Nakba. If we include Nakba, we’d have to bring in more narratives, like the Independence War, as mentioned above. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Banned sock [3] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Sovereignty over east jerusalem in lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No

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

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

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

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

HaOfa, I was talking about:

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

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

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

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

I think this might be even better:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we going to be doing an RfC? I think

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

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

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

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

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

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

there is currently no Palestinian state What's Palestine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not only person “waffling”, about the Palestinian state. Reliable sources write things in June 2024 like “Why is there no Palestinian state, despite so many states recognizing it?” and talks about protestors calling “for the creation of a Palestinian state.” [4] So I thought there was no state.

This 2022 Cambridge source on international law says “The issue of whether Palestine is, at present, a State remains controversial.”[5]There are legitimate reasons behind the “waffling”. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

I thought we were discussing my pre RFC proposal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

International law considers many things [6] Wafflefrites (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

CNN is attributing the ruling to the court opinion [7] Wafflefrites (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reiterate my proposal for a new compromise:

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

(Or something to that effect.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also HaOfa said this

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

Also you forgot PrimaPrime

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

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

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

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

I don't know what Fwiw means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Selfstudier, do not forget to add these options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quickie straw poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revised current status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mine is the original one from before all this.

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

All gone quiet, how about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So how about...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical names

@PrimaPrime: [8] Thanks for your bold edits, but note that your changes to the historical names have mixed up the chronology and gave less than due weight to the most commonly used name throughout history: Palestine. Note that this part had already been discussed and consensus was formed on the previous version. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@PrimaPrime: [9] Mention of the Holocaust has already been discussed and there is no consensus for its inclusion in the lede, particularly as framed in the latest addition, which confuses situation in Palestine civil war with that of the one in Europe. Also, the relationship between the two is disputed in RS, so this is more of a POV than on a factual basis. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede summary proposal 2

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

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

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

Suggestions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lede

@FourPi: I don't think that was an improvement; a state is surrounded by states, not territories. West Bank and Gaza Strip are notable exceptions as they are within the former mandate territory. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

If Mandatory Palestine is the reason then Golan Heights is even more exceptional. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinai was an unsuccessful attempt to be consistent. It's the only other commonly recognisable name that describes the whole border region, and it was previously disputed, so I included it to match the other three. But in retrospect it's probably more consistent to make that one Egypt, since there's three disputed territories and three mutually agreed international borders. FourPi (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

But someone changed both before I could change just Egypt. FourPi (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Israel's settlements are irredentist, similar to Russia's annexations of Ukraine.

I'm proposing comparing Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine to the Israeli settlements, which are both motivated by irredentism--see Russian irredentism and Greater Israel, wishing to recreate the Soviet Union or the Land of Israel. Both Russia's annexations and Israel's settlements are illegal under international law. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you have that use the term "irredentist" with regards to Israel? 331dot (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum and this appears to be the musings of a user, with no references to support it. Of course both are illegal, and we already say that, but the proposed "comparison" is just a NF-violation. Jeppiz (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The musing user is here, who has over 8000 edits and an extended-confirmed account. Israel itself is a creation of irredentism and settler colonialism with respect to Zionism--see Zionism as settler colonialism and Balfour Declaration--, similar to Russia claiming Ukraine as part of the historical Kievian Rus. The United States, for what it's worth, is a creation of settler colonialism-see the animation on the page. I used the Ireland example because Israel is causing the Gaza Strip famine in an analogous way to how Britain caused the Great Famine in Ireland. Israel is nothing special in its actions, which are par for the course in the history of colonialism.

Israel is doing what Russia has done since the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, but in the Palestinian Territories--Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip; in the West Bank, Bezalel Smotrich is engaging in open land grabs, much like Putin annexed Crimea and then Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

For years, RS have discussed Israeli irredentism, and Palestinian irredentism, and specifically compared it to Russian irredentism, including the comparison of the West Bank and Crimea (long before Crimea was annexed). These RS can be found with a Google Scholar search for irredentism "west bank" crimea, for example:

• Ian Lustick (1996), "Hegemonic beliefs and territorial rights" [10] (free PDF)
• Lustick again 10 years later, "Making Sense of the Nakba: Ari Shavit, Baruch Marzel, and Zionist Claims to Territory" [11] (free PDF)
• Peter Krause and Ehud Eiran (2018) "How Human Boundaries Become State Borders: Radical Flanks and Territorial Control in the Modern Era" [12] (free PDF)
• Lars-Erik Cederman, et al. (2022), "Redemption through Rebellion: Border Change, Lost Unity, and Nationalist Conflict" [13] (free PDF)
• Mischa Hansel & Alexander Reichwein (2023), "A Dangerous Responsibility: Towards a New Authoritarian Interventionism?" [14] (available for free via WP:TWL)

@JohnAdams1800: feel free to summarize these sources and any others you might find, but I think an extended discussion of irredentism or comparative politics is probably WP:UNDUE for this article (except perhaps for a very brief summary, like one sentence in the body maybe), but it would probably be WP:DUE for other articles, like Irredentism, Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. (It's interesting to me that the words "Israel" and "Palestine" do not appear in the Wikipedia article about Irredentism.) Levivich (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Recent revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&curid=9282173&diff=1244115330&oldid=1244064860

enumerated based on reverted sentence order in the diff:

1. It is well established that the "return to Zion" was entirely quietistic until the 19th centure (avineri)
2. Palestine is the term used in RS in this context, not "Land of Israel"
3. This sentence was added to fully represent the quoted source and to maintain WP:BALANCE
4. Morris describes the expulsions as the primary cause for the exodus
5. absolutely undue. The cited source mentions one discussion. This presentation is fringe.

DMH223344 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we undo the revert. @Galamore in case you didnt see this DMH223344 (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Galamore is absolutely correct in his revert.

1) There were always Jews who returned to the Land of Israel and yearned to do so. Starting from the Book of Lamentations through ancient, mideaval and modern sources, this has always been a central theme in Jewish religion, history, and liturgy. It was not yet a political movement, but this fact provides vital context and is absolutely DUE.

2) Use of the "Land of Israel" in this context is more accurate, and reflects the langauge used by the Zionist leaders themselves.

3) Simply not true. The Palestinians objected to any possibility for self-determination of Jews.

4) Not true, there were multiple causes, including panic. Can you show a quote from Morris where he says that this is the primary cause?

5) Absolutely true, and this is a well-known fact that appears in all relevant scholarship. PeleYoetz (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1. "Jews did not relate to the vision of the Return in a more active way than most Christians viewed the Second Coming. As a symbol of belief, integration, and group identity it was a powerful component of the value system; but as an activating element of historical praxis and changing reality through history, it was wholly quietistic." from Avineri. Please bring a source that you think is more authoritative than Avineri.
2. See Shapira. She uses "Land of Israel" in very limited contexts. For example (also related to the previous point): It might seem that the idea of returning to the Land of Israel had been part ofthe Jewish people’s spiritual beliefs from time immemorial. After all, the Jewsprayed every day for the return to Zion. Every Passover they recited, ‘‘Next year inJerusalem,’’ and on every Ninth of Av fast they mourned the destruction of theTemple. In the seventeenth century the Jewish world had been galvanized by theappearance of a false Messiah, Shabbetai Zvi, who promised to end the exile andrestore the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. Yearning for Zion was certainly anintrinsic component of the Jewish psyche and sentiments.But there was an essential di√erence between this yearning and Zionism. Forcenturies the Jews had focused on a miraculous redemption, occurring as part ofa cataclysmic event that changed the existing world order. Until that time, whichwas shrouded in the mists of the future, they were to live their lives in the Dias-pora and not force the issue. The ideas that began circulating among both secu-lar and religious Jews in the nineteenth century were entirely di√erent. Instead ofpassively awaiting the coming of the Messiah, the Jewish people would take theirfate into their own hands and transform their situation through their own action.This concept met with bitter opposition from conservative religious circles, whosaw it as opposing divine will. The left, on the other hand, objected that this concept was based upon religion—something enlightened Jews should keep their distance from.
3. Just read the quote in the cited source instead of coming up with OR
4. We have been over this many many times. The Panic of course was caused by.... expulsions... and atrocities. "In general, in most cases the final and decisive precipitant to flight was Haganah, IZL, LHI or IDF attack or the inhabitants’ fear of such attack.", "But while military attacks or expulsions were the major precipitant to flight, the exodus was, overall, the result of a cumulative process and a set of causes.", "Undoubtedly, as was perceived by IDF intelligence during June, the most important single factor in the exodus of April-June from both the cities and from the villages, was the Haganah/dissident military attack on each site. This is demonstrated clearly by the fact that each exodus occurred during and in the immediate wake of each military assault. No town was abandoned by the bulk of its population before Jewish attack."
5. even the cited quote doesnt use the word "Jews". You'll certainly need to provide sources showing that inclusion of this content is due.

DMH223344 (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your five reasons; 1- is written in a simplistic misleading way 2- Palestine is used by RS 3- a significant point of view 4- several causes is misleading 5- some leaders is both misleading and unnamed. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All the changes are not as agreed. Everyone knows that the Jews always aspired to return to Israel. It is clear that the use of the term 'Land of Israel' in the context of Zionism is more accurate than 'Palestine'. The rest of the opposition to have no basis. Galamore (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

All the RS use Palestine, so that's rubbish. Ditto it has been established how the expulsions occurred so that's more rubbish. This looks like POV editing to me. Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I think you need to revert yourself. You're getting into an edit war while the discussion is still happening. From what I know, we are not supposed to push through discussions like this, and if the changes are disputed and reverted, you should wait and finish the discussion before restoring them, especially when other editors disagree. You shouldn't hold others at gunpoint. Please self-revert, thank you. PeleYoetz (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

MT and I are not the ones doing the gunpoint here. Mass reverts like this are invariably POV and this is no exception. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Galamore initial multirevert edit summary says "Reverting, these edits removed important historical facts" which is not an explanation for the reverts. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, I can see two editors above, including the original reverter, explaining the revert on this talk page, each providing their own reasoning, yet you opted, again, for edit warring by restoring disputed changes while discussions are still ongoing. This isn't the first time I have seen you do this ... I urge you to self-revert. ABHammad (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I urge Galamore to give a proper explanation for his initial multirevert. "All the changes are not as agreed. Everyone knows that the Jews always aspired to return to Israel. It is clear that the use of the term 'Land of Israel' in the context of Zionism is more accurate than 'Palestine'. The rest of the opposition to have no basis." is not that.

"Between 1947 and 1949, 750,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled, primarily as a result of expulsions by Zionist, and later Israeli, forces." This is correct so why revert it? Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

1 and 2. Zionism holds that since the existence of the Jewish diaspora, many Jews have quietly aspired to return to the region.

3. neither is adequate. A new sentence needs to be proposed.

4. Totally agree, various causes does not represent the modern scholarship, as verified in Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus

5. Totally undue and POV, its inclusion would have to be mirrored by Israeli rhetoric which again is undue anyway Kowal2701 (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For 3. Reasoning for rejection is very much due Kowal2701 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The source for that addback actually says "Palestine" (as do most other sources). The region? Since when do we ignore scholarship to placate POV pushers? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You can put Palestine if you want, I just felt ‘the region’ was clear enough and neutral. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral doesn't mean what you think it means, NPOV means reflects sources. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See above, Shapira uses Land of Israel in this context. The region is a placid compromise Kowal2701 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

She is very clearly using "Land of Israel" in a religious context. DMH223344 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, the statement "Zionism holds that since the existence of the Jewish diaspora, many Jews have quietly aspired to return to the region" is so incredibly incorrect. Please read any text about Zionism. Literally any text. DMH223344 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344 And yet you're not providing improvements. You removed cited material that is clearly due without good reason. "not supported by source" when it clearly is. We can revert back to the original if you're not going to be constructive. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, Zionism did not appear until the 19th century. The sentence you insist on including is incorrect on multiple accounts AND is out of context since this paragraph is about 16th/17th centuries. DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence says that "Zionism holds", as an attribution for the POV. It's not meant to say Zionism existed at this time, but I can see how you've read that. Also "quietly" isn't supported by the source. The sentence is far from perfect, but it's better to shift the discussion to improvements rather than inclusion and exclusion which produces edit wars. Your edit is much better. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, Zionism does NOT hold that. Zionism is literally not about that. If anything it's the opposite. Once again, please read any RS about Zionism and you will see this very clearly. DMH223344 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't be editing in this topic area, but there's not enough mediators of discussion, anyone intimate with the literature becomes polarised. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here (I get asked on RfCs from time to time). Let's go back to the original diff, the original thing you're adding, and the source cited for stating something along the lines of Zionism, a desire to return to Israel, is ancient. The source being cited, Rosenzweig 1997 p1, indeed begins its intro paragraph with something to that effect, giving a couple (rather airy imo) examples of some kind of return-to-homeland reference across several centuries. But in that same paragraph, the author eventually gets to the point of all this setup: However, in real life almost nothing happened ... Zionism, ... which had been reiterated throughout generations, seemed to be utterly unrealistic. This transitions to the next paragraph, In the 19th century..., which is where ancient history ends. So a single paragraph on ancient history, with a scattered few quotes separated by hundreds of years, to conclude that this was never considered something real until the 19th century, which sets up the entire book on the 2nd paragraph of the 1st chapter.

By my reading of the one source alone, it does not support the proposed text addition -- the paragraph is not attempting to argue any type of ancient origin for modern Zionism in an academic sense (you can't do that in half a paragraph, and that's not the point). Rather, he appears to use the scattered ancient context as an contrasting way to introduce the 19th century origin, which covers the next 8 pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

History scope

@DMH223344: Thanks for your interesting recent additions, they are not exactly within this article's scope however. The history of the state of Israel, like any history of any other state in the world, is about the history of its territory, and the history of that territory is the history of Palestine, not the history of Jews and Zionism in Europe. History of the territory of the state of Israel is that of the Crusaders, and Umayyad, Ayyubid, Mamluk and Ottoman caliphates; that of Zahir al-Umar in 1700s who built a proto-state in Palestine/Land of Israel, constructed Acre's fortifications, re-established Haifa, and made the region a major trading center of soap and cotton to Europe; that of the 1834 Peasants' revolt in Palestine which included Galilee and Jaffa. We should reconfigure our research accordingly, otherwise we risk wasting precious space, and unfilled gaps, with a sociopolitical study of European Jewry. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Good point, what about an abridged version of those additions? DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing your issue is mostly with that full paragraph that was added? DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

My issue is long-standing and I have raised it several times here so don't worry; adding further material only worsens the current situation. I think it's outside of Israel's geographic scope and therefore not relevant to the article, not sure where we could move it elsewhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The history of and development of zionism is out of scope for an article on the modern state of israel? DMH223344 (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It's interesting since Zionism was of course a European idea, which developed in a European context. Is the proposal to just introduce the arrival of Zionist settlers without context for why they came? DMH223344 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing beyond a sentence as simple as "amid rising European antisemitism", and other directly related things such as the 1882 Aliyah, Herzl's 1893 book, Zionist congress choices, in a concise way. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I think I can accept that. I would clarify that antisemitism is not seen in RS as the main driver for the development of Zionism. From Avineri: [Zionism] was a response to the challenges of liberalism and nationalism much more than a response merely to anti-Semitism DMH223344 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's one guy's view, but is that the mainstream view? Levivich (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, although if you have sources which I should check please share (no need to fish out specific quotes unless you want to):

Shimoni: "In sum, itmay therefore be said that antisemitism may be regarded as acritical causal factor in the ignition of Zionism as a movement butis inadequate as a causal explanation of Zionism's genesis."

sternhell: "Liberal individualism suddenly appeared as a real threat to the continued Jewish people's existence as a homogenous and autonomous unit. Thus, Zionism was not only a reaction to increasing insecurity but also a Herderian, not to say tribal, response to the challenge of emancipation."

shlaim: "Modern Zionism was a phenomenon of the late nineteenth-century Europe. It had its roots in the failure of Jewish efforts to become assimilated in Western society, in the intensification of antisemitism in Europe, and in the parallel and not unrelated upsurge of nationalism. If nationalism posed a problem to the Jews by identifying them as an alien and unwanted minority, it also suggested a solution: self-determination for the Jews in a state of their own in which they would constitute a majority."

Stanislawski: "But once more, it is essential to understand that the fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution."

Rabkin: "The historians of Zionism emphasize that the founders of the movement were assimilated Jews. Avineri writes:" at which point he quotes the avineri quote I shared above along with it's surrounding context

Although possibly this is too detailed for an article on Israel rather than on Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to pick nits, but it seems that, e.g., Shimoni, Sternhell, and Shlaim (say that three times fast!) are saying antisemitism was not the only factor, but it was still a main factor, at least equal to nationalism and liberalism. Avineri, Stanislawski, and I guess Rabkin, are saying it was a less important factor than nationalism and liberalism. I think it would be OK for our purposes in this article to not have to say which were the more important factors, and just list them as causes/factors (antisemitism, nationalism, liberalism). Levivich (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

yup i agree, i never meant to say that antisemitism wasnt important. DMH223344 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. What happened in Europe in the 19th/20th century is far more relevant to the history of the modern state of Israel than what happened in Palestine in the middle ages. The history of Israel is not, in my view, a history of the region, but rather a history of the state. By way of example, the history of the United States is not the history of North America, and when I look at United States#History, it seems to be the right balance between pre-colonization and post-colonization history. Same with Mexico#History. What the English are to US history, what the Spanish are to Mexican history, is what Zionists are to Israeli history: they're the settlers that created the state. They're basically the beginning of the history of the state. Levivich (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What happened in Europe in the 19th/20th century is far more relevant to the history of the modern state of Israel than what happened in Palestine in the middle ages. Agree 100%. The history of modern Israel basically begins in Europe in the 19th century. nableezy - 19:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I'm just not looking at enough sources, but I havent seen Zahir al-Umar or other of the topics discussed in any history of the state of israel DMH223344 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, history of the state. What is a state? A state are a set of institutions governing a geographic area. What is the history of these institutions and geographic area? Few of them can be traced directly to Europe. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The history of the state of Israel is what sources say the history of the state of Israel, and that largely begins with the Zionist movement in Europe in the 19th century. We have an article on the geographic area, it isn’t this one. nableezy - 14:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate how RS say so, excluding Rubin's and other not very subjective works? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

A few sources:

• Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel (2022) TOC, Part One: Historical Overview, begins with Chapter 1: "Zionism Between Despair and Hope"
• Routledge Handbook of Modern Israel (2013) TOC (PDF), begins even later, in 1948
• Barry Rubin's Israel: An Introduction (2012) Chapter 2: History begins 4,000 years ago, and gets to Zionism by the end of the next page

I prefer Rubin's approach: a brief pre-history, then Zionism. Levivich (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Barry Rubin is an Israeli writer who is uncritical about Zionism, I wouldn't prioritize a single work and especially not his work. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Which sources do not treat the history of zionism as essential to the history of the modern state of israel? DMH223344 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

I agree with some other editors that this paragraph provides too much detail that is not directly related to the topic of this article.

Having said that, I think that the dichotomy land vs people is misleading. Consider the History of Turkey article. It includes information about the territory before the establishment of the current state (duplicated to some extent in other articles like Byzantine Empire) and also about the early history of the Turkic people that took place mostly in Central Asia.

Likewise, both the history of the territory and the reasons for the increased immigration in the 19th century belong to this article. Naturally, other articles like the History of Palestine or History of Zionism would cover these topics in greater detail, which is perfectly fine. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

As usual, we should be following what RS do. I'm not sure, but I would guess that RS on the history of turkey discuss the history of the land itself in some depth. For the most part, histories of the state of israel are about the history of zionism starting in the late 19th century DMH223344 (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"Correction of Information."

"The country called Palestine is occupied by Zionists, The correct historical and religious information is that Jerusalem, specifically Al-Aqsa Mosque in Palestine, was the first Qibla, and it is also the third holiest site in Islam after Mecca and Medina. This means that Muslims initially directed their prayers towards Al-Aqsa Mosque before the direction was changed to the Kaaba in Mecca.

Regarding the occupation, the more accurate statement is that Palestine has been under Israeli occupation since 1948. It is hoped that the occupied lands will be regained in the future through political and diplomatic efforts, along with prayers to God Almighty." 105.111.148.104 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

There misleading information given by you Israel captain is Tel Aviv not 2409:4080:E8E:2F84:AE70:59BF:F7DE:B7F8 (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done It's not clear what change you are seeking. Changes should be proposed in a "change X text to Y text" format. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)