Talk:Israel

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Frequently asked questions; please read before posting

These questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning Israel.

Why is Jerusalem listed as Israel's capital in the infobox?

Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, and has its seat of government there. However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)" as the result of a 2018 request for comment (RfC). For further information see Status of Jerusalem.

Why does the article's introduction state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment?

The text Following the October 7 attacks in 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza was added following a November 2025 request for comment (RfC), which concluded that Israel should be described in the introduction as committing genocide without in-text attribution. For further information see Gaza genocide and another relevant RfC which was previously held there.

This section is permanently on this talk page and does not get archived. It is for mobile-device users for whom the normal talk page header and FAQ are not shown.

revert

@Veggies can you clarify your revert Cinaroot (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Rfc?: A wording change request

Hello. I request that the phrase "Israel began committing genocide in Gaza" be replaced with "Israel began committing actions in Gaza commonly cited as genocide". Haskeymorrison (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Please see the Frequently asked questions near the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

August, 2026

This country article lacks a health subsection in the section demographics. Since there is a health in Israel article I propose a section with an excerpt from there and a link to the main article will add value to the article without duplication of work, or adding too much length to an already long article. Feedback welcomeLumenArchivorum (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's been two weeks, I'm putting in the excerpt from the health in Israel article as a subsection to demography. I have not edited the health in Israel article. Feedback welcome. LumenArchivorum (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 August 2026

The excerpt (below) is not a factual comment. It is conjecture and should not be included in the description of a country. Any descriptions of genocide should be listed as a separate section and noted as controversial. Further, there should be a link to the definition of genocide. The way this text is written and the page is structured is misleading and requires a better layout and explanation. Below is the excerpt:

After the Hamas-led October 7 attacks, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.[36] Israel and its allies, including the United States, deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide.[37][38][39]

A better way to write this would be something along these lines:

After the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on innocent civilians, the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) engaged in military operations against Hamas in an effort to retrieve the over 100 hostages that were taken into Gaza. The military operation was ultimately successful in retrieving the hostages, although many of the hostages were killed by Hamas during their detainment. Hamas was known to seek cover in public buildings such as hospitals, schools and underground tunnels. The IDF’s operation resulted in many casualties and therefore some believe that the military operation constituted genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.[36] Israel and its allies, including the United States, deny that Israel's actions constitute genocide.[37][38][39].

~2026-43545-72 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not an uncontroversial edit request and would thus require a discussion you cannot participate in. Also, the proposed revision places too much weight on the position of the IDF and the "some believe" part is weasel wording. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposals to improve institutional precision and context in the History section

I would like to propose a few adjustments to the history section to improve geographic, chronological, and institutional precision, concerning the experiences of Jewish populations under different historical rulers. The current phrasing often uses broad terms that obscure regional variations, internal policy contradictions, and the specific origins of historical laws. Below are 7 specific proposals with academic citations for community review.

Proposal 1: Precision regarding Byzantine and Church authorities

Current text: "A series of laws were passed that discriminated against Jews and Judaism, and Jews were persecuted by both the church and the authorities.".

Proposed wording: "A series of laws were passed that discriminated against Jews and Judaism, and Jews faced legal persecution from specific Byzantine imperial and ecclesiastical authorities. Because Christian governance was politically and geographically fragmented, policies significantly varied across different eras and regions, with several Christian rulers and ecclesiastical networks actively providing refuge and legal protections to Jewish communities fleeing persecution elsewhere.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Linder, Amnon. *The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation*. Wayne State University Press, 1987. pp. 54–68.
2. Patai, Raphael. *The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology*. Wayne State University Press, 1996. pp. 34–42.

Proposal 2: Legal context of the Millet system

Current text: "Under the Ottoman Empire's millet system, Christians and Jews were considered dhimmi ("protected") under Ottoman law in exchange for loyalty to the state and payment of the jizya tax.".

Proposed wording: "Under the Ottoman Empire's millet system, Christians and Jews were considered dhimmi ("protected") under Ottoman law in exchange for loyalty to the state and payment of the jizya tax. While this system guaranteed basic communal autonomy, dhimmis occupied a legally subordinate status, faced discriminatory social restrictions, and were subject to fluctuating economic pressures and demographic shifts over centuries of Ottoman rule.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Lewis, Bernard. *The Jews of Islam*. Princeton University Press, 1984. pp. 24–32, 144–149.
2. Cohen, Mark R. *Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages*. Princeton University Press, 1994. pp. 52–67.

Proposal 3: Distinguishing spiritual doctrine from institutional actions

Placement: Insert as a conceptual clarification regarding the diverse reactions of host populations and localised Christian groups.

Proposed wording: "Historical consensus distinguishes between Christian spiritual doctrine and the geopolitical actions of secular rulers or local state-aligned ecclesiastical bodies. While institutional authorities occasionally passed discriminatory decrees to maintain social order, individual Christian theologians and localised populations regularly opposed these measures as contrary to Christian tenets, doctrines, and principles.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Feldman, Louis H. *Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World*. Princeton University Press, 1993. pp. 380–395.
2. Utterback, Kristine T. *Seeing Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Lens of the Middle Ages*. Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. pp. 88–101.

Proposal 4: Context on 20th-century safe havens

Placement: To be added at the end of the paragraph discussing European antisemitism and pogroms prior to the migration waves.

Proposed wording: "Amidst the global rise of mid-20th-century antisemitism, several Western Christian-majority nations, alongside individual ecclesiastical networks, ultimately served as primary destinations and safe havens for millions of fleeing European Jewish refugees.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Gilbert, Martin. *The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust*. Henry Holt and Co., 2003. pp. 12–25.
2. Marrus, Michael R. *The Unwanted: European Refugees from the First World War Through the Cold War*. Temple University Press, 2002. pp. 122–140.

Proposal 5: The role of Western Christian nations in state creation

Placement: Insert into the section outlining the diplomatic steps leading to the establishment of the modern state.

Proposed wording: "The diplomatic frameworks and international mandates that legally enabled the creation of the modern Jewish state were primarily initiated, supported, and enforced by Western Christian-majority nations, through bodies like the League of Nations and the United Nations.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Louis, Wm. Roger. *The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945–1951*. Oxford University Press, 1984. pp. 38–52.
2. Oren, Michael B. *Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present*. W. W. Norton & Company, 2007. pp. 470–485.

Proposal 6: Contextualising the Rashidun Conquest and Non-Muslim Demographics

Current Text: "In 634–641 CE, the Rashidun Caliphate conquered the Levant. Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644) lifted the Christian ban on Jews entering Jerusalem and permitted them to worship there.".

Proposed Wording: "In 634–641 CE, the Rashidun Caliphate conquered the Levant from the Byzantine Empire, ending centuries of Christian rule. While Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (r. 634–644) lifted the previous Roman-Byzantine ban on Jewish entry to Jerusalem, the conquest established a restrictive legal framework for all Non-Muslims. Under this system, the native Christian and Jewish populations were subjected to the jizya tax, systemic legal subjugation, and forced demographic displacements that significantly reduced the Non-Muslim population over subsequent centuries.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Gil, Moshe. *A History of Palestine, 634–1099*. Cambridge University Press, 1997. pp. 60–75.
2. Kaegi, Walter E. *Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests*. Cambridge University Press, 1992. pp. 205–218.
3. Avni, Gideon. *The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine*. Oxford University Press, 2014.

Proposal 7: The Crusades as a Geopolitical Reaction

Current Text: "The end of the 11th century brought the Crusades, papally-sanctioned incursions of Christian crusaders intent on wresting Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control and establishing crusader states.".

Proposed Wording: "The end of the 11th century brought the Crusades, which developed as a delayed counter-offensive following centuries of expanding Islamic conquests across historically Christian lands. Approximately 464 years passed between the initial Arab-Islamic conquests in the 630s AD and the launch of the First Crusade in 1096 AD, which was ultimately precipitated by the Seljuk Turkish invasion of Byzantine Anatolia alongside the documented persecution of Christian pilgrims, systemic hostility toward local Christian populations, and the destruction of Christian holy sites. These papally-sanctioned campaigns sought to aid the Eastern Byzantine Empire and reclaim Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim control, resulting in the establishment of the Crusader States.".

Supporting Citations:

1. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. *The Crusades: A History*. Bloomsbury Academic, 2014. pp. 35–48.
2. Madden, Thomas F. *The New Concise History of the Crusades*. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. pp. 7–15.
3. Asbridge, Thomas. *The First Crusade: A New History*. Oxford University Press, 2004. pp. 15–32. (Documents the specific impact of the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the reports of pilgrim mistreatment and dangers faced).
4. Kempf D, Bull M, eds. *The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk*. Boydell & Brewer; 2013. (Records detailed reports of desecration of churches, forced circumcision, torture and beheadings of Christian men, abductions, and rape of Christian women).
5. De Chartres, Foucher. *A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127*. Edited by Harold S. Fink. Norton, 1973. (Documents the rationale behind the Crusade, including the blocking of safe access to holy sites and the harassment of Christian pilgrims).

Thank you for considering these clarifications to ensure that the text remains precisely detailed, historically accurate, and universally neutral. TheRighteousPhilosopher (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheRighteousPhilosopher: Please do not use AI to write comments. People want to hear from you in your own words. I have collapsed your proposals as they appear to be AI-generated. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

You are attacking and insulting my intelligence, perhaps inadvertently. Please provide me your evidence that I used AI to write my comments. TheRighteousPhilosopher (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I can assure you that no AI was used in the drafting of my proposals. I spent over 4.5 hours of my time, today, manually reviewing the literature—including Linder, Patai, Lewis, and Riley-Smith—to synthesise these suggested revisions.

I deliberately used the highly structured format (i.e., Current Text, Proposed Wording, Citations) to make it as easy as possible for the community to review the exact changes being proposed, not the output of a language model. It is disheartening to have a meticulously researched, good-faith contribution collapsed simply because it is thoroughly formatted.

I kindly ask that you uncollapse the text so that the community can actually evaluate the academic merits of the sources and the historical arguments presented.

If you have specific contentions with my interpretation of Thomas Asbridge’s work on the First Crusade, or Bernard Lewis’s analysis of the Millet system, I would welcome a rigorous historical discussion. TheRighteousPhilosopher (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed the edit request; perhaps I'm naive but I don't think it was necessarily LLM generated. Better to give the benefit of the doubt, no,? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@TheRighteousPhilosopher, re #1, The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation is a great source - can you give us specific quotes supporting the claim you'd like to add? From what I see on pp. 65-66, at most we can say that there was some legislative effort to protect the Jewish population. Re #2, I agree that it's a helpful addition. I wouldn't support #3-#7. Some of them contain details that should go to other articles (Jewish-Christian relations, establishment of the State of Israel, etc.) #7 specifically is a violation of NPOV. We describe each conquest as neutrally as possible, there is no need to justify this specific one. Alaexis_¿question? 06:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Argentina and USA/Israel American relations under "Arab–Israeli conflict" section? How does it relate?

"In the early 1960s, Israel captured Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel for trial.[220][221] Eichmann remains the only person executed in Israel by conviction in an Israeli civilian court.[222] In 1963, Israel was engaged in a diplomatic standoff with the United States in relation to the Israeli nuclear programme.[223][224]" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=1370519721

Why is that under the section "Arab–Israeli conflict"? It seems sort of random. Is it (at least the first part) because the Nazi's collaborated some with Arabs i.e. Grand Mufti of Jerusalem / Amin_al-Husseini (if that is the case)? Michael Ten (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like the section heading "Arab–Israeli conflict" is just being used chronologically for the period 1950s to 1970s. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense, considering Arab–Israeli conflict states a timeline of 1948–present (main phase: 15 May 1948 – 26 March 1979). Neither of those periods matches with the way it's being used in this article. I think a more restrained section heading would be the way to solve this. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 14:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed lousy date and filled major gap

In the lede - it writes - British rule and Jewish immigration in the leadup to the Holocaust intensified Arab-Jewish tensions.[1] which escalated into a civil war after the 1947 United Nations (UN) Partition Plan. Israel declared independence as the British Mandate ended on 14 May 1948, followed by an invasion by Arab states. The issue is it's a loaded statement and kinda lousy on dates.

The British mandate actually ended on 15 May or midnight of 14 May. Understand it was active to the very last seconds of 14 May but its end commenced at the first second of 15 May during on that day the last British forces left. We already have Wikipedia supporting that date here -

Secondly, it oddly compresses a more complicated sequence of context. Notably it doesn't even explain why the partition plan failed. It makes it seem like Arabs merely has issues solely with Jewish migration. Yes, it was that but also mainly about territory allocation where they rejected it as an unacceptable division of the country. Violence later escalated into civil war between Jewish and Palestinian Arab forces.

Hence for reasons above - I replaced it with JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Lede's job is to say tensions escalated into civil war after partition, not explain why each side did what it did. That's not odd or loaded. That's just the lede doing its job and not going into too much detail. It's well sourced too. That kind of causal detail belongs in the body, not in the lede, especially with the article already running long.

Calling the dates lousy is also quite the overstatement IMO. Israel's Declaration of Independence itself states it comes into effect only upon the termination of the British Mandate at midnight. So why does the 14/15 split change anything of substance? Snackbar.me3 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Is due weight and shows that Arabs weren't solely evil but actually had very fair reasons to be upset. I don't care for those accidentally or intentionally pushing that pov via omission of obvious context. We explain minimally the most important event that lead to the creation of Israel.

Also yes it matters immensely. If we say it expired on 14 May, readers may be mislead to think it expired on anytime within 14 May. That's incorrect. It only expired at midnight of 14 May and commenced on 15 May. Even the article's body confirmed these facts - The situation spiralled into a civil war. Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones announced that the British Mandate would end on 15 May 1948, at which point the British would evacuate...On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel".[189] So I was precise there instead of making readers think wrongfully that Israel declared independence when mandate expired. No, they instead declared it when the mandate was still officially in effect. Not clarifying that isn't merely lousy but incorrect. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll acknowledge the date discrepancy you raised. I suggest reverting the lede to something close to the original wording, with one addition: "Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, taking effect the next day when the Mandate expired, followed by an invasion by Arab states." That covers the sequence you raised, declared on the 14th, in effect on the 15th when the Mandate lapsed, kept brief. A short, neutral statement like that doesn't make readers think Arabs were evil, it's just describing what happened and when.

Even granting 1948 is the founding event of the state, that doesn't mean the lede needs to grow to fit causal framing to avoid seeming one-sided. It is already long, and narrating what happened, declaration, mandate expiry, invasion, doesn't require explaining why one side felt aggrieved to be neutral. Same standard applies to '67, '73, and 2023, all highly consequential, none explained causally in the lede. Describing an event isn't the same as adjudicating who had the more sympathetic position.

I saw you added the partition-plan detail to the body, which is where it belongs. No reason to keep it in both places. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you new? the lede can have info from the body too if it's significant.

The article had made it appear as if the only notable reason the Arabs were upset was due to Jewish migration and absolutely nothing else to it. That's disinfo pov pushing via major omission. If you can add in they didn't like Jewish migration, you can also add in that they had issues with the nation being divided up and a larger share given to the Jewish agency. Otherwise it gives readers a distorted account of the dispute if you leave out the fundamental disagreement over the proposed division of Palestine that prevented the parties from reaching an agreement.

Throughout the body, I wish that was the only major omission. But the list grows. More major omissions is that the article seems to uniquely omit any reasons for Arab opposition other than them disliking Jews and Jewish migration. Except they also had valid concerns over dispossession and displacement as mentioned in 1930 Hope Simpson report. Yet the lede and body previously omits the other reasons for Arab opposition in mandate which is def not okay. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

"Are you new?" is a weird way to open. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my previous reply. Material appearing in the body doesn't rule out summarizing it in the lede. My objection is to how much detail your version includes.

Calling 1948 the "most important event" doesn't settle how much space it should get. Your version devotes two of the lede's five paragraphs to the historical background and events surrounding independence, while '67, both peace treaties, Oslo, the Abraham Accords and 2023 are squeezed into one paragraph. They don't all need equal space, but there still needs to be some proportion. This is the Israel article, not a dedicated article on the 1948 war, so it doesn't need the same depth of explanation.

I don't agree that describing tensions and war makes Arabs sound "evil". Your stated reason for the edit included showing that Arabs weren't "solely evil", which does make me question the framing. Explaining relevant context is fair, but making either side appear more sympathetic isn't a reason in itself to expand the lede. The question is what context readers need to understand a brief overview of Israel's history. A short explanation of Arab opposition to partition could cover the disagreement without going into land shares or adding a whole paragraph.

Fear of dispossession was already covered in the note, so it wasn't omitted altogether, but I take the point that it's more useful in the actual text. I'd be fine bringing it into the lede briefly, though that still isn't consistent with how the other wars are covered, without comparable explanations of either side's grievances. One sentence should be enough, rather than the two in your version. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

There was literally zero explanation given prior. You can't overly and solely emphasize xenophobia in Arabs and yet selectively remove the only reasonable reasons they had for opposing Zionism/partition plan. It makes the article into disinfo by naturally making readers assume it's probably xenophobia of Arabs to reject partition plan when that is incorrect. The article wasn't merely omitting but pushing disinfo pov. So I am not removing it and already made it clear to you multiple times. If you want to continue arguing, take this to formal channels of dispute resolution because I am not going to further do circular arguments with you anymore.

Btw this is what I wrote that originally got your knickers in a bunch. Have a closer look;

Britain had announced in December 1947 that it would terminate the British mandate for Palestine by 15 May 1948. The UN Partition Plan had proposed separate Arab and Jewish states, with the proposed Jewish state receiving a larger share of the territory despite Jews making up the minority of the population. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan while the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected it. Civil war subsequently broke out between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab forces. Israel declared independence on 14 May, shortly before the British responsibility for the mandate ended on midnight. The conflict subsequently escalated with the intervention of neighbouring Arab states.

What I wrote was merely summarising the key atmosphere just prior to establishment of Israel per WP:DUE. But more importantly - preventing readers on being mislead by a flawed lede to think it's plain xenophobia that made them reject the partition plan. The real issue is without this minimal context in quotes and you only mention opposition to immigration, readers would reasonably infer that the Arabs rejected partition simply out of hostility toward Jewish immigration. The lede only mentioned opposition to Jewish immigration as if that explains their entire opposition and had barely explained what Resolution 181 actually proposed or why the Arab leadership regarded the proposed settlement as unacceptable. When Lede only says once they hate immigration and so completely leaves readers to infer the reasons for continued opposition from such a one-sided presentation. That is disruptive and will be reported to ANI for misleading readers after been made aware. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I've already offered a compromise multiple times and said I'd accept a brief explanation of Arab opposition to partition, including fear of dispossession. I also agreed to your timing fix. You're responding as though I'm still asking to exclude that context, when my previous reply explicitly says otherwise.

Also, "literally zero explanation given prior" isn't accurate. The text mentioned immigration and British rule intensifying tensions, while the explanation of Arab opposition to partition was in the note. I've already acknowledged that this context would be more useful in the main text and agreed to bring it into the lede briefly.

Calling 1948 the most important event explains why it belongs in the lede, but doesn't settle how much detail it needs. That's our disagreement. I don't accept that questioning the length of your version amounts to deliberately misleading readers.

The version you edited was the stable version. That doesn't put it beyond criticism, but your additions are open to discussion too. If you don't think a shorter explanation would work, please explain what essential information it would leave out. I'm happy to seek input from other editors, but I don't appreciate your threatening tone. Please keep the discussion civil and focused on the wording. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Who really even reads notes? Most readers would not even bother. I barely noticed it myself and it was only because for editing reasons only - I had clicked on the provided citations which is where I found that note. And the issue as I highlighted at the very top - is that you can't summarize Arabs (who are also sovereign authority beneficiaries of Palestine territory) as having issues with Jews simply because of immigration.

I also didn't state they felt the partition plan was unfair. I merely summarised the basic details of the plan which provides essential context showing they could not accept a plan that had treated them as the lesser party.

Regardless, I reduced both paragraphs in a way that addresses the concern about length. I compromised by reducing them to the bare essentials appropriate for the lede, while retaining enough context to avoid misleading readers into thinking immigration was the Arabs' sole grievance.Not directly related - but I added enough context to clarify better the fair reasons for increased Jewish immigration in 30s and its contribution to worsening tensions. This should meet you halfway. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to find middle ground, but the length and repetition are still issues. Your version mentions immigration twice, first as a cause of tension and then when explaining why it increased. Those points were better combined in previous versions. Britain's advance announcement also seems unnecessary when we already give the date the Mandate ended.

The wording below addresses your concern about readers inferring plain xenophobia by naming fears of displacement and dispossession as a major reason for Arab opposition. I've included what the partition plan proposed so the summary makes sense on its own, but why is the land and population comparison necessary too? That seems too detailed for a lede giving a brief overview of Israel's history, rather than a dedicated account of the 1948 war.

I think the framework should follow the sequence: tensions, failure of the UN partition plan, civil war, declaration of independence, then invasion by Arab states.

"British rule and Jewish immigration in the leadup to the Holocaust intensified Arab-Jewish tensions,[25][26] with Arab opposition to Zionism driven largely by fears of displacement and dispossession.[25] The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed separate Arab and Jewish states. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, while the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected it. Civil war followed. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, taking effect the next day when the British Mandate expired, followed by an invasion by Arab states."

What do you think of this wording? Snackbar.me3 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine except for one part. You took out the only thing that would meaningfully explain why the Arab rejected the partition plan. Despite I did not say Arabs thought it was unfair, I let readers assess this allocation simply by briefly explaining what the partition plan basically proposed.

I propose adding this basic context needed to understand it;

British rule and Jewish immigration in the leadup to the Holocaust intensified Arab-Jewish tensions,[25][26] with Arab opposition to Zionism driven largely by concerns of displacement and dispossession.[25] The 1947 UN Partition Plan proposed separate Arab and Jewish states, with the proposed Jewish state receiving a majority share of the territory despite Jews constituting a minority of the population. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, while the Palestinian Arab leadership rejected it. Civil war followed. Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948, taking effect the next day when the British Mandate expired, followed by an invasion by Arab states. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you've put into finding wording we can both agree on. I think we're close.

I'm not disputing the figures, but you've said the comparison is needed to explain the Arab rejection. I haven't reviewed the entire Morris source, but the passage quoted here concerns opposition to Zionism generally. It doesn't itself explain the rejection of the specific 1947 plan. If we're including the comparison for that purpose, the connection should be clearly sourced.

Beyond concerns about the proposed Jewish state receiving a larger share of the territory despite Jews being a minority, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed partition itself. In September 1947, two months before the final plan was adopted, its vice-president, Jamal Husseini, addressed the UN. The UN summary records him as saying that Palestinian Arabs were "determined to oppose with all the means at their disposal" any scheme providing for "segregation or partition", or giving a minority "special and preferential status". He called instead for a single Arab state throughout Palestine. [UN record](https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-197054/) His statement shows that the AHC opposed the principle of a separate Jewish state, beyond objections to the particular allocation. Highlighting the land/population figures alone risks obscuring that broader opposition.

Also, a small point: the intervention wasn't solely by neighbouring Arab states. Iraq sent regular ground forces too, and doesn't border Israel, so I'd drop "neighbouring".

Again, I appreciate your willingness to work through this together and get the wording right. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Which part is unsourced? The part about Arabs rejecting the partition plan? That's not a disputed fact. Normally, citations for lede is generally not added as they should be in the body already - and undoubtedly many RS already cited in body would support that Arabs rejected the partition plan. Here is the Arab authority stating they rejected it as they regarded it as a violation of Palestinian self-determination and deeply unfair to the majority Arab population.

And regardless one way or another, the lead should contain at least one brief reference to the demographic context: Jews had ceased to constitute the majority population of Palestine for many centuries, and remained a minority at the time the partition plan was proposed and at the establishment of Israel. And the fact that the partition plan gave Jews majority territory despite being the minority- is inherently a significant fact in itself regardless of how the Arabs or Jews responded.

You are free to add in that the Arabs had made it clear when rejecting it - that they said they will also reject any actions to divide up their country. And that they wanted it to be unified under Arab rule.

Also, if you want to talk nuance. The Jewish leadership wasn't that happy with the partition plan when they accepted it. They only reluctantly accepted it while believing it would be a stepping stone to later take over all of Palestine according to their leadership. Ben-Gurion said, "After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine." JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not questioning whether the Arab leadership rejected the plan, and I'm not necessarily asking to include a citation in the lede. I'm asking which sources you're relying on to give the higher land/population ratio for Jews such prominence over other reasons for the rejection.

Your May 1949 source () supports the AHC's view that partition was unjust, but it doesn't explicitly connect that injustice to the proposed land shares. It emphasizes Arab majority rights, self-determination, the demand for an undivided Palestine and fears for Arab national life. The September 1947 statement () also rejects partition itself and proposes a single Arab state with minority protections. Opposition to partition itself and objections to the allocation could coexist, but highlighting the allocation alone risks obscuring the broader opposition. Separately, explaining the Jewish leadership's reasoning, as you've suggested, is the same kind of level-of-detail that is best to steer away from in the lede, even if the Ben Gurion quotation is properly sourced.

I'm not sure where in the lede the general point about Jews being a minority in Palestine would fit best, or if it belongs there at all. What I am sure of is that without a source establishing a strong connection to the rejection of the partition plan specifically, it shouldn't sit near that discussion. If we can't find a placement that avoids implying that connection, it may be better left to a demographics section rather than the lead.

For the lede, the core wording we've already agreed on, concerns about displacement and dispossession, what the plan proposed, and each leadership's response, stands regardless of how the demographic question is resolved. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Jesus dude, if I knew there was going to be this much nitpicking over nothing, I wouldn't have started this thread out of mere courtesy. You are questioning if sources say Jews got the larger share despite they were the minority? Virtually every single one on the subject confirms it and yes, this is not a difficult or some obscure point. All sources on the partition plan consistently document the demographic imbalance and the proposed territorial allocation, including sources that are broadly sympathetic to the Palestinian position to emphasize the obvious glaring inequality there. It's hard to miss and even stable versions of Wikipedia have emphasized this on their more dedicated article/chapter for partition plan as it's hard to justify omitting that basic context. (Other editors added that long ago) The fact that the proposed Jewish state was allocated a majority of the territory is highly relevant context.

Unless you have evidence that such facts/context are wrong or insignificant, I am not going to forever respond to such tiresome questions. Likewise I do not think it is even necessary to repeatedly debate whether Jews should be described as a minority in the region at the time. The fact that the Jewish population was a minority in Mandatory Palestine when the partition proposal was made is straightforward historical context supported by neutral RS. Tho I kept it basic in lede that they were objectively a tiny minority at the conception of Zionism/Balfour declaration but did not add anything further like that they relied on nakba and immigration to later change the demographic profile. The fact they began as a minority when Zionism plan first started is hardly contentious and is well supported basic historical context for benefit of readers' context. And I am not to debate further whether that is a fact or whether it's an important one - when it clearly is both. Unless there is evidence that these facts are inaccurate, or context is insignificant, I do not intend to keep revisiting these same questions.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't dispute either basic fact. Jews were a minority in 1947, and the proposed Jewish state was allocated the larger territorial share. What I've questioned is narrower: whether reliable sources treat that combination of facts as a significant factor in the Arab leadership's rejection of the plan. Husseini's 1947 statement and the AHC's 1949 letter show broader opposition to partition and to giving preferential treatment to a minority, but neither specifically links the territorial proportions to the decision. Those points are related, but they aren't quite the same claim.

You also cited a Mondoweiss piece in an earlier reply. I didn't address it at the time because it's explicitly an opinion article. It does make that connection, but I don't think a single opinion piece is enough to establish it as a major historical explanation. For that, I'd want a scholarly source by Morris or another established historian that makes the same connection. Without stronger sourcing, placing these facts directly within the explanation for the rejection risks giving one possible factor disproportionate weight relative to the broader reasons. Even if that connection can be established, there is still the separate, more minor question of whether the detail is important enough to repeat in the lede of a country article covering a century of history.

I don't see the question as nitpicking. I'm just trying to get the wording right and keep the lede proportionate, especially since the article is already tagged as too long and the lede itself is already lengthy. I appreciate you starting this discussion, and I don't want this exchange to put you off opening discussions in the future. It just became more drawn out than either of us probably expected, and I may have pushed the point too hard.

Since we haven't reached a consensus, I'll remove the sentence for now. If you still think it should be included, we can seek a third opinion or open an RfC rather than continue going back and forth. Either is fine with me. Snackbar.me3 (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Consensus isn't required to retain accurate, significant, policy-compliant information. You will instead need consensus for the extraordinary move to remove it. Otherwise the removal amounts to little more than WP:I don't like it and is not a valid basis for editing.

Regardless I didn't restore my past edit back but refined it to say they opposed it as they argued it did not have the consent of Arab Majority (self determination). This is directly consistent with what they are quoted as saying. Feel free to request a third opinion if you don't agree with even that minimal explanation. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I partially implemented your proposed changes but with added context of the demographic profile and mandate proposal. Btw want to point out that for the region of Palestine, Jewish population stopped being the majority population after the 4th century. Readers should be aware that Jews were the minority for well over a thousand years when Zionists moved to create modern Israel and yet the article omit that. Not even once does it say they were the minority population for a very long while. It just buries that inconvenient details despite most educated people are aware of that reality. Regardless, I now explicitly mentioned they were the minority at least once at the time when Zionists agrees to Partition plan era - which doubles as explaining context of partition plan - so that should suffice. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Map is inaccurate

If there is a special color for Israel controlled territories, it should include those that Israel captured in Lebanon and further Syria. ~2026-49620-22 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Misleading facts on Jewish hatred through the history

this information is incorrect and misleading "while Israeli independence prompted antisemitism in the Arab world and Jewish exodus therefrom, mainly to Israel."

Hatred towards Jewish people, communities, and antisemitism was existing in Muslim countries or territories in the region since medieval time with many occasions where Jews were handled with inferiority (Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and more.).

I just read examples in Britanica and other sources, but you can find more sources if you would like to deliver more reliable input for your reader.

~2026-50618-72 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)