Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 February 2026

Please update this section:

International In a Pew Research Center poll in 2022, a majority of Americans view both the Israeli people (67%) and the Palestinian people (52%) positively. However, views of the respective governments are less positive, for both the Israeli government (48%) and Palestinian government (28%). Regarding a resolution of the conflict, 35% support a two-state solution, 27% support some form of a one-state solution, and 37% are unsure.[425]

Add this to section:

As of 2025, the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza has led to a significant decline in support for Israel. A 2025 Gallup poll reports that American support for Israel decreased from 50% to 32%.

Internationally, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in spring 2025 found that only three countries—Kenya, Nigeria, and India—held more favorable than unfavorable views of Israel. In the other 21 countries surveyed, including the United States, unfavorable views far exceeded favorable ones. Across all countries, the average unfavorable rating was 62%, compared with 29% favorable. Earthgirl7 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I requested this change because the poll cited in the post is from 2022. That doesn't reflect today's polls and the change is relevant to the "Israel/Palestinian" conflict. Earthgirl7 (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

For citations, please see Template:Cite web, and use that template to add the relevant information to your citations. Thank you! SomeRailfan (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Hi Earthgirl7, I am looking in to this. You summarised too sharply. It isn't support for Israel that has fallen, but support for "Israel’s actions in Gaza", as the source says. That is a difference.

Furthermore, your source does not say "the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza has led to". This is your own thinking, very reasonable as it may be, but still, in Wikipedia we need to be very careful and not add such texts. See: WP:Original research.

Having said all this, I will still add text to the article based on your source.

I will do something else right now, but I'll come back later this morning for the second part of your edit request - or, to find that somebody else took care of it!

 Done Thank you Earthgirl7 for your contribution. Lova Falk (talk) 10:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Your comments have been taken and I'll make sure to follow the guidelines in the future. In response I can change the source and wording to one that directly refers to support for Israel and refers to Israel "genocidal war" and "disportionate response". I'm not sure if re-editing edits is allowed but I'll submit the change request later today. Earthgirl7 (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2026

Start time of conflict in description box does not match data later in the article. Late 19th century is 1800s, when article references late 1900s time periods. Plus, Israel was not a recognized nation in the late 19th century so an official Israel-Palestine conflict would not pertain, and would need to be renamed to specify regional conflict as opposed to the stated governmental conflict. ~2026-13255-03 (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 08:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction

Davefelmer, let's discuss your revert, which you justified with Revert changes by إيان. The World Zionist Organization founded Israel? What the hell? Confusing language changes (war of separate states?) and why is what people thought about the war important there? in the edit summary.

• Who established the State of Israel?
• Why is "war of separate states" confusing to you?
• Why wouldn't the differing views of Palestinians and Israelis on 1948 be important for the introduction? That's rather central to the article topic.

- Your revert also entirely removes Nakba from the introduction. Why would you want to do that?

إيان (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• It was established by the Jewish militias that became the IDF. Attributing it to a general umbrella organization supporting Zionism is bizarre and not how it's normally described.
• Nobody refers to it this way and the conflict is already covered by the Palestine War link. It also just doesn't read like people speak, nobody refers to WW2 or the Napoleonic Wars as 'Wars of Separate States'.
• The part is covering the facts, hence I removed the one comment about it that you made which went into more subjective views territory. However, I can see why you'd want to include the Nakba and was not strongly against it so would be willing to compromise and include the Nakba line.

Davefelmer (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Are you saying that those present at the Tel Aviv Museum on May 14, 1948 for the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel were militias that became the IDF? This is surprising information and I am curious as to which WP:RS you found it in.
• Nobody refers to it this way and the conflict is already covered by the Palestine War link. The division of the war into a civil war phase and international phase is actually quite common. Benny Morris makes this distinction in 1948: A History of the First Arab–Israeli War for example. The events surrounding the 1948 Palestine war are the most important for the topic, so it makes sense to give more summary in the introduction.
• It is indeed a fact that Palestinians call 1948 the Nakba while Israelis call it their war of independence. These facts are not subjective, and they are essential to understanding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. See Shlaim, for example:

"Conquerors, my son, consider as true history only what they themselves have fabricated." Thus remarked the old Arab headmaster to young Saeed on his return to Haifa in the summer of 1948 in Emile Habiby's tragicomic novel The Secret Life of Said, the Ill-Fated Pessoptimist. The headmaster spoke about the Israelis more in sorrow than in anger: "It is true they did demolish those villages... and did evict their inhabitants. But, my son, they are far more merciful than the conquerors our forefathers had years before."

Most Israelis would be outraged by the suggestion that they are conquerors, yet this is how they are perceived by the Palestinians. But the point of the quote is that there can be no agreement on what actually happened in 1948; each side subscribes to a different version of events. The Palestinians regard Israelis as the conquerors and themselves as the true victims of the first Arab-Israeli war, which they call al-Nakba or the disaster. Palestinian historiography reflects these perceptions. The Israelis, whether or not they were conquerors, were the indisputable victors in the 1948 war, which they call the War of Independence. Because they were the victors, among other reasons, they were able to propagate more effectively than their opponents their version of this fateful war. History, in a sense, is the propaganda of the victors.

I'm happy to compromise when there are sound arguments based on policy and WP:RS. إيان (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In the context of the Palestine War and what the article is talking about, Israel was established when the Arabs rejected the partition plan and the Jewish militias secured the part set for the Jewish state and then conquered more land on top of it. They were able to establish it by winning battles. Sources don't say the World Zionist Organization founded Israel in 1948. Obviously in the wider context the British worked with members of the org to help create a quasi-state for the Jews of Palestine in the 20s and the like, but that part is covered by the previous section and the framing makes it sound like the actual founding in 1948 was some administrative decision whereas if the Jewish side had lost the war then the state would not have been founded regardless of what you put on a piece of paper.

As for the different parts of the war, sure some sources cover them separately. The article intro is already huge though and stacking in a bunch more info will make it unreadable. But besides that, people do not refer to the first Arab-Israeli war or other wars like it as 'wars of separate states'. Like, that just doesn't read as good English.

Also, why did you add a section on Palestinian refugees right to the front of the issues to do with the conflict? This is not a more central aspect of the conflict across sources above the occupation of the West Bank/Gaza or the status of Jerusalem etc, and I presume you meant to reference the right of return which is already on the list. Davefelmer (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

In the context... paper. Source: "trust me bro"

Like, that just doesn't read as good English. Your POV, again.

This is not a more central aspect of the conflict across sources above the occupation of the West Bank/Gaza or the status of Jerusalem etc This your POV yet again, against WP:RS such as . If you are unable to substantiate your claims with WP:RS, your revert will be reverted. إيان (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• It is literally what the article says. Sources don't say that Israel was founded in 1948 by the World Zionist Organization.
• Most sources do not refer to the first Arab-Israeli war, or any other multi-state/coalition war as 'a war of separate states'. Not my POV.
• These sources either appear blank or not relevant to the point. My point is that you added a section on Palestinian refugees which you put at the front of the issue list, despite the issue of the refugees not being considered more important to the conflict across reliable sources compared to the West Bank/Gaza or status of Jerusalem etc. I don't have an issue with you adding it, but it should be somewhere after the first two at least.

No idea what the point of the last remark is. You are the one always going on about the need for consensus. You are the one that added new information, it was reverted, and you don't have consensus to add it, so you would just be reverted again and have to get consensus on talk. I am happy to acquiesce to the Nakba line, but the Zionist Organization part is crazy and 'war of separate states' is not how the conflict (or any conflict) is generally described. 'Multi-state war', 'Coalition war' or 'a nascent Israel against a military coalition of Arab states' are more common phrases and encyclopedic ways to say it. Or you can just use the actual link and say Arab-Israeli War. What is even the issue with that? Davefelmer (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

If you actually look at the text you reverted, you will find that it never said Israel was founded in 1948 by the World Zionist Organization. The proceedings were led by David Ben-Gurion, executive head of the Zionist Organization, chairman of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, and leader of Va'ad Le'umi.

See even what the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has to say about the The Signatories of the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel:

The proceedings were not widely publicized before they took place, for fear that the Declaration would be stopped by the British; still, those present included representatives of the Jewish Agency, the Zionist Organization, the Va'ad Leumi, leaders of political parties, cultural personalities, the chief rabbis, the chief of staff of the Haganah and his colleagues and more.

In any case, I've specified Va'ad Le'umi, which is better and more precise anyway.

As I noted in my edit summary, you have not presented a single WP:RS or WP:Policy in support of your removal of the text. WP:!VOTES are not simple tallies, and consensus is established through the validity of the sourcing and the reasoning with regard to policies, and you haven't yet cited a single one in your numerous comments in this discussion. For this reason, I have reinstated the edit. إيان (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not your right or position to assert whether my reasoning is satisfactory enough for you to determine you have automatically reached consensus when you haven't. You are just making up positions, and your sources have done nothing to address the points at hand. You have not presented that sources let alone a majority of sources call the first Arab-Israeli war a 'war of separate states' that would warrant it being framed like that in the lead of the article. You have not presented sources let alone a clear consensus among them that the issue of Palestine refugees warrants lead inclusion at the very front of issues relevant to the conflict ahead of things like the occupation of Gaza/WB and the status of Jerusalem (and I haven't even reverted that, am just asking you to change the placing). And as I've said before, just because the Israeli minister said who was there it doesn't change the fact that emphasizing who was at the document signing is WP:UNDUE as the wider conflict is what created Israel, which had they lost would have meant nothing was established regardless of who signed what. And once again, you have not presented any sources let alone proved that RS generally cite the World Zionist Organization or any other admin agency as a key party to the founding of Israel in their story/summary/documenting of the conflict. Here are multiple reliable sources talking about the history of the conflict that summarize and document the key points almost exactly as they are in the article, without any reference to said organizations, from the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgr71z0jp4o to Al Jazeera https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/27/palestine-and-israel-brief-history-maps-and-charts. Davefelmer (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2026

Israeli genocide on palestinians , israeli occuparation of palestine ~2026-16421-14 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello ^(music) 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Scholars for Truth about Genocide

@FarFromTheMiddleEast - This article is an overview of the conflict as a whole so specifics should be left covered by their respective articles, in this case, the Gaza genocide. The original wording which I restored was more concise of an overview & gave proper weight to the genocide's recognition among academics. The "Scholars for Truth about Genocide" though is an extremely poor source who's issues have been discussed before at other article talk pages & should not be cited here, but they especially shouldn't be treated as equal to the laundry list of reliable sources currently cited as that's a clear case of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

The open letter though is not being cited as an example of said academic recognition, but rather was an example of a wider push for others to recognize it that was widely covered in the news. I don't think it's wholly necessary here anymore though as such specific examples probably belong more in Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide then in an overview article such as this one. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The IAGS was organization that people people could join without a review of their credentials for $30. Most of the members joined after October 2023. It's a political organization, not an expert organization. Listing it is a poor source as well.

https://www.thefp.com/p/another-reason-not-to-trust-the-experts

The Scholar for Truth and Genocide removed the names of people that asked to be removed. It's equal to the other letter. We can do disclaimers about all of the sources, but arbitrarily including some and excluding others when there are issues with all of them is artificially creating a non-neutral pov.

The are criticisms of the NGOs as well. This isn't something where there is a consensus and it shouldn't be portrayed that way. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

It's the same thing with trying to call the 1948 Expulsion and Flight of Palestinians Ethnic cleansing, a term that had no legal definition, and that people like Benny Morris dispute. Politicized terms don't belong in summaries presented in one way manner, people can go into the sub-articles, read the debates, and decide for themselves. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You aren't discussing the citations actually included within the article & seem to be having issues engaging with the content of my previous comment. The open letter in question has no relation to the IAGS & I've already explained my perspective on the use of that letter above.

There are 8 reliable sources cited to support the line "Many human rights organizations and scholars of genocide studies and international law say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, though some dispute this" & while some may include reference to the IAGS, none of those citations are to the IAGS themselves so I don't know why you're so focused on them.

Furthermore, if you're going to be so focused on the IAGS, I ask that you actually read up on them as they are an established organization that's historically well respected & statements like "Most of the members joined after October 2023" are demonstrably false, as shown by our own article, which states that they already had ~500 members in 2015.

As for describing the Nakba as ethnic cleansing, there are literally 30 citations supporting such a characterization in the first sentence of the Nakba article. This isn't a case of using politicized terms, it's using a widely agreed upon one that your preferred source seems to disagree with.

So please, before replying, read over what I wrote in full, check the sources you & the article are citing on the matter, then see if how you were going to respond properly engages with the issues being discussed.

If you think I'm misjudging how these citations should be treated, you're free to take the matter to either WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, but with how thoroughly these issues have been discussed before, I'm not sure how different of a response you'll receive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Those citations are repetitive articles about largely IAGS, Albanese, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem. These are highly criticized non-neutral sources. They are not the arbiter of this and they should not be used to falsely make it sound like this is a decided issue and non-controversial issue, which it isn't. This is summary section, if people want to get into the minutia, they can read the articles. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, what constitutes a reliable source here is determined by consensus and you can bet the reliability of Amnesty and BTselem as sources have been discussed before: . So you're going to have to try and overturn that consensus before we can really start making exceptions for single articles. Israel criticising an organisation does not necessarily make those orgs controversial (or else pretty much everything that isn't unquestioned, glowing praise would be counted as controversial), but if you have an issue with reliability of certain sources, we run on collaboration, so you are welcome to raise it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Yr Enw (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an exception. You are unfamiliar with the criticism of this which I'm going to add to the article. I'm not presenting my opinion or Israel's, although it is true Amnesty's Israel branch denounced the parent organization report. I'm just presenting the fact that these organizations have been highly criticized and that needs to be added to the article to be balanced.

As one example, that is fairly harsh, US Genocide scholar Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt said "“These scholars are politicizing the field. . . . Their selective criticism (and failure to condemn the originators of the entire conflagration) speaks volumes.” She also said something like, and I will need to find it, it doesn't fit the definition of Genocide. Just of what I am aware of currently, just in the US there were highly critical articles published by City Journal, FDD, and Comentary. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

But, as I had said before, the fact that criticisms exist does not inherently make those criticisms valid. Lipstadt has biases that informs her view as much as those she claims her opponents have. To give equal weighting to these criticisms simply because they exist would be WP:FALSEBALANCE and risks muddying the waters when the weight of scholarly opinion (regardless of dissenters) leans towards genocide as an appropriate label. Wiki has, at this point in time, determined by consensus that both Amnesty and BTSelem are reliable sources, therefore we treat them as such. If we disagree with that classification, we must try to build consensus against the present consensus. Yr Enw (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Lipstadt is a reliable source. There are large numbers of contradicting reliable sources. It's not WP:FALSEBALANCE to present hundreds of others by category (layers, historians, genocide scholars, etc) when they are also from reliable sources. Right now the article just says "others have disagreed with the characterization". It does not cite them. This is Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression. You need to Wikipedia:Let the reader decide by listing contradicting reliable sources. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add citations to the existent sentence, I don't think there will be any problem. The problem is that your edit substantially altered the balance of the narrative. Yr Enw (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

When you take all the citations into account, denials from Presidents Trump and Biden, lawyers, human rights lawyers, international legal scholars, human rights activists, NGOs, other scholars, and internal criticism within Amnesty and HRW, the balance is going to change. I'll start with the citations. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

We have to use reliable sources. Trump and Biden are not going to be considered reliable by our standards except to simply report what they say. In terms of how much weight we should give the issue, this should reflect the weight given across reliable sources, which - as I have said already - is nowhere near as cloudy as you are suggesting. Dissenting opinions simply do not stack up against organisations with a sustained, credible history and it plays into propagandists’ hands to say otherwise. Yr Enw (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The other thing that should be pointed out is that discussions about the specific term are probably better suited for the Gaza genocide and other article that Butterscotch Beluga linked to. Yr Enw (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Trump and Biden are examples of "others" and articles on their statements are sources for their inclusion in that category as well as adjectives used to describe "others." I'm not planning on citing their statements. They would be in a citation list or perhaps a section of citation list of politicians and political figures that disagree. They are certainly reliable sources for description like "politicians" or "political figures" have disagreed. I would have preferred to just use an open letter or petition to prove that there large numbers of scholars and other figures with this opinion, but apparently these are being challenged. Using a citation list gets around that issue. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It might be best to follow what Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide has done. Particularly citations 1-3. Yr Enw (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

That's information suppression. This is also included in: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Moral and political points of view

There are a huge amount of people with objections, a lot of them are experts in the field, a lot of are commentators. You cannot avoid citations of objectors viewpoints. Just because certain people with relevant experience want to deny what other people with relative experience and commentators believe, doesn't mean they can be suppressed.

FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

What bit of what I said is information suppression? Or are you referring to something else? I find it a bizarre accusation. Yr Enw (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The first citation you pointed to says there is consensus, when there are people in the field objecting. Taking that citation as a justification to not cite the objectors who disagree that there is consensus is information suppression. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I think there are two issues being discussion in tandem here:

1. How to present the genocide claim (ie. how to cite it)

2. Whether the weight of scholarly opinion justifies giving predominance to the pro-using the term side against dissenting opinions (which does not preclude acknowledging those dissenting opinions)

To point 1: What I meant by linking that article was the way in which the support/objection is presented in wikivoice and how it is cited. I am not suggesting you take citation 1 of that article to mean we shouldn't cite objectors disagreeing. As I have said above, I wouldn't see a problem adding citations to the presenting wording in this article.

To point 2, and also to your point that "there are people in the field objecting": As on Wikipedia consensus is WP:NOTUNANIMITY, so it is in the scholarly field. Therefore, as I also said before, people objecting does not by itself overturn consensus. If the number of objectors were of similar number (though, of course, it's not simply a numbers game either) and of similar (relevant) expertise, then sure, equal weighting would be appropriate. Yr Enw (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Those are not separate issues as the size and quality of the citation list in the first affects the second. There were hundreds of genocide and holocaust scholars that signed the Lemkin letter. This is neither unanimity or consensus. The online petition should have been enough to demonstrate that, but since its being challenged, I'm adding more sources. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Lemkin letter??? From 1944??? Yr Enw (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

From, January 2026

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Lemkin-letter-Jan-2026.pdf FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

oh sorry! Yr Enw (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

They had over 100 signatories in relevant fields by the end of that month. I haven't seen an update since then.

https://freebeacon.com/america/nothing-less-than-holocaust-inversion-prominent-holocaust-scholars-denounce-israel-bashing-nonprofit-named-after-holocaust-survivor/ FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I fear counting every vote of this is going to get into absurdity, because shouldn't we then also include every single member of IAGS who voted for using the term, every affiliated scholar of the Lemkin institute, etc ? Which... again... just doesn't seem proportionate for what is meant to be a summary article of the entire conflict, rather than a specific article about the applicability of the term. Yr Enw (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

They already reviewed the lists of people on the IAGS and found fake names so I don't feel the need to duplicate that research.

I'm not going to include the signatories in the summary, that's just my own review. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

This is probably helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expert_opinions_in_the_Gaza_genocide_debate Yr Enw (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just after a cursory glance, I find it strange that Alan Kessel is not on that list, and very suspicious that Stanislav Pavlovschi is not on that list. It seems hard to overlook a (former) judge on the European Court of Human Rights that has spoken on this.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I think I will stick to my own customary research methodology, thanks though. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

We don't use Wikipedia as a source, per WP:CIRCULAR, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. But if you think those individuals should be on that table, suggest them in the Talk page of the Template. I can see there's a list they're currently working through to include. And when you say your "own customary research methodology", I presume you're aware of WP:OR. Yr Enw (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR only applies to information listed on articles. It doesn't apply to evaluation of soruces:

"This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

It's not hard to find that there have been hundreds of people in the field that have signed a letter or petition. When they want to find that type of information, they will find it. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that so often people complain about that template not including x, y, or z person, but then they will not add them to that template. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

A look into the 111 signatories of the FB letter show that a chunk of the individuals have no published scholarship or education specialising in Genocide or Holocaust studies. So to label it has hundreds of genocide and holocaust scholars is misleading. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I meant between the letter and the petition there are hundreds of signatures. It also wouldn't matter for inclusion as a political issue.

The political systems of ~150 countries, included the United States, has decided the power to determine if genocide has occurred in the public square is through a ruling at the ICJ.

They haven't given political power to holocaust or genocide studies to make that determination. Trying to take that power away from the courts and give it to scholars or people signing a petition to their professional organizations is inherently political. The issue has to be covered from all sides, and there are hundreds of signatures between the letter and petition. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

So, for clarity, you are making a distinction between academic and political (ie. governmental) use of the term "genocide" ? And political positions do not require academic reliability because they are simply being taken as an individual or government's view? Yr Enw (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, although I would say there is attempted obfuscation by academics attempting to achieve a political outcome (see below). "Academic reliability" is not politically how countries have decided to determine how genocide has occurred. That power legally has been confirmed to courts (though mainly court singular / the ICJ) by ~150+ global political establishments. The attempt by the self appointed academic "genocide sciences" scholars to make themselves arbiters of if it has occurred is a political act.

There isn't even agreement within the self appointed academic field on how they would define it.

------

Problems in Comparative Genocide Scholarship:

"There is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide"

"Considering that scholars have always put stress on prevention of genocide, comparative genocide studies have been a failure. Paradoxically, nobody has attempted so far to assess the field of comparative genocide studies as a whole. This is one of the reasons why those who define themselves as genocide scholars have not been able to detect the situation of crisis."

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230297784_3 FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

There are few aspects to untangle here, because it seems like there's two different source types being discussed at once:

1. I agree with the inclusion of government positions, although the only really relevant one is Israel's in a summary article such as this. Equally, I agree the academic credibility of any government's position is irrelevant when it comes to our simply stating their position (although of course they need to be in reliable sources, of which I'm sure there are plenty).

2. When it comes to how we present this information in Wikivoice, per WP:SOURCETYPES, peer reviewed scholarly academic sources are the best sources to draw upon. When it comes to the references to "genocide" in academic discussions, the credibility and weighting of those sources are relevant. Your scholarly citations disputing the label should stay, accordingly, but not to give the impression of false balance, as I have been saying so far. A difference in meaning over what "genocide" is, again, is a much wider discussion than merits signposting in this article. There are similar discussions about the word terrorist (use of which in wikivoice, in my personal opinion, should be curtailed), but sourcing rules on Wiki (as I found out when trying to change the MOS:TERRORIST guidance) mean that if sources use a particular word, it's not our place as editors to interrogate the nuances of individual uses.

3. Political positions outside of academia, other than governmental or international institutions, seem broadly irrelevant to me. Most of the editorials you added as citations in this article come simply from columnists, whose opinions on this issue are irrelevant. They might have a place in articles about the allegations of genocide more broadly, but not here in this summary article. Yr Enw (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

1. The article just included government positions. We are getting into the political positions of individuals. If we include this statement, we need a political statement on the other side. The other option would just be to remove this statement:

"Several hundred academics of various fields sign a letter calling for their professional associations to recognize the Gaza war as a genocide."

2. This isn't a scholarly issue. It isn't not relevant to the political issue of who gets to make a determination.

"Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications"

3. If they are irrelevant than we should remove this:

"Several hundred academics of various fields sign a letter calling for their professional associations to recognize the Gaza war as a genocide." FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I wasn't clear, but your response indicates you're not recognising the distinction I have drawn between academic and non-academic sources. The sentences you're proposing to delete in points 1 and 3 are relevant to the article because they are academic sources by academicians. They are not on par with columnists. Yr Enw (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

3a. I do think the positions of influential editorialists are relevant. Bernard-Henri Levy and Bret Stephens have significant influence.

I think its fine to include far fewer. I had added more citations just to illustrate this was a significant political issue. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have about 28 of these classified and converted to citations. I have ~15 more I have to go through when I have time, and that will probably lead to more. Some of them I might reject. I also have to through citations of a few academic articles. I'm also going to read the names of the scholars that signed letters / petitions. You are following the page, so you will see a notification when a citation list or lists start getting added. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I do also think, for what is supposed to be a summary article of the entire conflict, this is a disproportionate exercise where we already have the article linked to above that discusses the issues in more depth. Yr Enw (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It's common to use citation lists in article leads. You have to hover on the citation to see the list. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Having looked at this discussion and the edits, I agree that this is disproporinate per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and further that this is citation overkill. Imo, revert these sentences to how they were prior to this WP:CITECONFLICT that seeks to create WP:FALSEBALANCE. These lists of sources are not helpful to readers, there is a sentence that says scholars of genocide and law, and then there's a laundry list that begins with newspaper editorials and ends with politicians? There is no conflation in the text between the legal and scholarly definitions of the term genocide, so there is no need to parse out the difference for readers: it's UNDUE. The graf quickly and adequately described the state of the debate as it was. A way to improve on that is to update it to describe whatever the state of the debate is now. Adding a preponderance of older and poor quality sources (A National Post editorial from 2023? Really?), if anything, makes it more difficult for readers to evaluate and verify the content. —BrechtBro (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The current state is that the case is before the ICJ and a final legal determination will probably take several years. I'll change to something explaining that and only using relatively recent citations. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That would probably be a more useful addition the other paragraph that discusses the ICJ case, I don't believe it would illuminate the question at hand, which is debate/consensus among human rights orgs and legal and genocide scholars. —BrechtBro (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say consensuses, plural, because the legal scholars are largely arguing about a different definition that the human rights orgs and genocide scholars, but you are probably correct that it is just easier to say a final ruling will come from the ICJ. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that and I don't see what bearing the future ICJ ruling has on current scholarly opinion —BrechtBro (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That is why I said consensuses. As in a separate legal and scholarly consensus, although I suspect if the ICJ rules "no" most of the interest will go away.

You said "That would probably be a more useful addition" in response to my "The current state is that the case is before the ICJ and a final legal determination will probably take several years.." FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

We are not going to have a productive discussion if you take a fraction of a sentence entirely out of context and interpret it as meaning the near opposite of what it means in context. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That is what I though your meaning was. The original problem here is that the academic debate is being used to not discuss the legal and political question. Which is not the academic question.

The whole point is, if a group of scholars tries to use a definition of murder different than what the courts use, it doesn't really matter. The legal case here is based on the genocide convention, which is what the political system has chosen. It hasn't empowered genocide scholars. So the whole point of this was to add in the legal and political status so it is not conflated with the unrelated academic debate. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I do not think that problem exists in the article. As I said in my previous comment, there is no conflation between the different definitions. Further, the court case is discussed in an entirely separate paragraph from the opinions of scholars, and that paragraph has no mention of a political question. —BrechtBro (talk) 02:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there are different definitions. The average person isn't going to know, and they are going to conflate them. That's why I was trying to add a few words. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you just want me to revert all the old citations and leave in the text I previously added that differentiated between the definitions? FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I removed the pre-2025 citations except for Biden and Kirby. I'll find a more recent citation for Kirby and replace that one as well. I don't think Biden has spoken since he left office, but I doubt his opinion has changed. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It follows naturally from "human rights organizations and scholars of genocide studies and international law" that these orgs and specialists in two different fields are working with different methodologies. The sentence succintly summarized a broad debate among relevant experts across fields, in a paragraph discussing the human toll of the war.

The question of whatever definitions these groups are using is beyond the scope of the summary style, and readers can follow wikilinks to learn more. What was there before was balanced, now there are nonsequitors like "only some scholars use the legal definition found in the UN Genocide Convention" - the article doesn't claim they do, and it's not even a reasonable inference that they would, and it is UNDUE to start unpacking how they don't use X or Y definition, without also starting to unpack what they do mean. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So the point is to introduce the "Scholars for Truth about Genocide" where people are objecting to the political adoption of the academic definition. If you look at their letter, they are making a political objection to not using the current legal definition. Their petition is here. https://www.scholarsfortruthaboutgenocide.com/

The Lemkin letter has a similar objection.

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Lemkin-letter-Jan-2026.pdf

FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That brings you full circle back to Butterscotch Beluga's comment that began this thread. —BrechtBro (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

But its not false balance, because it's not academic objection, it's a political objection. Both sides need to be represented in a political discussion. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That was the point of all this FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There are hundreds of signatures here. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So just to go back to the very beginning of the debate here. The section we are speaking in is called "Scholars for Truth about Genocide." That's the name of an online petition I wanted to add into the section.

There was a discussion that this should not be added because there was consensus on the academic issue. My point was this was also a political / legal issue where is not consensus and that's why we should include a sentence on the online petition, and also the Lemkin Letter of 2026. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That statement has at least as many issues as the IAGS statement you take issue with, so if we can avoid it that would be better and I, for one, would oppose its inclusion without qualifiers. There are stronger sources (academic or otherwise) that dispute the label of genocide, which you can find in the Template:Expert opinions in the Gaza genocide debate, but I remain of the view (as, I suspect, do other editors) that consensus is not as elusive as you're making it out. A perceived difference in definition between political and academic sources verges into WP:OR unless it is explicitly clear in the sources. Yr Enw (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So to be clear, I do not think its important to name a specific letter or petition rather than just citing them. I do think its important to say that hundreds of scholars have signed a letter or petition. I think there should be a few words to describe the political and / or legal nature of objections.

Also, I'm not objecting to including the IAGS statement, I just view it as including a political component, requiring mentioning political objections. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"that hundreds of scholars have signed a letter or petition." the problems with Scholars for Truth letter are such that this is not even a reliable claim. This is covered in the other threads linked. The "Lemkin letter," suffer from similiar problems, many of these signatories are either not academics or are scholars unrelated fields (engineering, philosophy, psychiatry, anthrolopology, biology, music, accounting, etc), yet the press release announcing it pass them off as genocide scholars. If it is covered in reliable sources (which it doesn't appear to be), it can be discussed at Academic and legal responses to the Gaza genocide where it would be appropriate. —BrechtBro (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So for the political issue, it doesn't matter if they are genocide scholars because we are talking about politics and all sides of the debate need to be mentioned. Regardless, FreeBeacon counted more than "100 prominent Holocaust and genocide scholars" on the letter as of the end of January. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That article, under Genocide studies scholars, actually already has a paragraph covering the "Scholars for Truth About Genocide". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a different petition than the January 2026 Lemkin letter.

https://freebeacon.com/america/nothing-less-than-holocaust-inversion-prominent-holocaust-scholars-denounce-israel-bashing-nonprofit-named-after-holocaust-survivor/ FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I misunderstood which letter we were talking about. Apologies. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as the one you were talking about and the paragraph about it, I don't think think they were trying to meet academic standards, it's a political petition. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

In this case, the claim repeated in the Free Beacon is easily disproven by checking who the people are.

Nevertheless, it does matter that they are not subject matter experts because of WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:BESTSOURCES. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

So looking the names on the initial letter, their claim seems accurate. I read through the first 100 names. There are very, very few non-professors or PhDs.

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Lemkin-letter-Jan-2026.pdf

For a political petition, it wouldn't matter because as a political point, laws are decided by those with political power and influence. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean, "a political petition"? How is the opinion of a professor of accounting DUE, or even relevant, to the consensus of genocide and international law scholars? —BrechtBro (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There also isn't a legal concensus. Legal determinations are made by courts, and the ICJ won't rule for years. It's an open case. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The political question is, do we change the definition genocide to remove "intent," or something else, as some want to do. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

(If it wasn't an open case, and it was legally obvious, the ICJ would have already ruled) FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The genocide convention is not a product of the genocide studies field. It wasn't created by them it wasn't created by them and it predates them. They don't decide what is legally a genocide, lawyers do. They don't decide the law that defines genocide politically, they have little influence on politics. Their activism is based on attempt to influence politics to change the law. The opinions of scholars is DUE because scholars influence laws that are adopted. I didn't see any accounting scholars. I did some historians, but historians are involved in debates about laws because laws change as a product of history. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The citations you've recently added are not very good as most are just individual opinions & not a single one is a subject matter expert. Why are these specific opinions WP:DUE?

Presenting the assorted opinions of journalists & commentators as comparable to respected experts, scholars, & organizations in the field is, again, a clear issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE. You have to at least cite someone with relevant credentials. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not false balance. This is a political issues and these are listed to show the other side of the political debate. FALSEBALANCE isn't a reason to hide dissenting opinions in political issues. I'll add go ahead and add a title "Editorials" to those to make it clear those are addressing the political aspect not the academic part of this issue. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The classification of something as a genocide is a matter of academics, so in what way are the opinions of the people you're currently citing relevant, let alone considered WP:BESTSOURCES for this topic?

The sources currently cited who support classifying it as a genocide are of high-quality, coming from well respected individuals & organizations within the fields of human rights & genocide. I'm not saying that you can't cite sources with an opposing view on this matter, in fact, please do so, but if you're going to, they have to be at all comparable to the sources they'd be presented against.

It's trivial to find someone, somewhere that disagrees with almost anything, but you can only show a disagreement between experts by citing experts. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

No, that is a misunderstanding. Politics is used to generate law. Law defines what is a genocide, because genocide is a legal concept as a product of the political system. Knowledge is a unity rather than plurality, but due to human limitations, we specialize in knowledge where scholarship occurs within the pluraility classification boundaries.

Within a classification boundary set by political systems, and adjudicated by legal systems, scholars work in their defined areas that admitadley have overlap. However the idea that discussion of the topic is removed from the political or legal systems and experts is fallacious, as is indicated by the fact that so many legal and political commentators are writing about it. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I was working in alphabetical order. E (Editorial) was first in my list. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

And the letter also allowed anyone to sign without verification, until people pointed out and started laughing at them, such as the inclusion of Robocop. Not to mention multiple people were added to the letter who later publicly came out on their own social media profiles to say they had in fact not signed it (which is not surprising considering these individuals had spent most of the Gaza war criticising Israel and calling it a genocide). There is then the fact that fake individuals still remain on the list to this day. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The names of people who objected were removed. There are also fake names on the IAGS membership list. That is also the petition, the Lemkin letter is different.

There are enough real signatures between the letter and petition that as a political matter the objects need to be mentioned to cover the issue from all sites. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The comment I replied to is a comment where you reference the Scholars for Truth letter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm find with removing all the letters. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

So these are academic in other fields trying engage in a political act. Recognition of something outside of a specific field, by outside associations rather than journals, and without the legal process mandated by political institutions is a political act. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Other academics signing a petition or letter is also a political act. You either include both or neither. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The positioning of these comments is strange, but I presume they are in response to my messages above because I got a notification. Anyway, are we talking solely about the De Vogli et al article in The Lancet now? I think I understand what you're saying. @Butterscotch Beluga and @Cdjp1 what are your thoughts on including this Lancet article? @FarFromTheMiddleEast's argument seems to relate to the appendix to this article, and the claim appears to be that - because the majority of its signatories are not genocide studies scholars - their intervention is either unwarranted for inclusion in this article or should be balanced out by opposing academics. Yr Enw (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

There is technically no article in the Lancet. Article implies peer reviewed research. The citation is to the "Correspondence" section. See the Lancet's explanation of the difference in what they publish:

https://www.thelancet.com/what-we-publish

Lancet - Content type:

Article: Peer reviewed reports of original research that are likely to change clinical practice, policy or substantially change thinking about a disease. These include interventional clinical trials, observational studies, modelling studies, and meta-analyses.

-----

News and Discussion: These content types are not typically externally peer reviewed. Editors may choose to peer review this content if deemed appropriate.

Correspondence: Our readers’ reflections on content published in the Lancet journals or on other topics of general interest to our readers. These letters may be published as exchanges with authors’ replies. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I am referring to that citation and the line it supports. Publishing correspondence in the Lancet to lobby a professional association is a political act. It's not an academic act, hence the lack of labeling as an "article." I'm not sure why the comment was so far down, I may have made an error when I tried to edit a comment without the visual editor. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to foist in any letters of lists of signatories in a high level article is fundamentally just silly on practical grounds. Covering these letters, is only suitable in articles that are specifically dealing with what they are discussing, that is whether genocide is occurring in Gaza. FarFromTheMiddleEast has already handwaved away the abundance of sources in the template to instead argue inconsequential letters are what we should focus this article on. So what point is there in attempting to have discussions about the actual academic literature? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I will note, that great weight is being put on the that hundreds of scholars have signed a letter or petition, while ignoring we have other letters and petitions from other scholars of similar discipline spreads which number in the thousands, that support the majority view in the presently published literature. Now personally, I think that should letters should be given little weight in articles that deal with the specific topic of the letter, and should have no weight at the level of overview that this article is at, but thought mentioning those on the "other side" was worthwhile for people viewing such letters as holy grails. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Then I would say all of the letters should be removed, because the Lancet letter is not a peer reviewed article. It's correspondence. I was only saying other letters should be included for balance if one petition was going to be included, because that is getting into politics. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

because that is getting into politics, by the fact all of this is about genocide, everything written about it is fact a political matter. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

OK - I guess have reached concensus on that because Cjp1 removed the Lancet (non-article). I removed the lead sentence. Is there anything else we want to remove? I think there are probably more citations now than necessary. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, now having read what you added, may I ask, is this matter the first time you have discussed genocides? Because what you added has literally been the case for every genocide throughout history since a legal definition was adopted. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I was trying to add a lead in for the next sentence when the debate erupted. I though that was necessary for the average person before getting into the debate about intent. However, there's no need for it or the subsequent sentence I was planning anymore now that you have removed the Lancet non-article. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Even if the Lancet letter were to remain that isn't justification for the inclusion of such an explainer, unless you are going to go and add it to every article that mentions genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

So I was getting ready to try to explain the difference between what people in the academic field thought, and what non-academic field people were politically arguing about the current legal intent definition. That largely seemed to be the focus of the editorials and objections, but its a moot point now. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

To an analogise such nonsense, it's including a discussion on the comparison of haplotypes between Vulpes vulpes and Vulpes rueppellii in the article "Mammal".

The Israel-Palestinian conflict covers over 100 years of history, and so an article on the matter should cover the overview of that history, linking out to the relevant articles on specific events and debates. The article "Palestinian genocide allegations" is a hell of a lot more relevant to include such details in, but again, as it is a higher overview article covering what is a large and broad topic even it doesn't cover the ridiculous minutiae of signatory letters that provide no in depth arguments or analyses. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Look, there was a non-academic article included in that section. If there was non-academic article, it was going to be responded to in a non-academic way.

I prefer just removing the letters and petitions, but you were the first person who agreed to do that, and I wasn't going to start deleting it myself if no one else wanted to do that.

If there was an objection to deletion, It seemed more fair to balance it by adding something else. I prefer what you chose to do yesterday. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

For what it’s worth, I’m fine with the removal too Yr Enw (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2026

In the "Since 1967" section of the "Territorial changes" section of the infobox, I request that East Jerusalem be explicitly mentioned due to its distinct territorial and political status within the conflict.

This request is made because East Jerusalem has a distinct territorial and administrative status from the rest of the West Bank following 1967, which is not currently reflected in the infobox.

As phrasing this issue neutrally in a concise infobox format is somewhat difficult, I provide some alternatives.

Possible implementations noting occupation include:

• Changing "Israel occupies the West Bank" to "Israel occupies the West Bank and East Jerusalem"

or

• Adding a separate line after "Israel occupies the West Bank":
  • "Israel occupies East Jerusalem"

Independently, possible implementations regarding post-1967 administration include:

• "Israel expands Jerusalem's municipal boundaries into East Jerusalem"

or

• "Israel extends Jerusalem's municipal boundaries into East Jerusalem"

Jacob Rampino (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Another option could be to directly mirror the language in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem articles (e.g. changing "Israel occupies the West Bank" to "Israel occupies the West Bank, including East Jerusalem"; and/or adding "Israel unilaterally annexes East Jerusalem (1980)"). Jacob Rampino (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 30 May 2026

Description of suggested change:

under First Intifada section, it says "stay bullets" rather than "stray bullets".

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Lukethecat2003 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 5 July 2026

Description of suggested change:

The article states the conflict has its origins in the rise of Zionism in the late 19th century. The conflict started much, much earlier, in Biblical times. Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-38315-77 (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Yr Enw (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand the change that you would like us to make - that is, according to you the conflict started earlier than the article says. Now for an edit request, you need to write the sentence that you would like us to add (alternatively, show in which way the text in the article needs to be changed) and provide good sources that confirm you text. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 24 July 2026

Description of suggested change: The article states that "The conflict has its origins in the rise of Zionism in the late 19th century in Europe, a movement which aimed to establish a Jewish state through colonization in the region of Palestine.[37][38]" The word colonization is hyperlinked to the Wikipedia article on that subject. In the colonization article, it correctly states, in a section under the heading "Israel," that "Beginning in the late 19th century, the Zionist movement began laying the demographic and institutional foundations for the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 by pursuing the colonization of Palestine through Jewish immigration, land acquisition, and permanent settlement.[41] Whether this process should be classified as colonialism, and more specifically within the modern theoretical framework of settler colonialism, is the subject of scholarly debate.[42] One body of scholarship classifies Zionism as a settler-colonial movement.[43] Another strand of scholarship qualifies the settler-colonial classification, acknowledging that Zionism involved colonization or had colonial characteristics while distinguishing it from conventional colonialism because it lacked an imperial metropole and was not organized to exploit another territory on behalf of a mother country.[44] A separate, more categorical position rejects the colonial classification outright.[45]" This article (the one about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict") should not refer to the Zionist movement as one aimed at "colonization" without the additional context required to understand that this view of the Zionist enterprise /tactics is not universally/generally accepted. I suggest deleting just the two words "through colonization" as they are not at all necessary or helpful; they add unnecessary and controversial opinion which makes the article less reliable and trustworthy.

Diff:

−

a movement which aimed to establish a Jewish state through colonization in the region of Palestine

+

a movement which aimed to establish a Jewish state in the region of Palestine

IIS18 (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Edit requests should comply with the WP:EDITXY guidelines. This request does not because it is not 'uncontroversial'. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)