Talk:Israel/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

→

Archive 85

Settlements in the lead (again)

This edit, adding "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this." has been reverted. It seems clear that we have exhausted the dialogue here on this subject and should move to a widely advertised RFC.Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's quite simple: a lead paragraph is supposed to summarize the article, and views on legality of the settlements are not covered in the article. Nor should they be covered here. There is a link to a dedicated article on Israeli settlements, which provides more than enough coverage of international views on legality of the settlements. The subject of this article (State of Israel) is already massive, copying tangent content here serves no encyclopedic purpose. “WarKosign” 12:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This and other points have been discussed in the other sections above (RFCbefore) and you will be able to make it again in the RFC and at the same time explaining why MOS:LEAD ("including any prominent controversies.") should not be followed in this instance.Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This is undue. I recall voting in a RfC that resolved an issue like this a year ago. Israel is a bigger topic than just the conflict.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Another (non)argument you can make in the RFC. The prior RFC you are referring to, Related 2020 unclosed RFC and forming part of this RFCbefore, wasn't closed and included a significant partial consensus you are overlooking and which has been commented on by several editors already.Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two people who want to make a change, while others think it is inappropriate. They keep suggesting it again and again, hoping the others will get tired and approve. How is this process helpful for the improvement of this article? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, you're corrected.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Views on Israeli settlements are indeed covered in the article. Ill expand that bit further. nableezy - 14:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait, are you going to expand the coverage of the settlements in order to mention them in the lead? No, this is not how things work. The issue of settlements is one of many issues related to Israel, and not even the most important one. Should it be mentioned in the article? Yes, but no expansion is required. There is a special long article describing the issue to anyone who wishes to get more details. Now, I see that both you and Selfstudier really want to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict wherever possible. You have a right to think it is important, you have a right to suggest changes; you do NOT have the right to force your suggestions, and this is basically what you are doing right now. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You dont really decide how things work here, sorry. Sources treat the controversy over the settlements as a noteworthy controversy about Israel. So too will this article in keeping with our policies. Finally, for the last time, please stop personalizing this dispute. Comment on the content, not the contributor is likewise Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So, who does decide how things work? You realize that you've just entered a controversial change while the article is locked for editing and while most people in this discussion rejected your change, don't you? So you actually applied force on all of us and on all readers of Wikipedia. This is certainly not within the policies of Wikipedia. Also, the changed you introduced is not only unnecessary, but also poorly phrased. You cannot write "the international community widely regards". There is no such person as "the international community". There are different people, organizations and governments with different views. You should respect these views and mention who proposed them and for what purpose. This is not only Wikipedia policy. This is how any serious text is written. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is not "locked for editing", it is closed to editors that have not demonstrated an understanding of our policies. If you would like to challenge the term "international community", then take it up with Daphne Barak-Erez (oh by the way an Israeli High Court Justice) who wrote the international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation. Please read our policies on neutrality which requires that all significant views be given their due weight and our guideline on what makes a reliable source (hint, Barak-Erez writing in an OUP published journal is that.) And why we take the views of informed sources more seriously than random people making assertions about what does or does not exist. nableezy - 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

International community isn't locked.Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't really read the articles on Wikipedia, do you? The article you referred to says: "The international community is a vague phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a broad group of people and governments of the world." So basically, if you say that "the international community widely regards", you say: some people in some places may say that... With all due respect, this is a very poor phrasing, which should not appear in a serious article. So please, instead of arguing endlessly, change the article back, or at least come up with a phrasing that would respect the readers. And do respect ALL views about the matters you write about. You cannot just pick the views that sound better to your ears. Now, Daphne Barak-Erez is probably a respectable person (I don't know her), but she does not write Wikipedia articles. I am certain that if she ever decides to write on Wikipedia, she will write in a different language than in her court rulings. That's the basic rule of writing - each text serves a different purpose, and therefore should be written in a different style and terminology. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That isnt a court ruling, it's a journal article. As far as your request, no on changing the article back to not include something that can be sourced to thousands of reliable sources. Oh look, here's another: "The international community as a whole has repeatedly and consistently condemned the Israeli settlement policy. The UN Security Council,100 the General Assembly101 and the Commission on Human Rights102 have all denounced the settlements as contrary to international law. In 1979, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution of major importance, which has defined the UN position on the Israeli settlements ever since. In resolution 446, the Security Council determined that Israel's policy and practices of settlements had no legal validity." Oh snap, did you know the BBC includes that in every news article that even mentions a settlement? Eg The vast majority of the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, though Israel and the US under the Trump administration dispute this interpretation. (if you would like to change widely to vast majority or overwhelming majority I'd be fine with that). It is an established fact that the international community widely considers the settlements illegal under international law. That is a fact attested to by literally thousands of sources. That somebody on Wikipedia dislikes that fact is not important to its inclusion in the article. nableezy - 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically, what you're saying is that you want to write a journalistic article that would cover the United Nation Organization's opinion about Israel. Great idea, but you are in the wrong place. This is an article about Israel on Wikipedia. Anything else is irrelevant. You keep saying you have sources, but you keep bringing irrelevant sources. A source can be both reliable and irrelevant, and if you want to use a source here, it should be both reliable and relevant. And you cannot describe a fact in vague terms, because then it is no longer a fact. It is like saying that the sky is either blue or colorless. These are basic rules of writing. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What I am saying is what I have written, and nothing resembles any part of what you claim. The source is both reliable and relevant. nableezy - 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically you cannot justify the controversial changes you've made, except by saying that you read something, published somewhere, and you thought it was important. You were honest enough to ask in this discussion page whether the change is relevant, but once people told you it wasn't, you simply forced your opinion by using special privileges you have. You can still correct your inappropriate action. Please do. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So basically I have justified the change, it is not "controversial" except in the minds of those who think that this article forms an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is not "[my] opinion" that the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, it is a fact attested to by thousands of sources. Kindly stop misrepresenting my comments and the sources. Thank you. nableezy - 17:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @Selfstudier: – if you move towards an RfC, could I make suggestion for its structure? I think it might be helpful to have two separate questions (with proposed wordings for each): 1) should the lead provide a brief summary of settlements within its overview of the occupation [i.e. other than, or instead of, the mention related to pipelining] and 2) should the lead mention the international community's view on their illegality? I think there are two separate changes being suggested here. Jr8825 • Talk 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I ask again - If these questions were asked before and the answer was no, why do you ask again? Is the idea to repeat the question until people get tired and say: "whatever"? 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was unclear last time, and consensus can change anyway. I appreciate that an RfC would exclude your participation, so thanks for expressing your preference here. It's noted. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You mean, there was no consensus. There is no such thing as "unclear consensus", either you have a consensus or you don't. Of course, you can try to bring new arguments, but you don't have any. Your argument is that the settlements are a "definitive feature" of Israel, and that's not an argument, but just your own opinion. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ive cited a source saying the settlements are a defining feature of the occupation. Beyond that, something need not be defining to be included in the lead. What WP:LEAD actually says is significant controversies belong in the lead. And the fact that Israel has been repeatedly castigated for violations of international law regarding the settlements is such a controversy. I dont think the repeated failure to WP:AVOIDYOU is something that I would like to deal with much more, but if any editor is unwilling to engage on this talk page in the required manner they may be requested to stay off of it. nableezy - 16:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I am not that concerned about the wording as much as the idea that it (settlement project) should not be in the lead at all, however it is worded. As soon as we have options, experience tells me that the conversation will quickly start wandering in all directions, so better might be to try and get the wording straight preRFC and if at all possible, while not restricting the possibility for editorial commentary, as a yes/no question. I'll have a think on it.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You sure have to give this whole thing a deep thought. But before you do, change the article back. You've just said that the recent change was made without any agreement and without thinking about the wording. I think the readers of Wikipedia deserve better. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No. nableezy - 16:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy, you sent me a very unclear message on a private channel. I would appereciate if you could stick to the subject we have here on this page. It is not a social gathering. We are here to discuss a Wikipedia article. 79.183.205.72 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The message on your talk page (not a "private channel") was fairly clear, and discussion about it does not belong here. If you have questions about that you can reply there. nableezy - 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should work out wording pre-RFC. Jr8825, I'm torn between a desire for clarity and brevity. How much do you think we need to explain/contextualize the settlements? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The consensus have not changed as last discussion has shown anyone that want to change the lead please gain a consensus for any change --Shrike (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, what is your basis for removing the material from the body of the article here? nableezy - 17:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And for reverting a straightforward grammar fix? nableezy - 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your basis for removing the material from the body of the article? ONUS is not a reason. nableezy - 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As your reason here is plainly bogus, given there was never an RFC on including material in the body of the article, and that you claim we need consensus to change the lead, where this was not done, Ive reverted your revert. nableezy - 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have waited for my answer before reverting. The reason that is already included in the body we don't need similar material twice. --Shrike (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is it already included in the body? That is likewise plainly untrue. nableezy - 18:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The position of the majority of UN member states is reflected in numerous resolutions declaring that actions taken by Israel to settle its citizens in the West Bank, and impose its laws and administration on East Jerusalem, are illegal and have no validity.[252] In 1981 Israel annexed the Golan Heights, although annexation was not recognized internationally.[253] either we remove you bit or this.--Shrike (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Arguing about the merits of different bits of the body while at the same time insisting that none of the body can be in the lead seems a bit off. One way to solve all this would be to agree to some summary in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Um Shrike, that is largely about the EJ Law and Golan Heights law. Will adjust that bit to make clear the difference though. nableezy - 18:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Since that section was about the acts amounting to annexation i removed the settlement piece as off topic there. You good now? nableezy - 18:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, this is continuing in to the depths of the obscene. User:Geshem Bracha, explain your revert here. nableezy - 13:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

This lead, in my opinion, does lean pro-Israel to a significant degree. I feel the congratulating of the state at the end for its human rights needs to be balanced by stating how these rights are virtually non existent for Palestinians and other Arabs living there, and only pertain to Israelis. It would be foolish to write, for example, about the 1950s segregated US south ranking high in human development and human rights, when said rights and opportunities were significant diminished for Black people. It would also serve to be non-bias to discuss in the lead the criticism of the Israeli government that exists across the world instead of saying that opposition and dissent only exists among Arabs in the countries nearby.--222.154.95.233 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

All Israeli citizens enjoy equal human rights. Do you have a source that says otherwise? “WarKosign” 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's one: "Across Israel and the occupied territory, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli authorities have pursued an intent to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians." If, as Israel maintains, East Jerusalem is actually a part of Israel, it's completely obvious but the report doesn't limit it only to East Jerusalem, "Across Israel...". https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/07/19/israeli-apartheid-threshold-crossed.Selfstudier (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Most East Jerusalem residents are not Israeli citizens, they may apply for citizenship at any moment but few choose to do so. If this is the best source you have this puts this matter to rest. “WarKosign” 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it does. It can wait ftb, however.Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (1)

There is an undefined refname in the After World War II section. The reference was removed by this edit while the refname was still in use.

The following:
<ref name="Declaration"/>

should be replaced with:
<ref name="Declaration">{{cite web|url=http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx |title=Declaration of Establishment of State of Israel |date=14 May 1948 |publisher=Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs |access-date=21 March 2017 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170317223538/http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/peace/guide/pages/declaration%20of%20establishment%20of%20state%20of%20israel.aspx |archive-date=17 March 2017 }}</ref>

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Petruccio Salema (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Cite error (2)

There is an undefined refname in the Israeli-occupied territories section. The reference was removed by this edit while the refname was still in use. This is the same edit as the last error.

The following:
<ref name=occhist/>

should be replaced with:
<ref name="occhist">See for example:<br />* {{cite book|title=Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza|last=Hajjar|first=Lisa|publisher=University of California Press|date=2005|isbn=978-0-520-24194-7 |page=96|url={{Google books|mcjoHq2wqdUC|page=PA96|keywords=|text=|plainurl=yes}}|quote=The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is the longest military occupation in modern times.}}<br />* {{cite journal|first=Perry|last=Anderson|author-link=Perry Anderson|title=Editorial: Scurrying Towards Bethlehem|date=July–August 2001|journal=New Left Review|volume=10|url=https://newleftreview.org/article/download_pdf?id=2330|quote=longest official military occupation of modern history—currently entering its thirty-fifth year}}<br />* {{cite book|first=Saree|last=Makdisi|author-link=Saree Makdisi|url={{Google books|2dBM3Ago2BAC|page=PA299|keywords=|text=|plainurl=yes}}|quote=longest-lasting military occupation of the modern age|title=Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|date=2010|isbn=978-0-393-33844-7}}<br />* {{cite journal|volume=94|issue=885|date=Spring 2012|journal=International Review of the Red Cross|title=The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel|first=David|last=Kretzmer|author-link= David Kretzmer|doi=10.1017/S1816383112000446|url=https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/review/2012/irrc-885-kretzmer.pdf|quote=This is probably the longest occupation in modern international relations, and it holds a central place in all literature on the law of belligerent occupation since the early 1970s|pages=207–236}}<br />* {{citation|title=The Justice of Occupation|quote=Israel is the only modern state that has held territories under military occupation for over four decades|first=Ra'anan|last=Alexandrowicz|date=24 January 2012|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/opinion/the-justice-of-occupation.html}}<br />* {{cite book|title=The Role of National Courts in Applying International Humanitarian Law|first=Sharon|last=Weill|url={{Google books|bDnnAgAAQBAJ|page=PA22|keywords=|text=|plainurl=yes}}|page=22|date=2014|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-968542-4|quote=Although the basic philosophy behind the law of military occupation is that it is a temporary situation modem occupations have well demonstrated that ''rien ne dure comme le provisoire'' A significant number of post-1945 occupations have lasted more than two decades such as the occupations of Namibia by South Africa and of East Timor by Indonesia as well as the ongoing occupations of Northern Cyprus by Turkey and of Western Sahara by Morocco. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, {{underline|which is the longest in all occupation's history}} has already entered its fifth decade.}}<br />* Azarova, Valentina. 2017, [http://www.ecfr.eu/publications/summary/israels_unlawfully_prolonged_occupation_7294 Israel's Unlawfully Prolonged Occupation: Consequences under an Integrated Legal Framework], European Council on Foreign Affairs Policy Brief: "June 2017 marks 50 years of Israel's belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory, making it the longest occupation in modern history."</ref>

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. If there are other problems let me know.--Petruccio Salema (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, will do ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

new paragraph on conflict for lead

Current:

The land was controlled as a mandate of the British Empire from 1920 to 1948, having been ceded by the Ottomans at the end of the First World War. The Second World War saw the mandate bombed heavily. Once the British agreed to supply arms and form a Jewish Brigade in 1944, Yishuv Jews officially entered the conflict on the side of the allies. At the end of the war, amidst growing tensions with the conflict-weary British, the United Nations (UN), eager to appease both Arab and Jewish factions, adopted a Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947 recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Arab leaders. The following year, the Jewish Agency declared independence of the State of Israel, and the subsequent 1948 Arab–Israeli War saw Israel establishment over most of the former Mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by neighboring Arab states. Israel has since fought several wars with Arab countries, and since the Six-Day War in June 1967 has held occupied territories including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip (still considered occupied after the 2005 disengagement, although some legal experts dispute this claim). Subsequent legislative acts have resulted in the full application of Israeli law within the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, as well as its partial application in the West Bank via "pipelining" into Israeli settlements. Israel exerts full control over almost two-thirds of the West Bank and partial control over 165 Palestinian enclaves; Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is internationally considered to be the world's longest military occupation in modern times. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not resulted in a final peace agreement, while Israel has signed peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan.

Suggested edit:

Following World War I, Britain controlled the entirety of the territory of what makes up Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan as a League of Nations mandate. Following World War II, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Arab leaders. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared the independence at the termination of the British Mandate which internationalized into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War between Israel and several surrounding Arab states and concluded with the the 1949 Armistice Agreements that saw Israel in control of the majority the mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Israel has since fought several wars with Arab countries, and since the Six-Day War in June 1967 has occupied territories, including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not resulted in a final peace agreement, while Israel has signed peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan and more recently has normalized relations with a number of other Arab countries.

Yes this also includes stripping out most of the refs from the lead as unnecessary. Will add refs for any sentence somebody thinks needs it. This a. reads much better imo, b. drops some of the less important bits, c. is shorter for the character counters, d. includes what i think at least are the major pieces that need to be in the lead. nableezy - 22:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Little copyediting:

• "declared the independence" → "declared independence"
• "with the the 1949 Armistice Agreements" → "with the 1949 Armistice Agreements"
• "internationalized into 1948 Arab–Israeli War" → "internationalized into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War"

Slightly larger proposed changes:

• Connect the failure of the 1947 proposal with the subsequent civil war; "... rejected by Arab leaders, resulting in a civil war within ..."
• Change the occupied link to Israeli-occupied territories
• Rephrease "the Six-Day War in June 1967 has occupied territories, including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip" → "the Six-Day War in June 1967 has occupied the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip"; it discusses continued occupations, so we don't need to worry about including Sinai and South Lebanon. Further, I wonder if it would be worth explicitly including East Jerusalem in the list, and we may need to find a better way to present Gaza whose occupied status is complicated.

Apart from that, I haven't been involved in the previous discussions, but your proposal looks reasonable and fair to me. BilledMammal (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the partition plan and the civil war connection, that had lots of causes that I dont think can be directly tied to the partition plan, but everything else on board with. nableezy - 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ive thought about Gaza, but any presentation of that dispute takes too much room, just like it does now. Maybe just replace WB and Gaza with Palestinian territories since that includes all of the above+EJ. nableezy - 02:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

In regards to the civil war/partition plan connection, I'm not bothered; my main reason for that suggestion was stylistic, but if you feel it oversimplifies the situation then it is best to leave it as is.

In regards to the Palestinian territories, I think your new suggestion there is the way to go. BilledMammal (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A clear improvement. Retains the main facts presented in a neutral way, relatively short and avoids the passive voice. “WarKosign” 06:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with this. The Yishuv joining the Allied side in WWII, while the Palestinian leadership (the Mufti, etc) joined cause with Nazi Germany, including a planned Death Camp for Jews in the Dotan Valley should be in the lead as it explains later events. The text is also passive in describing the mass invasion of Israel by Arab states in 1948.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Goodness, someone still believes the Dotan Valley story! That was invented by the same journalist who invented the story about poisoning the Tel Aviv water supply, and not the slightest evidence for it has ever been found. Zero^talk 09:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You disagree with the proposed change because it doesn't add something that is not currently in the article?

Whether or not what you want to add should be in the article is a separate discussion, what does it have to do with nableezy's proposed change? “WarKosign” 11:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

OOps, I neglected the settlement addition. Adding that and BilledMammal's edits (mostly) here, as well as the annexations and rejections:

Following World War I, Britain controlled the entirety of the territory of what makes up Israel, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan as a League of Nations mandate. Following World War II, the newly formed United Nations adopted the Partition Plan for Palestine in 1947, recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan was accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by Arab leaders. Following a civil war within Mandatory Palestine between Yishuv forces and Palestinian Arab forces, Israel declared independence at the termination of the British Mandate. The war internationalized into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War between Israel and several surrounding Arab states and concluded with the 1949 Armistice Agreements that saw Israel in control of the majority the mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Israel has since fought several wars with Arab countries, and since the Six-Day War in June 1967 has occupied several territories, including the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights. Israel has extended its civil law to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community, and established settlements within the occupied territories, which the international community considers illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this. Efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not resulted in a final peace agreement, while Israel has signed peace treaties with both Egypt and Jordan and more recently has normalized relations with a number of other Arab countries.

nableezy - 12:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would consider changing "extended its civil law" to "annexed" in order to be clearer about what this entails. I also wonder if we should alter the language around the international consensus on the annexations and the settlements in order to reflect the changed position of the United States; while the US is an exception to the general consensus, their international status makes their position unusually important.

Apart from that, looks good, though I still think we should switch the "occupied" wikilink from "military occupation" to "Israeli-occupied territories" BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think everytime, and it is frequent, we get a passing US administration, defying international law that this can be used to invalidate or tweak a firm generalization about international consensus. The occupation is 'military' against, in law as Israeli court decisions consistently affirm. We use most frequently Israeli Civil Administration, the standard Israeli euphemism, which doesn't tell anyone it is not particularly 'civil', indeed, an organization which as a branch of the IDF. Military and civil are virtual antonyms in English. Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with effectively annexed, not annexed by itself. Because a, the laws are purposely vague on "annexation" so as not to have brought more severe condemnation, and b, both acts were ruled null and void by the UNSC. I think the link to Israeli-occupied territories be ok if it is longer, like linking "has occupied several territories". I dont think the US position needs to be called out specifically here, but can add widely following international community. nableezy - 15:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think WB+Gaza needs to be spelled out, and will add a bit to it. Will try to make Gaza work with the arguments too. nableezy - 16:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Refs

Sources

• This discussion is separate from the settlements aspect? I can't see anything about that there although the pipelining thing has gone away, that's good.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops. nableezy - 12:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)