Talk:Israel/Archive 88

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

Archive 89

Archive 90

→

Archive 95

Inappropriate lede

Per WP:LEDE, " The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". Therefore various stas and other isolated piece of info do not belong to it. Therefore I removed the last paragraph.

Also I think the second paragraph with prehistory belongs to a separate "prehistory" section, and in the lede there must be a phrase telling something about prehistory. Besides, it is inadequately written. For exmple, the phrase "Inhabited since the Middle Bronze Age by Canaanite tribes,[23][24] Israel..." is an anachronism: there was no Israel in Bronze Age. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

One thing that is missing from the lede is the major population change in the 20th century: huge immigration of Jews and huge exodus of Palestinians. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be covered. (t · c) buidhe 23:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

But the attempted genocide of Jews in Israel, by Arabs, needs to be covered too. The Yishuv responded to its attempted destruction.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by חוקרת. It's either we cover both or leave them both out. Tombah (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

lol wut? Citations please. nableezy - 12:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

LOL??? LOL to threats of genocide??? The goal of driving all the Jews into the sea was repeatedly stated by Arab leaders in 1948. Citation: quotes:

page 490: The phrase - "to drive the Jews in Palestine into the sea" - was reportedly used, for example, by 'Izzedin Shawa, a representative of the AHC in London, in a conversation with an American diplomat (see Gallman, London, to secretary of state, 21 January ..."

page 397: "Other Arab leaders were generally more optimistic. But they, too, had ulterior motives, beyond driving the Jews into the sea or, at the least, aborting the Jewish state". ... "The Zionist leaders deeply, genuinely, feared a Middle Eastern reenactment of the Holocaust, which had just ended; the Arabs' public rhetoric reinforced these fears."

Page 187: "What was the goal of the planned invasion? Arab spokesmen indulged in a variety of definitions. A week before the armies marched, 'Azzam told Kirkbride: "It does not matter how many [Jews] there are. We will sweep them into the sea". Syrian president Shukri al-Quwwatli spoke of the Crusades: "Overcoming the Crusades took a long time, but the result was victory. There is no doubt that history is repeating itself." Ahmed Shukeiry, one of Haj Amin al-Husseini's aides (and, later, the founding chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization)s simply described the aim as "the elimination of the Jewish state."

Intro pages 4-8: "By contrast, expulsionist thinking and, where it became possible, behavior, charchaterized the mainstream of the Palestinian national movement since its inception. "We will push the Zionists into the sea - or they will send us back into the desert", the Jaffa Muslim-Christian Association told the King-Crane Commission as early as 1919.

חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Believe you said attempted genocide. And yes, lol. nableezy - 15:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The stated intent of "to drive the Jews in Palestine into the sea" is attempted genocide.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

)

Codswallop. You do realize the intent was quite different, a single Palestinian state as originally foreseen by the Mandate.Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

lol. nableezy - 22:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

“For most of the period between 1948 and the early 1970s, driving the Israelis into the sea in an act of genocide was the rhetorical goal of the “Arab” states, adding to Jewish apprehension from the Holocaust years.” Snow, D. M. (2021). The Middle East and American National Security: Forever Wars and Conflicts?. United States: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

“During the period from 1968 to 1973, the far left did express some discomfort with the frequent calls from Arabs for a jihad, or Muslim holy war, against Israel and the Jews, and the boasts of such Arab leaders as Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser that the Arabs would drive the lews of Israel "into the sea," a euphemism for genocide, a second Holocaust for the Jewish people.” Norwood, S. H. (2013). Antisemitism and the American Far Left. United States: Cambridge University Press.

Drsmoo (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Eh? Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yall are jumping the shark here, given the literal thousands of sources discussing actual "cleansing" of Palestine of its Palestinians. Just lol at some of the nonsense being pushed here. A "euphemism for genocide", as hysterical as that reading is, is again not attempted genocide. nableezy - 22:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Your "lol" responses are disrespectful to the Jewish victims here. The genocidal intent of the Arab leadership was followed through with murders of Jews in Palestine and the invasion of Israel by seven armies of Arab states. Thousands of sources cover the Arab intent of "driving the Israelis into the sea in an act of genocide".חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"rhetorical goal". Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your attempt at inventing an Arab attempted genocide against the Jews is offensive to our policies on original research on misusing article talk pages as forums. No source says anything about an attempted genocide of the Jews by the Arabs, including the Palestinians. Kindly stop making things up here, this page is covered by discretionary sanctions and risible attempts at provoking people through such obscene claims can be reported. For there to be an offense to Jewish victims of an Arab genocide such a thing would have to exist. nableezy - 13:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Loew Galitz: Absolutely impossible to remove the last paragraph. Every country's lead section ends with a paragraph or two about it's political system, economy, rankings etc. Revert it. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

done. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Daveout: I thought it was worth moving the nation-state note up into the first paragraph because Jewish identity is obviously so important/one could argue central for the country (an ethnolinguistic/cultural approach to national identity that many countries either lack or do not specifically emphasise), and otherwise this is not directly addressed until the third paragraph. For me it seemed like an odd omission to not mention anything about this in the first paragraph, as, for a first-time reader on the subject, this would likely be high priority and high interest information. Seems a little remiss otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323: Just take a look at other countries' articles. The first paragraph typically covers geo-location, borders, capital city, major cities, population, and sometimes include some notable rankings. There's no need to expand on approaches to national identity so early in the article. Tombah (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems like obvious information for Israel. Star of David flag, candle emblem, emphasis in constitution. Why beat around the bush? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Heh, don't want to talk about it because the world and his wife has described that law as racist (which it is). Apartheid 101. Sources on request. Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Could we close this stupid rubbish converting the usual Arab street-crowd rhetoric examples as proof of some Arab threat to commit genocide against Jews from 1948. Hade that been the intent, those governments would have murdered all the Jews on their territory long before the aliyah process from there ended in the 1970s. By the same token, one could use the innumerable remarks by rabbis and politicians shouting for the extermination of Palestinians, remarks which continue to this day, as I am sure all readers of Israeli newspapers over the last decade know, as proof Israel's intention is to commit genocide on the Palestinians (as opposed to 'cultural genocide' or ethnocide, for which there is a reasonable case, going back to statements from the earliest Zionist period i.e.,The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective Center for Constitutional Rights 15 August 2016 (2)The Genocide of the Palestinian People: An International Law and Human Rights Perspective Center for Constitutional Rights. All this is irrelevant to the article. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Oof. (Walker Snarling) (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a line to the 1948 paragraph on the Palestinian exodus as discussed up above. nableezy - 19:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I added a line about the Jewish exodus, but I don't have time at the moment to find a good source on the number who then came to Israel, although of course it is quite significant. Both the Palestinian exodus of hundreds of thousands from what is now Israel and the Jewish exodus from the Muslim World and flight to Israel belong in the lead. Bill Williams 02:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well part of it is relevant and part of it is not. Iran certainly isnt relevant, and claiming the exodus was a result of several wars is at least partially incorrect (eg Operation Mural, Operation Yachin, Jewish migration from Lebanon post-1948 are all not related to any conflict with Israel). Im not opposed to including it, but the way you did so here is inaccurate. nableezy - 02:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I just moved the line and slightly modified it to include emigrated. nableezy - 02:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That is true, I additionally clarified that most came to Israel with a hyperlink to Aliyah. Bill Williams 04:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The way this was written was WP:POINTy. What about the exodus from the Soviet Union? Or earlier, should we not describe the root regions of the pre-war immigration?

As described at Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, paralleling this with the Palestinian exodus is POV. And an incorrect POV at that, if you read the article carefully.

In summary, I support the events which led to Israel’s population makeup as it is today being explained, but it must be written in appropriate context. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be additional information on where the population of Israel came from, but this is not at all "POV". The Palestinian exodus and Jewish exodus both began at the same time for the same reason, the 1948 war. Bill Williams 05:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. The exodus of Jews from Muslim countries did not “begin” in 1948. What about Jews from Yemen in the 19th century? Yes there was a small wave post 1948, but it was a small part of the 850,000. Remember: Of these, just under two-thirds lived in French- and Italian-controlled North Africa, 15–20% in the Kingdom of Iraq, approximately 10% in the Kingdom of Egypt and approximately 7% in the Kingdom of Yemen. A further 200,000 lived in Pahlavi Iran and the Republic of Turkey. The two thirds from North Africa had more to do with pull-factors than push -factors, as explained in the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The 850,000 number is simply the number between 1948 and the 1970s who fled Muslim countries. I have no clue what you are talking about otherwise, but the 850,000 figure is what began in 1948 due the the anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East. Yes there were previous waves of immigration that should be mentioned in the lead, but this was the most significant as it began immediately after the founding of Israel and was a direct result of Israel's creation. Bill Williams 13:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This propaganda is always pushed as an equivalence for the Palestinian exodus and it is in no way equivalent. By all means include it but only in proper context ie many were not any kind of refugee and those that were, their argument is with other Arab states and nothing to with Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: please read One Million Plan. It explains that the Israeli-government-in-waiting had a clear plan to encourage an exodus of 1,000,000 Jews from Muslim countries, many years before the 1948 war. This was fully documented official policy. Prior to the formalization, it was elegantly explained by Ben Gurion in 1942: Our Zionist policy must now pay special attention to the Jewish population groups in the Arab countries. If there are diasporas that it is our obligation to eliminate with the greatest possible urgency by bringing those Jews to the homeland, it is the Arab diasporas: Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and North Africa, as well as the Jews of Persia and Turkey. What European Jewry is now experiencing obliges us to be especially anxious about the fate of the diasporas in the Middle East. Those Jewish groups are the hostages of Zionism... Our first move with a view toward coming events is immigration. But the paths of immigration from Europe are desolate now. The [doors] are shut tight, and there are very few countries that have a land link to the Land of Israel – the neighboring countries. All these considerations are cause for anxiety and for special activity to move the Jews in the Arab countries to the land of Israel speedily. It is a mark of great failure by Zionism that we have not yet eliminated the Yemen exile [diaspora]. If we do not eliminate the Iraq exile by Zionist means, there is a danger that it will be eliminated by Hitlerite means.

The Jews in Muslim countries were victims of both Zionist agitation and anti-Semitism, and these often worked in tandem with the former encouraging (or even pretending to be) the latter. Occasionally these activities were found out and proven (e.g. Lavon Affair and 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings), but of course most happened below the radar via undocumented agitation.

I hope you can now see why it is so egregious to create a false balance between these highly complex events and the Palestinian Nakba.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I its inappropriate to lead without giving all the background that Arabs rejected the partition plan, attacked newly created state, expulsion of Jews from Arab states and so on and the lead is already too large so by keeping WP:NPOV this should be omitted --Shrike (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What kind of nonsense is that? What does the expulsion of the Palestinians have to do with the Partition plan? And attacked the newly created state? nableezy - 14:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead already mentions the partition plan, the civil war and the conflict with Arab states in more than enough detail, but skimps on the expulsion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tombah, this method of "dont add unless there is consensus" when you dont like material and then reverting when you do is tendentious. What exactly is the objection to including the expulsion of the Palestinians to the lead? nableezy - 14:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Quite. If the principle concern is things not being adequately discussed then it is particularly ironic to not precede or follow up on your own editing activities with any discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks, again? mmm. Guys, this is getting too ridiculous. This page has been stable for a while now, and you two are among the top editors here. Just waking up the other morning and deciding this article has a POV issue, only because an undiscussed, clearly controversial, addition was removed - well, that's the definition of tendentious. The reason for my objection? I'm in total agreement with Shrike. It's either we cover the entire independence war events, or none. In the case of the first option, much detail is to be discussed, such as the rejection of the partition plan and calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, along with the immediate invasion by the surrounding Arab armies and expeditionary forces. I'd pick the second choice since the first would be too long to for a lede. Tombah (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

False choice based on inadequate premises. Or just "nonsense" per Nableezy, also works. If I wake up tomorrow and decide there is a POV problem here or anywhere else, I don't need permission, thanks all the same, nor is that in any way tendentious. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have made no personal attack, and stability is not a reason. Why exactly should the expulsion of the Palestinians not be in the lead of the article? All that crap about invasion (like the prior two years never happened, and the Arab states mostly did not enter any territory assigned to the Jewish state) or "calls for the destruction" (as opposed to the actual destruction of Palestinian society and the demolishing of over a hundred villages) is not relevant to that question. Why exactly should the expulsion of the Palestinians not be in the lead of this article? If necessary I will start an RFC on the topic, but you have given no policy based reason for your removal. Please do so now. nableezy - 17:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I can understand the position that both the expulsion/flight of Palestinians (which happened due to the war and has had important consequences for Israel) and the emigration/flight/expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries (which happened largely due to the war and had important consequences for Israel) should be mentioned in the lede. Likewise, I can understand the position that the lede should describe the conflict only at high level and then none of these two facts should be mentioned. On the other hand, having one but not the other is a violation of WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 18:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What it says at Trump peace plan:

In the two decades that followed Israel's founding, some 800,000 Jews left the Arab World (300,000 in the very first few years), many as the result of hostilities and persecution; the majority of these immigrated to Israel. Some view the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries as analogous to the 1948 Palestinian exodus, emphasizing "push factors" like discrimination and violence, while other emphasize "pull factors" and consider them willing immigrants.

The efn says "The plan document, while noting the issue of Jewish refugees, stipulates that a "just solution for these Jewish refugees should be implemented through an appropriate international mechanism separate from the Israel-Palestinian Peace Agreement."

References

Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Im not opposed to including emigration and expulsion of Jews from the Arab states, though it was not all due to the war (as discussed above), and in fact I moved that material, not removed. Certainly the influx of Jews from the Arab states is foundational to the topic as well, but it is not the same topic as the expulsion of the Palestinians and the attempt to correlate them is in no way related to "NPOV". The expulsion of the Palestinians from the territory Israel would come to control in 1948 is a foundational aspect of the topic of the modern state of Israel. It belongs in the lead. Yes, so too does the Jewish exodus from the Arab states. Put them both in then. Use the Goldberg source from Selfstudier for the latter. nableezy - 19:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is false correlation. The forcible depopulation of Palestinian villages was a direct policy of Israel, implemented by its leaders, within the borders of modern Israel, as part of its formation. The exodus of Middle Eastern Jews from Arab lands was an indirect effect of the conflict that occurred overseas in a nebulous fashion over decades, and, as noted above, caused by both push and pull factors. The Goldberg sourced: "In the two decades that followed Israel's founding, some 800,000 Jews left the Arab World (300,000 in the very first few years)" is all fine. Maybe efn the rest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with using Goldberg In the two decades that followed Israel's founding, some 800,000 Jews left the Arab World (300,000 in the very first few years), many as the result of hostilities and persecution. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Many" is just a tad vague - hence better to cut it off before then and leave it to a footnote on the push and pull factors to actually do the explaining, if needed. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The part thats important here, as it relates to Israel, is that many of them did come to Israel and it doubled Israel's Jewish population as a result. But we can use this source as well: Fischbach, Michael (2008). Jewish Property Claims Against Arab Countries. Columbia University Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-231-51781-2. Approximately 260,000 Jews from the Arab world moved to Israel during and immediately after the war. And we can also use this: Shindler, Colin (2013). A History of Modern Israel. Cambridge University Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-107-02862-3. Over 37 per cent of Jews in Islamic countries – the Arab world, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan – left for Israel between May 1948 and the beginning of 1952. This amounted to 56 per cent of the total immigration. Additionally, we should include Jewish emigration from Europe as it was likewise sizable: A page earlier in Shindler: By the beginning of 1952, nearly a third of all East European Jews had left for Israel. nableezy - 20:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

"Many" is a direct quotation from Goldberg and many other sources mention the persecution and riots as one of the drivers. The vagueness is unavoidable as we are unlikely to ever be able to quantify the role of push and pull factors. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Israel fought against the Arab world, not just Arab Palestinians, so mentioning exodus from one side to the other, but not vice versa, is expectedly raises questions. None of these migrations should be added because the lead is already too long. MOS:LEAD: "lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". This article has five. Take a look at Featured and Good articles about other countries, such as Jordan, Azerbaijan, Germany, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand etc. Their lead sections are shorter both in size and in the number of paragraphs. Most of them have only one paragraph dedicated to history, while this one has two. The second and third paragraphs on history here should be shortened and merged to bring the lead to an appropriate size and structure in accordance with the guidelines and common practice. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That the lead is too long isn't news - we have been discussing this for months, but there are the guidelines, and then there are practicalities, and then there is consensus. Simply merging paragraphs on ancient and modern history to reduce it to four paragraphs isn't necessarily an improvement. Frankly, the second paragraph could probably just go, but consensus on that might not be forthcoming. In any case, there is little in the guideline dictation how long said paragraphs should be, and a lead being too long already does not preclude discussion of what other details probably should be in it. Turkey, for instance, has four paragraphs, but the second is a mega paragraph, including, coincidentally, a line on the demographic changes effected by the Young Turks before the partition of the Ottoman Empire and the formation of the modern state. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Israel's conflict with and expulsion of the Palestinians is a foundational event in its history. Much more than the tenuous connection to ancient empires. It absolutely belongs, and WP:LEAD specifies any notable controversies, and the ethnic cleansing of the native population certainly is that, should be included in the lead. nableezy - 12:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

It would not make sense to specifically mention the Palestinian exodus without mentioning the Jewish exodus. Both began in 1948 (I'm not talking about earlier waves of Aliyah) due to the war, and both were a similar number of people being pushed out of or brought into Israel. Both had a significant consequence on the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and the demographics of Israel. It's crazy how some editors here jump straight to insulting me or others who suggest an edit, while I bet if I insulted them, they would call me a racist Zionist or something. Bill Williams 15:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Similar in numbers is not correct, per the source cited above the numbers from Arab countries in the first several years was ~260,000. You're attempting to count all Jews to emigrate from all Muslim majority countries over 30-40 years if you say 800k. nableezy - 16:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

And for push/pull, there is, for instance, the One Million Plan, the continuing attempt to bothsidesism this is pitiful.Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Who cares. Both things are in fact foundational to Israel's founding. The expulsion of Arabs and the influx of Jews cemented a Jewish majority in the territory it controlled after 48. It doesnt say all of them were expelled, it says emigrated, fled or expelled. nableezy - 16:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not insulting me or others directly but using aggressive wording in response to anything that opposes adding the Palestinian exodus to the lead or adding the Jewish exodus to the lead. I agree you could add them both but if you wont add both then neither belongs in the lead. Bill Williams 16:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

But there seems to be a pretty wide ranging agreement on including both in the lead. I am going to do that now, with the 260,000 number from the Fischbach source for the immediate aftermath of the war. Later waves of immigration may make sense to include, but not in the paragraph about 1948. nableezy - 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, definitely belongs in the lead. Bill Williams 04:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as emigrated includes expelling and fleeing, yes thats true, but the inverse is not true as only including fleeing and expelled does not include anybody who voluntarily left, and as discussed above that is not an insignificant portion. So I dont understand how one can say that emigrated includes these two things, but then keep those two things but remove emigrated when that is the one that is not redundant. I see it is now left, but I also think that is understating things, as some certainly were expelled or fled (eg Iraq). I think the original wording of emigrated, fled or expelled is appropriate. But just leaving it as "fled or expelled" is not. nableezy - 13:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Left" was the language Fischbach used - perhaps precisely to avoid using verbs that might prejudice some of the highly variable push or pull factors involved over others. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fischbach is about property claims, it is not a source that is specifically on the migration. The Forced Migration of Jews from Arab Countries in Peace Review is clear on this being primarily a forced migration.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Immigration statistics in the lede

The direction of the recent additions to the lede seems unbalanced. Per Aliyah#Historic data, the big post-statehood immigration stories are:

• 1,300,000 from Russia / USSR
• 800,000 from Muslim countries
• 800,000 from other Eastern European countries (700,000 from Poland and Romania alone)

Focusing on just Muslim countries gives a false picture, and feels WP:POINTy.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Its totally balanced as it tells about refuges from Arab countries that attacked Israel. Shrike (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That isnt what it does? And also isnt what happened? The addition of later waves doesnt make sense in the 1948 paragraph at all. Would just remove that line, it isnt related to any part of what its next to. nableezy - 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the wave up to 1970 because Daveout interpolated later figures into the Fischbach derived line, and also because there is a certain degree of continuity in terms of the drivers of later waves of Middle East migration, but yeah, put the way once does above, I do see it paints a somewhat incomplete picture. An 'Aliyah' paragraph may be of more use than the current ancient history one. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

100 years of Aliyah (Immigration) to Mandatory Palestine and the State of Israel, between 1919 and 2020

An Aliyah sentence, which would be a good addition to the lede, should tell the story shown in this picture.

I think two sentences on population change since 1948 would make sense:

• One sentence explaining that a large number of people left
• One sentence explaining that a large number of people arrived

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As user:Shrike points out above, the issue is the context of the sentence. Many reliable sources, compare and contrast the migration of Arabs from Israel to the migration of Jews from Arab states to Israel after they were forced out.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, because 850k is not Arabs, because it took place over decades, and because a huge number of them were not forced out. nableezy - 13:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

conflict paragraph

The paragraph on the conflict has consensus in the archives, and the meme about the Arab states invaded Israel is both inaccurate and non-neutral. What was Israel, which Arab state actually invaded, as opposed to entered Palestine, and so on. Either way, skewing away from what already has consensus is tendentious. nableezy - 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Plus the fact that the three primary "invading" armies (Jordan, Egypt and Iraq) were British financed, and the countries effectively still British protectorates:

Shlaim, Avi. “Britain and the Arab-Israeli War of 1948.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 16, no. 4, 1987, pp. 50–76. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2536720

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

They mostly didnt even enter any part of the area of the Jewish state. The invaded Palestine sure, though with the consent of the Arab Higher Committee, but certainly not a state that had no borders or recognized territory. It is a propaganda ploy to say "five Arab armies invaded Israel". See for example Israel and the Arab coalition in 1948 in The War for Palestine. nableezy - 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it but has any scholar taken the trouble to write an analysis of the disposition of military forces, those of the Yishuv, and those of various Arab countries, on 14 May 1948? I.e., plotted what parts of the territory assigned to a future Palestinian state were already occupied with fortified settlements, like Gush Etzion, on the day Israel was declared an independent state. Jordan, Nab, did not 'invade Palestine'. It largely reoccupied positions it had withdrawn from prior 14 May 48. The language in scholarly sources for this period is notoriously misleading. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Update

The population is ranked 92 now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population Fun71528 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. PrisonerB (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@PrisonerB: The other details you added would be more suitable in the body - the lead intro is a summary, not an exposition. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The other details which PrisonerB added are highly POV, showing just one element of the many drivers for the immigration. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the most egregious part. If we are including Jews leaving ME well beyond 48, then shouldn't we be including Palestinians leaving post ceasefire and 67? Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Fischbach writes that "Rising anti-Israeli anger in parts of the Arab world led to anti-Semitic laws, practices, and even attacks during and after 1948". This is not POV, but a major portion of the conflict here.PrisonerB (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Using that sentence while overlooking the sentence he writes immediately after it appears tendentious. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that and it is contained in the quote for anyone to read. One cannot pick out from the quote/source bits that one likes and ignore the rest. Btw, it doesn't say "major portion". Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have modified the text using a more specific citation from Peace Review.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Having an Israeli poet (principally) as a source is not an improvement on having a full time professor of history as a source, and that should be obvious. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ada Aharoni is a sociologist and peace researcher, and Peace Review is a peer reviewed journal. Her poetry does not detract from her credentials of a sociologist and peace researcher.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If we must do this (and it has all been done many times before) lets get all the sources and see where the weight should lie. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Fischbach source was precise (provided a number), and there was a broad consensus forming around it - just winging it and replacing it altogether with a random new source is unhelpful to say the least. Ada Aharoni is clearly less of a serious academic, and it is silly to contest otherwise. Her Wiki profile (all unsourced) says that she was "guest lecturer and visiting professor" at several universities, and possibly a full professor at Pennsylvania (uncited). Fischbach is a professor of 30 years focused on this conflict [1]. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Best not to oversell the credentials of Randolph–Macon College, which only teaches undergrads. The Fischbach source is on property restitution issues, which arise from confiscations, and only briefly touches on the forced migration itself.PrisonerB (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Clutching at straws much? A tenured professor is a tenured professor. A guest lecturer is a guest lecturer. Try to spot the career academic. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: It's true that it might now be remiss to not note the 1967 Palestinian exodus of a further c. 300,000 Palestinians if we are aiming for true balance. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@חוקרת: this edit is inappropriate. I am minded to report this behavior if it continues. Two issues:

• The description of mass immigration from other geographic areas was removed without mentioning it in the edit comment
• The re-addition of a one-sided description of the exodus of Jews from Muslim countries was done in light of clear opposition and evidence on this talk page.

Can we please stop wasting time on this. The matter was discussed in great detail a few years ago, and we landed on a reasonable and stable balanced picture at Jewish exodus from the Muslim world: The reasons for the exoduses are manifold, including pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings or find a better economic status and a secure home in Europe or the Americas and, in Israel, a policy change in favour of mass immigration focused on Jews from Arab and Muslim countries,[16] together with push factors, such as persecution / antisemitism, political instability,[17] poverty[17] and expulsion. The history of the exodus has been politicized, given its proposed relevance to the historical narrative of the Arab–Israeli conflict.[18][19] When presenting the history, those who view the Jewish exodus as analogous to the 1948 Palestinian exodus generally emphasize the push factors and consider those who left as refugees, while those who do not, emphasize the pull factors and consider them willing immigrants.[20]

All reliable sources are agreed on this complex and varied picture, and presenting it an unbalanced fashion is unacceptable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Researcher's change is a great improvement, and restores balance recently upset here. The source is more specific to the uprooting. The parallel between the departure of most of the Arabs from Israel and nearly all of the Jews from Arab lands is spelled out by sources. PrisonerB (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Rubbish. The edit is disruptive POV pushing, nothing more, no edit summary, ignoring/deleting reliable sources and consensus here. I too am minded to report it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, it draws directly from the many reliable sources that contrast the two migrations.PrisonerB (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Cherrypicking. "Drawing from" sources needs to be in a balanced and NPOV manner. The proposed edits are deeply POV, ignoring counterpoints even from within the same citation quote paragraph. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the change to general immigration statistics instead of the conflict related migrations. In addition to support by User:PrisonerB for this edit, User:Daveout thanked me for the edit.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I particularly liked that your edit changed the euphemistic "Jews left ..." (contrasted with "Arabs were expelled"). I don't have strong preferences in regards to exact wording, so I'll leave that to you guys to discuss. –Daveout(talk) 12:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

We'll just ignore what the sources say and just edit according to what Daveout likes, that'll work out well. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Now that's uncalled for. –Daveout(talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Im changing it back to emigrated, fled or were expelled. Its trivially easy to source all of those, and thats also what our article on the topic says. nableezy - 13:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The only expulsion in the entire period across the entire region was the 1956–1957 exodus and expulsions from Egypt. It is thought that 500 Jews were expelled in total. That is 0.06% of the total Jewish exodus from Muslim lands, so the word "expulsions" must be used only with due weight.

As to the current drafting reinserted by Nableezy, there is one sentence on Palestinian exodus, two on Jewish immigration from Muslim countries and zero on Jewish immigration from other countries. That is inappropriate weighting.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Add something on European and Russians elsewhere, but it isnt related to the 48 population movements. I would also move the bit on 800k to that area. As far as only expulsions, Id say Iraq qualifies more than Egypt. nableezy - 15:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The 1948-51 influx of Eastern European Jews is related to the war insofar as the creation of the State of Israel allowed for immigration hurdles to be dropped, and the creation of the Jewish-only Law of Return. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean re Iraq. There were no expulsions there. The Iraqi government did not want to lose their Jewish population. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I dont think the actions of Iraq in the early 50s supports that view, but I dont think it matters either. There were expulsions, so we can include that. And even if you feel that this is both-sidesism, well this is still a collaborative project and if you expect to get exactly what you want youre more likely to end up with nothing at all. nableezy - 19:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The source re the 260,000 says "moved to". Someone changed that to "emigrated, fled or were expelled".

I have read much of the detailed scholarly research into the Jewish exodus from Muslim countries, including from Iraq, and can assure you that there were no expulsions in the 1948-51 period that that 260,000 sentence is referring to. It is simply nonsense.

If you want to discuss what happened in Iraq in more detail, please do so at Talk:Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That someone is me. Ill take out expelled until somebody provides a source supporting it. I dont think you can seriously contest "fled" with the next source cited. nableezy - 20:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I am ok with fled. There was real and understandable fear. Scholars have confirmed that the situation was being stoked by Mossad LeAliyah Bet and their affiliates, but irrespective of the blame, there was real anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and if I was an Iraqi Jew in Baghdad I probably would have taken my family out of the country in that environment too.

The alienation and then exodus of these ancient communities is a deeply sad chapter in history. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I didnt add anything on european or russian immigration, but moved out the later Arab migration as not relevant to that paragraph and inserted a bit on the law of return and how later immigration waves increased the proportion of Jews worldwide residing in Israel. nableezy - 15:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Shindler source and detail in terms of proportions is a sensible summary choice versus the spiraling numbers of estimates from different geographies. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Edit request

I certainly do not think it is necessary to put the law of return in the paragraph. It's too much information and a pointlessly long pause, do you agree with me? Fun71528 (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

? Fun71528 (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Don’t you think?? Fun71528 (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Law of return

The reference to the law of returns is not necessary in a paragraph that is too long, it should be deleted and moved to the text itself. The lead is very long and there is no place for this law. Fun71528 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

the lead is very, very long, the paragraph on the law of return should be removed. Fun71528 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The picture in the table.

The image that shows the geography and borders of the country is redundant in the table. After all, there is already a map of the country from the maps of the world, why add to it? Do you think the image should be removed? Fun71528 (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I note that just after passing the 500 edit bar, you immediately came to this article and removed well-sourced information without addressing the talk page, and with a meaningless because subjective edit summary.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

You can see that I opened a discussion several times on the page regarding the Law of Return and did not receive an answer Fun71528 (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, the lack of a response wasn't a concern. Why bother asking in the first place? Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't get an answer, the edit that added information was not good because the article is too long. Do you agree with my statement about the second picture? Fun71528 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe the second picture should be removed? There are already so many geographic pictures in the article. Fun71528 (talk) 08:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Frequently asked questions header and content

Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, just like any other nation state sets their capital Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem

Apart from its being extremely ugly English, the bolded part is clearly both unnecessary and pointy, indeed contrafactual, since it asserts 'normalcy' 'conformity to international practice, whereas the situation there has been historically anomalous. That should be removed. I'd do it myself, but I can't see how to. Nishidani (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It is necessary given the continuation of the sentence "However, the lack of international recognition is notable, hence the subtext was added "(limited recognition)"". It should remain. PrisonerB (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Other nation states don't usually have so much trouble getting other countries to establish embassies in the capital nor do they feel the need to point out where their capital is as if that were something not entirely obvious. Usual thing, changes in Jerusalem "of no legal effect". Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

(a)Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, just like any other nation state sets their capital (b) Israel's seat of government is in Jerusalem.

How anyone can write stet, when (a) and (b) are reduplicative is beyond me. The English for the other part is execrable and stands bracketed or bookended by this pleonasm. Capitals are normatively where seats of government are. That drafting ineptitude is indefensible and the text requires urgent fixing. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"Israel declares Jerusalem to be its capital, just like any other nation state sets their capital." That is one side's argument and should be presented as such. The counter-argument is that, Jerusalem, within wide boundaries, is not, under international law, part of Israeli territory and that unilateral attempts to change its status are considered null and void.     ←   ZScarpia   09:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Verification for what looks like an egregious WP:OR violation

the land held by present-day Israel was once the setting for much of Biblical history, beginning with the 9th-century Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah,

'the land held by present-day Israel' is a euphemism that glosses over the distinction between Israel and the territory it occupies. Israel has its official land, which is largely non-biblical, and occupies the Biblical coreland of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Where in those texts is this statement made by the respective authors? At a minimum, the source and pagination, with a citation of the text supporting such a statement, is required, otherwise it should be removed. Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To begin contrasting historical borders with contemporary ones, in my opinion, is futile. Simply replace "the land held by present-day Israel" with "Ancient Israel". This is the term used most frequently in academic writing about the time period. Tombah (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not asking for your personal opinion. I am asking that work be done to (a) verify if the cited source states what it is said to affirm. If that fails verification then arguing about the language is pointless, since it would be WP:OR. Unless someone can proof that F & S made this remark or something like it, I'll remove it. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

How about we put "The land occupied by present day Israel?" Fair? Selfstudier (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't even be discussing that until someone verifies that Finkelstein et al state what the editor wrote more or less. Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the book itself, but a review of its content by Marvin A. Sweeney indicates its general argument is that biblical history is connected to the archaeological/geographic features of the region, but in a highly distorted and anachronistic manner. According to Sweeney, the book's "basic premise" is "that the historical claims of the Hebrew Bible and the results of archaeological investigation of the land of Israel and surrounding areas are frequently at odds". Sweeney says its argument is that "the basic history presented in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets was written during the reign of King Josiah of Judah during the late seventh century B.C.E. in an effort to support Josiah’s attempts to reunite Israel and Judah under the rule of the Davidic dynasty in the aftermath of the collapse of the Assyrian empire", that "the emergence of a powerful Israelite state dates to the ninth-century rise of northern Israel as a regional power", and that 10th century or earlier evidence of a united Israel under David and Solomon is extremely flimsy/doubtful.

So, without commenting on its reliability as a source, the book does largely appear to support that sentence. If it's included it should probably be attributed. I'm not passing judgement on the most appropriate wording/phrasing in terms of neutrality/accuracy. Jr8825 • Talk 16:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The formulation we have is an inference, apart from the sticky language of the wording (the land Israel holds presumably means Israel holds Israel, and it holds the West Bank. I read extensive sections of that book a decade ago, and the phrasing strikes a strange note: Finkelstein and Silberstein don't talk about 'Biblical history', they are generally dismissive of its historicity, as your review notes. Secondly, as was noted back in the 60s by Runciman, Israel lies outside of most of the area dominated by the Biblical narratives being founded on the Philistine side whereas the Palestinians were located in the area the Bible is so prepossessed about.

Apart from the fact that I dislike any ref system that just alludes to a book, and excludes precise pagination (wiki is based on verifiability, and therefore the page, and, if requested, quotation of the precise words in the original, must be provided in these instances. Israel doesn't 'hold' significant areas of archaeological/Biblical interest where by negotiation, the PA has exclusive authority. To my ears, that sentence sounds like a subtle insinuating endorsement of 'Greater Israel' as an entity legitimated by the Bible's 'history'. act I'm pretty certain that is the purpose of the sentence in question in this unfortunately POV-beleaguered article, So we need the precise quote and page number, otherwise the statement is making an inference from the book.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have the book so if someone wants to give me page numbers. Else here's a quote:

(a)"By the end of the twentieth century, archaeology had shown that there were simply too many material correspondences between the finds in Israel and in the entire Near East and the world described in the Bible to suggest that the Bible was late and fanciful priestly literature, written with no historical basis at all. But at the same time there were too many any contradictions between archaeological finds and the biblical narratives to suggest that the Bible provided a precise description of what actually occurred."

If that's true (as of C20) I can't see how you get from there to any kind of definitive statement at all. Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent detective work, Self. I've slightly modified your post by blocking the quote so that, at a glance, we can see the probable source in Finkelstein for the contested summary in our article, which runs:-

(b)the land held by present-day Israel was once the setting for much of Biblical history, beginning with the 9th-century Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

(a) if anything is diametrically opposed in its drift to what we have here in (b) and therefore )b) is what it sounded like (if that is the source), WP:OR with a pointy thrust. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)