Talk:Israel

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

Qazxwsecd (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC) Here are the sources: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRC). Day Creature (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Note: requestor edited original request to include RS and re-opened. IsCat (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I added sources. Qazxwsecd (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

? Something done: Qazxwsecd Sorry for the delay. The text in question had changed slightly since the request, but I thought the half-sentence was a bit vague regardless. I ended up changing it to refer generally to "exodus", as in the event's article's title—which should encompass migration too—but since one function of the text seemed to be mentioning the expulsion/flight (but the previous text didn't do it well imo) I figured I'd put words around that for detail. I think this change makes the immigration detail clearer too. I'm curious if anyone has feedback—I was puzzling over the phrasing for a while.

On another level, I hope this change is good since it's a perfect use of "therefrom" Placeholderer (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 I think this new phrasing is much less clear. It doesn't mention the establishment of Israel as a factor, leaves out migration not caused by antisemitism, and the Jewish exodus isn't specific. I don't know that either source currently used supports "mainly to Israel" either, from the extent I read through them yesterday Placeholderer (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer: The lead is meant to summarize the main topics of the article's massive subject without going into excessive detail. Israeli independence is already mentioned at the start of the paragraph, just a little above. The word "spurred" implies that not all migration was caused by antisemitism. Most of the exodus from the Muslim world—especially during the period discussed in the sentence—was from Arab countries, which are already mentioned. The phrase "mainly to Israel" is supported by the reference at the end of the first paragraph in the linked article, Jewish exodus from the Muslim world. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I dispute that my version was excessive detail. I think it was concise coverage of information worth mentioning in the lead: that Israeli independence had regional effects on treatment of Jews and Jewish population movement. The other version just has Arab antisemitism rising in a vacuum. I don't think the independence mention at the start of the paragraph connects clearly to the passage in question, since between them there's a war and armistice.

Re: "Muslim" vs. "Arab" I deferred to the title of Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but I suppose given the source talks about the "Arab" world instead that's the appropriate word choice here Placeholderer (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't excessive, and even if it was, that doesn't justify removing some content and adding another. I have adjusted the sentence to what I think is a good compromise. M.Bitton (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: your edit implies antisemitism in the Arab world didn't exist before Israeli independence. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

1) That's my revert of your revert. 2) That's not what it implies, and besides, if antisemitism was such a problem in the countries that offered refuge for centuries, then why didn't they migrate before the establishment of Israel? Why did many of them remain? M.Bitton (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Jews living there for centuries doesn't change the fact that hundreds were killed in pogroms before Israeli independence, clearly showing that antisemitism in the Arab world existed beforehand, though not yet at a scale causing mass migration. The word "increased" reflects the history more accurately than "prompted," so why do you oppose it? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 you are clearly going against the consensus established here when you reverted me here Removing wording genocide against Palestinians in gaza and calling it as characterization is not wp:voice its the opposite. You are the reason i had to open that rfc - now you are deliberately going against the rfc

You made the change first here Please respect consensus and immediately self revert Cinaroot  💬 14:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You said - there is text bloating and its a long para. Thats not a valid reason. I realize occupation is linked before - but that link should be removed in favor of mine which is more clearer. You did not have any consensus to make this change in the first place. Cinaroot  💬 15:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The RFC on a different page does not apply here. The current wording already states "Israel began the Gaza genocide." I have replaced "characterization" with "designation" now. In addition, the link should appear at its first mention rather than later in the text, MOS:BUILD. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I gave you wrong rfc. Rfc on this article is Talk:Israel/Archive 111#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians

Im sure you are aware of this. You are using your own words and going against consensus established. Cinaroot  💬 19:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

tagging rfc closer @Cremastra for input. Saying Israel began the Gaza genocide is insufficient. Saying its a designation is also not in the spirit of the rfc. Cinaroot  💬 19:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I do not see TH4's changes is drastic, but I don't think they are an improvement. They don't explicitly go against the broad consensus, but they do change the consensus wording, and as such must be discussed here. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:54, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Reading it again, "committing" is an essential word because it establishes Israel's culpability. Otherwise it sounds like they initiated it at a distance. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

This is simply bad wording:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States dispute this.

Dispute what? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure - we can say - Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that genocide has been committed against Palestinians. Cinaroot  💬 20:56, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

or dispute that its actions constitute genocide Cinaroot  💬 21:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4 Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence. Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there.

I think you not considering - Do not re-link in other sections if not contextually important there.

Its very important here - not so important in earlier sentence. Cinaroot  💬 21:09, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and the Egyptian Sinai, and annexed East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights.

above its understood whats occupied means

Link better works here

Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn international criticism, with experts calling its actions war crimes and crimes against humanity. Cinaroot  💬 21:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead is one section. The guideline says to include a link once per section, at its first mention. Also, your recent edits again bloat the lead. The word "designation" is neutral and can help keep the text concise. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I restored to edit that previously existed. lets wait for other editors feedback. its not a designation. its consensus Israel has committed genocide. Cinaroot  💬 23:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference, here's what Cinaroot is opposing:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began the Gaza genocide—a designation rejected by Israel and several other countries, including the United States.

And here's what Cinaroot is restoring:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.

This isn't about the subject of the RFC or whether the term "genocide" has consensus or not. I'm trying to keep the text concise, whereas Cinaroot is adding unnecessary wording to an already long paragraph. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

While the second version's wording is slightly longer, I think it's actually clearer.

"Gaza genocide" isn't a proper noun, rather, it's descriptive in nature (otherwise it would be "Gaza Genocide"), so "Israel began the Gaza genocide" reads poorly. Also, the first version's wording reads as if Israel is rejecting the term itself, rather then the substance of the accusation, that their action's constitute genocide.

I think clarity is more important here then concision. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my edit description, the sources use the word reject, so that should not be changed to dispute. JasonMacker (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

We are not compelled to use the exact words of the sources. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

But the “reject that” formulation is bad English. You’d need to say “reject the claim” or “reject the charge”, as in the sources, which might open new controversies, so “dispute” seems simpler. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

In this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=1331815456, the third paragraph of the article ends with the following three sentences:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a genocide case against Israel, and it has acknowledged a 'plausible' case of genocide, and a 'catastrophic humanitarian situation' arising from Israel's military offensive and aid restriction.

In the reverted version, it ends with the following two sentences:

After the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.

I explained the reason for the edit at the time I made it - a bunch of references supporting the claim that Israel committed genocide were buried in a note that was prefaced with indescriptive text 'Multiple sources:', so there was a need to give it a better lead-text, which I did - I changed it to 'Multiple sources supporting the assertion that Israel is or was committing genocide including IAGS and OHCHR:'

More concerning was the fact that the last three sources actually are not good sources in support of the claim - they're orders made by the International Court of Justice that do not definitively declare a genocide, which is to be expected, because the court has a tradition of using obfuscating language in their pre-verdict statements so as not to pre-empt or prejudice their verdict. Instead, I moved those references to the end, after a brief statement about the ICJ genocide case against Israel. 36 words in an article that previously didn't even mention South Africa's genocide case against Israel. To call it "bloat" and against "consensus" is just absolute rubbish. MathewMunro (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This adds unnecessary undue weight to an already long lead paragraph and goes against the recent RFC. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

The sentence 'The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently hearing a genocide case against Israel, and it has acknowledged a 'plausible' case of genocide, and a 'catastrophic humanitarian situation' arising from Israel's military offensive and aid restriction.' is no more undue than the sentence 'Israel and several other countries, including the United States, dispute that Israel's actions constitute genocide.'

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: "Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia."

To: "Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia, established in 1948 as a homeland for the Jewish people."

Reason: This is a well-documented historical fact about Israel's founding, sourced from Israel's Declaration of Independence (1948) and UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947). The lead paragraph currently describes geography but omits this fundamental context about the state's establishment. ~2026-29786-6 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The historical context of Israel's founding is already described in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Day Creature (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories has drawn international criticism, with experts calling its actions war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Occupation of the Palestinian territories - in lede must be linked to Israeli-occupied territories - i'm getting pushback from Triggerhippie4 - from linking it - citing MOS:DUPLINK - but it is contextually important and it is within communities discretion. Please vote Cinaroot  💬 05:06, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems like an appropriate/necessary wikilink to me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect ISrael has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 26 § ISrael until a consensus is reached. — Anonymous 04:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the sentence "while Israeli independence prompted antisemitism in the Arab world" to "while Israeli independence increased antisemitism in the Arab world". The implication that antisemitism only appeared in the Arab World after the establishment of Israel is incredibly ahistorical. GeminiHeron (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: This change will require a consensus in its favor before it can be implemented. See the discussion above in the section titled "Edit request 23 December 2025". Day Creature (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

GeminiHeron cannot participate in such a discussion as they are not extended confirmed. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I didn't mean to imply that they should participate in that discussion or any other one. I was just pointing out why their edit request is controversial. Day Creature (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand, that was more for them. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia to Israel,[a] officially the State of Israel,[b] is a partially recognized country in the Southern Levant region of West Asia. The same should be done for Palestine ~2026-14945-54 (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 16:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)