Talk:Israel/Archive 91

Discussion

• Support The RFCbefore in the preceding section indicates consensus to add such a sentence. It summarizes well sourced material from the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion no. Already in the lead there is a well-founded explanation that the Palestinian territories are illegally occupied according to international law. As I said, it is subject to dispute. There is no official international body that confirms that Israel is an "apartheid state" or has "committed crimes against humanity." This is according to the opinion of some non-official human rights organizations. And there is no international body that approves it. Qplb191 (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

What is a “non-official human rights organization” in your comment? Is there a threshold that we should be evaluating against to determine which organizations’ opinions are worth referencing? It appears the source we have is secondary, so presumably they have vetted commentary to some degree. — HTGS (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue, some will say they agree and some will not. But this is not proven unequivocally, for example the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of the European Union claimed that it is impossible to use the word "apartheid" in the context of Israel. ^[1]Qplb191 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose full proposed sentence – per my explanation in the above section (repetitive, long and possibly undue). I'd support adding the first clause only ("Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians") as suggested by Levivich, or similarly brief wording. Jr8825 • Talk 09:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Edit: Support new text proposed below. Jr8825 • Talk 13:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Any discussion of human rights of Palestinians has to be coupled to Palestinian terrorism and to human rights of Israelis to not be victimized by Palestinian terrorism. The issues are inseparable, yet the proposal fails to do that as it mentions one side of it without the other. I'd oppose the above suggestion from User:Jr8825 for the same reason. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  The "bogus propaganda ploy" is the below assertion that terrorism is a response to Israeli actions. Gazans made that clear back in 2005, when they could have chosen to mind their own business, without a conflict with Israel. They didn't. By contrast, Israel has had no problem making peace with Arab neighbors who desire it. So if one wishes to go down the Hamas whataboutism, well, I actually don't object to whataboutisms. But one has to recognize that the situations are different. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't believe Israel is blockading any of its other Arab neighbors, tho, which probably made making peace with them easier. It's hard to mind your own business when you can't leave your country or import anything into it. That aside, I generally agree that violence by Palestinians against Israel should also be mentioned in the lead. The lead is a little flat here and doesn't really explain all that happened in the last 50 years. Put me down as oppose as written for now pending further discussion and also there's already an RfC open about this, we don't need a second. We ought to close that first one and have an RFCBEFORE to workshop the new proposal before confirming it with a second RfC. I just don't think we're there yet (but this new language is a better start than the last proposal). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Im totally fine including Palestinian violence against Israel in the lead as well, it should note of course the more than 20:1 ratio in casualties though. nableezy - 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps a possible way to remain even-handed is to contextualise the first clause of the proposed sentence by placing it in direct proximity to a sentence which links the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? This would require some broader rejigging of the current text. I'm not sure explicit mention of Palestinian violence (e.g. intifadas) is suitable for the lead of Israel itself because of space constraints. Jr8825 • Talk 01:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  WP:NOTFORUM, but here is a refutation of the propaganda you are pushing here. Kindly stop pushing personal viewpoints at odds with actual reliable sources. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 17:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Both the human rights violations and accusations of war crimes/crimes against humanity are highly notable aspects of Israel's military occupation. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Support - obviously. Israel being accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity is a prominent controversy that must, per WP:LEAD, be included in the lead. The lead of WP:LEAD says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Later on it says It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Israel being accused of war crimes by the world's leading human rights organizations, and United Nations bodies and representatives is a prominent controversy, and this single sentence is not UNDUE by any stretch of the imagination. There are countless more sources dedicated to Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories than there are about its HDI ranking, or Tel Aviv being a technological center, or most of the other things discussed in the lead. The propaganda ploy on has to be coupled to Palestinian terrorism and to human rights of Israelis to not be victimized by Palestinian terrorism is just that, and not one reliable sources take seriously. It is a whataboutism, and Palestinian terror is included in the articles on the groups that commit it, including in their leads. Hamas includes who considers it a terrorist organization. It does not use bogus propaganda tactics to say well its just in response to Israeli war crimes, and any mention of terrorism must be tempered by inclusion of the rights of Palestinians to be free of Israeli state terror. nableezy - 15:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm less concerned about the specific language and more that the article's lede is already very long (longer than that of United States, for example), and that there's already language about illegal occupation and the Palestinian conflict. Comparing to the United States lede again, there's a similar amount of critical content, even though there's much more we could say about slavery, inequality, lack of health care, etc. If you want to add the proposed language, it would be good to trim some other parts out. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
• Tentative support for something along these lines. (Summoned by bot) Clearly there's no way this proposal was ever not going to be controversial, and obviously the exact wording will need to be carefully vetted, but having just read the lead through in its entirety, the lack of proper discussion of the controversies relating to Israel's domestic security policies is notable, and I do think there's a way to wedge in at least a part of the proposes statement into existing language in the penultimate paragraph.

As others have noted, the lead is already long-ish, but I believe arguably unavoidably so: a great deal of the lead is devoted to Israel's pre modern state history, which is important, given the modern Israel's origins as a polity are, needless to say, complex. But the counterbalance to this is that with most of the lead discussing the historical context in which Israel arose, I have a hard time accepting we can't spare the space for this salient detail about the nation as it exists and is perceived today. Again, with the sizeable caveat that specific, neutral wording will be needed here, potentially inclusive of a very brief summary statement of how Israeli leaders have contextualized these criticisms/accusations. Note also that if the source utilized in the OP's proposed wording was the only sourcing used to support such a statement, it is probably better (or necessary) to attribute directly to the UNCHR, since it is the only "human rights group" (probably not the most precise description for that body) cited in that source. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as other sources, Israel most condemned by UN in 2020 – three times other nations, , . Israel being condemned by UN bodies and agents for some violation of Palestinian human rights is almost WP:BLUESKY level tbh. nableezy - 22:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of the wider world of citations (and controversy) surrounding this issue, particularly as regards UN censure, but my observation was that the proposed wording was not a great summary of the proffered source--and more generally that clear attribution may end up being critical here in arriving at acceptably neutral language for an addition along the lines being discussed here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Question to Selfstudier I might be missing something, but isn't there already an open RFC on this exact same topic? This is not a comment to oppose the suggestion, just a procedural question as to why we have RfC on the same topicJeppiz (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  I dont really know why this was started as an RFC, there seemed to be a consensus in the RFC above for a line along these lines, but it was reverted. The RFC above was specifically about including apartheid in the lead, not a general statement on human rights. That said, I think a closer may well found consensus for such a thing in a close of that RFC anyway. But as far as I can tell, I made an edit, Tombah reverted it because of an unrelated RFC was not yet concluded, so Selfstudier opened a new RFC about this line specifically. I dont think we need RFCs for every single editing dispute, but alas I am not yet king of Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I would support a sentence on human rights that is concise for the lede, perhaps along the lines of "Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have draw condemnation." GreenCows (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very wordy. The lead is already too long. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment As some have said, trimming the lead (para 2?) is a thought, else nothing can be added to the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Heavens knows I have been trying to rationalize the second paragraph down to something more approximating the bare encyclopedic essentials. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Agree – cutting down the second paragraph would solve a lot of problems. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  +4, get rid of all the empire name-dropping and just write "ruled by a series of empires". That paragraph ought to just be a few sentences. Paradoxically, recent edits appear to be making it longer rather than shorter. Levivich (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. The second paragraph is actually the best part of lead, summarizing 2,500 years of history in a couple of short sentences. Naming major empires that ruled the land is pretty much the bare minimum standard for every other country in Wikipedia with a rich history. Look at the articles on Turkey, Iran or Lebanon for example. If any, we should trim the POV part which mentions the supposed "longest occupation in history" or avoid the selective information that Onceinawhile wants to introduce regarding specific waves of Jewish immigration. As it stands now, the lead is slighty smaller than France's, Spain, Italy or China, and should remain so.Dovidroth (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  It is a history unrelated to the modern state entirely. nableezy - 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Just dropping this here: The content of Lebanon's lead goes all out and starts 7000 years ago, before the start of recorded history. :D Synotia (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'll probably start a new thread about the second paragraph, but I'll just say this for now: that the lead contains Achaemenid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires, which are going to be absolutely meaningless to the average reader ("series of empires" will tell them more than listing the names of the empires), when those empires are almost not at all related to modern Israel except for geographical overlap, yet the lead does not even mention the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which is a war fought by the modern state. Similarly, the lead spells out the Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid caliphates, when it really ought to just link to Caliphate, because all of them held territory that included modern Israel, what's the point in naming them?, yet the lead does not link to Camp David Accords or Oslo Accords, which are major events in the history of the modern state. In my view, the lead is very obviously avoiding anything controversial and filling in the missing space with ancient history. I understand why that is, but it shouldn't be so. Let's fix it. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree.

  I can later help to draft a version focusing more on Israel's modern history (from the New Yishuv in the late 19th century till the present day.) Synotia (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great, I was planning to take a crack at drafting a shorter version of the 2nd paragraph that will help make room for expanding modern history (3rd paragraph starting at 19th century and forward), which I'll post on talk hopefully sometime in the next 24 hours. Levivich (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Link it to History of Israel, apparently a "a historical overview of the Land of Israel, with a Jewish focus." which I had thought was actually the History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel, either, since one seems to be a fork of the other. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  One of those articles is too long and the other is longer; one is old and the other is older. One has a hatnote, This article is a historical overview of the Land of Israel, with a Jewish focus, and the other is called "History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel". What the hell, Wikipedia. Which one do we link in the lead of this article? Levivich (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like a fitting candidate for a merge vote. Synotia (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'd vote for it but I wouldn't want to do the work of actually merging it :-D Levivich (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are human rights problems on both sides, although even adding both could be complicated like others have noted. ParadaJulio (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware that Israel was occupied by Palestine? It is the occupation that gives rise to the majority of the hr breaches, geneva 4, illegal annexation, arbitrary detention, child imprisonment, dual legal system, house demolitions, extrajudicial killings, none of these violations are being committed by Palestinians against Israelis. Are rockets shot at Israel? Yes they are, shall we include that in the lead along with the far longer list of hr abuses carried out by Israel? What are the occupied supposed to do, roll over? Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  The latest United Nations Security Council (the top body) resolution addressing this is Res 2334 of 2016 (US abstention, so passed 14-0)

  "Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions," (and there are other relevant clauses) &

  "Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction," (this bit is the bothsidesism)

  So why do we not get a source that summarizes this? Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the intro is already too long, already extensively describes the occupation, and is already trying to steer the reader into a particular direction by implying that only these 260,000 Jews moved to Israel as a result of the war, and that the rest moved there to chill, get a tan and eat better hummus or something. I get the feeling that the only reason this specific figure within this particular time window was mentioned, was to trivialize the plight of Mizrahi Jews by putting it aside a higher Palestinian figure. This article has issues with fake neutrality by disingenuously playing with numbers. At this tempo, before the end of next year the intro will mention Palestine as PALESTINE every time. ;) Synotia (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Where exactly is the occupation extensively describe[d]? nableezy - 17:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  There's an entire paragraph? I'll drag to you here, can you help me for a sec *hmph*

  Israel has since fought wars with several Arab countries, and since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip—the longest military occupation in modern history—though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed. Israel has effectively annexed 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 are also considered illegal under international law. While Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and has normalized relations with a number of other Arab countries, it remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon, and efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have thus far stalled.

  Synotia (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed I would agree with getting rid of that. I would even agree with some shortening of all the above which is mostly not directly about the occupation but more about the results of it, provided that it is replaced with language that addresses the human rights aspects, eg settlements are illegal..because the settlers installed in them is a breach of Geneva 4 and unilateral annexation is illegal, period, etc.,per the res 2334 above. Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  That has exactly two sentences about the occupation. The most extensive part is that settlements are illegal. It does not however discuss the occupation, extensively or otherwise, other than to say it exists. nableezy - 18:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think you're trying to play with words. If you wish it to be more extensive than that, just propose it clearly. But I personally think it's more than enough, it mentions all the territories. It's an article about Israel in the end, not a museum about the occupation. In contrast, articles about Russia, Turkey, Armenia etc. mention nothing in the lead about the territories they occupy, let alone their human rights violations. In the article about Morocco, a beacon of human rights, the occupation of Western Sahara is talked about in the lead more concisely. Synotia (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  If they are still occupiers 75 oops, 55 years from now, ignoring dozens of UN resolutions, I'm sure that will be reflected in their leads. This is bout Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Turkey has occupied Northern Cyprus for nearly half a century? So does Morocco with Western Sahara? And the Russian Federation has been involved in many more different conflicts than just one. Synotia (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Still about Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  Um, I did propose that, I proposed adding the sustained international condemnation of Israel for its occupation. That is a defining characteristic of the modern state, and as such should be in the lead. Youre the one that disingenuously claimed that the occupation is extensively discussed already, and it is not. nableezy - 18:51, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's pushing it far. Russia for example does not have the term "crimes against humanity" in its lead, despite killing at least 5x more civilians in the city of Mariupol alone in under two months than Palestinian combatants+civilians combined have died since 2008. Neither do other fucked up places like Burma. This is disproportionate. Synotia (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  I dont edit the Russia article, but it should certainly include notable controversies, including its illegal annexations and allegations of war crimes. I dont know what crime against humanity Russia has been accused of, I feel like that phrase engenders an emotional response, but its just a set of crimes in international law. Apartheid being one of them. But we can condense war crimes and crimes against humanity in to and has been accused of committing violations of international humanitarian law? nableezy - 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

  "crimes against humanity" Where does it say that in this article? Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Returning the focus to the lead, if we need to make space for additions by cutting, I think the following details from the third and fourth paragraphs (ignoring the 2nd para, as @Levivich has said he's going to have a stab at shortening it) aren't strictly necessary/of critical importance, even if they're nice to have:

• "During and immediately after the war, around 260,000 Jews emigrated or fled from the Arab world to Israel." In terms of the demographics of Israel, I don't think Jewish immigration from the Arab world was disproportionality greater than from other regions (e.g. Eastern Europe); it appears to be a counterpart/equation to the mention of the Nakba, but I don't think it's essential.
• "though whether Gaza remains occupied following the Israeli disengagement is disputed." as pointed out above.

In terms of additions, while I think a brief summary/mention of occupation policy and abuse of human rights is warranted, I'm against adding all three of the phrases "human rights [violations]", "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" to the lead. While each of the phrases is distinct and relevant, it comes across as pointy including all of them in the lead and is out of step with other country articles with very poor human rights records; one phrase is enough, ideally just "human rights violations" as it encapsulates the other two. @Selfstudier: I presume Synotia is referring to your proposed text in this RfC. Jr8825 • Talk 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"violations of international humanitarian law" (per 2334) is a customary formulation that avoids the word crime(s). War crimes is something else (individuals) and has not as yet risen above the level of accusation, ICC matter. Selfstudier (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I was referring to the RfC proposal. If this goes through unmodified, it would render Israel highly disproportionately and uniquely demonized compared to places with far worse human rights records. Synotia (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It might be helpful for editors complaining about bias (the picking on Israel meme) to test themselves with a method commonplace in cognitive psychology. I.e., one downloads the 278 Amnesty International document, and in a format allowing changes, substitute all words denoting Israeli/Jewish/settler with Palestinian, and vice-versa. So the document becomes an outline of a hypothetical situation where the abuses complained of come from the other boot, with Jews the harassed minority of a separatist Palestinian state. I find it unimaginable that, rereading this hypothetical text, we would not have immediate unanimity that such a Palestine was an antisemitic state. In the reverse version, the reality, we can't agree to call a spade even a foot-worked lever for moving earth.Nishidani (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I did put "or similar", I am not personally hung up on this or that wording, I am more concerned with the principle of the thing ie there is no mention at all right now. Look at what Israel's best friend, the US, says in its report (ref 459 and 460 popups) Selfstudier (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

My eyes didn't catch your comment on Mizrahim during their first flyover; as a matter of fact, contrary to what most people believe, the bulk of Israeli Jews do not have European roots. The bulk are Sephardim who trace their roots to places like Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, etc. And they largely left after the creation of Israel, when antisemitism rendered life in those places impossible for a Jew. Besides Morocco, there are no Jews anymore in those places. I believe in Yemen there's 1 who's in jail. Synotia (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm lost (again), afaics, you are the only one talking about Mizrahi Jews. Selfstudier (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It was a response to In terms of the demographics of Israel, I don't think Jewish immigration from the Arab world was disproportionality greater than from other regions (e.g. Eastern Europe) Synotia (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per AdoringNanny. Talking about human rights without any reference to the conflict and without mentioning the actions of the other would violate WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 08:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion Replace para 4 of lead with (wikilinked and reffed): "Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to commit multiple violations of international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories." This is shorter even with the hr vios included. Selfstudier (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I like the first part of the current version more, but find the latter part of your version better. I propose specifying that the Gaza Strip is, since Hamas got into power, under a joint blockade by Israel and Egypt, with a link to the full article. --Synotia (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The 'joint blockade' is a result of an Israeli stipulation that embargoes the transit of goods through the Rafah border. Any imports or exports must enter or exit via Israel. It is an Israeli blockade. Each time one tweaks in further 'stuff' in this area one gets complications that only invite more tweaking balancing acts. The link is more than adequate.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Who floods smuggling tunnels? Israel or Egypt? Synotia (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the point is that Egypt only blockades under threat of Israeli intervention. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, even the PLO has shown support for this, as it weakens Hamas. Synotia (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

"continues to commit multiple violations of international humanitarian law" should be simplified to: "continues to violate international humanitarian law".

As I mentioned above, I'd like to workshop in the name-drop/wikilink to Israeli–Palestinian conflict into the surrounding context if possible, which in my view would address the concerns of editors who think that only mentioning Israel's human rights violations minimises violence by Palestinians. Jr8825 • Talk 12:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How about:

"Israel subsequently fought wars with several Arab countries, ultimately signing peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and normalizing relations with several other Arab countries but remains formally at war with Syria and Lebanon while attempts to negotiate a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have failed. Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories and the Syrian Golan, illegally annexing the latter as well as East Jerusalem. Israel continues to violate international humanitarian law including the establishment of illegal settlements within the occupied territories."

Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Pretty good. But I believe that the term "Palestinian territories" includes East Jerusalem? I'd word it more like "which includes East Jerusalem".

And I'm still in favor of mentioning the joint blockade. Synotia (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to mention East Jerusalem twice. Can you draft something? That includes Nishidani's point. Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Which point by Nishidani? To be sure we're talking about the same thing. Synotia (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest making use of Gaza Strip The Humanitarian Impact Of 15 Years of the Blockade Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just add something to the effect of "The Israeli military disengaged from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but has been blockading the area jointly with Egypt since Hamas took over control in 2007." Synotia (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

That's already quite long and would need to be even longer if it is to be NPOV, for a start there is no equality of blockade between Israel and Egypt (Nishidani/Iskandar point). Israel imposed restrictions prior to Hamas taking over, disengagement is misleading, etc etc. With just a link to Gaza, everything can be found. Instead of Palestinian territories, put West Bank and Gaza instead, solves it. We can easily expand the para with plenty of things as well as Gaza but the idea is to shorten it to the bare essentials. Selfstudier (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

This is pretty close to what I'd envision, I support it. There a couple of missing commas, and I'm not set on the specific wording, but I think it's the right way forward. I'd be keen to hear others' thoughts on this wording and hope the RfC doesn't drown it out. Jr8825 • Talk 13:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest closing both these RFCs (removing the {{RFC}} tags) and moving this to a new thread about the 4th paragraph. It's a good start, worth continuing the workshopping. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The general direction of travel is not a bad idea. It certainly summarizes some parts better. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. This inclusion, in my humble view, would be totally unbalanced, however, I'm not shocked because it sounds like this article is heading in a way that would make some BDS supporters jump for joy. The West Bank and Gaza Strip's current situation is largely shaped by Palestinian terrorism directed at Israeli civilians over a long period of time, with the largest and most popular Palestinian faction to this day calling for the military destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in its place. Many of the restrictions imposed in the West Bank—perhaps most famously the barrier—were constructed to protect Israeli citizens from terrorists, Following a time in which many Israeli people lost their lives in suicide assaults on buses, restaurants, beaches, and nightclubs. Therefore, in my opinion, there are only two options: either we elaborate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the lede by providing more details about how each side perceives and experiences the conflict, or we leave that to the dedicated article we have on the conflict, to which a link already exists in the lede. I'd go with the second choice. Tombah (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many of Israel's policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as prior editors have noted, are in response to Palestinian terrorism, directed mostly against Israeli citizens, and the fact the most popular factions among Palestinians are terror organizations such as Hamas who call for the destruction of Israel; however, neither the current lede nor the suggested addition makes any mention of this. Discussing accusations against one side only would violate WP:NPOV.Eladkarmel (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm concerned about the phrase "accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity". This is an article about the country, not its government. Is the claim here that the entire population of Israel is accused of crimes against humanity? Presumably not. If we're going to mention this, we should specify who is accused of these things. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Coverage of this condemnation is overwhelming and high-quality, to the point where it is obviously a major aspect of the topic today. Most of the arguments against it above amount to people saying that they personally disagree with the condemnation Israel has received for such-and-such a reason, or that they believe Israel's actions are justified because of such-and-such; but our job is to reflect the sources, not to make arguments ourselves in the lead or to exclude what the sources say because of our personal opinions on the events they describe. An editor's personal belief that Israel shouldn't be receiving condemnation for this because of X or Y or Z is not an argument to exclude coverage of the fact that that condemnation exists; it clearly does, and clearly has sufficiently overwhelming coverage that it belongs in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose as it would need extensive context of the long running Palestinian terrorist attacks against civilians. Adding it by itself would not be balanced. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 14:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Both sides commit terror. The counterbalance to occupation is a range of asymmetrical anti-occupation activities, incl. but not limited to terror (a typical anti-occupation activity, and one also used by Irgun/Lehi against the British). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Adoring nanny and Levivich, though I think we're getting closer. Context is critical in Israel–Palestine issues even more so than most, and the actions of one can't be accurately described without the other. I would propose incorporating this information into the lead's coverage of the conflict rather than tacking it on afterward. In my opinion, the whole history aspect of the lead just needs to be redone. Secondly, this seems to use the phrase "war crimes and crimes against humanity" very loosely. These are two related albeit distinct concepts, and you'd need sourcing that confirms both of them, presumably with actual convictions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support Selfstudier's sentence is well-balanced and encyclopedic, and so many cases of human rights abuses over such a long time, and so widely covered in numerous WP:RS that an inclusion seems warranted. Jeppiz (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support adding the first clause, but oppose adding the last: accusations of crimes against humanity are controversial. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Petition to remove neutrality warning

please see my argument in the above topic, thanks. It is anti-israeli bias on this talk page I am sure which has caused this neutrality warning 2A00:23C5:6433:4301:16F2:9323:A9F3:E826 (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nah. nableezy - 14:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)