Jump to content

Talk:Israel/Archive 100

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102→Archive 105

Request for Comment on apartheid charges

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was a request for comments in which editors discussed whether or not to include the accusations of apartheid against Israel in the lead section of this article. An initial tally of the opinions expressed by editors in this discussion would indicate a large numerical majority for editors opposing inclusion. However, examination of the comments reveals that a number of comments are either not relevant in the context of relevant policies and guidelines, or employ reasoning in conflict with said policies and guidelines. Taking this into account, the sides now appear quite evenly matched.

Amongst these comments, the ones in favour of inclusion tended to argue from the prominence of these accusations in the body of the article, and that they therefore should be summarized in the lead; opposers employed a variety of arguments, including comparison to other articles, comparison to other tertiary sources, NPOV, a need for contextualizing the information that the lead does not allow, and also the relative prominence of the information within the body. All considered, after discounting clearly irrelevant comments, there was a rather even split of voices for and against inclusion, and on the policy-merits, neither can be said to have been so unambiguously right or wrong to declare a consensus here. Thencefore, in the present rfc there is no consensus either for or against inclusion.

During the rfc, Nableezy laid forth another proposal that focuses on crimes against humanity in general, rather than apartheid specifically. This proposal attracted interest from participants on both sides of the discussion, but no wording concrete enough to attain consensus was achieved. I suggest interested editors continue working on this idea in light of the arguments presented at this rfc.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


Is this additional sentence in bold to be added to the lede an accurate summarization to the body's apartheid section?

Main argument for its inclusion, MOS:LEDE: lede is a summary of the body, including any prominent controversies.

"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid." Makeandtoss (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Warning for closing editor users with pro-Israel viewpoints have been canvassed en masse to this RFC specifically. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
If the sentence is preceded by "have drawn international condemnation for," then it would be poorly phrased because it might suggest that the international community (i.e., international organizations like the UN and a significant number of countries, especially important ones) has accused Israel of this crime. I could be wrong, but as far I know, this is not yet the case. Mawer10 (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Mawer10: I understand and sympathize with your point; and thus have removed "international" to make it less restrictive. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: I agree with @Mistamystery 1000%. EytanMelech (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose An accusation doth not a crime make. Appropriate for the body, not the lede. The current “international condemnation” line is sufficient and neutral to the point. The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. Mistamystery (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

We already had an RFC about this less than six months ago and the result was not to include the apartheid accusation in lead. If you want to change that, you need to wait and then start another RFC on the same subject, although I think it was pretty clear the general consensus was against it and there's no reason to believe it has changed since then. Dovidroth (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, that RFC was never even closed, so I'm not quite sure how you are determining consensus there. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Plus this is a different phrasing. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
That there is "plenty of territory in the body", as noted above, is the principal reason why, as noted below by O3000, it should be in the lead, which is expressly a summary of the contents of the body, per MOS:LEAD. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Support: This is 100% the single-most notable claim and controversy regarding Israel at this point in time. It is such a notable complaint that the Israel and apartheid page is overflowing with content. There is also ample reference to it here, on this page, in the summary of the child article. Following the most basic principle of proportionality and what is due in the lead based on the contents of the page, per MOS:LEAD, the 200 words on apartheid on the page account for roughly 1.2% of the total volume of readable prose on the page, which would be equivalent to 8 words of the 660 words in the lead, which is not far off what is being requested. And again, that is before one even considers the notability of the controversy in question and the 12,000 words on the child article. Notable controversies are to be included in the lead, per MOS:LEAD, and this is obviously a notable controversy. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Without the context of the peace negotiations that started in the 70s, peace treaties with neighboring countries, various agreements, and a multitude of offers and suggestions - the term "longest" is a misinterpretation and even misleading the thought of the reader. I may also be perceived as a bias that violates the NPOV and erode the trust of the readers to receive a well rounded picture.
  2. Palestinians and other that don't allowing Jews into the Jewish historical Holy Lands is in deed a Palestinian Apartheid against Jews, which is worse than the definition at the article Apartheid as a system of institutionalised racial segregation, but still even more worse when Jews are posed with danger of life in Palestinian areas. Nothing like that exists in Israel, neither the sovereign Israel nor internationally accepted boundaries of Israel, or any other definition you'll come up with.
TaBaZzz (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
What is your source for Palestinian Apartheid against Jews? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
None of what you said negates the main argument; that the lede is a summary of body including any prominent controversies. "Palestinian Apartheid against Jews" is unsourced. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Correct. I oppose both the wording of the sentence as you suggested it for the lede, and the inclusion of the said details in the body. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose.
  1. A disproportionate amount of the lead section is already devoted to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which does not provide a balanced overview of the state. Israel, as a nation, encompasses much more than this conflict, and it is essential that the lead reflects a more holistic representation of the country. While it's undeniable that the conflict is a significant aspect of Israel's current situation, and the lead has ample coverage of this notable controversy, there are myriad other facets of the nation that should be elaborated upon to provide a well-rounded introduction.
  2. The suggestion to feature accusations of apartheid against Israel in the lead, which remain as yet unproven allegations, are essentially used as no more than a pejorative and derogatory term. For a balanced portrayal, it is imperative to provide due weight to other dimensions of Israel's geopolitical, cultural, and societal landscape.
  3. Moreover, a comparative analysis with other articles such as USA and UK, where similar accusations of imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism respectively, have been made, yet are not featured in the lead sections of their articles, underscores a potential inconsistency in editorial approach. This inconsistency may inadvertently lead to a biased representation, which is against the principles of a neutral point of view as stipulated by our guidelines.
  4. Other, reputable sources such as Britannica [1] and CIA world factbook [2] do not use the word 'Apartheid', and for a good reason.
Marokwitz (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Google Israel in any given year and you will find nothing but articles on the conflict, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Actually, they are not accusations, but I have included this as a concession, these are reports that have conclusive findings after decades of research. When USA and UK have sections dedicated for imperialism and state-sponsored terrorism, you will find it in the lede, since the lede, is simply a summary of the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Support Something in the lead, per WP:LEAD, to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies", that this is a prominent controversy is not in any doubt, this RFC notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - @Marokwitz makes very fair points. I'd advise to read them. Indeed, one must pay attention to how major trusted encyclopedias such as Britannica and the CIA world factbook refer to this topic. They indeed DO NOT use the word Apartheid.
Most countries, especially countries recognized as Free and democratic do not accept or claim that Apartheid is happening in Israel. Furthermore, other countries with discriminatory practices towards minorities such as China, Russia, India etc. do not have Apartheid in their lead.
Furthermore, countries with well known discrimination against minorities such as Iran, Turkey, Iraq (against Christians, Kurds... etc.) do not have Apartheid in their lead.
Therefore, it seems only logical that Israel which most countries (especially democratic countries that adhere to human rights) do not claim that Apartheid is occurring there should not have in its lead the word Apartheid.
On discrimination and Racism in international indexes such as [3] ,[4],
Let's be as professional as possible on this topic and act in accordance to for example: Freedom House, or follow the lead of Britannica and the CIA World Factbook. I must say that this is incredibly important in order to ensure that Wikipedia remains a trusted encyclopedia.
I recommend reading the Freedom House Report [5] Homerethegreat (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The discussion here is about whether this statement in the lede reflects the body content accurately. Your arguments revolve how apartheid in Israel, which has a dedicated Wikipedia article Israel and apartheid, doesn't exist. You are fighting problems irrelevant to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Please read once again my comments. I'm ascertaining that in accordance to rankings regarding discrimination against minorities Israel does not rank in a place that is reflective of the need of the use of this terminology. One would expect this word to first be brought up in regards to discrimination against Christians in several Muslim countries, discrimination against the Uyghur Muslims by China etc.
Please refer to international data. I believe that FREEDOM HOUSE is far a better expert on Freedom than most of the panel here and therefore I refer you to read their passage. There is no use of the word Apartheid. Please refer to BRITTANICA etc. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Freedom House is funded by the US state department and is nowhere near to be as reliable or comparable to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations. You're arguing against existence of apartheid, which is not the main discussion here about how accurately this sentence in the lede reflects the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
To put things in perspective, Gal Ariely (2021). Israel’s Regime Untangled:Between Democracy and Apartheid. Cambridge University Press. gives a full description of the competing descriptions of the Israeli regime on page 1 of Chapter 1 "Israel has often been considered and classified as a democracy. In his classic study Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, Lijphart (1984) included Israel in the category of “clear and unquestionable cases of democracy” (38). Ever since then, however, scholars from a range of disciplines – sociology, geography, philosophy, history, and political science – have been challenging Israel’s status as a democracy. While many still regard Israel a democracy (see Arian et al. 2003; Neuberger 2000; Yakobson and Rubinstein 2009), some have questioned the verity of this classification, suggesting that Israel is an “ethnocracy” (Yiftachel 2006), a “herrenvolk democracy”(Benvenisti 1988), or an “apartheid regime” (Davis 2003; Greenstein 2012; Pappé 2015). Between the two poles of democracy and non-democracy, others have classified Israel as a type of diminished democracy, labeling it an“ethnic democracy” (Smooha 1990), “illiberal democracy” (Peleg 2007), “hybrid regime” (Harel-Shalev and Peleg 2014), “Orthodemocracy” (Giommoni 2013), or a “theocratic democracy” (Ben-Yehuda 2010)." So the naysayers were on the rise when this book was written and which is prior to the HR/Amnesty and other reports of recent date. Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
But that's just it, there's massive disagreement, as you yourself have pointed out. The case is enough to have mention in the article, but that level of massive disagreement, doesn't pass the level for lede inclusion. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said below, if one believes Israel is a democracy, there is nothing further to be said. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
First, that's not what you said below, second, you literally cited other sources yourself saying that it is a democracy, so clearly there is disagreement with your viewpoint on that. Are you sure that you have the objectivity to be part of this discussion? You seem to be making this about me as an editor and not about the topic of the article. I would again ask you to strike your comment. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:AVOIDYOU Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
{{{1}}}
I have cited sources and policy, I see nothing wrong with that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You have no cited sources in the diffs I just showed you, and you violated the very policies that you are claiming. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Regardless, the first convo I initiated was with a source and the second with a quote from policy. Downhill from there. Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Cite the source saying that I personally do not believe this to be a prominent controversy. Otherwise, strike the comment that you yourself have said was at least "perhaps" a misunderstanding of what I said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that you do believe it to be a prominent controversy? It would be good to have an answer to my question, although it's not obligatory. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the first point raised by Marokwitz. I would argue that the status of Arabs in Israel itself is more prominent for the introduction than the accusation of apartheid, which is widely used to refer to the status of Palestinians in the occupied territories. The introduction already informs that their human rights are violated and settlements are being built on their land. Israel's status as a Jewish ethnocracy essentially relegates 20% of its citizens to second-class status. Mawer10 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the international and accepted definition of Israel's governance, which is a Unitary parliamentary republic and recognized as free by Freedom House.[6] The use of the word Jewish ethnocracy reflects a POV. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It is not a particularly unusual or even minority POV; it is essentially the same thing as saying "Israel is a racist state", which has been a popular conclusion ever since the voting in of the extremely widely decried as bigoted Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, so much so that the US House felt compelled to counter it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Highly disputed accusation by partisan sources. No other country currently accused of apartheid has such a thing in lead. Dovidroth (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: And exactly how many of those other countries have a dedicated, substantive page on said apartheid accusations akin to Israel and apartheid - apart from the whataboutism of this, it's apples and oranges. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
China has some pretty lengthy sections of article text on their treatment of Uyghurs, but it is not mentioned in the article lead. Considering that China is accused of setting up internment camps with up to a million people in them, and credible accusations of organized forced sterilization, sexual abuse, and forced labor, yet none of this is in the article lead, I don't think this is entirely "whataboutism." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you think that's a prominent controversy that ought to be mentioned in the China article, then go edit that article. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the article. It just isn't mentioned in the lede. Possibly due to the similar issues we have here over how contentious the accusations are on an international level. I'm not calling for removal of content here anymore than I am there. I'm opposing a change being made here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposing a change being made here Based on the China article. Which is not an argument about whether something should be in the lead here. Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? Selfstudier (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Enough to be mentioned in the article, but too contentious and overly partisan to put in the lede, which elevates it to a more defining quality of the state itself. I do not find it universally accepted anywhere near enough to do that, no. Thus, I am not calling for its removal from the article, but opposing it being put in the lede, which is a similar treatment being done in other articles with prominent controversies. To use the China article again as an example, the events of Tienanmen Square in 1989 are mentioned in the lede, and outside of China itself, are near universally recognized to have happened as described by the international community. The same cannot be said here for this article. WP:WHATABOUTISM does not mean that we cannot use other articles to illustrate a point that we are trying to make. I'm making an argument about the issue here, and using another article as an example point, but not as a precedent. To quote, "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."--OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you don't agree that it is a prominent controversy, there is nothing more to say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
That's an outright dishonest characterization of what I said, and I would ask you to strike your comment. Literally my first seven words in the post you just responded to call out your response as dishonest, false, and bordering on WP:NPA. Assume good faith, and that people are responding to you honestly, and do not lie about what they have said. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I asked a straightforward question, Do you agree that it is a "prominent controversy"? and the reply indicates not. Perhaps I misunderstood. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how an answer of "enough to be mentioned in the article" can possibly be construed as saying "no, not at all." Furthermore, you are making this about me as an editor and not the topic being discussed or how it is characterized among reliable sources and international acceptance. I am asking you again to strike your comment. You did not "perhaps" misunderstand. Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
As I said above, WP:AVOIDYOU. Selfstudier (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Then sue them for defamation in a real world court or take them to a noticeboard. This is not the venue to be making vague legal threats in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support Many organizations/countries vociferously claim apartheid and many vociferously deny. That makes it a prominent controversy that belongs in an article summary. One of the arguments here opposing is The apartheid accusation has plenty of territory in the body of the article, and on other articles focused on the topic. Wholly inappropriate imo to put in the lede. That would seem to be an argument supporting inclusion in a summary, not exclusion. Kinda like saying there is so much text in the cows article about cows that there is no need to mention cows in its lead. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Support, per Iskandar323--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some good arguments have been made before (there was a recent RfC, general state of human rights in Israel, other countries that are accused of apartheid not having it in the lede). There is no reason to single out this particular accusation of human rights violation. Consider China, despite the accusations of apartheid against the Uighurs, we (rightly) only mention the overall state of human rights in the lede. Alaexis¿question? 15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Again, the case of the Uyghurs is a red herring. The famous accusation there is of a Uyghur genocide, not apartheid. There is not a 12,000-word page about Uyghur apartheid akin to Israel and apartheid. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Besides the fact it is whataboutism. Different articles are different O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, the lead for China does mention the man-made Great Chinese Famine, and it should mention Uyghur genocide very briefly.VR talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The accusations of apartheid are based in legal and technical language, but they also carry strong echoes of the South African apartheid. While there are similarities between the Israeli and South African situations, there's a distinct context to be recognized. Given the need for a better contextualization, it appears more appropriate to keep these accusations in the main body of the article. In fact, these accusations primarily pertain to the situation of Palestinians in the occupied territories, not Israel proper, within the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At this point, the privileged status of Jews in Israel proper that led the country being accused of ethnocracy seems more relevant to add in the introduction, which gives to the reader a better understanding of the country and an initial insight for why is it being accused of apartheid. Mawer10 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Most of the countries you list do have their most serious allegations in the lead. For example, the lead for Sudan says "widespread human rights abuses, including torture, persecution of minorities, alleged sponsorship global terrorism, and ethnic genocide in Darfur from 2003–2020. Overall, the regime killed an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 people." The lead for United States mentions its slavery. North Korea's lead says "The country is widely considered to have the worst human rights record in the world."VR talk 11:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Weasel words and unbalanced. Ar2332 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    From MOS:WEASEL: "[so-called weasel words] may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." WillowCity(talk) 00:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support: I would oppose if more words than this were being proposed or if it were inserted in an unduly prominent place in the lead, but this is a concise and due summary; I don't see the problem. We are not saying in our voice that the allegation is correct, but simply relaying an important debate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a prominent area of controversy and relevant to any encyclopedic discussion of Israel in 2023. At the time of writing this comment, the body of the article includes the word "apartheid" 7 times: approximately the same number as "Canaan", and more times than "OECD" and variations of "normalize" (i.e., normalization of relations with Arab states), all of which are mentioned in the lead. The MOS:LEAD is clear: we include "any prominent controversies". A single clause in a single sentence is not undue. The proposed sentence does not pass judgment, but points out an accusation and presages further discussion (i.e., exactly what the lead is supposed to do). I could continue to reiterate points that other editors have made (more eloquently) above, but I think the point is made. WillowCity(talk) 00:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MOS:LEAD is cited heavily as supporting the inclusion of controversies, but my response is that the particular sentence is footnoted with do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section. The salient issue here for the closer is whether or not this particular accusation is prominent. I don't believe it is. No other major encyclopedia treats the "apartheid" accusation as prominent enough to include in their own leads. This is important, because the closer shouldn't be judging what controversies are prominent based on secondary sources, they should be judging based on tertiary sources. Tertiary sources are the only kind of sources that evaluate the relative prominence of different subtopics to a broader one, as they summarize the agreements/disagreements within a broad field. Right now, the only tertiary sources given (Britannica, World Factbook, Freedom House) don't consider the specific accusation of apartheid to be relevant. United Nations resolutions are primary sources, by the way. And Amnesty Intl believes in the destruction of the Jewish state. [7] It's a pressure group with an ulterior motive. Not a reliable source.
I should also point out that this isn't any kind of accusation. The crime of apartheid is defined by the accusers as a crime against humanity. We can and should compare this case to other cases in which a country was accused of crimes against humanity. This is something done by other oppose !voters, and all of the other examples do not have specific criminal accusations levied against them in the lede. "Genocide" is not mentioned in our articles on Myanmar or China. The subject of racial tensions is not even mentioned in the lede of our article on the United States. No mention of segregation in the United States. Adopting the proposal above would be applying a standard to Israel that no other country in the world is currently subjected to on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Hard to see how the topic here is a "less important controversy". The point about tertiary sources might have seemed reasonable, if it hadn't been followed up by the attempt to smear Amnesty, when what the director in question actually said is that Israel shouldn't exist as a racist state, in the context of it's passing of a racist nation state law, which, ironically, is one of the very things that has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. And then we have the usual whataboutism. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Bold take that doesn't change the fact that Amnesty international is a non-neutral pressure group which has been confirmed at RfCs at WP:RSN (global consensus!). [8] Even if you agree with their goals about Israel (your opinions that Israel's nation-state law makes it an apartheid state is irrelevant), they're still an active party to the dispute over Israel being an apartheid state. They don't get to decide that their own opinions are prominent by the word & intention of the policy. That has to be done by neutral tertiary sources. You've more or less acknowledged "tertiary sources" is a reasonable standard because your only justification as to why it isn't is because I supposedly smeared Amnesty as in your view Israel really is an apartheid state.
And "whataboutism" doesn't apply to extracting principles from quality articles on Wikipedia. The amazing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains better than I can that comparisons are valid when made with articles that have been through previous discussions, because it gives an understanding of what principles most of the encyclopedia run under. Not every recent controversy is important enough to include in the lede of an article about a nation with a 2000+ year history. The use of the word "apartheid" is a relatively minor segment of the overall debate over Israel, given our dozens of articles on the broad subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict. [9]
If you want a better compromise I would propose to include something like how Israel is defined as a nation-state for the Jewish people. That's something Britannica acknowledges in their lede, and in your view has helped cement its status as an apartheid state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Are we reading the same RFC at RSN and the global consensus that Amnesty is indeed a generally reliable source but also that it is biased against human rights abuses? And no, the crime of apartheid is not defined by its accusers as anything, it is defined by the Rome statute as a crime against humanity. That phrase seems to engender an emotional response, but it is just a class of crimes under international law. And no, Amnesty is not an active party to anything, they are definitionaly secondary to what they are reporting on. Amnesty International "believes in the destruction of the Jewish state"? Wow lol, hell of an interpretation of ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’. That sort of hysterical and nonsensical reading of a comment opposed to racial subjugation doesnt make your argument stronger. nableezy - 00:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy: Go read comments at the RfC and you'll see plenty of people other than yourself calling it an advocacy organization. And he pretty clearly said in representing Amnesty's views that We are opposed to the idea — and this, I think, is an existential part of the debate — that Israel should be preserved as a state for the Jewish people. As an advocacy organization, it advocates that Israel is bad and shouldn't exist as a Jewish state. They have a point of view. They don't get to decide that their own point of view is prominent. They're the people who put out a report calling Israel an apartheid state. Using that report (or any books on why Israel is an apartheid state) as evidence the controversy is "prominent" is circular reasoning. You need to provide sources that give a broad overview of Israel and acknowledge prominently the apartheid controversy.
I think your comment would be better if you said why we shouldn't focus on tertiary sources, rather than zeroing in on Amnesty Intl and calling my comment "hysterical and nonsensical". I would like to know if you agree with emphasizing tertiary sources.
In response to what you said about whether or not apartheid is a crime against humanity, you haven't really addressed the actual point I've made which is whether or not we should compare it against other allegations of crimes against humanity. If apartheid is on the same level as genocide we should look to examples of other countries with high quality articles that have been accused of genocide and check if they include this material in their lede. Our article on Canada doesn't mention genocide of the indigenous in the lede despite being a featured article. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they advocate for human rights. And yes, they are generally reliable. Your own source says O’Brien reportedly said in a luncheon with the Women’s National Democratic Club in Washington and then says My exact words were as follows: ‘No I don’t believe that Israel should be preserved as a state in which one race is legally entitled to oppress another’ and The rights group official added, “Amnesty supports the right of the Jewish people and Palestinian people to self-determination.” You can keep pretending like the source actually supports what you claim, but that is not true, and people should know it is not true. Yes, Amnesty criticizes human rights violations by Israel (gasp!). That does not make them a primary source on those human rights violations, they remain secondary to what they are covering (and reliable). You can pretend that means it advocates that Israel is bad, but that is likewise not true and people should know it is not true. Our article on Canada, or the United States, or Japan, are largely hagiographies that dont discuss things that they should, but also Canada is not accused of actively committing genocide or any other crime against humanity. So, no, that isnt anywhere close to analogous. You could say China or Myanmar or some other states accused of active crimes against humanity, but, as always, another article's faults dont mean this one should be poorly written as well. As for why we should not be emphasizing tertiary sources, well because WP:SOURCETYPES tells us we should prefer secondary sources. We are the tertiary source, or task is (largely) to summarize the secondary sources. nableezy - 00:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to accuse me of fabricating the quote in [10] there's not a lot more I can say. He denied he said it, but anyone can click the article and see that exact quote in the third sentence.
Re: Canada, a govt inquiry concluded that Canada committed genocide. [11] Go read WP:OSE (which you linked) and you'll see that comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. Canada is an FA. Canadian Indian residential school system is an FA. The Canadian House of Commons unanimously agreed that system was genocide. I'd like to know why this isn't analogous, because it's a controversy not included in Canada's lede.
In terms of emphasizing tertiary sources, those are the sources that determine if a controversy detailed in secondary sources is prominent. I can find hundreds of secondary sources on almost any aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's our task to summarize secondary sources, but when the summarization itself is controversial, shouldn't we be following reliable tertiary sources that know more about summarizing secondary sources? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, anybody can, and they can see that the source only says that he reportedly said this, not that he did. And beyond that, so what? So what if somebody does not believe in an ethnocracy? Why is that relevant? Its misdirection, an ad hominem, and also completely irrelevant. As far as Canada, I believe you missed the point. Nobody is accusing Canada of actively committing genocide now. It is history, not present tense. So it is not analogous to this accusation of what not just Amnesty but HRW and Btselem and UN agencies and experts and scholars and and and have said about an ongoing crime against humanity being committed in the present tense. And no, your bit on tertiary sources is simply not true. You dont know Britannica's, or any other tertiary source, editorial policies on these topics, and you also are not in a position to judge its own biases. We aim to proportionally describe significant views as our editorial policy, not mimic some other tertiary source. nableezy - 01:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree entirely with nableezy. Canada is not relevant, nor other examples of bad behavior in past history. Different articles are about different things. Older tertiary sources are not summarizing recent secondary sources and we prefer secondary sources anyhow. Amnesty is considered generally reliable for facts. It is an excellent source for such determinations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Since pretty much everybody considers the nation state law a racist piece of legislation, that would be correct, I could certainly find sources saying as much. Selfstudier (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the reader should decide that, and that it's possible to develop a vague/inconclusive wording that acknowledges the law and controversy over Israel being a Jewish state. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support. We're not saying it in the article voice; we're saying that it is an accusation people make (which is detailed in more depth in the body, so it isn't weasel wording.) And it certainly is an accusation people make, so the only question is whether it is WP:DUE for the lead. Given the massive amount of high-quality sourcing over an extended period of time, it plainly is; WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY also says that the significant coverage in the body has to be reflected in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unbalanced and singling out Israel unfairly and in a non-neutral manner. This proposal is raised here by the same actors and has been rejected here before. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I prefer something like Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials. I see no reason why this specific crime against humanity should be emphasized over other violations of international law, such as the settlements, the wall, the blockade of Gaza, the collective punishment, the restrictions on Palestinian fishermen, and yes the apartheid. All of those have drawn sustained international criticism, so much so that I cannot imagine how somebody can claim it is not a defining trait of modern Israel. But I personally dont get why so many people harp on this one crime, and yes I understand that as a crime it contains elements of other crimes, but you are just scratching the surface with this sentence, and it gets emotional, for whatever reason, on all sides of the topic. But the current wording downplays the criticism, and the proposed wording still undersells it while trying to use people's emotional, but generally uninformed, response to that word. Something should be included, I dont necessarily think it is this though. What I propose, in addition to being accurate, succinct, and generally brilliant, actually summarizes the topic as covered in the article as well. nableezy - 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    While I clearly disagree with you on virtually everything related to this conflict I can agree with enough of your logic to work with the proposed wording. The only issue I have is with the implication that the United Nations accused Israel of crimes against humanity. It's the United Nations Human Rights Council that accused Israel of war crimes and "possible crimes against humanity". There are United Nations officials who have taken positions on both sides of the conflict, it's WP:UNDUE to highlight a few. The institutions themselves that have officially criticized Israel are more important. The criticism also hasn't been "sustained" and has gone up/down according to Israel and the United Nations. The word "practices" could also be changed to "actions" for clarity of prose/simpler language. Ditto for "against the Palestinian people" since it's redundant if they're in the Palestinian territories and if the previous sentence is kept.
    A better wording might be Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism along with accusations that it has commited war crimes from the United Nations Human Rights Council and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations.
    I'd argue this is more accurate, succinct, and spotlights the institution of the United Nations Human Rights Council rather than a few officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Chess: It looks good, just a few tweaks for more cohesion and a smoother flow of information: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and the UNHRC. Voilà, c'est tout. Additionally, some information about the state of Israeli 'democracy' could be placed in the fourth paragraph. Mawer10 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    @Mawer10: the UNHRC hasn't formally accused (i.e. Passed a resolution) Israel of crimes against humanity which is why I worded it the way I did. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Since the UNHRC has not formally accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity its mention should be excluded, and only reference the human rights organizations, which have accused the country of both committing crimes against humanity and war crimes. Mawer10 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    War crimes and crimes against humanity are both Atrocity crimes so you could shorten it up a bit that way. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe "additionally accused Israel of crimes against humanity?" I think the presence of the United Nations or some body under it is something people wanting to add stuff to the lede feel strongly about. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Then the accusations from the Rapporteurs and the UNHRC Commission of Inquiry should be mentioned. Alternatively, do not mention specifically where all these many accusations are coming from, since it has been dealt with in the article body in any event. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I said United Nations officials, which I would include Volker Turk (UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, not a part of the Human Rights Council) and the various Special Rapporteurs who have said Israel has committed a number of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is not just the Human Rights Council, it is the professionals working for the UN and consulted by UN agencies, not the states that make up some political agency. nableezy - 18:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think you should open a new Talk topic, since this is a request on comments on the use of the word Apartheid, and you're trying to reach a formulation regarding sentences on War Crimes.
    Just saying this since perhaps that way it will be more transparent and clear for other editors that this new discussion is going on. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    People are allowed to offer alternative wordings in an RFC. nableezy - 19:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    It would be better to open a new topic though? Since there is so much content here you can go amiss and not notice. I Just think it helps the editors' process. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    It's a part of the RFC, not a new topic. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    "Request for Comment on apartheid charges" is the title. You're discussing War Crimes. Just saying it'll better to open a new talk topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    So you said, three times. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, I am suggesting some other wording to cover the accusation that Israel is committing apartheid. Can we stop with this meta where should this comment be part of the conversation? nableezy - 19:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Statements from US gov't agencies are not votes on resolutions by the legislature. But they still have meaning, often more meaning. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    US govt agencies have far more power than random UN officials. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Acts taken by Israel in its occupation of the Palestinian territory have been condemned by the UNSC as early as 1968 through 2016. They have been condemned by the UNGA from as early as 1969 and yearly for at least the last 15 years on settlements and the status of East Jerusalem. So yes, the condemnation has been sustained. nableezy - 02:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Neither resolution you have sited, nor the UNGA one, use the word "apartheid." To use them in support of this suggested edit would violate WP:SYNTH. Certainly, they can be used in an edit in support of "international condemnation" in general, but not accusations of apartheid specifically. At least, not without a secondary source connecting them to a statement regarding "apartheid," and even then that would have to be done carefully so as not to assume one person or one expert's opinion is taken as factual. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Those resolutions were cited in relation to the proposal above, which is different from the RfC proposal and does not specifically refer to apartheid. WillowCity(talk) 03:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Yeah, and? Im citing those in response to Professionals working for the UN ≠ the UN. For a statement to come officially from the United Nations it has to be voted on by the states that make up the United Nations. Which was a response to my proposal of Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that is has commited war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials. nableezy - 04:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Condemnation doesn't equal accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. I can't find examples of the UN as a body accusing Israel of crimes against humanity. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Ok but that isn’t what the proposed sentence says. But yes, the UNSC has called the establishment of Israeli settlements a flagrant violation of international law (UNSC 2334). They have also said the same about the Jerusalem Law (UNSC 478) and deportations of Palestinians (UNSC 799). The UNGA has repeatedly said the same, yearly for a decade plus, regarding the settlements (including, incidentally, today). Anyway, I was showing that the condemnation is sustained, but the accusations in my sentence are from UN officials and human rights organizations. nableezy - 15:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    "UN officials" can refer to anyone working at the UN, not necessarily experts in international law. It would be better to say "scholars" or "law scholars", or just leave the mention of human rights organizations which, because they are an organization, have more importance than certain individuals. Mawer10 (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
    No, that would be UN employees. A UN official is somebody who is authorized to speak on behalf of the UN or its sub-agencies. nableezy - 19:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
    Ok, I can agree with that. Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials. Mawer10 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    I think its too much... The current sentence of Israel has been accused of human rights violations is enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Anyhow I think the discussion is already over no? There's a summary of RFC below. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
    Imo, this suggestion is good, but it’s no more succinct or accurate than the subject of the RfC, or if it is, it’s at the expense of precision. I’m certainly not opposed (it definitely bolsters NPOV and improves on the current wording) and I agree in principle that it’s silly to emphasize one crime against humanity over others. But there is some logic to that emphasis here; apartheid has its own subheading in the body, plus MOS says “the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” Rightly or wrongly, Israel’s apartheid practices have become something of a touchstone; an English Google search yields 40.7m results for “Israel apartheid” and 23.8m for “Israel crimes against humanity”; when you narrow it to Google News, it’s 2m vs. 148k; on JSTOR it’s about 14.8k vs. 14.7k. To be fair, on Google Scholar, it’s ~2:1 the other way, and “Israel war crimes” blows all of these numbers out of the water. I don’t have time to do a full analysis of coverage by RS, but intuitively it does seem like the word “apartheid” should really be represented. What about something like:
Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid.
The part after the last comma could also be parenthetical. This is actually one word shorter than the suggestion and the RfC proposal, and it's broad enough to encompass Israeli war crimes committed against (e.g.) Lebanon in 2006. The only question my suggestion raises is whether it's strictly correct to describe a Special Rapporteur as a "UN official". WillowCity(talk) 21:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
We've already the whole comment section above debate the use of the word Apartheid. And again as before, a majority seems to be against this use. Just look above, I also understand a similar commentary was held a year ago with the same result. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Less precision is a virtue precisely because it can deal with WP:NPOV. A suitably vague wording can be interpreted by everyone to support their position. The easiest way to resolve this would be to compromise on such a wording and stop having these RfCs every 6 months. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I’m not aware of anything in MOS:LEAD or the NPOV policy/guidelines that requires vague/inexact wording when a more specific claim is of particular “importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.” I’m not opposed to compromise, but I also wouldn’t hold my breath that this wording will prevent revolving-door RfCs in the future. WillowCity(talk) 03:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The crime of apartheid is merely inserted into the sentence out of nowhere, with nothing beyond the occupation to explain the reason for the accusation. The Israeli civil law being "channeled" into the settlements, the expropriation of Palestinian land, and racist laws are context that cannot be included in the text, and without this context, the sentence is simply misleading. The sentence also confines the crime of apartheid solely to the occupied territories, which is not entirely true. Additionally, the next paragraph merely describes Israel as a normal democracy, which, regardless of whether the accusation is included or not, should be changed to provide more informative content about the democracy in the country. So, your proposal is not very accurate at all. Mawer10 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I was just trying to preserve as much of the original suggestion as possible out of courtesy. Other than restriction to the occupied territories, though, I fail to see how any of this is misleading; the allegation is noted and the interested reader can find greater information further down, or in the article on “Israel and apartheid” that will presumably be linked. It's not out of nowhere to mention a specific crime against humanity at the end of a sentence about alleged crimes against humanity. Moreover, this RfC is not about the following paragraph, so that's not really relevant to my suggestion.
But anyway, what about: “Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity (including the crime of apartheid against Palestinians).” This adds three words to nableezy's suggestion, so we're hardly sacrificing much in the way of concision. WillowCity(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Look above, editors have voiced against the addition or use of the word apartheid. Try and formulate something without it. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
How about:
Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.
The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
The text already notes human rights violations. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
So why add more information about that? Do it in the body then. There's clearly lots of very important info lacking in Israel's lead regarding Israel itself (socialism, Soviet Aliya and more). Homerethegreat (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
This thread already explains why. Read it. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree Parham wiki (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment We should be careful using sources from throughout the history of the conflict between Israel and Palestine to support the addition of this edit regarding apartheid specifically. Condemnations about human rights abuses constitute that, condemnations of human rights abuses. Unless they specifically use the word "apartheid," they shouldn't be used to defend the addition to the lead being discussed. At the same time, we should be careful of defenses of Israel that also are not defenses against the accusation of "apartheid." Remember WP:SYNTH. Just because a condemnation (or defense) of Israel meets the accepted definition of "apartheid" does not mean is it an RS in support of this addition. Without mentioning the word "apartheid," such condemnations or defenses (even if meeting the definition) would be synthesis for us to use in the article, and I would argue, in this discussion. We should try to have some objectivity on this (and by objectivity, I also mean following WP policies, regardless of our own feelings or current events or past condemnations/defenses), and I fully admit that is incredibly difficult. As can be seen in this debate, I am definitely guilty of getting heated in this argument. I've largely stayed away from this debate for just that reason, but I am seeing some arguments being made here using sources that don't actually include the word "apartheid," which is what we are discussing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    The comments you are critiquing are related to a proposal that does not include the word apartheid in it. nableezy - 04:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Can this discussion be split into sections, then? It's very long as it is, and if people are discussion (or "voting") for multiple proposals, it's quite confusing to follow. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    Agree on this point. This needs to be split up. I saw overall majority vote has gone against the use of the word Apartheid above. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    How about:
    Israel's practices, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, have drawn international criticism for violating the human rights of Palestinians.
    The paragraph is already very long. Shouldn't be more than a sentence. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    Why have you re-posted the same comment (x2). Iskandar323 (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    People are losing track in this huge huge discussion, wanted to make sure it's seen. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    Also relevant to both points. Homerethegreat (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support in principle the mention in introduction of the apartheid accusations, however the wording of the proposal must be changed. "condemnation... including the accusation" just does not make sense. Some of the opposing arguments come from a fantasy world where what Israel does in the occupied territories has not received criticism from UN reports and resolutions. Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    That’s the condemnation part… —OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per MOS:LEAD. Accusations of apartheid are sufficiently substantiated in the body to warrant their inclusion in the lead. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)non-ec editors may not participate in RFCs in this topic area
  • Support (Summoned by bot). The proposed text is short and neutral, the topic is highly notable and has been extensively covered both by RSs (cited in our dedicated article) and by this article itself, so I believe that inclusion is warranted per MOS:LEAD. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This page does include a very short subsection Israel#Apartheid_accusations. However, based on the content of this section, the accusation is highly questionable at best, and the section is indeed very short. Should this subsection even be included on the page? I doubt. Maybe, but I am not sure. While the entire section on the "Israeli-occupied territories" is very much informative and must be included, the sub-section on the "apartheid accusations" seems to be included only for the sake of making the accusation. It does not say why Israel was accused of this. It only says that such accusation does exist, that it was disputed, and there is no consensus about it among researchers. In my opinion, this does not pass the cutoff for inclusion to the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
    It's a reasonable summary of the situation, says the accusations are widespread, links to Israel and apartheid for the detail. Google "Israel" + "apartheid" for 14.8 million hits while the definitive "Israeli apartheid" has 881K and it is clear that this is an entirely leadworthy "prominent controversy". Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree this is a prominent controversy and agree it should be briefly mentioned on the page, perhaps exactly in the way it has been. But I think it is already covered in the lead by the more general statement that Israel "have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians [wikilink]". My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The lead sentence needs at a minimum, ", including crimes against humanity." added to the end. Apartheid is a crime against humanity, not just a human rights violation, and the facts are that Israel has been accused of nearly all the crimes against humanity (including apartheid) defined in the Rome Statute, in addition to Israeli war crimes and the Palestinian genocide accusation. See here. The existing sentence makes it sound like a minor affair, which it is not. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think there's enough written as it is. It would be far more productive for the Lead to also speak of things other than the conflict. Since one only learns from the lead that Israel is in conflict and war and almost nothing on its culture, economic transition, huge immigration waves... Homerethegreat (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Anything of note needs to be in the lead, includes bad as well as good. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Its not about bad or good, its about weight, importance and validity. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
That's what I just said. Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Longevity and direction of travel makes this case rather different. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I did a little more searching on this issue and my stance is Still Oppose:
"In 2023, the US House passed a resolution stating that Israel is not a “racist or apartheid state,” and in recent years, the Biden administration has said it disagreed with human rights analyses that argue that Israel practices apartheid. In January 2023, the European Commission also said that it is “not appropriate” to associate the term apartheid with the Israeli state." https://www.vox.com/23924319/israel-palestine-apartheid-meaning-history-debate The Vox article also cites security concerns - not racism - as one counterargument for "apartheid" policies, a concern which human rights organizations dispute as a valid counterargument. Also, it seems this "apartheid" is occurring in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza... I am not sure if apartheid is occurring in Israel?
It seems human rights organizations are the ones accusing Israel of apartheid, while governments like the US and the EU refuse to. As Mistamystery has stated, right now these are just accusations. If governments accuse/condemn Israel of apartheid as well, then maybe there is some merit to featuring this accusation in the lead, but right now it is just human rights organizations and I am not sure how much I trust them given their initial and continued silence on the Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
If the US and the EU were on board, we would be discussing facts rather than accusations. Of course, the US and the EU get on board when it suits them, as in the case of Ukraine. The issue remains one of evidence not political opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
If this apartheid is occurring in Israel, then I believe it would be a valid accusation. But it seems like it is only in the Palestinian territories, which have real security concerns due to ongoing conflict. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Amnesty says that apartheid is occurring in Israel and cites boatloads of evidence for it. Apartheid in the West Bank has nothing to do with security concerns, among other things, it is settlers subject to Israeli law and Palestinians subject to military law in the same occupied territory. Ever heard of the Nation State law? Anyway, I have had all these discussions over and over here and elsewhere, read the Amnesty report if you really want to know what is going on. This issue is not going to go away. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Support because the “apartheid” (in quotes because it is still an accusation, not fact as Selfstudier said??) is occurring in Israel and not just Gaza and West Bank per the Nation State Law. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Also my support is with the caveat that the wording gets changed to more neutral language as I have written to Makeandtoss above. The Nation State Law is not close to apartheid but I recognize it is moving towards a more discriminatory direction. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed sentence is a summary of the subsection "Apartheid accusations," but it overlooks the entire context of the broader section "Israeli-occupied territories". Here are some relevant excerpts from the text that contextualize the accusation:
Israel's claim of universal suffrage has been questioned due to its blurred territorial boundaries and its simultaneous extension of voting rights to Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and denial of voting rights to their Palestinian neighbours. The claim has also been challenged due to the alleged ethnocratic nature of the state.
The application of democracy to its Palestinian citizens, and the selective application of Israeli democracy in the Israeli-controlled Palestinian territories, has been criticized.
Israel has been criticized for engaging in systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the occupied territories, including the occupation itself, and war crimes against civilians.
Amnesty International and other NGOs have documented mass arbitrary arrests, torture, unlawful killings, systemic abuses and impunity in tandem with a denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination.

So the key points highlighted here include the application of Israeli law and democracy to settlers in the territories, Jewish ethnocracy, widespread violations of human rights in the occupation and war crimes against civilians, and denial of the right to Palestinian self-determination. We need a sentence or sentences that summarize Israel's relationship with the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and perhaps in Israel proper as well. This also involves a change in the fourth paragraph, which so far only portrays Israel as a fairly normal country. Mawer10 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we make it less wordy and with more neutral language? I would feel better supporting if it is changed to something like this:
“Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation of apartheid.” Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think "violating the human rights of the Palestinians" is enough... There has been ample discussion already on it being relatively Fringe theory... EU, US not recognizing it... Also other countries that have severe discrimination do not have this ascribed to them, which is important regarding consistency. Homerethegreat (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I am now more confused than ever. I just watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFeKwv4GkZI which says the apartheid accusation is false since Gaza is governed by Hamas and West Bank is governed by PA, the governments are different and it’s not just Israel governing them. There is probably discrimination against Arabs within the State of Israel itself but nowhere is it close to apartheid within Israel. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Also I just noticed that video was created by a Jewish media company, so there is bias there. I really wish they would just go to court and have lawyers figure this out. I absolutely have no qualifications to interpret international law. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to interpret international law, just read Israel and apartheid, all the sources anyone would ever need are right there. Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is all this commentary parked at the top of the RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I was asking Makeandtoss if we could change the wording to be more concise and neutral, and then with the responses it waterfalled. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
It's too late to change it now, let the closer try and make sense out of it, I suggest moving all this lot down to the bottom. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The theory that it is a fringe theory is a fringe theory. Selfstudier (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Summary of RfC

The current RfC addresses whether to include a specific sentence in the lead section of a Wikipedia article pertaining to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories. The proposed sentence asserts that Israel's actions have been condemned for violating Palestinian human rights and have led to accusations of apartheid. Opinions among editors vary significantly.

Proponents of inclusion, advocating for adherence to the Manual of Style (MOS:LEDE), argue that the lead is a summary of the article's body and should encapsulate all significant controversies. They emphasize that the term "apartheid" is a pivotal point of international discourse and, thus, merits mention in the overview.

Opponents counter that such an inclusion may not reflect a universally endorsed perspective and could contravene Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV), potentially imparting undue prominence to a singular standpoint. They voice concerns that the term "apartheid" could be misconstrued or taken as a statement of fact without adequate consensus or legal adjudication. The representation of other nations with analogous allegations on Wikipedia is cited as a comparative benchmark, calling for consistency and impartiality in editorial practices.

The conversation extends to the role of reliable tertiary sources in determining the salience of controversies, as well as the precise language employed by international bodies like the United Nations in their resolutions and criticisms of Israel's practices. The semantics of "apartheid" are dissected, with a range of sources including United Nations documents and human rights reports brought to the fore for consideration.

A key part of the discussion also revolves around refining the proposed sentence to better encapsulate the article's content while aligning with the consensus among reliable sources. Editors propose several rewordings, aiming for a balanced statement that reflects the breadth of coverage without skewing the narrative.

In synthesizing these points, I believe that no definitive agreement has been reached within the scope of this RfC at the time of this summary. – Svenskbygderna (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not an accurate summary. The RFC moved to include the wording that an accusation of apartheid has been made, so the semantics of the word or it's applicability do not really come into it. The only topic is really whether it is a sufficiently notable controversy to merit mention. NPOV is not an issue, because no one is arguing or could argue that the accusation itself has not been made. There is not an alternative perspective on that matter. There are perspectives that the accusation is misinformed or does not apply, but none of these contradict the fact that the accusation has been made. The inability to understand this important distinction is perhaps the main source of confusion here. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with @Iskandar323, it appears many have voted on not using the word - Apartheid -. Consensus has not been achieved regarding the accusation and quite frankly the discussion grew so huge inside many most have lost themselves in this discussion.
I agree with @Svenskbygderna's assessment.
If there is a wish to include "accusation of apartheid" please open a new topic discussion, so that it can be addressed clearly. Instead of it being lost in the large mess and discussions which also continued after 16 November after @Svenskbygderna conclusion of the RFC. Homerethegreat (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
If the summary above was meant to be an RFC close then it doesn't appear to have been done correctly. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
With just 1,400 edits and three years on Wikipedia, Svenskbygderna doesn't seem like the kind of guy with the authority to close a RFC anyway. Mawer10 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It does appear to me a summary of the RFC. And his summary says that there appears to be no consensus. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It is well established that RFCs in contentious topic areas should either be closed by exceptionally experienced closers or admins, and I'm not convinced the editor here is either. They don't appear to even know how to properly use the RFC closure templates. Comments struck given clarity below that the summary above was not an attempted close. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
@Iskandar323, the intention behind the summary provided was not to formally close the RfC but to offer a synopsis of the debate as it stood at the time. Such summaries can be valuable in large discussions to help participants keep track of key points and arguments made. It's important to maintain a collegial atmosphere in these discussions, and as such, personal accusations and insults are unnecessary and unproductive. Let's focus on the content and the policies that guide our editing, and if there is a need to further clarify the process or the status of this RfC, we can address that constructively. Svenskbygderna (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying - that is what I had originally thought, but some editors here appeared to think that this was an RFC close. I also saw that the RFID template disappeared, suggesting that someone removed it from the RFC page, but your response here suggests that this was not yourself. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Either how, it is rather unclear. And we must ensure clarity in this topic. I counted 13 Oppose, 8 support. And it appears inner discussions occurred in which more than one editor (including me) has said that inner discussions seemed to be veering off topic and require a new discussion. From what I've seen of the Oppose, its against the usage of the term Apartheid.
What was clear to all editors (I hope) was that the following sentence was proposed to be added: including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid.
Thus making the sentence like this:
"Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians, including the accusation that the state is committing the crime of apartheid."
Since 13 opposed it and 8 supported (if numbers are correct). It appears no outright consensus has been reached, whilst an indication that the term Apartheid should not be used. That's why I've raised concern regarding iskandar323's assessment, especially due to the heavy cloud of confusion that hung about the conversation especially in the latter sections. Homerethegreat (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not a vote, but I would say there is consensus for some kind of change but you seem to prefer no change at all. Mawer10 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy and many pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here; the "voting" is meaningless. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@Svenskbygderna: Please note that reaching consensus is based on being conforming with Wikipedia guidelines; reaching an agreement is not a requirement. The editors in favor of the addition have based their arguments accurately based on MOS:LEDE, while the editors opposing have based their arguments in an inaccurate way, claiming that mentioning that "Israel has been accused of apartheid" means that WP is taking a side. By mentioning that Israel has been accused of apartheid, WP is not taking a side and saying that Israel is committing apartheid, but mentioning an indisputable fact that Israel has been accused of this. This is not controversial. Your consideration of this RFC should be strictly based on the weight of each argument and WP policies; not what an agreement is about, while avoiding the fact that many editors opposing to this addition have been canvassed en masse here, as per the warning above shows. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your previous comments. I find this impolite in your following assertion: "many pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here; the "voting" is meaningless". Your suggestion that "Pro-Israeli" editors are canvassing is quite offensive.
This article is in the watchlist of hundreds of editors I imagine. You must realize that your comment can be interpreted as categorizing anyone who opposes this notion as "Pro-Israeli". Furthermore, while this is not a vote, editors have voiced their objections to the idea, your sentence can be interpreted as calling their statements: meaningless. Why are they meaningless? Do you not agree that this terminology can be interpreted as disdainful?
And overall I find it very uncivil the way @Svenskbygderna is being "educated" here. Please assume goodfaith in him/her/they.
Furthermore there has been comments in the overall discussion here on @Svenskbygderna regarding his edit count or his work. I do not think this appropriate. All in all I call for civility and respecting our peers. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Please don't play the victim and please stop throwing false accusations of incivility. I can't be nicer than this. There is evidence that pro-Israel editors have been canvassed here.
Also please don't disrespect fellow editors by manipulating their arguments to make it seem as if it was ad hominem. According to RFC guidelines on WP, non-closing editors have a much higher bar to meet to be able to close RFCs. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) Oppose. The proposal wishes to introduce a contentious label, which (being a non trivial viewpoint) has been correctly granted space in the body, but phrased as such, is a very clear attempt to promote a POV.
There are a bunch of issues with the arguments brought up in favour of inclusion - Some editors, indeed, seem to be treating WP:RECENTISM as a guideline to insert recentism into articles, citing recent uptick in the repetition of such allegations.
There is also an issue with others trying to alter the text at discussion at random in the discussion, which IMO is a poor way of gathering consensus. This RFC should be about the proposed text, not a hodgepodge of trying out everyone's favourite phrasing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM is about breaking news or flimsy material. The apartheid accusations against Israel have been ongoing for the best part of half a century and in recent years have been substantiated, in the legal sense, by detailed human rights reports. That essay holds no relevance here. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
It is about placing a disproportionate emphasis on recent occurrings that are not significant in the long term. Just because Israel has been criticised more (and indeed, supported more) due to the controversial nature of the conflict, this is not likely to affect the long term discourse. Statements like This is 100% the single-most notable claim and controversy regarding Israel at this point in time do not constitute a valid argument. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
"this is not likely to affect the long term discourse" - so WP: CRYSTAL and WP:OR thinking: thanks for confirmation that your decision is unrelated to policy. Though you're right: the accusation of apartheid does not stand alone as a notable controversy anymore, since it's now facing fierce competition from the accusation of genocide. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I dont know if you are engaging in light hearted trolling or you truly believe that that is what the correct interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR is. If the latter, you may have a lot of learning to do w.r.t. competence especially in contentious areas.
Since you seem to be fighting tooth and nail with almost every editor in the thread that doesnt agree with you, you are quite clearly a lot more invested here than me - If you wish to continue to argue over what is painfully obvious, you may do so, but I cannot guarantee that I will be keeping up with responses.
My point stands, and disregarding your ad hominem, there have been no arguments brought to contest it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I haven't said anything ad hominem, though you obviously now have. My point was that your comment relies on personal opinion-based imaginary projections about the future. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Gratuitously attacking another editor’s “competence”: ad hominem.
Questioning an argument predicated on an unsourced prediction about the future: not ad hominem. WillowCity(talk) 14:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Editor Objectivity and Civility

Correct place for this is a user talk page O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oh the irony... I was just about to warn you for this. Please follow your own advice, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Happily, though I would request, again, that the accusations made against me before I responded defending myself be stricken. As can be seen in the diffs I've put here, my comments before being attacked were respectful, civil, and about the article and not the editor. Does one only warrant warning if responding to being attacked, and not the one who began the attacks instead of discussing the article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Are you planning to strike your legal threat? Because the only one who has made accusations of criminal conduct is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
What legal threat? I did not use "defame" in a legal sense and did not threaten a lawsuit or say I was contacting a lawyer. It is a word with colloquial usage as well. I did not accuse anyone of criminal conduct, rather, of Wikipedia policy violation. I don't know what threat to strike as I never made a threat, legal or otherwise. I will happily strike everything after the conversation turned to attacking me as an editor and not the article, if the comments made against me and not about the article are stricken in kind, but I made no legal threats. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"Whether intentional or not, you have twice now made defamatory comments directed at me." thats clearly the legal sense, this is exactly the sort of situation the legal version would apply to... It isn't the colloquial, you haven't said that a chicken defamed you be squawking loudly or used it in some other situation where the legal sense would not apply... You used it in the literal/legal sense. This whole "I'l do it only if they do it" thing is unconstructive, I will be disengaging. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If you can suggest a better word, I'll also strike the word itself and replace it with another one regardless of whether the comments against me are stricken, as I would not want to be misconstrued as making a legal threat. That was never my intention, but I cannot personally think of a different word than the colloquial usage of "defamatory," which is also used in WP:NPA, so I did not think it was a word that shall not be named. But I did not use that word in a legal sense and I honestly don't see how it could be read as such. Hell, for it to be legal, it would have to be intentional. Feel free to bring me to administrative action if you disagree, or suggest a better word for me to use. I will comply with either. Again, though, I did not start this as attacks on editors instead of discussion on content. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


There is a discussion about the above closure ongoing at User talk:KlayCax/Archive 2#Added Apartheid contrary to RFC to Israel, where more input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

reverted close, asking for a new one at ANC. nableezy - 14:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canaan

I propose the addition of Canaan to the lede in the following way, for now at least: "In antiquity, it was home to Canaanite city states, and later, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea,".

This is a good summary of body, as a lede should do. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with this, plus it’s not too wordy. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion is above in Canaanites section. And the same concept holds. And for correction there were city states not states which were most likely for quite some time vassals of the Egyptian Empire. Homerethegreat (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
By the way if you guys are interested in history here's a picture, it's in French so if you need help translating than feel free to ask.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CarteCanaanAuBronzeR%C3%A9cent.jpg
Hope you guys enjoy :). Always important to do something positive for people we're in contact with :). Homerethegreat (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I have found a possible source for “city states” https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-51695-0_49. This will be needed to added to the body text. Right now the body just says “vassal states”. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Updated my proposal above. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
As I said above, I do not think it merits inclusion here. There are for more pressing issues that are relevant to the State of Israel that ought to be mentioned in lead which are not.
In regards to the specific inclusion of Canaanite city states, I think it is not vital in understanding the State of Israel. In the page on Greece, there is no mention of the Cycladic civilization on the islands of the Aegean Sea at around 3200 BC, the Minoan civilization in Crete (2700–1500 BC), or the Mycenaean civilization.
What is mentioned is the Greek Polis, the classical period etc... Which is most relevant to understand modern Greece.
Similarly on the page of France, the lead does not mention groups that existed prior to the Gauls from which some of the French see themselves as descending from.
Of course it is interesting to learn about Canaanite city states and the Egyptian control of the southern Levant as well as their wars against the Hittites' empire. However, we must keep in light that this page is on the State of Israel. In the page on Palestine (region), I think it is definitely due to mention this. However here it is less due. Homerethegreat (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I like @Makeandtoss’ version, mostly because I appreciate the historical and written precision that these populations were city-states! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
What is your opinion however regarding the assessment I wrote? Its just I think it's undue in the lead itself. Especially since there is 3000 years of history that needs to be covered. I'd rather we add more info regarding the Babylonian Exile and the first return to Zion or add info on the Jewish Roman wars and the Roman exile of the Jews from Judea. Or add cultural info which is truly lacking in the lead, the most crucial one that must be stated is the revival of the Hebrew language.
I just think that we need to focus on Israel and its history. Just like on other wiki pages of countries it speaks of the country/people/nation 's history/culture/society/economy. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
You do have a point, sorry sometimes I don’t read everything. A lot of words!! Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Israel is a very young country, with only 75 years of history. The events that led to the establishment of the country date back only to the 19th century. While it is true that Israelite and Jewish history in the region (1200 B.C. — 200 A.D.) played a significant role in Jewish nationalism, resulting in the creation of Israel, focusing solely on this period while overlooking centuries of Christian and Muslim rule in the region or even a simple mention of the Canaanites would bias the introduction. Furthermore, unlike France or Greece, there is no direct historical and political continuity between ancient Israel and modern Israel, only cultural and religious continuity. Mawer10 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your second statement.
Modern Greece is not a continuum from the Greek Polis. about 1900 years divide Greek independence and Macedonian Empire. Between France and the Frankish Empire there are 500 years.
Israel is an interesting case of an ancient people that reestablished sovereignty.
So why is the ancient history included? Since it's the history of the people. Of the French, of the Greeks, of the Jewish people who founded Israel. But you'll notice ancient history is very focused and directly related to the topic at hand. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry fixing statement. I meant between Frankish kingdom and the Gauls Homerethegreat (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that it warrants inclusion here. The lead already mentions the Canaanites and it is excessive in an article about the State of Israel to mention it twice. Dovidroth (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's better this way: “In antiquity, the Canaanite civilization emerged in the region and later, their successors established several Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea.” Mawer10 (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Canaan is already mentioned in the lead -" Israel is located in the Southern Levant, a region known historically as Canaan, Palestine, and the Holy Land. . It is unclear why a second mention of Canaan is necessary within the very limited space in a four-paragraph lead section ? Marokwitz (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This sentence is not good; the version Triggerhippie4 inserted into the article is much better. You just need to remove the names Canaan and Holy Land, and maybe make some other small adjustments: "The region referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition is located in the Southern Levant, and is also known as Palestine." The sentence introduces the region initially using the Jewish/Hebrew name, providing a perspective on the country in question in this article. Then, it geographically locates the region in the Southern Levant and subsequently mentions that the region is also known as Palestine, acknowledging a more relevant historical and geographical term. This phrasing is a balanced approach without the need for an arbitrary list of names associated with the region over time, instead highlighting relevant terms here. Mawer10 (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I just reread the history section, and it seems there were both Canaanite city states and vassal states. So I would change my proposal above to "In antiquity, it was home to Canaanite states, and later, Israelite and Jewish kingdoms, including Israel and Judah and Hasmonean Judea,".
Since lede is a summary of body, we have to summarize the etymology section which states that the region was also called Canaan (already present); and we have to summarize the history section, which states that there were Canaanite city states and vassal states. Lede follows the body per manual of style. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer having either referencing that the region was called Canaan or that there were Canaanite states, but not both; however, my reasoning is just preference based on writing style. I would just find reading “Canaan” and then “Canaanites” repetitive and boring when the reason as a reader for coming to the page is I want to read about Israel.. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, lede is a summary of body, mentioning region was also called Canaan is a summary of the etymology section, and mentioning that there were Canaanite states is a summary of the antiquity section. It is not repetitive since it is considered different things. Most literature when talking about how Jewish kingdoms were established, starts with talking how the Israelite conquered Canaan, including the Hebrew Bible. And then of course mentions of Israelite-Canaanite confrontations, a huge part of the Hebrew bible. Again lede is a summary of body; but also Canaan is not outside the realm of Israelite history, on the contrary a huge part of it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
We're not saying its not in body. But again we have to be selective in deciding what's in the Lead. And the weight and importance and relevance to Israel is vital in deciding what ought to be there. We won't mention an Israeli theatre company or Falafel in the lead right? So we must decide what is due or not. I expressed above the issue. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the history paragraph, which summarizes the history section, the article's largest section, so naturally it won't contain information on falafel. This is barely a one word mention. Selectivity goes against WP:POV. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning. I realize you believe it is due to mention. I've already explained above why it is not due etc... Homerethegreat (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Per WP: Summary, Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail: the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points, and each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the article. The length of a given Wikipedia article tends to grow as people add information to it. Wikipedia articles cannot be of indefinite length as very long articles would cause problems and should be split.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.
The immediate above explains why we must on place the most important items. The somewhere above long section that I wrote on reasoning including France, Greece... explains the historical context. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RFCBefore following No Consensus RFC

In the recently closed RFC the closer says that "During the rfc, Nableezy laid forth another proposal that focuses on crimes against humanity in general, rather than apartheid specifically. This proposal attracted interest from participants on both sides of the discussion, but no wording concrete enough to attain consensus was achieved. I suggest interested editors continue working on this idea in light of the arguments presented at this rfc."

A previous attempt to do this last April asked the question "Should that [the lead] include the sentence Human rights organizations have accused Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity?" did not go anywhere.

So let's try again. The existing lead sentence: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." to be replaced with @Nableezy: proposal:

Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn sustained international criticism along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.

@Mawer10: version:

Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.

Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with all three versions: the original, nableezy’s, and Mawer10’s, although I think I prefer “Israel’s practices” over “Israel’s actions”. Nableezy’s sentence is a little long; may need a comma in there. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I just noticed there may be something logically wrong with the sentence structures of the new versions that include war crimes. Because the beginning of the sentence is referring to occupation… war crimes aren’t really related to practices and policies in occupation. War crimes are related to actions in war. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
War crimes are related to actions in war. Not quite. Rather than just "war", referring to "armed conflict" (and the use of force) is more usual, international humanitarian law is aka the law of armed conflict but war crimes are as well defined in treaties and customary law. Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I think I prefer Mawer10’s version then. Regarding its occupation, those are set practices but regarding war crimes those are actions that have a lot of variability.
But I would want to put war crimes after crimes against humanity in the sentence.
“Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, along with accusations that it has committed crimes against humanity and war crimes by human rights organizations and UN officials.”
I am also fine with the original sentence. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we should have simply: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN
Otherwise there is too much lead space given, when there are other items that are vital for understanding Israel that are not present in the lead. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The nableezy and Mawer10 proposals are both good imo. I would propose wording along the following lines: Israel's policies and practices within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and United Nations officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. My reasoning:
- the practices are a result of policies which are themselves subject to criticism;
- the allegations are not limited to the Occupied Territories but include Israel proper and neighbouring states, like Lebanon in 2006.
But I would support either of the above proposals even if this wording doesn't get traction. WillowCity(talk) 16:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think your version should be included in a future RfC. But this should be probably "on the occupied Palestinian territories" rather than "in its occupation of the Palestinian territories". Also, the RfC must include an option when the current phrase ("Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history...") would be simply deleted. This is because such option has been recently debated on this talk page above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I support @Homerethegreat proposal: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN. Too much space in lead is already given to conflict. Sorry to repeat myself, but look at Japan, Germany; featured articles that don't overly dwell on atrocities like the Holocaust, or the Rape of Nanjing. "Japan invaded China in 1937" is all that is noted in the lead. So what do we do? You know well this sentence is going to always cause debate, and issue. There must be compromises on both sides of the issue. Michael0986 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The comparison to Axis powers is misguided, given that Israeli atrocities are (or are alleged to be) ongoing as well as historical. North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are better examples of articles whose leads dedicate significant space to human rights issues. Or is that sort of language reserved for countries that aren't aligned with Western powers?
The idea that we should be watering down this aspect of the lead is, no offence, absurd. The last RfC found extensive (but ultimately insufficient) support for including allegations of a specific crime against humanity. The criteria is notability and NPOV, not whether a given wording offends certain sensibilities. WillowCity(talk) 00:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The lead examples I used are featured articles, those ones are very subpar and rambling. I still think compromise is the key to improving this article on both sides. I could pick any sentence in the lead, for example the sentence beginning: "On 15 May 1948, the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War." Really, no background of what initiated the invasion? Wouldn't this read better: "Refusing to accept Israel’s independence, on 15 May 1948 the armies of five neighboring Arab states invaded the area of the former Mandatory Palestine, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. So, what do we do, who do we offend, and not offend here? Are we here to paint Israel as the villain, which perhaps they very well are, or do we try and improve this page? Michael0986 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The Cuba article is the same class as this article (B). Japan has existed as a national entity for over a thousand years, whereas the State of Israel (which this article is ostensibly about) was invented 75 years ago, and its entire history has been defined by conflict. That conflict is notable and canvassed extensively in the body with citations to RS. So I don't see how the proposed "compromise" would "improve this page"; it would result in a lead that fails to adequately summarize the body. WillowCity(talk) 04:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we need to take into account Wikipedia:BALASP without creating false balance. Therefore I think if we are to highlight accusations of war crimes due to Israel’s practices, we need to incorporate Israel’s POV, which are the security issues some editors were wanting to add to the sentence before the RFC one. One example of an Israeli policy that is infringing on human rights is the West Bank barrier. But this barrier was initially built in response to terrorist attacks. One source that does a good job of balancing aspects without creating false balance, while analyzing this particular situation is this one https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
None of those are about active military occupations or conflicts or war crimes or crimes against humanity, and they dont take up a a preponderance of space in stories discussing those countries histories either. Which makes, as usual, the comparison that is sought to be made here facile and inapplicable. nableezy - 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, We can also look at the article of France, Netherlands, UK and other powers. Their leads are far more broad in their scope. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue here is not what is in other leads, it is what needs to be in the lead here. This is an RFC prep to see what the RFC should say following the no consensus close. It is not intended to be a rerun of that no consensus close. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
OT
*:::::::I was confused too. I think it is referring to occupation of the West Bank and maybe it’s settlements. It’s occupation of Gaza is debatable, but it is fact that it occupies West Bank. It’s really confusing because the PA also governs West Bank. Also Israel’s West Bank settlements are illegal and disputed, and it’s building of the West Bank barrier was controversial, “many international humanitarian voices and voices within Israel have supported the wall's construction only if it was along the Green Line (Cohen 2006, 685).” …”had the barrier been built along the Green Line, Israel would have had to evacuate some of its settlements from the West Bank, potentially leading to more fruitful negotiations and establishing an independent Palestinian state.” https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46 Also the Oslo Accords failed to establish a Palestinian state, the PA was largely ineffective and didn't have much control over it’s own people (the 2005 Gaza disengagement was a mess), with the exception of Hamas, which is able to better exert control except they are also very violent. Historians have voiced that the next step is that there needs to a Palestinian state. Israel itself may be democratic and free, but its illegal settlements, and with the West Bank barrier’s route, Palestinians are definitely not free. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Um, what has that to do with preparing an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
    I am responding to My Very Best Wishes questions at 19:59 and his/her comment at 19:43 Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
    That's off topic for this discussion, open some other section if you want to discuss that. Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
    Haha I see you made a short summary :). Regarding the West Bank you can say this is what happened in short over the past 500 years:
    Ottoman (Turkish) control -> British Control -Jordan conquers West Bank> Jordan Control -Israel conquers West Bank> Israeli Control -Oslo, Israel grants autonomy to parts of West Bank to Palestinians> Partial Palestinian autonomy + Israeli control.
    Important notes:
    A) West Bank hosted Jewish communities prior to whole situation, which were expelled by Arab forces during 1948 war, also famous pogrom against Jews of Hebron in 1929.
    B) Israel first to grant autonomy to Palestinians
    C) Some settlements are also considered illegal under Israeli law and are routinely uprooted by Israeli police
    D) Extremist Settler Violence is an ongoing issue, routinely condemned in Israel and by Israeli military (They actually hinder Israeli military forces)
    E) 3 Areas in West Bank -> A) Full autonomy, B) Civil autonomy, Israeli military control, C) Full Israeli control. Most Palestinians live in either A or B.
    F) C is largest part, much of it is the border between Israel and Jordan which Israel maintains it must control for security reasons. Rest is border land between Israel and West Bank (At it's thinnest Israel is 10 kilometers wide) which it controls it maintains to buffer security in case of an intrusion of Palestinian militants (like what happened in 7/10). By the way, almost all Israeli settlements are in Area C.
    G) Israelis refer to region as Judea and Samaria, after the ancient Jewish kingdoms that sat there. Another interesting people that sat in the region since ancient times is the Samaritan people. Very interesting, recommended read. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wh15tL3D09N and Homerethegreat. Thank you, guys! I read your comments above, and they are not completely off-topic.My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
You're very welcome :). Homerethegreat (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

To get things back on track, it seems from comments so far that the principal issue is the use of the expressions war crimes and crimes against humanity (and possibly occupation as well) so a possible RFC could just ask whether or not those two expressions should be included in some sentence in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Occupation is well covered in the article, war crimes are mentioned in this section while presently there is no mention of crimes against humanity, only human rights violations. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Apartheid is a crime against humanity with a dedicated subsection. I think that’s partially what inspired this suggestion in the last RfC—more general language to avoid the particularly thorny and sensitive apartheid issue in the lead.
As for the above, I think that’s a good way to frame the RfC, but the occupation has been pretty stable in the lead from what I can see so I’m not sure whether the advocates for exclusion should start a separate RfC on that to see if consensus has changed. WillowCity(talk) 12:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't notice that there was a wikilink to crimes against humanity in the apartheid section. Not in the article are United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (the Gaza War (2008–2009)) which said Israel "committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity" and the 2018–2019 Gaza border protests, where UN investigators said "These serious human rights and humanitarian law violations may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity." with the current war producing similar accusations. Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we need this sentence: Israel's actions in its occupation of the Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism from the UN
We need to focus on other issues which have not been represented in the body that are just as important to understand Israel. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
That suggestion is already taken into account above. Other issues can be discussed separately, they have nothing to do with the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but is the suggestion in seriousness being considered? @Wh15tL3D09N makes a good point above: "One example of an Israeli policy that is infringing on human rights is the West Bank barrier. But this barrier was initially built in response to terrorist attacks." If I'm a first-time visitor to this page, and I read the sentence: "Israel's practices, in the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of Palestinians." I'm going to assume Israel are the violent oppressor's, and this conflict is black and white. End of story. I'm honestly not going to care about their innovations and technical achievements in the following paragraph, if I read words like "violating" and "human rights" in the previous sentence. Michael0986 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
was initially built in response to terrorist attacks is untrue, with Ariel Sharon from the earliest saying it was a demographic fence and sources remarking it was routed in a way to effectively annex settlements to Israel. I dont know why you think the point of the article is to boost Israel's reputation but it isnt. Israel's practices have drawn widespread condemnation, the encyclopedia article on it needs to address that. nableezy - 01:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
“The government decided to start the construction in the northern part of the West Bank, near Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarem, because these were the major centers of terrorist operations and the Israeli towns close to the Green Line, like Netanya and Hadera, were the most vulnerable to suicide bombings (Frisch 2007, 10).” Source: https://fluxirr.mcgill.ca/article/download/55/46
“Israel begins building a security barrier in the West Bank to protect Israeli cities and towns from terrorist attacks.”
Source: https://world101.cfr.org/understanding-international-system/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict-timeline
If you have sources that say the barrier was not built due to suicide bombings, then this may be a case of Wikipedia:SOURCESDIFFER. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is another one from JSTOR https://www.jstor.org/stable/48701120 saying that the Israeli government began building the barrier in order to prevent suicide bombing attacks Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Morland, Paul (2016). Demographic Engineering: Population Strategies in Ethnic Conflict. Routledge. p. 132-133. ISBN 978-1-317-15292-7. The construction of the Security Fence was primarily a response to terrorist attacks from the West Bank on Israel's civilian population during the Second Intifada in which over 1,000 Israelis were killed. Its route did not stick strictly to the 1949 Armistice Line with Jordan but rather skirted around to incorporate some Israeli settlements. Whilst this can be seen as pragmatic, it can also be seen as an attempt to implement a demographically-based partition. Israeli governments have consistently denied this, insisting that the route of the fence should not be regarded as a future border. However it is significant that the fence was first suggested by Arnon Soffer. He suggested that the fence should be seen as part of his plan for disengagement from the Territories and as a means not only to delineate the territory on demographic grounds but also to prevent Arabs moving across the Green Line into Israel (Seliktar 2009, p. 86). A poll at the time of the start of the fence's construction found that 63 per cent of Israelis supported building the fence in such a way that it would include the smallest Palestinian population possible (Jacoby 2007, p. 41).
  • B'tselem: In June 2002, the Israeli cabinet decided to construct the Separation Barrier. The decision was made following a long string of attacks perpetrated by Palestinians against Israelis. The declared objective was preventing Palestinians without permits from entering Israel from the West Bank. However, the establishment of the barrier was also intended to serve other, undeclared aims. A key factor in determining the barrier’s route was the location of settlements, thereby laying the groundwork for the de facto annexation of most of the settlements and much land for their future expansion. The barrier thus became a major political instrument for furthering Israeli annexationist goals. It serves for Israeli takeover of almost 10% of the West Bank, to minimize the number of Palestinians living in the confines of the area between the barrier and the Green Line [the boundary between Israel’s sovereign territory and the West Bank], and also inflicts collateral damage on Palestinian communities living east of the barrier which, in effect, cuts them off from their land.
nableezy - 02:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I kind of touched on this with the quotes under the OT section up there. “many international humanitarian voices and voices within Israel have supported the wall's construction only if it was along the Green Line (Cohen 2006, 685).” …”had the barrier been built along the Green Line, Israel would have had to evacuate some of its settlements from the West Bank, potentially leading to more fruitful negotiations and establishing an independent Palestinian state.”
Selfstudier is going to have so much fun reading this tomorrow. Wh15tL3D09N (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The wall was built after/during the intifada in response to terror attacks on Israel. The security reasoning stands. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
That's your view, Morland and B'tselem (cited above) would disagree, and the ICJ notes that it's a violation of international law regardless of any alleged justification. WillowCity(talk) 15:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
You're raising important points. The propositions to over extend the sentence is overdoing it. The Lead most be to the point and be as imformative as possible. 2-3 sentences on the same thing is just too much. There's already 1 long sentence on population exchanges*flights*persecutions in 1948, and there shouldn't be another 2-3 sentences on that. It would be much better to add info on Socialism -> Free Market, or Revival of Hebrew or Soviet Aliyah Homerethegreat (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wall decision is a landmark in the jurisprudence of the ICJ. Not only does it rule decisively against the legality of the Wall, it provides clear guidance on the applicability of both international humanitarian law and human rights law in assessments of the situation in occupied Palestine. Confirming the situation, regardless of why it was built.

Reasons to object to something/anything in the lead can be given in the upcoming RFC. If there are no more useful contributions to the RFC prep we may as well proceed with the RFC proper.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer my version. I replaced "in its occupation of the Palestinian territories" with "on the occupied Palestinian territories." I also left open the possibility of including "for violating the human rights of Palestinians" because this additional information would give readers the specific aspect of Israel's actions that prompted the criticisms. I'm not sure if it's better to use "Israel's practices", "Israel's actions", or the combination of both "Israel's policies and actions".
Israel's actions on the occupied [Palestinian] territories have drawn international criticism [for violating the human rights of Palestinians], along with accusations that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity by human rights organizations and UN officials.
I also liked WillowCity's version, but I would change it a little:
Israel's policies and actions within and outside the occupied Palestinian territories have drawn international criticism, with human rights organizations and UN officials alleging that it has committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.
These two texts should be the basis of the future RFC. Mawer10 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Please prepare a draft like that below so that editors may decide which draft they prefer. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok Mawer10 (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel/Archive_100&oldid=1218994503"