Talk:Israel/Archive 85

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

→

Archive 90

conflict in lead

François Robere the material you edited in the lead was already the subject of agreement on this talk page, and your complete removal of the word occupied is dumbfounding. As the material in the lead already had consensus I request you self-revert or that any other user revert the edit. nableezy - 19:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, should revert the rest of that, it is beyond tendentious to remove the occupation from the article's lead. nableezy - 19:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I'm actually not at all concerned about the use of "occupied". Is this better? François Robere (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Not much, no. The bit on "the majority Palestinian West Bank" is also absurd. The West Bank is nearly universally regarded as Palestinian territory, not just majority populated by Palestinians. The paragraph that you replaced has consensus and should be restored. It took a considerable amount of work to get the agreement that we got on that paragraph, and unless you want to go back to people trying to get in every single thing about the conflict in to that paragraph kindly restore it. See here for that discussion. It has also been stable since February. nableezy - 19:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, settlements are not just in the West Bank, they are also in the Golan. You are not clarifying things there, you are making it muddier. nableezy - 19:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is we were stating in one paragraph that Jordan and Egypt had control of the territory ("the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively"), and in the next that Israel occupied it from the Palestinians ("since the Six-Day War in June 1967 has continuously occupied the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories"). The correct thing would be to state that Israel conquered it from the former, but that it was populated by / considered as belonging to the latter - which is what I tried to do. This?

I submit that the rest of your statement applies equally well - if not better - to the Reporters Without Borders report... François Robere (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsure of how my statement applies to the RWB, as that had never been in the lead to begin with. There certainly isnt a consensus that including it violates, whereas your edits do go directly against an established consensus. If you wont return it to its prior state thats fine I suppose, but I will tomorrow. nableezy - 20:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The euphemisms in "it gained control of the" is also silly, that control is called occupied. I understand some may be allergic to that word, but that is what the control is. Again, kindly return what there is an affirmative consensus for. nableezy - 20:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, the factual inaccuracy in saying it has continued to occupy only the West Bank when it continues to occupy the Golan Heights and according to the UN Gaza as well. The entirety of the edit is specious and it should be reverted, and it will be if you do not self-revert it. nableezy - 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There certainly isn't consensus for including the RwB report...

"Gained control" is not a euphemism: there's a difference between "gaining control" and "maintaining control"; "occupation" is the latter.

I disagree regarding the GH. The phrase "effectively annexed" was already in the text, but since it presumes Israeli control I don't see a reason for repetition.

Assuming I haven't broken any rules and disregarding the RwB bit, I'm reasonably content with the current version; it reads better and it's certainly more accurate, though like most everything else it could be improved further. François Robere (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

There are several blatant inaccuracies in your edits, and I will be correcting them. The phrase effectively annexed was in it, but also was the phrasing that Israel has since the Six-day War and continues to this day to occupy the Golan. You write

it continues to occupy the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, and has effectively annexed the Golan Heights; this, along with the establishment of settlements throughout the occupied territories

which implies that the Golan is not occupied. The game on "gaining control" and "maintaining control" might be more clever if not for that bit. Ill fix your mess tomorrow, no biggie. As far as RWB, there has not been a single policy based reason to remove it. Not a one. You havent even given one, you just surreptitiously attempted to silently remove it while claiming to be making a bold edit. One user has made a specious claim that because Israel is 86th that means it isnt "notable, despite WP:N saying specifically that notability has nothing to do with content, and another user has said it isnt true despite the several cited sources that say it is. You can try to conflate the issues here, but your edit is a, inaccurate, and b, goes against an established consensus. Mine is neither. nableezy - 21:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You also made a mess on the illegality of the Golan and Jerusalem Laws, linking that to the article on the settlements being illegal. You have quite literally degraded the factual accuracy, grammar, and readability of the paragraph. A paragraph that had consensus. Will be returning that consensus version later. nableezy - 21:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The game on "gaining control" and "maintaining control" might be more clever if not for that bit. Ill fix your mess tomorrow I don't think you need a reminder about WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY and WP:ASPERSIONS.

I've already explained the bit about the GH and the related statement about the Palestinian territories (which was misleading, and which you now restored), but for your peace of mind went ahead with this edit. Certainly that is not "strongarming", and there was not reason for you to revert it at this point rather than continue discussing.[1]

You also made a mess on the illegality of the Golan and Jerusalem Laws But doesn't International law and Israeli settlements also mention the Golan, and haven't you yourself said that settlements are not just in the West Bank, they are also in the Golan?

How are you going to address the problem regarding the Palestinian territories being "continuously occupied" since 1967? If your standard is what the territories are "nearly universally regarded as", then in the historical context they would've been considered Jordanian and Egyptian, not Palestinian.

Re: the RwB report - I already cited MOS:LEAD in my own edit; in particular, see MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL. François Robere (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Unaware of any aspersion cast. Have no idea what those links at the end are meant to signify, or any other place they were "already cited" since they appear for the first time in this section now. And your edit did not fix anything, as both EJ and the Golan were effectively annexed. As far as "address the problem regarding the Palestinian territories being "continuously occupied" since 1967", there is no problem, Israel has continuously occupied those territories since 1967. As far as, doesnt the intl law article mention the Golan? Yes, it does, but that again has nothing to do with the attempted annexations. Those are separate topics, you mashed them together. As far as "and there was not reason for you to revert it at this point rather than continue discussing", no there was a reason to revert it, it was tendentious and inaccurate and the prior version had consensus. So there were three reasons. As far as historical context, the Gaza Strip was never Egyptian except for Egyptian-occupied, the WB was claimed to be Jordanian but still regarded as Jordanian-occupied. And the sentence is using the term for the territory that is in common usage now. nableezy - 14:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

or any other place they were "already cited" In the summary of my initial edit, which you reverted.[2]

there is no problem, Israel has continuously occupied those territories since 1967 Yes, but back then they weren't - to quote your standard - "nearly universally regarded as" Palestinian, but as Jordanian and Egyptian (or at least Jordanian-occupied and Egyptian-occupied, as you rightfully put it). What is in common use today is irrelevant to the historical context. Two possible clarifications:

since the 1967 Six-Day War has occupied the Golan Heights (from Syria) and what are today regarded as the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem (from Jordan)

Also, I'm not clear on what "while retaining control of its borders" later in the sentence means - it looks redundant.

As far as, doesnt the intl law article mention the Golan? Yes, it does, but that again has nothing to do with the attempted annexations. Those are separate topics, you mashed them together. I'm not clear on what you're saying. We've established that your claim that I made a mess on the illegality of the Golan and Jerusalem Laws, linking that to the article on the settlements being illegal is wrong, since the linked article actually discusses that, ergo there's no problem linking it for both. François Robere (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The illegality of the laws extending civil law to the occupied territories (EJ, Golan) has nothing to do with the illegality of the settlements. And since Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories they have been widely regarded as Palestinian territories. nableezy - 16:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

But it's the same article for both, is it not? So the placement was right.

And since Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories [1967] they have been widely regarded as Palestinian territories (my addition in brackets) Per Occupation of the Gaza Strip by the United Arab Republic (unreferenced), "Egypt thus renounced any territorial claims over the Gaza Strip [in 1978]", and per Jordanian annexation of the West Bank, "Palestinians there remained Jordanian citizens until Jordan renounced claims to and severed administrative ties with the territory in 1988". How do we settle these claims? François Robere (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding my point on the link issues. Yes, for the illegality of settlements, that is the same article for all the occupied territories. But the sentence you placed was as follows:

Though it disengaged from Gaza in 2005, it continues to occupy the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, and has effectively annexed the latter; this, along with the establishment of settlements throughout the occupied territories, has been rejected by the international community as illegal under international law..

From the top, this implies Gaza is not occupied, and while that position has some support it is not the position of say the UN right now, so presenting it as not occupied in contrast to the others is a NPOV violation. Next, it has effectively annexed both EJ and the Golan, not just the latter. Next, the line this, along with the establishment of settlements throughout the occupied territories, has been rejected by the international community as illegal under international law. says the this (annexations) and that (settlements) are rejected as illegal under international law, which is true, but links to what only covers the "that" in the "this and that". As far as Egypt renouncing claims, I tend not to trust a Wikipedia article saying "thus" without a citations, as far as I know Egypt never made any territorial claims on Gaza and set up the All-Palestine Government and operated solely as occupant. Jordan is another issue, but their attempt at annexing the territory was mostly unrecognized. nableezy - 17:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

From the top, this implies Gaza is not occupied Correct, but neither does the current version, though it does give an ambiguous "while retaining control of its borders". I've no problem with the latter bit, though it should also mention Egypt. Again, the problem in this case is readability, not factual accuracy.

it has effectively annexed both EJ and the Golan, not just the latter Same as above.

this and that Same as above. The problem is the old version contains a redundancy: "Israel has effectively annexed... though these actions have been rejected as illegal by the international community (1), and established settlements within the occupied territories, which the international community also considers illegal under international law (2)" (numbering mine). Since #1 doesn't actually link to anything (the relevant links are before this statement), I don't see a problem keeping only #2. Our prose shouldn't be burdened by the limits of Wiki-text insofar as they apply to link placement.

The fact remains that in 1967 Israel took control of these territories from Jordan and Egypt, not from any Palestinian government, as the current text could have the reader believe. François Robere (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The current version doesnt imply Gaza is occupied, but it does not imply that it is not. Your version did. The current prose does say effectively annexed both EJ and the Golan, so no, not same as above, your edit muddies what is currently clear. The prose with the link implies that the link covers that material, and it does not. There is no redundancy, two separate things are illegal under international law. And the current text doesnt say anything about taking control from a Palestinain government, that isnt what occupied Palestinian territories mean. And if you would read the prior paragraph, you would see that the lead already says 1948 ended with "Israel in control of most of the former mandate territory, while the West Bank and Gaza were held by Jordan and Egypt respectively." nableezy - 17:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and hence the discrepancy (as I already mentioned) between that paragraph and the next. We haven't mentioned any Palestinian territories earlier, and suddenly we do; we weren't linking it to anything, so it wasn't clear what they are.[3]

Yes, repeating the same statement in two different contexts in a single paragraph is a redundancy; as is the repetition of names with different adjectives ("x, y and z [including t] were occupied, then x and y were annexed; y, z and t were settled; and z - but not t - was disengaged from"). I don't think the current paragraph is the epitome of style and readability, but I won't pursue it further if others have no interest in improving it. François Robere (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see the issue with Palestinian territories. FWIW the original consensus edit was clearer, and Ive restored that now. Is that better? nableezy - 03:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Slightly better. I made another edit[4] (feel free to revert, etc.); my concerns ATM are:

1. Overuse of "has resulted" ("has resulted in the occupation", "has resulted in the end of the occupation", "has resulted in a peace treaty").
2. Overly-complex sentences (too many clauses).
3. The redundancy regarding "illegal under international law". I'd rather have something like "Israel has done a, b & c, and they're all considered illegal".

Also, just before the paragraph there should probably be a note to editors (<!-- -->) about previous RfCs or discussions. François Robere (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a motherlode of discursive scatter here by editors not familiar with prior consensus achievements, therefore I have reverted to the stable version.Nishidani (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Why did you deleted that Israel is the most developed country in the Middle East second in Asia after Singapore? Tamar274 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Condensing overblown history in the lead

There is currently way too much emphasis on history in the lead, as emphasized by several editors at this point. In this diff I have attempted to condense the more distant classical history in an attempt to drag the lead back to something slightly closer to MOS:LEAD compliant. And this is really just a start: as it stands the article is 42% history, but 64% (going on 58% with this edit) history in the lead. It is also worth noting that History of Israel is standalone article dedicated to this history and despite this, actually summarises most of this material even more briefly in its lead. Much more could be done here too, and please take on the challenge of further trimming the history in the lead. On a broader note, it seems like the history content in general on this page could do with reducing. Given the presence of the standalone article, 42% of this articles does not need to be taken up duplicating that content. There should only be brief summaries here, linked to the history page. This article is meant to be about the modern country. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: Technical question: What sources testify to the "destruction of Jerusalem" in 70 CE? Every source that I have drilled down into has said that the second temple was destroyed (possibly by accident and the to the chagrin of Roman commanders), while the lower town was sacked and set on fire ... but nowhere have I seen a situation of total destruction described. I imagine this could possible be why the article title is Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE) and not anything else, because assessments on the level of damage inflicted is uncertain, even in the best of sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Among other things, you deleted explusion of Jews from Israel. Unlike some details that you left, this is the root cause for re-establishment of the modern State of Israel and it must appear in the history section. “WarKosign” 11:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@WarKosign: On this particular count, national myth and encyclopedic content are not necessarily in agreement. The 'expulsion' is not without ambiguity. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: While it may be the case, such a big change requires consensus. You can't delete a critical piece of history and describe it as just "condensing overblown history". “WarKosign” 18:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Really, WarKoSign, 'you deleted explusion of Jews from Israel' is disgraceful. not simply for the historical ignorance it flaunts, but because you even confuse Judea with modern 'Israel'. You shouldn't be editing topics like this if you don't care to get a handle on the ABCs of Jewish history, as opposed to memes in the vast book of national clichés.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WarKosign: Where is your source that the 70 CE sacking of Jerusalem, specifically, is the 'root cause' of anything? You are spouting opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Overblown is the history in general, but on this specific note, this 'critical' expulsion doesn't even have its own page. It links to a generic list. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 The destruction of Jerusalem, not just the Second Temple, is described in several ancient sources, most notably by Josephus, who accompanied Titus during the siege and wrote that the city "was so thoroughly razed to the ground by those that demolished it to its foundations, that nothing was left that could ever persuade visitors that it had once been a place of habitation."

As someone who lives in Jerusalem, and deeply interested in ancient history, I had the chance to meet various scholars who, based on the archeological evidence, believe that Josephus' account is mostly correct (as opposed to the destruction of the city by the Babylonians in 587/6 BCE which was a bit more limited).

If you ever get the chance to visit Jerusalem, a tour of the Old City. Archeological sites such as the Burnt House and the Davidson Center (both were part of Jerusalem's then Upper City), include signs of fire, Roman weapons, and the remains of residents killed during the battle. These archeological findings clearly show the magnitude of the destruction, well outside the Temple Mount.

The article is named "Siege of Jerusalem", and not "Destruction of Jerusalem", because it explores it as a military event, one of many taking place during the First Jewish-Roman Wars. Naturally, it covers the background, factions, strategy, warfare, other events, and results of the siege.

A quick Google scholar search will bring up many references to the city's destruction. I'll add some examples later today, if you are interested.

By the way, the reason the Temple was destroyed is debated. As you mentioned, Josephus wrote that it was some sort of an accident, made against the will of Titus. But there are several reasons to reject that account, as Josephus became a close friend and a protégé of Titus, who later adopted him and gage him a mansion in Rome. Tombah (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I.e., you live there and met some guys who believe Josephus got it right. There are very few set truths in ancient historical accounts. This kind of personal testimony is nonsense, as is citing a primary source esp. from antiquity, when we have a vast critical literature on each author showing how all of the ostensible details are subject to questioning. What happens on Wikipedia is that articles like this are created from primary sources by editors unfamiliar with, say, standard modern editions and commentaries on Josephus, and then editors use those entries to insist that the same 'stuff' be included all over correlated articles. This is a bloody encyclopedia, not a copy-and-paste meme machine or a place for justifying edits on the strength of personal hearsay. Nearly all ancient historians invented 'facts' and speeches, copied and imitated other writers using similar texts, with a definite rhetorical aim. Josephus is invaluable of course, like Thucydides or Herodotus (the 'father of lies') but only if used via the leaching scholarship that edits those books. Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ronny Reich, one of Jerusalem's leading archeologists, wrote that "While remains relating to the destruction of the Temple are scant, those pertaining to the Temple Mount walls and their close vicinity, the Upper City, the western part of the city, and the Tyropoeon Valley are considerable. [...] It was found that in most cases the archaeological record coincides with the historical description, pointing to Josephus' reliability". This view is based on excavations conducted by him and Nahman Avigad, another notable archeologist of Second Temple Jerusalem, who discovered much evidence of the violent destruction of the Upper City during the first century CE. Tombah (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: Thanks for those details. The aftermath section (or another section) the siege page could definitely do with elaborating with that quote from Josephus, which doesn't appear.

How do modern secondary sources in turn treat Josephus' testimony on the subject? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Modern secondary sources tend to treat Josephus as a highly unreliable narrator, but the best we've got (he is the only surviving narrative source for many of the events he chronicled). For what its worth I don't think that the destruction of Jerusalem belongs in the lead for Israel although it certainly does belong in the lead for Jerusalem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Which it isn't at the moment, right? Quelle ironie. Agreed that it could readily be cut entirely from the lead. Since the article is about the country, what history the lead contains should restrict itself to country-level developments. The most off topic component as it stands is almost certainly the cameo by Cyrus the Great. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh Lordy, it is not even in the lead summary for History of Jerusalem ... that is some very interesting cross-article imbalance in due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont see the relation to the modern state of Israel at all. The lead is supposed to be an overview of the topic Israel. How is this part of that overview? nableezy - 19:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The destruction of Jerusalem and the explusion of Jews in the aftermath of the revolts are both considered central in Israeli history as they mark the end of Jewish self-rule (either as in independent state or an autonomous one) in their ancient homeland until the establishment of modern Israel. They should stay. Tombah (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

'The destruction of Jerusalem and the explusion (sic!) of Jews in the aftermath of the revolts.' Look. I took the trouble to write you a long reply somewhere recently, on precisely these 'just-so' fantasies that have been hashed up in modern Israeli apologetics. The Jews were not expelled from Palestine, or Judea. Jerusalem certainly, like a million other cities in wars since the year dot, suffered substantial/immense damage at that time (Athens, Rome, Carthage etc.etc.etc.), none of which led to expostulations about the exceptional nature of the event, or as a motivating cause for political visions millennia later. Nothing exceptional occurred in comparative historical terms. There had been no such thing as 'Jewish self-rule' for a century - and before that it was a rarity, given the nature of ancient polities, which did not have a concept of ethnic 'self-rule'. What is happening here is the confusion of narratives, popular national stories with historical realities, that are another country altogether. Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thats just personal opinion, what source treats this as at all pertinent to the modern state of Israel, founded in 1948? This isnt an article about the history of the Land of Israel or Palestine or the Holy Land or whatever you want to call it. nableezy - 21:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is the page for the modern state, Israel in the small sense not Israel in the big sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Tombah regarding centrality of the destruction of Jerusalem/expulsion in Israel history. Removing that specifically makes no sense. Drsmoo (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: These events are not clearly central to the history of the modern-day nation-state of Israel: again, they are not even 'central' to the leads for the History of Israel, Jerusalem or History of Jerusalem articles. While they may be central to certain ethnonationlist narratives, that is not the same. The 'expulsion' narrative, if this even pertains to a discrete event, does not even have its own page, casting serious doubt on its credentials as any sort of historical actuality. What is your best reliable, secondary source for any of this being 'central to Israeli history'? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It is, after literally two minutes of searching.

“The official Israeli position was to acknowledge the centrality of Masada (as well as The Holocaust) to Israeli collective memory, yet to claim that the so-called complex is in fact a realistic outlook based on historical experience. This decision further prompted discussion and criticism both inside and outside Israel, as journalists and scholars pointed out the selective commemoration of Masada and its influence on Israeli’s perception of their present situation.”

Zerubavel, Y. (1995). Recovered roots : collective memory and the making of Israeli national tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Also, since you are focused on Wikipedia to ascertain importance, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora

Drsmoo (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: So, not sure what Masada has to do with anything, and the second source is literally dedicated to the creation of political narratives. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Disconcerting that editors persist in reinserting disputed material in the middle of discussions and without addressing the issues. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Those are good sources, I suggest you read them. Afterwards you will hopefully understand the difference between history and collective memory/national myth/national tradition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Masada was the last stand of Jewish zealots in the fight against the Roman Empire, and is emblematic of that fight, before the expulsion/diaspora. There is also the centrality of negating the diaspora. The Wikipedia article is not a “source”. Drsmoo (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: It is the Jerusalem siege, not Masada that was in the lead, so I don't really see why you are bringing it up. The Roman-Jewish war remained. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

and what does that have to do with the modern state? Have they had issues with the Roman Empire? This is not a page about the diaspora. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish Roman wars are also in the section that was removed. Masada is the immediate aftermath of the Jerusalem siege. Drsmoo (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead says "Modern Israel links its history back to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah that emerged during the Iron Age.." How does it "link" exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is through the time-honoured tradition of wishful thinking. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The version from six months ago began with hominids and Canaanites and segued into the kingdom-era, but that's more bloat ... Iskandar323 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: You are mistaken. The Jewish-Roman Wars were never removed, so if that is what this is about, please check the diffs again. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

So WarKoSign, Tombah, Drsmoo are convinced that the diaspora began with an 'expulsion' of the Jews after 70C. Jeezus, I mean, if that is the level of nescience feeding into this talk page, - there was no expulsion, and the diaspora occurred centuries before the Jewish Roman Wars, with the majority of Jews living outside Palestine (not controversial)- then we have a problem: editors not knowing anything about the topic they are trying to rewrite. These are fables, nursery tales, vernacular chatpoints whatever, all rubbished above all in Israeli universities. What are they doing here? What you all appear to be doing is pushing for a 'Zionist' fairytale version to compete with the relevant historical literature, as the raison d'être for Israel's existence. It doesn't need those crap stories any more. Ancient history has nothing to do with it: the Holocaust does, massively. Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: A big part of your post constitutes personal attacks. Kindly stike these parts of your comment down, and focus on merits of arguments instead of calling editors ignorant or accusing them of pushing an agenda. I won't bother linking to the relevant policies, I'm sure you know how to look them up in case you need a refresher since your last topic-ban for incivility. “WarKosign” 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The 'nescience' (nice word btw) was hypothetical, an "if". Your inference is your own. Why not save your breath and address the content issues? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WarKosign. Having an opinion is not an argument. I can see no evidence of an argument in the opinions I deplored. The meme repeated here, that the Romans expelled the Jews, ergo the diaspora, is twisted rubbish known to be such for decades. I deplored them because they are contra-factual. I regard it as profoundly 'uncivil' of editors to keep repeating things they have been told repeatedly are without a basis in historical scholarship. It is 'uncivil' because the assumption is that no one will recognize the untruth for what it is, i.e., it assumes one's interlocutor is uninformed of the topic matter. Your 'opinion' is a well documented meme of Zionist ideology, i.e.,

Many if not most modern Jews grew up with a tragically overdetermined view of the two centuries following the destruction of the Temple, a Jewish ground zero, the vast mass of them deported, enslaved, a pathetic remnant furtively hanging on in Palestine; the Jews of the diaspora huddling together in austere cells to pray and study what was left them. This is not what happened.' Simon Schama,The Story of the Jews, vol.1, 2014 p.182

Editors are required not to spout known ideological views here. To be taken seriously, you must muster an argument, buttressed by scholarly evidence. So far there is no trace of an 'argument', of the kind you ask me to make, in the remarks of the three editors I named above.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nishidani: For some time now you have been repeatedly subjected to personal attacks, with many of these directed at me and other editors you judge as 'Zionist' troubadours. It almost seems like you are blinded by hatred, and it is not clear to me why. Anyway, we are trying to have an effective and constructive discussion here. There is no need to celebrate every typo, let alone get words out of people's mouths. Nobody said that the diaspora began with the destruction of Jerusalem. However, the city was indeed devastated by the Roman conquest, and the majority of archaeologists who specialize in Jerusalem in the Second Temple period (many of them I know personally) share this view. Moreover, according to many studies, the Jewish revolts against Rome (the Bar Kokhba revolt in particular), deeply impacted the demography of the region, and contributed to the loss of Jewish dominance in the region during late antiquity. Facts aside, proper behavior precedes the Torah. I kindly ask you to stop the attacks and slander against anyone who disagrees with you. Striking the above comment would be a great start. Tombah (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tombah: Those would be some great points, IF this article was about Jerusalem, the historic demography of the Levant or classical-era Jewish population movements - it is none of the above. It remains an article about the modern nation-state, and these nostalgic segues about tangential events are undue in the lead. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

For some time now you have been repeatedly subjected to personal attacks, with many of these directed at me and other editors you judge as 'Zionist' troubadours.

Would you like to reread what you wrote there and construe its antic illogic, which states that when I am attacked you are the target, the premise being identity confusion?

You repeat yourself again, in the rest. Please read the quote from Schama, one of dozens I could provide, since you apparently have not grasped it. The remarks here all reflect that meme, which is 'Zionist', a form of ideology. Schama says this meme has been extremely influential among Jews, and it was echoed three times in this thread. To state this, with evidence, is not a personal attack. I see no evidence that anyone subscribing to this nonsense has any grasp of the relevant historical scholarship. To the contrary, all I see is repetitions of the same tired pathetic mythistory. It is not a slander to state that this or that person, per their remarks, are unfamiliar with the facts if the evidence shows that, indeed, they are contradicted by any number of historians, of the stature of Schama. More reading offline, and less blathering with generalizations, is what is required.By the way 'troubador' is not how Joseph Trumpeldor is spelled, a naughty pun. Nishidani (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"Up until this date the Bar Kokhba documents indicate that towns, villages and ports where Jews lived were busy with industry and activity. Afterwards there is an eerie silence, and the archaeological record testifies to little Jewish presence until the Byzantine era, in En Gedi. This picture coheres with what we have already determined in Part I of this study, that the crucial date for what can only be described as genocide, and the devastation of Jews and Judaism within central Judea, was 135 CE and not, as usually assumed, 70 CE, despite the siege of Jerusalem and the Temple's destruction." Joan E. Taylor, "The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea", p.243 OUP Oxford, 2012

"It is likely that 70 percent of the Judaean population perished in a veritable genocide. Not a single village or town known to have existed at that time and thus far excavated lacks archaeological evidence of destruction. So devastating was the war to the Jews that the center of their civilization shifted permanently, coming to reside in the near term in the regions of Sepphoris, Tiberias, and the Galilee. The Temple was never rebuilt. Nearly two millennia would pass before Jerusalem again came under Jewish dominion." Michael Owen Wise, "Language and Literacy in Roman Judaea: A Study of the Bar Kokhba Documents", pg. 2, Yale University Press 2015

The Romans committed a massive genocide against the Jews which fundamentally altered Jewish society and lead to what was known as "Galut" in Judaism for 2000 years. "Shlilat ha'galut", or the negation of Galut, is central to much of Zionism and the State of Israel. Drsmoo (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

on centrality to the modern state of Israel. nableezy - 03:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem providing any citation for the importance of negating Galut to the state of Israel. It is essentially common knowledge. Just curious if you feel, for example, that Middle Bronze Age Canaanite tribes don't require a citation to demonstrate centrality to the modern state of Israel? Drsmoo (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I generally dont think the answer to does x require a citation to be no. nableezy - 03:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Per the note by Moxy further up the page, good articles like Canada and Japan tend to provide detail on the first habitation. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

This is fruitless whataboutism and, in any case, other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.[5] François Robere (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations, Drsmoo. You are shifting the goalposts. You went to google, put in genocide+Roman wars and got the desired result, to a point no one here raised. That’s not the way history works, not least because your three results don’t explain what Simon Schama was doing in writing the passage he wrote. . My excursus responded to three wild variations on an identical assertion:-

(1) you deleted explusion of Jews from Israel. Unlike some details that you left, this is the root cause for re-establishment of the modern State of Israel and it must appear in the history section. “WarKosign” 11:14, 18 May 2022.

(2)The destruction of Jerusalem and the explusion of Jews in the aftermath of the revolts are both considered central in Israeli history as they mark the end of Jewish self-rule (either as in independent state or an autonomous one) in their ancient homeland until the establishment of modern Israel. Tombah (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC):

It’s interesting that both WarKoSign and Tombah make the identica error of metathesis in miswriting ‘explusion’

Agree with Tombah regarding centrality of the destruction of Jerusalem/expulsion in Israel history. Removing that specifically makes no sense. Drsmoo (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no explusion/expulsion, whereas all three of you showcase this fiction. Were ‘genocide’ Roman policy, why was the violent demographic collapse after the two bloody wars, and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE (not in 130-135 when Bar Kochba never set foot there and it remained under Roman control) concentrated in Judah? Your very own sources state that the population collapse refers to Judea, not to Jews all over Palestine. Ben Kiernan in his comprehensive Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Dafur, Yale University Press 2008 doesn’t list it. He only mentions the order by Philo of Alexandria’s nephew Tiberius Julius Alexander (i.e. Jewish) to conduct a genocidal pogrom in the Jewish quarter of Alexandria in 68 C.E., one he rescinded after 50,000 were killed. He also was a commander present in the siege of Jerusalem. In Josephus’s intricate account, there is no genocidal policy, since (we don’t know if this is reliable) most died of famine during the siege, as the zealots refused to surrender. (p.13)

Though demography of Palestine is a tricky area, scholarship varies about the Jewish percentage of the population over the succeeding centuries, veering from a majority, to, at the end of the Byzantine era 10-15% (all calculations vitiated by the failure to seriously take as a separate and very large population, the Samaritan people of Samaria - the majority there until the Byzantines wiped them out), none of these factors relate to some ‘genocide’ since outside of Judea, the evidence points to thriving Jewish communities elsewhere in Palestine (Kindly read the chapter by David Goodblatt, ‘The Political and social history of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel, c.235-638,' in (Steven T. Katz) The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period, Cambridge University Press, 1984 pp.404-430). Josephus’s figures don’t add up, since they suggest numbers close to the carrying weight of Palestine’s economy just for Jerusalem. For the religious, Jerusalem is Israel, but Palestine was a much larger reality, and the diaspora/galut did not begin in 70CE. It started several centuries earlier, and by 70CE, the majority of Jews lived beyond Palestine, ergo the fall of Jerusalem has nothing to do with diaspora, except in Zionist ideological biblethumping, which palms off a drastic loss of lives in Judea, as the expulsion of all Jews from Palestine, which leaves one wondering how on earth the Palestinian Talmud was written there.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

In short, you dodged the point by shifting the discourse from the myth of expulsion to the slipshod suggestion of genocide, which is not under discussion. Of course Jerusalem was devastated in 70 and this gave rise to a core theme of religious thinking, where Jerusalem is everything, but it was not so central to early Zionism, whose settlers regarded, not Jerusalem, but the Jordan Valley as the ‘holy of holies’. The fairy-tale version we have reflected in the comments above is what Schama noted, a just-so story inculcated into the naïve, for political purposes.Nishidani (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A politicized fairy tale is indeed what it is.Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Jews were expelled from Jerusalem, and forbidden to return, except for on Tisha B'Av, and yes there was a genocide. It is a statement of fact, backed by scholarship. As is the fact that the Roman genocide completely changed Judaism, and the nature of exile/Galut, which you appear to not understand. Your referring to the reality of genocide as "slipshod" is both offensive and incorrect. And your false conflation of agricultural realities related to the Jordan valley, with the 2000 year old longing for Jerusalem (aka Zion) is highly misplaced. It would be worthwhile to include references for the longing to return to Zion within Judaism in the lead, of which there is no shortage of reliable sourcing, as well as the concept of negating the diaspora. Drsmoo (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I (a) noted you had sidestepped the essential point of this thread (b) Zionism, by its own definition, is an ideology, i.e. a closed circuity of thinking intent on defending core assumptions, and utterly immune to what Bergson called open thinking. (c) so the repetition of the standard clichés is par for the course. In ideologies, it is not a matter of answering an incongruity or a flaw in belief that is important: the essence is to talk round any diffculty, or refine the myth. (d) a myth like the longing to return, based on a single ritual cheer:'next year in Jerusalem', and denied by the whole history of Jewish emigration, esp. in modern times where the 'new Zion' for Eastern Europeans was 'west' (the US for example), not south. In Talmudic times, Babylonian Jews prided themselves on, in diaspora, holding fast to a superior position than their Palestinian brethren, who remained in the Galilee, and, even in Islamic times, where movement was feasible, there was no flowback into Palestine, despite the open sesame policy conducted by the new power. This is quite pointless because the really interesting stuff of Jewish history is absent from this encyclopedia- too varied, too dissonant with the clichés of fabulistic indoctrination. You don't respond on point but recite the useless boring litany, which is no longer taken seriously in serious quarters. So, let's drop it.Nishidani (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That's hilarious, the Babylonian Talmud says "In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God." Followed by discussion of how Jews may "ascend"(immigrate) to Israel individually, but should not en masse until the Messiah. - Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 110B. This is not a forum, and no one is interested in your counterfactual rantings about Jewish history cobbled together from fringe and out-of-context sources. Drsmoo (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, drop it. You're way out of your depth, and it is particularly 'hilarious' that you cite Ketubot 110b 'out of context' by ignoring one of the several remarks in that tractate where Judah bar Ezekiel states the opposite. Reflect in any case on what you wrote/quote, that in this place in the tractate a mass movement of aliyah (Zionism!) prior to the coming of the Messiah is interdicted. Anything can be proven by selective citation of primary sources. You failed to look at the secondary literature.Drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That is a very odd response. Did you not read my post? Don't be so tendentious and eager to insult. Had you not been, you would have seen "Followed by discussion of how Jews may "ascend"(immigrate) to Israel individually, but should not en masse until the Messiah". That discussion was between Rabbi Zeira, who believed individuals could "ascend" to Eretz Yisrael and Rav Yehuda, who believed they should wait until the messiah. Ultimately, Rabbi Zeira did emigrate. It informed the religious objection to Zionism, with the counter used by religious zionists that it is no longer applicable as the nations of the world broke it by treating Jews too harshly. You are also incorrect regarding secondary sources, so let's discuss those, particularly as they relate to the original point that started this discussion of the importance of exile/destruction of Jerusalem (or genocide, if you prefer) and loss of self-determination as central to Israeli history and self-conception (Note, these are scholars of Jewish studies, so perhaps they are recycling memes or something):

"R. Zeira effectively won the argument: he moved from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, where he lived out his life." Scheinerman, Rabbi Amy. “Moving to the Land of Israel: Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketubot 110b–111a.”" The Talmud of Relationships, Volume 2: The Jewish Community and Beyond, University of Nebraska Press, 2018, pp. 111–46.

"The loss of Jewish sovereignty was the defining political event in the life of the Jewish people.” Wisse, Ruth R. Jews and Power. United Kingdom, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, p.4 2008.

"The total effect of the "denial of the Galut' was to break the connection with the Jewish past between the last gasp of Jewish independence in the Holy Land, the Bar Kochba revolt in 131-135, and the beginnings of modern Zionism. The long-reigning Gentile contempt for the life of the Jews in exile, after the destruction of the Temple, was thus internalized. The Christians had found the reason in Christ-rejection; the new anti Semites had found the fault in the indelibly inferior Jewish nature; the Zionists now blamed their ancestors for not having fought their way back to the land." Hertzberg, Arthur. “The Meaning of Zionism for the Diaspora.” CrossCurrents, vol. 48, no. 4, 1998, pp. 500–09.

"The rejection of Jewish life in the Diaspora—shlilat ha-gola—is a central assumption in all currents of Zionist ideology." Eliezer Schweid (1984) The Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist thought: Two approaches, Studies in Zionism, 5:1, 43-70

"No idea is more fundamental to the Zionist sense of mission than the ending of exile for the Jewish people." Divine, Donna Robinson. “Exiled in the Homeland.” Shofar, vol. 21, no. 2, 2003, pp. 66–81.

"In conclusion, a major characteristic of Zionism’s symbols is their Jewish historical, ethnic and religious inspiration. Many of these symbols draw, first, on past periods of Jewish experience of sovereignty in their historic homeland; second, on the many Jewish uprisings against foreign domination which have marked Jewish historical experience; and third, on the historic endeavours of Jewish communities to reject the condition of exile." Gal, Allon. “HISTORICAL ETHNO-SYMBOLS IN THE EMERGENCE OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL.” Nationalism and Ethnosymbolism: History, Culture and Ethnicity in the Formation of Nations, edited by Athena S. Leoussi and Steven Grosby, Edinburgh University Press, 2007, pp. 221–30.

Drsmoo (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ok, good - "a central assumption in all currents of Zionist ideology" - so due on the Zionism page; not due on this country page. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Judah bar Ezekiel’s position was more influential down to modern times. The First Zionist Congress found upwards of 90% of Orthodox rabbis hostile to the idea, regarding it as a threat to Judaism. As Chaim Potok beautifully showed in his The Chosen, 1948 proved, if rather opportunistically, the major turning point.

As Iskander notes, this risks violating WP:Forum. But I will reply to that because the thread wonderfully demonstrates the basic problem with the I/P area: i.e., the inability to thresh the chaff of ideological posturing (the immense literature directly reflecting their authors’ Zionist beliefs) from the wheat of scholarship. Israel of course is that interesting paradox, an Open society with a closed ideological foundation. Its universities produce first rate scholarship, little read outside that ambit, that endlessly embarrasses the ideology, while politicians, journalists, and the usual true-believing talking heads are comforted by the fact that, socially and abroad, the ideology has managed to ground itself as a normativization of the bizarre idea that Zionism is essentially inextricable from ‘being Jewish’ (a good argument can be made that it is the antithesis of the general trend of Jewish history). The Zionist books you keep quoting will of course say exactly what Zionism wants its constituency to think about anything ‘Jewish’ in the usual expropriative fashion of spinning history to vindicate its premises. But if you want anything of encyclopedic value, you have to desist from the comfort zone of self-vindicating Zionist mullings, and seek enlightenment in what competent scholars, refreshingly rethinking their topics in the light of what their historical findings provisionally suggest, are saying. One will give you are tired reiterative version of the just-so narrative, the other will, at best, show you how complex, perplexing, and often indeterminate open questions about these issues are, if tested against the reality of history. As Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi noted (1982), contemporary Jewish historical writing rejects “premises that were basic to all Jewish conceptions of history in the past.”

As your own sources show, you are quoting from writers who are committed Zionists. Zionism is by universal consensus an ideology (as one of your texts unblushingly admits:’ all currents of Zionist ideology’) and an ideology is a closed system of thought incapable programmatically of examining in logical or empirical terms the validity of its fundamental tenets. What Schama stated recognized this: indeed, his great history, at least until the final tragic volume, I imagine, dwells on the genius of accomplishment of Jews in diaspora. The conversion of that into statehood has only meant the name of Jews is finally linked to the normalcy of nationalism, colonialism, apartheid, ethnic supremacy: the redemption from exile is bought by turning the occupied people into exiles in or from their own land. What was terrible for 'us' is the price 'they' must pay. What fills out stories of 'our' outraged dignity for millenia with such pathos is what we must visit on the people we will caste out, 'our' despair in the past is what they must suffer (Jabotinsky) if we are to redeem ourselves.

All Zionism provides is justifications for a faith in this or that article of the belief system which has become awkward, or subject to challenge.Talking with Zionists is like asking Mikhail Suslov in his heyday about the Soviet Union, or trying to get useful information about Chinese society and history from Zheng Yanxiong. Nishidani (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It very clearly violates WP:Forum, as did your previous post. Your personal opinions regarding reliable and notable sources are irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

No. A crux arose re edits. My concluding remarks actually deal with a serious WP:RS problem. Since (a) as your source admits, Zionism is an ideology (b) to what extent are works written by writers committed to that ideology RS for facts: here, facts about Israel. The answer is obvious in all other contexts. Zionists like Maoists, or Communists, and anyone else, are free to edit here, but we should require of them that the information excerpted should not reflect the partyline, but that, rather these opinions, framed to justify an ideology, be confirmed by scholarship. We wouldn't use texts by Leninists or Stalinists to gloss Soviet history, or even thought, but rather works by Leszek Kołakowski, or Orlando Figes, or Richard Pipes. The same goes for Zionist interpretations of Israel. Well, perhaps this should be taken up at the appropriate RS board, for it is a serious problem here, as shown by the editor here who uses the standard handful of rhetorical gambits by spokesmen in 47/8 (duly produced in that period by the Jewish agency to influence the Partition vote) to press for mentioning the putative programme to conduct genocide. Those quotes exist, as do hundreds before that time explicitly recognizing the need to 'spirit' the Palestinian population out of that land to make way for Jewish immigration, or the 24 massacres that took place of Palestinians in that period but, like the latter, are immaterial to the text at hand, which should be wary of rhetorical positions and ideological warrants in favour of straight factual description of Israel since 1948. Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The opinions are confirmed by scholarship, for example, renowned professors of Yiddish and Jewish studies, who are far more knowledgeable on the subject than you, writing in peer-reviewed journals. That is why they are reliable sources, and why your WP:Forum rants are irrelevant. Drsmoo (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope again. The opinions in those writers are easily contradicted by the views of equally qualified, and more nuanced scholars, who note that it does not figure among the 613 prescriptions on Maimonides, or that Ashkenazi jurists in particular placed constraints on any individual Jew expressing a desire to perform aliyah. What counted for them was not the Land of Israel, but Torah study, for which diaspora was far better furnished. (Jean-Christophe Attias, Esther Benbassa, Israel, the Impossible Land, Stanford University Press, 2003 pp.96-100) It's numerous detailed studies of the long and intricate debates among rabbis that undercut the broadbrush assertions - which just happen to fit a Zionist narrative- which you quote. But, if you are unfamiliar with this, so be it. These are not my opinions, but what the less ideologically canted specialists note. Punto e basta. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your responses (and Nableezy's) are very strange. Your quote, has no bearing or relevance whatsoever to any of the sources I cited, or the scope of this discussion, which is the centrality of Galut/exile/genocide/loss of sovereignty and its centrality in Israeli history, whether you consider that part of Israeli history or not. As an aside, Nachmanides considered Aliyah a biblical imperative, and included it in his list of 613 mitzvot, and Maimonides included "Destroying the seven Canaanite nations" in his, with some debate over whether that necessarily included settlement. You should also read his full 13 principles of faith in Introduction to Perek Helek, particularly "The “days of the Messiah” refers to a time in which sovereignty will revert to Israel and the Jewish people will return to the land of Israel...except for he fact that sovereignty will revert to Israel, nothing will be essentially different from what it is now." It is also interesting/amusing to see, "Israel, the Impossible Land" cited, with it's "numerous detailed studies of the long and intricate debates among rabbis", which, self-evidently, attests to the significance of Galut and Israel in Jewish life and thought, including its de/reterritorializing. I look forward to reading it. Drsmoo (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

My dear fellow, your attempt at mocking irony, referring to my mention of 'Israel, the Impossible Land' and it's "numerous detailed studies of the long and intricate debates among rabbis", falls flat on its face for the simple fact that you confuse the present tense third person singular of the verb 'to be', i.e., 'it is' with the possessive pronound its, which leads you to confuse and thus totally misread my reference to just one of many studies (read William Davies 1982, Daniel Boyarin and Jonathan Boyarin (1993, 2002, from memory) and Jon Stratton 1997 (I think) on the shifts, veerings and complexities of these concepts of galut vs diaspora (different concepts), exile, the Land and the way Zionism hijacked them in its modern rhetoric) as a reference to those many studies, of which the bracketed list is a bare minimum. Obviously, if you confuse a verb with a pronoun, discussion that involved intricate scholarship is pointless. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, but what's a "pronound"? Drsmoo (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronound is the short form for "pronouned", which occurs in the given circumstances. Similarly, one can be nouned, verbed and adjectived but worst of all is being participled. Selfstudier (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

) It's a miracle only one spelling mistake occurred in that post, since I have to battle the line-jumpy antics of the keyboard of the laptop I used to write it. It actually took several attempts desultorily over an hour and a half to put that up. Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Centrality in Israeli history???? This is not an article on the history of the Jews, the history of the Jews in Palestine/Land of Israel/the Holy Land, or an article on Zionist histriography. This has jack to do with the state of Israel, besides being a part of its national mythology. nableezy - 18:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your attempts at equating Zionist propaganda about the innate righteousness of the Zionist project based on the mythology of the Jewish "experience of sovereignty in their historic homeland" to the history of the country named Israel and founded in 1948 is what is a WP:FORUM rant and is irrelevant. This is not Talk:Zionism, this is Talk:Israel. nableezy - 15:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: You are providing quotes, decontextualised and without secondary analysis, directly from a primary religious text. This is WP:OR 101. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that the article is called 'Israel' (the 48 creation) not Jews or Judaism or History of Jews or....Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The nth quick reminder ... Iskandar323 (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Postscript statement ensuring those reading will know that all the positive rankings of Israel in terms of human health, liveability, freedom etc are limited to Israelis, and do not apply to Arabs those living outside of Israel's 1948 borders

These figures, however, almost exclusively do not apply for the Palestinian population of Israel and its occupied territories, who suffer racial discrimination and land alienation that human rights activists maintain is a form of apartheid. Israel's government has rejected such statements and most criticism of themselves as inherently antisemitic.
I cited both Human Rights Watch (https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/israeli-authorities-and-crimes-apartheid-and-persecution) and Amnesty International (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/), making it clear that these were opinions that were theirs. The figures I described as being excluding to Palestine are true; whether living in Israel's legally defined borders or the illegally occupied territories, Palestinians have either a reduced life expectancy in comparison (https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/26/3/433/2467207) or one that is far lower (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.LE00.IN?locations=PS) respectively. Palestinians have been alienated from their land consistently since 1948 and suffer racial discrimination in Israel and endemic anti-Arabism. As for Israel's rejection of criticism of themselves as anti-Semitic, there are many, many sources for this. (https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-separating-anti-semitism-from-criticism-of-israel/a-44737277) (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-s-bennett-on-ben-jerry-s-boycott-there-s-plenty-of-ice-cream-one-country-1.10013699) (https://theconversation.com/criticizing-israel-is-not-antisemitic-its-academic-freedom-148864) (https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic).
(Originally a reply to User:GreenCows)

It is unnecessary to talk about the plight of Palestinians/Arabs from Gaza and the West Bank in this article, as these territories are not part of Israel itself. To talk about the Arabs/Palestinians inside Israel, there is the article Arab citizens of Israel. Mawer10 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Palestinian citizens of Israel Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)