Talk:Israel

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Minor Edit Request

The following discussion 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.

---

Remove "synonymous with Canaan" from the lede.

1. The borders of ancient Canaan don't line up with modern day Israel.

2. No real reason to mention ancient Canaan just like we don't mention that it's synonymous with British Mandatory Palestine or the Judea province of the Roman Empire.

3. The fact that Canaanites lives there is in the following sentence.

I've made this request in the past and it was approved, I don't know who reversed it or why Fyukfy5 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2025 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2025

I'd like to add an audio. This is for the pronunciation footnote a. ^ⓘ Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Flame, not lame  Done Lililolol (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Demographics

The Demographics section starts by stating "Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world..." which in inaccurate, as the USA has 50% of the world's Jewish population, and Israel has 30% (according to Wikipedia). Mathematically, the statement is false and should be clarified. 66.119.110.115 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

According to Jewish population by country then Israel has 7.3M Jews, while USA has 5.7M, not sure where you're getting the 30% and 50% from? Maybe you were reading the populations just for Ashkenazi Jews? As maybe that makes sense perhaps, as most Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi, while the vast majority of American Jews are Ashkenazi. ~ Mathmo ^Talk 02:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

There is whole section Jewish_population_by_country#Debate_over_American_numbers with numbers seemingly ranging from 6 to 7.63 million in the US in 2020 (the 5.7 number is from 2016 though the reporter may have more recent numbers). A lot depends on the definition of Jewish: self-definition, those qualified under Israel's law of return, or those as defined by Orthodox standards plus perhaps other definitions. Another issue is how good the method of counting is (I suspect fairly clear cut in Israel by either the law of return definition or Orthodox standards but far less so in other countries). Erp (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

All of those figures under that debate section are well under Israel's 7.3M population, aside from one figure which claims "7.63 million American Jews". Which only barely exceeds Israel's numbers by the skinniest of margins. We can reasonably say with confidence that Israel has the largest Jewish population in the world. ~ Mathmo ^Talk 11:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The RFC above does not appear fulfilled?

The closin admin's conclusion was "INCLUDE IN BODY AND LEAD." However, the article does not currently link to Gaza genocide in the lead. I'm going to restore a wikilink to Gaza genocide into the lead of this article. Feel free to express any concerns or comments about this here. JasonMacker (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2025

Change artillery rocket to rocket artillery. It is the correct form. Sigmarecep31 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I disagree. Yes, the rockets in question are from rocket artilleries, but a rocket from such an artillery is an artillery rocket. Defense systems can be anti-missile, anti-rocket, etc. In this case, it's anti-rocket, but "rocket" has been qualified with "artillery". I'm not sure that "artillery" needs to be there, because I don't know whether an anti-rocket system's construction depends on whether or not the rockets it's defending against are from an artillery, but that's a separate matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Demography section

Why is there a new infobox of "Greater Israel" in the Demography section? It wasn't there before. It should be removed. Wikipedia is neutral and is not a place of Antisemetism. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Religion Figures are mistyped in Infobox

The religious affiliation of the Israeli population as of 2022 was 73.6% Jewish, 18.1% Muslim, 1.9% Christian, and 1.6% Druze. The remaining 4.8% included faiths such as Samaritanism and Baháʼí, as well as "religiously unclassified". But the Infobox mentions Judaism to be 40%. ArushR (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2025

Change the religious group percentage of Israel to 70.3% because now it says it is 40% which is wrong 2A04:4A43:962F:F261:B942:4C77:972D:29DC (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Largoplazo (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2025

In the first sentence about what Israel shares borders with, i'd like to make a minor clarification that Syria is more in north-east than true north.

−

it shares borders with Lebanon and Syria to the north

+

it shares borders with Lebanon to the north and Syria to the north-east

Yelps :/ critique me 16:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've made the edit request. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request

In the architecture section, the article discusses an interesting place named Nahalal, which has a circular design. However, the article incorrectly states that Nahalal is a kibbutz. In fact, it is another form of settlement called a "moshav." Zenith87 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources can be found in Nahalal. Zenith87 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Israel has won 20 Olympic medals since 1992

comment about the number of medals Isreal has won. 2A01:73C0:84C:427:0:0:A22C:1901 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the number that was there (9) hadn't been updated to reflect the last two summer Olympics. I've updated the sentence. Largoplazo (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :-). 2A01:73C0:84C:427:0:0:A22C:1901 (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 1 May 2025

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−

[[Syria]] to the north-east

+

[[Syria]] to the northeast

Seungri400 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Looks to be an WP:ENGVAR thing. The hyphenated form appears to be more common in British english and this article uses that Cannolis (talk) 09:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@Cannolis: This was a very recent addition, and note that "southwest" is spelled without a hyphen later in the paragraph. Seungri400 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

What was a recent addition? Also, good catch. Have changed all instances of northeast/west and southeast/west with text search to include the hyphen. If this is not actual preferred British English someone feel free to revert. Cannolis (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

i added it via an edit request. Yelps :/ critique me 05:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Lead section revision

Hi all, I restored a rewritten version of the lead because I believe it better follows Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and balance, especially WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, and WP:UNDUE. I understand the previous wording had long-standing consensus, but I think it’s worth discussing some improvements.

The older version included some phrases that were too vague or seemed to take a side; for example, terms like “military occupation” or “continued blockade” were stated as facts without showing that they are debated. Also, some parts of the history jumped around or didn’t explain things clearly.

In my version, I tried to:

• Show both sides of disputes (like over territory) without saying who is right.
• Make the history flow better from ancient times to today.
• Use more neutral language that sticks to the facts and avoids emotional or unclear words.

I’m happy to work with others on this. I’m not trying to push a view, just improve the tone, clarity, and fairness of the lead. Let’s talk about it and see what we can agree on. EditBagel (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

To recap the situation to date: You understood that the previous wording had long-standing consensus, but had some ideas to share about revising it. Rather than presenting your ideas to see if you could get a fresh consensus for some changes, you took it upon yourself to make the changes unilaterally. Then, after Remsense reverted your changes, you brought what you had already intended to be a fait accompli to us here to explain why your changes should be accepted. What should then have taken place is a discussion where you try to persuade others to accept your changes, but instead you restored the article to your version immediately thereafter, ahead of receiving even a single response, let alone a consensus, putting the burden on others to justify putting it back the way it was. And that's in a contentious topics article. Largoplazo (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Largoplazo. I understand your concerns about process and appreciate the reminder about how important consensus is in contentious topics. That said, my intent wasn’t to bypass discussion or force a version through, I genuinely thought the changes improved clarity and neutrality, and I was hoping to start a collaborative conversation around that.

I accept that restoring my version without waiting longer for replies might have been premature. I’ve since self-reverted to the stable version to respect the process, and I’m happy to workshop revisions with others going forward. My only goal here is to improve the balance, flow, and attribution of the lead, not to push a POV. Let’s shift focus to the content and see if we can move forward constructively. EditBagel (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Another problem is five misbalanced paragraphs instead of four. Really, most of the changes just aren't improvements, and I don't see how any passage would flow better.

(Really, the only incisive editorial decision I can clearly detect is, uh, the removal of the g-word—likely the single most deliberated upon phraseology I've witnessed in any RfC or content discussion in my time here so far. I was glad to see you self-revert when you did.) Remsense ‥ 论 01:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Remsense. I understand why the change to five paragraphs raised concerns, but that structure wasn't an attempt to force imbalance, it was about improving flow and breaking up dense content. If consensus prefers four, I’m open to condensing or merging, but I hope we can discuss that editorially, not just revert on structure alone.

As for the removal of the “genocide” accusation: I want to be very clear, I didn’t take that step lightly or to protect Israel from criticism. I removed it because WP:LEAD says the intro should summarize the most important, broadly accepted content, not every serious accusation. Including a genocide claim, which is not treated as settled fact even in the body, gives disproportionate weight in an already sensitive topic. That’s not neutrality. That’s WP:UNDUE.

I’m not framing anything in pro-Israel terms; I’m trying to make sure we’re sticking to core policies and applying them fairly. If the accusation belongs, then let’s attribute it precisely and place it proportionally, but let’s not pretend its inclusion is a neutral default. I welcome more eyes on this, and more collaborative discussion. EditBagel (talk) 02:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Dunno what to tell you, other than to peruse the RfC discussion (which I didn't participate in myself save accidentally at the beginning) where many experienced editors made cases disagreeing with you about that. If you wanted to establish consensus for your revision, I wouldn't think it plausible for that part. Remsense ‥ 论 02:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Proposed revision to lead section for neutrality and clarity

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 debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Request for comment on revising the lead section

I'm proposing changes to the lead section only of the Israel article to improve its neutrality, attribution, and clarity, particularly in how it presents disputed topics. This proposal does not alter the body of the article, which already reflects consensus language and attribution in more detail. I believe the current lead includes language that presents certain disputed characterizations as fact (e.g., “illegally occupied territories,” “genocide”), which may run afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, especially for an introduction section. My revision aims to retain the same facts while better reflecting the disputed nature of some of the claims and improving the overall flow and neutrality.

Please see the proposed draft below.

Proposed lead revision

Israel, officially the State of Israel, is a country in West Asia, situated in the Southern Levant region of the Middle East. It shares borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan to the east, Egypt to the southwest, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west. A small coastline along the Red Sea lies at its southernmost point, and part of the Dead Sea forms a section of the eastern boundary. The proclaimed capital is Jerusalem, while Tel Aviv is the largest urban area and functions as the economic centre. Its culture draws from Jewish and Jewish diaspora traditions, as well as Arab and broader regional influences. Israel maintains varying degrees of control over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip under arrangements established by the Oslo Accords. Although Israel withdrew its military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it continues to control Gaza’s airspace, maritime access, and most of its land crossings; Egypt controls the Rafah border crossing in the southwest. These areas are widely described by the international community as occupied territories, a characterisation disputed by Israel, which cites security threats and militant activity as factors in its policies. Israel is located in a region historically referred to as the Land of Israel, associated with ancient Canaan and the Holy Land. In antiquity, it was home to the Canaanite civilisation followed by the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Situated at a continental crossroads, the region experienced demographic changes under the rule of various empires, including the Romans and Ottomans. European antisemitism in the late 19th century galvanised Zionism, which sought a Jewish homeland in Palestine and gained British support. After World War I, Britain occupied the region and established Mandatory Palestine in 1920. Increased Jewish immigration during the interwar period and British foreign policy in the Middle East led to intercommunal conflict between Jews and Arabs, which escalated into a civil war in 1947 after a proposed partition by the United Nations was rejected by the Arabs. After the end of the British Mandate for Palestine, Israel declared independence on 14 May 1948. The following day, several neighboring Arab states invaded, triggering the First Arab–Israeli War. By the time armistice agreements were signed in 1949, Israel controlled approximately 77 per cent of the former Mandate territory. During the conflict, many Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, in an event Palestinians refer to as the Nakba. Those who remained became the largest non-Jewish minority in the new state. In the following decades, Israel’s population expanded significantly due to immigration, including Holocaust survivors and Jews fleeing or expelled from Arab and Muslim-majority countries. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. It later returned the Sinai to Egypt under a 1979 peace treaty and formally applied Israeli law to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, steps widely regarded as annexations and not recognised under international law. Israel continues expanding settlements in the West Bank, which most countries and international organisations consider illegal under international law, a position Israel disputes. In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israeli-held territory during the Yom Kippur War; although Israel repelled the assault, the war marked a turning point in Arab–Israeli relations. Israel subsequently signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai in 1982, and later with Jordan. In 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed the Oslo Accords, a series of agreements beginning in 1993 that established mutual recognition and created the Palestinian Authority as an interim governing body for parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. A final status agreement has yet to be reached. In the 2020s, Israel normalised diplomatic relations with several Arab states through the Abraham Accords, though efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have stalled, and Israel has experienced recurring conflict with Palestinian armed groups. The country's Basic Laws establish a parliament elected by proportional representation, the Knesset, which determines the makeup of the government headed by the prime minister and elects the largely ceremonial president. Israel is the only country to have a revived official language, Hebrew. It is the only country where Jews constitute more than 2 per cent of the population, and in which they are the largest demographic. Israel has the 25th-largest nominal GDP in the world, among the highest nominal GDPs per capita in Asia, and one of the highest standards of living in the region. One of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, it allocates a larger share of its GDP to research and development than any other country, and is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.

EditBagel (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you close this for now, given there's no reason to expect consensus has shifted significantly from past discussions. (cf. WP:RFCBEFORE)Remsense ‥ 论 04:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Remsense. I hear your concern about RFCBEFORE, but I do believe there’s room for a fresh look. The landscape of reliable sourcing and editorial scrutiny has shifted somewhat, and there are increasing concerns from editors about how the current lead balances tone, attribution, and WP:DUE weight. My intent with this RfC is not to rehash old debates, but to examine whether a more neutral and policy-aligned framing is possible, particularly in light of how much has evolved both in real-world context and in the article itself since prior consensus was reached.

I’m happy to engage constructively and open to revising the proposal if it helps foster consensus, but I don’t think it hurts to allow community input and see where consensus stands now. EditBagel (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

If I can be blunt, it's significantly more difficult to discern whether you're actually getting what I'm saying to you, given there's an obviously LLM layer in between. It seems ill-advised to run an RfC that way as well.

I don’t think it hurts to allow community input and see where consensus stands now

Well, WP:RFCBEFORE tells you quite plainly how it can hurt more than help:

RfCs are time consuming, and Wikipedia being a volunteer project, editor time is valuable. Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC ...

and, I'll add, at least taking a look at the previous RfC to get a sense of what the consensus was, which it doesn't seem you did. Remsense ‥ 论 04:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I get where you’re coming from, but I promise this is all me. I’ve spent real time reading past discussions and working through how to raise this in a way that fits with policy. I care a lot about how the lead represents the topic, and I’m trying to do this the right way.

At the end of the day, this is about the proposal itself. If there are issues with it, let’s talk about it. EditBagel (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Please close the RfC if you can't even own up to writing replies with an LLM. You're gearing up to potentially waste dozens of other editors' time, and it's so clearly unnecessary and beyond redundant. Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Remsense, if you think the proposal isn’t worth discussing, that’s fair, but challenge the content, not me. Let's keep this focused on the topic. EditBagel (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

No, because the topic was already discussed in excruciating detail only a few months ago, by dozens of editors. The issue is quite clearly that you're trying to re-roll the dice for no good reason other than you might get something in edgewise. Go read the RfC where this was discussed, and close this one until you at least understand what existing consensus is and why, please. Remsense ‥ 论 04:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that the relevant test is whether something is a better summary of the article body. The policy compliance of the lead should be a function of the policy compliance of the article body. A focus on a lead as if it is an independent thing rather than a summary of the article body in the PIA topic area is usually not a good sign. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Remsense; rehashing this immediately after it was already rehashed is unlikely to be constructive. And an RfC on such a matter needs to present both the proposed version and the [then-]current one, with a summary of the differences (or better yet the differences being highlighted directly (cf. {{xt}} and {{!xt}} for green and red highlighting templates, or the more complex {{highlight}} with custom colors), so editors who are not already steeped in the day-to-day debate on this talk page can assess the matter without having to expend a great deal of time on it. The entire point of RfC is brining in heretofore uninvolved editors, so making it such a slog that they're likely to give up is entirely counter-productive. That said, the general goal (if it's accurate) of couching things like "genocide" and "illegally occupied" in terms that reflect substantial expert analysis and also account for the opposing view, rather than stating "genocidal" and "illegal" as incontrovertible facts, seems reasonable. But the devils are always in the details and few RfCs in a heated topic propose text that actually does (and only does) what is claimed to be the goal of the revision proposal. Sean.hoyland's point that the way to write a lead is to properly summarize the body is also a good one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 4 May 2025 (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.

Closing comment: As the proposer of this RFC, I am withdrawing it due to feedback indicating that the issue had already been addressed in a previous discussion. Thanks to those who provided feedback. No further discussion is needed at this time. EditBagel (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)