Talk:Israel/Archive 73

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

→

Archive 80

Freedom House and Democracy Index

If we are to use these reports in the article, we must describe their positions accurately. See below:

Freedom House:

• The second (out of two) paragraph of the Overview says “Although the judiciary is active in protecting minority rights, the political leadership and many in society have discriminated against Arab and other minorities, resulting in systemic disparities in areas including political representation, criminal justice, and economic opportunity.”

• Relevant detail from the main body: “Arab or Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy equal rights in principle, as enshrined in Israel’s Basic Law, but they face some discrimination in practice, both legally and informally. The Joint List’s representation in the Knesset falls short of Arabs’ roughly one-fifth share of Israel’s population, though some vote or run as candidates for other parties. No Arab party has ever been formally included in a governing coalition, and Arabs generally do not serve in senior positions in government. The roughly 600,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are Israeli citizens and can participate in Israeli elections. Arab residents of East Jerusalem have the option of obtaining Israeli citizenship, though most decline for political reasons. These noncitizens can vote in municipal as well as Palestinian Authority elections. However, Israeli law strips noncitizens of their Jerusalem residency if they are away for more than three months. Citizenship and residency status are denied to Palestinian residents of the West Bank or Gaza Strip who are married to Israeli citizens.” Even the Jerusalem Post acknowledges that “Israel does score lower than most other nations in the free world”[1]

Democracy Index:

• Includes no description of Israel at all, other than the two words “flawed democracy”.

• A detailed external analysis concludes: “No other country on the index has such a massive disparity between its levels of participation, the quality of its electoral process, its strong media and freedom of expression and its dismal civil liberties record. Essentially, Israel is the world’s only high-functioning illiberal democracy. Or as legislator Ahmad Tibi puts it, “democratic for Jews and Jewish for Arabs.””

• An excerpt of the detail: “On civil liberties Israel scores only 5.88. And that’s low, even for a flawed democracy. In fact, you have to scroll down all the way to Malaysia in 59th place and Indonesia at 68 to find countries with weaker civil liberties. The dire situation becomes even more evident when you consider the factors that make up civil liberties; they include freedom of speech and expression and the existence of a free and robust media. On these Israel has very high scores – the Democracy Index this year includes a separate freedom of speech and media ranking in which Israel scores 9 out of 10, and only 10 countries around the entire world get straight 10s. It’s all the rest of the civil liberties where Israel plunges beneath the world’s democracies – equality, human rights, religious tolerance, racial discrimination and personal freedoms. In other words, if it weren’t for the Chief Rabbinate’s hegemony and the way Israel treats its non-Jewish minorities, especially the Palestinians, it would be a model democracy. But based on civil liberties alone, Israel has no right to call itself a democracy, even a flawed one.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's excessive and even borderline-plagiarism. The descriptions I've included in all 4 options in the RfC (Democracy Index: "Israel ranks within the top 30 in the world out of 167 countries." ... Freedom House: "Israel ranks the aggregate score of 79 points out of 100.") work perfectly well. If people want to read more, they can click on the PDFs. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 10:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We already amply cover in the article the complex relationship of Israel and Arabs within and around Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Correct, so it needs to be referred to in the lede.

Every source we have which describes the issue of Israel and democracy, whether FH or DI, the entire scholarly consensus or the worldwide high quality media, are unanimous that Israel’s claim to be a pure democracy is disputed. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No country in the world is a "pure democracy", now we're back to debating the obvious again. But this is the lede of a country article - not the Controversy section of a System of Governance article - a footnote will do just fine (if it's even necessary in the first place). ששש.מ.ל (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Do all sources covering democracy and the United States, France, the United Kingdom, etc describe a dispute as to whether they are true democracies?

No, they do not.

In Israel’s case, all the sources reference this dispute. And, per WP:RS: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Yes, they do. The U.S., U.K., and France have dependent territories where the residents lack proper voting rights, France and the U.K. have hate speech laws. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. It's simply NOT RELEVANT to the lede sections of their articles. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your extrapolation is WP:OR nonsense. If you have scholarly sources which show an active debate of a similar nature to that of Israel and democracy, please bring them here. In the absence of that, your comment will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar, but not the same. Despite that, the Israel dispute is still included in the footnote of my options 2 and 4 in the RfC. ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Without a source, your claim will be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "without a source"? Source for what? That none of the countries you mentioned are "pure democracies"? None of your sources explicitly claim that Israel is not a parliamentary republic (or a democracy for that matter) within its sovereign borders. And this article (especially the lede) is not about the territories under Israel's military control. But I still omitted the word "democracy" from options 3 and 4. So what's your problem? ששש.מ.ל (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The bias views of some NGOs and prtisan medias that dislikes Israel cant be presented as facts.Tritomex (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Liking Israel is not a requirement for a source to be reliable. I think on these pages it would really improve discussions if it was made clear somewhere, maybe in a header, that concerns about a sources reliability because the source "dislikes Israel" should proceed straight to RS/N (per WP:RS). Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that these are the sources that people are trying to lean on to say that Israel is an (unqualified) democracy; obviously based on their text we can't use them that way. If better sources exist that unambiguously avoid such qualifiers, we can consider them, but as long as we rely on these we have to reflect what they actually say. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System linked above to a WP article regarding: Sarah Sunn Bush, The Politics of Rating Freedom: Ideological Affinity, Private Authority, and the Freedom in the World Ratings, Perspectives on Politics, Volume 15, Issue 3 September 2017 , pp. 711-731

This detailed research into Freedom House states:

• “Interviews further support the idea that FITW raters incorporate ideas that are consistent with American foreign policy when coding countries. A staff person at Freedom House’s regional Middle East office told me that the office sometimes found it difficult to work with local NGOs because of skepticism there about FITW coding Israel as “free.” Although debates about specific countries’ ratings are common, FH staff do not debate whether to code Israel as less than free according to the documents in the organization’s archive, perhaps because doing so is outside of their ideological framework. In contrast, for many of Freedom House’s potential local partners in the Middle East, coding Israel as “not free” is commonsensical, given its treatment of Palestinians. [footnote: Israel’s rating was not discussed at any length in the FH Records reviewed for this paper. Documents in the FH Records demonstrate that board and staff members frequently debate how to rate specific countries, such as Chile, Poland, South Africa, and Yugoslavia in the early 1980s.] Most potential users are probably not reading Freedom House’s checklists or trying to assess their conceptual foundations—but they may be scanning the reports to make sure they match their perceptions of specific countries.”

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you still haven't understood the propose of this article. Nobody here argues that Israel is a free country if you include "the treatment of Palestinians" (i.e. the West Bank). But again, that area has never been annexed into sovereign Israel. Just as nobody argues that the U.S. is a free country if you include every single place where its troops are currently deployed. But that's not what the U.S. article is about. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read the thread above more carefully. The issues relate to Israeli Arabs (aka Palestinian Israelis) and their “participation” in Israeli democracy. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Separately, re the West Bank, Jews who live there get to vote in Israeli elections, yet Palestinians do not – even those who live in Area C under Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The Israeli Arab voter turnout was 63.5% in the last election,[2] significantly higher than the total turnout in many other democracies, including the U.S. What's your point?

For the fiftyeleventh time, this article is NOT about the West Bank. 83.250.139.231 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note re Freedom House: This source cannot be considered NPOV regarding the question of Israel and democracy. It is 86% funded by the US Government, and therefore is not a true NGO and is certainly not independent. In addition, its most senior leader was previously a member of the Israel Policy Forum. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This point is so obvious that it's sad to see that it requires spelling out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we strike academic institutions (in the US they often have large private endowments, but in Europe and the rest of the world they are often state funded) or UN bodies (funded by certain governments) due to their funding? As for Hirschberg's credentials, they seem impeccable.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you agree that this argument makes sense: The US often takes an outlier position in international discussions of Israel; and that a source which relies overwhelmingly on US government funding might be somewhat of an outlier in its positions on Israel? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The US's position is a significant one. That aside, your argument would strike many academics associated with public (and possibly private) universities in the United States - e.g. 64.1% of research funds for UCLA came from the federal government (with another 10.7% from local/state).[3].Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The US's position should be presented as the US's position. Also, until it is established that employees of Freedom House have the same degree of academic freedom that employees of universities like UCLA have, the comparison doesn't make sense. Zero^talk 11:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Icewhiz: Your edit here is tendentious. It is so absurd that I am half-minded to report it. Can you explain why you consider hiding the fact that this is a US government funded organization from our readers is appropriate? See sources below:

• Andrea Czepek; Melanie Hellwig (1 March 2009). Press Freedom and Pluralism in Europe: Concepts and Conditions. Intellect Books. ISBN 978-1-84150-297-7. Freedom House is sometimes accused of having a pro-American bias (for example UN 2001) – not least because more than three quarters of the NGO's resources derive from federal grants of the US government (Freedom House 2007a: 24).
• Hazel Smith (9 April 2015). North Korea. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89778-5. government-funded think tank Freedom House
• Sally Engle Merry; Kevin E. Davis; Benedict Kingsbury (26 May 2015). The Quiet Power of Indicators: Measuring Governance, Corruption, and Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-07520-7. Fund-Raising Difficulties, Government Funding, and the Appearance of Bias. By the mid-1990s, Freedom House had come to rely heavily on US government funding. The appearance of bias due to government funding was recognized as a problem, not just by outside critics but also within the walls of Freedom House. It was ultimately accepted as a necessary evil... The organization was no doubt influenced by its biggest donor, the US government, at least indirectly... By the 1990s, Freedom House appears to have accepted dependence on government funding as a necessary evil. Increasingly through the end of the period of archived materials in 2007, government funding supplied the lion's share of Freedom House's operating budget.
• James T. Bennett. Tax-Funded Politics. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4128-3557-2. This gang of socialists turned neo-conservatives has become, more or less, a government agency... By its own admission, Freedom House promotes an agenda that includes "U.S. engagement in international affairs," a euphemism for a hyper-interventionism.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That this passes WP:V doesn't mean it is relevant here - this is an article about Israel, not Freedom house - to which we readily link. We do not typically discuss funding of NGOs when we cite them - e.g. we do not discuss B'Tselem's funding sources in "according to B'Tselem" fragments.Icewhiz (talk) 11:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about on of the United States government’s closest geopolitical relationships. That an organization commenting on Israel is financially controlled by the US is obviously relevant. And it says it in the first sentence of Freedom House article. Proper attribution is essential here. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: on the basis of the above, I intend to add back the contextualizing clause to the Freedom House reference. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

While I'm honestly unsure how it would be best to handle coverage of the status of democracy in Israel, I'd like to note that Democracy Index downgraded the US in 2016. I don't think it merely reflects the US government view -- it has a rigorous methodology instead. I wonder if this has ever been discussed on RSN.--Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Imo it might be best to indeed use Freedom House and Democracy Index that Israel has a vibrant and functioning democracy overall, but with 2-3 sentences summarizing the also the issues they found in the areas of civil liberties, and the role of the Chief Rabbinate. This seems balanced to me. --Calthinus (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I would support Calthinus's compromise formulation above. It would seem to reflect real-life realities. I have been following this somewhat torturous discussion, but I am commenting only now. Irondome (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess Calthinus's proposal is fine as long as 1) the text is kept short and clear and 2) the sentences summarizing the social and political issues are put in the appropriate section, not under the topic "form of government". OtterAM (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

OtterAM I agree with that. I said 2-3 sentences but when I posted that I was under the impression that it would be in the main space (not the lede). If it's the lede we're talking about it would be 1 sentence about the civil liberties and Chief Rabbinate. --Calthinus (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

extended discussion with comparisons to other pages, some posts by sock

Perhaps something along the lines of "Both Democracy Index and Freedom House describe Israel as a "free country" and a "democracy", ranking it among the top countries in the areas of political rights and freedom of speech, but criticizes the influence of its Chief Rabbinate over other civil liberties." However, if that's to be added to the lede, I think it should be in the form of a footnote, as no other country on Wikipedia has it in its lede. Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Other countries absolutely do have balancing content in the lede, in cases where its exclusion would be non-neutral based on how the subject is discussed in reliable sources. The argument here is that based on reliable sources, presenting this without qualification in the lede would be non-neutral. Seraphim System (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Would you care to give an example of such a country? In the mean time, could you give your opinion on the summary above, regardless of wether or not it's to be put in a footnote? Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Support Sword & Olive Branch's summary. Looks concise and balanced.--Calthinus (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC) There has been absolutely no discussion until now about the Chief Rabbinate and we are mid-RfC about this same sentence. It would have to be proposed in a new RfC, and only after the open RfC has closed. Perhaps start a new section about the Chief Rabbinate. We are probably going to need a second round of RfC that takes into account the comments editors have made during this discussion. Seraphim System (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, there has, actually. See Onceinawhile's opening of this section. But fine, I'll add another option to the RfC. Sword & Olive Branch (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC) No there has not and the way you have written this is not an accurate paraphrase of the quote posted by Onceinawhile. The source says if it weren’t for the Chief Rabbinate’s hegemony and the way Israel treats its non-Jewish minorities - your proposal says criticizes the influence of its Chief Rabbinate over other civil liberties - aside from not being supported by the source, how is it helpful to add another option at this late stage of the RfC? Seraphim System (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Above, someone asked for an example of another country where this kind of addition is present in the lead. Please see Turkey, which contains this language: Turkey's current administration headed by president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of the AKP has enacted measures to increase the influence of Islam, reversed and undermined Kemalist policies, and has reversed earlier reforms such as freedom of the press. To clarify: I am not saying that Turkey = Israel. I am simply answering the question. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC) No parallel. Numerous RSes cover Turkey and state so in their own voice. in Democracy Index they went down from 5.70 in 2006 to 4.88 in 2017 and are no longer classified as a democracy. Israel is rated at 7.79 - an improvement from 7.28 in 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong). That was not the question I was addressing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian and Icewhiz -- the lede of Turkey discusses some issues Turkey is having due to its current government, however it does not explicitly call into question the democratic nature of the Turkish state. However, there is no lack of reliable sources that do, including some that explicitly call Turkey an ethnocracy. Example, here is a 200+ page paper on the "ethnocratic" nature of the Turkish state [[4]]. Wikipedia editors have (for now?) refrained from inserting a debate about the fundamental legitimacy of Turkish democracy into Turkey's lede. Will that continue if a precedent is set on this page? Who knows.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC) I wouldn't compare the two RfCs - in the Turkey RfC, I kind of regret the outcome, because we ended up adding even more bloat to the lede. Some days I think it would have been better to just remove it. One thing the two RfCs have in common is that Democracy Index was not an authoritative RS then, and it still isn't one. It's based on public opinion surveys. I don't know why there is an RfC open for the lede when this clearly needs to go RS/n first. The only other thing this has in common with the Turkey RfC is there are far too many things being discussed at once. Proposals about Turkey should be made at that article's talk page. (Will that continue if a precent is set on this page? Who knows is really odd reasoning - the RfC on this page doesn't set any kind of "precedent" for other articles). Seraphim System (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC) Seraphim, you misunderstand me. I am not talking about "precedent" in the legal sense, but rather in the pragmatic Wikipedia sense -- if something happens on the talk page of a high traffic page, many users, including many who are silent, will see it, and they will conclude it is a "winning proposal" that can work on other pages. As you know well, there are editors here who I am quite certain hold a very dismal view about democracy in Turkey (you and I have talked about this before -- and you know I am a bit more pragmatic, of the "everyone's got problems" view -- but I'm not one of those we're talking about). Some of them also frequently edit Middle Eastern topics, and the source I posted was one already on Wikipedia on other pages-- it would merely need to be moved. It's pretty naïve to think that inserting an academic debate about the legitimacy of democracy in one of the highest traffic country articles (perhaps the highest depending on current events?) will have no ripple effect onto other pages, and the most likely effect is indeed on Turkey's page, where the lede has already been contentious a number of times and the contending editors are still active. --Calthinus (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Government and politics

Discussion initiated by sockpuppet
My edit to the Government and politics section was reverted by User:Triggerhippie4. Please explain your thoughts. TPGstalk 05:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC) You ignored my question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut, so I'll ask again: what were your previous accounts or IPs? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Border with the West Bank

As is well known, Israel's border with the West Bank was never legally confirmed (the 1949 armistice agreement stated that what became the Green Line was "without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines"). In addition, Israeli settlements in the area are de facto part of Israel, and treated as such for calculations of Israel's population, economy and Knesset representation.

On this basis the lead sentence in our article: "It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest" is misleading.

It would be more accurate to simply state that: "It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, and the Gaza Strip and Egypt to the southwest" and then add a sentence including the subtleties of the West Bank.

This should be a bipartisan proposal - the difficulty will be drafting the sentence describing the West Bank. Thoughts?

Onceinawhile (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel has a well-defined border with West Bank. Nobody claims that currently any part of West Bank (except East Jerusalem) is part of Israel. There is a dispute over West Bank, it is yet to be determined whether any specific part of West Bank will become part of Israel, future Palestinian state or something else. Some citizens of Israel reside in settlements in the West Bank, and these people (and not the territory they reside on) are considered part of Israel. “WarKosign” 21:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Has Israel ever legally defined its own border with the West Bank?

Do the 1949 Armistice lines have any relevance on the ground today?

When Israelis travel to the West Bank settlements, do they face border checks or otherwise cross any formal threshold?

Does my proposal strike you as bipartisan or are you seeing ghosts somewhere?

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course it has, that is why Israeli law is not applied in the West Bank. It is governed by the British colonial laws that were in effect when the occupation began. They are legally defined as held in belligerent occupation. In the future, please try to answer the question yourself by consulting reliable first. There are tons of easily available sources online that would have answered this question.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:49, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I should have been clearer - I know the answers to these questions. They are all "no". I ask them because I would like to understand WarKosign’s perspective and identify on which specific points, if any, he takes a different view.

Seraphim, your statement is incorrect with respect to the settlements themselves – in those areas, Israeli civil law is applied. What you are talking about is the Palestinian areas (A+B), which is not the point of my proposal. De facto there are no borders between Israel proper and Area C - neither physical or legal. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have a source for it, I'm not really interested. As far as I know nothing has changed with regard to the HCJ's position on this. If you have a source that says otherwise, you should post it, otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

One Rule, Two Legal Systems: Israel’s Regime of Laws in the West Bank. I can source the answers to all the other points above, as needed. For example: “At no stage has the State of Israel defined its own borders”.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A better way to phrase this might be "Israel has had to struggle with having no agreed upon international borders with all of its neighboring states" I could speculate further about why, but I don't think it would be helpful. It does not, however, mean what you are saying it means - we cant use any of this to erase the West Bank. That is going much further then any conclusion that is directly supported by the source.Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Essentially what I am advocating is "Israel has borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Gaza. It has a complex relationship with the West Bank".

Again, don’t worry about the exact wording - we can figure that out in due course. But treating the West Bank similarly with all of Israel’s other land borders, as we currently do, is obviously nonsense and misleading. The arrangement between Israel and the West Bank is unique and complex, and critical to understanding Israel.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The application of Israeli law within Israeli settlements in the West Bank is actually complex and not at all straightforward (though there are talks of streamlining it). Some laws (e.g. minimum wage) were applied by ordinance of the military commander. Others were not or not immediately (e.g. surcharge on plastic shopping bags).Icewhiz (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

Israel's borders with Egypt and Jordan are well-defined in the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty and the Israel–Jordan Peace Treaty, respectively. However, it's still technically at war with Syria, Lebanon and Gaza, and their "borders" are merely ceasefire lines. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Israel has continuously ruled that the Judea and Samaria Area (West Bank excluding East Jerusalem) is occupied by Israel, that the legal regime in the Area shall be determined by international law, and that the "long arm" of the State in the Area shall be the IDF military commander. Every resident of Judea and Samaria lives under the same martial laws, but differing civil laws, depending on their citizenship. And as Icewhiz wrote, not all Israeli civil laws are applied by the military commander to the Area's residents, even if they're Israeli citizens. Moponoly (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Moponoly - it is a common misconception by some Western sources that the high court has ruled the area is occupied - this is not the case - it has ruled that the law of belligerant occupation applies - but has done so (also) on the basis that Israeli authorities voluntarily applied the Geneva convention - and basing their decisions on continuity of law (however I suspect Israeli court rulings would not he seen as a source for occupation statua regardless). As for military ordinaces - they apply to everyone - Israeli citiizen or not - e.g. the minimum wage applies to Palestinian workers in area C. The exceptions to this are, de-jure, an addition imposition on Israeli settlers - namely the Israeli criminal code always applied (pre 67, as in other countries) to Israeli citizens in zones controlled by the Israeli military, and the Israeli income tax law was extended to apply to people with Israeli status resident in the Area. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

According to the Supreme Court, The Judea and Samaria areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation. [5] You're correct insofar as that the Government voluntarily applied the conventions, although it has - at times - been instructed by the Supreme Court to alter legislation on the basis that it violated the conventions, see the Israeli Supreme Court opinions on the West Bank Barrier. Yes, the military ordinaces apply to everyone in Judea and Samaria. That's what I was referring to by all residents (not to be confused with permanent residency status). It is the Palestinian Authority civil laws, and the few examples that you mentioned, that differ depending on citizenship. Moponoly (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Text proposal: It has borders with Egypt to the southwest and Jordan to the east, and has ceasefire lines with the Gaza Strip to the west, Lebanon to the north and Syria to the northeast. The West Bank is partially incorporated into Israel. Moponoly (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute. What does it mean the West Bank has been "partially incorporated" into Israel. Annexed or what? The text you are proposing is awful and not clear. Also the border with Lebanon ("Blue Line") is internationally recognized by the UN (Shebaa farms was NEVER part of Lebanon, it was Syrian territory before 1967). Finally, the fact that Israel controls the Golan Heights doesn't mean there's "no border with Syria", it just means the border is currently disputed, but both countries are neighbors, regardless of the Golan (which is merely a detail for lede). I say leave the text in article as it is now, and don't confuse the reader without real necessity.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

Partially incorporated means partially incorporated. For further explanation, see the footnote. If you have a better description of the West Bank's "border" status for the lede, please tell. Israel doesn't have any agreement with Lebanon specifying boundaries, that's why it's called a de facto ceasefire line. There's an agreement on disengagement between Israel and Syria, so no, it's not a border - it's a ceasefire line. Borders require peace treaties, like Israel has with Egypt and Jordan. Moponoly (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any source for "partially incorporated". The footnote is a big piece of WP:OR. This is quite an WP:EXCEPTIONAL statement and it needs matching quality sources. “WarKosign” 11:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
It's simply a summary of the various factors. Kind of like how "limited recognition" of Jerusalem is used as a summary, but isn't explicitly mentioned in any of the sources. Moponoly (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Britannica's solution to the quandary here is quite elegant - they simply don't mention Gaza nor the West Bank in the lede at all. Gaza is missing altogether from their article, while the West Bank is discussed only in the context of geographical features (some, e.g. the Jordan River, run across geopolitical lines).Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
@Icewhiz: I think you're onto something, but Gaza should still be mentioned in the sentence, as Israel does have an actual boundary with it. What about this: It has borders with Egypt to the southwest and Jordan to the east, and has ceasefire lines with the Gaza Strip to the west, Lebanon to the north and Syria to the northeast. Moponoly (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

For one, "Ceasefire lines with Gaza", is WP:OR rubbish and won't stick. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
Are you saying the Israel–Gaza barrier is not a de facto ceasefire line? Moponoly (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

My preceding comment is quite clear. Additionally, the current lead is better than what has been proposed so far. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

On the contrary - it's quite unclear. It almost seems like you're alleging that the whole article on the barrier is "original research". No. The current lead states that Israel has borders with Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and the West Bank, which are all incorrect. Also, no sources are provided. Moponoly (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I linked to the Gaza–Israel conflict for the term "violated on a regular basis" in respect to the Israel–Gaza barrier. Moponoly (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

82.102.220.221 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MBlaze Lightning 08:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

British Palestine in the lede

Triggerhippie, the lede currently jumps abruptly to “British Palestine”, with no explanation. This differs from its description of the other major controlling entities in the region’s history, each of whom are given some explanation of how they turned up controlling the area.

Since you reverted my proposal, please make a counterproposal to fix this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not true. There's no explanation for the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Judah was later conquered by the Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic empires"

That is more than we give for British Palestine, which jumps up out of nowhere. British Palestine was of course the direct precursor to the State of Israel.

Unless someone comes up with a rational reason why we should entirely ignore this period, I will add an explanation back in.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. You need to gain new consensus to change the lede, which was already discussed in detail and it's too extensive anyway. Saying "Babylonian, Persian and Hellenistic" is not more than "British Palestine". If you reinsert your disputed material again, I myself or someone else will revert you. You won't get anything by edit-warring, trust me. See WP:BRD.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that no consensus was ever gained for removing the reference.

The only time this article ever had wide community approval was when it was a FA. This is how the lede looked on the day it promoted. Of course it explained the genesis of the modern state.

The demotion of this information is partly my own fault - this edit I made many years ago pushed the information down, shoehorned into a later paragraph in which it did not fit well and was later excised from.

All of this happened without discussion.

It’s obvious that this needs to be fixed. Surely we can agree a sensible position through reasoned discussion rather than having to resort to WP:DR on such simple issues.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Balfour declaration has no place in lede. It was discussed before. WP:Dead horse.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not every period have an "explanation of how they turned up controlling the area", nor should they. One paragraph suppose to summarize thousands of years and be short. British control was the result of war not a document. I don't understand why you think I should give you "a counterproposal to fix this" or why you make such demands "Unless someone comes up with a rational reason why we should entirely ignore this period, I will add an explanation back in.", when your edits were already overwhelmingly rejected last time and you have two users against this time. The edits you're citing are 8 years old. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel’s existance is due entirely to the creation of a Jewish Homeland in British Palestine; to exclude explanation of that is absurd. You write “British control was the result of war not a document”, but British control per se is much less relevant to this article than the concept of the “Jewish homeland” which Britain was mandated to create.

This history component of the lede has multiple issues - this is simply one of the most egregious. Only silent consensus exists for its current form, which as you know is the weakest form of consensus. Let’s engage in constructive discussion to improve this for everyone.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Israel's existence is due to Zionism with Jews started immigrating decades before Balfour and won the war for independence. When the war broke out, policies set out in Balfour were already reversed for years. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Without the Balfour Declaration, there would not have been enough Jews and enough Jewish infrastructure in Palestine to fight a war in 1948. Zero^talk 12:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

As may be said of many things in the 1882-1947. The Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element and the sole one worth mentioning - particularly since for the most part it wasn't kept by the British (interests, competing promises, whatnot). Edmond James de Rothschild's efforts were more significant. Zionist relations with the British were complex, to say the least, and mentioning only Balfour would be very much unbalanced.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Balfour’s relevance is that it became the core principle of the Mandate. It was the watershed moment at which the concept of a Jewish homeland / state first achieved international support. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

writing the 'Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element' etc. is historically illiterate. Not only was it the fundamental step towards a Jewish state, but it lead directly to Britain assuming the Mandate which more or less embodied Weizman's view that a British administration was a sine qua non for developing such a state. The rest of the obiter dictum is equally and ridiculously uninformed. Idiosyncratic evaluations of history have no placer here and shouldn't interfere with consensus making.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Not true. Actually the Balfour declaration was far less significant (in practise) than, for example, the 1939 White Paper (which is not mentioned in lede).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yaniv, that might be the single most ridiculous and logically abusrd comment I have ever seen from you. The importance of the White Paper was that it was condsidered (by some) to have repudiated the Balfour commitment. Your comment is like saying that the secession documents of the Confederate States of America were “more important” than the American Declaration of Independence.

This conversation is not about Balfour per se, so please can we move away from that.

The question is simply this - does anyone seriously believe that the British commitment to the Jewish National Home made in the British mandate is not fundamental to understanding the creation of this country? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Balfour' importance is speculation not up to par with the rest of the paragraph. I long for a day when someone with good English would propose a trimmed down version of this paragraph. Instead, people constantly come to add their POV-line. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Not speculation, but the thesis of the great majority of historical writing. I know that Israelis hate to admit that their country would not exist except for British support of Zionism, but it as true as that the sky is blue. Icewhiz's assertion that Rothschild was more important is completely ridiculous, and your assertion that the White Paper was more important is hardly any better. The important moment that defined the history to follow was the inclusion of the BD in the Mandate (not the BD itself, which would have come to nothing otherwise). The BD was put into the Mandate because Britain sought for it to be put there (another fact of history that coloring-book versions get wrong). Zero^talk 00:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly wartime declarations by Freiherr Axel von dem Bussche-Haddenhausen and Balfour had some importance, however this importance is often overstated by modern apologists. What was much more significant was the actual mechanics on the ground in Palestine, the organization of Zionist institutions and military, and the organization of immigrants and their absorption. Just mentioning Balfour would be jarring, out of context (e.g. the background for this being issued at all), and require subsequent balancing to show the later conflict between the British and Zionists.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"the organization of Zionist institutions and military, and the organization of immigrants and their absorption" -- all things that would not have been permitted by an Ottoman administration (and probably not by a French administration, a nice subject for historical speculation). It was precisely British support for Zionism that made those things possible. Add to it the British destruction of any ability of Palestinian Arabs to resist militarily. In a nutshell, no Britain ⇒ no Israel. Zero^talk 07:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

All things that began under the Ottoman administration (and the French had their own history of fostering alliances with various sub-groups). British use/tolerance of Zionist military/police was very much prompted by Arab insurrection against the British (an issue the French dealt with elsewhere), not so much by anything else. If we were to expand the 1880-1947 period, it would have to be longer and more balanced to a degree that probably would be overlong for the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Your comments are unreadable because they are personal spins on a topic well covered in numerous reliable sources, which state the obverse. If you are not familiar with the topic, then it is pointless making this place a forum for your idiosyncratic views. Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Most historical texts covering the renewed Jewish period in Palestine, leading to the state of Israel, do not begin with the Balfour (or Freiherr Axel von dem Bussche-Haddenhausen) declaration - they usually start circa 1880, and cover several events prior to 1917-23 and after.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand what you imply in stating 'most historical texts'? You are saying you have thoroughly mastered the literature. Nonsense, and in any case, the point is beside the point, which is that whatever intents and acts accounted for renewed Jewish interest in emigrating to Palestine, the construction of a Jewish state was impossible without an imperial patron. Herzl knew this: first he sought a European, even German sponsor, then he asked Abdul Hamid II to sponsor the Jewish state in exchange for a cancellation of Turkey's debts; Weizman knew it, that is why he said British sponsorship was a "sine qua non". So stop the bullshit. It's tediously jejune in its nescience.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hundreds (or thousands?) of WP:RS state that the British Mandate (with the Balfour Declaration as a core component) was crucial to the creation of Israel.

If Icewhiz / Yaniv / Triggerhippie’s assertions that this is untrue are correct, then reputable scholars would have published such views, and likely contracted them to the opposite opinion given how widely it is held.

So, Icewhiz, Yaniv and Triggerhippie, please show us JUST ONE reputable source explicitly supporting your assertion that the Mandate / Balfour were NOT crucial to the creation of Israel.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, burden is on you to gain consensus for the edit, not us. And the British broke up their commitment to the Balfour declaration when they imposed the 1939 White Paper restrictions.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ONUS relates to providing verifiable sources for a claim. As I said, hundreds / thousands of such sources can be provided.

You have provided no sources, and cannot, because your claims are nonsense. So your arguments will be ignored. As you know, consensus is formed on Wikipedia by reasoned source-based discussion, not votes. So far the consensus is strongly in favor of one side of this debate, because only one side is making claims that are sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't know there was a source saying Balfour declaration must be included in lede of Israel's article in Wikipedia. Good consensus. Seriously, stop wasting my time.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

No one here is saying Balfour has no importance - just that, as evident in any balanced history on the issue, that the first and second aliyah, Herzl, the Zionist congresses, other events in WWI (such as the Ottoman defeat, currently missing), the post war negotiations, 1929, 1936-1939, the white paper, WWII, fighting vs. the British in 1946-7 - all would bear mentioning as well if we place Balfour in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Balfour is more notable than all of those topics. It can be measured in an unbiased way by looking at wikipedia’s page view numbers for each of the articles covering the topics you listed. The only one which comes close is Herzl, who should also be mentioned in the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Page view numbers only show which articles are more popular or known to the public, it doesn't necessarily indicate relevance from a historic viewpoint.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

And in this case are heavily influenced by the wiki-process of promotion to GA (2016), and FA (2017), as well as appearing as the feature on the main page (2017), all coupled with the round 100-year anniversary (page view. ).Icewhiz (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

That link shows that the Balfour Declaration article was consistently more viewed in every single month over the last three years. That proves the opposite of the statement in your post. That nonsense argument is exactly why I did not push this question back in November 1917 - now we have waited another year the relative notability is established beyond doubt.

If we don’t include reference to a topic as notable as the Herzl / Mandate / Balfour, we should remove the links to at least the following eight significatly less notable historical topics currently in the lede: Israeli disengagement from Gaza, Israeli Declaration of Independence, United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, Ottoman–Mamluk War (1516–17), Muslim conquest of the Levant, Jewish–Roman wars, Maccabean Revolt.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree - the anniversary has been driving coverage (and editing) for a couple of years - regardless Wikipedia page views are rarely a reliable gauge of notability.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The page views from 3 years ago disprove your thesis. The Balfour Declaration has always had higher view than those other articles, because so many scholars and commentators consider it to be the seed of the conflict.

On the question of relative notability, if you dislike page views as a proxy, do you have an alternative method of assessing this question. Page views are unbiased and objective, and therefore count for more than the gut instincts of partisan editors. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The following is taken from the Wikipedia article, Balfour Declaration – “The declaration had many long-lasting consequences. It greatly increased popular support for Zionism within Jewish diaspora, and became a core component of the British Mandate for Palestine, the founding document of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories.”

As a core component in the lead up (pun intended) to the formation of modern Israel, it definitely has a place in the lead. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment a lot of the arguments in favor of adding the specific Balfour declaration seem pretty bad to me. A few examples. Zero: In a nutshell, no Britain ⇒ no Israel. -- this rests on a load of historical "what-ifs" and, as such, is inherently unverifiable, making its relevance to the argument nil. The Zionist movement could have easily found another sponsor. Another "what-if": what if the Palestinian population had welcomed Jewish immigration from the beginning, like Circassians did? Things would be very different then and no external power would be necessary. Indeed, given the occasional idiosyncraticness of nationalist history production, the local Arabs could have chosen to view themselves as Arabic speaking Christian and Muslim Israelites. Many early Zionists viewed them as such, before conflict broke out. That choice was not made. The point I am making is that these discussions are rather pointless as there are infinite possibilities of what "could have happened" -- those doors have closed, and they prove nothing.

I'm not going to lie, it seems pretty clear that this initiative is tied an attempt to assert the view that Zionism arose from Christian European imperialism (rather than an internal movement among Jews to better their condition, which allied with imperial interests for solely pragmatic purposes and later clashed with them). It is telling that people who are advocating adding the Balfour declaration are against discussing the White Papers and the subsequent military conflict between British imperial interests and the movement for Jewish national sovereignty. Furthermore, discussing Balfour in the lede but not the earlier First Aliyah and Second Aliyah would convince less knowledgeable readers that Jewish emigration to Israel was due solely to the British (false). This is cherrypicking, not in the policy sense, but very much so in the word sense. It would seem balanced to me to add both Balfour and these other aspects (earlier aliyahs, the white papers, the Zionist-British conflict), although that might be a bit bulky -- but the proposal as it stands now does not fly and cannot even make it off the ground.--Calthinus (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

You completely ignore WWI, and your historical argument is (sorry) very very weak. (Example: "what if the Palestinian population had welcomed Jewish immigration from the beginning..[then] external power would be necessary" — but the Palestinian population was never in control either in Ottoman or British times.) But anyway, the question is whether the lead should mention how Israel actually did come about, which is entirely separate from speculation about other ways it might have come about. That's not a what-if issue but a historical-fact issue. We are also required to follow sources and I wonder if you can meet Onceinawhile's JUST ONE challenge above that might provide one contrary opinion to the hundreds or thousands of sources which hold the Jewish homeland provisions of the British mandate to be an absolutely central part of Israel's history. Zero^talk 02:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

And you completely ignored my central point to continue with this digression since you didn't catch it, the "what if Palestinians had welcomed Jews" comment was a response to your comment the British destruction of any ability of Palestinian Arabs to resist militarily -- but to be fair I love arguing with myself too, I just keep it in my own head. You can speculate all you want about what could have happened. History is not math. It means absolutely nothing, and is useless for our procedural discussion, which is bound by policy, not alternative histories. Which are a fun pastime by the way. Just not here. --Calthinus (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

Comment: Britain actually put more restrictions on Jewish immigration to the Palestine Mandate than they put on Arab immigration to it; see the 1939 White Paper. The Balfour Declaration was just another empty promise (the Brits promised the same land to at least two other parties as well), nothing less and nothing more. It certainly does not deserve mention in the lede. Moponoly (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you believe such myths. Even after the White Paper, many more immigration certificates were issued for Jews than for Arabs. The numbers were published monthly in the official Gazette. For example, the quota for April 1940 was 1,950 Jews and 100 Arabs. For June 1947, 1,500 Jews and 200 Arabs. Apparently you have been misinformed. Zero^talk 11:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

I was referring to the percentage of individuals who applied vs. were accepted. Do you really belive that less than a couple thousand Jews tried to escape to British Palestine during the middle of the Holocaust? My point is, the Brits all but closed the borders for Jews in order to get cheaper oil and prevent Arab riots, in violation of both their own Balfour Declaration, and the League of Nations' requirements. Moponoly (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You were proved wrong and you revised your claim retrospectively. Ok, but you are still wrong. During the Holocaust, Jews could not escape from Nazi-occupied countries except in very small numbers because the Nazis prevent them. Furthermore, whether they could escape had nothing to do with immigration to Palestine. That's another myth. Zero^talk 13:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

That's your personal speculation, not a fact. The Nazis didn't entirely close the borders before the Final Solution was adopted. In fact, many countries asked them to put "J" for "Jew" in the passports so that they could reject them easier. You don't know how many Jews could have survived if Britain would have upheld the Balfour Declaration. Anyway, it was a fake promise, and it doesn't deserve mention in the lead, unless it also mentions that it wasn't upheld. Moponoly (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not speculation, but I'm not going to bother presenting facts to you any more. Around here we are supposed to follow sources and I think that you are ignoring Onceinawhile's challenge because you can't answer it. All in all, this issue is one of the most egregious examples of refusal to edit according to policy. Zero^talk 04:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
That's because the premise of his "challenge" isn't falsifiable. He's "challenging" us to prove a negative. It's like asking for a source explicitly stating that God does not exist, and if you can't find one, he must exist. I didn't know that was Wikipedia policy, but thanks for informing me. ;) Moponoly (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this straight. Some editors want to put something in an article because the vast majority of good sources have it. Monopoly counters that it can be left out because it isn't possible to prove that there is no source that leaves it out. A true genius is amongst us. Zero^talk 07:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
Hey dude, I'm not the one who started the argumentum ad ignorantiam, I just went along with it. Neither Britannica, nor the World Factbook include the Balfour Declaration in their lead sections on Israel. Are they not reliable? Where is this "vast majority" you keep claiming exists? Moponoly (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, Britannica doesn't even mention the Balfour declaration in the Introduction section. It does describe the Ottoman collapse and the British mandate - but no Balfour anywhere - while Jewish immigration prior and during the mandate is discussed. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Britannica has only two and a half sentences on pre WWII history, and manages to mention the mandate twice. Our lead has 10 sentences covering the same and doesn’t mention the mandate once. The WorldFactbook does not provide any sentences on pre-state history. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
Remove the "doesn't" and your claim becomes correct. Our lead mentions the mandate excactly once: During the 19th century, national awakening among Jews led to the establishment of the Zionist movement in the diaspora followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman and later British Palestine. Moponoly (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh? The word 'mandate' is not there. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet

Probably because they're largely synonymous. But if you really want to clarify, just change it to followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman Syria and later Mandatory Palestine under the British Mandate, alternatively followed by waves of immigration to Ottoman Syria and later British Palestine under the League of Nations' Mandate. I can't imagine anyone being against that, regardless of wether or not they want the Balfour Declaration included. Moponoly (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC) That's only logical. In order to truly belive that Israel's establishment depended on the Balfour Declaration, you also have to belive a) in a worldwide Rothschild conspiracy, and/or b) that the "Zionist Entity" is a European colony, created by the British. You also have to completley disregard the 1939 White Paper and the successful Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine. Moponoly (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This comment is so illogical, illiterate and fantasy-based that it would be an insult to this project to legitimize it with a response. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
So what you're passively admitting is, there is no other alternative. Precisely as I suspected. Moponoly (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, let me be more clear. Your 15:40 post is one of the most stupid statements I have ever had the misfortune to witness on this project. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Post made by sockpuppet
If you think of something useful, please reply. If not, please don't. Either way, just stop with the ad hominem. Moponoly (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)