Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Inside a cinematic universe...

According to this, the term 'historic Palestine' is partisan and violates WP:NPOV. This is apparently the case regardless of the contents of cited reliable sources. This seems like the kind of reasoning worth discussing. Is this kind of reasoning consistent with policy? It strikes me as so odd that I'm not sure it is even consistent with the Wikimedia Universal Code of Conduct. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not partisan as it is widely used in RS. It is not the first time the user in question has removed sourced content. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, they seem to confuse “impartial” with “reliable” Yr Enw (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

@DMH223344, @האופה, I didn't understand the reasoning behind the reverts, could you explain it? Alaexis_¿question? 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

> From early on, the leadership of the Zionist movement had the idea of "transferring" (a euphemism for ethnic cleansing) the Arab Palestinian population...

The article on Ethnic Cleansing defines the term to include extreme methods such as murder, rape, and property destruction, as well as coercion and prevention of the victim group's return through deportation or population transfer.

The source cited indeed describes at length the idea of population transfer considered by the Zionist leadership, but there is no claim that they contemplated methods of systematic murder, rape, or property destruction.

Based on this, I recommend revising the sentence to eliminate the parenthetical reference to ethnic cleansing, as it implies actions (murder, rape, property destruction) that are not substantiated by the cited source. 77.125.167.35 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at Intersection (set theory) for why this argument doesn't work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Set theory makes no suggestion that if two concepts share some common elements, they can be considered equivalent. Saying that they are is a Fallacy of the undistributed middle. 77.125.167.35 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually the real problem is that this statement is not supported by the inline source (Benny Morris's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, p. 60). If it's based on another source it should be added to the article. Alaexis_¿question? 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This one would do for that sentence and similar material is likely in many other sources too. Selfstudier (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence seems to be a fair summary of material in Zionism#Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict eg "According to Morris, the idea of ethnically cleansing the land of Palestine was to play a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement. He explains that "transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land which was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population.{{Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2003) "Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure."}} Further, the stability of the Jewish state could not be ensured given the Arab population's fear of displacement. He explains that this would be the primary source of conflict between the Zionist movement and the Arab population. Selfstudier (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes exactly, that second paragraph and its citations can be used here. DMH223344 (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, from ben-ami:

Probably the most appealing article in therecommendation of the Commission was that about the ‘forced transfer’of Arabs from the future Jewish state. To Ben-Gurion this was an‘unparalleled achievement’. It was ‘the best of all solutions’, according toBerl Katznelson. ‘A distant neighbour’, he said, ‘is better than a closeenemy.’ Transfer was such an ideal solution that ‘it must happen someday’, he concluded. A strategy of phases, admittedly always vague andanything but an articulate plan of action, could only prevail if a solutioncould be found to the demographic problem. ‘Transfer’ was the magicformula.The idea of transfer for the Arabs had a long pedigree in Zionistthought.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Masalha:

Thus the wishful and rather naive belief in Zionism’s early years that the Palestinians could be ‘spirited across the border’, in Herzl’s words, or that they would simply ‘fold their tents and slip away’, to use Zangwill’s formulation, soon gave way to more realistic assessments. Between 1937 and 1948 extensive secret discussions of transfer were held in the Zionist movement’s highest bodies, including the Zionist Agency Executive, the Twentieth Zionist Congress, the World Convention of Ihud Po‘alei Tzion (the top forum of the dominant Zionist world labour movement), and various official and semi-official transfer committees.

Slater:

After reviewing Zionism and its consequences, I examined the onset of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the 1917–47 period, and argued that because the Zionists wanted to ensure a large Jewish majority in the coming state of Israel, their leaders repeatedly discussed the means by which most of the Palestinians could be expelled or induced to flee; the euphemism they employed was “transfer.” The scholarship on “transfer”—especially by Israeli historians—leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after the creation of Israel.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Flapan:

The concept of population transfer, as a facile solution to the twin problems of the Arab landless peasants and the creation of land reserves for Jewish settlement was for some time in the back of the minds of the 2ionist leadership. In fact, in private discussions with the British, the Zionist leadership put forward population transfer as a tentative suggestion but stopped short of formulating it into a proposal for action.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

quoted in Image and Reality: ‘The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings’, Tom Segev reports. DMH223344 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

First, Morris's quote about the transfer being "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" is still in the article. I should say that Morris is quoted selectively here. Before these words he says that

“ My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. ”

Now that I've looked into this subject a bit, I think that per WP:NPOV we should present both views regarding the Zionist attitude to the transfer of the Palestinians. See for example Anita Shapira's conclusion on p. 286 of Land and Power

“ Yet the distance between being prepared to accept such an eventuality and the formal adoption of the transfer plan by the Zionist Organization was enormous. The traditional approach was that there was enough room in Palestine for many millions of Jews and one million Palestinian Arabs. ”

This is from Karsh's Resurrecting the Myth: Benny Morris, the Zionist Movement, and the ‘Transfer’ Idea

“ In reality, the archives show that rather than seek the expulsion of the Palestinian Arabs, the Zionist leaders believed that there was sufficient room in Palestine for both peoples to live side by side in peace and equality, and that, far from despairing by the mid-1930s of mass Jewish immigration, they worried about the country’s short-term absorptive capacity should millions of Jews enter Palestine. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not selective quoting. The point is that scholars from across the board agree on the point of transfer being an effective and desired options from early on in the development of the zionist movement. The quotes from traditionalist shapira and karsh do not have consensus across the board with other scholars.

The quote you added from morris is about "pre-planning" and a "master-plan" not about the concept of transfer and its pedigree in Zionist thought. Of course, morris' "feeling" on this is well known and does not have consensus across the board with other scholars. DMH223344 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

POV removal of material on the flimsiest of pretext and now doubling down against what is a well known consensus. Give it a rest. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you dismiss well-known scholars for being "traditionalists" you'll get the consensus that you like but that has no basis in the policy. Alaexis_¿question? 22:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

No one is "dismissing" them. We're talking about the points they make and their reception by other scholars. DMH223344 (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that the presentation of the sources is unbalanced, you should add your own material and edit the section on a finer tuned level, rather than blanket reverting thousands of bytes of well sourced material. Unbandito (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I intend to do that, but it doesn't mean that in the meantime the content that is blatantly POV should remain in the article. Per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.. Alaexis_¿question? 07:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

At this point it's just you who is against the inclusion. And there's nothing "blatantly POV" about it. As we showed, a wide range of respected scholars agree on these points. DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONUS isn't a license to remove material when you're the only one who objects to it, and amid an active discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed compromise version

This is what I'd like to propose, please see the reasoning below. Happy to discuss it, this is supposed to be the first iteration.

1. Transfer idea
   1. There is a consensus in all sources mentioned here that the idea of transfer existed in the Zionist thought.
   2. There is almost consensus that it gained in importance in the 1920s-1940s (Morris explicitly says that there was a near-consensus in the 1930-1940s, Masalha mentions various developments in 1937-1948, Slater and Ben Ami talk about the Mandate period).
   3. Therefore, I suggest to start with that, saying in wikivoice that this idea gained traction during the Mandate period.
   4. I've also moved it to the 1920s section. I'm conscious that it appeared before and reached its peak later, but since the article is organised chronologically I couldn't find a better place for it.
   5. There seems to be a consensus that no policy or plan of action were formulated based on the idea of transfer. Morris, Flapan and Shapira state it explicitly. None of the sources argues that such plans existed, so I think we can safely say it in wikivoice too.
2. Importance
   1. The real disagreement is about the importance of the transfer idea. Shapira and Karsh believe that it did not represent the mainstream Zionist thought. Slater explicitly disagrees saying that it was important. Probably Masalha would agree with that even if I can't find the confirmation in the text.
   2. Therefore, per WP:NPOV we should mention both viewpoints. The weight could be adjusted, naturally. Alaexis_¿question? 21:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus that no policy or plan of action were formulated based on the idea of transfer.

This is just not true. What is true is that there is a consensus that there isn't evidence of an explicit and comprehensive plan to forcibly expel the Palestinian population.

Shapira and Karsh's perspective on the importance of the transfer idea is of course at this point (with the opening of the archives) fringe in respected scholarly works. DMH223344 (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Karsh is pretty fringe, to the extent that he accuses all of the New Historians (including Benny Morris) of having "championed the Arab cause".[1] He apparently can't see the difference between A) a historian updating the understanding of history based on fresh information, and B) being some sort of propagandist just because the narrative that emerges isn't quite so amenable to a given ideology. It's hard to know what to make of that level of skew. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is your own opinion and not a reason to doubt Karsh's reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

You think "Benny Morris championed the Arab cause" is a reasonable statement? And the opposite is opinion? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an unfalsifiable statement since the "Arab cause" is a very vague concept. He could be said to support the Arab cause by uncovering the problems with the traditional account of the Israeli history. Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can't distinguish between academic statements and clearly below the belt strikes, what can I say? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Tempted to RSN Karsh, we'll see what we end up relying on him for. Anything more than the mundane, well... Selfstudier (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Shapira does indeed misrepresent the stance of the Zionist leadership for example of Katznelson and Ben-Gurion. The opposition Ben-Gurion expressed against transfer was on *practical* rather than moral grounds. Of course there is the quote from BenGurion: ‘I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it anything immoral’

In Land and Power, Shapira also explains that Berl Katznelson favored transfer as an integral part of an international agree­ment that would redraw borders between peoples and states in the postwar era. He emphasized that this would be a peaceful transfer of population based on a mutual agreement. So here we are talking about "peaceful" rather than compulsory transfer. But as Masalha shows Katznelson did not oppose compulsory transfer on moral grounds.

Also, the Shapira quote is The traditional approach was that there was enough room in Palestine for many millions of Jews and one million Palestinian Arabs... This does not mean that transfer was not important.

You also omitted: It is possible to assume with a high degree of probability that if one of the Great Powers had volunteered to carry out a transfer of the Arabs of Palestine, very few of the Zionist leaders would have opposed such a move... The mainstream viewed it as a good thing that one could, if need be, do without. DMH223344 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think this is important, can you suggest your own version of the whole paragraph? Alaexis_¿question? 20:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

The version I suggest is the one that is currently in place. DMH223344 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it violates WP:NPOV by ignoring one viewpoint completely, even though it's present in RS. Alaexis_¿question? 21:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Your framing very much gives undue weight to shapira and karsh. It's every modern respected historian on one side and Karsh and Shapira on the other (with Karsh being a questionable source to begin with, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread). And Shapira's stance is not completely represented: the Zionist leadership thought of transfer of the Palestinian population as a highly desirable.

Also, your sentence: "Anita Shapira and Efraim Karsh argue that the traditional Zionist approach believed there was enough room in Palestine for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs, and that Zionist leaders saw room for peaceful coexistence and worried more about the country's absorptive capacity for Jewish immigrants rather than expelling Palestinians." does not at all describe the concept of transfer as unimportant (indeed the quote from Shapira you sourced would not support such a claim) so any argument about "now only viewpoint is present" simply does not apply. DMH223344 (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the above statement is irrelevant to the issue of transfer. It's just meta material on the background justification for the colonial project; it's not addressing the specific issue of transfer one way or another. "Peaceful coexistence", if indeed that can be quoted to a leader in the period, could still be predicated on the notion of transfer. E.g.: It could be predicated on a sequence of transfer, communal segregation and then "peaceful coexistence". Greece and Turkey have a relatively peaceful coexistence now, but that is irrelevant to the history of the vast, forcible mutual population transfers that they undertook backed by political goals. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

On the mention of Greece and Turkey; a quote from Land and Power: The transfer conception was based on what was assumed as positive experience in exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece in the aftermath of World War I.

Also, ben-gurion himself set the threshold at 20% arabs being acceptable for a jewish state. DMH223344 (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the transferees found their experience positive. There are a litany of tragic works written on that painful period of history. Interesting link though ... wrong lessons learnt. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The peaceful coexistence statement was, as you said, predicated on the sequence you described. As for the assessment of "positive experience," I wouldn't take Shapira or the Zionist leadership's word for it. DMH223344 (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

(On the point of wrong lesson's learnt, from the same paragraph as the previous quote: "The lesson of the 1930s was that states should aspire to ethnic uniformity") DMH223344 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Many mass transfers took place in the 1920-1940s and indeed that was considered a largely positive experience. I'll try to come up with another version incorporating the feedback, otherwise there is no choice but to run a RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Plenty of room in the lead

@Makeandtoss can you explain why you think the recent additions to the lead are too detailed? We have plenty of room in the lead, in comparison this lead is much shorter than for example the lead for Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Both have really long ledes. Here the fourth paragraph requires a lot of trimming still. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph here is really very low quality.

For one of the most "complex" "conflicts" we should expect a longer lead, no? DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Longer than average yes that would make sense but if it goes into too much detail at certain historical events then that would be equally problematic cause the focus should be kept on the entire conflict. For example, the opening paragraph now is almost flawless since it says a lot about the conflict using the fewest words possible. And yes the fourth paragraph is in bad shape. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I’m not overly bothered, but the removed passage was unusually detailed for a lede. Yr Enw (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

fair, thanks everyone DMH223344 (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki call-to-arms

Please note: a public call from the Israel subforum on Reddit to edit this article. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

trouble confirming a citation

To editor Alaexis: You cited

Breger, Marshall J.; Reiter, Yitzhak; Hammer, Leonard (2010). "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Holy Places in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : Confrontation and Co-Existence. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9780203867457.

about Western Wall access. I have both the ebook edition which that isbn refers to, and the hardback edition. Breger+Reiter+Hammer are not the authors but rather the editors, as this is an anthology. Moreover, there is no chapter "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". There is, however, a chapter "The legal regulation of holy sites" by Breger+Hammer (pages 20–49), which on pages 34–37 has a subsection headed "Regulation of holy places in the West Bank and Gaza". Alas, that subsection does not seem to mention the Western Wall at all. Please clean up this citation, or explain how I have it wrong. Incidentally, the truth is that the prohibition was for Israelis, not just for Jews, and Israeli Arabs also couldn't visit except for organized Christmas tours to Bethlehem for those who could prove they are Christians. Quite a few foreign Jews managed to visit, though the Jordanians didn't encourage it. Zero^talk 12:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You can find it in footnote 139

Jordan agreed to allow Israel “free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.” That agreement was never adhered to by the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll amend the text. Alaexis_¿question? 15:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

But this does not support the claim "Israelis were forbidden". Not having free access is certainly not the same as being forbidden. DMH223344 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what the difference is? Alaexis_¿question? 19:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

For example, if prior approval was needed it wouldnt be considered "free" access, but that's certainly not the same as being "forbidden". "access was restricted" is a much more accurate representation of the information presented here. DMH223344 (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, "free access" cannot be promoted to "no access" by editor alone. The full story (easily sourced) is more complicated still. Jordan did not agree to allow free access, but only to establish (jointly with Israel) a committee to agree on arrangements for access in both directions. (Read the armistice agreement.) That committee never reached an agreement and Jordan and Israel blamed each other for the failure. I'm dubious that this very high level article should have such detail, but my point is that the common "Jordan promised something and reneged on it" version is the Israeli position only. Zero^talk 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your interpretation which is different from the one in teh source. But indeed we don't need to describe such details in this article and I didn't include them either. I've rephrased the sentence to follow the sources more closely. Alaexis_¿question? 07:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

How is "had no access" different from "forbidden"? It should read "had restricted access" DMH223344 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I changed it to match the source more precisely, which says "free access for the Holy Places and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives". Also, the citation is still wrong as I detailed above. Zero^talk 00:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

"Free" is misleading, it seems like they required them to pay for the access. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

So cite that, it's still not the same as forbidden. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Biased historical presentation

The article presents a biased background history for the conflict by framing the circumstances strictly through the settler-colonial narrative lens while omitting relevant historical context (such as that presented in History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel). The article assumes that the conflict began with the development of Zionism; however, the historical context from which Zionism emerged should not be omitted, as it is crucial to a more complete understanding of the shape of the modern-day conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.239.139 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. This is not an edit request. It is an unsolicited article review from a particular perspective rather than with reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is therefore not actionable. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Intifadas

The two intifadas are notably missing from the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

a discussion of those developments seems like it would flow naturally at the end of the third paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Added. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

" Key aspects of the conflict include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, the permit regime, Palestinian freedom of movement, and the Palestinian right of return." Although this is an interesting description of the IP conflict, it seems to limit its framing to post-1967; with the sole exception of the Palestinian right of return which includes the 1948 refugees. I feel this is misleading as not everyone on both sides of the conflict sees it that way; no to mention of course the 1882-1948 period. Noting that MOS:OPEN opening paragraph should establish context and notability while remaining as general as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

agreed. The body does currently frame the conflict as primarily a post 67 issue, so we should make sure to represent the viewpoint you mentioned there first. Can you suggest some sources? DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't think of any at the moment. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also say the framing of it as a "conflict" is presented without qualification. Of course not everyone sees it as a "conflict". DMH223344 (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ICJ

@DMH223344: [2] A lede is a summary of body that should be concise. US in theory also supports a two state solution so the exception part is redundant. "seeking permanent solution" bit is also redundant. As for Israel's arguments and the ICJ's rebuffal, this is way too overdetailed for an article on the overall Israeli-Palestinian 1882-2024 conflict. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

US officials speak in support of what they call a two state solution, but see actual US support (non-existent) in for example the votes on the recurring UNGA resolution "Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine" (basically every country for, US and Israel against).

The occupation is a key (the main?) issue in the conflict. The ICJ stance is the strongest representation of Israel's isolation wrt its framing of the occupation. DMH223344 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Still they are officially supporting the two state solution. It’s too detailed for the lead and is better elaborated at the ICJ’s case article. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

How is that official support? Officially, the US and Israel are against a two state solution and always have been (which is clear from even a cursory reading of the history). That's like saying the Biden administration supports a ceasefire. They did indeed shift to using the term "ceasefire", but to them, it means something totally different--and their *policy* makes it clear that they dont support a ceasefire. DMH223344 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Omitting the exception of the US and Israel leaves any reader confused. If the international community is in agreement, why is there a conflict? DMH223344 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I could see a case being made for removing the sentence about the "elimination of all forms of racism". Including that was my (bad) attempt to bring in mention of apartheid. DMH223344 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't still make up my mind about how the main articles should be rejgged, for example the Israeli–Palestinian peace process looks antiquated. I do think the ICJ ruling is a significant sea change and it doesn't matter whether Israel (or the US) agrees with it, legally speaking. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)