While fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing, Wikipedia's open editing model also renders the platform susceptible to manipulation, particularly in controversial topics like the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The "Israel-Hamas War" article on Wikipedia presents a prime example of such linguistic manipulation. The World Jewish Congress (WJC) stated in a March 2024 report that "the state of the articles dealing with the conflict is alarming in its lack of neutrality."
On December 12, 2023, Arabic Wikipedia turned the site black for a day over the Israel-Hamas war, showing solidarity with Palestinians. Its logo remains partially black, wrapped in the Palestinian flag with a provocative banner. This violated neutrality principles, drawing widespread Israeli condemnation. Itzik Edri, Wikimedia Israel Association chairman, expressed dissatisfaction: "This is a sad day... when one of our most important projects was taken hostage by politics. This is not the vision of our movement; this is not what hundreds of thousands of volunteers have worked so hard to build." Despite protests, the Wikimedia Foundation decided not to intervene in the matter.
Wikipedia acknowledges the vast differences between different-language editions of the same subject, stemming from independent editing communities, the availability and use of sources in different languages, cultural and political contexts influencing perspectives, and others. However, in our context, examining these differences reflects contradictory narratives and meanings created by such “versions” of a singular article.
The Arabic version
The Arabic version of the "Israel-Hamas War" article presents a narrative that portrays Hamas's actions as primarily targeting Israeli military sites and settlements while downplaying the Israeli civilian casualties. For instance, it states that “[Hamas] took control of several military sites, particularly in Sderot, reached Ofakim, infiltrated Netivot, and engaged in fierce clashes in these settlements and others, capturing several soldiers and civilians and taking them to Gaza, in addition to seizing a number of Israeli military vehicles.” An Arab reader reading this, seven months after the beginning of the war might think that the attack was chiefly against the Israeli army and “settlements” (a word that is understood in most of the world as villages built in the West Bank). However, Sderot, Ofakim, and Netivot are not army bases, are not part of the West Bank, and the vast majority of the people who were murdered there by terrorists were civilians. This verbal manipulation makes the Arab readers think that the people that were “captured” (not taken hostage!) were chiefly soldiers and not civilians, while this is clearly not the case.
Furthermore, the Arabic version's "Background and Causes" section states (in a passive tense) that "several acts of violence erupted in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," suggesting that the violence occurred almost without any initiative by Hamas and as a mere reaction to Israel. It is not described as a sophisticated commando operation involving planning and training in other states like Iran. This distortion is further reinforced by mentioning Palestinian casualties first, followed by Israeli casualties, framing the war as a result of Israeli violence.
The Hebrew and English versions
Compare this to the first paragraph in the Hebrew version of the article that describes the background to the current conflict: "Hamas is a Palestinian terrorist organization that believes in jihad against the state of Israel, including killing innocent civilians. The organization's ultimate goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. Hamas's ideology is antisemitic, expressed in its official documents and statements by its leaders. According to Hamas's doctrine, 'There is nothing more severe or profound in nationalism than when the enemy tramples the land of Muslims,' and 'There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except through jihad.'" Although all the information given is true, this framing is clearly different, as it presents the ideology and actions of Hamas as the background to the war.
The English version of the article arguably provides a more balanced historical overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the Six Day War in 1967 and covering various events and processes, including the Oslo Accords and Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. While this review has some severe problems, it is apparently more neutral than the Israeli and Arabic versions. This apparent neutrality may seem very problematic to Israeli and Arab readers. Indeed, there are many problems with the apparent objectivity of the English version. However, this issue is beyond the scope of this article.
Reliability of sources
I wish to briefly raise concerns about the reliability of some of the sources used by Wikipedia editors, particularly regarding Al Jazeera, a Qatari state-owned news organization. Despite being considered "generally reliable" by Wikipedia's guidelines, there is significant evidence that Al Jazeera has faced credible allegations of having journalists directly involved with terrorist organizations like Hamas. For example, the IDF seized Muhammed Wishah’s laptop containing evidence he was a commander in Hamas’s military wing dealing with anti-tank and aerial weapons. Wishah was seen shaking hands with Hamas leaders like Yahya Sinwar, though he later deleted those posts. This example, and others, undermine Wikipedia's credibility as an objective online encyclopedia.
Conclusion
The significant differences between the language versions of the "Israel-Hamas War" article undermine Wikipedia's presumptions of being a non-biased, objective encyclopedia. The independent nature of editing communities, coupled with differing source availability and cultural/political contexts, can lead to significant biases and imbalances in how controversial topics are portrayed across languages.
To strengthen its authority and objectivity, Wikipedia should pay more attention to issues such as framing, reliability of sources, and, most importantly, create detailed discussions concerning the differences between language versions of the same article. Currently, no “Talk” page discusses in detail such differences between the language versions of an article and its sections. If Wikipedia adopts such a vision, it could contribute to a more global discussion among members of different countries and possibly a better understanding between cultures, potentially promoting fairness, justice, and, eventually, even peace.
Dr. Avior Byron is the CEO of Byron Seminars, a Translation Agency