Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Add something about the phrase "Death to Israel" in "Expressions in Public Discourse"

Would probably be appropriate. Koopinator ( talk) 10:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

"Death to Israel" deserves its own page. Drsruli ( talk) 03:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5  talk  04:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Neutrality and other issues exist; the nominator has not responded to the concerns despite multiple pings and a talk page message.

(
)
US and Israel flags burned in Iran in support of the October 7 Hamas attack
US and Israel flags burned in Iran in support of the October 7 Hamas attack

Created by Eladkarmel ( talk). Self-nominated at 08:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Calls for the destruction of Israel; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. reply

  • Given the ongoing situation, a more balanced hook would be appropriate. The sentence "... that Israeli leaders have consistently called for the destruction of Gaza (and Palestine)" would be equally valid and equally unbalanced. The only difference between the two statements is that one country is actively being destroyed right now. Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Eladkarmel: I would recommend making an attempt to find more neutral sourcing and possibly other hooks, as you will face opposition from many editors. It’s best to bypass this opposition altogether by creating a hook based on the most neutral source you can find, and given the sources you are using right now, I would like to suggest you can do better. Viriditas ( talk) 03:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Z1720: The nomination should be failed (or closed) not because of the hooks, but because it has a neutrality maintenance tag which prevents a reviewer from passing it. This tag is highly unlikely to be removed before the DYK window closes. I think we need to be more proactive about failing disputed topics that are unlikely to be resolved during the DYK process. Viriditas ( talk) 18:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Some modification requests regarding "Hamas"

Request 1

First sentence states "Hamas ... has consistently advocated for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state across the entire territory of Palestine" and cites following Litvak material which was published in 2010. Either the date of publication needs to be mentioned, or additional and more recent citations are needed to fulfil the "consistently advocated" scenario.


Request 2:

"Expressions advocating for the destruction of Israel have been articulated by several figures associated with Hamas." Ahmad Yassin, the first cited example, was assassinated in 2004. The long deceased part doesn't appear in the statement. Either a newer source could be stated, or the long deceased part needs to be mentioned.


Request 3:

The paragraph on Imam Khalid Tafish's relies solely on a single Haaretz article (which relies on a Lebanese interview). Additional sources may be necessary.


Request 4:

The paragraph concerning the Economist article doesn't mention year.


Perhaps we can rephrase this paragraph:

"According to The Economist, referring to Hamas' 1988 charter advocating Israel's eradication and the UN genocide definition, Hamas can be characterized as a genocidal organization. In line with this analysis, "Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law."


as:


"Regarding the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, the Economist wrote that Hamas is a "genocidal organization" according to UN definition of genocide, and its founding charter "explicitly commits it to obliterating Israel." Moreover, "Hamas fighters who burst into Israel on October 7th and killed more than 1,400 Israelis (and other nationalities) were carrying out the letter of their genocidal law." (The Economist citation goes here) Slavery-slasher ( talk) 19:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{ textdiff}}):

On "Hamas" section, the link on "Economist" points to the wiki page for an " economist." The link should be changed to point to The Economist.

  • Why it should be changed:

Because The Economist cannot reflect the view of economists in general regarding the subject matter. The Economist != representation of all economists.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Slavery-slasher ( talk) 19:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

References

 Done Cannolis ( talk) 19:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Removal of sources

Hey @ Iskandar323 I've seen you've removed information and the sources supported in the following edits:

[1]

[2]

[3]

I checked the perennial sources page and I didn't see it highlighted as problematic. Can you please explain? Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Not every source discussion that has ever been had is commemorated at WP:RSP - you have to use the main search function near to the top of the page to look for other past discussions. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I haven't been able to find a mention of this source going through an RFC in WP:RSN. So I think we should approach every article and attempt to see if there is a problem. I haven't seen a major problem but you can take it to RSN. Homerethegreat ( talk) 07:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
I have not found good reason and they appear legitimate so I'm restoring it. However, I'll add additional sources. Homerethegreat ( talk) 10:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Meforum is not the best source. And if there are better sources, it seems like there are, we should use those. VR talk 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

POV tag

In order to ensure NPOV, this article requires three important additional sections:

  1. A description of equivalent statements frequently and consistently being made to call for the destruction of Palestine by Israeli leaders
  2. A description of how statements by Palestinian leaders are frequently spun or taken out of context as Israeli propaganda to falsely imply support for the destruction of Israel. For example, Azzam Pasha is the first example given, yet our article Azzam Pasha quotation gives the broader context.
  3. A description of the different things that are meant by the calls for "destruction". Identifying the original Arabic word in each statement will be important. But perhaps most important will be whether the intent in each statement means "removal of a government / governing apparatus" or "removal of an ethno-national domination" or whether it is genocidal in nature.

Onceinawhile ( talk) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello there! Is it accurate to state that your activity on Wikipedia has been somewhat reduced recently? I hope you and your family are doing well.
Regarding the points you raised:
1. Calls for the destruction of Palestine are totally out of scope here, as this article is focused on Israel.
2. The article duly acknowledges the existence of multiple interpretations for Azzam's quote. However, the assertion that "Palestinian leaders are frequently spun or taken out of context" requires substantiation through credible sources. Without proper sources, it's challenging to recognize this as a valid issue.
3. I don't think it's a POV problem, but something that may call for further expansion. If you have more context from reliable sources, you are welcome to add it. Eladkarmel ( talk) 18:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for your empathetic comment. I hope you and your family and safe and have not been impacted during this terrible time. Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Agree with Onceinawhile. Point 1 is absolutely relevant and well within scope. Point 3, defining what calls have meant variously and to whom, should be the first section of the article, particularly since the article title has issues with WP:POVTITLE. Agree with Eladkarmel on point 2 on the need for substantiation. Reinstated tag spuriously removed. إيان ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

1. This article is about calls for the destruction of Israel. While I’m sure there are relevant in context and connected mentions to calls for the destruction of Palestine, not only is this article not the place for it, it in no way affects the neutrality of the article (and in this case, I dispute the insertion of a neutrality template on this seeming complaint alone)

By all means, create a separate article “Calls for the destruction of Palestine” or however it is to be worded (given the complexities and evolutions at hand) but this article is not the place unless citations are connected to calls for the destruction of Israel.

2. I see no problem with this request. Obviously, there should be a “usage and invocation” or “in public discussion” section if there are unique elements to highlight (in this case accusations of use for propaganda purposes).

3. Agree, and that’s an easy distinction to make in an introductory section so all citations are made clear.

Requesting the removal of the neutrality tag. I don’t see any specific direct claim at non-neutral content here, just an edit request.

Mistamystery ( talk) 21:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Sounds like we are broadly in agreement. Just need to bring the sources and make the edits now.
Obviously a clear reference to "mirror" comments by Israelis about Palestine is highly relevant here. An article which focusses on the wrongdoings of one side whilst ignoring the equivalent in the other direction would be absurd and damaging to the trust that readers have in our project. There are many many examples of this throughout history, and very recently:
  • Landler, Mark (2023-11-15). "'Erase Gaza': War Unleashes Incendiary Rhetoric in Israel". The New York Times.
  • Buxbaum, Jessica (2023-11-30). "'Erase Gaza': How genocidal rhetoric is normalised in Israel". The New Arab.
Onceinawhile ( talk) 18:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC) reply
These three problems still need fixing. Onceinawhile ( talk) 21:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Definition

The first section should be a definition of the topic. What constitutes a "call for destruction of the state of Israel". For example:

  • the right of return of Palestinian refugees is seen as the destruction of Israel. [4]
  • the One station solution is considered an attempt to destroy Israel [5]
  • Arab Israelis criticizing Israeli policies is sometimes labelled as "conspiracy to destroy Israel" [6]
  • Indeed the very existence of Arab Israelis is call for Israel's destruction: "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority." [7] was written by the infamous Israeli historian Benny Morris

VR talk 05:28, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This is a very good point. Onceinawhile ( talk) 22:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

PLO

curious as to why PLO wasn't included. I understand they changed policy in the oslo accords, but until then it seems calls for "uprooting the zionists entity" were part of the movement's agenda. /info/en/?search=Palestine_Liberation_Organization?wprov=sfla1 MoshiachNow ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

How does this article's scope differ from anti-Zionism?

Hello ( Longhornsg— MathewMunro— Dimadick— RolandR— Zero0000— Nishidani— Selfstudier). You have participated in a discussion where many opined that "anti-Zionism" is different in some from "Call for the destruction of Israel", thus implying that these articles must have different scopes. Can you clarify what the scope of this article should be?

Examples of "destruction of Israel" being used in ambiguous ways

  • Israel said to UNGA: "The Arab demand for the return of the refugees to Israel, coupled with proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian State, is calculated to bring about the destruction of Israel."
    • "The right of return is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel through demographic assault" [8]
  • Benny Morris says "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority."
  • "A one-state solution, while popular with some Israeli and Palestinian activists, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state." [9] Is calling for a one-state solution within the scope of this article?
  • Are Arab-Israelis who march with the Palestinian flag within the scope of this article? Avigdor Lieberman says "Those who marched with flags of the Palestinian Authority... are a fifth column whose aim is the destruction of Israel."
    • In fact any criticism of Israel by Arab-Israelis is sometimes called "conspiracy to destroy Israel" [10]
  • "According to Waxman, many Jewish people hear the chant ( From the river to the sea) as a call for "the violent destruction of Israel." [11]

VR (Please ping on reply) 02:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, and Chicken Little said the sky was falling. MathewMunro ( talk) 03:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
All of the examples given are basically a Zionist equivalent of the old Nazi trope 'the Jews are trying to take over the world.' MathewMunro ( talk) 04:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Two differences between anti-Zionism and calls for the destruction of Israel: first, not all calls for the destruction of Israel are anti-Zionist, some are antisemitic; second, not all anti-Zionists call for the destruction of Israel, some call for its change but not destruction.
Also, when some people talk about the "destruction of Israel," they mean the end of a Zionist state, to be replaced by a non-Zionist state (which doesn't require killing anyone). Other people mean kill all the Israelis. Those are two very different things and should not be confused. Wikipedia articles should be careful not to confuse or mix together sources that use "destruction of Israel" to mean political change with sources that use the same phrase to mean mass murder. Levivich ( talk) 15:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed! @ Levivich, so would it be reasonable to restrict the scope of this article to "kill all the Israelis" kind of anti-Zionism? And can you provide some RS that shed more light on that? VR (Please ping on reply) 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ VR: I realize the AFD just closed, but my 2c is it probably should be merged to Legitimacy of the State of Israel, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism. "Calls for the destruction of Israel" is a common-enough phrase in usage in the world, including mass media, but I don't think it's really a cogent topic of scholarly study, as such. For example, nothing in Google scholar with that title, and relatively few hits (283) containing the phrase.
I think the actual scholarly topic here is the comparison between anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- both of which involve "calls for the destruction of Israel" -- which could be adequately covered in Legitimacy of the State of Israel (which is short). It could also be a perfectly fine spin-off article, so instead of merged anywhere, this article could be just re-named/re-scoped/edited.
Right now, the first sentence of the article says it is about anti-Zionism and not anti-Semitism ("annihilation of the State of Israel as a political entity" [n.b. "annihilation" is hyperbolic language when used to describe the end of a political entity]), but many of the examples in the article are about antisemitism not anti-Zionism ("Death to Jews" is not calling for an end to a political entity).
Scholarship about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (some say the two are the same, others say they're different) goes back well over 50 years [12], here are some recent examples: working paper (maybe not the best RS but has a good bibliography and explanations), [13], [14], and then these are on WP:TWL: [15], [16], [17], [18]. Those articles are all about the connection/differences between anti-Zionism and antisemitism; they cover both types of "calls for the destruction of Israel" a.k.a. "antisemitic rhetoric" and "anti-Zionist rhetoric" (and there are many more). I didn't search for very long, but I wasn't able to find anything about the topic "calls for the destruction of Israel" per se (as opposed to sources that used that phrase but were about something else, like antisemitism or anti-Zionism). Levivich ( talk) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Anti-zionism and antisemitism is indeed a notable topic supported by many scholarly sources. If there is consensus here that this is what the article's scope should be, I can go ahead and propose a move to that topic. VR (Please ping on reply) 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Uh huh, stuff at Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism as well. Selfstudier ( talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd support that. Levivich ( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"The right of return is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel through demographic assault".
That is a sick kind of logic, seeing as Israel was made majority Jewish by "demographic assault" to use a euphemism, and then by ethnic cleansing. The reversal of the historic crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, is not "demographic assault", it is the opposite of it. MathewMunro ( talk) 22:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
'Benny Morris says "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is...'
Anyone who presumes, let alone argues, that Israel faces real threats to its existence, is either a liar or a lunatic, or both. MathewMunro ( talk) 22:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"A one-state solution, while popular with some Israeli and Palestinian activists, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state."
The 'end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state' doesn't necessarily involve "destruction". Jewish Israelis hold all the cards. How painful the transition to a multi-ethnic democracy is, is entirely up to them. In the last 15 years, Israel has wrought probably around a hundred times the destruction on the Palestinians as the Palestinians managed to inflict on them. Claiming that the Arabs are intending to "destroy" Israel, in that context, is just sickening propaganda. MathewMunro ( talk) 22:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Except that it's objectively correct. KronosAlight ( talk) 08:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Avigdor Lieberman says "Those who marched with flags of the Palestinian Authority... are a fifth column whose aim is the destruction of Israel."
Zionists - when they're not denying Palestinian nationalism and trying to say they want to be part of Jordan, they try to make merely waving the Palestinian flag a sign of "terrorist" or "genocidal" intent. It's utterly bonkers and deserves no more credence than the mad ramblings of a doomsday cultist. MathewMunro ( talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply
'any criticism of Israel by Arab-Israelis is sometimes called "conspiracy to destroy Israel".'
Yes, by some, that's how insane and dishonest many Zionists are. MathewMunro ( talk) 22:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Does this article lack a well-defined scope? Will it come across as a POV fork if much of the content belongs elsewhere (and occurs elsewhere), such as articles on history of Israel, criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism, and so on. Not sure if the title is encyclopedic in tone (or in structure). If not a POV fork, then maybe a compilation of content that is rather Original Research? Are there academic sources that use this phrase (the title)? ProfGray ( talk) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Neutrality

Oh wow, this article is worse than anyone can imagine with the hidden symbolisms and dog whistles in it. Makeandtoss ( talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

In addition to the highly selective approach to what sources are cited—nothing from Taylor & Francis's Journal of Palestine Studies, or Antisemitism: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2015), or this Jewish Currents piece, or this Conversation piece, this piece from the university-published Class, Race and Corporate Power journal—the article manages to twist even those sources it does cite. The Their Anti-imperialism and Ours website's statement that saying it's disgraceful slander to consider the phrase "from the river to the sea" a call to replace Israel gets somehow reshaped into Wikipedia saying the very opposite: it may imply the replacement of Israel. I would say that subsection should be cut, but really I think the tilt of the whole article is tremendous enough that this case may call for WP:TNT because the skeleton created by this article, its organization, its history, and its premise is so resistant to any NPOV portrayal of the topic. Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 23:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there no deletion (AFD) proposal? Aren't the title and framing a kind of synthesis WP:SYNTH if not original research WP:OR? Are there enough academic or other strong reliable sources that specifically use this framing? I don't understand why these pieces are not already placed in suitable articls. ProfGray ( talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply
It's unclear if this has ever been an academic framing of sufficient import to justify a standalone article along these lines. The page was created amid high emotions last year and obviously suffers from a POV framing. However, within that emotional context, the first AfD resulted in a vote to keep. Iskandar323 ( talk) 10:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Between this article, anti-Zionism, and legitimacy of the State of Israel, it's hard to believe there are three topics. Zero talk 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Anti-Zionism and calls for the destruction of Israel might plausibly different topics; part of why I think this article should remain tagged for neutrality pending substantial revision is that the way this article is written severely conflates the two in a way that wide ranges of reliable sources don't. (And that's without getting into possible overlap with legitimacy of the State of Israel.) Hydrangeans ( she/her | talk | edits) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Well, it's a piece of sloppy hackwork, worst of all, overlapping with the other two articles without contributing anythingt but confusion. Whatever is salvageable (I.e. whatever survives direct scrutiny of the sources paraphrased) should be moved to Legitimacy or anti-Zionism. Nishidani ( talk) 19:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Would like a list of these supposed hidden symbols and dog whistles. I don't see anything profoundly controversial with this page. What are specific examples / issues? I'm seeing here far more discomfort with this page than actual page issues. Mistamystery ( talk) 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Added Iran's clarification

I added Iran's clarification that it has a problem with Israel, not its people. VR (Please ping on reply) 00:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Requested move 31 July 2024

Calls for the destruction of Israel → Calls for the dissolution of the State of Israel – More WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRECISE. Change loaded word 'destruction'—which suggests physical damage or violence, as if it were about a physical object and not a political formation—to the more NEUTRAL and PRECISE 'dissolution' as in Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Because this article is about calls for the dissolution of the state, change the ambiguous 'Israel' to 'State of Israel' to avoid conflation with בני ישראל (Bənēy Yīsrāʾēl 'children of Israel/Jacob'), a biblical metonym for Jewish people. Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic. إيان ( talk) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

How is the scope of this article different from anti-Zionism or legitimacy of the State of Israel? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong Oppose You're proposing a change to a WP:WEASEL wording. Many sources reference destruction directly or its synonyms such as annhiliation, death etc. HaOfa ( talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Oppose - Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic. is exactly right. This article's scope is the latter, not the former. This is the article that's about killing or ethnically cleansing all the Israelis. Anti-Zionism is the other article. The proposed move would make this into a fork of Anti-Zionism. That said, I do agree with all the other editors who have pointed to the serious NPOV problems with this article as written--starting with the lead paragraph--because it conflates calls for the dissolution or reform of Israel (anti-Zionism) with calls for the destruction of Israel. At the very least it needs a rewrite, possibly a merger to some other article, but while I agree that there is a problem, I disagree that this proposed move is the solution. Levivich ( talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Since we agree that Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people, in one way or another we need to disambiguate the article’s title and content. If there is consensus for your interpretation that the scope of this article is calls for the annihilation of Israelis, then the title and content need to be explicit about that. إيان ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd say the title is already explicit about that ("destruction"). It could be Calls for genocide of Israelis, though I'm not really sure such an article needs to exist at all -- is it really a notable topic, separate from antisemitism? Levivich ( talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
The article currently exists and the discussion here is about an appropriate name. If the scope of the article is indeed calls for the eradication of a people and not calls for the dissolution of a state, then Calls for genocide of Israelis would be more WP:PRECISE. Again, because Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people, if the scope of this article is the people and not the state, that needs to be explicit in the title and we need to disambiguate from "Israel" which is the name of the state. إيان ( talk) 18:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
But anyway, the scope is very clearly the dissolution of the state. The article begins:
There have been explicit or implicit expressions, statements, and rhetoric made by individuals, political entities, and factions within Arab, Islamic, Palestinian or left-wing discourse advocating for the elimination of the State of Israel as a political entity.
And it continues to talk about Israel as a state. إيان ( talk) 18:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
It's not either/or, it can be "and": state and people. But yes, what you quote is part of the NPOV problem. Levivich ( talk) 20:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Levivich, what is the scope of the article? First, in your explanation of your opposition to the name change above, you write:
"Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic." is exactly right. This article's scope is the latter, not the former.
Now, you write:
It's not either/or, it can be "and": state and people.
We need to be clear and explicit about the article's scope and name it accordingly, such that we do not conflate between calls for the dissolution of a state and calls for the annihilation of a people. إيان ( talk) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
OK let's try this. There are two things:
  1. Dissolution of the state without eradication of its people
  2. Dissolution of the state with eradication of its people
Those are two different things and it's important not to conflate them. The scope of this article is #2. Levivich ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Ok, so in your view there are two components to the scope: state and people. Putting aside the fact that the article needs a complete rewriting in order to fit this scope, what would be an appropriate title that does not conflate things 1 and 2? إيان ( talk) 21:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the current title conveys it well, actually. "Destruction" does not mean "dissolution", or "reform", or "radical change", or "peaceful transfer of power". Destruction is violent, and complete. To me, "destruction of Israel" means killing or driving out all the Jews, renaming everything, destroying synagogues and Israeli buildings; it's far more than the dissolution of the political entity (that's why the lead is so terrible right now, it totally doesn't match the title). But if not this title, then something like " Israeli genocide" or " Calls for Israeli genocide" or " Calls for genocide of Israel". Or, you know, " antisemitism" :-) I'm still not sure this article should even exist, nevermind what it's called. Maybe it should be called " Antisemitism and Israel" or " Antisemitism against Israel" or something like that, as an intersection sub-article of antisemitism and Israel. Levivich ( talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply
So if I understand correctly, the argument is that the word ‘destruction’ in the title, as opposed to something like ‘dissolution,’ transforms the word ‘Israel’ from a state to a people? And presumably this transformation is understood widely enough to satisfy article title policies? إيان ( talk) 06:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
No that's not what I'm saying, but I think you understand what I am saying, and if you don't, that's too bad. Levivich ( talk) 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Do any significant entities within the Muslim world talk about "killing or driving out all the Jews, renaming everything, destroying synagogues and Israeli buildings"? If so, Calls for genocide of Israel would indeed be an appropriate title. VR (Please ping on reply) 12:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
More than just talk about it. Levivich ( talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Personally I don't think that the available sources do a good job of differentiating between what you call #1 and #2. And unfortunately it is not always obvious which is meant—for example some Iranian leader's statements have been contested what they actually mean. Since both of these are known as "calling for the destruction of Israel", I'm not sure that the distinction is one that Wikipedia is able to maintain. ( t · c) buidhe 05:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel&oldid=1238308583"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE