This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the
Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and
extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for
making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to
make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Clarity issues
It seems like the article discusses modern Israeli politics, but clearly it refers to the time of the
Irgun and the British mandate. --
GHcool05:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)reply
A few may have invoked the passage in a speech or two, but no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates, the most hardline only supported including part of Jordan and a small portion of Syria, but today not even fringe extremists support this, your previous edit was extremely misleading.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates—You are wrong. The link I provided was to Stern's National Revival Principles—not simply an invocation of the passage in a speech or two.
Ian Lustick documents others who advocated this position.
This page from GlobalSecurity.org documents more.
Here is a page from the Jewish Virtual Library confirming that such boundaries were among the Stern Gang's goals. All of these are
reliable sources; when they say one thing and a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor says another, which do you think the article should follow? Do you have a single source confirming your assertion that no leader ever had such ambitions? —
Charles P._(Mirv)06:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Yair stern wrote that the bibilical promise is the "homeland" of the Jewish people, not that he will pursue this as the nation. It's two different articles in the principles.
Amoruso13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)reply
I stand corrected, I was under the impression that Lehi had quite different goals. However I still believe that we could make it more clear just how little the land is actually sought today, The most crazy and extreme view really held of Eretz Israel isto include Palestine, Israel, and most of Jordan. Do you disagree?-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk06:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm going to rephrase it again soon. The third interpretation is not usually portrayed in Arab media, but rather used by Arab rhetorics. And Stern's views are barely worth mentioning. He was an insignificant figure in Zionist history, had only a few followers, and was a "lone wolf" operating as a terrorist rather than keeping in line with the Jewish population. Mentioning his bizzare views is like mentioning my uncle Moshe that also thinks about an Israeli state "from the nile to the euphrates".
Just as a quick followup, why is the area roughly defined by Genesis 15:18-21 described as as alleged by anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups. I understand that it is not a mainstream notion to extend the state of Israels borders to this extent, but should the fictional account from Genesis not be mentioned? --
Uncle Bungle05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
It's not a question of mainstream vs. opposition groups. There is no political movement in Israel today which suggests an expansion of the Israeli borders. Quite the contrary - the question is whether or not Israel should give up lands conquered in June 1967. Even the most extreme right-wing movements talk about Israel in the post-1967 borders and not beyond that. About the Biblical notion of the "promised land" - the problem is that no one can locate its actual borders, and all Biblical and archeological evidences suggest that the Israelite kingdoms never reached the Nile river nor most of the Euphrate delineation. Interpreting the Biblical text in the most extreme manner, and suggesting that Israel or the Zionist movement adhere to such interpretation is indeed anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propoganda.
drork05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border. There might be some debate over the Nile, but the Euphrates is fairly easy. Now, regardless of the actual historical evidence, the fairy tale says "God gave the land to Abraham", and listed all these kingdoms. Anyway, I'm just asking, not trying to push POV. Cheers. --
Uncle Bungle15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
If we are talking about the mere Biblical text, then you can interpret it in several similar ways. It is hard to understand the exact context in which this text emerged. The term "river of Egypt" is indeed subject to at least three interpretation (the Nile itself, an ancient eastern extension of the Nile, or Wadi El-Arish). The term Prat (Euphrate) probably refers to the river known today by this name, but it might refer to a certain part of the river, rather than its entire length. And you are right of course - you cannot tag a plausible interpretation of the Biblical text "antisemite".
drork17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
So for the legend in the map, can we change the description to something like "One possible interpretaion of the biblical account, often used by anti-Semites"? --
Uncle Bungle21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I would say "The widest possible borders of the promised land according to the Biblical account in Genesis". I sincerely don't think anti-semitism is relevant, as long as we present the map as one of the plausible interpretations of the Biblical text.
drork06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)reply
"Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border". There's nothign wrong in wanting it - but no one in Israel wants to starts wars in order to get them. That's the difference.
Amoruso18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
It's wrong through certain glasses but not through others especially when you consider that states were created through conquering empire decisions and on what people see as their homeland - this is all around the globe. The importance is not to engage in hostilities and to live in peace it's true.
Amoruso22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)reply
As much as I strain my local political knowledge, I cannot think of any Israeli group that talks about parts of Egypt and Iraq as Eretz Yisrael. I can recall one strange story about Lubavitchers who went to Turkey with a xerox machine, placed it on the Euphrate bank, and photocopied certain sacred book (it wasn't the Bible, but a book valued in the Lubavitch community). Then they spread these books as printed in the outmost point of Eretz Yisrael. This is actually a curiousity, similar to the Lubavitchers' search of a proper crown to the Messiah.
drork06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Anybody knowledgable enough about Jewish history will know which parts are Eretz Israel and which not. The difference is that Cannan is more holier than Eretz Israel in general. When I say knowledable enough on this issue, in terms of political parties we're talking about some in the likud and the ichud leumi in general. There is a major conception between the two terms or rather between the Promised Land and the borders that David And Solomon aspired and reached at times and between what's regarded as Cannan which is the holiest place - includes western Palestine and also includes the Golan Heights.
Amoruso06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)reply
The map is extreamly innacurate. The "river of Egypt" is the El- Arish river, not the Nile. The eastern border DOES NOT include all the Euphrates but only the very northern part.
Num. 34 NAKHAL Mitsrayyim = Brook of Egypt ending in the Mediteranean Sea at El-Arish,
the original southern border of Erets Yirael and Djund Falastin
until the British redrew the border in favor of Egypt.
To the best if my knowledge, wadi el-Arish to the edge of the Euphrates is the grandest Jewish idea, as those were the borders of Solomonic Israel, and indeed the largest natural borders for the western crescent. The Baathist idea doesn't jive with geography - all states included the Nile or Euphrates river valleys; I'm not aware of any state which just included the length of one bank. The maps should clearly differentiate between the Baathist idea and the Jewish irredentist ideas. As it stands now, a quick glance could leave a reader with an incorrect idea as to the actual irredentist position. Perhaps introducing a map of Western Palestine and the Transjordan, maybe with the West Bank and Gaza Strip outlined, in addition [and above] the current map, would more clearly convey the idea. Cheers, TewfikTalk21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
Well if there is even any mention of the Euphrates it is referring to part of Syria not Iraq or Saudi Arabia, which was the greatest territorial extant in history, and the idea of reaching the nile comes completly from the propaganda of Arab governments. Even so, really the largest irredentalist idea that actually exists today, is inclusion of all the West bank, Gaza, Golan, and very small parts of Jordan and the Sinai, but that is an extreme fringe belief.-
Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg |
Talk22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)reply
The current conclusion as to what the verses mean is unsourced OR. While some sources interpret the edge of the Nile delta (Pelusian branch - see
Brook of Egypt) as being a border, I couldn't find any sources for significant portions of Egypt outside the Sinai, nor major parts of either Saudi Arabia or Iraq. While I couldn't find a detailed description of the northwestern border's limit along the Euphrates, that includes not having seen any indication that it expands as far as the passage infers. I'm removing the aforementioned parts, of course if a source is presented I should be reverted. Remember that the map included describes anti-Israeli propaganda and not biblical exegesis. Cheers, TewfikTalk05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)reply
---
The major problem with the map is that the key is wrong. The red, orange, and yellow area are the anti-zionist definitions. The red and orange area is sort of what Betar claimed should be the boundary of Israel back in the 1920s (They never laid claim to the Sinai, and their proposed boundary did extend to both sides of the Jordan River but not the whole "Trans-Jordan" (now the country of Jordan). And, to those who currently preach of "Greater Israel" today basically mean the current recognized boundaries of the State of Israel, plus the West Bank (sometimes referred to as "Judea and Samaria") and possibly the Golan Heights (although this is doubtful).
The truth is I'm not so sure that the article should include "anti-zionist" definitions, nor even the Betar definition since this was a proposal in the pre-Israel days and has never been referred to since Independence. I think it adds confusion about the term Greater Israel.
To understand the concept of Greater Israel today, you need to understand that the historic land of Israel was more connected to the hills of the West Bank than to the coastal land that present day Israel now occupies. To most advocates of Greater Israel, they see the West Bank as "historic Israel", and therefore must be made part of the state.
Since it had little historical relationship to ancient Israel, the Sinai never had much attraction to advocates of Greater Israel except as buffer territory, and probably was the reason it was so easily given up for a peace treaty with Egypt.
Region of king David?
The map proporting to show the region controlled by king David is clearly inaccurate - Israel and its people at no point controlled that extent of territory - I could accept it as a version presented in some story or religious text if it were so marked (though I see no place in the Bible where it states that David controlled any such territory).
actually it's common knowledge and in the bible about david and solomon's time. "ruled over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from Tiphsah to Gaza; he was at peace with all his neighbors" (I Kings, 4:24) . Of course it's according to the bible, since that's the main source for David's kingdom, and this is in fact a biblical idea too - greater israel. And it also says in the intro "Biblical boundaries". Anyway, what was written was just the caption from bible history.
Amoruso06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Would someone please give a justification for spending such a large proportion of this entry to Daniel Pipes' classification of linguistic usage of the term "Greater Israel"? And further, in what sense is he a good authority on this issue? PJ 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, is it really fair to say that Arab Nationalists are the ones who think there are Zionists who want this? It seems like there are some Zionists who ARE that vehement. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.198.168.12 (
talk)
05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The topic isn't as minor as your portray it. It is the center of a major world hot-spot. Without understanding the Jewish claim to Greater Israel / Eretz Yisrael HaShelemah, you can't understand a central element of Middle East and World politics. --
75.239.143.242 (
talk)
13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Dispute: definition of "Greater Israel" -- comments please
In the article
Land of Israel, Jaakobou and I have reached the
three revert point and request your opinion. Briefly:
Jaakobou, if I understand him correctly, argues that "greater Israel" refers to the Genesis 15 definition of the Land of Israel.
I wrote that the expression "Greater Israel" is used by the political opponent of Likud to designate the current state of Israel with annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.
The Likud calls this territory "Land of Israel". Hence, this issue is relevant to that article. In an attempt to convince Jaakobou, I quoted three sources, including Israel's PM Olmert, then US SoS James Baker, and NYT editorialist Ethan Bronner, all using this expression. Jaakobou reverted this text too. Without resorting to a formal RFC, I invite you to voice your opinion on the subject. Please post your comments in
Talk:Land of Israel.
Emmanuelm (
talk)
18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)reply
I only now noticed this thread. Anyways, it might be good to actually start an RfC as there seems to be a huge discrepancy between English terminology and Hebrew. I'd be interested in opening this for the wider community's perspectives. JaakobouChalk Talk13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
You are both right, and actually there are several other definitions. It a matter of context. Some definitions went out of use with the change in geo-political circumstances, some are still used depending on the specific context.
DrorK (
talk)
21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Website of New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies
On its website (
http://www.nswjbd.org/) the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel. It is the only reference in the article where an organisation purporting to represent a significant group of Jews outside Israel (more than 45,00 in New South Wales) has expressed a view on what constitutes Israel. I tried to make the paragraph I added as bland as possible. I agree that the inclusion of the reference to the article by Beinart may have been unnecessary.
Also,
WP:NPOV requires that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are fairly represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Is there any evidence based on independent secondary sources reporting the view of nswjbd.org that their notion of what constitutes Israel is a significant viewpoint and therefore qualifies for inclusion in any article other than perhaps their own article ? Sean.hoyland - talk05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)reply
Strike
It is true that in its website the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies does not use the term Greater Israel. However what its website appears to include in the term Israel is identical with what is called Greater Israel in paragraph 1 of the article, i.e. State of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.
If I had said that the website implied that Israel had annexed the West Bank and/or Gaza, in the absence of a reliable reference that would amount to original research. I deliberately did not to that. If a reader of the paragraph should come to that conclusion himself, so be it. If I had said that the map was a map of Greater Israel rather than Israel, that would amount to original research. Again, I deliberately did not do so.
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Greater Israel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)reply
The maps contain far more information, and more specific information, than the words and the sources. They may be original research, or simply taken from a source not cited. WP:NOR. The editor who uploaded them has apparently left Wikipedia. The maps should be removed or replace.
Sfarney (
talk)
11:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Greater Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on
Greater Israel. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Currently, the most common definition of the land encompassed by the term is the territory of the State of Israel together with the Palestinian territories.
The comment below seems unsigned and has no reply button so I leave my comment here but I only wanted to provide a source for the debate that they mentioned as it seems that the content of the debate might provide some clarity as to disputes about the term "Greater Israel" on the wiki page. I do not intend to insert it myself but, for anyone who feels interested, you can find it here: DEBATE: Israel-Palestine w/ Noam Chomsky & Rudy Rochman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GVWT-Dbys Hope that helps.
AnthonyTF (
talk)
12:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In an online debate on February 8th of 2021 about Israeli policies, linguist and activist Noam Chomsky and Israeli rights activist Rudy Rochman spent a significant portion of their time trying to resolve their conflicting notions of what is usually meant by the term "Greater Israel".
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reference 3 is producing a display error due to improper formatting. Please replace the existing citation template with this:
<ref>{{Cite book|last=Morris|first=Benny|author-link=Benny Morris|title=Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group |year=2011 |isbn=9780307788054 |page=138 Quote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning. … Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"}}</ref>
Done@
Basketcase2022: Thank you for your contribution. You providing the exact wiki-source to replace it with is very appreciated! The citation has been corrected per request. Cheers! —
Sirdog(
talk)
01:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)reply
In academia
Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[20][21][dead link][22]
None of these links say this.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Bible also talks profusely about why the jewish people WOULD LOSE that promised land, and for what reasons, the 2 destructions of Jerusalem (last one in 70 a.D. at the hand of the Romans, event prophesied in advance by none other than Jesus Christ), says when they would recover it, and the huge battle of Armageddon that is to come where they will be punished yet again until a REMNANT finally understands who their Messiah was/is..
Nowhere in this Wikipedia article is specified all that, and it should be. Tell us what was promised, but also tell us WHY THEY LOST IT, and reference the very specific biblical quotes. So, again, we know roughly from the Bible the geographic location of that promised land, but the Bible is also VERY SPECIFIC, both in Old Testament and New Testament, why they LOST IT.
Spytrdr (
talk)
11:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)reply
However, both Zionists and Anti-Zionists have debunked this [claim].
To say they have "debunked" the alternative interpretation of the symbolism of those stripes (as a possible from-the-Nile-to-the-Euphrates dog whistle) is blatant POV. They have certainly denied this, but to say they have "debunked" this is charged language and highly partisan POV-pushing. "Debunked" is also {{not in source}}. "Deny" is in the cited source. NB: The cited source meanwhile is highly partisan, which to its credit it discloses on its
about page, q.v.: "The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies." It is not clear that a source this strongly partisan would be accepted for any other topic, and one might ask why it is acceptable here. It seems dubious at best that a similarly strongly partisan source would be accepted if beholden to the opposite POV. Worse, the way that sentence attributes the action of "debunking" is very wishy-washy and potentially misleading: Upon a cursory reading, "both Zionists and Anti-Zionists" would suggest everybody involved in the dispute. But actually, it's entirely unclear, and neither explicitly stated nor cited whether only some Zionists and some anti-Zionists have "debunked" (denied) the claim, whether a majority of each respective group has "debunked" (denied) the claim, or whether indeed this sentence means to say all significant Zionists and anti-Zionists "debunk" (deny) the claim. If the latter was intended here, then that's clearly false: The very fact there is a controversy means that at the very least some anti-Zionists embrace the view that this is a dog whistle corresponding to the beliefs of some Zionists. Of course, by its very nature, the essential elements of the dispute at least run very close to conspiracy theory,
Russell's teapot, and questions of
falsifiability and
proving a negative. However, the current phrasing is highly partisan towards one view, and this high partisanship has been in that section from
its inception. When I read "debunked", I suspected someone had edited that in later, but that's not the case: The original contributor of that section used this POV language.
ReadOnlyAccount (
talk)
15:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
PS: For an example how the same ground can be covered much better,
this section (of another article) addresses a closely related matter, and as of this writing covers the topic without any such blatant POV-pushing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ReadOnlyAccount (
talk •
contribs)
15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I removed it. Pipes is not a reliable source. Danny Rubenstein's opinion is well-informed and I kept it. I don't know of a reliable source giving an opinion in favor of the claim.
Zerotalk10:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I think this is an improvement. Rereading that section the way it is now, I think what might still deserve further attention is the phrasing "Conspiracy theorists have suggested...". The "Conspiracy theorists" attribution in particular appears to be uncited; if this were unprotected, I would have stuck a {{cn}} onto that term. This phrasing also strikes me as inherently POVish – it might still be true, but IMHO that deserves a higher standard of scrutiny to establish. I would probably have said something like "Critics of Israel [or the present State of Israel] have suggested [or contend]...".
This all being said, in looking at the current source [29] now, I was struck by how Rubinstein's main point in his 2004 article, that all these views were merely proof of Palestinian "bitterness" (and little else) does not look like it has stood the test of time particularly well in light of current events, to include documented and ongoing Israeli actions, and now openly and officially stated Israeli intentions. If your official representatives openly say they want to do X, and you are in the process of doing X, does that make the previously-denied suggestion that something on your flag looks like an X-shaped dog whistle seem more like a baseless conspiracy theory or less so?
Of course, perhaps insidiously, the scarlet-letter association with "conspiracy theorists" is never quite falsifiable or deniable. I could contend that (an unspecified quantity of not otherwise specified) "conspiracy theorists" share your views, any number of views, and given that there are billions of humans out there who entertain conspiracy theories to a greater or lesser extent, there might well be such persons out there, and their posts might even be discoverable with a sufficiently aggressive social media search AI, but alert analysts must understand that such rodent copulation doesn't really lend much credence or relevance to the slur. Better to be concrete: Who said what when?
On the other hand, contrary to the common connotation, not all conspiracy theories are baseless. Conspiracies exist, and theorising about them is an important antidote to those who aren't co-conspirators. I don't know if dog-whistle considerations did inform or contribute towards the choice of the present flag design, or if that alleged symbolism is coincidence,
which is not inconceivable. I do know that regardless of what the flag was designed to say or what different people think it says, we can
watch what those who bear it do. —
ReadOnlyAccount (
talk)
04:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Below the "In academia section, please include the following:
In his pseudonymous article written in the Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, experienced diplomat Michaela Domingo wrote: "it is high time for segments of Israeli society to come to grips with the idea, however painful, that the territorial integrity of the Land of Israel [shlemut ha-aretz] is an entirely delusional notion and a very dangerous one at that. Palestinians reside in many of the territories that they claim as part of the state to which they aspire and will always cling to the land they inhabit regardless of the circumstances. However difficult, both sides must internalize the idea of “safe sharing,” which rejects the use of violence—if not for the current generation then for the next one. A culture that includes knowledge of the other will eventually lead to empathy and a common purpose."
Propose Deleting the 'Bin Laden interview' section
Why is the militant POV of Osama Bin Laden *interview* needed in this article @
Greater Israel#Bin Laden interview? What does it add? He is not a scholar useful per
WP:RS. Can't we find a better source than a barbaric arch-terrorist responsible for the devastating
September 11 attacks for anti-Greater Israel perspective/s? May as well quote Adolph Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's views on Jews and their Jewish homeland in Israel. Nominate to delete this section.
IZAK (
talk)
23:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply