Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 October 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Debates about content

As the section above was actually meant to debate whether this is in fact on mission, this here section is supposed to be about the actual content of the article Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

I changed references to Tel Aviv as if it is the capital of Israel to Jerusalem, as the reality of the situation is that Jerusalem is where the government sits. Kentuckyball (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And only Israel recognizes that as the legal thing, so lets refer to it as tel aviv. No need to justify right makes right now. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 14:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

De facto Jerusalem is the capital, de jure (a.k.a. legal fiction), according to a coupla states, Tel Aviv is. So, what it's gonna be, reality or legal fiction?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

At the bloated wiki it is "Jerusalem (disputed)". No doubt there is a 1,000 page archive of the discussion about that somewhere. Let's not bother .--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"A couple of states" meaning "all of them"--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 15:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This, Paravant, is what it virtually always is like to argue facts with hardcore Zionists. Reality is what they want it to be. It's one of the most extraordinary mindsets I've ever run across, possibly surpassing even the antics of creationists, with whom I once also debated quite a bit.---Mona- (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Psychological projection Mona? CorruptUser (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Now CorrupotUser, you have seen for yourself two thing: 1. I heavily document my claims with facts, and 2. When, as you have done once, I am presented with credible evidence that I erred, I immediately concede it. Believe me, that is not the manner of hardcore Zionists. ---Mona- (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

West Jerusalem is not even disputed and that is where the Knesset is. If the entirety of the Israeli government institutions (Knesset, Supreme Court, etc) are in undisputed Israeli land, it makes no sense to refer to them by a city where their government is not. Kentuckyball (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We can also take the context too. "He is essentially Tel Aviv's very own Dick Cheney". He doesn't live in Tel Aviv. "...most hardline minds in Tel Aviv". None of these "hardline minds" are in Tel Aviv, they are in Jerusalem. That is where they are, the government is, and the institutions are. Referring to it as "Tel Aviv" doesn't make any sense except to delegitimize Israeli claims to the entirety of Jerusalem, even though all these people and institutions are located in undisputed Israeli land. Kentuckyball (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of wondering why the name of a city is being used at all. Using Jerusalem wouldn't make sense either, since unlike "Washington" (DC) in the US, the city's reputation is so vastly more complex than just "the place where the government's seat of power is". Just use "Israel" or "the Knesset" or "the Likud party", depending on what fits the context. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:25, 22 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

I just did that. We shall see if it lasts. Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Quoting from the UN News Centre: >>28 October 2009 – Jerusalem must be the capital of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side-by-side in peace and security, with arrangements for the holy sites acceptable to all, if peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned today.

“This is the road to the fulfilment of both the vision of [United Nations] Security Council resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, and the yearning for peace of people from all over the world,” he said in a message to the Jerusalem International Forum in Rabat, Morocco, in which he stressed that the international community does not recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.

He cited as obstacles to peace continued Israeli evictions and house demolitions in East Jerusalem, the latest occurring yesterday, closure of Palestinian institutions there, and the expansion of settlements contrary to international law and the Roadmap peace plan espoused by the Quartet – UN, the European Union, Russia and the United States – that seeks a two-State solution to the conflict.<<---Mona- (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So I don't see the issue with saying "Jerusalem" instead of "Tel Aviv". If the capital is to "be shared", why can't we call it "Jerusalem"? Kentuckyball (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not shared yet. The annexation is wrong. ---Mona- (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said, however, all Israeli federal institutions are located in Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv. West Jerusalem is not disputed. Only legal fiction says that it is not the capital, but in reality, there is no non-political reason to dispute this, and it doesn't make sense to use "Tel Aviv" instead of "Jerusalem" if the institutions are there and in undisputed territory. Kentuckyball (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

EVen the United States refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and reaffirmed that recently.---Mona- (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance. I am arguing that even if the international community recognizes Tel Aviv, all Israeli federal institutions are in Jerusalem, and that is where the government is located. To refer to them as Tel Aviv based on legal fiction is a product of that, fiction. I prefer to refer to reality. Kentuckyball (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Even to replace it with simply "Israel" is fine, I just think it is unnecessarily loaded to refer to Tel Aviv instead of Jerusalem, and doesn't really make much realistic sense. Kentuckyball (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The nations of the world locate their embassies in Tel Aviv.---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

And why does that determine the capital? Wouldn't capital be determined by where the government is located? Kentuckyball (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Because the world does not recognize Israel's appropriation of East Jerusalem and is not willing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital. It is considered illegal for Israel to declare it the capital. That is the position of the world, and is thus the reality reflected in this article. End of. Bye.---Mona- (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, none of the institutions are in East Jerusalem and there is no legitimate reason to deny Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem at this point in time. There is no reality in saying Tel Aviv, the reality is that the government is located in Jerusalem. If The Republic of RationalWiki declared independence today and had no current diplomatic missions in Rational City, does that make it not the capital? No. It is meaningless where the embassies are in terms of where the government is located. The government is located in Jerusalem, end of. Kentuckyball (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

UN Security Resolution 478 on Israel's law purporting to make Jerusalem its capital:

1. Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions;

2. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem;

3. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith;

4. Affirms also that this action constitutes a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;

5. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem and calls upon:

(a) All Member States to accept this decision;

(b) Those States that have established diplomatic missions at Jerusalem to withdraw such missions from the Holy City;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the implementation of the present resolution before 15 November 1980;

7. Decides to remain seized of this serious situation.

The world has complied; there are no embassies now in Jerusalem. ---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Which still doesn't change the fact, that the Israeli government and many of it's institutions are in Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv. If you wanna RW write legal fiction, mazal tov ra, RW is about FACTS.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

An aside

And that in essence is why in the land between Jordan and Red Sea (how ever one would wish to call it, Israel is fine by me, but certainly not by Mona) even building a freaking light rail line is incredibly mired in controversy. And if you look at the cities that have over the time been divided (Nikosia in Cyprus, Rafah in Egypt and Hamastan, Berlin and some others), it always better for all involved if the city is united. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Mufti statement totally fabricated, not even anything like it was said

The NYT:

Professor Zimmermann, the Hebrew University historian, said on Israel Radio that Mr. Netanyahu was “doing something he must not do,” and that in “the protocol” of the 1941 meeting between the mufti and Hitler, “the text that Netanyahu speaks of does not appear.”

“He moves the responsibility of the Holocaust, for the destruction of the Jews, to the mufti and the Arab world,” Professor Zimmermann said. “This is a trick intended to stain the Arabs of today because of the Arabs of the past. To pile on the Arabs of the past by easing up on the Germans of the past.”

Professor Litvak of Tel Aviv University said the speech was “the height of the distortion of history.”

---Mona- (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't even need to do much research to know that the beginnings of the Holocaust pre-date that meeting. For instance, Kristallnacht had already occurred years before the meeting where Netanyahu purports the idea of the "Final Solution" was first proposed. 50.201.38.210 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I corrected the edit and added the above quote as a reference in the notes.---Mona- (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ADDING: This article is about Benjamin Netanyahu. Media worldwide is reporting on this, and historians everywhere are outraged, including those in Israel. It is a major blunder by the Prime Minister of Israel, who spouted a tenet of Holocaust denial, and has been criticized by Israeli citizens and historians for doing so. That is fact, as the article now copiously documents. Another fact is the total lack of a transcript or recording of the Mufti/Hilter conversation. Anyone claiming that the Mufti made a statement "sort of like" what Netanyahu said is making shit up. And also obscuring the global outrage at the Israeli Prime Minister spewing a denialist claim.---Mona- (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not gonna link to it, but on Twitter I learned that the neo-Nazis at The Daily Stormer are astounded by Netanyahu's statement:

His statement is completely factual. Hitler never had any plan to exterminate Jews. He lobbied continually before and during the war to have them shipped out peacefully, giving them fair payment for their properties and so on.

The sicko are utterly flummoxed:

I absolutely cannot put context around Bibi coming out to defend Adolf Hitler.

The simplest thing is that he is losing his mind as he realizes his entire base is being seized by Russia.

Maybe he also wants to make friends with Nazis, I guess? Like “look you Nazis are okay – I know you never really meant to gas us – now let’s come together to stop these Hajis.”

The statement was framed as a demonization of Palestinians, but there are so many ways to demonize Palestinians without defending Hitler.

I imagine all the Holocaust deniers are now just as excited. If there are any handlers who can contain him, they need to get Netanyahu under control.---Mona- (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Holocaust" vs "Shoah"

While it is true that not only Jews died in the Holocaust, the word "Shoah" (Hebrew for catastrophe if memory serves) usually only refers to the murder and genocide against the Jews. In a similar vein the lesser known word Porajmos refers only to the genocide against those the Nazis called "gypsies". It would therefore be important to know which exact word was used to judge how factually wrong the comment was. It was - provided the translation is accurate, which I have no reason to doubt as Netanyahu is no doubt able to follow English language news and tell them when they mistranslate him - factually wrong and in a sense misleading without a doubt, but we should be careful not to make this article nothing more but a character assassination based on one quote. After all, a huge number of politicians have said things they are not proud of and many have awkwardly walked them back later Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the least bit concerned about assassinating the character of a sociopath and war criminal like Netanyahu, but I (this is a landmark moment) agree with you about his meaning the Shoah. I don't think the stuff about the non-Jewish victims, the eugenics program etc. is necessary.---Mona- (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Now sociopath is a rather narrowly defined mental health term and war criminal is a rather narrowly defined legal term. Given that you seem to have experience in at least one of these, I would assume you have at least some expert on either (who does not have an obvious axe to grind) backing you up on that one? And do recall that even sitting presidents can be accused of war crimes before the ICJ (as has been the case with presumed war criminal [that's the legal term until he is convicted or acquitted] Omar al Bashir of Sudan). If memory serves, no credible or notable scholar has made a statement similar to yours, though. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, it's not that important. The point is that the Nazis hardly needed al-Husseini to encourage them to kill Jews, as they also killed other groups of people, even before they started large-scale killing of Jews.

I agree we should not do a character assassination, but this comment is profoundly wrong on so many levels it's ridiculous Carpetsmoker (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(EC) I think the main point of that passage was that Hitler didn't target just the Jews, and his eliminative intentions towards 'undesirables' were already showing well before the Holocaust started. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well Hitler's eliminatory tendencies - especially against Jews - are apparent to all who gave his "book" even a passing glance. Unfortunately few took those threats seriously. And what we can say about al Husseini is that he shared most if not all views of Hitler when it came to Jews. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the main point is that the eliminationist viewpoint and accompanying policies were already implemented. I just edited to make that the point.---Mona- (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't there some thing that actually happened where al-Husseini killed Jews through action or inaction? If I recall correctly, there was one situation where a bunch of Jewish prisoners were to be exchanged and al-Husseini said no and thus they were killed by the Nazis instead. Even though that meant some sort of immediate drawback for al-Husseini (some of his guys not being freed or some such). There have been some apologist historians trying to paint al-Husseini as ignorant, but I think it is safe to assume that that dipshit knew what Hitler intended to do to the Jews, as his intentions were quite similar... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "Gypsies"

Notice my scare quotes? Yeah.... I am not happy with the term, but the problem is that "Sinti and Roma" excludes some people and groups that were killed as "gypsies" by the Nazis as well... So how should we deal with this term, given that it is still used as a slur and an insult, but also used as a self-application by some members of the given groups. Also, people who would not consider themselves Jews who were killed by the Nazis as "Jews" regardless are usually subsumed under the "Jewish" group of victims. What are we to do about "gypsies", who would not have called themselves such? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I copied the term from this page, which I wanted to use as a source before I reconsidered and used Wikipedia. Wikipeda uses "Romani" instead of Gypsies... Carpetsmoker (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

We should set "gypsies" in quotes or something like that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the way you phrased is is good, any other input or thoughts? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Calling non-Americans "neocon"

The term "neocon" is a term that specifically applies to the US and as a political movement originates in the US and only makes sense in the US. The basic assumption of the neocons was that the US have a huge military might and they should just use it for "good" (i.e. removing unpleasant figures from power), hence calling figures outside of the US neocon unless they do so themselves or it is a widely applied term for them (and the application is more thaen a slur by opponents) makes about as much sense as a German newspaper calling foreign liberal parties "yellow", when they are in fact not associated with that color Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The term is sometimes used in the Netherlands to describe, well, neocon-like policies Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But isn't it kind of nonsensical to apply it to a politician who says (basically) "We should follow the lead of the US in going to war against x" when the whole joke of neocon-ism is that the US goes to war without giving a crap about other countries (that's what the Iraq war was attacked on the most, not consulting with the UN first) and just using the US military to change the facts on the ground? No other country - and certainly not the Netherlands - can do that. Unless the fact in question is the number of bike routes in San Salvador... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the term is used in other countries. In the Czech Republic, Japan, and the UK, it refers to a form of conservatism based on American neoconservatism, but adjusted for that country's particular situation. By contrast, in China and Iran, the term refers to conservative movements with no connection to US neoconservatism. So, Avenger, you are as wrong as you usually fucking are. Resurrection by erection (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)