Talk:Israel

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon judaism.svg

This Judaism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: , (new)


"Jewish diaspora" in Europe and "europeanized Jews"[edit]

Hey there,

First of all, I despise the killing by people from Hamas on more than 1000 civilians, and I despise the killing of more than 20000 civilians by the people from Israel in Gaza. All of these people have lost their ways, and have no values. They have lost all sense of empathy and respect for their fellow human beings. Show compassion, especially when it is hard.

Now, to come to the matter at hand: after reading the fifth paragraph from the top. I wonder what makes the jewish people living in Europe for hundreds of years in Europe the "jewish diaspora" and the "europeanized Jews". In contrast, christian people and muslim people are not defined as "europeanized christians" or the "muslim diaspora". Why it matters? It has been and still is a strong antisemitism trope in Europe to describe jewish people as people who don't belong (the myth of the wandering jew). Of course, people in Europe that converted to Judaism, or jewish descendant of people who moved to Europe for hundreds of years are europeans. This of course support the needs of the zionist project: jewish people having suffered the Holocaust and being always seen as not belonging, then do need to construct their own safe state.

Jewish people have been at times and places in history not affected by antisemitism, sometimes for hundreds of years. Because there is nothing special about them.— Unsigned, by: 2a02:810a:8c0:20d4:2d4f:a27a:6912:a665 / talk

We should add a section about the Genocide Accusations[edit]

It's an extremely relevant topic given the current war, especially given the ICJ case TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good Idea, but I'd rather have an article on the whole war, covering crimes from both sides. The problem is, we need someone to write it. I don't have time to do the research that this article would require, so yeah, just a section would work in the short term. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia already has Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. An article here on the subject would be fine, but I must question, at what points we can do better, or at least different from them? I personally don't like redundant articles a lot though, again, the subject is obviously missional. Maybe a section would be better than an article after all. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 13:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we refer to Israel as a rogue state?[edit]

It has consistently ignored the ICJ, ignores even its most closest allies (the United States even) and if the flour massacre is anything to go by, then it has no qualms with killing civilians that even a flerf can tell is innocent and isn't affiliated with any terror group whatsoever. — Unsigned, by: AstroVictoria / talk / contribs

It's not a rogue state, it's a terrorist organization masquerading as a state — Unsigned, by: 2600:387:6:80d::26 / talk / contribs

Does the war in Gaza merit its own page?[edit]

The current (2024) war in Gaza has been the subject of extreme misinformation and disinformation since the beginning, and it seems like it could be valuable to have a page on that. But I'm not totally sure.

Does anyone else have any feelings on a dedicated page? Monochroma (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, probably, but it’s still a bit too new and current for me to want to dedicate a page just yet. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 22:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

RationaWiki can do better than this[edit]

This article, and most of the I-P content on RationalWiki, is neither snarky nor scientific. It reads as ignorant, tedious, and one-sided. It is not just the tone, but there are factual errors and distortions all over. Just my opinion, and I'm sure most everyone is aware how difficult a subject area this is to cover with a wiki. I'm not going to edit the article for now, but I would encourage everyone to be a little bit more open-minded about changes, because as it stands it is not very persuasive. Insanity (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm the person who overhauled this page in the past. What specifically are your problems with the page? Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Example: The lead-off quote from Human Rights Watch is neither witty nor authentic. It's just some faceless human rights group based in New York City, grumpily condemning a country halfway around the world. We have neither entertained, nor elevated any voices from the region. I'll help you out and replace it with something better. If you don't like it, feel free to revert or replace with something more interesting. Insanity (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, so you're whitewashing. OK then. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Do you have a better quote? Insanity (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Your problem with showcasing a quote from a leading human rights watchdog is that they are "faceless" and "not in the region." You're gonna have to come up with a better explanation for changing the quote than that. Carthage (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The HRW quote is not meant to be witty. It is meant to immediately set the tone for the article. (I tend to avoid making jokes in main articles most of the time). For context, when I worked on this article I expected to go in a far more pro-Israel direction. The research I did showed me otherwise. Israel is a human rights abuser. No question about it.
I also hope everyone understands that I’m not some kind of radical. I also wrote the Hamas and Hezbollah articles, which are relentlessly critical of those vile terrorists. I call em like I see em. Pizza SLICE.gifDuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 21:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
"To keep our articles from being dry and boring, we spice it up with humor, sarcasm, skepticism, satire, and wit." Insanity (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
You're new here, but we have actually been moving away from the usage of excessive snark in mainspace articles. Carthage (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a bummer. I prefer the old style. Insanity (talk) 23:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)


@Insanity when you suggest that voices from the region need to be elevated, whose voices exactly? I don’t see how it would be possible to represent the issue fairly if for example, only Isreali voices were elevated. This would overwhelmingly favour one side of the conflict. The voices of Palestinians would have to included. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've checked some other country articles and many of them have colorful or witty quotes at the top. e.g. Canada, Poland, Mexico, Spain etc. USA, Kenya, and South Africa have self-critical locally-sourced quotes that are interesting. France has a serious, critical, external looking-in quote similar to Israel's but at least it can be attributed to one person. It is interesting the choices that wiki writers make. Insanity (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
It seems like you are trying to identify a overarching policy that doesn't exist. Calling out Israel as an exception to a rule, but having identfied that France also is an excepton, your change the standard further. I feel like if I wanted to spot differences and commonalities I could do that with any of the countries just listed, to find a property in the quote that singles that particular country out. It doesn't strike me as good faith criticism. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Insanity while i can see you’re pro-israeli supporter, I appreciate your engagement with the article and your willingness to improve it. However, I disagree with some of your points. The Human Rights Watch (HRW) quote, while not "witty," serves a specific purpos which to establish the tone of the article based on documented human rights concerns. HRW is a reputable organization, and their findings are relevant regardless of their geographic location. Dismissing their input as "faceless" undermines the credibility of their work, which is based on rigorous research and evidence. Regarding your call to elevate voices from the region, I agree that including diverse perspectives is crucial. However, this must be done carefully to avoid bias. Elevating only Israeli or only Palestinian voices would skew the narrative. But the fact is that Israel has committed the crime against humanity. —𝕶𝕾𝕳 🐅 20:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
The UN is a flawed organization. It's nice that so many countries come together to try to maintain peace, but it also means that countries like North Korea and Libya get a platform as human rights critics that they haven't really earned.Insanity (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
If one had to earn the status of "human rights critic" then nearly every nation state that is a member of the UN would be illegitmate for one reason or another. This doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of the content of the claims that a nation has violated human rights. To dismiss such claims on such a basis would be an example of the tu quoque fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
It is particularly rich for a person bemoaning "partisan bias" to replace a non-partisan quote with a quote from an Israeli politician. Carthage (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Authoritarian regimes[edit]

This is a very wrong category. Netanyahu's 'authoritarian' element has a relative meaning. The moral issues of the Israeli government and political authoritarianism are separate, and the Democracy Index generally stands higher than other liberal democracies, such as South Korea. Umaru16 (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Although the Japanese government denies the Asian Holocaust, it is politically completely liberal democracy. Netanyahu's regime may be racist, corrupt, and relatively authoritarian than previous governments, but by absolute standards Israel is still a liberal democracy. Umaru16 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it's an authoritarian apartheid regime. Palestinian citizens of Israel don't get the same democratic representation as the Jewish citizens while West Bank Palestinians are forced to live in segregated areas and Palestinians in Gaza are undergoing a massive blockade and genocide. Any state that provides no representation to such a large number of its residents is not a liberal democracy. Plutocow (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

It's just an emotional argument. Israeli Arabs have the right to vote. According to the two-state solution supported by the international community, Israel and Palestine are separate countries, so Palestinian citizens do not have the right to vote in Israel. As you claim, is Japan an authoritarian asian Nazi country? Japanese government denies sexual slavery and the Asian version of the Holocaust and, unlike Germany, refuses to compensate for war crimes (except in very few cases). Umaru16 (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Just as Japan is not an authoritarian state, Israel is not. (Japan is also implementing partial apartheid against foreigners, persecuting Koreans, and even being an Axis Powers before 1945.) South Korean media or wiki is less pro-Israel than other free world media or wiki, but even they don't see Israel as an authoritarian regime, and Netanyahu is by no means a dictator. (Even mainstream South Korean media freely use the term "Jewish lobbying" (유대인 로비), which would have been condemned as anti-Semitic if it were the United States or Europe) Umaru16 (talk) 06:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Japan has even implemented an apartheid system since before 1945 in which Koreans living in Japan were not given the right to vote because of Japan's colonial policy. However, South Korean media do not describe Japan as "authoritarianism." Racism and authoritarianism are not synonymous. In contrast, France granted citizenship to Algerians living in France after World War II. Umaru16 (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you I don't give a shit what Korean media says, Korea and Japan are completely irrelevant to the issue of Israel/Palestine. There are many laws in Israel that are used to shut down Palestinian representation. If Israel is a democracy, then so was the Confederate States. Plutocow (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
That Israel is an authoritarian state is not a neutral view. You keep confusing racism and authoritarianism. Once again, Israel does not grant Palestinians the right to vote, but Israeli Arabs do. Israel is not authoritarian, but it is racist. As you claim, George Washington had black slaves, so he is a fascist. Your emotional argument is not as authoritative as the Democracy Index. Umaru16 (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Apartheid regimes are not democracies, and yes chattel slave societies also qualify as authoritarian. Technically North Koreans can vote but it doesn't mean they're meaningfully represented. And the Democracy Index isn't something that's really objective either, it's just a bunch of arbitrary measures to try to reduce something as complex as a country's system of government to a single number. Plutocow (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The U.S. and the Soviet Union militarily dominated the Korean Peninsula from 1945 to 1948, and there were many repressions, massacres, and state terrorism related to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However, rationalwiki does not refer to Harry S. Truman as a dictator. (Almost all Koreans at the time wanted immediate independence, so they opposed another imperialist occupier after Japan.) Umaru16 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We've discussed something similar in Category talk :Authoritarian regimes. While the EIU ranking is a good start, it is not gospel, and will only lead you into step one. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Were southern governments under Jim Crow free and democratic? No, and for the exact same reason the government of Israel is authoritarian. As a side note 48er palestinians are not treated as well as people think they are. A somebody. (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I think there is a difference between being an authoritarian power, a colonizing power and a power with built-in, systemic racism. Israel seems to be more the second and perhaps the third. The present government could be voted out of power; they are not directing their military at their own people in order to stay in control. Heck, Netanyahu is barely holding on. What the present Israeli government is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is more colonization and ethnic cleansing, but not of their own citizens. —Bertrc (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
A lot of people seem to think that authoritarian politics manifests only as dictatorships, but that's not really true. Hell, most authoritarian regimes today are technically hybrid regimes. Yes, theoretically they could be voted out of power. But will they? I also would classify apartheid states as simply being a subset of the wider "authoritarian regime" category. Somebody is still getting crushed by the jackboot either way. Plutocow is right in this regard. Antares (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Dude, you can’t declare a regime authoritarian simply because they are not voted out of power. Authoritarian regimes take steps so that they cannot be removed from power! (And these steps involve abusing their power, not simply having better coordination and P.R. so that more people actually choose to vote for them). Srsly, your definition that authoritarian regimes are authoritarian merely by the fact that people actually do keep voting for them would make the term “Authoritarian” meaningless (imho). The present Israeli government is struggling even more than the present government in the U.S. to stay in power because the present Israeli government can be voted out. --Bertrc (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I honestly think the concept of "authoritarianism" is being overused by libertarians or leftists. A similar example is Donald Trump, whose personal character is authoritarian does not mean that the current regime in the United States is technically authoritarian. The United States is still an advanced democracy. Trump or Netanyahu is by no means an authoritarian like Xi, Putin or Kim Jong Un. Umaru16 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I kinda feel the same way (although I would extend it to more than just TOG, himself) I might nuance that the present administration is trying to be authoritarian, but they have not succeeded, yet. --Bertrc (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Israel takes active steps to ensure that it continues to be a Jewish ethnostate. Ethnostates are definitionally antidemocratic. Antares (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
That is a better argument, imho, but it still does not quite hold up (again, imho) Back when the United states had chattel slavery or perhaps even when South Africa had apartheid, I would not consider them authoritarian. In all three situations (Present day Israel, slave owning United States and Apartheid South Africa) the government allowed "their own" people to protest the policies of the government and to push for change. However, the governments of the Nazi's during the Holocaust, Russia, Iran, Communist China, North Korea, etc. all violently suppressed anybody (whether the oppressed or "their own" people) who tried to push for change. --Bertrc (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "liberal" Zionism. All forms of Zionism require the expulsion of Palestinians, something that's very illiberal, in order to maintain the "Jewish-majority" state. PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snoot 22:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)


The United States with Chattel Slavery, Apartheid South Africa, and present-day Israel are not democratic for the simple reason that Disfranchising millions of people automatically makes you authoritarian for them. A somebody. (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that they were not perfect democracies (Heck, as I recall, women weren't even allowed to vote in the United States until the 20th century) but I think it is a false equivalency to equate them to modern day North Korea or to Chile under Pinochet. I feel the dividing line is whether the government can be voted out of power. If the government can be removed from power without violence, (ie. by voting) then I think it is not an authoritarian regime. Heck, for greater nuance, if the government's supporters subsequently turn to violence after the government has been voted out, then that government might be a wannabe authoritarian regime which failed to take hold! Largely, imho, authoritarian governments cannot really give full rights to anybody; they need to exert oppression even on their own people. I fear the term "Athoritarian" starts to lose any meaning, if any oppression or imperfection makes a government authoritarian. Instead, I think we should use adjectives like "oppressive", "discriminatory", "racist", etc. for such governments, and keep "authoritarian" for governments that don't even let "their own" people (however the government defines "their own" people) to protest or to disagree. --Bertrc (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the concept of a hybrid regime? Most modern authoritarian regimes don't look like the classic dictatorships of the 20th century. China, North Korea, and co are relics. They look like Hungary under Orbán. Antares (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Interesting -- Where absolute authority is incompletely given or taken away from a sole authority -- Sure, in some situations, that term might apply better than my "wannabe" label, above. :-D --Bertrc (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Are we going to far in a certain direction . . . ?[edit]

Hey folks,

I was just checking this article after some time away and was a little troubled by the aggregate changes when checking differences since my last visit.

When you see the aggregate changes, does anybody else feel the trend is a little off?

Don’t get me wrong — I find the policy of ethnic cleansing that the present Israeli government is employing to be abominable — However, we seem to be pushing an agenda when we:

  • Edit out the fact that there used to be a kingdom called Israel that was shattered and dispersed. “Oh noes! People use the existence of the original Israeli kingdom to try to justify present day Israel, so we cannot even mention the original Israeli kingdom!!!!!!!” (As opposed to mentioning the civilizations that the original kingdom kicked out and/or mentioning how the original Israeli kingdom got kicked out and/or mentioning all the other peoples that have been there since)
  • Remove mention of how surrounding Arab countries attacked Israel when it declared itself. “Oh noes! Mentioning that Israel was being attacked my multiple foes may engender sympathy, so we cannot mention that at all!!!!!” (As opposed to mentioning it, along with the violence that was being perpetrated internally, and the massive amount of support Israel received from western nations)
  • Decline to allow any facts that might complicate having a straightforward anti-Israeli perspective. eg. Removing the calls by terrorist organizations and nearby states for Israel’s destruction. “Oh noes! If we admit that there are calls for Israel’s destruction, people might think the situation is complicated and/or nuanced, rather than black-and-white!!!!!”
  • Are afraid to point out that the oppression Jews faced and that being driven from their own countries may have been a factor in Israel’s creation. “Oh noes! If we talk about Jews being forced out, people might think about anti-semiticism. Let’s just blame those evil, slanty-eyed zionists for all the emigration of Jews to Israel.”

Does anybody else get this impression from the recent changes, or is it just me? I felt that we were striving for balance, before, but, now, I could understand somebody getting a feeling of . . . Ewww (for lack of a better term) . . . from the recent edits.

I am reticent to dive into this unless there are others who feel this way . . . --Bertrc (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

We are not in the business of whitewashing apartheid states. Concern Troll Antares (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Heh, we need a new Rational Wiki drinking game -- "You accused somebody of white-washing. Drink!" ;-) -- Your post did not mention a single point I brought up! Honestly, nothing I said was white-washing, imho. White-washing, by definition, means covering something over; All my points were concerns about facts that were being covered over which should actually be uncovered:
  • Mentioning that there used to be a kingdom of Israel is historical fact (Which, BTW, is kinda a key bit of info in an article about a nation that was driven by an attempt to recreate that kingdom as a country!)
  • Israel was attacked by almost every nation around them when Israel declared itself. That is a fact. So is the fact that in the lead up to that declaration, there was horrendous violence internally (and, more important to the actual attacks, there was massive influx of support to Israel from western nations)
  • Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran do call for Israel's destruction. That does not in any way justify Settlements in the West bank or the brutal military ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza.
  • Jews were facing persecution and were being driven out of their countries.
Srsly, how does uncovering those facts (The facts you seem to not want to mention; the facts that contextualize those facts you don't want to mention; and the facts that explicitly refute excusing the present atrocities via the use of those facts you don't want to mention) whitewashing? It is rare that I am on this side of the argument, but, imho, trying to hide all those facts is white-washing the article for the people who want Israel eliminated . . . --Bertrc (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
How does Netanyahu's boot taste? A somebody. (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
  • There were various kingdoms in the area, not just one, and the kingdom has little to do with the modern state of Israel. The lede of the Egypt article doesn't try to connect the modern state of Egypt to the ancient kingdoms, so I don't see why this article should do that. --Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    I would respond that the driving force for the creation of Israel was different enough from the driving force for the creation of Egypt to merit different treatment.
    1. Egypt was just "We cannot maintain this area so let's just draw borders and connect it to the ancient kingdom".
    2. Israel was "Ugh, let's get rid of the Jews and we do feel kinda guilty for the attempt to exterminate them, so let's get them into this place, adding to the disruption already being caused by our random borders" along with an emigration/immigration movement that explicitly was driven to recreate said kingdom.
    (Although I actually would support a compare/contrast to the ancient Egyptian empire and how that influenced modern Egypt's creation) --Bertrc (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • The old wording was misleading as it made it look like the Arab countries attacked Israel just for existing when in fact the Nakba played a huge role in starting the war which is important context to be mentioned. --Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    So mention both!!! --Bertrc (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • "Calls for Israel's destruction" is a loaded term, are you talking about dismantling the government or killing all the people? I don't think calls for the destruction of Rhodesia or the Confederate States are controversial. --Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    Um . . . no . . . I explicitly mean calling for its destruction. Hamas does not want to absorb all the present citizens of Israel in some singular nation state. My goodness . . . just to be clear . . . are you equating what Hamas wants to do to Israel and the Israeli people to what the Union wanted to do to the Confederacy?! --Bertrc (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Again, it was problematic because it tried to equate Jewish migration to Israel to the Nakba when the two situations are not comparable. Yes, a percentage of those Jews were forcibly displaced but it was not to the same scale and the main factors behind both of these events are far different. --Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
    How was mentioning it an attempt to equate it? Regardless, if that is what you are worried about, stick in an explicit contrast to show there is no equality (I don't think there was any actual comparison, let alone one that equated them, but if there was some comparison equating them, remove the equating) --Bertrc (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
We're not striving for balance, we're striving for accuracy. Plutocow (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
@Bertrc If all you want is to improve our coverage on terrorist organizations that want to kill millions of Israeli, using good sources, I don't think that anyone will oppose. But honestly, what you were suggesting before sounded different from that. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
You're not promoting "facts", you're promoting Israeli government talking points. Plutocow (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Dude, those are facts. Yes, the present Israeli government uses those facts as talking points, while not mentioning any other facts that do not fit their narrative, but it doesn't stop them from being facts. Facts, as in "There actually was a Kingdom of Israel here, which came about through conquest and was later wiped out, being replaced by many subsequent peoples; its existence is fallacially being used to excuse the present colonialization" or "Israel's policies have had the reaction of giving rise to terrorist organizations that leveraged Palestinian despair to come to power. As such, Israel now faces countries and terrorist organizations calling for its destruction." --Bertrc (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Nah, I don't care about improving coverage of Hamas or Hezbollah. What I want is to have an article that is not some strawman that can be torn apart for hiding facts (torn apart by anybody who wants to discredit valid criticism of Israel) --Bertrc (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
My concern isn't balance. My concern is accuracy. Sure, hiding any mention of anti-semiticsm or conflict or aggression faced by Israel unbalances the article, but it is the hiding of those facts that bothers me, rather than any effect on balance. As a parallel, I would say that I have no problem that the articles on TOG or Stalin are balanced against the subjects of those articles; the existing balance of those articles is not caused by hiding actual facts. --Bertrc (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The aggression Israel has faced is because Israel itself is the aggressor. A somebody. (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I want Bertrc to think about why Hamas might want to annihilate all Israelis, i'm not defending them or their actions just think about why they might want to do that. And oh I heavily doubt that they want to murder 48er Palestinians. But this all reeks of 'Palestinians continue to reject peace!!!1!!!!' to me, instead of focusing the blame on the people who never gave the Palestinians a real and acceptable deal, they focus on the people who continue to radicalize them. A somebody. (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The article calls Hamas and other groups "terrorists" many times. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@A somebody., you make good points, but I feel you start off a little muddy. I think Hamas calls for Israel's destruction because they are terrorists and opposition to Israel keeps them in power (similar to why TOG is so anti-immigrant and, in an interesting parallel, why Netanyahu bolstered Hamas to keep them as a boogey man). I believe you meant to say: "I want Bertrc to think about why (or how) Hamas was able to come to power and to stay in power, in spite of their corruption and their own damage to the Palestinians." --Bertrc (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Hamas calls for Israel's destruction because they have been radicalized by decades of oppression and murder. They do not call for Israel's destruction because they are simply terrorists who love death and violence and are corrupt. No, that isn't it. A somebody. (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
D'oh! You ninja'ed me while I was editting my previous post! :-D Yes, you are explicitly saying what I was implying. I was essentially editing my previous post to be more explicit, adding the point you just made. However, the fact that Israel's policies have empowered radicalization does not change the calls for Israel's obliteration, nor justify it (imho) Separately (also being edited in) I do not think that the versions before implied Palestinians reject Peace. Heck, look at the removals that concerned me; they don't even mention the Palestinians (Yes, I want to include mention of how Hamas is calling for the destruction of Israel, but I in no way, shape or form consider Hamas to be representative of Palestinians, any more than Papa Doc was representative of Haitians or Kim Jong-Il/Un was/are representative of North Koreans) --Bertrc (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Hamas is absolutely willing to accept peace as bad as they are, however there is one side in this conflict that has never really been willing to accept it and will never accept peace unless forced too, and I am 84% sure Hamas is willing to moderate as well. A somebody. (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
. . . Okay . . . Where have you seen Hamas calling for Peace and co-existence with Israel within Israel's 1967 borders? (Remember, I am talking about Hamas, not the PA) Your last point kinda exemplifies my concern with the present state of the article -- I assume that the "one side" you are referring to is the present Israeli government. Are you proposing our article should say that Israel is the only entity in in the region that is unwilling to accept peace? That makes the article a strawman that will be torn to shreds by those who want to hide criticism of Israel, imho. BTW, if I inferred incorrectly and you meant that Hamas, or Hezbollah or Iran or any other single entity is the only side that will never accept peace, I would still disagree with you. I think I would agree that there is only one entity involved that can reasonably be expected to be changed so that they would be willing to seek peace (I consider voting in a new government to be a change) The other forces which are unwilling to accept peace using the 1967 borders would require an overthrow [note 1] --Bertrc (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I said that they would be willing to moderate if israel actually sat down with them unless of course, you believe that they have the souls of violent terrorists who could never accept peace and the PA give me a break! They are CORRUPT COLLABORATORS! And oh voting in a new government wouldn't change things, when Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid were in change the settlements still expanded and still no peace.A somebody. (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you did say that Hamas would be willing to moderate; but I did not comment on that (although I really like the very specific "84%" :-D ) However, you also said that "there is one side that . . . will never accept peace . . ." I feel that the article is sliding into the point of view you seem to have -- That only the present Israeli government is unreasable (ie. "wrong", if I am allowed to editorialize) in this mess. If you want the article to say that the present Israeli government is the only side that is unwilling to pursue peace, then that means all the other sides -- The leaderships and hierarchies of Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. -- are willing to accept peace. Separately, you will need to do a lot to convince me that Hamas will ever accept the PA! BTW, I am glad to concede a point you made -- I have unfairly been saying "Hamas" when I should have been saying "Hamas' leadership". I may not hold the Hamas grunts at the same level as the Palestinian civilians, but it is the leadership and hierarchy that have the souls of violent terrorists, imho. [note 2] I will try to be better--Bertrc (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Ok sure they have terrorist souls, whatever. But the fact of the matter is terrorists are not born, they are made. Everyone in Hamas, hezbollah, etc, was made into a terrorist by Israel. Also again the PA is insanely corrupt and actively collaborates with Israel. A somebody. (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I said that Hamas' leadership has "terrorist" souls (the grunts, imho, have "lost" souls) Personally, I do not think that the oppression from Israel excuses the level to which the Hamas leadership and hierarchy preys on the Palestinian people. It is interesting that you so underscore the corruption within the PA. Don't get me wrong, there is certainly corruption within the PA . . . but are you implying that there is no corruption within Hamas? --Bertrc (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Hamas is corrupt true, but the PA is both corrupt, and unpopular. Which makes it a no-brainer for Hamas to oppose them openly. Also, who exactly do you think Israel should be forced to make peace with? A somebody. (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm . . . I think Israel should make peace with a validly elected government of the Palestinians. However, since I do not think Hamas accepts Israel within the 1967 borders, I think Israel would have to make agreements (at least initially) with the PA (imho, PA is closer to valid, because, although both Hamas and PA have not had elections, Hamas has used considerably more intimidation and force) Since the present Israeli government has no interest in peace, since their grip on power depends on this conflict, I think Israel will need to vote them out. An end-state, blue-sky goal that I can envision:
  • On Israel's side:
    • Full withdrawal to the 1967 borders (ie. complete elimination of the settlements and the settlements policy and an end to the genocidal assault on Gaza)
    • A lifting of the asphyxiation of the West Bank and Gaza
    • Full throated acceptance and co-existence with a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders.
    • Military armistice with and rejection of violence against the Palestinian state (assuming reciprocity)
  • On the Palestinian side:
    • Full throated acceptance of and coexistence with Israel within the 1967 boarders
    • Military armistice with and rejection of violence against Israel (assuming reciprocity)
  • On Both Sides:
    • A truth and reconciliation commission
    • Some joint management over the religious areas with some external international involvement because that is too much of a mess for me to even conceive of untangling it.
How to get to that blue-sky? . . . Who knows? Maybe:
  1. Vote out the present Israeli government
  2. Israel ending the settlement expansion policies and actually enforcing the end to settlement expansion
  3. Full throated acceptance by the PA for the existence of Israel within the 1967 borders and a rejection of violence against Israel
  4. Israel claws back the settlements
  5. Actual collaboration by Israel with the PA and international entities to root out Hamas, allowing protection and relief to civilians
  6. Opening up of borders.
  7. Proper elections, perhaps with international oversight
  8. Declaration of Palestinian state (Palestine?)
  9. Coordination of religious sites in Jerusalem
  10. Treaties signed.
--Bertrc (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)


Palestinians and other Levantine Arabs are in large part descended from the ancient Canaanites that once populated the region we now call the Levant. So to pretend that Palestinians are alien to the region of Palestine in a way that Jews aren't is both inaccurate and offensive. Antares (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Sure. Where did anybody imply that Palestinians are more alien to the region than Jews? Were you responding to something else? Or did you mean to create a new topic section? --Bertrc (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)


One small issue, actually multiple issues but just one for now, Israelis are not going to vote their way into peace, not without external factors. Now how could I say such a thing? Simple, the alternatives to Netanyahu will not actively seek peace as proven with Premierships of Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, they will continue what they have always done and expand the settlements and not even begin to think about ending the apartheid the Palestinians face. And if there was to be a peace process all the various militant/terrorist groups like it or not would probably have to be seated at the table for peace to actually work. A somebody. (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

*whew* You certainly have an interesting definition of "small"!!! :-D Yeah, there would definitely have to be paradigm shifts amongst both the Israelis and the Palestinians. Hatred has built up so strongly amongst so many on both sides. At the moment, imho, the Israelis have a better chance than the Palestinians of voting themselves into peace because they actually can vote. You do bring up a good point -- I guess I have so little faith in Leadership of Hamas ever acknowledging Israel's right to exist within the 1967 borders that I did not even consider them in my steps, other than to be eliminated (I was trying to keep my steps at least on the edge of possibility. :-) ) However, if the leadership and ruling hierarchy of Hamas were willing to give full throated acceptance for the existence of Israel within the 1967 borders and for a rejection of violence against Israel, then add them to step . . . 3? . . . However, step . . . 5? . . . would probably still require them to disband, at least on paper, as an equivalent to step 1 on Israel's side (step 1 being the change in government control in Israel) --Bertrc (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)


  1. FYI, I do not include the PA and the Palestinians as a whole among such entities. I think both of them are willing to accept peace
  2. I do think the front line grunts are lost souls, but that is different from those who have lost their souls. But that distinction is a whole separate conversation!!! :-D

About Plutocow's latest edit[edit]

@Plutocow If I wasn't the first user to call what is going on in Gaza a genocide, I was one of the first ones. But if you don't think it's important to say that there was a terrorist attack in October 7 than I in the section's title (that was also called a genocide[1]) honestly don't know what to say. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 02:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Again, this is an issue of equating two situations that are not at all comparable in terms of scale, and there haven't been nearly as many reputable organizations and scholars that have called the October 7 attack a genocide compared to the Gaza genocide. We don't want false balance here and again Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of everything. We aren't looking for false balance. Plutocow (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That's why I called it a terrorist attack, not a genocide. Are you going to deny that October 7 was a terrorist attack? And that is relevant enough as a historical event to be on the title along with the current Gaza genocide? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:04, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It shouldn't be in the section heading because it is massively overshadowed by the genocide, putting it next to it creates a false balance. It's mentioned in the opening paragraph of the section which is sufficient. Plutocow (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
You're saying the greatest attack against Israel in its history in casualties shouldn't be a section heading in an article about Israel? Really? I don't see how it is overshadowing the genocide since most of the section is about Gaza. The word "terrorist" does not appear a single time on the section. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
If you're not happy with the title I wrote, then write another one, because I am also disputing yours (though I agree that the genocide should be mentioned). It's not about balance. It's about missing information. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
We wouldn't label a section about Operation Searchlight with the "Bihari Massacre", would we? Same deal here, the genocie is the main focus of the section and should be the title. Plutocow (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is getting tiresome. You're ignoring that the article is about Israel. Of course, an article about the whole genocide is missional and should be created in the future. But in an article about Israel? Yes. The attack should be mentioned. Either that or a different section should be created for the attack. If you want to split the sections,or if you want me to do that, then I won't dispute. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

And Israel is the perpetrator of the genocide. Sorry that I won't use the perpetrators' framing of the situation. Plutocow (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
So, you're saying that we shouldn't have a section about the terrorist attack even though it was the most important attack that Israel suffered since Yom Kippur War at least? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It's already part of the article? Plutocow (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, since I don't think I need your permission to write and expand a section, I'll do it. In the next few days, I'll expand both this new section and the Gaza genocide section. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 03:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I would support the October 7th attack getting its own section. It's one of the most important events of our time. It casts a huge shadow on the Israel/Palestine conflict and on how the world talks about it.-Flandres (talk) 04:18, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I updated the genocide section. I still need to write about the current famine, though I would really appreciate if someone could do it for me. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 14:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Can we have a dedicated section on the settlement policy, where we can call it ethnic cleansing? (The Israeli government is not preventing Palestinians from leaving, so I would understand not calling it "Genocide") --Bertrc (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The consensus among genocide experts, human rights organizations, and the UN itself is that what's going on in Gaza is a genocide. Antares (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Antares So . . . should I infer that there is no consensus that Israel's settlement policy is ethnic cleansing? Even if there is no such common consensus, we are rationalwiki, not wikipedia. We are allowed to include some of our own conclusions, even if it is a bit OR. (Or did you misread me, earlier, and think I was talking about Gaza? I was talking about a dedicated section for the Settlement policy which is presently only being instituted in the West Bank) --Bertrc (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I misread you. My bad. Antares (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Been there!! :-D --Bertrc (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)