There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:Israel
"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)
- Wikipedia already has Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza
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
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.
Chef 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?
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 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.
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 21:50, 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)
- Do you have a better quote? Insanity (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, so you're whitewashing. OK then. Carthage (talk) 21:39, 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)
[show]![]() |
---|
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)