RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

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.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2200Goal: $3000

Talk:Israel

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Steelbrain.png

This geography 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
Editorial notes
  • multiple formatting issues
  • needs a great deal more sources and footnotes
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Torture Section missing citations?[edit]

Just noticed that there is some uncited paragraphs in the bottom half in this section. The first half appears to be fine and correlates with the citiation, but the bottom half just don't have any references anywhere.

Did anyone forget to add it or was it accidentally deleted? --Mofosyne (talk)

interesting article[edit]

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/176673/emotional-nakba— Unsigned, by: 66.87.114.44 / talk / contribs

Would the Middle East really be a better place if Israel was gone + A bit more[edit]

I'm adding this because I feel that this article is a bit one sided (as much as I love this wiki, on some subjects there is only one side (like religion, pseudoscience, and logic) some aren't as simple)

A couple of thoughts and fact checks: first of all, in the article it says that the borders weren't clearly marked in order to allow expansion. This is incorrect, they were not clearly marked but only by the wish of the marker the British used to mark the border on the map which caused tension over who gets the area within the widt of the marker. Second of all, the idependence war was initiated by the Arab Union, the only people who say Israel initiated it are conspiracy theorists. Second of all, if you initiate a war, and you lose it, don't whine over the fact that you lose some of your territory. If Israel had lost they would have lost all their territory. You don't see Mexico commuting acts of terror over the fact that they lost so much land in the Mexican American war even though America started the war. Third, if Israel never existed, a lot of modern medicine and technology wouldn't exist. I highly doubt a state of Palestine would have been so tech forward. Third, even if Israel for some reason decided to evacuate right now, Palestine has no standing army, they have no government uncontrolled by a terrorist organization (yes Hamas is a terrorist organization) and would probably be invaded by Egypt/Lebanon/Jordan within a year. Another thing is that in a bunch of African countries people are committing far more atrocious war crimes every day than Israel ever committed. The IDF is a lot more moral than so many other country's armies (for Pete's sake they give a warning before an air strike) but no one cares about the areas occupied by China and Russia now do they. Another point is that even if Palestine won a war and gained control they would become a religious country and be far less liberal than Israel. I agree that Israel needs work such as lest leniency for the religious or better yet a separation of church and state but I think it's a whole lot better than the state of Palestine. The Palestinians make themselves look like vicime but with some fact checking you can see that it is sometimes if not most of the time either a twisted truth or a utter lie. (Example: a Palestinian swimmer in the Rio Olympics claimed that Israel wouldn't let her practice in an Olympic swimming pool when after some fact checking you can see that she never officially asked permission).

If anyone has an answer to any of these points I would love to hear them but I'm fairly sure most if not all of the points are rock solid— Unsigned, by: Potpie / talk / contribs

Apartheid? Again[edit]

Of course the label 'Apartheid' is bound to stir some emotions on both sides. At RationalWiki our job is to sort out the fact from fiction and clear up misunderstandings. Same with this article as any other.

If we're going to examine the claim of Israeli Apartheid, we need to define what Apartheid is. In South Africa, businesses would only serve or employ people of a certain ethnicity. People of a certain ethnicity are confined to version neighborhoods, often separated by a wall barrier. Roads are segregated based on race. Typically one race controls all of this, using these laws for their benefit. The other race(s) get the short end of the stick, with bad infrastructure and employment.

Sound familiar? It's the West Bank. Now in Israel proper, Arabs and Jews can live in peace without much trouble. But in the West Bank, there is segregated housing, race-based roads, employment discrimination, and different laws for different races. The Jews get to sit in the prefabricated houses on the hills that are built to code, while the Arabs have to live in shoddy packed housing in the valleys where rainwater and sewage flows in the streets. The Jews get the clean wide highways while the Arabs get the rundown bumpy alleyways. Jewish neighborhoods are protected by tall barriers while Arab ghettos are raided by Israeli commandos.

This is segregation, and even though Israel proper does not have these policies, the fact that they are implemented in the West Bank by Israel means Israel is an Apartheid state. To say it isn't is to deny the reality before your eyes and to whitewash the truth. Applesauce (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't Israel also force contraception on ethopian woman ? Diacelium (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Except if you are going to call Israel an Apartheid state, you must also do the same for Syria and Lebanon, which also treat the Palestinians like shit. Jordan, not so much; more societal racism than anything overt by the government. Egypt... I don't even know. Turkey, well, depends on your view of Cyprus. Morocco? It keeps getting brought up for something I don't really understand. Russia is... weird.
The problem for me with the WB is the question of "what's the future"? If Israel is going to keep control of the entire thing for the next century, at some point you basically have millions of people without any country or basic semblance of society, so yes, that road eventually does lead to Apartheid. We can argue till we are blue in the face of when that demarcation is, but it will be at some point. If Israel plans to give up control of the bulk of the WB to an independent state, well, why isn't it happening? It's been half a century; surely even without an agreement Israel could say "this contiguous giant chunk is yours, do what you want with it". If Israel plans to carve out chunks of it piece by piece, which is what appears to be happening, are they going to grant the people citizenship or not? Israel offered citizenship when it annexed Jerusalem, but not when it kept expanding settlements into the WB. Because if you take the land but kick out the people, that's definitely a crime against humanity of one form or another. CorruptUser (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Which is precisely why we should link to a better researched and more neutral source than this article. So I put the link to Wikipedia in, which is a much more in depth and nuanced discussion than the crap you, Applesauce, keep reinserting. On another note, how many black ministers did Apartheid South Africa have? How many black ambassadors? How many black members in its national soccer rugby and cricket teams? Worzelpete (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@CU Many Palestinians don't want to be Syrian, Lebanese, or Jordanian as this would mean forfeiting their refugee status preventing them from being able to return. Regardless, racism (in a xenophobic way) does exist in all of those societies. Our page on the Western Sahara already mentions the apartheid conditions that Morroco has imposed on them. I have not researched much about the Cyprus conflict but both the Greek Cypriots, backed by Greece, and the Turkish Cypriots, backed by Turkey, were responsible for ethnic cleansing during the civil war; the country, from what I understand, is plagued by racism. There may be an argument to make that the crime of apartheid is being committed but I heard of this argument. I am unaware of any modern claim of segregation in Russia but I do know that before Lenin, Tsarist Russia had a strong segregational society which separated White Rus from the Central Asians.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Why I made the latest reversion[edit]

There were several edits made to the article which were added without any source and written in such a way as to bias the reader toward one particular viewpoint. I fully understand that RationalWiki has SPOV rather than Neutral POV, but that still doesn't excuse the text that was added here.

  • This edit isn't too bad, but there is the problem of it being unsourced, which apparently the author of the edit really doesn't like. It's a whole lot of minutia about how same-sex marriages work in Israel, when marriage law isn't even the subject of the section ('Human rights').
  • The next edit is where it gets bad. Here the author deletes an entire (SOURCED!) paragraph and replaces it with a pro-Israel screed. The screed berates Palestine for not having more liberal domestic policies, while completely ignoring the point of pro-Palestine critics with regards to gay rights in Israel, namely that gay rights is used as a dodge by pro-Israel people during arguments about the conflict.

What's the problem here? Unsourced statements and between-the-lines innuendo are big problems with these edits, but the biggest problem is that the editor is ideologically-driven to edit the article in favor of one side, in a topic that this community has repeatedly fought over in the past and decided should be neutral (unlike articles on religion or politics). PBfreespace (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)