Talk:Calls for the destruction of Israel

POV tag

In order to ensure NPOV, this article requires three important additional sections:

1. A description of equivalent statements frequently and consistently being made to call for the destruction of Palestine by Israeli leaders
2. A description of how statements by Palestinian leaders are frequently spun or taken out of context as Israeli propaganda to falsely imply support for the destruction of Israel. For example, Azzam Pasha is the first example given, yet our article Azzam Pasha quotation gives the broader context.
3. A description of the different things that are meant by the calls for "destruction". Identifying the original Arabic word in each statement will be important. But perhaps most important will be whether the intent in each statement means "removal of a government / governing apparatus" or "removal of an ethno-national domination" or whether it is genocidal in nature.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello there! Is it accurate to state that your activity on Wikipedia has been somewhat reduced recently? I hope you and your family are doing well.

Regarding the points you raised:

1. Calls for the destruction of Palestine are totally out of scope here, as this article is focused on Israel.

2. The article duly acknowledges the existence of multiple interpretations for Azzam's quote. However, the assertion that "Palestinian leaders are frequently spun or taken out of context" requires substantiation through credible sources. Without proper sources, it's challenging to recognize this as a valid issue.

3. I don't think it's a POV problem, but something that may call for further expansion. If you have more context from reliable sources, you are welcome to add it. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your empathetic comment. I hope you and your family and safe and have not been impacted during this terrible time. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Onceinawhile. Point 1 is absolutely relevant and well within scope. Point 3, defining what calls have meant variously and to whom, should be the first section of the article, particularly since the article title has issues with WP:POVTITLE. Agree with Eladkarmel on point 2 on the need for substantiation. Reinstated tag spuriously removed. إيان (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

1. This article is about calls for the destruction of Israel. While I’m sure there are relevant in context and connected mentions to calls for the destruction of Palestine, not only is this article not the place for it, it in no way affects the neutrality of the article (and in this case, I dispute the insertion of a neutrality template on this seeming complaint alone)

By all means, create a separate article “Calls for the destruction of Palestine” or however it is to be worded (given the complexities and evolutions at hand) but this article is not the place unless citations are connected to calls for the destruction of Israel.

2. I see no problem with this request. Obviously, there should be a “usage and invocation” or “in public discussion” section if there are unique elements to highlight (in this case accusations of use for propaganda purposes).

3. Agree, and that’s an easy distinction to make in an introductory section so all citations are made clear.

Requesting the removal of the neutrality tag. I don’t see any specific direct claim at non-neutral content here, just an edit request.

Mistamystery (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like we are broadly in agreement. Just need to bring the sources and make the edits now.

Obviously a clear reference to "mirror" comments by Israelis about Palestine is highly relevant here. An article which focusses on the wrongdoings of one side whilst ignoring the equivalent in the other direction would be absurd and damaging to the trust that readers have in our project. There are many many examples of this throughout history, and very recently:

• Landler, Mark (2023-11-15). "'Erase Gaza': War Unleashes Incendiary Rhetoric in Israel". The New York Times.
• Buxbaum, Jessica (2023-11-30). "'Erase Gaza': How genocidal rhetoric is normalised in Israel". The New Arab.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

These three problems still need fixing. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Tag has been on article since November 2023, this template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Fix the issues so the tag can be removed, or, if the issues have been resolved, then remove the tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

How does this article's scope differ from anti-Zionism?

Hello (Longhornsg—MathewMunro—Dimadick—RolandR—Zero0000—Nishidani—Selfstudier). You have participated in a discussion where many opined that "anti-Zionism" is different in some from "Call for the destruction of Israel", thus implying that these articles must have different scopes. Can you clarify what the scope of this article should be?

Examples of "destruction of Israel" being used in ambiguous ways

• Israel said to UNGA: "The Arab demand for the return of the refugees to Israel, coupled with proposals for the establishment of a Palestinian State, is calculated to bring about the destruction of Israel."
  • "The right of return is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel through demographic assault"[1]
• Benny Morris says "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority."
• "A one-state solution, while popular with some Israeli and Palestinian activists, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state."[2] Is calling for a one-state solution within the scope of this article?
• Are Arab-Israelis who march with the Palestinian flag within the scope of this article? Avigdor Lieberman says "Those who marched with flags of the Palestinian Authority... are a fifth column whose aim is the destruction of Israel."
  • In fact any criticism of Israel by Arab-Israelis is sometimes called "conspiracy to destroy Israel"[3]
• "According to Waxman, many Jewish people hear the chant (From the river to the sea) as a call for "the violent destruction of Israel."[4]

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and Chicken Little said the sky was falling. MathewMunro (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

All of the examples given are basically a Zionist equivalent of the old Nazi trope 'the Jews are trying to take over the world.' MathewMunro (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Two differences between anti-Zionism and calls for the destruction of Israel: first, not all calls for the destruction of Israel are anti-Zionist, some are antisemitic; second, not all anti-Zionists call for the destruction of Israel, some call for its change but not destruction.

Also, when some people talk about the "destruction of Israel," they mean the end of a Zionist state, to be replaced by a non-Zionist state (which doesn't require killing anyone). Other people mean kill all the Israelis. Those are two very different things and should not be confused. Wikipedia articles should be careful not to confuse or mix together sources that use "destruction of Israel" to mean political change with sources that use the same phrase to mean mass murder. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! @Levivich, so would it be reasonable to restrict the scope of this article to "kill all the Israelis" kind of anti-Zionism? And can you provide some RS that shed more light on that? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@VR: I realize the AFD just closed, but my 2c is it probably should be merged to Legitimacy of the State of Israel, anti-Zionism, and antisemitism. "Calls for the destruction of Israel" is a common-enough phrase in usage in the world, including mass media, but I don't think it's really a cogent topic of scholarly study, as such. For example, nothing in Google scholar with that title, and relatively few hits (283) containing the phrase.

I think the actual scholarly topic here is the comparison between anti-Zionism and antisemitism -- both of which involve "calls for the destruction of Israel" -- which could be adequately covered in Legitimacy of the State of Israel (which is short). It could also be a perfectly fine spin-off article, so instead of merged anywhere, this article could be just re-named/re-scoped/edited.

Right now, the first sentence of the article says it is about anti-Zionism and not anti-Semitism ("annihilation of the State of Israel as a political entity" [n.b. "annihilation" is hyperbolic language when used to describe the end of a political entity]), but many of the examples in the article are about antisemitism not anti-Zionism ("Death to Jews" is not calling for an end to a political entity).

Scholarship about the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism (some say the two are the same, others say they're different) goes back well over 50 years [5], here are some recent examples: working paper (maybe not the best RS but has a good bibliography and explanations), [6], [7], and then these are on WP:TWL: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Those articles are all about the connection/differences between anti-Zionism and antisemitism; they cover both types of "calls for the destruction of Israel" a.k.a. "antisemitic rhetoric" and "anti-Zionist rhetoric" (and there are many more). I didn't search for very long, but I wasn't able to find anything about the topic "calls for the destruction of Israel" per se (as opposed to sources that used that phrase but were about something else, like antisemitism or anti-Zionism). Levivich (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Anti-zionism and antisemitism is indeed a notable topic supported by many scholarly sources. If there is consensus here that this is what the article's scope should be, I can go ahead and propose a move to that topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Uh huh, stuff at Anti-Zionism#Allegations of antisemitism as well. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

"The right of return is a euphemism for the destruction of Israel through demographic assault".

That is a sick kind of logic, seeing as Israel was made majority Jewish by "demographic assault" to use a euphemism, and then by ethnic cleansing. The reversal of the historic crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, is not "demographic assault", it is the opposite of it. MathewMunro (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

'Benny Morris says "The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is...'

Anyone who presumes, let alone argues, that Israel faces real threats to its existence, is either a liar or a lunatic, or both. MathewMunro (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

"A one-state solution, while popular with some Israeli and Palestinian activists, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state."

The 'end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state' doesn't necessarily involve "destruction". Jewish Israelis hold all the cards. How painful the transition to a multi-ethnic democracy is, is entirely up to them. In the last 15 years, Israel has wrought probably around a hundred times the destruction on the Palestinians as the Palestinians managed to inflict on them. Claiming that the Arabs are intending to "destroy" Israel, in that context, is just sickening propaganda. MathewMunro (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Except that it's objectively correct. KronosAlight (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Avigdor Lieberman says "Those who marched with flags of the Palestinian Authority... are a fifth column whose aim is the destruction of Israel."

Zionists - when they're not denying Palestinian nationalism and trying to say they want to be part of Jordan, they try to make merely waving the Palestinian flag a sign of "terrorist" or "genocidal" intent. It's utterly bonkers and deserves no more credence than the mad ramblings of a doomsday cultist. MathewMunro (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

'any criticism of Israel by Arab-Israelis is sometimes called "conspiracy to destroy Israel".'

Yes, by some, that's how insane and dishonest many Zionists are. MathewMunro (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Does this article lack a well-defined scope? Will it come across as a POV fork if much of the content belongs elsewhere (and occurs elsewhere), such as articles on history of Israel, criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism, and so on. Not sure if the title is encyclopedic in tone (or in structure). If not a POV fork, then maybe a compilation of content that is rather Original Research? Are there academic sources that use this phrase (the title)? ProfGray (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@ProfGray this article seems to be a form of anti-zionism. Some time ago @Levivich seemed to suggest to move this to Anti-zionism and antisemitism, and @Selfstudier may have agreed with that too. If there are no objections we can move this article there. If there are objections, let's hear them.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, thanks for asking. In my view, this article does not meet WP:N policy as a topic. it is, in effect, an original synthesis that draws on many related, sourced statements. Are there academic articles or other reliable sources that focus on this topic as worded? (I didn't notice any here.) Granted, I disagree with the AfD outcome. Accordingly, what would it imply to Move / Merge this article into the Anti-Zionism article -- would that justify a new section? Would that section have a problematic, original compilation of these related anti-Zionist, anti-Israel statements? FWIW, the Anti-Zionism has its own problems. For instance, why doesn't it mention BDS, or have substantive info on Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah? Maybe content here on these 4 subtopics could go into Anti-Zionism (but not as a section called "Calls for the..."). Please let me know if I should clarify my assessment.

This article is similar to Animal stereotypes of Palestinians in Israeli discourse, Jews and Israelis as animals in Palestinian discourse, and presumably others that read as original analyses of I-P discourse, with non-encyclopedic titles. My view is reflected in Wikipedia:Criticism, esp "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies." See g-Scholar for many articles about "Israeli discourse" that could examine such discourse, its many POVs, from a neutral standpoint. Likewise, g-Scholar hits for Palestinian discourse. Ideally, we come up with ways for I-P editors to collaborate on articles in more constructive and encyclopedic ways, while still getting their views and concerns reflected in article content. ProfGray (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Merging this to "Anti-Zionism" doesn't at all imply it would have to have a section called "Calls for the destruction of Israel". On the contrary, it could be merged into the section on antisemitism. But are you ok with WP:TNT this article and moving it Anti-zionism and antisemitism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, you're not proposing a rename to Anti-zionism and antisemitism, which is a redlink, right? More likely, you seek to merge some content into the Anti-Zionism article, right? Since an AfD already resulted in Keep, a Move would require a WP:RSPM or a merge would be WP:MERGEINIT. While I might personally favor WP:TNT, it's doesn't seem like a plausible consensus at this stage. (Ideally, we'd identify a series of articles with similar POV problems and try to get consensus on restructuring them as a group.) ProfGray (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think this topic is notable enough as a standalone article. Even the specific phrase itself has a lot of results. Andre🚐 03:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you define the scope of this article and the scope of Anti-Zionism and indicate the difference between the two? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Andrevan, I'm happy to discuss the notability, but not if @Vice regent deems it off-topic for this Talk section. When saying that "the specific phrase" gets results, does this mean "Destruction of Israel" or "Calls for the destruction of Israel" (or something else)? Looking through the sources in the article, I'm not seeing any sources that focus on "calls for destruction" -- which is required for notability -- only sources that refer to one (or a few) specific such calls. The phrase is only one (of many) ways to refer to type of opposition to Israel, i.e., the content of the Anti-Zionism article

Consider for comparison an article such as Praise for olive trees in Israeli and Palestinian literature. There are countless references to olive trees in the sources. But to be a notable topic, we'd want articles, books, reliable sources that themselves compile and examine these olive references. It's not up to us to compile them and create an article of it. Do you see my perspective? ProfGray (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the latter phrase. I was looking through sources online, not necessarily the ones used in this article. Simply, I think the scope of this article is broadly the usage of calls for destruction of Israel. This is a real thing. Anti-Zionism is broader and could include a vast array of activities or viewpoints that oppose Zionism. Consider for example, Brenner p. 285 The phrase "calls for the destruction of Israel" has hundreds of thousands of results, some of which are RS. Andre🚐 03:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for clarifying. I agree if you are saying or implying that "Calls for destruction..." are under the "broader" topic of Anti-Zionism. But does the example given, from Brenner, support the notability of this topic? The topic is about "Calls..." meaning speech acts. Brenner simply uses that phrase once, right? And it doesn't seem that speech is Brenner's main concern, which might be more about tangible threats to Israel. There are articles that cover the many tangible threats, policies, and efforts to attack or destroy Israel, and this article is supposed to be about the related discourse, right?

As written now, the article itself is not only about "Calls...." (i.e., discourse) but includes interpretations or accusations of such a Call, e.g., interpreting BDS or "From the River..." that way.

Here's a reliable source that is focused specifically on a call for destruction (bold added): Gordon, Gregory S. "From Incitement to Indictment: Prosecuting Iran's President for Advocating Israel's Destruction and Piecing Together Incitement Law's Emerging Analytical Framework." J. Crim. L. & Criminology 98 (2007): 853. -- However, I'm not seeing any sources that put weave together many disparate speech acts ("Calls") as a topic in itself. So this article can support a section on Iran in various suitable, existing articles. ProfGray (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Added Iran's clarification

I added Iran's clarification that it has a problem with Israel, not its people.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Also, why is Ahmedinejad's Holocaust denial in the lead? The next Iranian president recognized the Holocaust and called it reprehensible[12]. So if we include the views, we would need to include both. But what does Holocaust denial have to do with this article?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Since there are no objections, I'll go ahead and restore the content.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again don't understand this edit. Why would we keep misleading information in the lead under the context of WP:DUE? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Also, giving so much prominence to Holocaust denial seems like a violation of WP:COATRACK. This article is about anti-zionism, not Holocaust denial.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Aprilajune (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Calls for the destruction of Israel → Calls for the dissolution of the State of Israel – More WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRECISE. Change loaded word 'destruction'—which suggests physical damage or violence, as if it were about a physical object and not a political formation—to the more NEUTRAL and PRECISE 'dissolution' as in Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Because this article is about calls for the dissolution of the state, change the ambiguous 'Israel' to 'State of Israel' to avoid conflation with בני ישראל (Bənēy Yīsrāʾēl 'children of Israel/Jacob'), a biblical metonym for Jewish people. Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic. إيان (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How is the scope of this article different from anti-Zionism or legitimacy of the State of Israel?VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose You're proposing a change to a WP:WEASEL wording. Many sources reference destruction directly or its synonyms such as annhiliation, death etc. HaOfa (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per HaOfa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic. is exactly right. This article's scope is the latter, not the former. This is the article that's about killing or ethnically cleansing all the Israelis. Anti-Zionism is the other article. The proposed move would make this into a fork of Anti-Zionism. That said, I do agree with all the other editors who have pointed to the serious NPOV problems with this article as written--starting with the lead paragraph--because it conflates calls for the dissolution or reform of Israel (anti-Zionism) with calls for the destruction of Israel. At the very least it needs a rewrite, possibly a merger to some other article, but while I agree that there is a problem, I disagree that this proposed move is the solution. Levivich (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Since we agree that Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people, in one way or another we need to disambiguate the article’s title and content. If there is consensus for your interpretation that the scope of this article is calls for the annihilation of Israelis, then the title and content need to be explicit about that. إيان (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the title is already explicit about that ("destruction"). It could be Calls for genocide of Israelis, though I'm not really sure such an article needs to exist at all -- is it really a notable topic, separate from antisemitism? Levivich (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The article currently exists and the discussion here is about an appropriate name. If the scope of the article is indeed calls for the eradication of a people and not calls for the dissolution of a state, then Calls for genocide of Israelis would be more WP:PRECISE. Again, because Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people, if the scope of this article is the people and not the state, that needs to be explicit in the title and we need to disambiguate from "Israel" which is the name of the state. إيان (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

But anyway, the scope is very clearly the dissolution of the state. The article begins:

There have been explicit or implicit expressions, statements, and rhetoric made by individuals, political entities, and factions within Arab, Islamic, Palestinian or left-wing discourse advocating for the elimination of the State of Israel as a political entity.

And it continues to talk about Israel as a state. إيان (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not either/or, it can be "and": state and people. But yes, what you quote is part of the NPOV problem. Levivich (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, what is the scope of the article? First, in your explanation of your opposition to the name change above, you write:

"Calls for the dissolution of a state are not calls for the eradication of a people; that would be a separate topic." is exactly right. This article's scope is the latter, not the former.

Now, you write:

It's not either/or, it can be "and": state and people.

We need to be clear and explicit about the article's scope and name it accordingly, such that we do not conflate between calls for the dissolution of a state and calls for the annihilation of a people. إيان (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

OK let's try this. There are two things:

1. Dissolution of the state without eradication of its people
2. Dissolution of the state with eradication of its people

Those are two different things and it's important not to conflate them. The scope of this article is #2. Levivich (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so in your view there are two components to the scope: state and people. Putting aside the fact that the article needs a complete rewriting in order to fit this scope, what would be an appropriate title that does not conflate things 1 and 2? إيان (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the current title conveys it well, actually. "Destruction" does not mean "dissolution", or "reform", or "radical change", or "peaceful transfer of power". Destruction is violent, and complete. To me, "destruction of Israel" means killing or driving out all the Jews, renaming everything, destroying synagogues and Israeli buildings; it's far more than the dissolution of the political entity (that's why the lead is so terrible right now, it totally doesn't match the title). But if not this title, then something like "Israeli genocide" or "Calls for Israeli genocide" or "Calls for genocide of Israel". Or, you know, "antisemitism" :-) I'm still not sure this article should even exist, nevermind what it's called. Maybe it should be called "Antisemitism and Israel" or "Antisemitism against Israel" or something like that, as an intersection sub-article of antisemitism and Israel. Levivich (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, the argument is that the word ‘destruction’ in the title, as opposed to something like ‘dissolution,’ transforms the word ‘Israel’ from a state to a people? And presumably this transformation is understood widely enough to satisfy article title policies? إيان (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm saying, but I think you understand what I am saying, and if you don't, that's too bad. Levivich (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Do any significant entities within the Muslim world talk about "killing or driving out all the Jews, renaming everything, destroying synagogues and Israeli buildings"? If so, Calls for genocide of Israel would indeed be an appropriate title. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 12:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

More than just talk about it. Levivich (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that the available sources do a good job of differentiating between what you call #1 and #2. And unfortunately it is not always obvious which is meant—for example some Iranian leader's statements have been contested what they actually mean. Since both of these are known as "calling for the destruction of Israel", I'm not sure that the distinction is one that Wikipedia is able to maintain. (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• No opinion. Who cares what the name of this ridiculous basket case is? Zero^talk 09:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  +1. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the article as stands, as VR has noted above, reads as a WP:COATRACK POV essay, but since it exists and has continued to exist despite various valid, fundamental critiques on this talk page, I had hoped that moving to a more WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRECISE title could help render the scope more explicit and avoid the destructive conflations it makes. If we aren't for changing the title, what should we do to expeditiously fix the situation? إيان (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  With the knowledge that it has already been nominated for deletion in January and kept. إيان (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Discrimination, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject International law, WikiProject Human rights, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Ethnic groups, and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to use the WikiProject notification template... RodRabelo7, could you also include WikiProject Palestine? إيان (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@إيان: you've been making the right edits (right templates), but to the wrong page. The page you want to post that template (either one) on is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine (the WikiProject's talk page), not here (although it's customary to post here just to say that you've posted there, as Rod did above). Levivich (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Levivich; I appreciate itǃ إيان (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Palestine has also been notified of this discussion. إيان (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Though the oppose arguments appear to have majority, relisting to give time for project notifications to garner replies ASUKITE 15:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposed change is weak. The original wording is much stronger and more precise. Waqar💬 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean by weak and strong? What are you basing such statements on? Unlike WP:NEUTRAL and WP:PRECISE, 'strength' is not a criterion for article titles. إيان (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  How is the current title more precise than the proposed change? إيان (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support per WP:POVTITLE; the new title is clearly more neutral and precise. The very arguments people are using against it (that it is not {[tq|strong}} enough for them) shows this - article titles are not supposed to come out swinging and make the reader's heart pound, they're supposed to summarize things in a neutral way. Likewise, the argument that some of the sources covered use the term "destruction" is not a policy-based argument. First, many of them do not, which makes it WP:OR / WP:SYNTH to lump them under a more inflammatory title; and second, when it comes to titles, per WP:POVTITLE, when we're inventing a title ourselves we're supposed to make it placid and unemotive. We can cover any fire-breathing statements people made in the article body with proper attribution (in a context where we are able to provide that additional detail); but in the lead, with no context, we would be implying that everything in the list uses that same fire-breathing emotive wording, which isn't true. --Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, these two titles refer to entirely different things. This article seems to cover calls to destroy Israel by violent means, which is a different matter than calls for its dissolution. UnspokenPassion (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support to avoid a misnomer. This article is not about "destruction of a country" but about its dissolution or removal. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's less WP:CONCISE, and the article is primary about destruction by violent means. The possible confusion the OP mentions seems unlikely in practice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The phrase with the 'dissolution' term isn't the common use. I've never heard and couldn't find any RS using it. IntrepidContributor (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

template:about for clarification of scope and disambiguating with Anti-Zionism

Galamore, on what grounds do you disagree and think the previous was better? إيان (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is wrong. Anti-Zionism does not neccesarily mean, as you said, to call for Israel's dissolution. and Calls for the destruction of Israel is not 'calling for violent acts against Israelis' - that's totally another article, many call to attack Israelis and Jews without expecting it would lead to Israel's destruction. This article is about calls to destroy Israel, by military means, invasion, driving people out, killing all/most of its inhabitants, and so on. Galamore (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So Anti-Zionism does not neccesarily mean ... to call for Israel's dissolution, but calls to destroy Israel—a state, a polity, an abstract thing—necessarily means killing all/most of its inhabitants? @Levivich, @VR, @Zero, @Selfstudier, what do you make of Galamore's interpretation of the scope?

Editors have tried improving the situation created by this WP:COATRACK POV article through Articles for Deletion and through POV tag discussion. I proposed a move. The situation of this article hasn't improved. I tried to add an about template to at least help define the scope and disambiguate from Anti-Zionism, but that is meeting pushback as well. إيان (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the part of the lead claiming that all such calls are AZ, no evidence for that. Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

If the article is about "killing all/most of its inhabitants", then most of the content should be deleted, as I can't find a single statement by a major Iranian leader that says "kill all/most Israelis". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Anything that lacks a source that uses the word "destruction" or "destroy" (or words unambiguously and plainly synonymous) should be removed immediately; that would help clean up a lot of the WP:SYNTH issues. And anything that attributes that language should be likewise attributed here and used with caution. A lot of the sourcing here seems to be for vague anti-Israel stuff, which is off-topic under the current title; only things that are unambiguously described as a call for Israel's destruction by a high-quality WP:RS really belongs here. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

POV coatrack

The article as it stands is a WP:COATRACK that lacks a clearly defined scope. Additionally, it contains several POV statements, poorly cited material, and contradictory claims. Glaring issues have been identified previously but haven't been resolved. إيان (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the best way forward is an RfC. Let us consider possible scopes.

• Levivich suggested "relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism".
• Galamore suggested "destroy Israel, by military means, invasion, driving people out, killing all/most of its inhabitants", which I interpret as any opposition to the existence of Israel that doesn't involve explicit ethnic cleansing/genocide should not be in the article.
• Any other possible suggested scopes? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If this article should exist, I think it should probably just include calls for the destruction of Israel: violent or non-violent. I don't see much to be confused about here. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator can you explain the difference between opposing Israel's existence and being anti-Zionist? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is called "Calls for the destruction of Israel", not "opposing Israel's existence". Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator, can you explain the difference between "Calls for the destruction of Israel" and "opposing Israel's existence"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can oppose Israel's existence without calling for its destruction. Bitspectator ⛩️ 00:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator can you explain whether these following statements are "calling for the destruction of Israel" or are "anti-zionist" or both?

• "call for Israel to be abolished and replaced by a ‘secular democratic bi-national state of Jews and (Palestinian) Arabs'"[13]
• "the Jewish state should cease to exist, and instead be replaced by a Palestinian entity"[14]
• "When supporters of the Palestinians speak of implementing their “right of return” to Israel, they are not speaking of peaceful accommodation with Israel; rather, they are using a well-understood code phrase for the destruction of Israel."[15]

I would say all of them fall under "both".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I think they are all both as well, though I would avoid using those in an article about anti-Zionism unless the source uses the term "Zionism". Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Right, so once again, what is the difference between anti-Zionism, questioning the legitimacy of Israel and calling for Israel's destruction? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't ask me to disambiguate anti-Zionism or questioning the legitimacy of Israel with other terms before, so it's not "once again". Anti-Zionism is a collection of political and religious ideas that predate Israel, so predate calls for Israel's destruction or questioning the legitimacy of Israel. You can be anti-Zionist without calling for Israel's destruction. You can question the legitimacy of Israel without calling for Israel's destruction. You can be affiliated with anti-Zionism (especially if you're a historical figure) without having any connection to the topic of Israel's legitimacy.

Now, what exactly in my original comment did you disagree with? Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You're right that anti-Zionism predates Israel. Can you give examples of: "You can question the legitimacy of Israel without calling for Israel's destruction"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I answer a million of your questions and you blatantly ignore mine. Pointless. Bitspectator ⛩️ 12:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is a collection of political and religious ideas that predate Israel - this article says in as many words that calls for the destruction of Israel predate Israel. I'm just not seeing how it's a separate topic. --Aquillion (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

this article says in as many words that calls for the destruction of Israel predate Israel

No, it doesn't. The only thing like that in the article is:

The history of calls for the destruction of Israel is rooted in the prelude to its establishment. Leaders such as Azzam Pasha of the Arab League warned of a "war of extermination" in the event that a Jewish state was established, although the interpretation of this quotation is disputed.

What does "rooted in the prelude to its establishment" mean to you?

John Brown warned that the issue of slavery could only be "purged away but with blood". That doesn't mean he called for the destruction of the Confederate States of America, because it didn't exist yet.

I'm just not seeing how it's a separate topic

What is a separate topic from what? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator my main concern with this comment is that "calls for the destruction of Israel: violent or non-violent" are already covered by Legitimacy of Israel and post-1948 Anti-Zionism, making this article a bit of a POV-fork. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• At the very least we can clean up some of the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR with a few simple steps:

• First, removing any source (and then anything that only relied on those sources) that does not unambiguously use the word destruction or a word clearly synonymous with it.
• Second, if a source only attributes its use of that word, we have to reflect that attribution; if it is only present within a quote, we have to limit our usage of that source to providing that quote; if a source is WP:RSOPINION, it has to be attributed as such and we need to consider WP:DUE weight. Any WP:BIASED sources have to likewise be attributed in a way that makes their biases clear.

Doing this would make it more clear whether we have enough to support an article with the current focus. --Aquillion (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion what does it mean call for the "destruction" of Israel? For example, this source argues that those who believe in a one-state solution (equal rights for Arabs and Jews from the river to the sea) are calling to "eliminate Israel". VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I would say a call for a Palestinian right of return law is not a call for the destruction of Israel. But if it's a call to dismantle the Israeli government, and start anew with entirely new governance structures, that seems like a call for the (nonviolent) destruction of Israel.

I'd also be fine with limiting the scope to violent destruction though; that already seems to be the focus of the article. Whatever scope we decide on, there will always be some gray areas, such as language that's suggestive of violence but not explicit about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

"When supporters of the Palestinians speak of implementing their “right of return” to Israel, they are not speaking of peaceful accommodation with Israel; rather, they are using a well-understood code phrase for the destruction of Israel."[16]

Have any scholarly sources defined what exactly constitutes "call for the destruction of Israel"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that does complicate things a bit. I suppose that viewpoint is worth mentioning, but the main focus should be explicit calls for destruction, rather than arguable insinuations. I think the current article does a reasonable job of mentioning the controversy while keeping that main focus. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• At least with the way the article is defined and structured currently, "XYZ says that such-and-such is secretly a call for the destruction of Israel" is reasonable to include (although the usual issues with WP:DUE and such apply.) But what we couldn't do is then turn around and include things by other people talking about the right of return using sources that don't make that connection - that would be synth. eg. "Scholar X says that the right of return is a call for the destruction of Israel.[source] Group Y calls for the right of return.[source that indicates that Group Y supports the right of return, but which doesn't mention destroying Israel]" is obvious synthesis. And most of these would require attribution because there's obviously not a scholarly consensus on them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Aquillion ok, I agree. But it still leaves open the question what is "destruction of Israel"? Does it include calling for a "regime change" in Israel[17]? Does it include calling for an end to Israel's Jewish majority demographics? On the other hand, does calling for an intifada, or a Palestinian war of liberation[18], necessarily constitute a call for Israel's destruction?

  TBH with you, I think "call for the destruction of Israel" is an emotive phrase used by anti-anti-Zionists to smear anti-Zionists that lacks a clear definition.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we have consensus supporting the splitting of the article as Levivich proposed, Aquillion, Bitspectator, Vice regent, XDanielx? That wouldn't require an RfC, would it? إيان (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify what the split would be? I see the suggestion for Anti-zionism and antisemitism, which to me seems like a very different scope, so it seems like a possible separate article if anything, but maybe too close to Anti-Zionism. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

XDanielx, this is the idea. إيان (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't quite understand the motivation for merging - the topic seems notable as reflected in the AfD. Levivich seemed to be applying a standard which went well beyond WP:GNG, and also seemed overly focused on specific wording (just including other tenses already increases counts in the literature significantly). Is there an argument based on a different WP:MERGEREASON? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The concern is the massive amounts of WP:OVERLAP, coupled with a belief that this is effectively a WP:POVFORK in that it basically covers a smaller subset of anti-Zionism under a more emotive name. The only real distinction becomes "anti-Zionism where someone used the word 'destroy' to characterize it." Is that really a separate topic? --Aquillion (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Massive overlap with what? I really don't see much. The closest I can see is maybe the post-WW2 section of Anti-Zionism, but even that is based on a definition of anti-Zionism that's much broader than calls for destruction, and it ends up focusing mainly on attitudes toward Israel. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

To add to Aquillion's point, this article is a POV WP:COATRACK that has no clearly defined scope. The terms 'Israel' and 'destruction' are both ambiguous. The article essentially conflates calls to dissolve the state with calls to commit genocide.

As I have noted before, 'Israel' could refer either to the 'State of Israel' (a state, a political formation) or to בני ישראל (Bənēy Yīsrāʾēl 'children of Israel/Jacob'), a biblical metonym for Jewish people (a people). 'Destruction'—which suggests physical damage or violence—is a POV word choice and inappropriate for calls to put an end to a state (an intangible thing, an idea) as well as for calls to commit genocide, because people aren't simply physical objects you destroy. إيان (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Some ambiguity is normal; I don't really see why it's problematic in this case. It seems like ambiguity has been brought up mainly as an argument for getting rid of the article, but it hasn't actually caused many content disputes or size issues or what not.

Moreover, it seems like it shouldn't be too hard to clarify scope in this case, perhaps with an RfC. For example we could just decide to limit the scope to violent destruction only; that would make the scope about as clear as it gets. By contrast something like anti-Zionism will always have major gray areas. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This POV COATRACK has elicited all kinds of discussions on a more macro level than disputes over specific segments of its content, including the AfD, a move request, POV tags, etc. It's very abnormal and unencyclopedic to conflate and equate calls for ending a political regime with calls for genocide. It's also pointless to have micro-discussions about particular points when the article is as it is; Zero and Selfstudier felt (quite understandably) that it wasn't even worth discussing the name.

There have been attempts to clarify the scope in the discussions assessing the article in toto that I mentioned before, so it seems that it would be better to follow through with the split according to Levivich's proposal if that supported by consensus. إيان (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• xDanielx can you explain what is the difference between questioning the Legitimacy of Israel and calling for its destruction? And additionally, what part of "calling for the destruction of Israel" is unrelated to the scope of post-1948 anti-Zionism? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  It somewhat depends on how we decide to scope things, but I see this article as (at least primarily) focused on violent language, while Legitimacy of Israel is focused on non-recognition and other non-violent discourse. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Who gets to decide what constitutes "violent language"? Reliable sources don't neatly categorize statements like that. Secondly, such interpretations are generally subjective (eg many Palestinians argue that both the Great March of Return and early days of the First Intifada were non-violent).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 00:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Some language is pretty clearly violent (annihilation, coffins, etc), but I agree there are gray areas as well. That's completely normal for articles that are about discourse, movements, schools of thought, and so forth rather than specific entities. Ambiguity isn't normally considered a reason to delete an article, rather we use editorial discretion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Can you further explain the "coffins" comment? The NYT source says "In January, the message to Israel read, “Prepare your coffins,” with the backdrop of missiles being fired." There is nothing about destroying Israel in that particular mural. I'll remove that statement from the article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I would estimate that maybe 75% of this article, if not more, is about remarks that can be reasonable interpreted as non-violent.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  I removed it again. This article really is being used as a POV coat rack. To be DUE for inclusion, the source needs to be about "calls for the destruction of Israel" not "calls for violence against Israelis" or just plain old antisemitism. Levivich (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Subjectivity or intersubjectivity is irrelevant. All that matters is what reliable sources say. If there are contradictions in reliable sources, we can treat that. But Palestinians arguing that the Intifada was nonviolent, well, WP:MANDY applies. Andre🚐 17:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• @XDanielx: does the term Trojan Horse or national suicide connote something violent or non-violent? Asking because some sources consider the Oslo process to be a "Trojan Horse" that is "designed to bring about Israel’s demise",[19] or a "recipe for national suicide"[20].VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I agree these are gray areas, I just don't think that's a reason to get rid of the article.

  I'd say the Oslo process probably shouldn't be included, partly since it seems a bit fringe (if it's only Karsh making the argument?), and partly it doesn't exactly fit under "calls".

  The binationalism = suicide argument seems similar to the right of return = destruction of Israel argument, so I suppose whatever we decide on that should carry over. My take is that it's probably okay to include since non-fringe sources argue the connection, but I don't feel strongly about it. We could have an RfC to decide where to draw the line. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  Not at all, you have similar views in Jerusalem Post, JNS, Algemeiner etc. And Karsh's views are quoted in City Journal and he makes them in the right-wing Meforum[21]. So is Oslo peace process a violent attempt to destroy Israel? If not, what do you make of the clearly violent terminology that is being used: "end of Israel's existence" (Jerusalem Post), "national suicide" (Boston Review), "Trojan Horse" (JNS, Algemeiner). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

  I just want to clarify my larger point here: this article is a POVFORK of Legitimacy of Israel, which already has a section on "Rhetoric of legitimization". You argued that RS somehow differentiate between "non-violent" and "violent" delegitimization. But I'm really not seeing that in the sources.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Violent children's textbook?

מתיאל[22] how on earth is the children's textbook promoting the destruction of Israel? Simply writing "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" in a textbook doesn't mean calling for the destruction of Israel. This is exactly why I think the topic of this article is too subjective to be an encyclopedic topic – it depends on users inserting their own interpretation of what constitutes calling for a "violent" destruction of Israel or not.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen what kind of hateful content is in the "Palestinian" education system and t.v?!?!?!??!? מתיאל (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you seen what kind of actual destruction and death in the real world to real people has been caused by Israelis? Best to stay away from questions like these and stick to the content related question asked, which was "how on earth is the children's textbook promoting the destruction of Israel". Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The distucrction is always the result of Arab aggression, 1947, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2021 and 2023!!!! מתיאל (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion has no value here. Take it somewhere else. Before that, listen to the kid here for a few minutes starting at 31:50. Must have been reading Palestinian textbooks, eh? Zero^talk 14:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vice regent, Apparently, in arabic (at least some versions) have it as 'from the river to the sea, palestine will be Arab'. If that's what's in the children's book then there is not a lot of room for interpretation since Israel is not Arab -- and the only way to make this calling true is to eliminate Israel. Even you stick with the English version "...free" it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to imagine a free Palestine, 'from the river to the sea', with Israel living safely along it. It is safe to say that this mental gymnastics is beyond school kids level. @Sean.hoyland, wars cause destruction and death and there is a lot of destruction in Gaza, but can you please explain how it is related to the thread on Children's textbooks? @Zero0000, Israel is a conflict zone and there is a lot of death and destruction on both sides. Kids absorb what they learn at home and sometimes they learn to hate, and this needs to change! Teaching kids at school that Israel needs to be eliminated is not a way to foster coexistence, and 'whataboutism' doesn't promote a solution. If there is something wrong, it has to be called out. ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC) You want me to explain? Okay. Editor A asks a question rather than answers the content related question asked. This is fire-starting behavior. It is not what talk pages are for. Editor B notices this and asks another question to illustrate a point. Both questions, what VR has seen and what מתיאל has seen, are equally unrelated to the thread on Children's textbooks which should be a policy-based discussion that employs reliable sources, not editor real-world experience and opinions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC) @Sean.hoyland, thanks. Re-reading your comment - I'm with you - let's focus on sources and discussions related to Children's book calling to the destruction of Israel, not to anything else. ThothOfTheSouth (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC) @ThothOfTheSouth depends on how you define "destruction of Israel". The Arab-Israeli birthrate is considered by some to be a threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish majority state.VR (Please ping on reply) 06:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

xDanielx above is an example of a phrase "from the river to the sea" in a children's textbook being interpreted as a "violent" call to eliminate Israel. This is what I mean, that this is inherently a vague topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think all topics have such gray areas. Even when the topic itself is a well-defined entity, we still end up needing editorial discretion to decide what material is sufficiently relevant, like is hummus sufficiently relevant to Israel?

Regarding the slogan, I guess my view is that it should only be kept if there are sources clearly making a case that there is a connection, as we do in the right of return section. At first glance it doesn't seem like we have such sources currently? The slogan article cites this, which sort of connects the topics but it's not great. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hummus is relevant to Israel: hummus should mention, however briefly, that it is enjoyed in Israel, and Israel should mention, however briefly, that Israeli cuisine includes hummus.

That source doesn't say the slogan is a call for the destruction of Israel, but rather some Jews perceive it as such? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

If this book really "calls for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of all who live in it", the South African Jewish Report would have quoted it. But of course they didn't, and there is no reason to accept their claim as more than the standard reaction to anything that presents a Palestinian viewpoint. The JP report is just an account of the SAJR report and not an independent report. The current text (just now reverted back in by BilledMammal) doesn't even have attribution. Fails WP:V, not to mention WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Zero^talk 09:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

How does it fail WP:V? You're right that we should attribute aspects, which I have done now, but the source supports the claims. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Verification requires a source that is reliable for what is being sourced to it. And if we allow claims without evidence from sources with a conflict of interest this page will have a ton more rubbish in it. Zero^talk 10:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Which source has a conflict of interest? And I don’t see any reason to believe these sources are unreliable for this? Plus, wasn’t your objection that this incident was off-topic - haven’t we determined that you were mistaken about that? BilledMammal (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's off-topic because there is no reliable source that it fits the topic. And the conflict of interest of the source is 101% obvious. You wouldn't accept an Arab source claiming without evidence that a book for Jewish kids promotes extermination of Arabs (and neither would I). Zero^talk 10:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The source says it "calls for the eradication of Israel" - that sounds on topic to me.

To be clear, you’re saying that Jewish sources have a conflict of interest in relation to Israel, even when they aren’t Israeli? BilledMammal (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That was a bit formula; surely you could be more original. I only critiqued one source, which I happen to be already familiar with. I am entitled to comment on its reliability and will continue to comment on the reliability of sources whenever I see fit. But maybe COI wasn't the right phrase, perhaps "record of a consistent political stance that suggests low reliability when they make claims about their perceived enemies without providing evidence even when proof would have been in front of them" would be better. Yes, that seems to be an improvement. Zero^talk 12:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The SA source says the phrase itself is a call for the destruction of Israel, saying that the book is, in our voice no less, is taking that absurd claim to even more absurd heights. The text also presupposes Israel has a right to exist, another claim Wikipedia cannot make in its own voice. nableezy - 12:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The second sentence is quite shocking to say the least. HaOfa (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you think Wikipedia is supposed to be putting contested claims in its own voice? nableezy - 17:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What makes the South African Jewish Report so reliable as to make an WP:EXCEPTIONAL and quite inflammatory comment? Or, what makes their opinion so WP:DUE here? Lets not publish what appear to be false charges of incitement of genocide unless there's a good reason to.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It is both entirely undue as well as pushing a contested POV as fact, it should be removed and unless there’s a consensus for its inclusion it should not be restored. nableezy - 15:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This content has been on the article for long, meaning it has a clear level of consensus for inclusion. Just waking up one day and deciding it isn't, despite being so long-standing, requires consensus to change that. HaOfa (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SILENTCONSENSUS vanishes when the material is challenged. Sorry, but you dont get to keep in wild claims like this by dint of time passed since inserted. nableezy - 15:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@האופה also given that book has an author, this is a WP:BLP issue even if the author is not mentioned by name.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ive raised this at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Calls for the destruction of Israel#Children education. nableezy - 15:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the offending paragraph as the claims in it are far too extraordinary to sole-source to a highly partisan pro-Israel publication. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

At NPOVN I have put evidence that the claim of promoting genocide is false. Zero^talk 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)