Talk:Legitimacy of the State of Israel

Incredibly One-sided

This article doesn't begin to be impartial. As one example, there's no mention of the fact that the Zionists took over Palestine by force, since 1946 (nominally since Kellogg-Briand (1928)) the single greatest crime in international law and the basis for hanging the Nazi hierarchy. Nor is there any mention that the UN has never had the right to give away land -- the Partition plan was a proposal to be voluntarily accepted or rejected by the parties concerned. Anyone honest can come up with many other reasons why the establishment of the Zionist state and the subsequent behavior of its agents constitute Crimes Against Peace and Humanity. 98.118.17.188 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jewish life is not a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DF4:2023:7800:35E6:EBA:B842:3FCE (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The Arab Muslim leadership in Mandatory Palestine rejected the partition plan, gambling on all or nothing. When you gamble on all or nothing and lose, what you get is nothing. AUSPOLLIE (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Colonization is. Stop using Judaism to try to launder it. Jews have been through enough. 2600:1008:B12E:E453:11AF:96F9:F3D:4321 (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting that only Israel's legitimacy is put in question, but never the United States or Australia's legitimacy, nations whose foundations lie on incomparably more skulls. The last Aboriginal Tasmanian died in the 1870s for example, a perfect genocide. Meanwhile the Palestinian population has been multipled by 8 since 1948. Synotia (moan) 19:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The legitimacy of the US is constantly put into question, and it's safe to assume the same about Australia 𝐗𝐚𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧 _talk ^sandbox _contribs 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I would question the existence of all three. Fibn1 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Essentially none of you are responding to the comment—by someone who is clearly WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia—and are instead whining about whatever irrelevant topic you care to soapbox about. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong title - there's no question of "legitimacy"

1. The article is primarily about Israel's acceptance within the Arab and Muslim world, not about its "legitimacy" as a state.
2. It's the same with the sources. By my rough count, of the 38 sources cited in this article:
   1. 6-7 discuss Israel's legitimacy or acceptance in the Arab and Muslim world
   2. 12 discuss its de-legitimization by others (again mostly in the context of the Arab and Muslim world)
   3. 8 make no mention of either "legitimacy" or "de-legitimization"
   4. 8 are inaccessible (7 "dead links" and one book from the 90's)
   5. only 2-3 discuss its "legitimacy" in general
3. Also note that we have not a single other article named "legitimacy of state X", nor articles casting doubt on the "legitimacy" of any people or ethnicity. The fact that we have one for Israel suggests to the reader that this is somehow even a question, which it is not.

For these reasons, I made this move, which was promptly reverted. Comments? François Robere (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD, and seeing as there was no response to this thread, I went ahead and renamed the page to "Acceptance of Israel in the Arab and Muslim world". The new title is both more accurate and less problematic than the old one, and more general than my previous suggestion. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to open a move request, I have clearly contested a new title. Moves need an affirmative consensus. nableezy - 20:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: That's exactly why I started this discussion, but neither you nor anyone else replied. What's your objection exactly? François Robere (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for missing the section creation. But there are a ton of sources discussing the legitimacy, and the rejection of that legitimacy by other states. See for example:

• Kapitan, Tomis (2015). Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-46285-9.
• Abdulla, Rinad (2016-04-01). "Colonialism and Apartheid Against Fragmented Palestinians: Putting the Pieces Back Together". State Crime Journal. 5 (1). doi:10.13169/statecrime.5.1.0051.
• Neumann, Michael (2005). The Case Against Israel. Counterpunch Series. CounterPunch. ISBN 978-1-904859-46-8.

nableezy - 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

All three sources place this "question" squarely in the context of Arab-Israeli relations; Kapitan is dated (reissue of a 1997 book), but does note that the "question" is mostly irrelevant fifty years on; and Neumann was published by WP:COUNTERPUNCH and AK Press, which aren't reliable academic publishers. Neither source is much-cited.

"Legitimacy" is an ambiguous term and it's unclear what it applies to in the context of state, but insofar as it applies to its very existence, then having an article raise such questions is highly unusual - in fact, there's no other article that does so across Wikipedia. If you're content with this level of sourcing for establishing notability, then you should be aware that two of your own sources (Segal, in Philosophical Perspectives, and Abdulla) also call into question the legitimacy of Palestinian institutions.

I suggest this article be merged into Arab–Israeli conflict, or in the very least renamed to Acceptance of Israel in the Arab and Muslim world. François Robere (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Neumann himself is a reliable source, we aren't limited to academic publishers and I think you know that. That a book was updated in 2015 from a 1997 original print does not make it dated, it rather makes it up to date. And I disagree with both options, but again you are welcome to request a move with the formal process if you wish. nableezy - 14:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't expect cogent replies to a talk page query in 24 hours. You should give this discussion at least a week. And since you've been reverted twice now, make that a "you must". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead says "Under international law, Israel has always met the standards for recognition as a sovereign state". It gives a reference without a page number. Can someone reproduce the quote from the source that supports this? And give an explanation for this? There's no explanation of this in the body of the article, which means it shouldn't be in the WP:LEAD. Is it merely referring to Israel meeting all 4 of the criteria under article 1 of the Montevideo Convention? Is it referring to legitimacy of Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights (both of which are definitely controversial)? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Uninformative

The following comment by @GigaDerp was removed because they are not extended confirmed. I am, however, and I was going to make a largely similar comment anyways, so I have reproduced the comment below, followed by a few comments of my own:

I don't really care for the politically charged nature of this article and the desires most have to change it; instead, I find it unfortunate that this article doesn't at least present the ideas of delegitimization objectively. Most articles that I see on topics like this present two sides in isolation with support and opposition to those positions for each. This article (even in the event that it is consensus) sheds no light on the reasons people say Israel isn't legitimate, just the reactions and defense.

I clicked on this article to learn about positions on the UN charter, potentially read arguments about pluralism, or any sort of presentation of a variety of ideas that could help better inform me about this topic. Instead, I have just found another article that seems to be pushing a narrative (be it good or ill) with no desire to explain why the legitimacy might be questioned, just that questioning it is wrong.

I fully agree with the above, and it shows how WP:NPOV leads to a worse encyclopedia. One of the surest signs of POV issues is when an article introduces responses to criticisms before ever discussing the criticisms themselves.

The section Dangers of delegitimization to peace is particularly problematic in being breathtakingly one-sided.

All in all, a rational reader of this article is not left feeling not as if they have been informed, but rather that they have been propagandized to. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not neutral

This article is not neutral. It does not discuss the root cause of the conflict and why some countries don't recognize it, the controversial founding of Israel. And the rest of the article does not discuss the debate over whether Israel is legitimate or not, it assumes that it is. The first section is about recognition and normalization with the world and Arab states. Then, the rest of the article paints delegitimization in a negative light, as pejorative, antisemitic, dangerous, and hypocritical.

I am placing a NPOV tag here. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Delegitamization as an obstacle to peace

No sources were cited for this claim, and this notion was not expamded upon. Additionally, citing Amnesty International's subjective claim of delegitamization as an "excuse" to mistreat Palestinians appears completely unrelated to the subject. 2A02:14F:1FA:CDB2:485B:4BE0:E8B0:46FC (talk) 09:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• "No sources were cited for this claim, and this notion was not expamded upon." - the expanded notion with sources is the "Delegitimization is dangerous" section.
• "citing Amnesty International's subjective claim of delegitamization as an "excuse" to mistreat Palestinians appears completely unrelated to the subject. - there is no such thing as an objective claim of delegitimization, the statement follows "while others disagree" and explains why Amnesty disagrees.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)