Jump to content

Talk:Danny Danon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 138.37.215.34 (talk) at 15:52, 9 October 2013 (→‎"Right to exist" statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

What's this?

The sentence "He also wants to expel from the Knesset any member who joins any activity which would join the siege of Gaza." is not clear, to say nothing of unsourced. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine's right to exist

Michael Zeev, thank you for your views on this and Naftali Bennett's page. Further to my comments on the NB talk logically you should want to delete the phrase "right to exist" from the PLO charter wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant (the phrase you disagree with is even used in the title of the first section "The Charter and the question of Israel's right to exist" ) since the PLO charter does not explicitly use that phrase re Israel in this source http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm (I searched all occurences of the word "exist") I do think wikipedia needs to be consistent on NPOV grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi Michael, is it possible for you to explain here please why you've undone my last edit - possibly by replying to my points above and on the Naftali Bennett talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Obviously you've undone my edit again and haven't replied to my request for us to discuss which I think wikipedia suggests. Where is the POV ? "right to exist" is a standard widely used phrase, when is it biased. Are you saying it is a POV that Palestine has a right to exist - but obviously you don't think its a PV that Israel has a right to exist as you've not changed this phrase wrt Israel (eg on the Palestinian National Charter page). As you know Obama recently referred to the right to exist of both states so if you diagree then I think you're pushing a POV and a minority one. You also say its unreferenced presumably meaning its not in the course but the phrase doesn't occur in the Palestinian National Charter yet that wikipedia page still refers to Israel's "right to exist" and you don't object. I look forward to your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Well yet again you've reverted my edit your reason being "stop it". Last week I allowed your undo to remain and responded to your points on this and teh Naftali Bennett talk page and waited for you to try and defend your stance. You haven't done and refuse to discuss while consistently reverting my changes with inflammatory remarks such as accusations of POV, "get the point" and "stop it". Maybe you are unaware of wikiepdia advice "When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page" either way I'm afraid this doesn't reflect well on you or maybe you realise you can't justify your reverts. Michael Zeev you now say on the history page :"People already explained him why this is wrong. No reference says Danon rejects "Palestine's right to exist". Which "people" - people is plural - there is only you claiming this and I rebutted this over a week ago pointing out the phrase "right to exist" with regard to Israel is not, for example, contained in the Palestinian National Covenant yet the wikipedia page uses that phrase and neither you not anyone else has objected to this on the grounds that "right to exist" is therefore original research or a POV. I patiently waited for you to respond to this point but you haven't done either then or now except now with your use of people in the plural you are trying to pretend your point has some sort of consensus behind it that I'm ignoring !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Further re the absence of the phrase "right to exist" in Danon's interview its probably clear to Michal Zeev (singular or plural) that people or bodies that reject a state's right to exist hardly ever use the phrase " we reject their right to exist". If you're suggesting the concept of Palestine's right to exist is original to me then you are mistaken http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-in-cairo-israelis-can-t-deny-palestine-s-right-to-exist-1.277308 If you were prepared to talk then maybe we could reach a consensus. Maybe modelled on the PNC page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Covenant#The_Charter_and_the_question_of_Israel.27s_right_to_exist we could have a section titled "Danny Danon and Palestine's right to exist" with a direct lift from his interviews. Might try that anyway someday when you're taking a sleep from your monitoring of Danon's and Bennett's wiki sites !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.114 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Right to exist" statement

Its interesting in the light of the debate regarding Danny Danon and the phrase "right to exist" that this article http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2013/September/Hamas-No-Agreement-that-Includes-Israels-Right-to-Exist/ uses the phrase "right to exist" in its title intended to reflect Hamas's stance on the current peace negotiations even though that phrase is not used in the quoted extracts from Hamas. It seems both Hamas and Danny Danon make it clear they will accept only one state - they differ in which state that will be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to depend on the Hamas source and the audience being addressed. See this interview with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal for example from December 31, 2012. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this, Sean. Its an interesting article. I've read it and also searched it for the word "right" in order to see if Meshaal ever explicitly says he doesn't accept Israel "right to exist" using that phrase. He doesn't use that phrase as far as I can see although the interviewer does several times. I'm still wondering when the Hamas leadership has explicitly said they reject Israel's "right to exist" using that phrase and whether its required that they do so in order to describe that as their stance. Obviously Hamas does reject a Israeli state in the same way that Danny Danon rejects a Palestinian state http://www.timesofisrael.com/amid-uproar-danon-stands-by-rejection-of-two-states/. Is that enough for the phrase rejection of the right to exist to be used for both Hamas and Danon or do we need that exact phrase to be quoted as stated in this Danny Danon talk page and in the history of the article ?