Talk:Danny Danon

Deleting neighborhoods

The statement made by Danon was covered in the New Yorker, January 21, 2013 issue. The Party Faithful, written by David Remnick. The relevant quote is:

"Right-wing politicians listen to all this and smile. They are delighted. They are emboldened. Danny Danon, a Likud leader who recently suggested that, for every rocket launched by Hamas, Israel “delete” one neighborhood in Gaza, said to me, “I tell my colleagues on the left in the Knesset, ‘You are an endangered species. We’ll build a nature reserve for you.’ ”

Danon's FB post with a similar statement was posted as a screenshot on +972mag in an article written by Ami Kaufman (former editor at Haaretz).

Both sources are good, and the statement is relevant. As ambassador to the UN, Danon is the most senior Israeli representative in that body and deals with negotiations concerning Palestine. To substantiate the view that punitive attacks on civilian infrastructure are consistently recommended by Danon, I have included a reference to his 2014 statement to Yedioth Ahronoth where he said Israel should start "levelling" Gaza if a kidnapped soldier was not returned. Also added note on advocacy for cutting electricity/fuel to Gaza and subsequent bombing of power plant.

--SubirGrewal (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Newyorker source is ok, +972, a blog, is not. Here come the Suns (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the author is a professional writer and former editor at Haaretz. I think the exception for professional writers on newsblogs/web-magazines applies here. The original Facebook post is still available (he has not deleted it). --SubirGrewal (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the professional writer exception is for blogs hosted by a reputable media outlet, not some random self-published group blog. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that characterization of +972mag is correct. It is a professional web magazine, run by numerous former journalists. And in any case, you are free to go look at the original facebook post, which as I noted, Danny Danon has not bothered to delete. --SubirGrewal (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Noticed user LironneK deleted the entire section on views regarding Palestinians, June 22, 2016. I have restored the content, it may be worth reviewing the entire article since it now reads like a resume of Dannon and the user in question has contributed to a single other Wikipedia entry, that for Ron Prossor (also an ambassador of Israel to the UN). SubirGrewal (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Another thought is I wonder if anyone has ever asked Danny Danon or Naftali Bennett if they accept Palestine's "right to exist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.215.34 (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's complicated and will depend on the spokesperson, the date (e.g. [1]), the language of the source (i.e. the audience) whether it's recognition of the "right to exist" or the right to exist as a Jewish state and how the right of return gets factored into that, whether they already recognized Israel in 1993 as part of the Hamas-Fatah agreement (that is the case according to Mahmoud Abbas[2]) etc etc. You can see in the CNN interview, Meshaal said "I accept a Palestinian state according to 1967 borders with Jerusalem as the capital, with the right to return" which implies a 2 state solution. Outright rejection of the right to exist is a nice soundbite but reality seems to be a lot more complicated in Hamas' case. Having said that, I'm sure there are some reliable sources out there that use the soundbite but dumbing down content probably isn't ideal for an encyclopedia. Perhaps Danon's views aren't straightforward either. I wouldn't know. I should add, bear in mind that the Michael Zeev being addressed in the section above was a block evading sockpuppet, banned from the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Head permanent U.N. committee

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon was elected chair of the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee. Here are some sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. Please update this new information to the page. Thanks Sokuya (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)