Jump to content

Talk:Right to exist/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Israel section

If you google "Right to exist" -wikipedia, you'll see that in the real world this phrase is usually used with reference to Arab attitudes toward Israel. Yet I notice that the section on Israel has been deleted and in its place is a section entitled "Israel and Palestine", which mostly rehearses various Arab grievances against Israel. So we now have sections about Abkhazia and the Basques, but almost nothing about the primary meaning of this term. In fact, there is no acknowledgement that Israel's right to exist was ever an issue. Kauffner (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nations or States? This should be two articles.

There is a significant mismatch in the content of the article. The opening paragraph discusses the right of nations to exist and most of the focus of the Historical Use Section likewise focuses on the rights of nations to exist. However, the remainder of the article discusses the rights of states to exist. These are two different questions entirely. When one violates a nation's right to exist, one commits genocide. When one violates a state's right to exist (if such a right exists), one commits war. For more on the distinction, see the USIP definition here: http://glossary.usip.org/resource/state-versus-nation

The reason this distinction is important is because of the way it gives a false picture of Ernst Renan or Sir Walter Scott - both of whom were writing on nations' rights to exist - as having something to say about current debates over the rights of states (Israel, Kurdistan, Euskadi) to exist. This gives a misleading picture and one that is not an accurate portrayal of political philosophy.

I suggest breaking this article into two separate articles: one on the philosophical tradition of a nation's right to exist and another on debates over states' right to exist.

GimpyBee (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

I have duplicated the following text from the Palestine section in the Israel section, as it refers to israel as much as palestine - "In 1947, the United Nations affirmed the right of an "Arab State" and a "Jewish State" to exist within Palestine. The Jewish Agency, precursor to the Israeli government, agreed to the plan, but several Arab states rejected it and attacked Israel after its May 14, 1948 declaration of independence, escalating a civil war into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The legal and territorial status of Israel and Palestine is still hotly disputed in the region and within the international community"93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Resolution 181 recognized no such right for either state. It called for the establishment of both, but it did not confer any "right to exist" for either. Section 1 of the resolution said Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. It very clearly calls for these two states to exist, but it does not "affirm" that they have a right to do so. I just re-read the resolution, and I do not see anything recognizing any such right, but I may be missing something. I tend to stay away from this article, but I dont think that, in either section, we should say that UN affirmed such a right. nableezy - 01:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The UN partition plan has been superseded by Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, passed in 1967 and 1973, so the "Palestine" section of this article is quite misleading. It is not common to see the phrase "right to exist" used in the context of the 1947 partition plan, so I don't think the whole issue is relevant to this article. Israel's right of exist was debated quite intensely at the time of Count Bernadotte's mission in 1948, which I believe is when this phrase got attached to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Kauffner (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

GimpyBee (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Count Bernadotte's plan does not include the words "right to exist." In the list of seven basic principles, the Second Plan - the more influential of the two - Bernadotte says that a Jewish state should exist but this is a matter of how to practically settle the conflict, not a matter of rights. [1] I do not currently have access to the cited text from Ilan Pappe, but reading the original documents it is highly misleading to claim that the document establishes a right to exist for any state. The document clearly favors the establishment of two states, but this is nowhere phrased as a matter of rights.

GimpyBee (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Right to exist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Denying Israel and Palestine's right to exist - original sources

the section on Israel refers, at the end, to Hamas rejecting Israel's "right to exist" - now the original source http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=608441 does not use the phrase "right to exist" Is it still correct to cite it as such. This is an issue as this argument has been used to revert statements describing Naftali Bennett's and Danny Danon's rejection of Palestine's right to exist in their respective pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.228.230 (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Again this issue has resurfaced with an attempt to remove the phrase "right to exist" (central to the article) by 186.137.89.7 imposing the criteria that the source has to use the actual phrase. (s)he seems to believe that Naftai Bennet rejecting the creation of Palestine is not the same as denying Palestine;s right to exist. They clearly are the same thing unless someonecan think of a way Bennet will allow Palestine to exist withouth being created. The actual phrase "right to exist" is ofte missing in original sources (including wrt Israel as I've shown). Is the "right to exist" page to become a "right to exist" free zone ? As an interim measure until concensus I've removed some (allegedly unsupported) uses of "right to exist" wrt Israel in interests of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1C6B:E700:68A5:39A:9E14:52B5 (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC) So - as a NPOV starter - is it correct to say that sources are mistaken when they claim Hamas denies Israel's right to exist ? Hamas opposes the creation of an Israeli state and its a different thing ?

The fact that Hamas opposses Israel's right to exist (whose existence is already a fact) is supported by numerous sources. The source you added reports that the Likud bureau opposes the creation of a FUTURE Palestinian state (such an independent state currently doesn't exist). The words "Palestine's right to exist" is your personal original research and POV interpretation, which is not acceptable nor relevant.--181.91.66.149 (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I have given numerous sources where Israeli politicians and entities reject Palestine's right to exist - the fact that the use of phrases such as "oppose the creation of" are used instead is irrelevant - they mean the same thing. No one has ever said where they differ in meaning so use of "right to exist" is perfectly acceptable on the "right to exist" page

The latest "undo" of the phrase "Palestine's right to exist" claims "None of the sources mention "Palestine's right to exist", they talk about a future Palestinian state. Stick to sources and stop edit-warring". As I say above "the fact that the use of phrases such as "oppose the creation of" are used instead is irrelevant - they mean the same thing." Please explain why you think the exact phrase is needed when the meaning is as far as I can see identical, do you disagree ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.77.127 (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC) 

Oh and its irrelevant to the discussion of Palestine's right to exist whether Palestine is (or in your opinion is) future, current or in the past. we can discuss Palestine's right to exist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.77.127 (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible, "IP 181.s", to explain here exactly what you believe the difference is between "deny Palestine's right to exist" than "opposing the creation of a future Palestinian state" : the actual text from the Likud vote page is "the Likud’s ideological bureau voted to formally oppose the creation of a Palestinian state" (you've added "future" rightly or wrongly - and I don't think it makes a difference to the point) - I think using the phases "denying Palestine's right to exist" or "rejecting Palestine's right to exist" is a reasonable phrase to describe this situation given the subject of this wikipedia page. I'm starting to think we may need some moderator or third party to kindly advise or adjudicate - what do you think ?

I'm disappointed to see that after a series of reverts by Argentina based IPs another Argentina based IP did a major revert before the webpage was locked (withi minutes). And there has been little attempt by the Argentina sites to defend "their" point of view on the talk page despite my requests. This seems to breach this guideline "discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

I also note that the totally legitimate, relevant and informative link to http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Likud-votes-to-oppose-Palestinian-state-500847 was deleted by the last anonymous revert without any attempt to discuss on TALK

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right to exist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The "State of Palestine" section lacks substance

The idea of a national "right to exist" is frequently discussed within the context of the Israel-Palestine debate, which I believe fully justifies the inclusion of a section for both states within this article; the idea of the legitimacy of Israel's right to exist, that of Palestine's right to exist, and balancing the two based on the conflicting interests of the respective leaderships of each entity form a major modern political topic.

The section on the Israeli right to exist, though seeming to convey the UN Partition Plan as the main basis for the legitimacy of the Israeli right to exist when the League of Nations' awarded mandate of Palestine expressed that the very purpose of the mandate was to put into effect the idea expressed in the Balfour Declaration, which, unlike the Partition Plan, was not a non-binding resolution, focuses heavily on the debate regarding the legitimacy of the Israeli right to exist, providing significant clarification regarding thoughts on a modern-day application of the right to exist.

Yet the section on the right to exist of the State of Palestine lacks this same substance. It, in fact, begins with an identical paragraph to that of the Israeli right to exist, a somewhat odd repetition for any readers interested in both of these sections.

As reported by The New York Times, in 1988 Yasser Arafat declared that the Palestinians accepted United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which would guarantee "the right to exist in peace and security for all".[40] In 1993, there was an official exchange of letters between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Chairman Arafat, in which Arafat declared that "the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid."[41]However, the actual wording of the revision only stated the provision would be removed at a future date; the non-recognition of Israel remains in the charter.[42][41]

In 2009 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanded the Palestinian Authority's acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which the Palestinian Authority rejected.[24] The Knesset plenum gave initial approval in May 2009 to a bill criminalizing the public denial of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, with a penalty of up to a year in prison.[25]

In 2011, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a speech to the Dutch parliament in the Hague that the Palestinian people recognize Israel's right to exist and they hope the Israeli government will respond by "recognizing the Palestinian state on the borders of the land occupied in 1967."

This is a large portion of the section, and has nothing to do with the right to exist of the State of Palestine and the debate behind it, focusing instead on the Israeli right to exist, which is irrelevant to that section. The section's last paragraph has the same problem. In fact, the only relevant information the section contains is the views of the Israeli government and populace (and, arguably, the quote from Barack Obama, though with no context provided I hardly see how that quote contributes anything meaningful to the section).

I believe the section could be drastically improved if changed to reflect the differing ideas and perspectives behind the extent of the Palestinian right to exist. Under international law, does the State of Palestine have the right to exist? Is this right widely recognized, or not? Who does recognize it, and who does not? What arguments are there for and against the legitimacy of this right? What would this right entail? All of this seems like relevant information excluded from the section in exchange for information that seems better suited for the "Israel" section.

Wikier1010 (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Section

For some reason, without discussion, the criticism section which formed part of this article for many years was removed. I have ressurected it, and I would politely request it not be deleted again without discussion, and agreement.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 23:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to. Your information is redundant. This section on Israel already includes the critics you added, namely Whitbeck, Hart and Carty. Do you want to add Chomsky as well? No problem, do it in Israel's section, there's no reason to have a separate section criticizing the right to exist just for Israel. You should pay more attention next time.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed. It currently consists of just one giant quote from Noam Chomsky whom is neither a historian nor an authority on this subject; that's the reason that this quote was previously removed. See: [1]. Why should the reader care about what a random philosopher has to say about a concept in political discourse? AlexEng(TALK) 01:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I moved Chomsky to Israel and trimmed it down to a sentence. However, I also think it is UNDUE and should be removed outright - Chomsky while a vocal critic, does not reach much beyond a very limited echo chamber.Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have reinstated it. The criticism section existed with Chomsky for over 10 years [[2]], and was deleted without discussion by one editor a year ago. Please respect the rules of civilised debate. Why do you reject criticism of the Right to Exist? Why do you claim Chomsky is not an authority on this subject? He is a highly respected linguist, has more than 40 degrees, and is an expert on the linguistics of the Arab-Israeli conflict.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 07:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand why you think criticism of the right to exist per se benefits from being put in the Israel section. Please can you explain this.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 07:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Chomsky frames his argument in relation to Israel. He also challenges the existence of the "right to exist" - saying essentially it was invented by Israel (or its supporters) circa the 70s (this seems to be inaccurate). While he gives the US and Mexico as an example - they are given to rebut Israel's "right to exist". In the interview, he is responding to his self-framed question - The question is: Are you biased against Israel? There’s a simple test: Do you think that Israel should have the same rights as any state in the international system?.
As to this being UNDUE - OK, Chomsky blurted this (somewhat inaccurate) statement in an interview (which is quite weaker than publishing it in a book or journal article) - is this covered by anyone else? Do academic WP:SECONDARY sources refer to Chomsky's position? If no one else, other than Chomsky himself in a random interview, refers to this position - then it is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes- he criticises the whole concept of 'right to exist'. I am interested in the truth, and accuracy. I have found one secondary source in 2 seconds which I hope satisfies you - [[3]]. This specific criticism was in the article for 10 years, and was removed without consensus. Chomsky has more qualifications than, I think, anyone else quoted in the article at the moment. I do not think it WP:UNDUE to have a criticism section, with serious critics.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 08:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You had me fooled for a moment - but www.foreignpolicyjournal.com (as opposed to the esteemed https://foreignpolicy.com) seems to be a rather fringe publication - see RSN on this. If that's all you got - it rather proves this is UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Chomsky is a major intellectual figure. He has more than 40 degrees, and is twice professor of linguistics. He has written on this subject for more than 50 years.[[4]] As I understand your arguments, they are predicated on the idea that there is a right to exist, and Israel has that right, hence you wish to hide criticism of the right to exist in the Israel section. Here are more sources - [[5]], Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments, p374 isbn=041510694X, Carlos Peregrín Otero - 1994, [[6]], [[7]]. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ (♥ Talk♥ ) 08:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

So what he is linguist and not scholar in the topic of nationalism his view is only WP:DUE if WP:RS publishes his view--Shrike (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, he's more than a linguist, but I agree with the current writing. Separate critisism/controversy sections are best avoided if possible, they tend to get suckier as time goes by. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolution 242: claims it does not make

The Section titled 'Israel' contains a line which asserts an unverifiable claim regarding Resolution 242,'But in November, Egypt accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which implied acceptance of Israel's right to exist.' This is not accurate as UN Res.242 makes no claims about the (internationally unrecognised) legal position of a right to exist in regards to Israel. This claim needs removing or sourcing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibblebobble2 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

States and Peoples

The lede includes the following sentence:

"Unlike self-determination, the right to exist is an attribute of states rather than of peoples."

The sentence offers no attribution and has no support elsewhere in the article. Indeed, the article includes a number of examples of 'nations' that are not 'states', but might be referred to as 'peoples' (e.g. Kashmiri people, Kurdish people, Basque). I therefore recommend merging the sentence with the one that follows to read:

"The 'right to exist' differs from self-determination in that it is not a right recognized in international law." Te Karere (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Palestine's right to exist

Despite a one off IP address's only unsigned edit stating he removed "anti-semitic quotes from well known Israel bashers as they introduce bias to the article" it is clear lack of balance remains as it has done for years in this article. At least half of the State of Palestine section refers to Palestinian recognition of Israel's "right to exist" rather than Palestine's right to exist. Where Palestine's right to exist is rejected by Israeli politicians such as Danny Danon they simply "oppose the creation" of a Palestinian state suggesting that Israel, but not Palestine, has a right to exist and giving more legitimacy to the Israeli view. It is clear that to uphold NPOV similar language be used to describe the stances of both sides

Unsigned but in the same spirit as several comments above, it would seem that the "right to exist" is more of a rhetorical right than something real. If instead one takes the more modern approach that people have a right to exist rather than states then that leads to self determination as an outcome, more in keeping with modern day principles.Selfstudier (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality, locking

Isn't this very flagrantly in the form of an essay or editorial? Even the introductory section is as such. What are the grounds for its permanent locking other than to protect this? Zusty001 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

On grounds, see [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Quality, locking

Isn't this very flagrantly in the form of an essay or editorial? Even the introductory section is as such. What are the grounds for its permanent locking other than to protect this? Zusty001 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

On grounds, see [9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 that sme wikipedia editors have always strongly resisted the use of the term "right to exist" being applied to Palestine and the fact that so many Israeli leaders reject Palestine's right to exist. It seems to be claimed that the term "right to exist" can only be applied to a current state (Israel) and not to what they seem to regard as only a future state (Palestine) - in the case of Palestine they prefer less emotive terms such as "opposed the creation" of Palestine. Their rationale for this distinction is not clear to me even if one accepts the view that the Palestinian state isn't current. It isn't a distinction Obama seemed to recognise either when he applied the term "right to exist" to both states. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality, locking

Isn't this very flagrantly in the form of an essay or editorial? Even the introductory section is as such. What are the grounds for its permanent locking other than to protect this? Zusty001 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

On grounds, see [10]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
the lock was introduced in Nov 17 after an edit war and ensured editors were successful in ensuring the term "right to exist" should not be used when describing Israeli leaders who reject Palestine's right to exist, as I described in the link above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 82.11.163.59 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 that sme wikipedia editors have always strongly resisted the use of the term "right to exist" being applied to Palestine and the fact that so many Israeli leaders reject Palestine's right to exist. It seems to be claimed that the term "right to exist" can only be applied to a current state (Israel) and not to what they seem to regard as only a future state (Palestine) - in the case of Palestine they prefer less emotive terms such as "opposed the creation" of Palestine. Their rationale for this distinction is not clear to me even if one accepts the view that the Palestinian state isn't current. It isn't a distinction Obama seemed to recognise either when he applied the term "right to exist" to both states. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Quality, locking

Isn't this very flagrantly in the form of an essay or editorial? Even the introductory section is as such. What are the grounds for its permanent locking other than to protect this? Zusty001 (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

On grounds, see [11]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
the lock was introduced in Nov 17 after an edit war and ensured editors were successful in ensuring the term "right to exist" should not be used when describing Israeli leaders who reject Palestine's right to exist, as I described in the link above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 82.11.163.59 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 that sme wikipedia editors have always strongly resisted the use of the term "right to exist" being applied to Palestine and the fact that so many Israeli leaders reject Palestine's right to exist. It seems to be claimed that the term "right to exist" can only be applied to a current state (Israel) and not to what they seem to regard as only a future state (Palestine) - in the case of Palestine they prefer less emotive terms such as "opposed the creation" of Palestine. Their rationale for this distinction is not clear to me even if one accepts the view that the Palestinian state isn't current. It isn't a distinction Obama seemed to recognise either when he applied the term "right to exist" to both states. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Nations versus Sovereign states

The introductory sentence reads "the right to exist is said to be an attribute of nations". The word "nations" is hyperlinked to Sovereign state. I would like to link "nations" to Nation, because that is the word used. If the intent is to read "the right to exist is said to be an attribute of sovereign states", it would be useful to justify and amend accordingly. Te Karere (talk)

There being no dispute, I have made the amendment as outlined above. Te Karere (talk)

Northern Ireland

This article implies that the Nineteenth Amendment to the Irish Constitution and the Good Friday Agreement represents a recognition of Northern Ireland's right to exist, but neither do this. Both explicitly state that a majority vote in the North would lead to Irish reunification, and therefore the abolition of "Northern Ireland" as a political entity. This section seems to confuse "Right to exist" with "self determination."

NPOV in term "right to exist"

Clear NPOV in the fact that the emotive term "right to exist" is used 18 times in the Israel section whereas of the 5 times its used in the Palestine section its, again, referring to Israel's right to exist on 4 of those occasions - not Palestine's right to exist. It statses "Naftali Bennett and Danny Danon have repeatedly rejected the creation of a Palestinian state" not that they deny Palestine's right to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.163.59 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2 that sme wikipedia editors have always strongly resisted the use of the term "right to exist" being applied to Palestine and the fact that so many Israeli leaders reject Palestine's right to exist. It seems to be claimed that the term "right to exist" can only be applied to a current state (Israel) and not to what they seem to regard as only a future state (Palestine) - in the case of Palestine they prefer less emotive terms such as "opposed the creation" of Palestine. Their rationale for this distinction is not clear to me even if one accepts the view that the Palestinian state isn't current. It isn't a distinction Obama seemed to recognise either when he applied the term "right to exist" to both states. 82.11.163.59 (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Remove Northern Ireland

This article explicitly distinguishes between a right to exist and self-determination, but then wrongly implies that the Good Friday Agreement gives Northern Ireland a write to exist. The GFA does the exact opposite- it directly gives conditions for the dissolution of Northern Ireland and the territory's incorporation into the Republic, those being if a majority in both jurisdictions vote for a UI in a referendum. Neither the Irish nor British government holds that Northern Ireland has a right to exist. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Is no one going to address this point? The article is locked so I can't edit it directly, I had assumed that there would be someone watching the talk page and update the article based on input here. ComradeKublai (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a source that can be cited? Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
See the section "iii. The Good Friday Agreement, consent and self-determination" in page 4 of this source (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution_unit/files/185_a_northern_ireland_border_poll_0.pdf). It says that the signatories (the British and Irish governments), "recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status, whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with Great Britain or a sovereign united Ireland." This is an expression of self-determination for NI, which is explicitly laid out elsewhere in the document as well, and which directly contrasts with the definition of a right to exist given in this article ("Unlike self-determination, the right to exist is an attribute of states rather than of peoples"). No one recognises Northern Ireland's right to exist as an entity; the only reason it seems to be included is one clumsily worded source that refers to the pre-GFA Irish constitution as a "flat denial of Northern Ireland's right to exist." All parties who signed onto the GFA, with its explicit provision for a referendum to abolish Northern Ireland, similarly flatly deny its right to exist in the context of this article's definition of the term.
The current wording of the Northern Ireland section of this article heavily implies that in 1998 the Irish constitution was changed to accept NI's right to exist as an entity. As I explained above, it did not. No signatory to the GFA can support NI's right to exist (as it is defined in this article) without repudiating the treaty. ComradeKublai (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the entry to reflect that the original denial by way of the Irish constitution was not just deleted but changed and detailed that change. Selfstudier (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Now it's somewhat better, but the paragraph still implies that Ireland somehow recognizes Northern Ireland's right to exist through its layout. The first sentence says that the Republic's constitution formerly denied NI's right to exist, and then details an amendment to it in the GFA. While each individual piece of that is correct, the average reader will walk away with the impression that the Republic now recognises NI's right to exist, which it does not due to reasons I explained above and which you don't seem to have an issue with.
If the NI section is going to remain it should say something like "Both the Irish and British governments recognise Northern Ireland's right to self determination, which negates any right to exist." ComradeKublai (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I can add the ucl source / quote you gave above if that would help. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
That would improve it, but I don't understand why a section on NI exists in this article at all. There is no entity that recognises its "right to exist."
If you're dead set on keeping the section you should at least make the difference between a right to self determination (what the sources are actually taking about) and a right to exist explicit. The source in the section that refers to a "right to exist" for NI seems to just be talking about self-determination in a fairly clumsy way. As this article describes in its header a right to self-determination is an explicit negation of a right to exist, with no entity recognising the latter. ComradeKublai (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The entry exists because someone produced a reliable source stating that the Irish constitution as was, denied NI right to exist. It is not that I am "dead set" on keeping the section. My personal opinion about that is irrelevant, as is yours, WP goes by RS. You have produced a RS stipulating the view now of the British and Irish governments and I will put that in. It seems to me that this clarifies the situation sufficiently.
To be clear, I have previously stated my personal view that "right to exist" particularly when used by politicians is more a rhetorical device than anything else and I also agree that self determination is the more modern expression of what these politicians are trying to say but the article is here so c'est la vie. Selfstudier (talk) 21:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that, my whole argument was that the structure of the paragraph falsely implies that the Irish constitution somehow acknowledges a right to exist even if the text itself is without error. I don't know who you mean by "these politicians," as the source given is an author who only briefly touches on the Troubles, isn't quoting politicians, and seems to be the only source that uses the term "right to exist" in relation to NI. Why not just add a sentence saying "The signatories to the Good Friday Agreement acknowledge Northern Ireland's right to self determination, which is distinct from and negates a right for the province to exist" or something to that effect?
I also noticed a second problem, and I'm not sure if if it was put there before or if it is a new innovation. The article describes the Troubles as "a violent conflict between Irish nationalists and Ulster unionists from 1969 to 1998," which is incorrect in that it totally leaves out the role of British state forces in the conflict. The concentration of British forces relative to the population was the highest relative to the civilian population of any guerilla war in modern history,[2] so calling it a conflict between Irish nationalists and Unionists is effectively a lie by omission. You could change it to "A violent conflict involving Irish nationalists, Ulster Unionists, and British state forces."
Overall the inclusion of NI here is a poor and NPOV attempt to fit the Troubles into a framework largely particularly to the Israel-Palestine conflict, in an attempt to imbue NI with a "right to exist" that no entity has ever acknowledged. ComradeKublai (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC) ComradeKublai (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, see if someone else will help, I have other stuff I have to do and I believe the amendments I made dealt with your original point. Selfstudier (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Bernadotte_plan_text_September_1948.htm "(b) A Jewish State called Israel exists in Palestine and there are no sound reasons for assuming that it will not continue to do so."
  2. ^ Moore, Riley M. (1 October 2013). "Counterinsurgency force ratio: strategic utility or nominal necessity". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 24 (5): 857–878. doi:10.1080/09592318.2013.866423. S2CID 143467248.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_exist/Archive_2&oldid=1257163302"