Talk:Greater Israel

Clarity issues

It seems like the article discusses modern Israeli politics, but clearly it refers to the time of the Irgun and the British mandate. --GHcool 05:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God your dense.

-G

from the nile to the euphrates

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg claims there was never a belief by any Jewish leader that Israel should include land from the nile to the euphrates, that was pure propaganda. Chapter V of Lustick's excellent book and the writings of Avraham Stern himself give the lie to this assertion. —Charles P._(Mirv) 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A few may have invoked the passage in a speech or two, but no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates, the most hardline only supported including part of Jordan and a small portion of Syria, but today not even fringe extremists support this, your previous edit was extremely misleading.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates—You are wrong. The link I provided was to Stern's National Revival Principles—not simply an invocation of the passage in a speech or two. Ian Lustick documents others who advocated this position. This page from GlobalSecurity.org documents more. Here is a page from the Jewish Virtual Library confirming that such boundaries were among the Stern Gang's goals. All of these are reliable sources; when they say one thing and a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor says another, which do you think the article should follow? Do you have a single source confirming your assertion that no leader ever had such ambitions? —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yair stern wrote that the bibilical promise is the "homeland" of the Jewish people, not that he will pursue this as the nation. It's two different articles in the principles. Amoruso 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was under the impression that Lehi had quite different goals. However I still believe that we could make it more clear just how little the land is actually sought today, The most crazy and extreme view really held of Eretz Israel isto include Palestine, Israel, and most of Jordan. Do you disagree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rephrase it again soon. The third interpretation is not usually portrayed in Arab media, but rather used by Arab rhetorics. And Stern's views are barely worth mentioning. He was an insignificant figure in Zionist history, had only a few followers, and was a "lone wolf" operating as a terrorist rather than keeping in line with the Jewish population. Mentioning his bizzare views is like mentioning my uncle Moshe that also thinks about an Israeli state "from the nile to the euphrates".

--Gabi S. 10:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that he only had a few followers, I still think he was a signifigant figure. Perhaps we could put more emphasis on justs how much he was on the fringe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page, and moved Stern and Eldad to the introduction, clarifying that they were individual extremists. I hope it clears things up.

--Gabi S. 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a quick followup, why is the area roughly defined by Genesis 15:18-21 described as as alleged by anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups. I understand that it is not a mainstream notion to extend the state of Israels borders to this extent, but should the fictional account from Genesis not be mentioned? --Uncle Bungle 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of mainstream vs. opposition groups. There is no political movement in Israel today which suggests an expansion of the Israeli borders. Quite the contrary - the question is whether or not Israel should give up lands conquered in June 1967. Even the most extreme right-wing movements talk about Israel in the post-1967 borders and not beyond that. About the Biblical notion of the "promised land" - the problem is that no one can locate its actual borders, and all Biblical and archeological evidences suggest that the Israelite kingdoms never reached the Nile river nor most of the Euphrate delineation. Interpreting the Biblical text in the most extreme manner, and suggesting that Israel or the Zionist movement adhere to such interpretation is indeed anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propoganda. drork 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border. There might be some debate over the Nile, but the Euphrates is fairly easy. Now, regardless of the actual historical evidence, the fairy tale says "God gave the land to Abraham", and listed all these kingdoms. Anyway, I'm just asking, not trying to push POV. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about the mere Biblical text, then you can interpret it in several similar ways. It is hard to understand the exact context in which this text emerged. The term "river of Egypt" is indeed subject to at least three interpretation (the Nile itself, an ancient eastern extension of the Nile, or Wadi El-Arish). The term Prat (Euphrate) probably refers to the river known today by this name, but it might refer to a certain part of the river, rather than its entire length. And you are right of course - you cannot tag a plausible interpretation of the Biblical text "antisemite". drork 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So for the legend in the map, can we change the description to something like "One possible interpretaion of the biblical account, often used by anti-Semites"? --Uncle Bungle 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say "The widest possible borders of the promised land according to the Biblical account in Genesis". I sincerely don't think anti-semitism is relevant, as long as we present the map as one of the plausible interpretations of the Biblical text. drork 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border". There's nothign wrong in wanting it - but no one in Israel wants to starts wars in order to get them. That's the difference. Amoruso 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhmmn, well, there is something wrong with coveting thy neighbour, but thats totally out of the scope of Wikipedia. --Uncle Bungle 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong through certain glasses but not through others especially when you consider that states were created through conquering empire decisions and on what people see as their homeland - this is all around the globe. The importance is not to engage in hostilities and to live in peace it's true. Amoruso 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I strain my local political knowledge, I cannot think of any Israeli group that talks about parts of Egypt and Iraq as Eretz Yisrael. I can recall one strange story about Lubavitchers who went to Turkey with a xerox machine, placed it on the Euphrate bank, and photocopied certain sacred book (it wasn't the Bible, but a book valued in the Lubavitch community). Then they spread these books as printed in the outmost point of Eretz Yisrael. This is actually a curiousity, similar to the Lubavitchers' search of a proper crown to the Messiah. drork 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgable enough about Jewish history will know which parts are Eretz Israel and which not. The difference is that Cannan is more holier than Eretz Israel in general. When I say knowledable enough on this issue, in terms of political parties we're talking about some in the likud and the ichud leumi in general. There is a major conception between the two terms or rather between the Promised Land and the borders that David And Solomon aspired and reached at times and between what's regarded as Cannan which is the holiest place - includes western Palestine and also includes the Golan Heights. Amoruso 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

map discussions

this is racist nonsense

Irredentism often is. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

we need a map. Cameron Nedland 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

we need three. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The map is extreamly innacurate. The "river of Egypt" is the El- Arish river, not the Nile. The eastern border DOES NOT include all the Euphrates but only the very northern part.

Sources? —Aiden 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

River of Egypt: Gen. 15 NAHAR Mitsrayyim = NILE

               Num. 34 NAKHAL Mitsrayyim = Brook of Egypt ending in the Mediteranean Sea at El-Arish,
               the original southern border of Erets Yirael and Djund Falastin
               until the British redrew the border in favor of Egypt.

These maps are in controversy because they represent original research and have no sources. Sfarney (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

To the best if my knowledge, wadi el-Arish to the edge of the Euphrates is the grandest Jewish idea, as those were the borders of Solomonic Israel, and indeed the largest natural borders for the western crescent. The Baathist idea doesn't jive with geography - all states included the Nile or Euphrates river valleys; I'm not aware of any state which just included the length of one bank. The maps should clearly differentiate between the Baathist idea and the Jewish irredentist ideas. As it stands now, a quick glance could leave a reader with an incorrect idea as to the actual irredentist position. Perhaps introducing a map of Western Palestine and the Transjordan, maybe with the West Bank and Gaza Strip outlined, in addition [and above] the current map, would more clearly convey the idea. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is even any mention of the Euphrates it is referring to part of Syria not Iraq or Saudi Arabia, which was the greatest territorial extant in history, and the idea of reaching the nile comes completly from the propaganda of Arab governments. Even so, really the largest irredentalist idea that actually exists today, is inclusion of all the West bank, Gaza, Golan, and very small parts of Jordan and the Sinai, but that is an extreme fringe belief.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The current conclusion as to what the verses mean is unsourced OR. While some sources interpret the edge of the Nile delta (Pelusian branch - see Brook of Egypt) as being a border, I couldn't find any sources for significant portions of Egypt outside the Sinai, nor major parts of either Saudi Arabia or Iraq. While I couldn't find a detailed description of the northwestern border's limit along the Euphrates, that includes not having seen any indication that it expands as far as the passage infers. I'm removing the aforementioned parts, of course if a source is presented I should be reverted. Remember that the map included describes anti-Israeli propaganda and not biblical exegesis. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--- The major problem with the map is that the key is wrong. The red, orange, and yellow area are the anti-zionist definitions. The red and orange area is sort of what Betar claimed should be the boundary of Israel back in the 1920s (They never laid claim to the Sinai, and their proposed boundary did extend to both sides of the Jordan River but not the whole "Trans-Jordan" (now the country of Jordan). And, to those who currently preach of "Greater Israel" today basically mean the current recognized boundaries of the State of Israel, plus the West Bank (sometimes referred to as "Judea and Samaria") and possibly the Golan Heights (although this is doubtful).

The truth is I'm not so sure that the article should include "anti-zionist" definitions, nor even the Betar definition since this was a proposal in the pre-Israel days and has never been referred to since Independence. I think it adds confusion about the term Greater Israel.

To understand the concept of Greater Israel today, you need to understand that the historic land of Israel was more connected to the hills of the West Bank than to the coastal land that present day Israel now occupies. To most advocates of Greater Israel, they see the West Bank as "historic Israel", and therefore must be made part of the state.

Since it had little historical relationship to ancient Israel, the Sinai never had much attraction to advocates of Greater Israel except as buffer territory, and probably was the reason it was so easily given up for a peace treaty with Egypt.

Region of king David?

The map proporting to show the region controlled by king David is clearly inaccurate - Israel and its people at no point controlled that extent of territory - I could accept it as a version presented in some story or religious text if it were so marked (though I see no place in the Bible where it states that David controlled any such territory).

actually it's common knowledge and in the bible about david and solomon's time. "ruled over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from Tiphsah to Gaza; he was at peace with all his neighbors" (I Kings, 4:24) . Of course it's according to the bible, since that's the main source for David's kingdom, and this is in fact a biblical idea too - greater israel. And it also says in the intro "Biblical boundaries". Anyway, what was written was just the caption from bible history. Amoruso 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So we're taking he bible as fully accurate source with no other historical references? 96.31.177.52 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Greater Israel"

Would someone please give a justification for spending such a large proportion of this entry to Daniel Pipes' classification of linguistic usage of the term "Greater Israel"? And further, in what sense is he a good authority on this issue? PJ 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperzionism

International Hyperzionist Movement “Bead Artseinu” (For the Homeland) pursue a goal of renaissance of Greater Israel in its biblical borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. 1 2--83.237.222.170 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Israel

Yeah, is it really fair to say that Arab Nationalists are the ones who think there are Zionists who want this? It seems like there are some Zionists who ARE that vehement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.168.12 (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear unsigned, although you are definitely right, Wikipedia has a policy of not giving undue weight to fringe opinions. Therefore, to include this opinion in the article, you have to find at least one published reliable source. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe even at least one functioning website ... Tomer^talk 19:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote this article to shorten and clarify it. This topic is minor; please keep the article short. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The topic isn't as minor as your portray it. It is the center of a major world hot-spot. Without understanding the Jewish claim to Greater Israel / Eretz Yisrael HaShelemah, you can't understand a central element of Middle East and World politics. --75.239.143.242 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute: definition of "Greater Israel" -- comments please

In the article Land of Israel, Jaakobou and I have reached the three revert point and request your opinion. Briefly:

• Jaakobou, if I understand him correctly, argues that "greater Israel" refers to the Genesis 15 definition of the Land of Israel.
• I wrote that the expression "Greater Israel" is used by the political opponent of Likud to designate the current state of Israel with annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

The Likud calls this territory "Land of Israel". Hence, this issue is relevant to that article. In an attempt to convince Jaakobou, I quoted three sources, including Israel's PM Olmert, then US SoS James Baker, and NYT editorialist Ethan Bronner, all using this expression. Jaakobou reverted this text too. Without resorting to a formal RFC, I invite you to voice your opinion on the subject. Please post your comments in Talk:Land of Israel. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I only now noticed this thread. Anyways, it might be good to actually start an RfC as there seems to be a huge discrepancy between English terminology and Hebrew. I'd be interested in opening this for the wider community's perspectives. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You are both right, and actually there are several other definitions. It a matter of context. Some definitions went out of use with the change in geo-political circumstances, some are still used depending on the specific context. DrorK (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Website of New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies

On its website (http://www.nswjbd.org/) the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies has a page on the Geography of Israel. It is the only reference in the article where an organisation purporting to represent a significant group of Jews outside Israel (more than 45,00 in New South Wales) has expressed a view on what constitutes Israel. I tried to make the paragraph I added as bland as possible. I agree that the inclusion of the reference to the article by Beinart may have been unnecessary.

The fact that the Board has expressed a view is a useful addition to the article.Trahelliven (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In their site term "Greater Israel" is not used so your addition is WP:OR--Shrike (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:NPOV requires that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" are fairly represented "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Is there any evidence based on independent secondary sources reporting the view of nswjbd.org that their notion of what constitutes Israel is a significant viewpoint and therefore qualifies for inclusion in any article other than perhaps their own article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Strike

It is true that in its website the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies does not use the term Greater Israel. However what its website appears to include in the term Israel is identical with what is called Greater Israel in paragraph 1 of the article, i.e. State of Israel, West Bank, and Gaza Strip.

My nick is Shrike.Nevertheless if the term is explicitly not used its WP:OR.--Shrike (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shrike

If I had said that the website implied that Israel had annexed the West Bank and/or Gaza, in the absence of a reliable reference that would amount to original research. I deliberately did not to that. If a reader of the paragraph should come to that conclusion himself, so be it. If I had said that the map was a map of Greater Israel rather than Israel, that would amount to original research. Again, I deliberately did not do so.

Have I misrepresented what the website actually said? Trahelliven (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland

The websites of two other constituents of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (http://www.ecaj.org.au/) appear to take the same view of what constitutes Israel as the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, i.e. those of Western Australia (http://www.nswjbd.org/Jewish-Community-Council-of-Western-Australia-INC-/default.aspx) and South Australia (http://www.nswjbd.org/Jewish-Community-Council-of-South-Australia/default.aspx). New South Wales, Western Australia and South Australia together contain approximately half the Jewish population of Australia. The opinion of the representatives of such a large number of Jews must be significant. Further this is not original research: I am just reporting what is on three websites.Trahelliven (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Greater Israel

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greater Israel's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "haaretz":

• From History of Israel: Greenfeter, Yael (4 November 2010). "Israel in shock as Munich killers freed". Haaretz. Retrieved 26 July 2013.
• From Flag of Israel: "Giant Israeli flag breaks world record for largest in world". Haaretz. Associated Press. 25 November 2007. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
• From Yitzhak Shamir: Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir dies at 96 Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
• From Muslim supporters of Israel: The many faces of Dr. Qanta Ahmed, Haaretz

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

None of the above. Ref. found (well-concealed) in another article. Added. Done. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Maps without Source

The maps contain far more information, and more specific information, than the words and the sources. They may be original research, or simply taken from a source not cited. WP:NOR. The editor who uploaded them has apparently left Wikipedia. The maps should be removed or replace. Sfarney (talk) 11:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150504194404/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100E285257028006C0BC5 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/36917473237100e285257028006c0bc5

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greater Israel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050901055839/http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick15.html to http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051204101002/http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick17.html to http://www.ssc.upenn.edu/polisci/faculty/data/lustick/for_the_land/lustick17.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"Currently"

Currently, the most common definition of the land encompassed by the term is the territory of the State of Israel together with the Palestinian territories.

Citation needed. Half of search results are the conspiracy version, anyway. -- 95.90.219.98 (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

The comment below seems unsigned and has no reply button so I leave my comment here but I only wanted to provide a source for the debate that they mentioned as it seems that the content of the debate might provide some clarity as to disputes about the term "Greater Israel" on the wiki page. I do not intend to insert it myself but, for anyone who feels interested, you can find it here: DEBATE: Israel-Palestine w/ Noam Chomsky & Rudy Rochman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89GVWT-Dbys Hope that helps. AnthonyTF (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

In an online debate on February 8th of 2021 about Israeli policies, linguist and activist Noam Chomsky and Israeli rights activist Rudy Rochman spent a significant portion of their time trying to resolve their conflicting notions of what is usually meant by the term "Greater Israel".

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2021

Reference 3 is producing a display error due to improper formatting. Please replace the existing citation template with this:

<ref>{{Cite book|last=Morris|first=Benny|author-link=Benny Morris|title=Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1998|publisher=Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group |year=2011 |isbn=9780307788054 |page=138 Quote: "No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning. … Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country"}}</ref>

Thank you. Basketcase2022 (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Basketcase2022: Thank you for your contribution. You providing the exact wiki-source to replace it with is very appreciated! The citation has been corrected per request. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

In academia Hillel Weiss, a professor at Bar-Ilan University, has promoted the "necessity" of rebuilding the Temple and of Jewish rule over Greater Israel.[20][21][dead link][22]

None of these links say this.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Under the first image, the word "halachaic" is used. The proper word is halachic. Hereiszee (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good catch! Lizthegrey (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

the promised land and why they lost it...

The Bible also talks profusely about why the jewish people WOULD LOSE that promised land, and for what reasons, the 2 destructions of Jerusalem (last one in 70 a.D. at the hand of the Romans, event prophesied in advance by none other than Jesus Christ), says when they would recover it, and the huge battle of Armageddon that is to come where they will be punished yet again until a REMNANT finally understands who their Messiah was/is.. Nowhere in this Wikipedia article is specified all that, and it should be. Tell us what was promised, but also tell us WHY THEY LOST IT, and reference the very specific biblical quotes. So, again, we know roughly from the Bible the geographic location of that promised land, but the Bible is also VERY SPECIFIC, both in Old Testament and New Testament, why they LOST IT. Spytrdr (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"Debunked" POV

The Israeli flag controversy section includes this sentence:

However, both Zionists and Anti-Zionists have debunked this [claim].

To say they have "debunked" the alternative interpretation of the symbolism of those stripes (as a possible from-the-Nile-to-the-Euphrates dog whistle) is blatant POV. They have certainly denied this, but to say they have "debunked" this is charged language and highly partisan POV-pushing. "Debunked" is also {{not in source}}. "Deny" is in the cited source.
NB: The cited source meanwhile is highly partisan, which to its credit it discloses on its about page, q.v.:
"The Middle East Forum, a think tank founded in 1994 by Daniel Pipes, promotes American interests in the Middle East and protects Western values from Middle Eastern threats. In the Middle East, we focus on ways to defeat radical Islam; work for Palestinian acceptance of Israel; develop strategies to contain Iran; and deal with advancing anarchy. Domestically, the Forum emphasizes the danger of lawful Islamism; protects the freedoms of anti-Islamist authors, and activists; and works to improve Middle East studies."
It is not clear that a source this strongly partisan would be accepted for any other topic, and one might ask why it is acceptable here. It seems dubious at best that a similarly strongly partisan source would be accepted if beholden to the opposite POV.
Worse, the way that sentence attributes the action of "debunking" is very wishy-washy and potentially misleading: Upon a cursory reading, "both Zionists and Anti-Zionists" would suggest everybody involved in the dispute. But actually, it's entirely unclear, and neither explicitly stated nor cited whether only some Zionists and some anti-Zionists have "debunked" (denied) the claim, whether a majority of each respective group has "debunked" (denied) the claim, or whether indeed this sentence means to say all significant Zionists and anti-Zionists "debunk" (deny) the claim. If the latter was intended here, then that's clearly false: The very fact there is a controversy means that at the very least some anti-Zionists embrace the view that this is a dog whistle corresponding to the beliefs of some Zionists. Of course, by its very nature, the essential elements of the dispute at least run very close to conspiracy theory, Russell's teapot, and questions of falsifiability and proving a negative. However, the current phrasing is highly partisan towards one view, and this high partisanship has been in that section from its inception. When I read "debunked", I suspected someone had edited that in later, but that's not the case: The original contributor of that section used this POV language. ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

PS: For an example how the same ground can be covered much better, this section (of another article) addresses a closely related matter, and as of this writing covers the topic without any such blatant POV-pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReadOnlyAccount (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. Pipes is not a reliable source. Danny Rubenstein's opinion is well-informed and I kept it. I don't know of a reliable source giving an opinion in favor of the claim. Zero^talk 10:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement. Rereading that section the way it is now, I think what might still deserve further attention is the phrasing "Conspiracy theorists have suggested...". The "Conspiracy theorists" attribution in particular appears to be uncited; if this were unprotected, I would have stuck a {{cn}} onto that term. This phrasing also strikes me as inherently POVish – it might still be true, but IMHO that deserves a higher standard of scrutiny to establish. I would probably have said something like "Critics of Israel [or the present State of Israel] have suggested [or contend]...".

This all being said, in looking at the current source [29] now, I was struck by how Rubinstein's main point in his 2004 article, that all these views were merely proof of Palestinian "bitterness" (and little else) does not look like it has stood the test of time particularly well in light of current events, to include documented and ongoing Israeli actions, and now openly and officially stated Israeli intentions. If your official representatives openly say they want to do X, and you are in the process of doing X, does that make the previously-denied suggestion that something on your flag looks like an X-shaped dog whistle seem more like a baseless conspiracy theory or less so?

Of course, perhaps insidiously, the scarlet-letter association with "conspiracy theorists" is never quite falsifiable or deniable. I could contend that (an unspecified quantity of not otherwise specified) "conspiracy theorists" share your views, any number of views, and given that there are billions of humans out there who entertain conspiracy theories to a greater or lesser extent, there might well be such persons out there, and their posts might even be discoverable with a sufficiently aggressive social media search AI, but alert analysts must understand that such rodent copulation doesn't really lend much credence or relevance to the slur. Better to be concrete: Who said what when?

On the other hand, contrary to the common connotation, not all conspiracy theories are baseless. Conspiracies exist, and theorising about them is an important antidote to those who aren't co-conspirators. I don't know if dog-whistle considerations did inform or contribute towards the choice of the present flag design, or if that alleged symbolism is coincidence, which is not inconceivable. I do know that regardless of what the flag was designed to say or what different people think it says, we can watch what those who bear it do. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)