Talk:Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Recreation of merged article

[edit]

This article is a recreation of the article Calls for the destruction of Israel, which was determined to be a POVFORK and rightfully merged (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel_(2nd_nomination)). If we want to recreate this article, it should be done by consensus. What has changed? VR (Please ping on reply) 04:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a hopelessly POV article.VR (Please ping on reply) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's scope and content look pretty different, to be honest. Just a heads-up, deletions should go through proper discussion and a deletion nomination, not done solo. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was quite POV, and often poorly sourced. I've edited it as best I can for now. It desperately needs more sources. Lewisguile (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why this deserves its own separate article as opposed to the subsection that is already a redirect from Calls for the destruction of Israel? That was deemed to be a POVFork and merged. This relatively newly created article seems to be an attempt to resuscitate that article as a concept, it is the same as the previous topic, except now with a narrower scope (not just "calls for the destruction of Israel" but calls for the destruction of Israel by one state in particular). It seems on its face that the main reason this article exists at all as it stands is simply to attempt to circumvent the previous decision. After all, what other reason is there for this to exist, separately from the previous Calls for the destruction of Israel (now merged) on the one hand, or Iran-Israel relations on the other?
There's also, separately a POV issue in use of the term "destruction" here. As a subsection of another article, it's not a big issue, and is counterbalanced by its place in the context of a broader view of the topic. As a title for its own article though, we do have to pay more attention to such uses of language.
"Destruction" implies or at least connotes violent/military destruction, of the land and/or people, in the territory encompassing the Israeli state (however those borders are defined). However the first line of the article states "The Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy doctrine includes calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state." That is to say, the scope of the article includes within it not just a plotted/planned military destruction (the image evoked by the title), but any expression of an idea that Israel should not be a Jewish state, that Palestinian Arabs should be enfranchised with equal rights, or that Israel should be a constitutionally egalitarian, secular and/or binational state (or trinational, if national identity is codified along religious rather than ethno-racial lines). Using "destruction of Israel" as an umbrella for that is misleading. Having just checked, that is not later language that has been added; the article was created just under 2 weeks ago, and the first revision opens in much the same way: The Destruction of Israel in Iranian discourse refers to a campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran aimed at destroying Israel as a Jewish entity. A "campaign aimed at [...] destroying Israel as a Jewish Entity" is a similar (if considerably more inflammatory) way to describe "statements that Israel should not be a Jewish state".
For an article whose scope from the outset includes any position against Israel as a Jewish State (rather than as a state of all its citizens, with equal national and civil rights for all those that live under its authority) on the one hand, all the way to violence, that's a fairly tendentious title to choose (and seems to willfully conflate the two also, and anything in between). I don't see much reason why this article should be kept at all, as it seems like an obvious POVFORK, but were to it be kept, it should be given an appropriately NPOV title, and have its scope clear defined in its opening lines also. (Is it about Iranian hostility to Israel, Iranian lack of recognition of Israel, Iranian lack of recognition that the Jewish people have a right to a state in the Levant, about Iranian military policy towards Israel, about Iranian "rejection of Israel's legitimacy" as the second paragraph has it, about the Axis of Resistance and broader Iranian military strategy toward Israel?) This should be made clear, and a NPOV title chosen that does cover the article's scope, such as Israel in Iranian Policy or Iranian opposition to the State of Israel or something along those lines. Or if restricted in scope to military policy, a title that reflects that, and a complete re-write also. --Tomatoswoop (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see somehow I missed that there is an ongoing AfD. Well, I will add a relevant comment to that discussion then. I'll leave this here, as some of these points are off-topic to an AfD, but, should this article remain, are worth leaving here --Tomatoswoop (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2025

[edit]

In the "See also" section, add a link to the article War of annihilation. 94.252.74.86 (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "War of annihilation" is not sufficiently related to the subject of this article. Day Creature (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Day Creature: In what way? From the lead sentence of that article,
A war of annihilation (German: Vernichtungskrieg) or war of extermination is a type of war in which the goal is the complete annihilation of a state, a people or an ethnic minority through genocide or through the destruction of their livelihood.
On the surface, an example of that is precisely the subject of the current article. In your mind, is there something in the Iranian policies about the destruction of Jewish Israel that doesn't rise to the level of "complete annihilation"? Is there something about Jews in Israel that don't constitute a "state" or "people"? Is it the "obligation" to provide support to Palestinian "mujahideen", policy seeking the annihilation of another state, &c. don't constitute acts of war? or was there some other angle I'm missing? (Fair enough that the other article currently seems extremely focused on Germany, but that doesn't affect the actual WP:SCOPE/WP:TOPIC that its namespace and lead cover.) — LlywelynII 20:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, Iran is not engaged in a war of annihilation against Israel, and does not intend or desire to fight such a war. Iran may be opposed to the existence of the political entity of Israel in its current form (as a Zionist state), but that is not at all the same thing as wanting to exterminate its population. Including the link would be misleading and inflammatory. Day Creature (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatantly false 2601:147:4981:BE9C:F832:9FC7:6CC7:DC6F (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight regarding Jewish state?

[edit]

There needs more sources for "as a Jewish state". Isn't it destruction of Israel, regardless of it being a Jewish state or not? --MikutoH talk! 23:53, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is in the news and discourse, it’s important to get things right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C684:4BC0:8056:477D:41ED:9B4C (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the talk page because that is such a (to WP:AGF) badly confused note for the page to have. Of course it's Israel in its current form as a Jewish state.
The 'sensible' objection would be that the name Israel can only mean a Jewish state in the SE Levant and any Arab state would have to be named Palestine. That's just a poorly taken objection. We don't call 中国 Zhongguo or Central Country in English; it's China. It's (a) perfectly possible that an Arab Palestinian state could continue to be called Israel by some (given the politics, extremely obnoxious) English speakers. It's actually extremely likely. Iran would object to the name but not the state. More to the point, (b) if the current state of Israel had a Come to Jesus moment and suddenly abandoned all formal support of Judaism and provided all Palestinians a right of return, full citizenship, and resolution of all property disputes on terms so generous as to be unquestionably fair... Iran would continue to be displeased by the Jews' prior behavior and continuing existence but would not be nearly as hostile to the now majority Arab state during the few weeks it would take to officially change its name to Palestine.
The entire article is full of support for the idea that it's the Jewishness of Israel, second-class treatment of Arab Israelis, and exclusion of Palestinians that Iran rails against. (Take, inter alia, any statement and source in the current #Supreme leaders section about their goals and rationales for opposing Israel.) Iran does not want to destroy the territory of Israel and it wouldn't want to destroy an Arab state on that territory. It's extremely difficult for some editors to conceive of an "Israel" that wouldn't be a Jewish state (and fair enough) but the tag is tendentious in the extreme and should be removed. — LlywelynII 20:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>Of course it's Israel in its current form as a Jewish state
Everything you claim here about Iran no longer being hostile to a nicer Israel is speculative and contradicts the policies and statements of the Iranian regime. Some examples off the top of my head, Rafsjani: “If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists' strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything”
Clearly he is not talking about destroying oppressive structures in Israel, he is talking about destroying the people.
Khameini praising the Nova massacre: https://x.com/khamenei_ir/status/1710752170096701778
Iran’s targeting civilians with rockets (all deaths in the current war have been civilians).
Iran’s support for hamas who's leadership has often mentioned extermination or deportation for the inhabitants of Israel Palestine.
There is enough here to discuss Iran’s policy of destroying (exterminating or removing) the people of Israel, not this “as a jewish state” projection, which there is no evidence for. 2600:4040:9260:5C00:4CE8:D0AE:26FF:9DA9 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can the topic sentence be too much weight? This makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:5A15:0:0:0:5 (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is this: the title of the article is currently Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy and not Position of the Iranian government on Zionism
The word "destruction" implies a violent destruction of a country, but the first line of the article (and much of the rest of the article) then immediately defines its scope to be about whether Iranians agree that Israel should be a Jewish ethnostate or not (vs "a state for all its citizens", which has been a traditional objection to Israel as it exists today, even among the left in Israeli society even, though it's fringe today). Now, to be clear, I am not trying to imply that every Iranian government officials advocate for some sort of liberal humanist egalitarian view of the levant advocating for a secular binational democracy there lol, but, nevertheless, you can't just title an article "Destruction of Israel" and then immediately make it clear that the article isn't about destruction per se, but any advocacy for anything other than Jewish ethnocracy. You're free to draw the line between advocacy for the end of a constitutional settlement that privileges one ethnic group over another being a de facto advocacy for its destruction if that's your political view - wikipedia cannot. That'd be like me titling an article Destruction of America in Liberal Politics, and then the first sentence is "Liberal Politics in the United States includes calling for the destruction of America through opening the Southern Border and promotion of homosexuality, which...". That's a bait and switch, you can't do that. That might be your view, and it's well within your right to hold that view, but you can't inject that into the editorial voice of wikipedia Tomatoswoop (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 21 June 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Destruction if Israel in Iranian policy is NOT a point of view on Legitimacy of the State of Israel! It is a possible reaction to a point of view that Israel is not legitimate, but that is NOT the only reason that one might favor the destruction of Israel and it is likely not the reason in the case of Iran.

I suggest that a new section be added to this page of the following form.

Reason for Policy of Destruction of Israel

[edit]

While leaders of Iran have certainly argued against the right of the state of Israel to exist, there is good reason to believe that actual motivation for this policy is more practical: a desire to exert influence with the public in Arab states and to undermine their own regimes. [1] Iranian leaders, like any authoritarians, also hope to maintain control over their own population by positing and maintaining an external threat[2]. Another possible reason is Israel's association with the West, in particular being seen as a Western outpost within the Middle East, making it a natural target in Iran's quest for world dominance.[3] Finally, Iran's version of Shiia Islam views the Jewish state as an impediment to their spiritual destiny in the form of the return of Imam Al Mahdi[4]

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

Steven ganz (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Why are Iran and Israel sworn enemies?, Shabnam von Hein, June 13, 2025, https://www.dw.com/en/iran-israel-attacks-hezbollah-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-islamic-revolution/a-68780605
  2. ^ Twenty questions (and esxpert answers) on the Israel-Iran war, Raz Zimmt, Atlantic Council
  3. ^ The One Reason Iran Can't Let Isreael Exist, Unpacked, https://youtube.com/watch?v=x34GvyQedy8
  4. ^ Documentary Times, The Endless Rift: Iran vs Israel---A Clash of Religious Ideologies, April 22, 2024, https://documentarytimes.com/iran-vs-israel

Deletion is not justify

[edit]

i ve just noticed that there were an attempt of deleting this article from wikipedia. this is absolutely not justify. Judeen (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see the Guide to deletion Destinyokhiria 💬 20:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it should not be deleted GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It makes statements about what Iran govt policy is but but fails to quote them. 92.40.205.118 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of the quotes for him have sources do they not quote him in those? And if they don't then those could be discussed and other sources found if they do quote him or the quotes deleted the page doesn't need to be deleted because of that GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted for the extensive reasons explained by Tomatoswoop in the topic "recreation of merged article" above. The article simply doesn't stand on its own. 2405:6E00:250:3D56:1D3D:3D79:E462:3D19 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]