Talk:Birthright Unplugged

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The following sentence from this article, which makes an assertion about the "motives" of the Birthright Israel organization, is not based on any factual information and expresses an anti-Birthright point of view:

"The name 'Birthright Unplugged' is a spin on the Birthright Israel program, whose name implies that Jews have the exclusive rights to own the Holy Land and to reside in it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenrachel06 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources there now, think tag should be removed. --Ponox (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing NGO Monitor 'reactions' section

There was a part in this article which asserted that the Birthright Unplugged tour was supported by radical organizations, the only reference for this was from NGO Monitor. One look at NGO Monitor's page shows that this is not an objective source nor a credible news source. From Wikipedia's entry on NGO Monitor:

" Editing Wikipedia The on-line communications editor of NGO Monitor, Arnie Draiman, was indefinitely banned from editing articles about the Israeli-Arab conflict for biased editing, concealing his place of work and using a second account in a way that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy.[16] Draiman was a major contributor to the articles of his employers NGO Monitor and Gerald Steinberg, and performed hundreds of edits of human rights organizations, such as B'Tselem, the New Israel Fund, Human Rights Watch and many others, to which NGO Monitor's president, Professor Gerald Steinberg, is opposed.[44] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.145.92 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

Your edit doesn't make any sense, you said: "Sorry, but if those villages are ancestral, then so is Israel. Use same yardstick for both sides." https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Birthright_Unplugged&diff=638393093&oldid=638388953

One side is Palestinian refugees who fled from Palestine. So its their ancestral villages.

The other side are Jews who could be from all countries around the world with no historical ties to the holy land. Converts and peoples that converted to Judaism. Your revert is therefor not legitimate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to disagree with both your arguments.

The historical ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel are further back in history than the ties of Palestinians to the same. On the other hand, a. the Palestinians never had a state of their own, unlike the Jewish people, and b. as a people they haven't lived in the area for much longer than a century, while the Jewish people as a people has lived there for millennia.
Converts are only a small part of the Jewish nation. In addition, they become part of the people, and it does not make much sense to distinguish between them and other Jews, especially since after a few generations, they themselves won't even be aware of the fact that they descent from converts. In addition, likewise the Palestinian people knows many foreign additions. I know personally of a few Russian women and of Jewish women who married into Palestinian families, and that is precisely the same idea as converts to Judaism. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am perfectly happy with today's IP edit. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that all Jews are historically connected to the land. There is lots of evidence that Jews that came out of Europe and Ethiopia are not descendents of the ancient Jews. So that is a very large portion of Jews. So "ancestral homeland" doesn't make sense. Also, all Palestinian refugees are originally from Palestine, 100% of them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees?

Saying "Palestinian refugees living inside Israel" seems like a POV way of saying Arab Israeli citizens. I know the term Arab-Israeli has a lot of drama attached to it so I just went with Arab. Please correct me if I missed the point. Turkeyturkeypieyum (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that last sentence. I think you indeed missed the point. There are Arab-Israelis, like many of the Arabs in Ramle e.g., and then there are displaced Palestinians in West Bank camps or neighborhoods, like Beit Hanina. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Turkeyturkeypieyum and Debresser: - indeed the phrase is very awkward "they visit Palestinian cities, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank and spend time with Palestinian refugees living inside Israel.". There are clearly no people with Palestinian refugee status inside Israel, so it doesn't make sense.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, perhaps tagging it with {{Vague}} would have been better. And some explanation in the |reason= parameter. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What birthright?

Debresser removed the clause "whose name and organization are founded upon the idea that Jews have the right to Israel." with the edit summary "Nothing of the kind is in either of the sources." So we open the first source and find: They will be on a free tour of the Jewish state, presented to them as a gift, their "birthright." The second source has an even stronger statement: Their trips challenge the idea that Jewish people have a birthright to the lands beyond the 1967 borders. The sentence was recently changed (by me) from "right to visit Israel" which doesn't make sense since both Jews and non-Jews visit Israel by the thousands and this is obviously not the "birthright" being referred to by the name "Birthright Israel". The birthright ("a right, privilege, or possession to which a person is entitled by birth" - Merriam-Webster) indicated by the name "Birthright Israel" is obviously much more than visitation rights. Zero^talk 03:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an even more clear statement of what "birthright" is referred to, right out of the Taglit-Birthright Israel CEO's mouth: "Our program connects young adult Jews with Israel as their birthright." [1]. It will go in the other article too. Zero^talk 03:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first source says that the trip is their right, not Israel. The second source states what the Birthright Unplugged think, which does not establish that such is the idea of Birthright themselves (plus that would be OR). The third source says that the connection with Israel is a right, not Israel itself. None of them claim that Israel is a right. You will therefore be reverted. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are misreading. The first applies "birthright" to "the Jewish state". The second is a description of BI according to the writer. The third case calls Israel itself the birthright ("connects" is a verb, not a noun). As you know full well, and believe yourself, the idea that the Land of Israel is the birthright of the Jewish people is the fundamental axiom of Zionism. It is truly bizarre to argue that an organization whose very name reflects this axiom doesn't actually believe it. Zero^talk 04:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretations: The first applies "birthright" to "a free tour", not "the Jewish state". The second is not a description of BI, and such a thing is definitely not mentioned by the author, who describes BU not BI. Likewise I maintain my point of view that the birthright is to be connected with Israel.

From "As you know" is your statement and original research, and has no value for the sake of this argument. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first two quotations have an element of ambiguity about them so that someone who doesn't know the background might not be sure of the meaning. To clarify what the first source means, we can just look down further and read "Taglit offers Diaspora Jews between the ages of 18 and 26 a free, 10-day tour of Israel, their "birthright" or "homeland" country", where it is simply impossible by the rules of the English language to apply "birthright" to "tour" rather than to "Israel". The third source has only one reasonable meaning, namely as an unremarkable statement of the Zionist claim to Israel. Zero^talk 00:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no ambiguity and disagree with your interpretation. IMHO these sources are clear, and should be understood as I wrote above. In general, I don't see why you care about this so much. Debresser (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]