Talk:Likud

Coalition

Likud was initially described in US as a coalition of parties rather than a party. Is that

• a mistake,
• something that needs to be mentioned here with how and when it changed, or
• still true? --Jerzy

The Likud began as a merging of the Herut party and other Israeli opposition parties. That apparantly is already present.(12/1/03) -Leumi

Text Removed for Clarification

(I've probably made some misinterpretations in my copyedit of the material i didn't move here; originating editor, please critique.)

The clause

and the party's center passed a rule in the Likud's center rejecting to Palestinian state.

adds nothing to the article because it is incomprehensible, and i have moved it here in hopes it can be worked on. Perhaps clarifying

• what party (Likud, no? But if so, why is Likud mentioned explicitly later in the clause?),
• what is meant by "center", and
• whether a "rule" is a regulation, a policy statement, an interpretation (i.e., a "ruling"), or something else

would help some editor who is a native speaker of English turn it into something usable.

I also moved the phrase

is a neo-Tachterist and extreme capitalist

here. "Extreme capitalist" is vaguer than the opinions reported in the next sentence. Those to whom "neo-Tachterist" has any meaning must be rare, as no reference appears in a Google search; if it's important to the point of the editor who introduced it here, we need more info on it.

And the term

welfare services

is not clear (in context of unemployment benefits); are these government or private funds and/or agencies?

(I have made no effort to ensure NPoV, seeing the copyedit as more pressing.) --Jerzy 05:17, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)

A rough translation from the Hebrew Wikipedia: The Likud’s center is the party superior institution, which is authorized to determine in every affaire of the party. In its initial gathering this institution called the Likud’s party convention, but after is initial gathering the convention became the center until the next elections to the party’s convention. The center has around 5,000 delegates. The majority of delegates are elected in local elections and some delegates are center delegate because of their position.

Ideology

I do not believe that Likud today can be considered as following the priciples of Revisionist Zionism. Also, I do not think Zionism (or any type of it) should appear in the infobox since most Israeli parties claim to follow some form of Zionism anyway, and also since Zionism is not a universal political ideology (like Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Social Democracy etc.) and may be confusing without explination and may be more fitting in the article itself but not in the infobox. Thus, I am thinking of deleting this label from the party's infobox, is this okay? Does anybody disagree?Tal :) 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with above. It'll be like adding Islamic fundamentalism to Fatah. Let the reader read the article and make his own conclusions. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 13:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 14:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Likud a center-right party ? I would think they are right-wing, period. Kadima is center-right. Iska (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Kadima is center left.Oren.tal (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Kadima is center-left, while Likud is center-right. Right wing parties would be Shas, United Torah Judaism, National Union, and The Jewish Home. The ultimate Israeli right-wing party was Kach, founded by the radical Rabbi Meir Kahane. However, Kach has been banned since 1992. --98.14.149.139 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shas is somewhat centrist actually. They supported the disengagement.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

New section removed

The following new section was just added and I just deleted it (I have changed the level of the heading so it stays in this section of the talk page):

Future Of Likud

The Likud is purported to Bounce back to the forefront of the Israeli counsciousness due to the disillusion with Kadima on the war in Lebanon and its goals. As well on February 1st 2006 the Central Committee relinquished control of selecting the Knesset list to the the "rank and file" members. This gives historically much control to the broad electorate on the entire gamut of who represents them and how they are represented. That will make that the Likud Knesset very concious of the constituency, in effect a people's party.

I have deleted this on the grounds that it is unsourced, original research, infringes on "WP is not a crystal ball," and secondarily, is not very well written, especially the first sentence. I suspect that someone, somewhere has written at least a semi-scholarly article on the future prospects of Likud (hopefully in English) which could be cited. Until that is located, I don't think this speculation belongs in the article, at least not in this form. (And that is not to mention the logical difficulty of saying that a change in nominating procedures made before (and presumably used in) the last election, in which Likud was routed, will help them in future elections if it didn't help them in the last election.) 6SJ7 16:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Overcoverage of recent issues with too little on history

There is far too little historical info here. Could someone add some more? Joseph Sanderson 17:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article states opinions as facts. It states as fact that Likud lost elections because they moved to the center. It also gives states as fact the super stupid opinion that Likud was center-left during the last elections.

Center right politics

It is LONG-established (here on Wikipedia, and elsewhere) that Likud is a center-right political party. There are certainly sources that describe it as right-wing which is an umbrella term for anything right of center, which includes center-right politics. That is what it is and it should be included. Just as the Republican Party and Liberal Party of Australia are center right parties. Only recently have some users (whose good faith, I am disappointed to say, I question) have gone on what it appears to be a smear campaign to include the words "right-wing" as much as possible. Reasons written by these editors include things along the lines of "Center right in comparison to whom?" A BBC article outlines the makeup of the parites in the Knesset (describing them as right, left, centrist, religious, etc.). It describes Likud as centre right. An AFP chart showing the makeup of the parliament, drew a half-circle pie chart, with Likud on the right side closest to the center, immediately to the right of Labor and Kadima. A "Fact File" by the largest media corporation in Israel goes into describe the main platform of every major party in Israel. Using words like center-left for the Labor Party, left for Meretz, and what do you know, center right for Likud. So there's that comparison.

Others are "Given current events, it is debatable that they are center right." According to whom? Certainly no significant source (or even an insignificant one I am yet to see). Or just "No way they are center", without any source. To make a long story short: Likud is accepted to be a center-right political party in Israel. The end. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The only people that could describe Likud as centre-right are either Likudniks trying to make their party look moderate, or far-right people trying to denigrate it for not being right-wing enough. There is absolutely nothing centrist about the party; it takes a hard line on security issues, a Thatcherist line on economics, and a blurred status quo view on religious issues. Please stop your unilateral edit war. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this issue by Number 57. Actually, I have to completely agree with Shamir here, although sources for the statements would certainly help. Especially important are unbiased Israeli sources (such as the media's political analysts), which as I said in the discussions about Yisrael Beitenu, would be the most reliable and professional sources in this case. Obviously if there are no reliable sources, the argument does not stand up. However, assuming there are sources for both designations, here's why I agree with Shamir:

Firstly, we have to ask the question of what defines the right-wing bloc and what defines the left-wing bloc in Israel. On security matters (which is usually how the parties are judged), it's the willingness to create a Palestinian state. The left advocates returning to the 1949–67 borders, while the right does not acknowledge a Palestinian state in any form, and is against any settlement evacuation. The center (led by Kadima) advocates a Palestinian state, but with significantly modified borders vis-a-vis the Green Line. On this issue, the Likud ideology has some rightist elements (no settlement evacuation), but also many clearly centrist elements, like the very idea of a Palestinian state, as well as a strong willingness to develop the Palestinian economy and police.

On the religious issue, again, the Likud is right-wing because it supports religious parties and some of their ideas (actually mostly on security issues), but opposes many other ideas, such as larger pensions/child benefits, and takes a centrist stand on the status quo (e.g. their ambivalency on public transportation on Shabbat, again the same stance as Kadima).

On the economic issues, the Israeli political system doesn't really have a clear right- and left-wing. Only two parties (Likud and Avoda) have strong economic policies, with Avoda being socialist and Likud being capitalist. If this is taken to mean that Avoda is left while Likud is right, what does that make of the other 10 Knesset parties? Most of the 34 Israeli parties are socialist or similar (i.e. not like Likud), including all the traditional right-wing parties (Haredi and religious-Zionist).

I therefore believe that Likud is a center-right party, although what really matters of course is sources. However, I strongly support using more Israeli professional political analysts as sources, and less foreign media outlets that know about as much about Israeli politics as you can find on Google (or Wikipedia for that matter). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by 'sources' I didn't mean 'sources that mention that Likud is a right-wing or center-right party', but 'sources that discuss Likud as a right-wing or center-right party', i.e. sources that talk page Likud's ideology specifically. I don't think a media source that says 'the right-wing Likud party was chosen to lead' or something like that. There's obviously a controversy here, and we shouldn't use articles as sources where the author was writing about something else entirely and probably didn't think twice about using whatever term for Likud. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ynhockey. The most comprehensive entries on individual Israeli political parties I have found in English are ones by Ynetnews (owned by Israel's largest media corporation, and the Library of Congress Country Studies. These entries are detailed and read like encyclopedia articles. The Country Studies article can be found here and its other articles on Israel (including other parties) here. The Ynet article can be found here, and for reference, here is a selection of other parties: Labor, Meretz, Kadima, Shas, Israel Our Home, Balad, Hadash. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Much less significant (but if you are interested), there are two recent New York Times articles that mention Netanyahu's gravitation toward the political center. I repeat, this really is not significant. Here is the AFP pie chart (would be nice if uploaded) and here is a BBC article that (on the right hand side) breaks down the political parties in power. --Shamir1 (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! It might be worth noting that in these elections specifically, Likud might be sometimes dubbed more righist than it is because it ran jointly with the Ahi, which is not part of the Likud and thus not relevant to this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the question here is whether we place Likud on the Israeli spectrum or go by a general international definition. A Number 57 noted, Likud would meet all right-wing criteria in England, for example. In Israel, it is centrist compared to many other parties, and is evidently somewhat reluctant to form a coalition with them. -- Nudve (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Two words: Avigdor Lieberman. Stop your "center-right" bullshit, i reckon everyone wants to be center because its trendy and because it prevents the "fear of extrems", but when you appoint a racist as a minister, you're not "center" anymore. I could say "Useless massac....sorry", i mean i could say "Cast Lead" too, isn't it? And as someone noticed, Likud is right-wing even for....UK. So i don't even have to give the French classification for this party. It's like saying the republicans are Center and the democrats Left, no one with even the slightest bit of serious would believe you. 161.73.55.141 (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

POV of a different source

My initial edit[1] was based on just the previous diff that looked incorrect, based on my knowledge of pre-Kadima Likud; I am however, less enlightened concerning internal political dynamics in the Bibi era, following the demise of the previous Herut generation. Things change. The edit summary states why I reverted it. My next edit [2] was justified and ref'd to the same source given for the opposite view. I don’t want to argue; I want to edit. My third edit[3] was to meant to defuse it, but also add my two ref’d cents; on BBC, Bibi had just left Peres’s office, and the edit was sourced to an existing ref. I then read and edited critically further thru the page; it seems there is a lot of fluff and little meat. Then I moved on. Upon returning, I find my two ref’d cents were deleted under questionable pretense, based on the edit summary, but that another editor had arrived. I will generally leave this ‘center-right’ fight to others, but consideration of a ref’d American government pov should be included in the discussion, and I will tend to protect its inclusion. This is NPOV, I believe, and I re-inserted it with quotes.

Though not invited, this discussion raises some common points, which I would like to be discussed. I guess the first is why unbiased American government (not political) sources might not be considered important also. Can an American source be that --- they certainly put their money where their mouth is. I don’t know, but their opinions are certainly easily RS’d, particularly with regard to Likud and where they see them as particularly “right”, compared to whom and sometimes why. A second point is the 'source spectrum' from which the term “center” and the 'source spectrum' from which the term “right” are derived, as noted above. In some general terms they could be divided into things economic and every day life and things political with both domestic and international dimensions. I understand there are also many things specifically Israeli and/or Jewish, which I can not fully comprehend, but note some have remained unresolved since the Haskalah, American Jewish assimilation, and the utter failure of a similar attempt in Europe.

As a non-Jewish foreign editor, which might be different than those here, the political side, particularly international, aspects of Likud seem more important in the big picture than they are currently indicated. My personal bias is that Likud tends to earn ‘centrist’ cover from specific domestic economic issues (e.g. non-socialist), but seems to secularly or politically pick and choose on religious issues, as alluded above. I am sure internal sources define the details best, but these issues are often completely absent or replaced by fluff, as they are in America. That is not to say these are unimportant however, as many international RSs attest. One item included not once in the current Likud article is the term Eretz Israel, as well as that specific spelling, which is documented in major English media to the period of Begin’s ‘77 Likud victory. That is said to differentiate the phrase from Eretz Yisrā'el,which should not to be confused with Medīnat Yisrā'el, but absolutely is, including Likud. Another item is the extremely poor link to Revionism hidden in the lower text, but I assume it may be related to the OR currently residing in the past tense usage in the lede here. That appears incorrect, based on WP:Lede, as well as appearing pov’edly mis-leading. I hope this helps explain why I completely agree with #57. It is another RS’able POV that should not be excluded on what seems apparent ownership or other issues.

Since I see my two cents has been deleted again, I hope I will receive a more reasoned collaborative response rather than just an unreasonable deletion. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But then again, maybe not; moved on or ignored. Seems less than collaborative. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is more accurate to call it a right-wing party rather than a centre-right party. Surely right-wing includes both centre-right and far right and it is therefore more neutral and less contentious to use the more general term if there is disagreement? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"direct ideological descendant"

This is NOT a direct quotation. It is misleading and the linking is not accurate. The Revisionist Party is not Herut, it is simply political platform put together by Jabotinsky. This was not a merger of other parties joining Herut. All parties joined together in an alliance to form a new party. If you really wanted to quote the source anyway, why would you insist on adding the words "right-wing" when the given source does not, and the sentence it is included in ALREADY contains those words to begin with? There is no reason for this term to be written twice in the same sentence.

The sentence already states the party was formed by Menachem Begin, who has a history of his own which gives implications on the politics of Likud. Furthermore, the sentence already describes the parties that went into the party: "right-wing and liberal parties." This is descriptive enough in the lead. At this time, Likud has lost much of its adherence to traditional Revisionist ideology. Writing that it is the direct ideological descendant WITHOUT including that it is no longer the cornerstone of the party is misleading.

You may also want to take a look at [4] and [5].

If you would like to describe Likud's history with the Revisionists, do so, although it is explained already in the article body. You may want to be completely accurate and complement it with what is true of Likud today. --Shamir1 (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The first diff[6] shows that the specific source was once there. I don’t remember moving it, but admit it was moved; it should probably go back where it was. The original source[7] says: “In large part, Likud was the direct ideological descendant of the Revisionist Party, established by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1925.” It is a direct quote to the extent quoted. The links however, should be better, as you note. How about this:

”It was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin, largely as the "direct ideological descendant of the Revisionist Party", when Herut merged with several other right-wing and liberal (non-socialist) parties.”

You may edit this alternative as you see fit, so we can resolve this editorially. I surmise from your post that you are more concerned with the current Likud; my editorial interest is more with its history. Both Likud’s roots and this season’s foliage should be in the lede. Thanks for the links; the first is most relevant for my editing to explain the historic differences between Medinat Israel and Eretz Israel in Likud politics, and the second helps to understand the present time better. While I admit that Likud is a moving target for quick-fix political, right-center-left labels, I believe the end of the ideological decision, noted in your first link, is more theoretical than absolute. Future events will tell, of course, but I believe ‘crunch time’ is closer. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The meaning of liberal is changed in this context and making it infer a different meaning for which you do not know for sure. I am reverting it back. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ariel Sharon founding a party that would be described as centrist, does not make "move to the center."

Updated Wording in the Introduction

There is a sentence in the introduction that I think should be changed.

However, after ruling the country for most of the 1980s, the party has won only one Knesset election since 1992, in 2003.

The introduction does say that the Likud's leader won the vote for Prime Minister in 1996 and that they won with a significant mandate in 2003 and then in 2009, while not getting the majority of the vote, Likud still leads the government coalition. In my opinion this sentence should be either erased or changed because it is very misleading now. Likud has won two elections since 1992 and the Prime Ministership in 1996. Also, the popular vote for Prime Minister occurred only once in Israeli politics - perhaps that should be mentioned in parenthesis after saying that Netanyahu won in 1996? Does anybody object?

In fact the Likud did win in 1996 at the Knesset also and in 2009. No Israeli party never ever got over 60 mandates and the majority, the only thing important is to have a majority *coalition*. The Avoda in 1996 and Kadima in 2009 had more mandates but could not build a majority coalition, so they lost. So this sentence is not just misleading, it is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.36.56 (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberal conservatism or conservative liberalism?

An unregistered user added "Liberal conservatism to Likud's ideology on 12 November 2006. I am wondering if this is exactly the case. Are we sure their ideology is not closer to conservative liberalism? --Shamir1 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of edits.

I've incorporated some elements of LP's edits while trying to keep it npov. For example, I've kept the term "colony" and variants thereof out and did not incorporate some other POV issues such as labeling the Madric conference "ill-fated". Does anyone object to the current version? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where you kept the term "colony". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, all I saw was "I kept". I didn't see the "out". Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "colony" is the most pov term and the most problematic. "Settlement" is fine and neutral. Benjil (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, JoshuaZ, could you use the "preview" button when you do your edits and do just one big edit instead of 10 small ones. It's very annoying.Benjil (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. See colony. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no you agree with me. The definition given here has nothing to do with the settlements in the west bank, so one more reason not to change the term. Benjil (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Benjil & JoshuaZ. "Colony" is a highly POV term. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

LP, you have been warned by an administrator in the past about this term. Please stop trying to insert it into articles without a particularly good reason. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The question is why do you want to replace "settlement", a neutral and descriptive term, with "colony", a highly charged term ? Benjil (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the difference in using "settlement" or "colony". Could someone please explain why this is a charged term? As far as I know, English and Hebrew are the only two languages where there is two words for this same concept. CapitalElll (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just quote myself, from the previous time Lapsed Pacifist tried to push the term "colony" - "I see no good reason to use a rare, vague term, when there's a good, commonly used alternative. Settlement is the word all the major sources, news outlets etc. use, and so should we. I'm seems to me the sole purpose of using "colony" is to make insinuations, capitalizing on the bad reputation the word has, owing to western colonialism. Settlement is a much more neutral term, and using it allows us to focus on the facts at hand, instead of (consciously or unconsciously) biasing the reader against a certain subject." (3 July 2008) okedem (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against using "settlement", but it is a little vague (see settlement). In my view it's no harm to use "colony" every so often, as this is the kind of settlement being referred to. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and that's fine, but here we use the common names. There's nothing vague about "settlement" in this sense - that's the word that it used. It's about as vague as the "United States" - I mean, literally, it doesn't mean anything - which states? Where? Why are they united? But that's the name, and there's nothing vague about it.

Additionally, all but one use of "settlement" in this article includes their location ("Israeli settlements in the West Bank", etc.), so there's really zero possibility for confusion. okedem (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to using common names; what I object to is the insistence they be slavishly adhered to at all times. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Does that sound fair? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What? Using the word "colony"? No, it isn't. It's a word used solely for passing judgment and hinting at the legitimacy, not through any argument of international law, but simply by used a "bad" word. I have never seen or heard any major news outlet use the word "colony", so it's not a close call between the common name and another one. It's crystal clear. okedem (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)