Talk:History of Zionism
|WikiProject Palestine||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Redirect to Zionism
- 2 Copied from 'Zionism'
- 3 Protocols
- 4 Revisionist Zionism
- 5 Zionism and Feminism
- 6 Baybars and Mamluks
- 7 Zionism and Russia
- 8 Hankin
- 9 The Mufti
- 10 The 613 mitzvot
- 11 Unconnected stuff
- 12 missing source
- 13 NPOV
- 14 timing of change of central aim
- 15 Biblical precedents
- 16 Judah HaLevi
Redirect to Zionism
For the time being I redirected this page to Zionism. It was intended from the start that the Zionism article should get a summary of the history of Zionism. However this has not yet happened though and the Zionism article, including the history part, has developed further. Originally this article was a copy of the Zionism article. This article has only had some spelling corrections and addition to some categories. I added the categories to the Zionism article. I propose that after somebody has written a summary of the history of Zionism in the Zionism article, this article is revived with the relevant parts from the Zionism article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from 'Zionism'
I removed this 'suggestive' text, which in my view should not be in the article:
- In December 1929 the Mufti was interviewed by a British commission investigating the source of the riots. Throughout the interview he held a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.(ref)Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August 1929, Minutes of Evidence Volume II page 527, paragraph 13,107. The Mufti also compared himself to Jesus: see page 539.(/ref)
It suggests that the mufti was anti-semitic, although this is not warrented by the statement in itself. Therefore it is original research (see WP:OR). It is also not NPOV. I trust that an editor who wants to reinstate it will also put the text below in the article.
- Weizmann had called Palestinian Arabs "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab".(ref)'The Letters and Papers of Chaim Wizmann', Weisgal M.W. (ed.), Israel University Press, 1977, pp. 197-206.(/ref) --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the two aspects are comparable. The Protocols formed a key part in the justificaiton of the Nazi Genocide and the Mufti played a role in that genocide. He held the book at a publicly recorded meeting and is also credited with producing the first Arabic translation. In comparison Weizmann's comments are private remarks reflecting frustration with the Palestinian Arabs and were not directed against Arabs as a whole. Even if you find them offensive, they are quite different qualititively from the Protocols. "to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" Although the source is hard to come by (you can find it in the British Library and it maybe elsewehre) it is an official publicaiton by the British Government and a reliable source. The stated facts do not contradict existing knowledge of the Mufti and there is no reason to doubt their veracity. If you look here you can see that the current Mufti is also familar with the protocols.
Zionism and Feminism
I'm sure the fact that the first woman in the Polish Parliament was a Zionist belongs here somewhere. As does the whole topic of faminism and Zionism. I am not certain that I put it in the correct place.Elan26 (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26
- Women could vote in elections to Jewish local councils in "Palestine" before they had the vote in Britain. there was a parliamentary question about it. If you like I could find you the reference. I think a seciton on Feminism and Zionism sounds interesting but I think you will need to write it. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Baybars and Mamluks
Just reading the biography of Baybars, he does come across as a pretty ruthless character, but I see nothing which justifies the claim that he adopted a deliberate strategy of devastating the country. I am aware that the Mamluks adopted a strategy of slighting fortifications, but this is not quite the same as general devastation, since it has sometimes been adopted by e.g. Robert the Bruce, Oliver Cromwell who did not have a strategy of general devastation. Of course, Palestine may have been badly affected by the Crusade period without this being anyone's intention. PatGallacher (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just saw this, I'm currently moving and my books are all in boxes. Will try to get a source for you in the next week or so. This is what the Britanicca says:
- "Palestine under the Mamlūks in the 14th century saw a period of prosperity for some; this was especially notable in Jerusalem, where the government sponsored an elaborate program to construct schools, establish lodgings for travelers and Muslim pilgrims, and renovate mosques. Tax revenues, collected mainly from the villages, were spent largely on support of religious institutions. Palestine formed a part of the district of Damascus, second only to Egypt in the Mamlūk domains. The region suffered the ravages of several epidemics, including the great pestilence, the same Black Death that in 1347–51 devastated Europe. The fall of the Baḥrī Mamlūks and the rise of the Burjī Mamlūks (1382–1517) contributed to a gradual economic deterioration and a decrease in security. During the reigns of the second Burjī sultan, Faraj (1399–1405 and 1405–12), the last onslaught of the Mongols, which made the name of Timur (Tamerlane) a synonym of destruction and plunder, took place. Although Palestine was spared the pillage of his hordes, it could not escape its disastrous repercussions as the Mamlūks moved through in a vain attempt to defend Damascus against the invader. The death of Timur in 1405, and the weakness of Iran in the ensuing century, pitted the Mamlūks against the rising power of the Ottoman Empire for the control of western Asia. Hostilities broke out in 1486 when Sultan Qāʾit Bāy contested with Bayezid II the possession of some border towns. The climax came three decades later on August 24, 1516, when the Ottoman sultan, Selim I, routed the Mamlūk armies at the Battle of Marj Dābiq. Palestine began its four centuries under Ottoman domination."
- I think it supports your contention. I wrote that bit about Baybars quoting from memory and I'm not sure how reliable my source was. Perhaps the sentence needs to be rephrased to explain a gradual impverishment. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Zionism and Russia
"In 1917 the Russian revolution gave Jews equal rights as individuals but the Bolsheviks, partially inspired by Karl Marx's antisemitism, were particularly intolerant of Judaism and sent thousands of Zionists to the Gulag"
This comment does not adhere to Wikipedias principles of neutral point of view and verifiability. The article does not provide references to evidence that proves that Karl Marx was anti-semitic nor does it provide "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" concerning Zionism and anti-semitism in Russia. For example, the Jewish Bund who were very important in the shaping of Jewish opposition to anti-semitism in Russia during this period are not mentioned. Nor is there any information about the anti-semitic pogroms carried out by the White Army who the Bolsheviks fought against. Leading members of the Bolshevik Party were Jewish and it is important that any accusation of anti-semitism against them is backed up with evidence. In order to preserve a neutral point of view the reasons why many Russian Jews did not support Zionism and became socialists should be represented in this article if accusations of anti-semitism and intolerance of Judaism are being made against Marx and the Bolsheviks in a Wikipedia article about the history of Zionism.
Some of what you say is untrue. The text provides a link to material on marx's antisemitism (a well known issue) and a reference + quote is provided regarding persecution of Jews in the USSR (this can be expanded). The Bund are discussed further on in the article under the subject of opposition to Zionism (you clearly did not read on) and figures are provided regarding the relative size of zionist, bund and bolsevik support (something you have probably never seen before). the article is about zionism not socialism and there is no need to enter a deep discussion on the issue of the Russian revolution. The White persecution was indeed terrible but the article is not just about Jewish history and is already very long. If others feel the whites hsould be mentioned then I will insert something.
On second thoughts I will over the next week insert more material on the persecution of Russian Jews before the revolution.
I checked your points and concluded that while a lot fo sources say he held am SS rank the ranks given vary and the sources do not seem consistent. The US Holocaust Museum does not give him a rank and their account sounds reliable and detailed. As you can see I have noted the existence of the claims and referred people to the Holocaust Museum site. Please note that there is no intention to mislead. He was (like Zionism for others) a bogey figure and people easily believe bad things when it suits their prejudices.
Your edits also suggested the Western Wall was a "historic moslem site". If you believe this then please provide reliable sources pre-dating the 20th century as Jewish sources say the Mufti invented the claim to try and rid them of the wall, which was/is their sole property on the temple mount. The Jews were able to provide photos from the Ottoman period of them worshipping at the wall.
Your text is very poor quality. I also question why one person deserves such a large amount of material on this page.
- He wasn't in the SS at all and certainly didn't "serve" in it except as a consultant and propagandist.
- During the Mandate, the Western Wall was under the control of the Muslim Waqf, everyone knows that. So there was no need to "gain" control control of it. I didn't claim anything at all about who the place is sacred for.
- Almost all of Bosnia's Jews were dead or in camps by the time the Handschar division was formed, you can easily check the dates. This charge is not made by any serious history books.
- The story about the Protocols is rubbish as I proved elsewhere, and I don't believe you read the source you give for it.
- A cheer-leading web site for the Irgun is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. His role in the Fardud is disputed. Raziel's mission is off-topic for this page.
He attracts a lot of edits and tends to grow of his own accord... It was a while back that I read the minutes and I did not read them cover to cover. The references are correct but it is possible that I missed things. It owuld be helpful if you told me where you saw them (just to verify that we got them from the same source). I will try and get someone to retrieve a copy so I can verify the point you are making. I will check out the Raziel stuff and reduce the size of the Mufti material. His role in the Farhud may be disputed but he did play a role. I am not sure what "serious history books" you are referring to. I found statements saying both things but think that the US holocaust museum is a reliable source and will probably go with their version.
The 613 mitzvot
The article claims:
- Aliyah (immigration to Israel) has always been considered to be a praiseworthy act for Jews according to Jewish law, and is included as a commandment in most versions of the 613 commandments which Jews are supposed to strive to fulfill.
"There is also evidence that he was active in promoting the Nazi extermination program.[Lewis (1995), 351.]" -- the source is not identified. What is it and what does it actually say? These words are just useless insinuation. Zerotalk 10:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I used a reference from Kuntzel who gives examples and documenatary references. Mostly the Mufti worked to prevent JEws from being sent outside of Nazi controlled areas. Towards the end of the war, when everyone knew the JEws were being systematically killed, there were a number of deals to rescue Jews which were proposed, the Mufti and I think the Saudis (who had influence in washington) worked to scotch them. I don't think the British were interested in them either (I think there is a good Tom Segev reference to that effect) Telaviv1 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I read this article to confirm or refute a claim that my father made to me in the early 1960's about Zionism. This claim was that the British, anticipating much of the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Arab world, proposed to the Zionists that the Jewish State be founded in Africa instead. The Zionists, of course, rejected this idea out of hand. Is there someone who knows about this?
As I was reading the article, I started to wonder how much of this history would be accepted by thoughtful Arab historians. Having been brought up in a secular Jewish-American household, I have become aware of the considerable self-congratulation among the Jewish community. There is also an ongoing strain of self-pity about persecution by those awful goyim. I sense a little of both of these attitudes in the tone of this article, even though there seems to be some effort towards NPOV.
Since Wikipedia is fast becoming a true encyclopedia of record, I searched it for "Uganda Jewish State". Sure enough, I found the article British Uganda Programme documenting the truth of my father's claim (He was even right that present-day Uganda was proposed, among other reasons because it was otherwise thinly populated.). I have decided to make a note of this important, but little known fact in the article.
timing of change of central aim
The change of central aim of Zionism that the article mentions was announced in Biltmore Program (May 1942); currently the article links it with the holocaust (timing wise), was the holocaust the highlight of Biltmore Program? (was the holocaust the conscious drive for the change, or was it maybe something else? what is the highlight of Biltmore confrence?) --Mayz (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Biblical precedents" is unsourced and appears to be entirely irrelevant to the topic. The Exodus and the return from Babylon are not part of the history of Zionism. Why are they here? Zerotalk 13:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This was added:
- Arguably the first Zionist, or the first since the destruction of the Second Temple, was the Hispano-Jewish poet Judah ha-Levi, c. 1075 – 1141, the most important poet-philosopher of medieval Jewish history. He passionately called to his compatriots to "return to Jerusalem", doubting the future security of diaspora Jews. What makes his case unique for the period is his personal journey from Spain (al-Andalus) to Jerusalem, where he intended to live out the rest of his days. (He reached Egypt, and sailed from Alexandria to Palestine, but this is the last historical reference to him.) His Zionides, written during his pilgrimage, express the fervent belief that only in Jerusalem can Jews find safety, and that perfect Jewish life was only possible in the Land of Israel.
The source given was "Raymond P. Scheindlin, The Song of the Distant Dove: Judah Halevi's Pilgrimage, Oxford University Press, 2008". However that book argues against this interpretation of HaLevi's poems. Scheindlin mentions this interpretation and then seeks to refute it. In Scheindlin's opinion (pp. 59ff.), HaLevi is imagining the time of the coming of the messiah, not calling on his contemporary fellow Jews to return to Zion.Zerotalk 08:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)