Jump to content

Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This page is an archive for some major discussions, and major issue debates, compromises, etc, from Jan to june 2008. Other discussions from this period can be archived here or also in Archive 14. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Abbas truthful about return to violence

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204127196532&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Abbas proclaims he won't be opposed to another war or "intifada" if he thinks that they can win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


The question is, does it belong in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.212 (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem related to the conflict. The last paragraph of the leader is quite dated, and this public statement by Abbas throws into doubt how committed the Palestinian leadership really is to peace. M1rth (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Better to indicate this category of concerns on the Israeli side by inclusion of comments by community leaders and media figures which are alleged to constitute real incitement, of which there are numerous examples, than a single ambiguous statement by the most familiar leader who is most well-known to the West. we're not trying to revisit the existing debate; we're trying to expand the bounds of awareness and factual content. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well think about it. I have a very extensive list of statements by 'community leaders' and 'opinion leaders' on the Israeli side which are 'incitements'. Incitement and violence work two ways, each side justifying its violence and incitement as 'responses', reprisals'. If anything of this kind is to be incorporated it must be put in with strict balance to maintain the neutrality of the encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 08:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify. The word 'incitement' is something of a keyword from a Zionist perspective, in dozens of articles on Palestine post-1917. Everytime something happens, Balfour's plan set in motion, immigration increases, incremental bids to establish 'facts on the ground' in trying to gain leverage over areas, (Wailing Wall), the Palestinian Arab reaction, on the part of nobles or community figures making speeches at rallies to protest or mobilize a defense, is defined as (inflammatory) 'incitement0. I have yet to see the word 'incitement' used of Zionist editorials (I tried once to cite an example of it from Doar Hayom and it was attacked en masse by people who disliked its parity with Arab 'incitement', even though the source was an impeccable Zionist historian like Walter Laqueur). So, as I read it, 'incitement' is code language, invariably planted to insinuate that any Palestinian reaction to what they saw as a threat to their territorial hold on the land, somehow constitutes an irrational stoking of (antisemitic) violence. The same with 'reprisal'. Events, particularly in recent times, make the use of that word POV. It is favoured in passages dealing with IDF and settler violence (to lead the reader to infer these acts are 'reactions' to Arab provocations), whereas the corresponding Palestinian link in the spiralling violence is called a 'terroristic' assault. This is supposed to be neutral, and therefore, since both sides see themselves as 'reactingì to the other side's provocations, the language used to describe respectively these incidents should be such that terminology is identical for both POVs.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Go back even 40 years and you can't find an Israeli politician saying "we should attack the Arabs if we think we can win." That's just absurd and you know it. There are tons of times the Palestinian leadership has talked out both sides of their mouths, starting with Arafat's old "Phased Plan" (establish "Palestine" the state, THEN attack Israel).

Question: How do you explain that you occasionally ask the Palestinian street not to explode? Arafat: When the prophet Muhammad made the Khudaibiya agreement, he agreed to remove his title "messenger of Allah" from the agreement. Then, Omar bin Khatib and the others referred to this agreement as the "inferior peace agreement." Of course, I do not compare myself to the prophet, but I do say that we must learn from his steps and those of Salah a-Din. The peace agreement which we signed is an "inferior peace". The conditions [behind it] are the intifada, which lasted for seven years.

Q: For practical reasons, do you now suggest to maintain quiet despite everything?

Arafat: Yes, I suggest we maintain quiet. We respect agreements the way that the prophet Muhammad and Salah a-Din respected the agreements which they signed. - That was from Orbit TV, April 18, 1998. The "Khudaibiya" peace and the example of Saladin he speaks of are times when Islamic treaties were cut short because Muslim groups were just using them to build up their forces and lull the enemies into thinking war wasn't coming.

We signed that agreement in Oslo, and if any of you has one objection to it, I have one hundred objections. - that was Arafat in 1995 on Voice of Palestine radio, right after he again compared the Oslo accords to the Khudaibiya "truce."

You can't be serious. Look at the 1974 Phased Plan of the PNC, look at all the doublespeak, especially the stuff that we have to translate because they say one thing in English and then the complete opposite to Arabic tv and radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

'they say one thing in English and then the complete opposite to Israeli tv and radio.' idem Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, unless you can source something to that effect, I suggest you retract this. M1rth (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, the reason we don't make an issue about Israeli incitement against palestinians is becauise the two issues are totally separate in context. Palestinians aren't worried about Israeli incitement against them, for the simple reason that they're more worried about Israeli tanks outside their bedroom window. The reason beneath that is that they face Israel as a modern industrial state with all the tools of sovereignty, capable of laying out a national policy and adhereing to it.
while on the other hand, Israelis must deal with palestinians as a nascent state in developmnent, so for Israelis, the key concern is whether granting major types of autonomy will lead to more security, not less.
Exactly why do you think that quantitaive balance is so important? Who told you we are in a contest here? The point here is factual balance, not creating some silly bean-counting exercise. for a guy who continually, (and credibly,) stresses getting the historical facts right, you sure seem to go quickly into arguments of quantity, not quality. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
'Exactly why do you think that quantitaive balance is so

important?'

You've already answered your own question in contrasting Israel as a state with the tools of sovereignty, whereas Palestinians aspire to a state out of the rudiments of what is not so much nascent as foetal, if not still-born, and lacking all the tools of sovereignty. One of the classic definitions of a state's sovereignty is that it alone, and not its citizens, has a right to exercise violence. Specifically it can wage war, not only in defence, and justify waging a war even of choice as a matter of 'reason of state'. A stateless people engaged in a conflict with an occupying state, people who aim for self-determination or 'national liberation', are denied the sanctuary of 'reasons of state'. When they fight, they can be branded by their adversary as 'terrorists'. Israel technically bombs Gaza at will, calling its action 'preventive' or 'reprisals'. Hamas in turn bombs parts of Israel and calls its actions 'reprisals' (actually there is a deeper logic here, more machiavellian on both sides). If you look at reportage, as opposed to strategic analysis by technicians of conflict, Israel is more often seen as defending itself, Hamas as the aggressor. Israel's press these days has been crammed with talk about policies to 'liquidate'(lekhassel) enemies by selective assassination. Palestinian press speaks of martyrs. To one side, the state 'liquidates' (a Nazi-Stalinist term by the way) legitimately those whom the other side then defines as martyrs (shaheed), killed by a murderous enemy while engaged in a noble cause. Encyclopedias do well to keep away from basing their articles on 'reportage' and its partisan-charged vocabularly , which is part of an image presentation in the global battle for sympathy. Unfortunately Wiki tends to fall into this trap. Not to take sides, but simply report things according to WP:NPOV means, precisely, giving the accounts by both sides equal weight. It is not for us to decide who is right.
As to your conviction that Israel's reservations lie in security fears. I suggest you reread documents, quite familiar to israel's adversaries, on how some people in Israel have conceptualized the 'security' of the state, for example Oded Yinon's 'Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,'(1982) which was published by the World Zionist Organization's Department of Information. Security in one strand of Israel's geostrategic thinking consists in applying the old imperial dictum divide et impera to all neighbouring states, and to the territories themselves, causing such a seismic fracturing around Israel that no party or statelet will ever be in a position to challenge its modern hegemony. Security in this view lies in the havoc of ethnic fracturing engineered by the stronger power. I don't necessarily believe that this is the operative doctrine myself, but there is strong evidence that 'security' is understood in many planning circles as securing the relentless fragmentation of all Arab communities, precisely what has occurred, in fact within the Occupied Territories. This approach obtains security not by investing in policies of consolidating civic structures in one's neighbourhood, but by unremitting pressure on them to destroy all authority, and institutional solidities, so that, qua state, Israel will be 'secure' as a hegemon. Coincidentally, this is what has happened since Oslo.
It is not helpful if a state affirming this continues day in day out to assist settlers in robbing land thht legally belongs to the occupied who have full Palestinian title, using the IDF to back settlers who do this, often by the use of jailing, shooting, and physical brutality. Such acts are in any man's language not only expropriations but 'incitements,' 'provocations', but are never referred to as such. Some days ago, the thugs denounced by nuns for constantly intimidating their convent in the south with bombings and threats, were released from jail, virtually unpunished. The nuns of Our Lady of the Assumption well know they are victims of a policy of harassment aiming to get them to leave so that that land will revert to Israel. They don't make a fuss of course. The Palestinians try to, but no one listens. You will never get security by playing games with your adversary to draw him ineluctably into such a state of decrepit poverty, overloaded with starved (80% of the population undernourished) and blasted generations, mainly civilian who couldn't care less for Hamas or the PNA, that being recruited into 'martyrdom' begins to attract people out of sheer desperation. 'Factual balance' means simply saying that the Israeli facts are given in parity with Palestinian facts. The IDF is a defence force for Israel. It is known by the Occupied as the IOF (Israeli Occupation Force) because it acts and behaves, to Palestinians, not as a stabilizing force, but as an arm for militarily backing the daily usurpation of Palestinian rights, civil rights or land rights. That we use IDF is POV but at the same time 'a fact' in the sense it is its institutional name. But such 'facts' give 'perspective', Since there are two perspectives, there are two orders of relevant facts. This use of 'facts' in the sense of 'real' facts, always backing Israel's claims, as opposed to 'lies' (one of the most frequent charges laid against Palestinian spokesman and anti-Zionist Israeli polemicists in Wiki) is a hasbara technique long recognized as such. The facts don't make any state look good, viewed neutrally. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, I don't care. I don't believe this. i am not going to get into a debate about any histoical or political topic whatsoever with you. if someone wants to add coherent facts to this article with valid sources, they can do so. that's it. the question of who is right and who is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with any aspect of this article. i am frankly amazed and astonished that you are bringing any of this up. i have not read most of your post, and I am not sure if I can right now (until i have a little more time).
Nishidani, i;m a little amazed. quite frankly, i'd be happy to discuss some of this with you if discussion could proceed in a moderate manner. If you;'re actually going to dicusss the historical justifications for Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, or residents of Catalina island, i really don't see what benefit there is to such discussions here. there will be little agreement, so i prefer not to get into it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"civilian who couldn't care less for Hamas or the PNA, that being recruited into 'martyrdom' begins to attract people out of sheer desperation. "
We're not giving land if the people getting it have only the goal to recruit more people to commit violence. that's it. the motives are not the issue. you say, "give more land, they won't be as desperate." Israelis say, "we'll give more land when there is evidence of positive devlopments." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've known from your first posts that you don't 'care', particularly about facts, except those which you like. But I consider it a courtesy and obligation to reply in depth to those who question me, whatever my perceptions of their bad faith or insouciance to the complexities of history seen in the round. You are under no obligation to read what I write, but it would be a common courtesy not to pose me questions which elicit my views, which you then do not care to read. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
p.s. it would be helpful to others who might listen to you, to think about what you have written before posting it for comment. I.e.
'We're not giving land if the people getting it have only the goal to recruit more people to commit violence. that's it.'
You are not giving land. You (your collective we) are stealing land, yesterday, today and tomorrow, from the people who had it, and then complaining about security problems when a small minority of them shoot at you for the theft, and the violence accompanying it. Most languish in stateless bewilderment, and on the West Bank, where violence from Palestinians, has been relatively low, you keep stealing, and, with the loot in your pocket, switching on the computer to write Wiki articles on Israel's security dilemmas with these dangfounded upstarts. Cite my language here in some bureaucratic venue of complaint if you will. It is a one-offer, but you more or less pleaded for it, with the implicit violence of your statements. That ends our dialogue. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
gosh, Nishidani, it sure is nice to know that discusion with you will not get out of hand or anything. Are you kidding me??? This is one of the biggest cases of WP:SOAPBOX I've ever seen. i would really suggest that if we want to keep things effective here, we really should seek positive constructive ways to hold discussions, even on the most contentious issues. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, who's this "you" whom you refer to? does that include Yossi Beilin and Peace Now? Most people would say there's some benefit to the two sides trying to understand each other, and give each other some mutual credibility. But no, it sounds like you're fine with assigning total villainy to one side or the other. guess that means you're also fine with utter continuation of armed conflict? Most people would like to see some hope for improvement. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian Arabs vs. Palestinians

Can everyone discuss this issue here, rather than revert back and forth? Thanks. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors Supporting "Palestinian Arabs" Phrasing

  • {{User|Your Username}}.
    • Reason:
      1. Reason1
      2. Reason2
    • Sources:
      1. Source1
      2. Source2
  • User:Emmanuelm
    • Reason 1: for historical continuity with pre-1948 documents, and
    • Reason 2: to complement the "Israeli Arab" term.
  • User:GHcool.
    • Reason:
      1. Reason1: This is how the groups are referred to in pre- and sometimes post-1948 history.
      2. Reason2: "Palestinian Arabs" is still an accurate term for what is being described today (i.e. they are Arabs and they are Palestinian and this is as true in 2008 as it is in 1948).
    • Sources:
      1. Source1: The relevant encyclopedia article in The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (ed. Avraham Sela, 2002) is titled "Palestinian Arabs," not "Palestinians."
      2. Source2: "Palestinian Arabs" is a common term in the modern media when introducing the subject as one might introduce "British Prime Minister Tony Blair" before referring to him as "Blair."[1][2][3]

Editors Supporting "Palestinians" Phrasing

Until I see evidence to the contrary I labour under the perception that 'Palestinians' is how they define themselves. 'Arab Palestinians' is how others define them. The ethnonym is to be preferred. It is on record, and particularly in editorial disputes in Wiki, that attaching 'Arab' to 'Palestinian' is a standard device employed to undermine native Palestinian claims to a separate and autonomous identity, which is, historically and sociologically, what they are now widely accepted as owning. To use the combination is to take sides, and discard strict neutrality.

      1. Reason2

Until the rise of Zionism European travellers make a distinction between the Arab Beduin and the native inhabitants, who were hardly ever confused with the Beduin.

    • Sources:
      1. Source1 (a)Israeli usage:‘The choice of terms and their meaning have a history. The state of Israel has historically chosen not to use the term 'Palestinian' because its use would imply recognition of Palestinians as a national group that has rights. Its preference is for 'Arab', which identifies these people with Arabs in other countries, whom they are welcome to go and join. Most Israelis also routinely speak of 'Arabs' while conveniently overlooking 'the fact that the term ‘Arabs’ silences the link which Palestinians have to the disputed homeland'(Rabinowitz 1997:11). As Rebecca Stein notes, to translate 'Palestinian' as 'Arab' is to sanitize and rewrite a threatening history (1996:103).' Rhoda Ann Kanaaneh (with Hanan Ashrawi),Birthing the Nation: Strategies of Palestinian Women in Israel, University of California Press,2002 p.11 (b) English usage. In English hyphenated identity (Anglo-Irish, Afro-American etc.,), to which this kind of usage belongs categorically, the first term refers to ethnic provenance, the second to territorial location of the immigrant group. To say Palestinian(-)Arab is confusing because it inverts the structural norm of English by making (a) the first term territorial, not ethnic (b) the second term, ethnic, not territorial, as well as (c) insinuating the extraterritoriality of Palestinians qua 'Arabs' to Palestine and (d), in so far as it is a hyphenated identity, it tends to imply that Palestinians are Arab immigrants resident in, and assuming a new identity as Palestinians, in Palestine, a country to which a state identity has been so far withheld, notwithstanding the strong evidence suggesting that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians descend from an indigenous population that was not 'Arab' in the strict ethnic sense. but rather acculturated to Islamic mores.
      2. Source2 'Up to that time (WW1) it is not possible to speak of the existence of any general sentiment of nationality, and the word 'Arab' needs to be used with care. It is applicable to the bedouin, and to a section of the urban and effendi classes; it is inappropriate as a description of the rural mass of the population, the fellaheen. . .it was only the bedouin who habitually thought of themselves as Arabs. Western travellers from the sixteenth century onwards make the same distinction, and the word 'Arab' almost exclusively refers to them (Bedouin) exclusively. James Parkes, Whose Land? A History of the Peoples of Palestine rev.ed.Penguin 1970 p.209. Nishidani (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User:Pedro Gonnet.
    • Reason:
      1. It's the more common term. Adding the word "Arab" is more confusing than qualifying (i.e. what is an "Arab"?) and only makes the term more diffuse.
    • Sources:
      1. The Oxford English Dictionary states, rather unequivocally, for "Palestinian":
  1. Consistency with most other important WP articles on the subject. eg

all use 'palestinian' rather than 'palestinian arab'. These are just the articles I found in 5 min. There are countless other examples. Indeed even the name of this article is further evidence. If the wording was changed, there would logically have to be a page move to Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict.

  • {{User|Eleland}}.
    • Reason:
      1. Consistency with the majority of English-language sources, which use the term overwhelmingly more often than "Palestinian Arabs." The Google Test is not final, but a ratio of 27,800 to 97 is pretty damn suggestive; also note that the "Palestinian Arabs" sources are the likes of the New York Sun, The New Republic online blog/supplement, Israel Hasbara Committee, American Thinker, etc. Mainstream news outlets use "Palestinian."
      2. Consistency with the use of the term "State of Israel." During the period when "Palestinian Arabs" was the historically preferred term, there was no State of Israel.
      3. Consistency with the rest of WP, where this term has been generally adopted.
    • Sources:
      1. In text
      2. Britannica: the term "Palestinian"
      3. Category:FA-Class Palestine-related articles, Category:A-Class Palestine-related articles, Category:GA-Class Palestine-related articles
  • {{User|Your Username}}.
    • Reason:
      1. Reason1
      2. Reason2
    • Sources:
      1. Source1
      2. Source2

Versions

Palestinian Arabs ver.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs.

Palestinians ver.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians.

Commentary

The sentence we are discussing is the opening sentence of the article. Since this sentence describes the situation from the perspective of the present day, I think that we ought to use the phrase "Palestinians" instead of "Palestinian Arabs." If the phrase had occurred in a section on pre-1948 history, then the need to distinguish between "Jewish Palestinians" and "Arab Palestinians" would be justified. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with Michael Safyan, above. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my perception, Michael Safyan's argument seems to be that the article would be better if we define a key term more ambiguously. I don't mean that as a criticism; I'm just trying to wrap my head around what Michael Safyan is saying. Michael Safyan, would you mind clarifying (or defending) your position? --GHcool (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think he means (or I do) that it is common, almost universal usage, throughout media sources, articles, as well as official documents and sources, that "Palestinians" is completely understood to refer to Palestinian Arab people; in other words, the people who form the constituency of the Palestinian Legislative Council, etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Sm8900, you're right on target. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand that in the popular press of 2008, "Palestinian" has come to be generally understood to mean "Palestinian Arab." My question is: why should we prefer the shorthand "Palestinian" over the more specific and better defined "Palestinian Arab?" --GHcool (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
because Palestinians consistently and clearly consider this a denigration. In using "Palestinian", we are complying with common usage by almost every source, including the group itself, and almost all political sources, including Israeli official documents. We should respect their feelings. Usage of the term "Palestinian" is entirely in accordance with all valid sources in media and government. And furthermore, members of this community feel it is more respectful of their sensitivities. There is absolutely no reason to use a term which is viewed negatively by the group itself, and usage of which is not supported by any source or practice. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Really? If that's true, I confess that I was completely unaware that "Palestinian Arab" is an offensive term. Sm8900, would you mind showing me a 3rd party source that verifies your claim? I'm not asking because I don't believe you; I'm asking because I sincerely wasn't aware of this. If I were a Palestinian, I imagine I would be proud to distinguish myself a "Palestinian Arab," but perhaps I overlooked something. If "Palestinian Arab" truly is an offensive term, then I will agree to "Palestinian" for the sake of political correctness. --GHcool (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that any source proves it is offensive. i'm claiming that clearly, every single Palestinian editor here wishes to change it; the divide between the two opinions created an edit war because of the level of support for "Palestinians." our goal here is to find some useful and fair compromise; since, clearly, using that phrase would be in complete accordance with all sources, there is no reason to disregard their stated opinions. Also, there is no need for an edit war over the semantics; especially of a single term.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
By "every single Palestinian editor," I infer you mean editors that, in your estimation, are advocates of a Palestinian POV. I don't think you mean to say all Palestinians that edit at WP are all trying to accomplish the same editorial goal. Yet, I think you do underestimate how importance a single term can be. Doright (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I am very concerned about not offending a large group of people. On the other hand, I am not at all concerned about people who are "offended" by specificity. Show me a reliable source that says that "Palestinian Arab" is an offensive term, and I will drop the issue and accept "Palestinian." --GHcool (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I will step aside for the time being, and let others respond. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool. You write: 'I confess that I was completely unaware that 'Palestinian Arab' is an offensive term,' and ask Steve, Sm8900 for a third party source to verify the claim. This is understandable if one's main linguistic impressions are those absorbed by reading the Western and especially American press. It is not perhaps so much 'offensive' as 'other-determined', and therefore resisted for its pejorative bias. In newspapers the term you favour is quite frequently employed with a specious gesture at neutrality. However Israeli and Palestinian scholarship over the last decades has done extensive work on how Palestinian (-Arabs) perceive themselves, and the news is that the young generation overwhelmingly identify themselves as 'Palestinian' without the 'Arab accessory' their forefathers learnt to wear over the last century of conflict. Young Palestinians within Israel, in one analysis (1989), preferred to identify themselves as 'Palestinians in Israel'(44.3%), 'Israeli Palestinian' 10.6%,Palestinian 4.5% over all other comibinations.(See Nadim N. Rouhana (he himself is an Israeli Palestinian),Palestinian Citizens in an Ethnic Jewish State: Identities in Conflict, Yale University Press,1997). The term 'Arab-Palestinian', as my recent edit in the preceding section shows, is now seen as loaded with political bias coming from Israel, as opposed to how Palestinians see themselves. To be called an 'Arab-Palestinian' is to risk the innuendo that one is up for transfer to an 'Arab' country. Compare also: '‘Activists argue that in addition to discriminating against them, the state attempt to ‘divide and conquer’(Ahmad) Palestinians by categorizing them as Arabs or non-Jews and placing them in religious categories (Druze, Christian, Muslim, Bedouin Muslim), regardless of an individual’s self-identification. Interestingly, Jews are listed on Jewish identification cards by the category nationality (Jewish), but Palestinians are listed on Palestinian identity cards by the category ethnicity (Arab, Druze, and Bedouin). Many scholars have focused on the ways categorization affects Palestinian identity and behaviour in Israel, usually concentrating on political control (Lustik 1982), internal colonialism (Zureik 1979), modernization (Al-Haj 1987; Landau 1969), radicalisation (Rekhess, 1990; Rosenfeld 1978)) and ethnic democracy (Smooha 1990). Sa’di (1997) concludes that academic literature on Palestinians constructs them as objects responsive to the state rather than agents of their own behavior.' (Elizabeth Faier Organizations, Gender, and the Culture of Palestinian Activism in Haifa, Israel, Routledge 2005 p.34). This is even more true of the terminology Israel and foreigners use to denote the people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Alright. I am convinced. Well done, Nishidani. I always appreciate it when editors go the extra mile and prove their point using good arguments and reliable sources rather than argumentum ad nauseum and inappropriately shifting the burden of proof. --GHcool (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is my view that what I've read above is primarily misinformation. The trend among the young and the population as a whole is not away from a Palestinian Arab identification, rather it is toward identification as a Muslim. If you take the time to check out some of the links I provide you will see some WP:RS support for this claim. However, indulge me for a moment on the question of Palestinian Arab. And, please excuse my shoddy work here, it's the best I can do right now in the limited time I have.

First look at [this link] showing the Zionists at The 32nd Session of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers, (Session of Integration and Development) held in Sana'a, Republic of Yemen, from 21-23 Jumad UI Awwal 1426H (28-30 June 2005), referring to " Palestinian Arab " in an obvious attempt at insult while simultaneously denying them their true Palestinian identity. (See item C-4 of the document.) And, check out how one of those nasty colonialists by the name of Ibrahim Alloush makes that "specious gesture at neutrality" and makes a big point out of referring to the people as " Palestinian Arab ". As a lover of all things Jewish, he is no doubt using this insult to set the Palestinians "up for transfer to an 'Arab' country." Here is the link for that bit of Israeli propaganda. [[4]]


Arabs have had three political options: Islam, pan-Arabism or nationalism linked to individual states. Saddam Hussein's appeal in the Arab world principally flowed from his embrace of secular Arab nationalism. Although the Palestinian Liberation Organization had been described by some scholars as an adherent of "secular Arab Nationalism", the rise of Hamas demonstrates the continuing significance of Islamic identity in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Arabs have over the last several decades have increasingly embraced Islam as the primary source of their identity. This increase has accelerated since 2000 when the conflict with Israel began to be seen increasingly in religious, rather than nationalist, terms. [[5]] See Identity and Foreign Policy in the Middle East, ed. by Telhami & Barnett, Cornell Univ Press, 2002

The advent of the Islamic movements as a major political factor in Palestinian politics has led to the emergence of an Islamist narrative of Palestinian history. A major point of dispute between nationalist and Islamist narratives of history in the Arab world was their respective attitude toward the pre-Islamic past. The nationalists, often under the guidance of the state, incorporated this past in the national heritage in order to enhance the legitimacy of the territorial nation-state. By contrast, the Islamist historians regarded this period as Jahili—the dark age of ignorance before Islam— and rejected any positive reference to it as inimical to Islam and narrowly parochial. The historical version articulated by Hamas is not aimed at disputing the nationalist-secular narrative so much as to refute Jewish claims and to provide the historical justification for opposing any compromise on Palestine. Hence, it overcomes the problem of the pre-Islamic past by arguing that Palestine had been an Islamic land since the time of the patriarch Abraham.

The legal and human rights of the Muslims to Palestine, argues Nabil Shabib, a frequent contributor to Filastin al-Muslima, are all secondary to their religious-historical rights. “Have you ever seen a country in this world whose history has been so rich as Palestine’s?” writes Kamal Rashid. Has any country ever been coveted by so many nations and conquerors as Palestine? The right of the Muslims to Palestine is “a firm historical religious right which does not cease or diminishes, which stems from our affiliation with Islam.” It is therefore, writes Shabib elsewhere, a historical, cultural, human and legal right as understood by international law.

Palestinian Identity, Arabism and Pan-Islam

Multiple collective identities are not mutually exclusive. Hence, the enhanced Palestinian orientation of Hamas brought about a certain change in its attitude towards the other components of Palestinian collective identity—Arabism and pan-Islam—which was different from the original concept formulated by the Muslim Brethren. Hasan al-Banna incorporated pan-Arabism within his Islamic ideology in view of Arabism’s growing appeal in Egypt at the time. By contrast, Hamas is active at a period when pan-Arabism has lost much of its allure. The challenge confronting the Islamic movements has been the consolidation of the territorial nation states and the triumph of selfish raison d’état over pan-Arab solidarity.

Like other Muslim Brethren movements, Hamas sees the Arab nation as the natural leader of Islam and the Muslims, and stresses Arab uniqueness within Islam. Likewise, while extolling the uniqueness of Palestine and endorsing Palestinian identity, Hamas states that the Palestinians are an integral part of the Arab nation, and resents the elevation of the particularist Palestinian element at the expense of the Arab whole. On one occasion, Hamas’s official spokesmen, Ibrahim Ghawsha, even dismissed both the Palestinian and Jordanian particularist political alternatives while stressing the Islamic one. “There were no borders in our Arab and Islamic history, they are something new,” he said, charging the rival al-Fatah organization of “overemphasizing the Palestinian identity.” “I myself am a Jordanian, and there are no differences between us,” he stated.

In expressing its aspiration that the Palestinian people maintain its distinctive identity and personality, Hamas stresses that this identity should possess the components of cultural unity and integration with all Arab and Islamic peoples. The integration of Palestinian distinctiveness within the larger Arab whole is shown in the commemoration of dates from Palestinian history, such as the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, but also of days pertaining to non-Palestinian Arab history, such as the 1956 “aggression” of Britain, France and Israel against Egypt.

Yet, Hamas activists see Arab nationalism as a hollow idea when it is taken out of the Islamic context. If we remove the idea of Arab nationalism from its regional dimension, says Mahmud al-Zahhar, a senior Hamas leader in Gaza, we will see that there was no such thing in Arab history. And if we take Islam out of the history of Arabism “nothing remains but a few folk tales such as Antar and Abla.”

See the The Islamization of Palestinian Identity [[6]]

Here's a list of some books that include the subject of Palestinian Arabs. [[7]]

The PLO is a confederation of Palestinian Arab groups that wants to establish an Arab state in Palestine. The PLO is an alliance of Palestinian Arab groups that work to establish an Arab state in what was once Palestine. See World Book Focus on Terrorism, By World Book, Inc, (November 2002)


Notice below how those clever terrorists called themselves the Palestinian Arab . . . Corporation, because no self-respecting Palestinian nationalist would ever do such a thing. NAMES OF THOSE DESIGNATED ON 12-04-01 Al-Aqsa Islamic Bank (a.k.a. Al-Aqsa Al-Islami Bank) Beit El-Mal Holdings (a.k.a. Arab Palestinian Beit El-Mal Company; a.k.a. Beit Al Mal Holdings; a.k.a. Beit El Mal Al-Phalastini Al-Arabi Al-Mushima Al-Aama Al-Mahaduda Ltd.; a.k.a. Palestinian Arab Beit El Mal Corporation, Ltd.) Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (f.k.a. Occupied Land Fund) U.S.A. [[8]]

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. . . . We are one people. Only for political reasons do we underline our Palestinian identity. . . . Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons." -Zuhayr Muhsin of Sa'iqa - But he didn't really mean it.

Sabri Khalil al-Banna, aka Abu Nidal argued, I am an ardent believer in the Greater Syrian state. . . . We [Palestinians] are Syrian citizens. For us, Syria is the mother nation, it is history, society, community, geography. Until recently, half of Lebanon was a region of Syria. As you see, we are true Syrian citizens. I myself have Syrian parents. . . . Greater Syria consists of Palestine, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria. - But he had his fingers crossed when he said it.

Perhaps someone can confirm this source: On March 3, 1977, the head of the PLO Military Operations Department, Zuhair Muhsin, told the Netherlands paper 'Trouw' that there are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese: "We are one people. Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. For it is of national interest for the Arabs to encourage the existence of the Palestinians against Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestine identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian State is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."

Doright (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more for the alleged "insult" file.

Both Zionists and Palestinian Arab nationalists have at various times since the 19th century claimed rightful possession of the area west of the Jordan River. The rivalry between the two groups and their claims have been major causes of the numerous Arab-Israeli conflicts and the continuing crises in the region. - Rashid Ismail Khalidi, Enclyclopedia Britannica Doright (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Have we reached consensus, then? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming that consensus has been reached. Correct me if I am mistaken. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No consensus yet. Doright (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I was mistaken. Could you summarize the nature of your disagreement in a single sentence, please? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Doright. We do have a consensus, a word not to be confused with unanimity. However, we do have some time left, and your dissenting opinion is welcome.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
This is my point. there is no reason for a hyper-politicized discussion of a single term. We can write an encyclopedia extremely effectively if we show some minimal sensitivity to others' feelings. this is not a debate between israelis and Palestinians. this is a debate between people who are perfectly happy to use the terms commonly used by media, and people who have no concern if this talk page turns into a polarized, contentious quagmire. Oh, and GHCool, a small suggestion; I don't think it's beneficial if we downgrade another's individual approach to a topic or to a method of discussion, (unless they have been disruptive). i think it might be better if we simply address the topics at hand. I enjoy your comments and your frequent insights, and I find almost all your input very benficial. i feel we can have extremely positive and beneficial collaborative efforts here, and also hopefully avoid any unnecessary contention. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sm8900, your comments should be directed at Doright, not to me. I agree with you and the rest of the community here that "Palestinians" is an acceptable (although not my preferred) phrase. --GHcool (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I appreciate your reply. I find your input to be extremely helpful and useufl. if my comments were at all in error or unfounded, I apologize. thanks. (as far as Doright, glad to have your input, Doright). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, Sm8900, you are very welcome and thank you for welcoming my input. Unfortunately, I was late in discovering the current discussion and my input came after a consensus was declared. I Therefore I rushed to provide some information to address what I view as misinformation. I know it did not address all the concerns raised, but it is was just a quick start and all I have time for right now. I know that as additional information is provided all editors will continue to assume good faith and evaluate it on its merits. I trust, at a minimum, it is clear that the claim that "Palestinian Arab" is somehow insulting may not be universally regarded as such. Doright (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool, You say that "Palestinians" is not your preferred phrase. I hope you don't mind me asking, why not? Regards, Doright (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really that interested in getting into a big long discussion about it, but if you are curious, I've already outlined my reasons on this talk page under the heading "Editors Supporting 'Palestinian Arabs' Phrasing." --GHcool (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool, Thanks. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. On the one hand you still seem to be maintaining that it should be "Palestinian Arab" and that you prefer "Palestinian Arab" for good reasons, but on the other hand, you are saying you should be counted among those who say it should not be "Palestinian Arab." Is that correct? Please excuse my confusion. To keep the discussion short, a simple yes or no with just a tiny clarification will be very helpful. Thanks again, Doright (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe it should be "Palestinian Arab" because it is more specific and better defined, but "Palestinian" is an acceptable alternative label for the same concept. Similarly, "the United States of America" is more specific and better defined and should be used, but "America" has become an acceptable alternative label for the same concept. --GHcool (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus has been reached among the majority of editors (and unanimously by editors who have participated since the beginning of the discussion). checkY

I'm not sure how this section is supposed to be used, since I don't see any signatures to the posts and my previous comments may have been reverted. In any case, I'm not sure that the claim of unanimity is accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but [this editor] seems to be saying that it should be "Palestinian Arabs." How many editors are currently counted in the majority and how many in the minority? Thanks, Doright (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor to whom you refer, GHcool, has agreed to use this version, even though he prefers "Palestinian Arabs" over "Palestinians." Hence consensus has been reached. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, he says, I believe it should be "Palestinian Arab" because it is more specific and better defined, but "Palestinian" is an acceptable alternative label for the same concept. Since Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day, and, they are by policy based on a system of good reasons, I again note, that the editor does not merely state his preference. He affirmatively states that it should be "Palestinian Arab" and has provided good reasons for it. As this question is likely to be revisited, I thought it useful to provide this note. I'm still left wondering how many editors you counted in the majority and how many you counted in the minority and how many editors have participated since the beginning of the discussion? Michael, thanks for your assistance. Doright (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was including Sm8900, Nishidani, Pedro Gonnet, Eleland, GHcool, and myself as editors who have agreed to use "Palestinians" as opposed to "Palestinian Arabs" in the lead sentence. The only voices of dissent are from you (who had not participated until recently) and from Emmanuelm (who has not shared his opinion with us since the beginning of the discussion). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Michael. Do you agree that it could also be properly said that Emmanuelm, GHcool and I have agreed to use "Palestinian Arabs?"Doright (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Doright, the editor you are referring to, GHCool, was in the end persuaded by nishidani's valid sources. So that brought us to consensus. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, however, I think there is a question as to what is considered the end because (and I'm sorry if this is a bit repetitious) he recently (as noted above) said that it should be "Palestinian Arab." Also, as I said earlier, I believe some of the information that had been provided is misleading, therefore, It would be helpful to know specifically which of nishidani's sources were valid sources and what was shown by them? Thanks, Doright (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
this is getting ridculous. sorry. there is zero support for any changes to the consensus, or any discussion. it seems unhelpful to discuss this any further.
If you have an opinion or suiggestion you wish to state, please feel free to do so. it seems unhelpful to have a discussion about the discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you apparently think it ridiculous for me to ask you which of nishidani's sources you are claiming as valid, when you said "nishidani's valid sources," and then to ask you what you think is shown by them. My interest is entirely consistent with policy regarding consensus (i.e., consensus is based on a system of good reasons). It seems that fruitful dialog is facilitated by at least a minimum amount of drilling down beyond the generality of "valid sources." And, it may be worth noting that according to policy, consensus is not based on the number of people that voted a particular way at a particular moment, and, as has been already established, at least three editors hold that Palestinian Arabs should be used. Further, I think it is obvious that the declaration of consensus may have had a chilling effect. I know it certainly has made me feel awkward and perhaps has emboldened others that now may feel no further explanations are required. Best regards,Doright (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if my wording seemed at all overly excessive. iwas trying to make a general comment. But perhaps it came out sounding personal in nature. I'm sorry for that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No harm no foul. However, I'm still hoping for a substantive reply to the issues under discussion. Best Regards,Doright (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The Palestinian charter speaks of Palestinian Arabs. Nobody here wants to say it; so I'll say it; that "Palestinian Arabs" suggest that there are also other Palestinians, namely "Palestinian Jews"; hence the objection of some (maybe all) to reference them as such. On the other hand the term "Palestinians" fits perfectly for those who want to deny any Jewish rights to Palestine. In short "Palestinians" is POV and "Palestinian Arabs" is neutral; plain and simple. Itzse (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your assumption of good faith. Actually the reason why I support the use of the simple word "Palestinians" has nothing to do with the above paranoid ramblings, but is simply because as has been pointed out, this is the common, standard term currently used in the English speaking world. I can't speak for the others who actually contributed here in favour of that wording, but I'm assuming most of them took the same view. --Nickhh (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh; you're an exception; and there are probably other exceptions here too. But you can't honestly tell me that everyone here has good intentions; therefore I worded it as I did. Don't forget; that bigots also have access to computers; and some come here for that one and only reason. Itzse (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus Version
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an ongoing dispute between the State of Israel and the Palestinians.

Collective punishment

I've deleted the "Collective punishment" section because, while it was well cited, it is not an "issue" to be mediated by both sides. Unlike the holy places, the settlements, Israeli security, and others listed in the "Major issues between the two sides" heading, collective punishment is not an issue that needs to be sorted out. Punishment (collective or otherwise) will cease once the true issues are sorted out. That is, collective punishment is a reaction to the conflict, not a direct issue in the conflict itself. In this sense, it is similar to the phenomenon of kidnappings of Israeli soldiers. --GHcool (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi GHcool. Really glad to see you put this on Talk. How about we follow WP:BRD? Looking at the history NYCJosh added text, Bold, and the GHcool did 1 revert (in effect), deleting the text. So, now let's proceed to talk it through before any repeated big edits of that whole section again, ok? (i.e., no 2nd revert/restore) If NYCJosh or anyone wants to restore, please address GHcool's rationale above. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (PS NYCJosh, if you cut and paste from Collective punishment, I believe you should show this in the edit summary. Thank.) HG | Talk 20:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
All sorts of distinction of the type Hcool made between these issues are possible. Distinctions can be made between issues "pressed" by one side or the other, issues typically discussed at Oslo interim-phase vs. permanent-status talks, etc. Put another way, if there is consensus for re-labeling the "issues" section in line with Hcool's understanding, something like "Major issues to be negotiated" I would have no objection.
However, even in that case, it is not disputable that collective punishment is an important aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it exists today. As such, it cannot be left out of the article. For example, if there was consensus for Hcool's distinction, then collective punishment could be included in the article at some other point, for example, something like Israeli gov't methods of occupation, which could include it as well as reference house demolitions, Jew-only by-pass roads, curfews, Israeli military-tolerated settler violence in the Territories, etc.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, we could be entering quite a difficult area here, but couldn't it also be argued on similar logic that Palestinian violence is a reaction? It's quite difficult to disentangle everything, and I'd personally be very wary of moving towards a position whereby this article views any oppressive Israeli action as merely being responsive or implicitly "justified" as punishment, and yet sees any Palestinian action as being a fundamental cause of the conflict. Collective punishment needs a mention somewhere in the article, as part of the broader debate about security and the right to a "normal" life (again, for both sides) --Nickhh (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, shouldn't we distinguish between the actions/methods involved in the conflict, e.g. demolitions or curfew, and whether these are interpreted as "collective punishment" or not. The methods will show up in the highest quality 2ry sources on the conflict, whereas that interpretation might not. If so, then the headings etc should forefront the methods, not the intepretation.HG | Talk 13:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I understand the issue being raised here. i think I'd be willing to see a new section on "Major issues" with one section relating to issues for a negotiated settlement, and another related to day-today issues involved in day-to-day interactions between the two sides. As a suggestion, i have started the following text, possibly as a discussion point. let me know what you think. I feel this can be added to the article, and then people are free to add fuerther well-sourced information. thanks.

Major issues of contention

A variety of concerns have become prominent issues between the two sides in regards to ongoing day-to-day interactions, and actions by either side towards the other.

Incitement and societal attitudes

Israel has expressed concern that key Palestinian leaders have promoted incitement against and overall non-acceptance of the State of Israel, including promotion of violence against Israel. Israelis have pointed to key statement by Palestinians in media, and community organizations which appear to promote violence towards and non-acceptance of Israel. ref: Israel Foreign Ministry: Behind the Headlines: Hamas’ Mickey Mouse teaches children to hate and kill - Israeli Min of Foreign Affairs website, accessed 2/12/07. ref: Palestinian Incitement of Suicide Bombings, 18 May 2001 MFA website.

Collective punishment

Israel has inflicted a variety of measures that collective punish Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza, according to human rights monitoring groups and the Palestininas. For example, Israel cut the flow of fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip, which Human Rights Watch reported as collective punishment of the civilian population, which violates Israel’s obligations under the laws of war.[1]

Starting February 7, 2008, the Israeli Government reduced the electricity it sells directly to Gaza by 1.5 megawatts over the next three weeks. This added to a series of Israeli measures since 2006 that have caused a 20 percent shortfall in Gaza’s electricity needs. According to the Human Rights Watch report, the Israeli Government justified the cuts saying that they are intended to pressure Palestinian armed groups to end their unlawful rocket attacks against civilians in southern Israel. "But the cuts are seriously affecting civilians who have nothing to do with these armed groups, and that violates a fundamental principle of the laws of war." The cuts in electricity and fuel are having a grave impact on Gaza’s hospitals, water-pumping stations, sewage-treatment facilities, and other infrastructure essential for the well-being of Gaza’s population, according to the Human Rights Watch report.[2]

Other examples of collective punishment cited by Palestinians and human right organizations are the system of checkpoints and Jew/Israeli-only by-pass roads that prevent movement and impose economic hardship in the Westbank and the curfews imposed on Palestinian towns and villages.

Major issues regarding a negotiated settlement

A variety of concerns have emerged as key issues in seeking a negotiated settlement between the two sides.

(would be followed by all the exisitng sections already appearing under "Major Issues". )

Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Sm8900's outline. --GHcool (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I added above the collective punishment section that was removed from the article. The last paragraph contains no cites and is intended as a stub. Since this whole section has been missing from the article, many other examples and sources could be provided and I trust that the section will be supplemented over time.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-1948 Zionism, Eretz Israel

Versions

Land of Israel/Palestine <> Jewish <> historical homeland
It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in the Land of Israel/Palestine, the historical Jewish homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.
Palestine <> Jewish <> biblical homeland
It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine, the biblical Jewish homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.
ancient land of the Israelites <> they/their <> rightful homeland
It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in the ancient land of the Israelites, which they considered to be their rightful homeland, so that Jews could find sanctuary and self-­determination.
Palestine <> Jews <> ancestral homeland
It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine, which Jews consider to be their ancestral homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.
Land of Israel/Palestine <> Jews <> ancestral homeland
It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in the Land of Israel/Palestine, which Jews consider to be their ancestral homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.

Version Names

I hate to name the various versions, because it might imply that certain versions take precedence over other versions, etc. However, for convenience, it is probably best to refer to these versions as 1,2, and 3, (or first, second, third) respectively. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in the meantime, Michael. My own comment will take some time, as I am not quite happy with any version. Language here is a minefield, and I hope that we are not bound in collectively to settling on any one of the three versions. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead and take your time. We certainly do not have to settle for any of these versions. However, I think that commenting on these versions will give insight into what elements are mutually agreeable and which elements are found to be distasteful. I think that comments on the above versions may be helpful as a guide for arriving at a mutually agreed upon version. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting the First Version

  • Michael Safyan (talk · contribs)
    • Reasons:
      1. I think the Land of Israel article should be wikilinked from the sentence in some way.
      2. I think "there" is redundant, but do not feel strongly about it.
      3. I prefer the use of Jewish over Jews where such usage is possible.
      4. I strongly prefer "historical" over "biblical" since "biblical" suggests that the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah were purely mythical and are not backed up by archeological evidence.
      5. I strongly object to the use of "rightful homeland", because:
        1. This is a religious argument, but the Zionists at the time were predominantly secular. They would have justified Jewish national claims based on historical, not religious, grounds.
        2. This misrepresents Jewish belief. It is believed that God promised the land to Abraham. Although some may believe that this entails an exclusive right to the land, that is certainly not a mainstream belief.
  • GHcool (talk · contribs)
    • Reasons:
      1. I agree with all of Michael Safyan's reasons above.
      2. Early Zionist literature uses "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" interchangeably.
      3. Articles and sources about early Zionism (including the article sourced for this statement) use "Land of Israel" and "Palestine" interchangeably.
      4. Including both terms ensures neutrality.
  • Sm8900 (talk · contribs)
    • Reasons:
      1. I support this verison, but can we simply add the phrase "which they considered" to this version? Would people be somewhat ok that way?
"50 Philishtian Pounds (Eretz Israel)"
"Philistia (Eretz Israel)"
  • Jaakobou (talk · contribs)
      1. Land of Israel article should be wikilinked.
      2. Reject "biblical" since it suggests that the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah were purely mythical and are not backed up by archaeological evidence... which they are.
      3. The Zionist movement used "Land of Israel" and "Philishtia"/"Paleshtina" coming from the biblical root "P, L, SH" (not Palestine, see: source 1, source 2) interchangeably in Hebrew.
    • Samples:

Supporting the Second Version

  • Pedro Gonnet (talk · contribs)
    • Reasons:
      1. The terms "historical" or "rightful" state claims and are not WP:NPOV.
      2. Seriously, we wouldn't use "historical" or "rightful" (maybe even "ancestral") when referring to Palestinian claims, would we?
      3. Even the second version states a claim which is a WP:POV: it is not "the biblical homeland of the Jews" but "what Jews claim to be their biblical homeland". Until anybody can prove that the bible is a WP:RS and that God in fact did give them that land, it's only their POV and should be stated as such.

Apologies to fellow editors for my tardiness. I have been beseiged by Porlock problems. My edit will be complex, and require several postings probably. I hope to be through by tomorrow morning. Thank you.

  • Premise:'At the very beginning of this book, I am confronted by a problem. What am I to call the territory with which it deals? If I call it 'the Land of Israel', 'the Promised Land,' 'the Holy Land', even 'Palestine', each name has a slant in favour of one hypothesis or another.' James Parkes, 'Whose Land? 1970 p.9
  • The version I dispute

    Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897, largely as a response to Russian and European anti-Semitism.[9][10] It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Eretz Yisrael, the historical Jewish homeland, so that Jews could find sanctuary and self- determination.'

  • Reasons:
    1. I agree with points 2,3,and 5 made by User:Michael Safyan above, unreservedly. Our disagreement therefore is on points 1 and 4. Points 2,3 in particular find me in complete accord. It is disgraceful, appalling fact that 'the Jews', 'die Juden' 'les juifs', etc. bear antisemitic resonances)
    1. The passage in question has the form of a descriptive statement, which, being interpretive, requires attribution. The attribution is sourced to a text in the Jewish Virtual Library entitled ‘The Return to Zion’, however, which distinguishes, only to conflate, two things (1) the political Zionist project (2) religious sentiment, and thus the interpretive aspect is constituted of a synthesis of two distinct aspects that is not in the source. Historically these are two quite distinct movements, and should not be conflated. This source is clearly inadequate, being confusing, not of professional quality and showing no grounding in the academic literature. It does not deal with ‘political Zionism’ but the general theme of ‘Zion’. You clearly need an academic text by an historian of Zionism here.
    1. Evidence: The Jewish Virtual Library source text speaks of a ‘wave of immigration’ by religious Jews who were ‘unaware Theodor Herzl’s political Zionism’. While the latter had indeed ‘profound religious roots’, the evidence this text provides is from religious sources, whereas political Zionism, a secular movement founded by a man and led by many others, with almost no religious roots, itself is described as ‘calling for the restoration of the Jewish national home in Palestine, where Jews could find sanctuary and self-determination, and work for the renascence of their civilization and culture.'
    1. Deduction 1 from the source or attribution: The source clearly distinguishes ‘religious Zionism’ from ‘political Zionism’, yet our text is describing only ‘political Zionism’ while formerly using a phrase that belongs to ‘religious Zionism’.
      1. Deduction 2. ‘Jews could find sanctuary and self-determination’. This phrase is repeated in all of our versions, and is grounded in the Jewish Virtual Library text. It is absolutely correct as a description of the aims of ‘political Zionism’. It certainly was not true of traditional ‘religious Zionism’ , which performed traditionally Aliyah independently of persecutions, as a religious duty. These words reflect Herzl’s own remarks in his programmatic 1896 work, and thus are to be retained.
      1. Dissonance caused. Herzl’s political Zionism was a minority movement intensely challenged by Jewish religious authorities as being ‘heretical’ on the grounds that, in organizing a ‘return to Zion’ atheists were assuming the mantle of a mission only God in Jewish tradition could determine. To return to Zion was God’s prerogative alone (Jer.28:3-6:29:10; Ezek.34:16; 37:12).
    1. Evidence for this.‘(O)vert appeal to the Bible and its interpretation in underpinning Zionist nationalism was not prominent in the beginning, and only assumed a critical role when the religious settler movement collaborated with the new phase of Zionist expansionism which was inaugurated by the conquests of the 1967 War’ Michael Prior, Zionism and the State of Israel: A moral enquiry, Routledge, London 1999 p.292
      1. Point 1. The problematical equation: Land of Israel/ Palestine. Land of Israel is the Englished version of the former Eretz Israel. 'Land of Israel' is an English calque on the biblical term, Eretz Yisrael, and therefore, despite GHcool's substitution, the reference is to that expression. Was Zionism a movement of emigration and settlement into an historically defined territory (Palestine) or one which aimed to settle a place, Eretz Israel, defined by Anita Shapira as a holy term, vague as far as the exact boundaries of the territories are concerned but clearly defining ownership'.(1992:11, check, from memory)
    1. Comment:Eretz Yisrael is a biblical term with biblical associations. Zionist texts in the Western literatures of the period refer to ‘Palestine’ as a readily identifiable geopolitical area. They do not, to my knowledge, evoke to their readership, secular Jewish or Western, the biblical phrase. I.e. they speak of a movement towards a ‘national homeland’ in Palestine in lay terms, they do not speak of a return to a mythistorical landscape of the kind evoked by Eretz Yisrael, a mythistorical terrain poorly represented by the imaginary maps on that Wiki page, which map as ‘historical’ what is simply an hypothesis based on the Biblical topology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judea. That those kingdoms existed, I see no reason to doubt personally. That the Biblical account can be taken at face value is deeply problematical, as many historians and archeologists have noted (Thompson, Finkelstein et al.)
      1. Comment 2 In Version 1, Eretz Israel/Palestine prioritizes Eretz Israel, and the problem is not resolved by inverting it to Palestine/Land of Israel. In either form, one creates superior claims, unfortunately, but this is the way language works.
    1. Comment 3. ‘Eretz Israel’/’Land of Israel’ in the links and maps gives us in fact 'Greater Israel' (Eretz Yisrael Ha'shlema), as coterminous with Eretz Israel, which is precisely the mythistorical territory evoked in religious texts, the one which forms the basis for settler and extreme Zionist claims to Lebanon,, Jordan, and parts of Syria and Egypt. That this was also present as a sub-theme in early political Zionist debates (one homeland proposed was ‘El- Arish’), and that it later informed the thinking of men like Ben-Gurion is quite true. But the program of political Zionism made no such massive claims. Chaim Weizmann hoped for something similar, until the English trimmed down the ‘homeland in Palestine to the territory West of the Jordan. To put a religiously ambiguous, geopolitically explosive term like Eretz Yisrael inrto the text at this point is to open a can of allusive worms. I am nor totally happy with Palestine but it is the least ambiguous geopolitical and historical term (speaking of the early period of political Zionism) we have. It is the term Herzl and early Zionist themselves overhwlemingly used in speaking to the world about what political Zionism aspired to.
      1. Comment 3.2 Evidence for the politically charged meaning of ‘Eretz Israel’ in contemporary Israeli discourse: (a) ‘The scenario of a greater Israel resembles the existing situation, where Israel controls most of historic Palestine, between Jordan and thed sea. . The agenda is held by Israel’s ruling Likud Party, which passed a resolution during its 2002 conference that 'there shall be no second state in Eretz Yisrael. Under this scenario, the land would be open to Jewish immigration and settlement but closed to Arabs’. Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy, Land and Identità Politics in Israel/Palesatine, Universiity of Pennsylvania Press 2006 p.281 (b) (Late 1970s) ‘At this stage, the political objectives were clear- to cement control over the entire Greater Israel, that is Eretz Yisrael/Palestine.’ Oren Yiftachel, 'Territory as the Kernel of the Nation: Space, Time, and Nationalism in Israel/Palestine', in Samir Kumar Das (ed.) Peace Processes and Peace Accords, South Asian Peace Studies: vol.2, Sage, New Dehli, London 2005 pp,56-97 p.78
      1. 4 Michael writes:

        I strongly prefer "historical" over "biblical" since "biblical" suggests that the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah were purely mythical and are not backed up by archeological evidence.

        Many others here, in agreeing on this, have said that ‘biblical’’ implies ‘false, untrue’. Michael says that biblical suggests the ancient kingdoms were ‘mythical’. There is, gentleman, in English usage, no such connotation attached to that word. I have used 'mythistorical' because the Bible, like many other ancient texts (Herodotus, Livy) interweaves historical and mythical elements. Mythistorical does not prejudice parts that can be shown to be 'historical'. Most of the Christian West thinks the Bible ‘historical’, since Christianity trusts in the fundamental historicity of both the Old and New Testaments. The archeological and historical evidence attests to the fact that Jews lived in that area in great numbers. The archeological evidence does not attest to the idea that the biblical ‘Eretz Yisrael’ of Numbers etc., was an historical reality, or that God's offer of the land of Canaan was a fact. Here one confuses the ‘promised land’ which was huge, with the actual areas where Jewish kingdoms were established for some centuries, and where Jews of varying proportions dwelt for millenia, precisely because one confuses historical with religious determinations of what was a Jewish homeland. ‘Homeland’ is point of origin, customarily. But points of origin are, historically, meaningless, since we all come from migrations. The Greeks migrated to Greece, established a homeland there, and dispersed, without constraint, all over the Mediterranean and Middle East. That in memory, ‘Greece’ was a point of departure did not mean to outremer Greeks, as Israel did not mean to say Egyptian or Babylonian Jews, that their real homeland was forever in Greece (Macedonia, Cyprus, Crete, Lydia), or in Palestine. The majority moved out for economic reasons, migrating to new homelands, and collectivist identitarian myths of attachment have a certain weight, but in practical terms, these migrants consider equally that their homelands are the nations where their forefathers came to dwell.
Perhaps I ought to explain this position better. "Biblical" simply means "pertaining to the Bible." That is, needless to say, very vague. For example, it can mean "in the times of the Bible" and it can also mean "according to the Bible." If it is read as "according to the Bible", then it leaves one to assume that there is no objective, factual source for the information, and thus that the information is purely mythical. At least that's how I see it, and I think that's how a number of the other editors see it, as well. Your points about "homeland" are well taken, though. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A good point. I can see now why someone of Jewish cultural background might discern here a nuance that escapes others, i.e. if 'biblical homeland' implied that Jewish people had their homeland there only in the times of the Bible. 'Biblical' again, understood as 'according to the Bible' could put 'the Jewish homeland' in doubt as an historic reality. These are nuances, Empsonian possibilities, yes. But 'Eretz Israel' and everything else is 'according to the Bible' and refers to 'in the times of the Bible', equally. Unfortunately for point 2, the overwhelming written source for our detailed information of the area is the Bible (Old Testament stricto sensu). Even the 'minimalist' school will tell you that the Bible is full of historical elements. I was trained first as a Greek scholar, and we were told to treat historians with close care, to discern structural patterns of composition, tease out the mythical from the semi-historical or semi-legendary accounts. The fact that we have no (extra-textual) factual source for historical information, but only accounts by interested parties of a person, an era, or event, never implies, to anyone who loves history, that therefore everything is mythical. It simply means we must weigh what the text tells us carefully, and endeavour to register the probable against the less probable according to what all of our available knowledge, linguistic, textual, archeological, historical, cultural etc., tells us is the most comprehensive way to account for the evidence we do have. I know this is noisome for those who seek certainties, but to say we are faced with a showdown as the Okay Corral between facts (take the notorious problem of Ezra's dates, for example) and myth, in an either/or shootout, is the simplify. 'Biblical' like every other word, has nuances, but it tells us the source, a source we were raised on, a source whose narratives have never be considered in toto to be pure 'myth'. Dinnertime, but thanks, I hadn't thought of the nuancing points you made, and they are stimulating. regards Nishidani (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    1. 4.2 It is exquisitely objective to say that Palestine was ‘the biblical homeland of the Jews’. It was also, incidentally, the ‘biblical homeland of the Samaritans’ and in part ‘the biblical homeland of the Philistines’. It has also been the homeland of the Palestinian Arabic-speaking population for millenia, and my primarily resistance to 'Eretz Yisrael' is that this talismanic phrasing establishes prior claims, esp. over another people who have existential bonds to the land as strong as those of Jewish and Israeli people. No one ever talks of the Samaritans, in this context, but they had a kingdom, were a populous people until they were successively massacred by the Greeks, Romans, and Christians, who, when they did not kill them, forced them to convert, and many converted later to Islam. The phrase ‘biblical homeland’ is true of the Jews. The word ‘eretz israel’ tends to exclude other populations like the Samaritans, as if they did not figure in the history of that land, as a people equally entitled to consider the part they dwelt in as ‘their land’. Their own religious texts, being almost identical to those of Torah Judaism, use the phrase. They are not considered however ‘Jews’, historically, but rather bitter enemies, even if ethnically they are closely related.
    1. I agree with Michael on point 5, but for different reasons. He objects strongly to the use of "rightful homeland", because:
    • 1.He rejects religious argument since Zionists at the time were predominantly secular, and based their claims on historical, not religious, grounds.
    • 2.'Rightful homeland' misrepresents Jewish belief. It is believed that God promised the land to Abraham. Although some may believe that this entails an exclusive right to the land, that is certainly not a mainstream belief.
  • Comment. The two point are correct but contradictory. For (1) represents Zionists as making secular historical claims, the other (2) speaks of 'Jewish belief'. Jewish belief is one thing, historical claims are another. The word 'historical', is ambiguous in that it can refer to (a) a biblical account (taking all of its claims as literal historical truth ) or/and (b) to the attested and profound religious belief through the historical millenia of life in the Galut that the land was the homeland of the Jews as promised by God. Both Zionists and religious Jews rightfully believed (it is an historical fact) that they descended from a people whom the Bible locates in what was, at this time, Palestine. That the Eretz Israel as configured in the Bible was coterminous with an historical fact is disputed intensely in the archeological and historical literature of modern times. It is a religious phrase, subject to religious feelings. It is not an historical fact, since the Jews lived from the late 2nd millenium B.C. along with a dozen other large tribal groupings, in that area, had kingdoms there for some centuries, which did not include all Jews, and which do not in any case cover the various areas where Jews lived. As Anita Shapira says,(and she is one of our finest historians on Zionism) 'Eretz Israel is a 'holy phrase' , which means a term denoting belief, not a term appropriate to 'historical claims', as Michael asserts. One might consider 'historic', which is also ambiguous, but which fits Herzl's usage better, but he uses it, nota bene of Palestine.
    1. Conclusion:Herzl wrote:
    2. (1)Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency.’ Theodor Herzl Der Judenstaat, 1896 (Palästina ist unsere unvergessliche historische Heimat. Dieser Name allein wäre ein gewaltig ergreifender Sammelruf für unser Volk. )
    3. He also wrote in the same book that the project required that:
    4. (2)' muss vor Allem in den Seelen tabula rasa gemacht werden von mancherlei alten, überholten, verworrenen, beschränkten Vorstellungen.'(many old, outgrown, confused and limited notions must first be entirely erased from the minds of men. ).


  • I think we should take his words to heart on this highly emotional phrase. This was the aim of political Zionism, political Zionism is the subject of the sentence. To say that the Land of early political Zionism’s dreams was ‘Palestine’ is to respect that usage, uncontroversially. To say that this ‘Palestine’ was the ‘blblical homeland of the Jewish people’ is to state a truism, without prejudicing other peoples attachments, claims or feelings. The land referred to, as Parkes noted, has potent claims on the imaginations of Jewish people, Christians,and Arabs and a neutral article should not slant profound beliefs to any one party's advantage. This is not about defending Israel's claims to exist in Israel, or impugning the intense feelings for the Land Jewish people have. Anyone who controverts that is either politically stupid or an antisemite. It is simply about using language in such a way that no one is compromised in their political, cultural or historical sensibilities.
Many of Nishidani's points have merit. Many do not, although I am confident that the points that do not have merit came about by errors and omissions rather than by malice. I'm not going to respond to every point, but I will stress that whatever meaning one gives "Eretz Yisrael" (political, religious, or otherwise), the fact that it is the historical Jewish homeland is undeniable and that information should be in the article because it is one of the basic principles of Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool. If I have made errors or omissions, certainly anything that might smack of malice, please let me know so i can separate the wheat you appreciate from the chaff that worries you, and clarify why what you take to be chaff is, in my view, wheat. The problem in writing that was not the length, though I know my wordiness bores the pants off many. It was synthesizing a very complex set of intertwined historical arguments to make them fit the otherwise narrow focus of this discussion, and not lose people's attention. I have by no means cited the many authorities I had in mind when writing what I wrote. But if my 'errors and omissions' require bibliographical support, I will provide them. I think that should be cleared up, because User:Jaakobou elsewhere is again hinting, as many have in the past, that I have it in for 'his' people. 'Eretz Yisrael' is not a basic principle of the early Zionist movement (if it is, please document it) we are writing about: a homeland for the Jewish people, preferably in the land which the Bible made 'ever memorable' to people of Jewish heritage. On a smaller point which Michael has appreciated, demographers calculate that a large part of the doubling of the Jewish population in the Mediterranean area in the Ist cent.CE seems due to conversions by people who did not hail from Judea or Israel, to cite but one example. It's simple to think in 'ethnic' terms, but rarely satisfies historical complexities. My own dear sister-in-law is a Cohen, but in religious terms, an Anglican convert to Catholicism. I hail from the du Queynes of Normandy in part, am of Irish descent mostly, but wear an English name etc.Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, please read my analogy to the Apaches I wrote below at 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC). I believe it answers many of the questions you raise. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Supporting the Third Version

  • {{User|Your username}}
    • Reasons:

Commentary 2

Pedro Gonnet, I was wondering if you could explain your first reason. I don't support the third version, but I was wondering how you consider it to be POV, since it uses attribution ("which they considered to be") for the claim of "rightful homeland". I was also wondering if you could explain why you consider "historical homeland" to be a POV claim, given the ancient coins, pottery, buildings, scrolls, etc. -- many of which contain Hebrew inscriptions, with some matching Jewish liturgical passages -- uncovered in archeological excavations from the Pre-First Temple period to the Roman Period which reveal a Jewish presence. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sm8900's suggestion that "which they considered" be added to the first version... I hesitate to add "which they considered" to the version using the phrase "historical homeland", because it again suggests that the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah were purely mythical and not backed by archeological evidence. However, I see no problem with using "which they considered" if "historical homeland" is changed to "ancestral homeland", since ancestry is a matter of belief -- it is quite possible that one's actual ancestors had converted much later. I am adding an additional version which will include this change. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Safyan here. Saying that the Jews "considered" Eretz Yisrael as their historic homeland is like saying that the Greeks "considered" Greece as their historic homeland. Greece always is and always was the historic homeland of the Greeks just as Eretz Yisrael/Palestine always is and always was the historic homeland of the Jews. There is archeological evidence and long cultural tradition and ties to the land that back up both claims. The status of the Land of Israel as the Jewish homeland is not a subject of debate among historians, archaeologists, or any religious scholars, or any other reliable source. It must not be worded as if there were some kind of manufactured confusion on this issue. --GHcool (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's one possible idea: how about if we make clear that Judaism absolutely, 100%, continually and consistently depicts the Land of Israel as the Jews' homeland. there is absolutely no ambiguity on this count, since there are numerous consistent refwerences within Halachah, the Bible, the Talmud, and numerous Jewish holy texts. By saying this, we will not be affecting any historical claims or theories at all, but this is completely consistent with Jewish religion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a good idea, but then it gives the incorrect impression that the early Zionists had justified their claims on religious, rather than historical/cultural, grounds. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't like that idea at all. The historical homeland of the Jews is Eretz Yisrael. There can be no room for debate on this fact. If you'd like to say that Eretz Yisrael is the historical homeland of the Jews and of the Jewish religion, be my guest, but we must not give in to Jewish history denial. --GHcool (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are several versions, so promoting one over another we will never get a consensus. The way to go is to eliminate them as we go and eventually arrive at consensus rather than getting a plurality rather than a consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.84 (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me first clarify, I personally don't actually object to your wording at all, GHCool. However, with that said, feel free to disagree with any points which i raise, since I am still arguing for a different version, based on the context of this discussion.
With that out of the way, let me say this; I think the point of Nishidani and others here is that there can be many different meanings to "historical homeland." Since the period in question was 2,000 years ago, there could be many other groups in the interim which would either supersede the jews' claim, or simply make it so that Israel could not be considered their historical homeland. So based on historical norms, the degree to which it can be given that appelation is doubtful. while, on the other hand, the real context for what we are saying is that all jewish holy texts clearly and unambivalently identify the Land of israel as the homeland of the jews. Furthermore, since the Jewish holy text is not some obscure ancient work, but is in fact the Bible, the holy text of the entire world, this gives it a clear basis in general historical norms of the entire Western Civilization, and a clear validity in regard to norms of cultural, political and theological importance, (regardless of what one may think of the claims themselves). How's that for a neat set of ideas? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sm8900, I appreciate your trying to "make nice," but placating to Jewish history deniers in the name of "neutrality" is not acceptable. Sm8900's argument that other peoples have lived in what the Jews call Eretz Yisrael during the time of the Jewish diaspora does not negate nor even qualify the connection of the anthropological Jewish people to its historic homeland, Eretz Yisrael. Consider this counterargument:
Jim's mother gave birth to Jim at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in 1970. Alice's mother gave birth to Alice at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in 1980. In 2008, Jim tells Alice that the hospital of his birth was Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Alice then tells Jim that his being born at Cedars-Sinai is just his personal point of view and that he should state it in the form of an opinion to avoid being insensitive to the hundreds of other people who claim to have been born at the same hospital. Jim takes out his birth certificate which shows incontrovertible evidence of his place of birth, but Alice says that he should say, "I believe I was born at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center," instead of saying, "I was born at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center," because it denies the legitimacy of her own birthplace.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is the hospital of Jim's birth despite the fact that some people other than Jim were also born there. The historic homeland of the Greeks is Greece despite the fact that some people other than Greeks also lived there. The historic homeland of the Jews is Eretz Yisrael despite the fact that some people other than Jews also lived there. --GHcool (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, how am I placating "Jewish history deniers"? ...is it merely because I don't agree with your point of view? How about this; if I choose to disagree with any viewpoint, Jewish, Christian, Pennsylvanian, or Brazilian; or whether it is a viewpoint which is rational, semi-rational, surreal, psychotic, or psychedelic; that is entirely my business and my concern. I am entirely entitled to have my own opinion, rationale, motive or modus operandi, regardless of others' opinions. it is entirely my own concern what the basis of my opinions are, are not, are becoming, or will have been begun to have become to be. thanks
I suppose I should feel complimented that you consider me rational enough to not espouse an opinion unless I have some deep-rooted, fully rational, and highly articulated reasons for doing so. However, let me disabuse you of that notion. I am fully capable of holding various opinions based around my own conceptions, misconceptions, quirks, attiudes, and rigamarole. thanks.
Phew...I think I've been hanging around Nishidani too long. perhaps I'll go lie down. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, Wikipedia works on verifiability and other staples of good scholarly conduct, and not on whether someone "agrees" or "disagrees" with incontrovertible facts. Whether one "agrees" that the Earth is round or not has absolutely no bearing on how we approach articles about the Earth and its shape because all evidence points to that conclusion. Similarly, whether one agrees or disagrees that the Jewish homeland is Eretz Yisrael has no bearing on how we write our articles because all evidence points to that conclusion. --GHcool (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on Eretz Yisrael. I disagree with you only on how we should discuss and address the issues related to this article. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Just saw the discussion on this page, and glad that I didn't see it earlier. Steve asks: "how am I placating "Jewish history deniers"?"
The answer is simple; by taking an attitude that we need to be sensitive to Arab feelings at the expense of Jewish feelings; instead of being neutral to both, in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV. It still rings in my ears Steve's words that "we let the Palestinians have whatever the heck they want"!!! which is in sync with his idea of how to discuss and address these issues. Itzse (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
May we return to discussing the issue at hand rather than attacking each other? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't attacking anyone; just putting things in perspective. Itzse (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Itzse, please do not attack me. I would appreciate it if we could please adhere to constructive ways of doing things here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, pardon me for saying it; but I find your edits destructive; although some are with good but misguided intentions. You have been a sore to everyone here; good intentions or not. Itzse (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not pardon you for saying that. I find your behavior to be extremely unconstructive. Personal attacks on other editors are not allowed at Wikipedia. please note this. thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
by the way, funny, but I was almost going to say the same thing about you. thanks for at least trying to acknowledge my good intentions. let's agree to diasagree, shall we? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Do not need your pardon. I personally feel that you have undermined me and numerous other editors with your destructive pattern of intruding on everything that goes on; not with substance but with placation. When backed into a corner, you either say that you choose not to discuss it anymore or say that you'll make room for others. I have absolutely no problems with your views nor with anyone else's; but I just can't stand your meddling in everyone's affairs (in the affairs with people you agree with!). If you continue in this behavior then it will soon be (if it's not already) me or you. Itzse (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I find your tone and manner to be very unconstructive. I fail to see the benfit of a continued tone of personal contention with other editors. Please try to adhere to the simple rules of Wikipedia. I do not agree with any of the points you have stated. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For the fourth time here you call me unconstructive; which is your right to believe. I and numerous editors/administrators/arbitrators find your attitude unconstructive (need I quote them for you?). I didn't mean to have any discussion with you; as I have learned a long time ago that I don't fit into your agenda. I came here to point out your placating of "Jewish history deniers" which you try to deny, thinking that everybody has a short memory. I have no fear whatsoever, as I don't consider myself a Wikipedian anymore (thanks to you and others; but mostly to you). I only edit occasionally and wouldn't mind stopping completely; because as long as there are Jews like you who prostitute themselves to placate the Arabs at the expense of Jews; I see no point in being here. Itzse (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I think lanugage which questions the motives of other editors' legitimate actions such as myself is fairly out of place here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It is exactly my understanding of your motives which disturbs me. Have you asked your Orthodox Rabbi if just about any means justifies its end? Itzse (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] As far, as i know, my ends and my means at Wikipedia seem just fine. I have not discussed my Wikipedia activities to that extent. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as you know and are aware (as you have just admitted) of using "means" to achieve an end; I'll leave it at that. I'm a basic believer in the truth and in fairness; the means needs to be fair too. Itzse (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think 216.183.185.84 made a good point; we should try to narrow our options, first. Any objections to removing the "ancient land of the Israelites"/"rightful homeland" version? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. I support that one's removal from the negotiation table. --GHcool (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What do people think of the "ancestral homeland" version? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the "ancestral homeland" version removed from the negotiation table. --GHcool (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What, may I ask, are your objections to it? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I object to the phrase "which Jews consider to be their ancestral homeland" and the name "Palestine" without mention of "Eretz Yisrael." I object for two reasons:
  1. The word "consider" implies a point of view that the Jews have that neutral historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scholars do not necessarily share (as in, "Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be part of the biblical canon"). There is great dispute among different people over whether the Book of Mormon is a part of the biblical canon, and so "consider" is the correct term in that example. On the other hand, there is no scholarly dispute whatsoever over whether the Land of Israel/Palestine is the ancestral homeland of the Jews.
  2. Secondly, "Palestine" is not the Jewish ancestral homeland any more than "the United States of America" is the Apache ancestral homeland. They called their homeland by a different name than the current inhabitants. --GHcool (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on the second point, but I also agree with Nishidani's point that the early Zionists used "Palestine" as the predominant phrase, and I think that wiki-linking Land of Israel while using "Palestine" is the only practical way to be accurate and to satisfy all parties. I disagree, however, with the second point. There is no question, historically, of a Jewish presence as well as Jewish sovereignty in the region. However, as far as ancestry is concerned, there is room for doubt, given that converts also view them as their ancestors, even if there is no such connection. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I am Jewish both by ethnicity and by religion, but if I "converted" to the Apache system of beliefs, observed their traditions, and identified myself with their history, it would not change the fact that Apaches in general came from a certain area of the world and they called that area by a certain name, and I guarantee that the name they gave it was not "the United States of America." As far as the question of whether early Zionists used the phrase "Palestine" or "Eretz Yisrael" is concerned, I am convinced that it varied from person to person and from situation to situation. Nishidani and others seem to argue that Wikipedia should use whichever term Herzl used. This is kind of a false dichotomy and it uses the outdated historical rubric of the great man theory. Certainly "Eretz Yisrael" was used by countless Zionists to refer to the land itself, if not for the current political reality. --GHcool (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool. Apologies for my late reply. I will answer more comprehensively, I hope, tomorrow. Something puzzles me. If you married an Apache woman, how would your offspring be defined, ethnically and religiously, in Jewish terms? I have always entertained deep doubts about ethnicity from the day I read Raul Hilberg's chilling chapter on 'definitions', dealing with the way the Nazis tried to ovecome the impossible task of 'defining of Jew', especially the incipit. (The Destruction of the European Jews, 1972 pp.43ff.):

'The problem of defining the Jews was by no means simple; in fact, it was a stumbling block for an earlier generation of anti-Semites. Helmut von Gerlach, one of the anti-Semitic deputies in the Reichstag during the 1890's, explained in his memoirs why the sixteen anti-Semitic members of the legislature had never proposed an anti-Jewish law; they could not find a workable definition of the concept of Jew.'

Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
To avoid any minsunderstandings, I should add that the same point could be made of any other 'ethnic' group.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

wow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.7.86 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, as Hilberg says, this is a complicated question to answer, but I don't see how this question (or even its answer) has any baring on the fact that Eretz Yisrael was the historical Jewish homeland. --GHcool (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
It has a deep bearing on many issues, since much confusion reigns over ethnicity and the claims which derive from it. Eretz Yisrael was, to repeat, a religious name for a spiritual territory of indefinite topology. The text is talking of a secular Zionist movement, in which for several years, the projected 'homeland' of the Jews was not necessarily in Palestine. The term 'eretz yisrael' was even used of other countries. In your Apache analogy, the assumption is Apache term/USA term::Jewish term/Palestine, the former being the term of autochtones (Apaches/Jews), the latter being the toponym of later settlers ('Americans'/'Arabs'). I.e. you are saying Eretz Yisrael was the original toponymic designation by autochthones for that land, the one given to it by Jewish settlers in high antiquity, before other nations invested that land with versions of the name now reflected in the word 'Palestine'. I.e. you are tacitly asserting that the Jewish name has historical priority. Undoubtedly, in Jewish sources, Eretz Yisrael, has high antiquity (even if far more rare in the OT, than in diaspora rabbinical sources). That land had however, historically several denominations, and one of these, contemporary with ancient Jewish names, was Palaistina(as reflected in Assyrian and Greek records). That is why the Apache analogy fails (apart from the fact that the Apaches themselves arrived in Arizona and Nevada, in several kin groups, from northern 'Canada' just shortly before the Spanish, and their 'homeland' in one sense was as much in the Athapascan-speaking areas of Alaska, as much as in the lands they settled, where they intermingled with the Pueblo and other tribes: that is a congruent analogy with the facts of Jewish settlement(and most other ethnic groups) in the Middle East). The fact remains that in speaking of the Zionist project (as distinct from the old tradition of performing Aliyah), we are speaking of, contextually, a movement to resettle the land called, at that time, 'Palestine'. I am am quite aware of the delicacy of this point, and the fact that either way, sensibilities can be touched. The only way to keep things as neutral as possible, as far as I can see, is to keep charged language out of the text, and adhere to historic usage as privileged by the original founding fathers and movers of secular Zionism, who thought of the resettlement in highgly pragmatic, modern, Western Ashkenazi terms quite distinct from those of the religiously-grounded Ashkenazi of Eastern Europe. A possible solution would be to retain 'Palestine' in the text link to 'Land of Israel'. This is still not, in my view, correct (the correct solution would be to 'double-link' Palestine to both Land of Israel and 'Palestine', so the reader could go to both pages, and both constituencies be satisfied. But technically, I don't think that can be done).Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Ultimately the term is too complicate for NPOV standards. I don't want to dwell too much on this. Suffice it to reflect on the following, which illustrates the potency of the religious denomination of that land in post-Exilic literature:

'Ezra 9:11-12: “ . . The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, nether take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.” The Land here becomes infected (i.e., polluted) because of the foreigners; not only Jerusalem and its Temple, but also the Land is prominent in the Returnees’ consciousness.’ Doron Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land, Mohr, Tübingen 1987 p.9

I hate to complicate matters further BUT, I believe that Zionists early on were unclear about wanting a nation-state per se. As late as after WWII, it was unclear whether some sort of autonomous region within a larger state or federation or a nation state was what Ben Gurion and the leadership were after. This lack of clarity is ever more the case when the views on this of other Zionist thinkers outside of Ben Gurion and his cicle are considered.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
They did want a nation-state, but had to be careful about explicitly saying this, though it is self-evident from Weizman's negotiations 1917-1919, since they desired more or less, understandably, a state with its own functional institutions (the Arabs protested from the beginning that the Jewish Agency was setting up parallel institutions to those developed by the British) along the lines of the Western nation-states which formed their model (and this is a point that distinguishes classical Zionism from that profound religious impulse motivating religious Jews, many of whom were not particularly worried about what particular political dispensation they lived under, since their attachment to the land was spiritual and, particularly, in theological terms, 'state-making' was something for God to determine, not for men.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

Dear Nishidani,
How could it be self-evident ? How just after Declaration Balfour could have they planned anything for such a long period of time (30 years before)
By comparision Do you think US policy in Middle East in 1960 (when US was an ally of Iran and not an ally of Israel, in the middle of cold war) was planning the events of the Gulf War ('91 and '02 ?)
Anybody who managed any project in his life understand that in such processes, you have to open numerous doors, foresee different issues and prepare for most of them, trying to direct events in the best assumed direction for you.
When you play such games, you don't have all the cards in hand. Just a part of them. And there are numerous other players who direct events in different ways.
Such strategy is even more true when the manager is pragmatic, which is the main characteristic of David Ben Gurion (who, may I remind, was not even the main manager at that time).
You read this from Pappe, didn't you ? You should realize that this guy is not even a novelist, what he writes is just bad science-fiction. Extreme-left-wing people have a problem to apprehend reality due to their lack of the minimum pragmatism on political and military issues as well as project leading.
Eg, in June 1920, Jewish leaders discussed to see if the Haganah was to be an underground army under military administration (Hisdarout pov), an underground army under civil administration (Golomb pov) or an official army part of the mandate administration (Jabotinsky pov). If Jabotinsky had not be jailed, he could have influenced the decision and finaly, it was decided to place this under (Hisdarout command). This is just one exemple of an event that could have changed all the future of Palestine. Do you think Weizmann knew this during his negocation in 1917-1919.
During the same period of time, people such as Magnes tried to convince leader that Zionist movement had to collaborate with Arabs. They just didn't succeed in convincing their peers. But what if Ben Gurion had been Magnes and vice versa ?
These a posteriori analysis are stupid. Pappe is not a scholar. Ceedjee (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ceedjee. Fascinating that you deduce from my remarks that I have a single and for you solely ideological source for a commonplace. You ask, rhetorically:

'You read this from Pappe, didn't you? '

. Not in the least. You don't seem to be familiar with a host of sources. President Wilson’s King-Crane Commission's report, for one. Or Weizman's admission in 1947 that:

'1947, 'We did not want to speak of a State then. We spoke of a National Home. But the characteristic of the thing, whether it is a National Home or whether it is a State, remains the same. We think that in the Jewish State all peoples will live in amity and freedom'.

You must be familiar with Weizmann's remarks to the American Secretary of State Lansing), at the Versailles Peace Conference. When Lansing asked whatt was meant by the phrase, a 'Jewish national home'. Dr. Weizmann answered him as follows:-

"The Zionist organization did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually. The Zionist Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that was to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British. Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals."

What you fail to see is the difference between situational tactics and grand strategy. One could not say openly, 'we want to plant a Jewish state in Palestine' for that would have been blocked immediately. One had to ask for the right to a 'homeland' which, once secured, could be converted into the state, with a Jewish majority. You really should read the whole record. When the Balfour proposal was passed for President Wilson's vetting in mid October 1917, he remarked to Colonel House that he had approved the draft statement On the Jewish State.' All of this can be multiply sourced (the latter comes directly from Morgenthau's memoir of 1918). The people at the top, like Morgenthau, Lansing, Weizmann, Wise, and many others, knew exactly what the project consisted in, the slow building up of a Jewish majority in Palestine, as a 'homeland' or 'Jewish Commonwealth' which, at the right time, would then become a state. This is what the record shows, and you don't need a good old communist like Pappé to state the obvious. Regards Nishidani (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
'But what if Ben Gurion had been Magnes and vice versa?' If my aunt had tits, she'd be my uncle. As to your remarks about 'the left', they smack of Jean-François Revel's, whose writings, down to La Connaissance inutile,(1988) were lively and fruitful, but are now more applicable to the maladie of the right, with its contempt for what a White House spokesman called 'the reality-based community'. Specifically, regarding Pappé, I find the man intensely 'pragmatic'. Living on the backdoor of a huge Arab neighbourhood, he learnt the language, had his kids raised bilingually, and worked hard to see their point of view, while too many of his fellow-countrymen are screaming about being eternal victims in what is a hugely successful state in a crumbling, destablised and therefore increasingly parlous region. The Avnerys, Chomskys, Finkelsteins and Pappés of this world are a credit to the Jewish people, for their willingness to defend an Arab cause unarguably does more, practically, pragmatically, to defuse antisemitic sentiments in those countries than anything the state of Israel has hitherto done. They have balls, while their local adversaries keep ratcheting up the gun and landgrab budgets. Israel, like the USA, is not a 'pragmatic' state, but, increasingly, to use your fellow-countryman Castoriadis's term, a stratocracy. Had it been, it would have declared victory in 1967, given the Palestinians a state, and invested heavily in the area's development (already educationally on a par with Israel, at a youth level), accepted the PLO and Egypt's peace offers in the early 1970s and ended up with joint ventures all over the West Bank. That course would have involved risks, but nowhere near those involved in the apocalyptic unpragmatic end-game now popular among the 'extreme right-wing' ideocrats who for a generation have dominated strategic thinking in the West.(for the lack of pragmatism, the fact that nearly every strategic assessment in US policy has been systematically and deliberately distorted by crackpot analysts wanting to 'blugeon the mass mind of governments' with unpragmatic scenarios of fictional threats, since 1950, see Joseph Cirincione's 'The Greatest Threat to Us All,' New York Review of Books, March 6,2008 pp.18ff.)Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All this political debate is very fascinating indeed, but it does not change the fact that the historical Jewish homeland is Eretz Yisrael by definition. There really isn't any other way of looking at it. A hundred societies could have come and gone and the historical Jewish homeland would still be Eretz Yisrael. This is the historical record despite whatever Herzl and Weitzman and their contemporaries called it at the turn of the century. --GHcool (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GHcool It wasn't meant to change the 'facts'. Ceedjee myself have a long-running but desultory dialogue going between us on certain questions which, as here, were tangential to the specific gravamen of this section. I think you have become thoroughly confused. We are dealing with a section on secular Zionism's project in regard to the territory known as Palestine. That many Jews at the time, reflecting age-old belief, thought of that territory as 'Eretz Yisrael' is not only immaterial to the section we are writing, but, as I have extensively argued, distorts and confounds crucial distinctions to be made, by muddling the Zionist project with what was a religious dimension, as evoked by Eretz Israel. You have, I note, not provided any evidence at all for your contention. You have simply repeated, I will not say, ad nauseam, your personal convictions, which, however fascinating, are not apposite for drafting an NPOV article in an encyclopedia, where the kind of textual scruple you insist on, rightly, in other pages (on Transfer etc.) must also be adhered to. You are wrong to repeat that 'the historical Jewish homeland is Eretz Yisrael' for several reasons, all duly expounded, because 'the historical Jewish homeland' (ambiguous) if referring to a real historical topography, cannot be imbricated over the 'Eretz Yisrael' of Biblical and rabbinical usage, because the latter is a religious notion of diffuse, contested and highly flexible geographical extent. No one knows with precise what its boundaries are, no authorities can determine those confines with precision, precisely because it is a religious term. You use it vaguely, and 'there's no other way of looking at it'. It's comfortable to think that your own opinions represent the only 'way of looking' at a problem. But we are trying to reach a consensus, and the road to that is by evidence, logic and example.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
comment - there's a distinct differnece between "Palestina" & "Philistia" (Eretz Israel), and "Palestine" - see my earlier notes and historical samples also. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't read the entire debate here; so I'm not exactly sure what the debate is all about; but if the debate is; if the geographical place now called Israel was called prior to that "Eretz Yisroel"; then I would like to point out a few facts.

To the right is a typical stamp from the British mandate period (1917-1948):

On the stamp is depicted Rachel's Tomb, with right next to the word Palestine its Jewish equivalent "Alef" "Yud", which is the initials for "Eretz Yisrael" which in English is "Land of Israel". This shows, at the least, for those who need any proof, that Great Britain and the league of nations acknowledged it being called "Eretz Yisroel". I would also like to mention that on the Coinage of Mandate Palestine; it's the same thing; with right next to the word Palestine its Jewish equivalent "Alef" "Yud" which stands for (Eretz Yisrael).

In all Jewish literature in print and in writing; starting from the first Jewish book published in 1471 all the way up to 1896; when Hertzel published his "JudenStaat"; the Holy land is never; and I repeat never called Palestine. Either it is called "Eretz Yisroel" (Land of Israel) or "Eretz Hakodesh" (Holy Land). "Palestine" was only used as a practical matter when sending letters; to know to/from which geographical place of the Turkish Empire this letter is destined or originated.

It is also interesting to note that the Christian world during that same period, stressed the place as the Holy Land but also used the term Palestine for reference; but the Jewish people as a whole avoided such reference as much as possible. It is exactly during the Zionist period starting from 1896 where the reference Palestine started being used more and more for exactly the reason to negate it as the land of Israel; which means the Land of the Jews. Nowadays those Jews who are anti-Israel will not write "made in Israel" but rather "made in Eretz Yisroel". But even to those who are the strongest anti-Israel; nevertheless, "made in Palestine" doesn't even come into consideration.

My close to fifty ancestors burried on the Mount of Olives; in every letter I've seen from or to them; the place is called "Eretz Yisroel" or "Eretz Hakodesh"; and I would like to point out that none of my ancestors were Zionists; some were "Choveivei Zion" and the rest, plain old (some young) Jews who loved "Eretz Yisroel" and risked their lives to arrive there. Itzse (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Itzse I suggest you read the whole thread. In remarking that 'In all Jewish literature in print and in writing; starting from the first Jewish book published in 1471 all the way up to 1896; when Hertzel published his "JudenStaat"; the Holy land is never; and I repeat never called Palestine,' you are not adding to the argument, which concerns the description in the lead of the secular Zionist project, from 1896 onwards. Zionists, with the British Empire and the League of Nations, did not talk of creating 'Eretz Yisrael', they spoke of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This is not a discussion, secondly, of Jewish beliefs, but of Zionist terminology as that was used throughout the period in their programmes before the world, in which they had to convince the world, Britain and the League of Nations, what they wanted to do. It is obvious that your ancestors should think of their beloved country as 'Eretz Yisrael', but they went to Jerusalem, not to 'Eretz Israel' which is a huge, vast tract of mythistorical territory. 'Hovevei Zion', by the way, after an initial resistance, did join in the Zionist programme. I think you mean that your pious forefathers made Aliyah before Herzl's time. They indeed had a profound and admirable attachment to the mystical land of their ancestors. The secular Zionists often found that many emigrated under their auspices to Palestine only because they could not get a visa to Werstern Europe or the United States, which, for one, Morgenthau hailed as the real 'Zion' of the Jewish people, just as other Zionists hailed Argentina as 'eretz yisrael'.Nishidani (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani; all Zionists cannot be painted with one brush. While some who weren't religious, some atheists, and for some of them; Uganda or Madagascar or for that matter Birobidzhan would have been good for them; there were also the religious Zionists who continued in the path of the "Chovevei Zion" and a Jewish homeland had to be in; for a lack of a better word in the "Jewish homeland"; which was never mystical but physically the place where the Jews lived for millennia.
In order to get this mystical thing out of your head let me give you some historical undisputed facts:
  • After Vespasian then Titus destroyed the physical Temple of Jerusalem; they celebrated a tremendous victory over the Jews (not Palestinians); with a triumphal victory march in Rome; with the Arch of Titus still existent today. In addition to that, they needed to announce to the world their victory; and unlike when they conquered Egypt or Parthia where they minted only two coins to commemorate their victory with the wording "Egypta Capta" (Egypt was captured) and "Parthia Capta" (Parthia was captured); in the Jewish case, they minted no less then forty eight (yes you are reading it right) forty eight different coins in gold, silver and copper; in every denomination; to proclaim their victory with the words "Judaea Capta" (Judaea was captured); not "Palestina capta". They also minted a silver denarius with the words "Judaea devicta" (Judaea was defeated). I think that is enough to lay to rest the assertion of a mystical Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel.
I.e. they spoke of Judea, not of Eretz Yisrael, just as did Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus and many other Jewish writers. You fail to understand my point. For most of the time most Jews did not live in the lands denoted as 'Eretz Ysrael'. That is not a fault, but a fact. Their mythistory invested that land with intense feelings, under the rubric Eretz Yisrael. For millenia in the diaspora, one spoke of a vague Eretz Yisrael, located yes, there, but the concept was religious, based on a huge territory given by God, but which was arguably never under a unified Jewish kingdom. It is obvious that the Jewish presence in Judea was very strong, dominant over certain centuries. It is also obvious that there was a strong Samaritan presence (Eretz Israel is in their scriptures), a Greek, Egyptian, Canaanite, Edomite, Assyrian etc.etc.presence in the 'Holy Land'. The sense of mystical refers to the cultivation of mythistoric memory in the diaspora. Zionists were pragmatic, not particularly religious, and indeed for much of the time a minority from Herzl's time down to the early settlement in the homeland. No need to fill me in on Titus's column. I have an apartment in Rome not far from it.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • After Rome defeated the Jewish people; someone might think that the Jewish presence in Eretz Yisroel came to an end; for that we again have physical evidence of a Bar Kochba revolt where Bar Kochba reconquered 800 Jewish cities from the Romans and again minted millions of coins of which hundreds of thousands still exist today; and guess what are the words on those coins; they are "year one" "year two" to the freedom or redemption of Israel or Jerusalem.
Again nothing of this is pertinent to the language of Zionism under discussion. I am quite familiar with all of this history, and fail to see its pertinence to the issue under discussion.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If that isn't enough then the physical Jerusalem Talmud was compiled by the sages of Eretz Yisroel, in Eretz Yisroel in the two centuries following the destruction of the Temple.
Idem. The Talmud cannot adequately define the exact boundaries of Eretz Israel. There is a considerable literature on this. Eretz Yisrael in some versions far extended beyond present day Israel, and yet religious Jews did not perform Aliyah to El Arish, or Lebanon, or present-day Syria, and Jordan, all areas circumscribed by one definition of Eretz Yisrael. They went to the holy centers from present-day Syria and Jordan, moving out of what could technically have been defined as Eretz Yisrael.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line; Zionists or no Zionists; to all Jews this place was called and still is called Eretz Yisroel; the dispute between them is only if a Jewish State should have been established in its homeland Eretz Yisroel before the coming of the Messiah or not, and how to approach it now after the fact; but on the historical facts no one is in dispute.
The bottom line is that both you and User:GHcool confuse Jewish sentiment and memory, with the specific programme of a specific movement at a specific time in history, use generic arguments, and do not provide what I have asked for from the outset, i.e. reliable academic sources by historians of distinction saying Zionism' intended to return to Eretz Israel. Encyclopedias are not written out of memories, but according to reputable, preferably specialized academic, sources Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong when you say that my ancestors "went to Jerusalem" not to "Eretz Yisroel". I have in my procession many letters from a century or more before 1896; saying that they have arrived in Eretz Yisroel. Some of my ancestors arrived in Tzefat and some in Chevron; so you have an erroneous perception of the facts. Please look into the few of many facts that I've given you to ponder; and please have the courage to come back and say that I'm right. Itzse (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I simply made a logical deduction, and it turns out to be correct. Your ancestors were pre-Herzlian migrants, who, being religious, used the word, customary in religious language, Eretz Yisrael, to perform Aliyah. You distinguished them from Herzl, who founded Zionism. We are not speaking of religious Aliyah, but of political secular Zionism. I do not understand why this obvious distinction is so problematical. That your ancestors went to three of the four sacred cities of Judaism, Safed, Hebron and Jerusalem, only underlines the point: they emigrated to those areas where pious Jewish communities had managed, against great odds, in poverty, and adversity, to maintain the faith of their forefathers. I have a deep admiration for those old communities, and no disrespect is intended. To the contrary. Your several personal remarks only confirm my point: your ancestors were not Zionists, but pious Jews performing Aliyah. We are writing about Zionism, a secular vision, often in profound conflict with the pieties of orthodox and ultra-orthodox rabbinical Judaism.Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion that I started here yesterday is whether in the proposals the term "nation-state" is appropriate (or perhaps a more general term such as "homeland" more closely fits the history.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I am sure many of us have heard that Zionist leaders discussed and pursued the idea of setting up a homeland in areas other than the Holyland (Palestine/Eretz Yisrael, whatever you wish to call it), including in Africa. Thus a more accurate sentence would reflect that they sought a homeland somewhere, including possibly in Africa or the Holyland.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea as to how many people caught on to the idea of having a Jewish homeland in Africa? For historical trivia it is good; but to my knowledge that idea if ever it was a serious idea didn't get off the ground at all. Also to my knowledge, most Zionists in 1896 were religious Zionists, to whom such an idea was ridiculous. Itzse (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
'Also to my knowledge, most Zionists in 1896 were religious Zionists, to whom such an idea was ridiculous'. A remark which once more, I'm afraid, radically underscores your lack of knowledge of the history of Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
per WP:CIV, please avoid snide remarks at good faith fellow editors. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to know if I need to wait for consensus, for every change I feel is needed for this article to adhere to all of Wikipedia's rules. I would be thankful if anyone can please clarify this for me. Itzse (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a form of courtesy, and proper procedure. opened up a discussion to achieve consensus on a disputed point. The text was frozen because it risked suffering from an edit war. Since Jaakobou has returned, thank God, from s a statre you called missing in action due to administrative action, he has twice reverted the frozen text to the version he prefers, without engaging in the discussion User:Michael Safyan has organized and, until recently, supervised. I hope Michael returns to make it clear that this return to edit-warring, before consensus over these disputed lines is achieved, constitutes, if not, bad faith, then an extremely poor disregard for editorial proprieties. No doubt in a vote, I will find myself in a minority. But none of you have provided a skerrick of evidence to justify this way of writing about political Zionism and (2) the 'Return to Zion' source in the text is, as I have shown, excuse my presumption, unusable because it is not a reliable source, being unprofessional in its confusions, confounding two different movements Aliyah and Political Zionism, which all reputable historians distinguish. That source cannot stand there, since it does not support the inference made in the text. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, both Jaakobou and Itzse have presented validated notes regarding Eretz Israel/Palestina. If you believe those (Palestina history) findings to be false, please state this rather than engage in wiki-lawyering and personal attacks at other editors. Phrases such as "none of you have provided a skerrick of evidence" leads to assertions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT towards you when you ignore presented evidence. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Suicup, please go over the evidence presented by Jaakobou and Itzse within Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you believe those (Palestina history) findings to be false, please state this rather than engage in tag-team edit warring -- [9] -- alongside Nishidani who was, at least, partaking in the discussions. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou. I live in Italy where Popes speak ex cathedra, much to my annoyance. That you and User:Itzse have presented a few remarks on Philistia and stamps in Palestine is neither here nor there. They are desultory remarks, with a few tidbits of irrelevant information not bearing on Zionist usage 1896-1919. Nothing here has the slightest textual relevance to the point User:Michael Safyan, with whom I have disagreed on several thingsm, has shown exemplary style in providing a format for extensive commentary and dialogue on a contested issue, namely the propriety of using Eretz Israel as the place where the Zionist movement directed its energies. I wish others with whom one disagrees could display the same courtesy and esprit de corps (2) Secondly, on a point of English, 'validated notes' is a very curious expression. What is a note (a reliably sourced document, or squiggles from personal notes?) and who 'validated them'. They appear to be self-validated, and in that sense I give them a valedictory, because no one here has the right to self-confirm his opinions. We look for reliable sources. (3) I note that it is by now a habit of yours to refer to me 'attacking other editors'. If you can find evidence in my remarks above that I have attacked my interlocutors, take it to the appropriate arbitration authority, or simply, and it is a polite request, shut up this nonsensical habit of trying to load my record as one of abuse. I have dedicated considerable time to a logical, evidence-based argument on an important discrimination in historical usage, and all I get from those who disagree is brief quips, vague analogies, and remonstrations about manners by those apparently not sufficiently civil in turn to deal with those arguments in a rational, impersonal and documentary fashion.(4) For the record, I note that when we discuss Palestinians, Jewish inhabitants are identified under the Mandate as Palestinians by Israeli editors. When we discuss Eretz Israel, those Palestinian Jews automatically, on the strength of Postage Stamps and 'validated notes' become Jewish inhabitants of Eretz Israel. (5) I would suggest you take the advice you dollop out to User:Suicup, who has challenged you, me, and people of all persuasions here, on concrete edits, and done editorial review with scruple. I.e. review the evidence given by myself and others. Determining the propriety of an edit does not consist in taking cognizance of your personal views, or ex cathedra pronouncements. I don't take offense at User:Suicup's independence, or hyis remonstrations of impatience with me, and neither should anyone else here. The text should technically stay as it was before before it was locked up, an action taken to avoid edit-warring, to enable a consensus to be achieved. Perhaps that consensus will support the text you desire, but until User:Michael Safyan is through with us, in the format he has provided, and where he has invited us to comment, it is proper for editors to refrain from unilateral challenges to the text.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On 09:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC), Nishidani wrote, "The bottom line is that both you and User:GHcool confuse Jewish sentiment and memory, with the specific programme of a specific movement at a specific time in history, use generic arguments, and do not provide what I have asked for from the outset, i.e. reliable academic sources by historians of distinction saying Zionism' intended to return to Eretz Israel." Well, I have good news. The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (ed. Avraham Sela, 2002) uses the term Eretz Yisrael extensively in listing for Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, - what does 'desultory' mean and how is this (succinctly put) relevant to the historical findings? Are you saying that your understanding of Hebrew and Jewish terminology is better than mine? I'd be willing to use an arbiter on this, but Itzse was supportive of my translation also. Do you have any special reasoning/justification for rejecting a mainstream perspective? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of "desultory" is:
1. Moving or jumping from one thing to another; disconnected: a desultory speech.
2. Occurring haphazardly; random.
Nishdani; I find it comical to engage in a historical debate where I bring historical facts; and in return, instead of acknowledging them; they are downplayed and degraded in every way possible and topping them off by calling them "desultory remarks". Please play fair.
I don’t thing it necessary to show your error on every point so I’ll just do a few:
You say that "they spoke of Judea, not of Eretz Yisrael, just as did Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus and many other Jewish writers."
Ok; here are two photos one from a Jewish Shekel of the First Revolt and the other a Jewish Shekel/Tetradrachm/Sela from the Bar Kochba revolt. On the Shekel from the first revolt; it says on one side "Jerusalem the holy" and on the other side "Shekel of Israel"; not of Judaea and surely not of Palestine.
On the Shekel of Bar Kochba; on one side it says "Shimon" who is Shimon bar Kochba; around the facade of the Temple of Jerusalem; on the other side; on some it says to the freedom/redemption of Jerusalem and on some; to the freedom/redemption of Israel. Are you now already convinced that the Children of Israel called their homeland "Eretz Yisroel" (the Land of Israel); or is this still to you mystical?
Nice point, but the subject of my sentence was Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, diaspora Jews, who were as much Jewish as Bar Kochba. Not all Jews shared Bar Kochba's attitudes to the land. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
File:Great Revolt coin.jpg
A silver Shekel issued by the rebels in 68 AD. Obverse: "Shekel Israel. Year 3"; Reverse: "Jerusalem the Holy"
Bar Kokhba's Tetradrachm/Shekel/Sela. Obverse: the Temple facade with the rising star. Reverse: A lulav, the text reads: "Year one of the redemption of Israel"
You say that "No need to fill me in on Titus's column. I have an apartment in Rome not far from it." Now that you have first hand knowledge; please tell me what the Arch of Titus tells you.
You say that "The Talmud cannot adequately define the exact boundaries of Eretz Israel." Have you ever studied the Talmud to make such a bombastic statement?
Tell me, since evidently, you can save me more 'bombast' by dipping into your learning, where does, in rabbinical learning, Acre stand, inside or outside Eretz Yisrael?Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You say that you are asking for "reliable academic sources by historians of distinction saying Zionism' intended to return to Eretz Israel". GHcool has properly answered you on that.
I wonder why you keep ignoring what I wrote that all Zionists cannot be painted with one brush; and because an insignificant fringe considered establishing anywhere for the time being a place called home; therefore it negates an entire people/religion and history as one piece of myth.
That Eretz Yisroel is the homeland of the Jewish people is a fact, which is stupid to even debate. That was a fact in ancient history, in medieval history and remains so in modern history. Zionism didn't create such a fact, which not one non/anti Zionist questions. Zionism only advocated the creation of a Jewish state in its homeland; which religous non Zionists believe was wrong to create before the coming of the Messiah.
It is amusing that while you find Jewish history as nothing to be taken serious; everything is only religious and a myth; on the other hand when it comes to Palestinian history, you find it holy, irrefutable and etched in stone. Sorry for the tone which is stronger then I intended; but I just cannot conceal my bewilderment. Itzse (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Zionism first took form as a direct outgrowth of the Jewish desire to return to Eretz Yisrael. that's because this concept is clearly present in the most central Jewish texts, ie the Bible and the Talmud. Therefore it was central to this most basic of Jewish beliefs. whether it took other political forms during some minor debates along the way should not confuse the basic issue. for example, at one Zionist Congress, some West European jews who were worried about pogroms in Russia started to slowly ask about the idea of establishing a Jewish State somewhere other than Eretz Yisrael. they were roundly refuted by Russian jews themselves, who declared they would rather wait in order to preserve the centrality of Eretz Yisrael, then seek a more short-term siolution by looking at other geographical locations. i'm nort sure of the source for that, but that is a historical record. You can read more about it at History_of_Zionism#The_Uganda_proposal. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Itzse happens to be right, above. there may not be any published political texts, for some eras and some localities, stating that the overall goal of the Jewish people was to return to Eretz Yisrael. however, clearly that was their aspiration, since no other conclusion would have been possible based on innumerable Jewish texts. Similarly, there may not be any organizational minutes enshrining the goals of the Zionist Congress as the voice of all Jewish people. However, clearly, they arose from common goals of the Jewish community. there is a divide between the colloquial beliefs of jewish peasants, and the cultural leaders of European Jewry, simply because they were from different cultures. However, there are certain beliefs common to all Jews. why would anyone think differently? what could be considered sinister about a basic belief which arises intuitively from several of the most well-known of Jewish texts? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Steve, Sm8900 but Itzse of all people would thoroughly know what 'ascend the wall' means in rabbinical texts, and the problems it placed for Jews wanting to return to Israel. The 'overall goal' of any people does not exist, and most Jews in history never made it an overarching goal to return to the land of their forefathers. This is particularly true of American Jewry. You should read up on the Cahan debates of 1925-26 to get some idea of how intensely this idea was mocked there at the time, and how intensely Zionist ideas and Herzl's program were mocked by people like Rabbi Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1903 (to cite but one of many examples) in the most vigorous language:

'They (the Zionists)also study the Bible through commentaries which they compile out of their imaginations in order to clothe the verses with nationalist nuances. In their speeches they make use of treacherous interpretations. All of this was commended by Herzl . .This method is the basis of their propaganda which is directed at the one aim of removing the heart of the people from the Torah and the holy beliefs that are in the heart of Israel (=the people) and of implanting instead nationalism as Judaism”.

All I have learnt in here is how little the real, as opposed to the romantic, version of history is studied these days.
When people do not wish to answer a question, they raise innumerable secondary side-issues to distract one. In cybernetics, this leads to increments of noise which drown out the original message (a request for proof, and sources, here). User:GHcool at least has finally responded to a request I have made repeatedly for much more than a week, i.e. to provide a source for the idea that the Zionism of the period alluded to, thought in terms of Eretz Yisrael rather than in terms of Palestine. Since Avraham Sela(h) edited the book, it should be a good source. The Jewish Virtual Library is useless, and cannot stand, and therefore the passage, I repeat, based on it makes a false construct. All we need then, to get towards a closure, is for GHcool to now provide us with the text in that compendium which defines Herzl's Zionism in terms of a project for Eretz Yisrael. I have twenty odd sources which say otherwise, but GHcool has come up with what I asked for. All of the rest, postage stamps, Philistia, did Israel exist, strawman questions, numismatics, and fuzzy contemporary beliefs which fudge a very complex and highly differentiated historical problem, are, at this stage, boring and distractive of the original query and its solution. If people read books, rather than consulting other wiki pages, or repeating hearsay, editing wikipedia would be a far simpler, and expeditious business. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I will provide passages from the encyclopedia when I get home tonight. However, Nishidani is setting an arbitrary standard by limiting my response to Herzl's Zionism. The false dichotomy here is the implication that Zionism can only be seen through Herzl's eyes. Fortunately, Wikipedia need not be written through the great man theory of history. --GHcool (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishdani; while the philosophy of anti Zionism is in part based on an agadata in tractate Sanhedrin of G-d making a pact with the Jewish people in its homeland Eretz Yisroel, not to go out of exile on their own ("not ascending the wall"); nevertheless, not even the strongest anti-Zionist will agree with you on your historical revisionism. Rabbi Amram Blau (a cousin of mine) the founder of Neturei Karta never thought of himself as living in Palestine; but as living in Eretz Yisroel, the land of his forefathers. When the Satmar Rebbe visited Eretz Yisroel; his newspaper reported it as visiting Eretz Yisroel not Palestine. I really don't know where you get the idea that the Neturei Karta agrees with you on questioning Eretz Yisroel as the homeland of the Jewish people. I'm sorry to disappoint you, if you thought so.
I wasn't thinking of Neturei Karta or Satmar. But they are interesting because their position, an extreme minority one now, reflects a much stronger consensus down to a century ago, before Herzl's Zionism got underway.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
When you write that "most Jews in history never made it an overarching goal to return to the land of their forefathers"; you show a lack of knowledge of history which is astounding. Not only did every Jew yearn to return to the land of their forefathers, to Eretz Yisroel; but even prayed three times a day, and the pious a fourth time at midnight (Tikkun Chatzot); shedding rivers of tears; pleading with the all merciful G-d to redeem us and bring us back to Eretz Yisroel. If you can make such a blatant elementary mistake; then you really have absolute no knowledge of Jewish history, period.
My knowledge of the history you prize, admirably, is indubitably less than a fingernail compared to your comprehensive learning. I speak of another history however, that dealing with things like the statistics of emigration. Only 20% of emigrant German Jews between 1933-1939 chose to emigrate to Palestine, and, notoriously, it was the last place on their list. Similar data throughut the period 1880-1948 show that most Jews desired to emigrate to Western Europe or America. The Egyptian Jews after 1956 overwhelmingly chose to go to France, Argentina, Brazil and America, and not to Israel. You are confusing religious beliefs and feelings with historical realities. The Jews, and this is one of the things humanity has deep debts to them for, displayed a remarkably adaptive diversity in values, and cultural commitments. The alacrity of their mobility helped de-ethnicize the traditional world of its parlous attachment to tribal sentiments. Once the infamous antisemitic ghettoization of their destinies was lifted from their shoulders they went everywhere, and enriched Judaism as they enriched humanity. To state this is not to disparage those who chose to cultivate their religious identity. You have historical family links with a great tradition that inspires envy, and your pride in it is admirable. But it is not 'the Jewish people', but rather one central element which bore ancient tradition on its shoulders to conserve it against the barbaric crudity and cruelty of Western enmities Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You are gravely mistaken when confusing the Maharshab's (5th Lubavitcher Rebbe); stand against Zionism as questioning the Jewish people's attachment to Eretz Yisroel; it was against the "nationalism" and creation of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah which he and others were against; not questioning Eretz Yisroel as the homeland of the Jewish people. He prayed every day for the Messiah to come and bring us back to Eretz Yisroel, which is the homeland of the Jewish people. He didn't consider Lubavitch as his homeland, but he did consider Eretz Yisroel as his homeland and the land of his forefathers.
Mucvh could be said. I cited that phrase to show the hostility of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to Herzl's project, something you choose to ignore, but which is the subject of the text under revision.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
To test your honesty; let me again ask you a question you avoided answering: You said that "they spoke of Judea, not of Eretz Yisrael, just as did Philo of Alexandria, Flavius Josephus and many other Jewish writers." and I showed you black on white two photos; one from a Jewish Shekel of the First Revolt and another from the Bar Kochba revolt; where you can clearly see that they considered the land as the Land of Israel. Are you ready to acknowledge it? Yes or no.
If you doubt my honesty, I suggest you ignore me. I ignore many remarks you make not because they are dishonest, but because they are strawman arguments, and tend to distract one from the specific issues.As a former and precocious numismatist I am quite familiar with what you adduce. There is nothing I need deny here. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, from the way you write (I'm a little familiar with it); it seems to me that you're a theologian; are you by any chance a Priest? Itzse (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not even an atheist, since that implies I take a position on God, whereas the word is, as usually defined, meaningless to me. I am completely indifferent to the questions of theology as substantial problems, which however does not mean that I do not like exercising my mind on the strange things our common tradition asserts about the world. Man is as he acts, not as he believes Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold it. Just a moment, everyone. There are two issues being discussed:

  1. The use of Eretz Israel vs. Land of Israel/Palestine vs. Palestine.
  2. The use of "biblical" vs. "historical" vs. "ancestral" homeland.

With all due respect, Jaakobou and GHcool, please do not edit until the discussion has been concluded. With all due respect, Nishidani, the use of "Palestine" instead of "Eretz Israel" in Zionist literature is only applicable to issue number one, not to issue number two. I think we need to we ask ourselves: "what time period are we discussing"? Because the terminology may differ greatly from 1897 to 1948. Furthermore -- and I think GHcool touches upon this when he accuses you of a "great man" argument --, are we to limit ourselves to the terminology of the published Zionist elite or to the terminology in use by the population at large? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. I must admit I have allowed myself to stray in addressing what was a very specific issue. I dislike not replying to queries, even if privately, I think them irrelevant. The text, as I delineate below, in the next section, speaks of politicalm Zionism at the outset of the historical section, and I naturally presumed that we were therefore dealing with the origins of the Herzlian Zionist project in the period 1896-1919. Zionism at this time was not a mass movement. It was an extraordinary piece of geopolitical engineering conducted by an elite, and, against all odds and incredulity (especially strong among Bundists, American Jews, and rabbinical schols), negotiating with elites. I haven't said it, but I have had the constant impression that my interlocutors are crumpling up and telescoping into one tradition a Zionism that has very distinct phases, until by the late 1930s and 1940s it became an orthodoxy, and naturally diffused into the value system itself of Israelis after the establishment of the state. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Nishidani. That would explain much of this misunderstanding. Although the previous sentence notes that the Zionist movement was established in 1897, I had interpreted the sentence in question as referring to the Zionist movement since its establishment in 1897 up to the point at which Israel was established in 1948. Perhaps the sentence should begin with "Prior to the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Zionist movement sought ...". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Michael Safyan for getting us back on track. To answer your question, of course we shouldn't limit ourselves to the great man theory of history. We should call the land in question by all of the names used by the Zionists. This is why "Land of Israel/Palestine]]" is best way to get all the different terms across. --GHcool (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The following excerpts are taken from the entry on "Zionism" in The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (ed. Avraham Sela, 2002):
  • The encyclopedia defines the term "Zionism" as "The movement for the national renaissance and political independence of the Jewish People in Eretz Yisrael (Palestine), which emerged toward the end of the nineteenth century" (p. 928).
  • "Religious yearning for the return to Eretz Yisrael existed ever since the Jews were exhiled at the end of the first and beginning of the second centuries A.D." (p. 928).
  • "Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer ... argued that the Messiah would only arrive after a large part of the Jewish people would return to and settle in Eretz Yisrael" (p. 928).
  • "Even though there were only a few Zionists who believed that most of the Jews would actually immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, the majority believed that eventually ... the Jews would constitute a majority of the country. 'Catastrophic Zionism' ... argued that if the Jews would not come to Eretz Yisrael, a catastrophe would befall them" (p. 929).
  • "There were also Zionists who advocated the establishment of a binational (Jewish-Arab) state ..., believing that there was no other moral solution to the clash between the national aspirations and demands of the Jews and Arabs in Eretz Yisrael-Palestine" (p. 929).
  • "In its early years, the Zionist movement had to contend with the question: should Jews insist on establishing their state in Eretz Yisrael ... ?" (p. 929).
  • "[T]he seventh [Zionist] Congress ... decided to reject to 'Uganda Plan' ... and to strive to establish [the Jewish state] in Eretz Yisrael only" (p. 929).
  • "Some of the 'territorialists' argued that the 'stateless' Jewish people required a 'peopleless' territory, but that unfortunately Eretz Yisrael could not fulfill this need" (p. 929).
  • "Following the publication of the Peel Commission Report in 1937 ... the Zionist movement had to contend ... with the question of whether to consider the establishment of a Jewish state in only part of western Eretz Yisrael" (p. 930).
  • "[T]he Zionists ... found cooperation with the 'non-Zionists'--those Jews, who sympathized with the Zionist effort but had no intention of settling in Eretz Yisrael themselves" (p. 931). --GHcool (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus 2

When consensus has been reached, what was the decision?

Abbas re Holocaust

I see User:Jaakobou wanted a clarification of Abbas's use of the word 'shoah'. It appears that he was commenting on a statement made several days earlier by Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai in threatening to make a 'shoah' in Gaza unless Hamas desists from its use of Qassam rocket attacks [3] [4]

I thought myself this was an extremely odd abuse of the term, and jotted it in to the relevant section of Holocaust, but it has, I gather since been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A Reuters mistranslation, [10]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid your link does not change anything. 'Shoah' was the word used, as the Hebrew text the link cites shows, and if you check the Holocaust page on Wiki you will note that it was the word used in 1942 (from memory) to refer to the Holocaust of the Jews. Haaretz and other Israeli newspapers referring to Vilnai's declaration did not source their information from Reuters. Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On a related point, the latest edit spat over the inserted "clarification"/commentary on Abbas' remarks, is a bit daft. Most people are aware of the Nazi Holocaust, and adding the so-called clarification appears to be little more than slightly distasteful point-scoring, with Jaakobou trying to push his "Arabs exaggerate" and "what have the Palestinians got to complain about?" lines into the article (see Battle of Jenin, Saeb Erekat etc). Its removal does not, as claimed in another edit summary, mean anyone here is necessarily asserting a direct comparison between the Nazi Holocaust and the latest assault on Gaza (assuming anyway that this is definitely what Abbas actually said or intended; Matan Vilnai seems to have been given the benefit of the doubt over his apparently similar comments). Abbas' remarks, as reported, are still quoted in the article - only the commentary has been removed. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickhh (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Abbas's remarks were very obviously a response to Vilnai's, as reported by the fairly conservative Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahranot [11]: "Abbas was responding to remarks made by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilani, who said Friday that the Palestinians would bring on themselves what he called a "bigger holocaust" by stepping up rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza.
'It is regrettable that Israel uses this word, banned for more than 60 years, the word 'holocaust,' and we demand that the world respond,' Abbas said."
It is truly remarkable that Jaakobou, who obviously knows about this, since it was all over the news in Israel, would stoop so low as to present Abbas as the one abusing the term "Holocaust." <eleland/talkedits> 15:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I love how you're completely trying to mistranslate things to justify your racism. Grow up and get a clue, neither the SS, nor the KKK, nor any of the other groups you hang with are in vogue any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an afterthought, annotating an exception to what the Italians call Arms of Mass Distraction (the media), and throwing light on the use of the word 'shoah' by Vilnai, whose remark, in the following context, appears to reflect not simply a personal view, but an outlook shared by senior members of the IDF. In today's La Repubblica the following remarks are attributed to the former head of Gaza operations for the Israeli Army, the retired Brigadier General Zvi Vogel:-

'We have to change the elements of the equation . .I'll give you an example. When we discuss a prisoner-swap, we're ready to liberate, in exchange for Gilad Shalt, from 500 to 1000 men held in custody whose 'hands are filthy with blood', and this seems to us to be an adequate exchange. Why not apply the same rate of exchange (moneta lit.'coin') for every action undertaken by Hamas? Why not inflict on them a 1000 casualties for every casualty our side sustains? It's not that I'm thirsting for blood, but I want one thing to be clear: my right to exist in this place is a permanent right, and not an artificial or temporary one as Hamas defines it. As long as we lack resolution, things will only get worse. What is happening in Gaza these last few days shows that there's a lack of resolution at a national level (in Israel), even if, on a military level, the soldiers are doing everything they can.'Mila Rathaus, 'Per ogni nostro ferito colpiamo mille di loro,' La Repubblica, 3 March 2008 p.3 (my translation)

There is a history of Israeli-Palestinian kill rates, 1/30, 1/10, 1/4 (2nd intifada early months). In Gaza it seems to skyrocket now to 1(Sderot)/100 (i.e. for Vogel, sign of a lack of national determination). Zvi Vogel is thinking of 1/1000. That kind of escalation from a military expert perhaps throws some light on the 'shoah' thinking behind Vilnai's vision. When humanity still had Karl Kraus on hand to comment, remarks like this from generals usually elicited savage satire. Now we make dry footnotes on them,, if they are noted at all. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the bullshit "proportionality" nonsense thrown around, nobody should ever have won a war. Certainly more Japanese and Germans died than did the other side in WW2, same thing for WW1. "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.(Patton)" You launch rockets from a house or a school, expect the retaliatory strike to hit the school. You attack someone using women and children as cover, sorry, you're a rat bastard who put them in harm's way and that's the end of it. Read the fucking geneva conventions, you are NOT ALLOWED to hide among civilians, IT IS A WAR CRIME AND YOU, NOT THE ENEMY SHOOTING AT YOU, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR DEATHS. Hamassholes spend their times plotting ways to hide behind civilians and then whine about the death rates, it's their fucking fault, and enough with the bullshit.
To get back to the Abbas quote, I note that Eleland's citation on Vilnai's 'shoah' remark has been deleted because an editor tells us, without sourcing, that AP retracted that translation. The motive given is unacceptable. That the AP may have retracted its translation does not alter the fact that Abbas heard it, either in English or Hebrew papers for some days, that the remark was widely broadcast and understood in Israel as an analogy between the Gaza situation and the shoah/holocaust. Had it not been widely understood by native Hebrew speakers as meaning precisely such an analogy, it would never have created the ruckus it did. Shoah does mean 'holocaust', and is used of the genocide of Jews in WW1. The English version has nothing to do with it. It is the Hebrew word which counts. Abbas's remark is meaningless without that clarification, indeed made to look as offensive as Vilnai's remark was. (I hope no one feeds the beast above) Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
This is like trying to say that the word niggardly is offensive. Get over yourself and stop trying to mistranslate to make some racist point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

shoah = hoolocaust

In this case, I agree with M1rth. this edit-warring over one word is getting excessive. Please stop. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology and use of the term

Main article: Names of the Holocaust

The term holocaust originally derived from the Greek word holókauston, meaning a "completely (holos) burnt (kaustos)" sacrificial offering to a god. Since the late 19th century, it has been used primarily to refer to disasters or catastrophes.

The biblical word Shoa (שואה) (also spelled Shoah and Sho'ah), meaning "calamity," became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust as early as the 1940s.[5] Shoa is preferred by many Jews for a number of reasons, including the theologically offensive nature of the original meaning of "holocaust."Nishidani (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much further we can go on with this, and well I would say this wouldn't I, but given the confusion over the translation and the intent of the words, wouldn't it be better to just stick with the original Hebrew word "shoah", rather than attempting to claim either that he definitively meant "disaster", or "calamity" or whatever, or alternatively "holocaust". Given the controversy over the phrase and how it was reported, both interpretations seem to be verging on WP:OR. I'm no Hebrew expert, but I personally think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest he didn't know the impact of the word shoah when he used it. Plus can you actually show some link to any formal retraction by AP or any other news outlet of the "holocaust" translation? All I've found is subsequent reports quoting Vilnai's spokesman as "clarifying" his remarks, in the way that politicians' comments often have to be after they've made them on the spur of the moment. Oh and the only racism I can see here - if any - is the suggestion that a Palestinian is exaggerating as usual, while a poor Israeli is having his words twisted by a vicious Western media. --Nickhh (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Nickhh's idea. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please M1rth learn to read precisely before commenting on others. If what I quoted above is dangerously close to WP:OR take it up with the editors at the Wiki Holocaust page, with many fine Hebrew editors. If you are confusing here the quote from Repubblica, that too is simply a newspaper source culled and commented on here. Wiki rules do not say you cannot do original research. They say you cannot edit pages using your OR. I didn't edit that remark onto the page, I provided it as dialogic information to help contextualize the other remark which was discussed here. Hence you are wrong in both instances. As to personal attacks, they were made unilaterally by ForeverFreeSpeech, and I pointedly expressed the wish that no one take the bait. To confuse my remarks with those of a loud-mouthed vulgarian's provocations, and to place me on the same level ('calm down, both of you') is to contaminate the record, and offend the innocent. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. - "I hope no one feeds the beast above" is pretty clearly a personal attack, Nishidani. Many of your other items appear as veiled personal attacks as well (not the least of which is telling me to "learn to read." You've been highly confrontational and deliberately look like you're trying to push those who disagree with you, which is not helping establish a consensus.
  2. - Wikipedia policy may not explicitly prohibit putting WP:OR on talk pages, but trying to use WP:OR to justify POV pushing is still out of line.
  3. - Mistranslations happen. However, a common element of much anti-semitic/anti-Israel propaganda includes direct attempts to accuse them of being "Nazis" and other grotesque injustices (such as insisting that the situation of Palestinians, who are equally cut off from Egypt and Lebanon and have attempted to overthrow governments or cause military havoc in those countries, is "Israeli Apartheid"). Your continued rhetoric on this talk page is stepping dangerously close to that line, Nishidani. M1rth (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(1) You are simply unfamiliar with English/USA usage. 'Feed the beast' was (perhps still is) standard code in Internet forums of quality back in the 1990s, when they were occasionally subjected to assault by provocateurs who wished to derail an even-tempered debate by outrageous or irrational remarks. It is not a 'personal attack'. It is an explicit request to all concerned not to engage with someone whose mode of posting in violent. I made that remark to the idiot who posted that raving and obscene tirade without signing himself in, not to the short remark about 'niggardly' made by a second editor
(2) Where have I pushed in the text a POV? Everyone's POV is visibly on display, whether in edits or stringently phrased remarks on the Talk page. What you object to is the length I go to engage in dialogue. Undoubtedly it is a waste of my breath, but I still believe in the relevance of rational discourse, and not in editorial fait accomplis made without thorough consideration of what other people argue. That to me is as 'rhetorical' indeed as violent, as any vigorous talk page argument made in defence of an edit.
(3) What has criticism of Israeli policies to do with antisemitism?. You are implying that Jimmy Carter is an antisemite because he said what Blind Freddy and his dog knows, i.e. that Israeli practices in the Occupied Territories bear analogies to those once used in South Africa, esp. after Sharon's expression of interest in creating 'bantustans' in the OPT, something now vigorously underway (just this week, another block was set up by the IDF to stop people in the South Hebron Hills from buying fodder etc. at Yatta, and several pieces of land were nabbed and declared off-limits to their traditional owners). It is not an uncommon opinion among Israelis, vide many of those who made Aliyah from South Africa. It is a perfectly respectable interpretation, and has nothing to do with antisemitism. As to the use of 'rhetoric'. All language is 'rhetorical'. I am explicit in my views, many others are 'rhetorical' in their tersely phrased edits, without elaborate defence of them on Talk pages, which systematically erase anything that might give these lamentable pages a mere patina of neutrality, i.e. to remark on the obvious, that in describing a war or conflict, particularly one involving an occupying power and an occupied people, an encyclopedia aspiring to a neutral point of view should not make havoc by defining one side as 'terroristic' and the other as a community defending itself. I note, that my central point, the gravamen of our dispute, over shoah qua holocaust, which I showed is an equation made by the relevant Wiki page, has not been addressed by you in your answer. p.s. I'd be very interested in details about the Palestinian attempt to overthrow the Egyptian government, or cause military havoc there, to which you mysteriously allude. Nishidani (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s. In writing:

'However, a common element of much anti-semitic/anti-Israel propaganda includes direct attempts to accuse them of being "Nazis" and other grotesque injustices (such as insisting that the situation of Palestinians, who are equally cut off from Egypt and Lebanon and have attempted to overthrow governments or cause military havoc in those countries, is "Israeli Apartheid").

You engage in a piece of 'rhetoric', in the classic sense of a set of personal opinions asserted as though they were factual in order to convince someone else they are wrong. I see no harm in that, and there lies the difference between us. Regards Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Abbas, section 2

(outdent) ...I just noticed that M1RTH actually rewrote the language at issue, and reverted to defend it. Sir (or madam,) will you care to explain why exactly the same word, which Abbas deliberately chose in imitation of Vilnai's use of the word, gets translated as "holocaust" when Abbas uses it, and "disaster" when Vilnai uses it?

Could it be that you want to portray Abbas as a ranting lunatic, while downplaying the lunatic rant of an Israeli politician? <eleland/talkedits> 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Could it be you support terrorism and want to find a way to attack Israel using deliberate mistranslation and anti-semitic ramblings as a wedge? Accusations of Jews as "Nazis" seem like something you and your hezbollah friends do a lot of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Eleland seems extremely reasonable to me. this edit-fight on a single small phrase needs to stop. i don't understand why any pro-Israel editor would consider this to be on such significance.
By the way, i am a pro-Israel editor. i don't normally feel the need to state that, but some editors may not be familiar with all the editors here. so I just figured i'd mention that. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't my mistranslation. It's Yediot Ahranot's translation and it's Ha'aretz's translation. Are the largest and most influential newspapers in Israel antisemitic rags? Is anybody NOT an antisemite? <eleland/talkedits> 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
could you please provide the link to the articles stating that Abbas did not use the term "Holocaust"?
By the way, I'm not sure this needs to be there in the first place, but we might as well clear this up. If the issue is the need to describe harmful statements by palestinian leaders, there have frequently been much worse ones, which the articles already notes in various ways. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nasty edit summary (attacking Abbas) notwithstanding, there's merit to this argument. Abbas didn't use the word "shoah." M1rth (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That's been acknowledged now, see latest edit. The point is that all reports suggest he was reacting to Vilnai's use of the term, which is the context here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Vilnai's report and the Reuters mistranslation of basic Hebrew are captured in these two sources [12], [13]. A few other sources repeated the Reuters version for a short period before it was corrected and a large amount of anti-Israel elements (not just Abbas but he is the most notable one) quickly jumped at the Reuters (quickly corrected) mistranslation from Hebrew and started promoting the Arabic word "Machraka" (محرقة الهلوكوست) (Holocaust) and English word "Holocaust" in reference to the Israeli 3 day incursion into Gaza. p.s. Eleland, I'm assuming good faith, but I request that you please avoid forcing personal interpretations of Hebrew/Arabic into articles in the future when native speakers correct your errors. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. that whole section will need to be trimmed at some point. this article is a general overview, not a chronicle for day-to-day events. However, as a good-faith gesture, i am going to step aside for the time being to allow the issues to subside. At a later point, we can take a fresh look at this section, to restore conciseness and relevance. i would advise all experienced editors to do the same, to restore some stability to this article, and to allow us to readdress this later when we have some balance. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, sloppiness on my part. Abbas was presumably speaking in English, while Vilnai was speaking in Hebrew and said shoah. The translation of his words to "holocaust" was published in many international media outlets, and in at least one major Israeli paper Yediot Ahranot. A minority of pro-Israel commentators, who seem to believe that the world media is full of raving antisemites, insist that this is a mistranslation, because the term "shoah" does not always refer to the Nazi holocaust. (The linked Jerusalem Post article Jaakobou posted does not support this; it simply notes that... the term shoah does not always refer to the Nazi holocaust.) But they are not supported by reliables sources, and the word "holocaust" in English does not always refer to the Nazi holocaust, either. Nuclear holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, Ukrainian Holocaust, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 17:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Jaakobou, you have a habit of appending your comments with postscripts accusing other editors of violating policy and generally being unworthy. If you're willing to take up these charges with me, or administrators, fine. If you're not, don't make them. They're obnoxious and a distraction. Everybody makes mistakes, heck, I've corrected you on Hebrew language issues in the past. These constant low-level ad hominems are unbecoming. <eleland/talkedits> 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please stop advocating this blatant POV. Instead, find a source that supports your version. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, thanks for your helpful and your constructive note. However, it has been confirmed that the Hebrew term Shoah can have many meanings, not just "Holocaust." That is confirmed by several reputable sources. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland, you seem very desperate to make sure the term "holocaust" is entered into this article despite consensus. This is not constructive behavior. M1rth (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Abbas did apparently use the word holocaust, and Vilnai used a word which can refer to the holocaust, so I guess it should be there on both counts. And it's a bit strong as far as I can tell to say this was a "mistranslation". Rather it was an - alleged - misinterpretation. By all accounts I've seen, the word Shoah when used in Hebrew without the definite article can still refer to The Nazi Holocaust. It just doesn't necessarily do that - but equally Vilnai can hardly have been unaware of the potential impact of the word he was using, whatever he actually meant. In my view the edit as it is now is fine. --Nickhh (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
ps: M1rth, contrary to your edit summary actually Eleland's wording comes more or less directly from the Jerusalem Post piece cited earlier on this talk section - The Hebrew word "shoah" most often refers to the Holocaust but Israelis use it to describe all sorts of disasters. Having said that I'm not sure it's worth quibbling over the two versions. --Nickhh (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
First, can all parties avoid claiming that "consensus" supports them? Arbitrary, unsupported claims of "consensus" are a perennial annoyance.
Second, nobody is claiming that the term "shoah" always means "Nazi Holocaust." The terms "shoah" and "holocaust" are roughly analogous, in that both of them have a very strong association with the WW2 Nazi genocide of the Jews, but both are used in other contexts as well. A couple of apologists are now claiming that "shoah" never means "holocaust," it has to be "HaShoah" meaning "The Holocaust," but this is simply not supported by evidence. In fact it's contradicted by evidence. Look at Shoah (disambiguation): It talks about Shoah (film) on the Nazi Holocaust, and a number of Shoah Foundations, which deal with the Nazi Holocaust, but do not use the definite article "ha." Yes, there are vagaries of translation, but "shoah" = "holocaust" is not at all unreasonable. As I've shown, the term "holocaust" in English does not always mean "Nazi Holocaust."
Third, the key issue here is not whether the Gaza attacks are comparable to the Nazi genocide - nobody believes that. The issue is whether Abbas's remarks are going to be presented as a crazy rant by an idiot, or as an over-the-top response to an over-the-top threat. If you downplay the information about Vilnai's remark translating as a threatened "holocaust," you're distorting the context of Abbas's words. <eleland/talkedits> 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Eleland,
Your attempts to present your personal "expert's opinion" on Hebrew are nothing short of dumbfounding. Can you please stop acting like you're supposedly a native speaker and accept the point raised (alongside two reliable sources)? It's getting tiresome to see you pursue a translation retracted by Reuters. At least come up with some valid counter sources that don't include synthesis, i.e. say that Vilnai did in fact intend 'Holocaust' rather than disaster. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, you need to stop pretending that there is only this one Reuters report at issue. The translation issue was specifically discussed by reliable sources, ie, not random blogs, advocacy groups, or pseudonews sites operated by PR firms. The New York Times noted that "Mr. Vilnai used the Hebrew word 'shoah,' meaning catastrophe or holocaust, and rarely used for anything other than the Nazi extermination of the Jews." And I haven't seen any evidence that Reuters retracted this translation, as you claim. The term "shoah" is reasonably translated as "holocaust." <eleland/talkedits> 00:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Your constant use of strawman arguments ("expert's opinion," "native speaker," etc,) is infuriating, and violates WP:CIV not to mention WP:TROLL. You claim that "two reliable sources" support the view that Reuters translated it all wrong, but one of your source is the personal website of a few pro-Israel activists, and the other one does not mention the Reuters translation whatsoever, and does not contain any claim that "shoah" should not be translated as "holocaust." Yet you're willing to accuse me of WP:SYNthesis. Pure trolling. <eleland/talkedits> 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Vilnai did not use the word “shoah”, he used the Hebrew phrase “Yamit shoah” (ימיט שואה). That phrase, as any source knowledgeable about Hebrew will tell you, means “will cause disaster”, or “will cause destruction” [14][15], and has absolutely no genocidal implications. Contrary to the ignorant remark by the NYT reporter, it is in fact commonly used in Hebrew to describe the catastrophic results of anything – including things not remotely related to the Nazi Holocaust - from the effects of Romano Prodi’s fiscal policies on the Italian economy [16] to the implications of an allegedly ill-advised court judgment, which apparently hindered (in the Hebrew: “hemit shoah”) [17] later attempts at revealing the truth in a certain case.
You are probably correct that Abbas’ response used the phrase ‘Holocaust’ as a response to Vilnai’s comment, but it does not follow that both usages are equivalent: Vilnai used a completely innocuous (as my above examples show) Hebrew phrase, and Abbas, who is not that familiar with Hebrew, and was mislead by equally ignorant translators, thought the reference was to genocide. I don’t think he did so maliciously, (i.e, I don’t think it is right to portray him as “a ranting lunatic”) – but he did so ignorantly – he misunderstood a phrase (in the same way as many English speaking Americans would assume that “niggardly” has something to do with the pejorative term for African Americans), and as a result, responded in an over-the-top manner, to a threat that was anything but. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the Khaleej times Vilnai's term is "is rarely used in Israel outside discussions of the Nazi Holocaust of Jews." I'd take a newspaper's (or that of another reliable source) word over a wikipedian's per WP:NOR.[18]Bless sins (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
well, who are you going to believe, the Khaleej times, or your lying eyes? I've presented you with a couple of examples, from the Israeli press, which make it clear the the term is used widely, to describe mundane things that have nothing to do with the Nazi Holocaust. Other editors have linked to references which provide yet more examples. Are you interested in writing a quality encyclopedia, or in reporting what a UAE Newspaper says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian Monkey (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
CM, it's not a matter of whether I'm correct, it's a matter of whether the AFP, the Los Angeles Times, Yediot Ahranot, and a host of other reliable sources reported it. They did. The wording in our article is simply that Abbas said "holocaust" after Vilnai said "shoah," nothing about both usages being equivalent. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for airing complaints about the "ignorance" of the world press. <eleland/talkedits> 05:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

How about everyone stops this stupid arguing, and try to fix other key holes in the History section. You people make me sick, the most of the article (esp the history section) is a shambles, and all you are interested in is petty semantic disputes. Suicup (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Just want to briefly clarify my suggestion above (I'm not claiming that anyone here was necessarily following it however). I only meant to say that we should not seek to revise others' edits to the history section right now, while the edits are still recent. At some point in the near future, it will be possible to revise this section, and to trim it down somewhat, so that it becomes more of a general overview. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Eretz Israel

There is a tiff over this. I've long thought the 'historic homeland of the Jews' problematical not least because it is, though bandied about, not true historically. The Jews had an 'ever memorable homeland', but 'eretz israel' is a biblical rabbinical construction of the true homeland for religious Jews, as opposed to the actual homeland of the vast number of Jews who, even in high antiquity, lived in a diaspora, from Arabia and Babylonia, Armenia to Spain. Half of the Jews dwelling around the Icent CE Mediterranean littoral were, it is forgotten, converts, and their descendents are Jews, who descend from natives of non-eretz israel counties. Thus the formulation is part of religious ideology, and not factual.

Most Jews even before the diaspora under Trajan lived outside of Judea. The Jewish community of Italy has roots going back to the 4th century BCE at least. Their descendents' historic homeland is as much Italy as eretz israel. (2) The text occurs in a passage on Zionism. Herzl in his 1896 book broached also the possibility of siting Eretz Israel in Argentine, and though he personally preferred Palestine, in the original Zionist debates, Argentine is explicitly mentioned as a possible 'Eretz Israel' along side Uganda, and from memory the decision to go for Palestine was only determined at the 6th World Zionist Congress. Thus in Zionism, as a secular movement, in contradistinction to religious zionism which often viewed a mass secular return to Eretz Israel as heretical, is is by no means correct to assert that Palestine was designated exclusively as 'eretz israel'. Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an innocent misunderstanding of the term "homeland" in the statement "historic homeland of the Jews." Nishidani is entirely correct when he/she asserts that any individual Jewish family may be able to trace its roots to other lands. The misunderstanding occurs by equivocating the Jewish homeland with these other ethnic ties. Nobody disputes that the Jewish race/religion/ethnicity began in the region of the world described by the Bible as Eretz Yisrael. This is the birthplace of Judaism and the only place in the world where Jews have established their own society. The land has been an inseparable part of Jewish culture and history since the beginning of the Jewish people. It is understandable that one might be confused by this because "Eretz Yisrael" is both a religious term and a geographical/anthropological terms, but "homeland" has a very specific meaning in the above context and Eretz Yisrael is verifiably and technically the Jewish homeland. --GHcool (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, are you denying that the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed? Yes, not all Jewish ancestry comes from these locales; however, Jewish heritage verifiably does. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:

I'm sure Nishidani did not mean it in that context. I assume he/she just made an innocent mistake. Anyway, the article is corrected now, so all is well. --GHcool (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks GHcool, for defending my good faith on a delicate issue. However the phrase, in an encyclopedia, is far too rhetorical, while bearing a specious 'historicity'. Zionists in the literature of that period were predominantly secular, and spoke of 'Palestine' tout court. Eretz Israel is a phrase evoking an intense religious identity, and most immigrants were not intensely religious.
Like all pat phrases, especially those bandied about in assertions of identity, this is rarely examined, because it seems so obvious. That in the high rabbinical tradition, 'Eretz Israel' was cultivated as one of the emblematic cynosures of Jewish religious feeling, and that this had a certain diffusion in general prayer and speech, is not to be doubted. But the term itself is, for that reason, charged with an emotive burden that ill fits with history. To clarify for Michael, it was the Babylonian exile that crystallised the idea, esp. in Ezra, but from very early times, the Jewish people lived virtually everywhere, and only with the rise of the Palestinian rabbinate, with its instrumental use of 'Eretz Israel' to establish its canonical claims to higher authority over other centres of Jewish learning and law, did it begin to take on the something of the colour it now assumes. Whether Palestine as it was defined is 'Eretz Israel' is not clear, for 'Eretz Israel' refers to a mytho-Biblical narrative landscape hard to reconcile with an historical landscape indwelt by Jews. The Zionists, and this is the context that elicited the phrase, emigrated to 'Eretz Israel' metaphorically in that they went to an area predominantly in what was, in the Bible, Philistia, the coastal region which the Bible defined as not part of Eretz-Israel. The exact 'Biblical' definition of the boundaries of Eretz Israel is, as you all know, extremely vague and contradictory. The kingdoms of Judah and Israel did most probably exist, but from the archeological record, (Israel Finkelstein, Thompson and co.) had nothing near the dimensions assigned to them in Biblical mythopoeia, which is a construct of the post-Exilic period. In Hellenic Judaic thought, as is well known, this intense mystical attachment to 'Eretz Israel' is simply lacking, and in Philo of Alexandria there is nothing like the exaltation of it one finds in rabbinic tradition. The majority of Jews, converts or descendents of the natural diaspora, living outside Judea and Samaria, do not appear to think of that as a 'homeland' . The Talmud often, in its description of tensions between Babylonian and Palestinian religious authorities, talks of Babylonians as regarding Babylon as their 'homeland'.(There is a lucid analysis of this and much more in Isaiah M.Gafni's Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late AntiquitySheffield Academic Press, 1999, for those interested). Kafka did not, though once interested in emigrating to Palestine, think of it as his homeland, which for him was German culture and the German language, as it was for a very large part of the Ashkenazi Jews of that part of Europe, nor do those characters who crowd Isaac Bashevis Singer's novels have the intensity of feelings about 'Eretz Israel' being their historic homeland. Homeland was were one's immediate ancestors lived. I know that passions are intense on phrases like that, a little like Yamato no kuni, a specific literary landscape, but historically one can't pin down exactly where it was at the very earliest period, as the homeland of the Japanese, in thousands of books, also because the 'Japanese' at that time were not the Japanese of today, but a congeries of tribes variously from the Korean peninsula, the southern islands, prehistoric populations etc. I won't push it, of course, but the phrase is not denotative of a reality other than a spiritual-religious identity with an ill-defined mythic narrative with some historical elements. It is used irrationally, and, in Wiki pages, to imply a right of title, not an identity (as thus it functions in settler discourse). Most Jews would be happy with the boundaries of '67, constituting an Israel, with Jerusalem, as the 'Eretz Israel' of their longing and dreams of a homeland, and that, excludes Judea and Samaria, which are more properly associated with, in a historical sense, Jewish religious feelings for a homeland. The use of Eretz Israel as the homeland of the Jews means that homeland is precisely in those areas Jews never colonized until after 1967, on occupied territory. Until one distinguishes one's homeland in Israel (secular-ethnic, not coinciding with the biblical Eretz Israel)from a mythic ancestral homeland in Eretz Israel (religious-ethnic-biblical) the conceptual ambiguity and highly charged emotivity in that phrase will continue to assist confusion in the just settlement of territorial claims. Nishidani (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Minor correction: the Bible refers to the region as Ca'Na'An, the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hevusites, and a number of other tribes. The term "Philistia" may be used by biblical scholars to describe Canaan, but the word used in the Bible, itself, is "Canaan". ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I missed this, my apologies. My point was that early Zionist immigration was concentrated on the coastal areas associated in the Bible with Philistines and other littoral inhabitants, from The Plain of Sharon to the later Philistia, precisely those areas that figure least in the Biblical narrative of the Jewish kingdoms (No doubt Jews were to be found everywhere within that territory, of course). The paradox was that, again as Runciman said, the Arabs were concentrated in the classic Biblical areas so rich in Jewish mythistory, (and indeed the Palestinian dialect retained much of the Biblical toponymy) whereas Israel's foundation had the majority of the Jewish population in areas that, stricto sensu were outside the historic centres of Judea and Samaria. On that contradiction lies the emotional, identitatian and geopolitical travail of the last several decades. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


User:Michael Safyan Before messing with that phrase could you please do us the courtesy of reading closely Colin Shindler, ‘Likud and the Search for Eretz Israel: From the Bible to the Twenty-First Century,’ in Efraim Karsh (ed) Israel: The First Hundred Years .Volume III: Politics and Society since 1948,Routledge 2002,pp.91-117 esp.pp.94-98. I do not wish to harp, but if rabbinic authorities themselves had great difficulty in determining exactly what belonged to Eretz Israel and what lay outside of its borders, and if the Zionists themselves used a realpolitik definition, highly flexible, and not a religious definition (highly confused, since it could also include Eretz Israel as covering Sidon and the Nile, all of Jordan and the area close to Damascus, or exclude Acre and Ashkelon), one should not plunk the word in as a synonym for the area created under the Ottomans and then redefined, twice, under the Mandate. One should write with scruple, not from emotional allegiances to vague talismanic phrases Nishidani (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my reasons for selecting "...in Eretz Israel, the historical Jewish homeland,..." over "...the ancient land of the Israelites, which they considered to be their rightful homeland...". As you have pointed out, the Zionist movement was predominantly secular; however, the belief that it is a divinely-given "rightful homeland" is a clearly religious stance, which I doubt many of them held. Furthermore, the statement that Jews considered it to be their rightful homeland implies more than a belief that God promised the land to Abraham, but a belief that this gives complete entitlement to the land -- a belief which I and many other observant Jews deplore. As for the boundaries of biblical Israel compared to contemporary Israel, yes they are not the same. However, there is considerable and important overlap (e.g. Jerusalem). If you ever visit the Shrine of the Book, you will see the archeological and historical connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the above history is interesting in and of itself, but it is an red herring with resepct to Eretz Yisrael's status as the Jewish homeland. Throughout history, "Eretz Yisrael" was mostly used as a religious term. It gets confusing because "Eretz Yisrael" is also a geographical term. Its boundaries may be somewhat difficult to define, but nobody denies that the modern State of Israel is within those boundaries and that the Zionist hopes of settling in the "Jewish homeland" were fulfilled. I hope this clears things up. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, I have not the slightest intent of questioning the historical connection in Jewish belief between the people and the land of the Bible. My point is a matter of scruple. Was not Eretz Israel, in that it included Samaria, the historic homeland of the Samaritan people, whose own version of the Torah sacralises for them also the phrase 'Eretz Israel'? a people despised as a 'nation' by Ben Sirah? They were not the nugatory ethnic remnant they are today, but a considerable population. It was the historic home of the Samaritan people as well, but we forget this, because history deals with big actors, and communities with a powerful written tradition (2) Eretz Israel technically includes, in some parts of the Bible, the Lebanon, and areas of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, indeed this was more or less the shape of the Zionist proposal presented by Chaim Weizmann at Versailles, but yet I have never, perhaps I am wrong, read of, or encountered Jews outside of very restricted circles, who had or have an attachment to Lebanon, Egypt or Syria as their 'historic homeland' understood as Eretz Israel. 'Next year in Jerusalem' was, on the lips of pious or simple observant Jews, far more potent a formula than 'Eretz Israel', whose geographical vagueness is notorious. Jabotinsky rarely used the term. He preferred Medinat Yehudim. Most of the Jewish population, I repeat, was born, lived and died, outside those confines as alluded to in the Bible. Eretz Israel has been recycled since 1900 as a potent phrase and inculcated, like most "invented traditions" as an integral part of a perennial Jewish identity. I have yet to see the evidence for this, but then again, perhaps this just underlines my ignorance.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool you write: 'nobody denies that the modern State of Israel is within those boundaries and that the Zionist hopes of settling in the "Jewish homeland" were fulfilled.'
Well, I console myself with being a 'nobody', since Odysseus found nothing disreputable in the monicker, and Steven Runciman, as fine an historian as you can get, happened to think likewise that the modern state of Israel is located in wrong area in terms of Biblical topology on Jewish settlement and history. Had you written 'a Jewish homeland', neither he nor I would have had any problem with your formulation, and we should have lost our 'nobody' status. I repeat, I won't press the point, because it touches on deeply held beliefs that do not relate to much to historical facts, and thus does not lend itself to facile discussion, apart from risking to tread of delicate sensitivities. This has nothing to do with the status of Israel, which is indeed, a 'Jewish homeland'. It just happens to be a fact that that 'Jewish homeland' is not commensurable with Eretz Israel in the Biblical sense, and that is why the settlers on the West Bank are in the right theologically on 'Eretz Israel', though frightfully, indeed lethally wrong, politically, in wishing to challenge the undisputed legitimacy of Israel as a 'Jewish homeland' into a Biblical landscape to which it has no title other than one vein of religious tradition concerning, as Michael said, divine entitlements. Encyclopedias should be objective, and not allow their texts to get entangled up in language that compromises lucid, unambiguous exposition. That little adjunct violates this rule. regards Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what Runciman said or wrote, but anybody who says that Eretz Yisrael is not the historical Jewish homeland is clearly and verifiably wrong on religious, geographic, and anthropological terms. --GHcool (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine you are tone-deaf to historical literature, and rely on vague formulae without wondering what they mean. You haven't answered any points made. On Palestinian matters, every slight point must be rigorously sourced, as demanded by Israeli or Jewish editors. I expect the same here. At this juncture I request that you supply me with a reliable source for the alteration made. I.e. you neeed to supply me with a RS that shows that 'Eretz Israel' and not 'Palestine' was the standard term used in Zionist literature from 1896 down to 1948 to refer to the establishment of a national home in that region. My reading of that literature does not support this gloss. Unless you can supply such a source, the passage has no right being there.Nishidani (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, you are right; most of the Zionist literature used the phrase "Palestine" (quotes there because of the phrase "the phrase"). However, Jewish national claims to the area were justified on the basis of national/cultural historic memory. Because we are talking about a national narrative, that the biblical and contemporary borders differ is irrelevant. I would also like to point out that we are discussing the pre-state period, when boundaries were ill-defined and some groups, such as the revisionists, did seek to bring state and biblical boundaries into alignment. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, there is no need to violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Secondly, I never claimed that "Eretz Yisrael" was the standard term used in Zionist literature for the region. My claim is that the modern State of Israel is within the borders of the historical Jewish homeland, by whichever name one gives it. --GHcool (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the height of impoliteness when you reply to an interlocutor who has gone to considerable trouble to expound in great detail and with sources a point of view, with a dismissive repetition that had nothing to do with the issue, as you did.
To the point.The text runs (and this is a 'lead' where the rules insist on terseness, and no arbitrary glosses of a controversial kind, as this one is):

Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897, largely as a response to Russian and European anti-Semitism.[9][10] It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Eretz Yisrael, the historical Jewish homeland, so that Jews could find sanctuary and self- determination.'

This is sourced in note 9. which tells us 2 things:-

(A)'In 1897, Jewish leaders formally organized the Zionist movement, calling for the restoration of the Jewish national home in Palestine, where Jews could find sanctuary and selfdetermination, and work for the renascence of their civilization and culture.'

(B)'The Zionist ideal of a return to Israel has profound religious roots. Many Jewish prayers speak of Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel.'

As anyone can tell at a glance, the text is therefore a 'synthesis' of two perspectives in the source text, conflating two quite distinct passages, one of political Zionism aiming at a restoration of a 'Jewish National Home in Palestine' and (2) of 'Jewish prayers speaking of Sion and the Land of Israel.' However the Wiki article's context deals only with Zionism. The original editor manifestly has conflated two distinct movements and two distinct languages, secular and religious, which are separated in the original source, making out that Zionism was a religious movement to Eretz Israel. Therefore the passage is a misleading synthesis of the source quoted, etc.etc. Q.E.D. Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I wrote the original text, but did not include the notes. I am not sure who added the notes to the text. My intention was to refer solely to the political movement, and its justification on the basis of national/cultural historic memory. As it happens, however, the two notes are not -- in my opinion -- contradictory in that Jewish national/cultural identity have a religious basis in Judaism. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just made this edit which should be satisfactory to all of us. --GHcool (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've checked my Herzl and in his initial proposal he does not speak of any 'land of Israel'. He does speak of a 'people of Israel' meaning the diaspora. Michael, I don't dispute they were intertwined, but Zionism is deeply influenced by the Haskalah movement within Jewry. The two tendencies, one of Aliyah from the European east to escape pogroms, and the other the secular Zionism of men like Herzl and Jabotinsky, many were atheists, were in deep conflict, and this is one of the reasons why I object to the confusion of Zionism with religious language. I know that in the last half century, much of this earlier tension within the community has been lost to awareness, but there were profound rifts between religious Jews, orthodox schools denouncing Zionism were a majority before WW2, and secular Zionists. I have an abiding interest in the religious tradition, and great admiration for many of its exponents in the early period. Zionism, I admit, does not engage me in the same way. But this personal prejudice does not influence, I assure you, my editing on this point. I dislike 'collective' myth-making which dissolves quite variegated differences within communal cultures in the name of national identity. Identities were severalfold, and Zionist and the strict rabbinical notions of Eretz Israel were very strongly at odds in the period we are dealing with. Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your objections to the phrase "Eretz Israel" and they seem reasonable to me. My primary objection was with "rightful homeland" as opposed to "historical homeland". I am satisfied with GHcool's edit and, assuming that you are likewise satisfied, then I suppose the matter is settled. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I find the argument reasonable in tone but lacking merit, packed with dubious claims and fantastic leaps of logic that simply attempts to argue toward the elimination of Zion from Zionism. In my view, the only pillar of the argument that has survived the conversation (albeit extremely wobbly) is the notion that because the "land of Israel" had been a longstanding theme of Jewish identity over the millennia when human understanding and ontologies were heavily religious, we ought to then somehow conclude that "Zionism" appeared on the scene independent of its very long historical roots. Applying the logic of the argument, since Zion is a term, using Nishidani’s language, "evoking an intense religious identity" and "charged with an emotive burden," perhaps we should reconsider the use of the term Zionism. Or maybe instead we should consider the possibility that reality and history do not always fit into tight hermetically sealed categories. Nishidani, if you want to eliminate the land of Israel from discourse on Zionism, I suggest you start by explaining how Zionism got its name that is so intensely evocative and emotively charged? Exactly what were the Zionists attempting to evoke with the term Zionism? Regards to all, Doright (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would prefer, if an hermenutic gloss is to be made on Land of Israel/Palestine, 'the biblical homeland of the Jews', which I think covers the sense, and elides the subtly pointed ambiguity of 'historical'. I must register my dissent on the doubling, however, because Zionist texts, as opposed to religious texts in the Aliyah movement, do not speak at that period of the Land of Israel/Eretz Israel: they speak overwhelmingly of Palestine. The Zionist project was to colonize Palestine in order to restore the Land of Israel: The territory was not, at that time, 'the Land of Israel, and using it in a neutral encyclopedia is as anachronistic as Brutus saying 'Peace! Count the clock.' in Julius Caesar. To say Land of Israel is thus to anticipate history, and contravene proper historical usage, a retroactive determination of the past. I do understand the difficulties, from an emotional perspective, in designating the area as Palestine, but that was how it was marked on the maps. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you guys know that there is an article called Land of Israel that discusses these issues? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of it and glad to see that the Land of Israel article is linked to in the I-P conflict article. --GHcool (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool- Your opinion is also duly noted. Unlike mine, that opinion is not documented, and notably confuses Zionist usage (the context) with terms not standard in Zionist, as opposed to religious, documentation for the period. Until you provide documentation to justify the conflation, the phrasing cannot be taken as adequate. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit is unacceptable, you may pursue WP:DR if you still believe your position was ignored by fellow editors. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou Please take responsibility for your opinions, and do not phrase them impersonally. For the record, the edit I made was after an extensive discussion, during which my fellow editors frequently altered the text, without due consensus. I have, I might add, found no hostile atmosphere in here with my various interlocutors. I am however somewhat troubled by the large surge in new editors now coming in, without a record for editing this page. Newbies are welcome, but one-time edits in cascades, by people who then disappear, are not conducive to intelligent editing, and give rise to unsavoury suspicions. Moreover, in what I wrote, there is no hint of a 'personal' opinion. I have strictly adhered to the international topological language of the period, and to the conventions in the English and German Zionist literature as far as I have managed to review it over the last week. As to your advice I ligitate, no one else who has edited the phrase has received the same counsel, and I think it improper for me, given my parsimony in actual edits (made only after extensive consideration of all viewpoints here) to be asked to take my specific edit to high tribunals. I think intelligent conversation among experienced editors is the best way to resolve differences.Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani,
(a) Pedro Gonnet repeating that edit for you [19] has not gone unnoticed, and I'm certainly considering whether this WP:GAME and WP:EW issue demands a report.
(b) That edit was unacceptable, you may pursue WP:DR if you still believe your position was ignored by fellow editors.
(c) Where might that "extensive discussion" be; and Is there a clear consensus appearing in that discussion or are there two sides with conflicting perspectives?
-- JaakobouChalk Talk 13:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(a) You can be sure of one thing. As is known, I have no email activated, and do not email others, as even the fool who managed to sneak in a tracking programme on my computer several days ago must realize. Insinuations that other editors 'repeat edits 'for me' are not only a nonsense, but malicious. Good editors make independent edits, and User:Pedro Gonnet has a fine record for fair editing, as have many here who have suffered similar accusations. If you have such a suspicion by all means report it, otherwise save me the scurrilous insinuation of bad faith (b) If you haven't noticed the extensive discussion preceding my edit, they you have not been following the page. Scroll up. User:Michael Safyan agreed that my crucial point on Zionist usage was correct, and while he disagreed with me on other grounds, his disagreement was based, I believe, on general questions of sensibility (which I empathise with), not on evidence. This is a description of Zionism, and encyclopedic work on historical periods always privilges the terminology current in the epoch under review, and eschews language which confuses the reader.(3) This is the only point where I myself think User:Suicup's otherwise admirable revision might be questioned. But User:Suicup also asked us all to lay off bickering, and get on with the general text, which I think sensible advice.Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

timeline, phrasing, Brief protection and request

Both sides should provide a timeline: I would like to see a chronology for this passage. From what I can see, every week or two, a revert war breaks over it, then subsides for a week or two, and so on. I would like to see views from both sides on how it started, however. At a glance, it looks like just something where negative energy finds an outlet (a compromise passage does not appear that out of reach). As noted in the title, the page has been protected for a few days, which should free up some time toward that end. Thanks. El_C 19:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. i understand your request. however, as much i appreciate your efforts and work, I'm not sure it is exactly beneficial to try to construct a timeline which both sides will probably further diaagree on. i think the dispute here is over the actual passge itself, not over who said what, or when they said it. i do realize that if 3RR was the issue here, then a timeline might be what is needed. however, i'm not sure the issue here pertains to what statements have been made in the past. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be beneficial for me to start with that. I want to see the background to this dispute. El_C 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
El_C, see here and here. Suicup (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can I get the executive summary, actually? El_C 03:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrasing of the sentence "It [the Zionist movement] sought the establishment of ..." is in dispute. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What I'm interested is in a periodization (of changes this passage underwent). El_C 05:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
In that case, look at the article history. No offense, but no one here has the time or patience to do it for you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone else? El_C 06:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to make as neutral a synthesis as I can muster. Since I raised the question, and it has generated a huge amount of commentary, mostly irrelevant in my view, however, I am responsible and am obliged to say why I found the passage problematical.
The crux is this. The historical introduction originally defined Zionism, as the Jewish national movement/ political movement in 1897. This political Zionism was the subject of the following sentence:

'It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in the Land of Israel/Palestine, the historical Jewish homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.'

There can be no shadow of a doubt that this phrasing explicitly refers to the Zionist programme adumbrated by Herzl and gradually executed by the WZO. In no way can that sentence be construed as a reference to the age-old religious Zionist sentiments that motivated aliyah throughout the ages, and especially after the 1880s. The words 'sanctuary and self-determination' themselves echo political Zionism's language, not the language of the traditional 'return to Zion', since the motivation of political Zionism was to find a national refuge from the intense antisemitism animating European pogroms and things like the Dreyfus trial. Again, religious appeals to Zion did not traditionally seek 'a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine'. Precisely this secular nationalism in Herzl's Zionism aroused very strong opposition among Jewish community leaders, be they Bundists or orthodox rabbis. Historians of Zionism, from Walter Laqueur, David Vital to Lenni Brenner are clear on this. So I checked the source given to support this odd conflative construction.
The reference (9) was to an extremely brief, stub-length note in the Jewish Virtual Library which, when I examined it, clearly commingled two things 'political Zionism' (which is the subject of the disputed phrasing) and the eternal 'return to Zion'. It is certainly not adequate for the passage it is adduced to support. Political Zionism spoke of a specific territory 'Palestine', under Ottoman suzereinty, whereas the language of Jewish sentiment and belief embodied in the ethos of a 'return to Zion' thought in terms of Eretz Yisra'el, a term whose topology is extremely difficult to define, since it is mythistorical, as a religious concept, and a symbol of Jewish identity. To state this (Israel Finkelstein's recent work, to cite but one source, influences my understanding. He denies that a term like 'Eretz Yisrael' was, as the former text here says, 'the historical Jewish homeland, the dubious map in the link to that voice in wiki will hint why) has been taken as a denial the Jewish people of antiquity lived, had a crucial part of their ancient history unfold in Israel: that is a rather paranoid reading of my intentions. Herzl's Zionism, precisely because it was conceived in pragmatic terms as a secular nationalism to be founded on a specific area under Turkish control, was viewed with considerable hostility, even as blasphemous, by religious leaders because it preempted God, who alone would 'restore' the people of the diaspora to Eretz Yisrael in his own good time. I therefore thought that the gloss, via a link, of Land of Israel(Eretz Yisrael)/Palestine), was an inappropriate confusion of two distinct idioms in historical usage, that of Herzl's movement, political Zionism, (which is the subject of the sentence) and orthodox Jewish belief (often at the time opposed to this variety of secular Zionism) with its mystical attachement to the geographically vague, if religiously potent, concept of Eretz Yisrael.
Many objections above, most recently from User:Itzse and User:GHcool, repeat that we are speaking of the 'return to Zion' as much as of Herzl's Zionism. User:GHcool challenges me as being fixated on a Carlylean great man theory of Zionism, by restricting myself to the movement Herzl founded. User:Itzse has an admirable erudition in rabbinical traditions, but again, cannot see that the gravamen of my argument is about Political Zionism, the subject of the contested sentence, not the religious tradition which sacralised in Jewish tradition the ideal of a 'return to Zion'. Almost all arguments against a revision of that original sentence have appealed to religious traditions, and not to Herzl's political Zionism, which for several years thought of Uganda, Argentina, etc., as potential sites for an 'Eretz Yisrael' (proof that that term, for secular Zionists, was not biblically-determined, as it was for religious 'Zionists'. Morgenthau and many major American Jews indeed argued that the paradise of 'Zion' was best established in the United States).
For these reasons, I suggested the following emendation.

'It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine, the biblical Jewish homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.'

In this, the fact that the passage refers to Herzl's Zionist movement is clarified, by avoiding the confusion with the traditions of religious Zionism (active in Aliyah, but not sharing Herzl's vision). I thought this a reasonable compromise. The word 'biblical' however was vigorously challenged with a, to me surprising, intensity, as intimating that the Jewish homeland was 'mythical' or not true. Yet 'biblical' does not have this sense in English (not in the OED), and I had to strain my memory banks to fathom why it should be so passionately contested by my Jewish interlocutors, and could only come up with a childhood memory of George Gershwin's famous lyric to explain the vehemence of their rejection of the English word 'biblical' as implying 'falsehood'. 'Biblical' however avoids the confusion and tendentiousness of the Palestine = Eretz Yisrael gloss, adheres to the historical use of the Zionism that is the subject of the sentence, and gives due, and unambiguous, reference to the fact that the real historical site for Herzl's project, Palestine, was the homeland promised to the Jews in the Old Testament, and promised to Chaim Weizmann by the Balfour Declaration. That text did not speak of a religious concept of homeland, but of a very specific terrain in which a 'homeland' was to be secured, Palestine. The language I suggested is, I think, adequate to WP:NPOV. It assumes nothing like what is tacitly assumed by the charged equation of Eretz Yisrael with Palestine, an equation that has intense and troublesome consequences in Israel's politics since the foundation of the state, and often used as a synonym for 'Greater Israel', or as implying a god-given right to areas, from Lebanon, to Jordan and Egypt, evoked by Eretz Yisrael inn several traditional rabbinical constructions of the term's definition, areas which were never the object of Aliyah. This is a neutral and global encyclopedia, and its language should reflect the historical facts, idioms of the parties at the time without employing partisan language. Unfortunately, the word 'Bible' seems to irritate, since it is standard in English, and does not carry the, if I may be permitted, exclusivist ethnic and expansionist overtones of Eretz Yisrael. Regards, and apologies for the length of exposition in what was intended to be a synthesis. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that dense, rigorously and eloquently-argued summary. With respect to the role of the Land of Israel in secular zionism, I would, however, stress that in the synthesis between Hertzel's political zionism and Ussishkin practical zionism that resulted in synthetic zionism, the former's LoI tendency persevered (I notice that neither one of those three Hebrew Wikipedia articles has an English entry; perhaps I'll translate these to better clarify the debate — Durova/Jaakobou-related risks on my part notwithstanding!). El_C 12:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for patiently reading what I actually write. I take it as read that there are distinctions to be made in secular Zionism I have overlooked here, and indeed it would greatly improve the English wiki is that wealth on these topics undoubtedly hidden from lazy klutzes like myself in the Hebrew wiki could be translated into our English version. Perhaps in the present impasse, if people can ring in another neutral Israeli adminstrator, fluent in these issues, you can both, with User:Michael Safyan, with whom I have often disagreed but whose respect for the proprieties of consensus I have come to respect, work out the neutral language compromise we evidently need. Regards Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Briefly, the practical current promoted immediate settlement, with or without political guarantees, charter, etc., whereas the political current sought to begin the settlement process only after political guarantees were secured. The conflict between the two became more heightened after the death of Hertzel and the failure of the Uganda Programme. Then, in 1907, during the 8th Zionist Congress at the Hague, Weizmann proposed merging the two currents as Synthetic Zionism. El_C 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Note:
The terms Palestina, Paleshtina, Paleshtine, Pilishtia can be witnessed as far as the bible with the root 'P.L.Sh.' standing for 'Invaders'. The historical sources presented contain 'Philishtia (Eretz Israel)' in Hebrew as representative of the prominent Israeli/Zionist view that Eretz Israel=Palestina(=P.L.Sh.) (regardless of border or English language translation of the term). I haven't seen proper reasoning to eliminate this Hebrew/Zionist terminology from the article. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou For the record Jaakobou, I had to correct the previous Wiki entries on 'Palestine' several months ago precisely because they adduced 'Palestine' as a term derivative of Hebrew, and not cognate with Hebrew, and many similar terms in Semitic languages, the innuendo being that the source for 'Palaistina' was Hebrew, which is one hypothesis among many, and not an historical fact. My degree in classical Greek involved coursework in philology, and though it doesn't count for much of course, it does allow me to think that I have a fair understanding of what is required in making statements about etymologies, and folk-etymologies about 'Invaders' (2)If you go to the Land of Israel/Eretz Yisrael pages in Wiki you will find maps that are not historical maps, but someone's attempt to construct an idea of what that term might have signified in the minds of the writers of passages in Numbers and elsewhere who used it. 'Eretz Israel' was, in the biblical and later rabbinical constructions definitely not equivalent to what was understood by 'Palaistina'. User:Itzse has evinced enviable erudition here, but the one question I posed him he did not reply to (unless I missed it) was whether Acre, in rabbinical tradition, lies within, or outside, the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Perhaps you could enlighten me?Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
A) I don't know where your greek studies come in handy on knowledge of the Hebrew language and Jewish origins.
B) The terms 'Eretz Israel', 'Palestina', 'Philistia', and 'Palestine' have changing meannings along the (first three: 3000, last one: under 1930) years of existence. This is not part of the debate on how both camps call the region they claim for statehood.
C) If you have a special reasoning to believe that Palestina has nothing to do with 'Eretz Israel', then you are faced with the problem of explaining the coinage and stamps. Would be brilliant if you can find a reliable source that contradicts this, but until then, I can't concur with your personal take on the topic.
p.s. I'm currently not interested in Akko or the fundumentals of greek etymology. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishdani; Here is what Wikipedia so far says on this subject. It says that the Chashmonean king of Judaea; Yannei Hamelech conquered it (TB Tractate Brochos); and Herod ruled over it too.
I don't know why you need to know an answer to your question; but there is a short and long answer which will bore you. The short answer is that, yes; it is Eretz Yisroel; for why; I charge five hundred dollars an hour. The long answer is that in the Talmud; Eretz Yisroel is divided into three; each is, one degree higher in kedusha then the previous; Obviously the territory where Yerushalayim Ir Hakodesh is, has the highest Kedusha; continuing on up until the Kodesh Hakodoshim. The Talmud talks about Eretz Yisroel which King David conquered and ruled over, which encompassed huge territories of Syria and beyond. In the Pentateuch (Chumash); the boundaries G-d promised Abraham extends to the "Nehar Peruss" (Euphrates). If you want more information; stop a Talmid Chochom, and ask him about "Kedusha rishonah, kidsho leshato, vekidsho le'osid lovo". Hope this is more then enough for you; I'm waiting for a check. Itzse (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Just my two cents on this issue. I have reverted a few times because I believe that refering to the area as the "historical/biblical Jewish homeland" is not WP:NPOV. I'm fine if the phrase reads along the lines of

'It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine, which they consider to be the historical/biblical Jewish homeland, so that they could find sanctuary and self- determination.'

Anything else is just pushing the notion that there Jews have a historical right to that land. Unless anybody can produce incontestable and uncontroversial sources proving that (no, no coins -- by that argument, Spain would belong to Turkey), it is just WP:POV and does not belong there uncommented or un-relativised.
Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 13:25
I beg to disagree Pedro. That Jewish tradition sanctified in memory the area of Palestine as the place where many of their ancestors lived, and crucial events in their national history took place, is true. We are not dealing with rights ensuing from affection for land (though many do embrace that idea), but emotional attachments. What is problematical rather is 'historical' (for two millenia of history Jews who might have otherwise wished to return to that area had difficulty in doing so, given Roman, Christian and Muslim hostility, bans, or diffidence), because it is so profoundly ambiguous (by the same token, Palestine is the 'historical homeland' of Palestinians, esp. in their diaspora). The language as we have it does have innuendos that tend to annul from sight native attachments to that same land, however. Let's work on it. 'Considered as' is all over wiki, and is, above all, bad stylstically, as it tends to be plastered in only to reflect a conflict among editors. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be insurmountable to reach a compromise between "historical Jewish homeland" & "biblical homeland of the Jews," at very least. El_C 13:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One dearly hopes so. Michael did make a very relevant point on my edit, one which, as soon as I noticed it, I embraced. I never in private usage say 'the Jews' because Western languages have the lamentable heritage of antisemitic traditions in which 'die Juden', 'les juifs' evokes resonances that are still veined with negative nuances. He suggested 'the Jewish people', and I agree to that emendation, if my suggestion is to be taken into consideration.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
we are trying to provide some context for that fact that Jews do have a claim to this land., and the world does recognize that, however imperfect the process may be. the reason the British Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, recognized some right of Jews to have a presence was due to some generally accepted concepts based on Jewish history. the manner of implementation by British authorities may have been flawed, but there was some basis for their actions, and for such claims. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 13:57
Yes, the Balfour Declarataion. (not trying to be glib; that is my answer.) thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, with all due respect, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 makes absolutely no reference to or acknowledgement any historical or biblical right of the Jews to Palestine. Whatever the geopolitical aims of the British where, it probably had very little to do with where Judaism prospered more than 2000 years back. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 14:30
Pedro, there's nothing POV/new about the note that Eretz Israel was and is an historical homeland of the Jewish people. This is both mainstream accepted (unless you count the Fatah charter) and an archaeological fact. (suggested viewing: [20]) JaakobouChalk Talk 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC) added suggested viewing 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, i find your reply at least helpful in laying out the basic outlines of this issue as you see it. However, I agree with Jaakobou on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Steve, I agree. This is probably the core problem (for me at least). One man's fact is another man's POV. How, for comparison, would you juxtapose this historical/biblical right with the Palestinian right of return? Would you, User:Jaakobou, allow it to be stated as a fact and not a POV? Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 15:35
no, the two are not comparable. i am not denigrating or praising either one; the two simply have very different attributes. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I don't see the relation between political positions regarding refugees and well resaerched historical and archaeological facts. If you believe in novel re-interpretations of history, you might as well use reliable sources to back them up. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Jaakobou, stop waving that red herring around or I'll slap you with it. I'm not saying that Jews never lived there. I'm also not saying that they didn't call it Eretz Israel. What I'm saying is that them having lived there does not make it their "historical/biblical homeland" in any any objective sense. People of the same religion havin lived there at some point in time is no objective basis for a right to that land.
But this is getting absolutely nowhere. You say it's fact, I say it's POV. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 16:13
P.S. For someone fresh off a one-week topic ban, you should mind your accusations of revisionism and the like. Not exactly WP:CIVIL. pedro gonnet - talk - 27.03.2008 16:13

Nishdani; first off; I do appreciate your kind words about me, and your honesty in saying it. I think I now know where you’re coming from, which until now I didn't; and did question your sincerity but didn't say so out right, due to a requirement of AGF which is extremely difficult for me; based on my real life experiences, but you got through to me as sincerely believing what you believe.

Having said that; in the few minutes I have now, I'll try to answer your assertions, and maybe you'll see the truth in my words.

I remember well the famous interview Arafat gave; where he was asked pointed questions regarding the Jewish people's rights to Palestine. He did a great denial act; simply denying everything. When I say everything, I mean absolute everything. He made it sound as if the Chinese lived in Israel in antiquity, G-d promised Ishmael the Holy Land, the Jews had no connection at all to the Holy Land; but a few Polish Jews woke up one day and decided to create a country for the Jews on G-d given Arab territory. No matter what the question was, he always had a prepared answer for it. He wasn't trying to prove himself right; for him it was over enough if he was able to get away with any answer with a straight face. No wonder why out of all Arabs; they stuck with him; although as a person he was an ugly and horrible one. But he did deliver what no-one else could, which is; deny, deny, deny with a perfect straight face. Iraq's press secretary was peanuts compared to him.

Why am I telling you all this; so that you should understand where I'm coming from. It is no secret that many people in this universe hate the Jews. It is also no secret that although most of them couldn't care less about the Arabs; they will take the Arab side physically, politically and academically as much as they can get away with. The denial of the Jews of their rights goes something like this: 1) The Bible isn't history; at most legend. 2) The Bible can be interpreted; therefore whatever can be misinterpreted needs to be misinterpreted. 3) Deny that the Jews had a Kingdom in Israel. 4) Deny that the Jews had a Kingdom in Judaea. 5) Deny that the Jews had a Temple; Arafat actually denied it in that infamous interview. 6) If pushed to the wall on any of the above five; then they will say that immediately after the destruction of the Temple no Jew was left in Israel; ignoring a Bar Kochba War, A Talmud Yerushalmi and a Talmud Bavli; where most of the activity was in the Holy land; and last but not least if everything else fails then the line goes; that Ok those were Hebrews/Jews but the Jews of today have just hatched and claim to be Jews.

Here in Wikipedia everything I mentioned is happening at once. The intentions of Wikipedia's editors are as varied as the intentions of the world at large; some have bad intentions and some are plain misinformed and some have good intentions but do not grasp the consequences of their laxity; taking it very light; that so what if the Encyclopedia isn't perfect. Therefore Nashdani; if we should only use the word Biblical; then what about all those who don't believe in the Bible; or who do believe, but have bought into all types of weird theories and interpretations. For them; who consist of most people who live on planet earth; the narration has to be clear that the Jews lived in the Holy Land for a long time as its homeland and being in exile doesn't take away their rights.

Now your assertion that most Jews didn't want to go to Eretz Yisroel, doesn't minimize Eretz Yisroel as the Jewish homeland at all. Would you say that those Palestinians living in the United States aren’t anymore Palestinians because if Israel allowed all of them back today; almost none will go, because they won't give up their comfort here for anything. Similarly when 3 million Jews left Russia between the years 1880-1910 most of them went to the United States or Western Europe or Argentina; not because Eretz Yisroel isn't their homeland but because; why live a life of difficulty in their homeland, when they can live a life of comfort in the land of opportunity and the land of plenty. For the same reason When Ezra rebuilt the Second Temple; most Jews didn't want to leave their Babylonian wives and their farms in the then land of plenty and embark on rebuilding a ruined Eretz Yisroel. Does that change the fact that 420 years later, at the time of the destruction of the Temple; there were millions of Jews in Israel? The answer is no; Those outside their homeland eventually assimilated similar to about 90% of the Jews who arrived in America in the years 1880-1910. The few that didn't assimilate either eventually joined their brothers in the Holy Land with a handful maintaining their identity to the very end in Babylon and the USA. Again what I'm trying to say is that because many, even if most Jews decided to go elsewhere; that doesn't change an iota; that Eretz Yisroel was and is the homeland of the Jewish people.

Now to the next question regarding the Zionists intentions of a homeland for the Jewish people. While Hertzel and others were secular Zionists and they might have even agreed with your interpretation of history; nevertheless; religious Zionism was the soul of Zionism and without it couldn't have gone anywhere. Was Rabbi Shmuel Mohliver Rabbi of Bialistock any less instrumental in Zionism then Hertzel himself? Without him and many other Rabbis; Zionism as a movement would have died in its infancy.

It was Zionism as nationalism which evoked a powerful reaction by the great Rabbis of the day. They saw in it the destruction of Judaism, which has held together the Jewish people; not nationalism. It has to be said that nationalism in itself didn't bother them, if done within the realm of Judaism; it was nationalism at the expense of Judaism which they saw as dangerous. In a book published on the occasion of the founding of Petach Tikvah in 1879; which was founded by the Brisker Rov Reb Yehoshua Leib Diskin who cannot be accused of being a Zionist. In that book they write: We can conquer Eretz Yisroel with money not bullets. I don't need a book to tell me what the Jewish sentiments were one hundred, two hundred and three hundred years ago; I actually breathe those sentiments; but for those that still have to be convinced; that book which was published about twenty years before Hertzel, by religious Jews who were the ancestors of today’s anti/non Zionists. They felt that it was worth paying to buy off the land of their forefathers from the farmers who possessed it at that time. I'm reminded of the famous visit of Ben Gurion with the greatest sage at the time the Chazon Ish; and Ben Gurion asked him shouldn't the majority rule; and the majority wants secularism. The Chazon Ish replied that the Talmud tells us that if two wagons meet on a bridge which isn't wide enough for both; one is loaded, the other is empty; the empty one needs to back off; similarly he said; we the religious are coming with a loaded wagon of Judaism of over 3000 years; and you have just arrived with an empty wagon; and the two are mutually exclusive; therefore majority or no majority you need to back off. The holy Chazon Ish had then laid the status quo, which exists in Israel until today.

The bottom line is that even Hertzels Zionistic movement; was a nationalistic Jewish movement to return and establish a Jewish country in its homeland; the land of their forefathers.

The question should not be that because of tendentiousness we should write as vague as possible lest we awake the ire of opposing views. The question should rather be; why should there be tendentiousness on historical facts in the first place? Itzse (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Itzse I appreciate the time you have given to responding to my query at length, and your acceptance of my bona fides. I make no bones about the fact that I am a strong and determined supporter of Palestinian land rights over the West Bank and Gaza. And, as I read between the lines, this will invariably put us at odds. You have opened a fascinating conversation, which however, is perhaps not appropriate to this page. I hope to respond to your remarks in due course, and would ask you permission that I may avail myself of space on your talk page from time to time, to maintain a dialogue on this. Otherwise my page is available. And, a small point, touched on in your remarks. I have no objection to forceful presentation of ideas, even remonstrative language, on talk pages, by anyone who strongly disagrees with me on an edit or explanation of an edit. I do not appeal to arbritration in instances of conflict. I am only annoyed by those who refuse to listen to an adversary, not by adversarial opinions. If you find anything, here or elsewhere, disturbing in what I personally write, feel free to vent your disagreements strongly. When good will is assumed among interlocutors, one should be allowed to express oneself without too much finicky anxieties about calling a spade a spade.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

I had a quick browse through the discussion last night. Seems to me the solution is just to be more specific, ie, along the lines of:

It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine (known to the Jews as Eretz Israel)...

That way both POVs get a mention while it's also made clear to the reader that Eretz Israel was the term favoured by Jews but not the actual name of the place at the time. Gatoclass (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a very good way to address the first issue. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That wording seems fair to me as long as it shows that Eretz Yisrael/Palestine was the historical Jewish homeland. Consider: It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine (known to the Jews by the name of the historical Jewish homeland, Eretz Israel)... --GHcool (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

for the purpose of showing Palestine as a region and not as a country, how about:

"It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine(a region known to the Jews by the name of Land of Israel/Eretz Israel" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.106.132 (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Consider: "It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine (a region known to the Jews by the name of the historical Jewish homeland, Eretz Israel) ..." --GHcool (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think "a region" is redundant. I deliberately left out the rest of the sentence, ie the "historical/biblical/ancestral" debate etc, because I think that is a separate debate. Gatoclass (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I like your original proposal best: lean, uncontroversial and to the point. Let's leave the messy semantics (historical/biblical/ancestral) to the article Eretz Israel. Good idea. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.03.2008 07:59
Articles here should be lean, clear, and factual. Given that, in contradistinction to many printed Encyclopedias, we have the device of links, which send the reader elsewhere, variously, for details, parenthetic elaborations are supererogatory. So far I think (User:Gatoclass)'s proposal is the neatest. The reason,GHcool, I disagree with your suggestion is because the parenthesis is fully available in the link to Eretz Yisrael. As Odo Rigaldus would say, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per unum(What can be explained by the assumption of one thing is vainly explained by the assumption of more things), which stylistically would be Verba non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate, a rule I violate in these Talk pages. Add on things already available through the link, and you get counter-claims for counter-parentheses. Given the multiple nuances that are present in the various forms of parenthesis we have all mooted, nuances which complicate the text, and give rise to controversy, Gatoclass's mediation seems to have cut the Gordian knot, with satisfaction given to all parties. It allows us to dispense with a troublesome link, resolves the problem of the dual constituencioes of Zionism, and gives us an inconfutable truism, in both regards. If anything, I hope that this long discussion will lead to an improvement of the linked page to 'Land of Israel' and 'Eretz Yisrael'. Given the importance of these terms, those pages require far more attentive consideration than they have hitherto earned, and I hope, for one, that User:Itzse can find the time to enlighten us with his impressive erudition by improving those articles with a detailed rehearsal of those terms as they are employed and defined in Biblical texts and Rabbinical commentary. I hope El_C, User:Michael Safyan and others can pitch in with their views on this mediation, or provide us with an equally terse alternative. Regards to all Nishidani (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I like GHcool's proposal, and I support it. i am willing to support any compromise which GHcool agrees to. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
GHcool's proposal has the bare bare minimum of what is needed here; but nevertheless I will reluctantly go along with it; as I have full trust in his honest and noble approach to everything. But if the article should have any real credibility, it needs to state it clearly as a fact, not merely an opinion of an interested party.
Gatoclass's proposal lacks the minimal credence required in presenting a historical fact. No amount of links can accomplish what is taken away by diluting the words to suggest that an historical fact is only a minor opinion by an interested party. One page cannot fill the gap on the basic recognition of a historic fact on another page. The purpose of links to other pages is to get an in depth coverage of the subject at hand; but it cannot compensate for the suppression of a fact on another page.
Nishdani; again thanks for your openness, and good words; and look forward with your permission to fight you tooth and nail whenever I need to call a spade a spade. Of course you and everyone else are free to avail yourself of my talk page on any subject that's on your mind. My interest in history spans all the way from world creation to today; and includes every culture and creed. Of course Jewish history is my bread and butter; and I am astounded as to the lack of knowledge even among my own friends, whose span of reference is only their adult lifetime. So what can I expect of the world at large? I could write tons of books on the misunderstanding of elementary history. In order to truly understand history; it really requires to study everything about a given period; and that includes postage stamps, coins, artifacts, documents, books, manuscripts, and most importantly clear in depth biographies of the people and its rulers; its wars and celebrations, its ups and downs, to get a true picture of history. If any of the above is misconstrued or downplayed then it allows for distortion of history to the point of calling a Jewish spade a Palestinian one.
It boggles my mind why a person like you who obviously possesses a vast amount of knowledge can't see the physical Jewish side of the story; you only see the Palestinian side. Not to brag, but I think I truly understand the Arabs POV; and am here only to make sure that the Jewish POV isn't suppressed . Not writing the bare minimum, that at least the Jewish people consider Eretz Yisroel their homeland; is plain and simple suppression of the facts and at least a suppression of the Jewish view. Itzse (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishdani; what you have to say deserves a clear answer; which unfortunately I'm out of time to accomplish it now. Besides this is something that needs to be discussed; but I don't think here.
One thing I do have to say is that every fight has two sides to the story; and sometimes a third, which is the truth. Unfortunately you haven't met me, so you would hear of the suffering, torture and murder that my family and ancestors had to endure. I happen to be an historian to whom everything about my people interests me. That partly explains my passion for my people, which gets stronger every time I sit on Wikipedia. You might have great sensitivities which is a very good thing and this person who you met has overtaken you. Not having the time to respond appropriately and I'll be away for a few days; I want to leave you with the following; that even if you consider the Palestinians 100% right and the Jews 100% wrong; there are other honest people out there, and I would like to include myself among them; who greatly differ with you. Therefore regardless if you believe that the facts agree with you; it still needs to stay with you; and Wikipedia needs to be neutral. Neutral means, that what you consider trash; but others consider it true; needs to presented in Wikipedia without suppression. Can we at least agree on that? I gotta go; it's almost Shabbos; see you next week, time permitting. Itzse (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Truth never resides in a 'people'. I don't think I have ever written a negative word against a 'people'(governments yes), since my philosophical position is that only individuals exist, and 'people' is a ghost category (Gilbert Ryle 1949). I have an intuition that you are related to the victims of 1929, so I will not press my point. May your oneg shabbat be especially deep this evening, Itzse Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani, thank you for your response. While I accept the principle of Ockham's razor, I feel that your last post does not apply it appropriately. The reason the information on the historical Jewish homeland is necessary is to show that Eretz Yisrael/Palestine was not "picked out of a hat." There are specific historical/cultural/sociological/religious reasons why Eretz Yisrael/Palestine was chosen as the focus for a future Jewish state. The fact that Eretz Yisrael/Palestine is the historical Jewish homeland is immensely important for the understanding of the conflict as a whole. --GHcool (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You've got a good point, but it only opens up a caqn of worms. The article is entitled the 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict'. There is a whole paragraph motivating why Zionists went to Palestine. There is not a word about the fact, equally important for understanding the conflict, that Palestine at the time was overwhelmingly dwelt in by Palestinians, with deep attachments to the land they and their own forefathers worked. The Jewish people have a profound historical longing for the land, punto e basta. In balanced composition, each statement evokes one from the counter-narrative (as there are two narratives here), but there is no such thing. No mention of the fact that it was the (ancestral) homeland of Palestinians, who then constituted 90% of the population. Of course the Jewish people had very powerful reasons for wishing to return to Palestine. Palestinians had very powerful reasons for resisting the implications of that choice. But there is no balancing mention of this 'other' narrative. Look at what follows after we are told Zionists returned to their historical homeland: it sounds as though, on coming back home, they found violent people occupying their houses, and had trouble with them.

Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the control of the United Kingdom through the Sykes-Picot Agreement and a League of Nations mandate. (A)During the mandatory period, tensions between Arab and Jewish groups in the region erupted into physical violence as in the 1920 Palestine riots, the 1921 Palestine riots, the 1929 Hebron massacre and the Great Arab Revolt, (B) These groups also directed violence against the British, as in the King David Hotel bombing and the assasinations of Lord Moyne and Count Bernadotte, in order to expel the mandatory government, which was held in contempt by both sides.

I.e. arrangements were made to turn this land over to the British, tensions arose between Arab and Jewish groups, leading to physical violence by the squatters. (a)1920, a riot against Jews for a few days. (b) Another riot against the Jews, repeated in 1921. (c) a massacre of Jews in 1929 (d) a great Arab revolt (in protest against the Jews). So we have a Zionist desire to return home, and four violent uprisings by Palestinians. There is no explanation given as to why the Palestinians are up in arms, the accent is on the Jews as victims of violence in their historical homeland.
Then we get an apparent parallel statement, about Jewish violence, apparently, for these groups is the subject, and refers back to 'Arab and Jewish groups', in a sentence which then lists (a) violence against the British (on both sides), (b)the King Hotel Bombing (the Irgun), the assassinations of Lord Mopyne and Count Bernadotte (Stern-Shamir), to expel the mandatory government. In short, the text phases the Jewish violence (occurring a full 24-6 years after the great Arab uprisings) as though it were shared by the Arabs (these groups). Unless one checks the links, it looks like we have (A) Arab violence against Jews in their own homeland for 25 years, then finally Arab and Jewish violence against the British overlords, held in contempt by both sides.
This is the extraordinary layout of the historical background, and is so structurally tendentious that, as written, it seems worded, in my view, to make the Arabs out as the initiators of waves of violence against the Jews in their own homeland, followed by a final outburst of exasperation in which, in a few incidents, alongside Arabs, Jews assaulted the British. That is what this paragraph we are discussing is lining up, and it is deeply prejudiced against the indigenous inhabitants. That is one further reason why I find the parenthesis you wish to insert dangerous, because it grounds the prejudice that so self-evidently follows. This is not encyclopedic, my friend, this is stacking history, and we would do well to keep it clean, balanced, without loading it to one side, as the expansion of Eretz Yisrael does, in my humble view. Regards Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your position, Nishidani, but the reason why it does not attempt to explain the rationale for Arab-Jewish violence is because those reasons are highly disputed. According to some sources, the reason for the violence was incitement by Hajj Amin Al-Husseini; according to other sources, it was fear that Jewish immigrants would dispossess the Arab populace. The text originally included the findings of the British in the Haycraft Commission and the Shaw Report; however, this material has been removed. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Michael, just a brief note. Though intensive efforts have been made to nail Amin al-Husayni as the man behind Arab violence, it is pure nonsense from early Zionist sources, since quietly buried by serious historiography. It only survives on the Wiki page on Husayni, ruined as it is by User:Zeq's proprietorial insistance on this, against all good historical sources, and indeed violates GHcool's remonstrances against a 'great man theory' of history, reiterated here. The reasons for the conflict are not disputed. In a territory whose population was 90% Arab, foreign powers agreed to massive annual immigration by Jewish people, without the former's consent. Not to expect the majority to react to this imposition of aliens in their midst is extreme naivity. Palestine 1919-1936 indeed is a remarkable example of relatively low resistance to what was an ethnic invasion programmed to change the demographics and nature of a land which was overwhelmingly Arab. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point, Nishidani. The problem we seem to be facing is how to present a relevant fact (that Eretz Yisrael/Palestine was the historical Jewish homeland) without denying the Palestinian narrative. I think most of us agree that censoring the relevant fact is not the solution to the problem. I am open to suggestions on how we can present the relevant fact accurately and neutrally without denying the Palestinian narrative. --GHcool (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Eretz Israel in its biblical configuration never covered the land where the overwhelming majority of Jewish immigrants settled. Haifa doesn't figure in the Bible, and it does not figure as part of rabbinical definitions of Eretz Israe, and therefore the word is being used with extreme ambiguity and looseness, to mean, 'anywhere where Jews settle' in that region is, ipso fato, retroactively, 'Eretz Yisrael'. The modern immigrants settled everywhere but in Eretz Yisrael, i.e. predominantly in coastal areas, coterminous with the biblical Philistia, not 'Eretz Yisrael', until 1948. The biblical homeland of Judea and Samaria was not the object of intense Jewish immigration, except for non-Zionist Jews performing Aliyah. Zionists were happy with Philistia. The Palestinian narrative in that section,(which motivates Jewish immigration while holding a strict silence over the conflicting Palestinian sense of a real and physical and ancestral homeland) must be mentioned in terms of balance. Suffice it simply to add that it was also the actual homeland of Palestinian Arabs, who constituted 90% of the population.
Thank you both. I am somewhat perplexed by words, and contexts, yet often feel that my presence and mode of presentation can prove exasperating. I console myself with the cordial and gentlemanly atmosphere in which this, rather difficult issue, is been handled. Though I'd be equally happen with a quick solution, if only not to annoy those who are impatient, I think one should always bear in mind that in these little virtual nooks, we are trying, if not to write sub specie aeternitate, then at least with a certain modest confidence that our work will, if honest, fair and rigorous, attain a certain stability since all newcomers, from whatever side, will appreciate a tone of informed balance. I may not be present for a few days since I have work, not at Titus' arch, but nearby. If a consensus is reached, with Gatoclass and Pedro giving it the nod, then I'll not challenge it on my return. Buon lavoro. (ps. I have removed that autobiographical scrap. On reflection it seems indelicate to weigh in with my own tribe's travails in history, in a context where far greater tragedies have befallen other peoples. I apologize to Itzse, for his replies now follow a void).Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well no resolution has been achieved, so whatever way the text here is edited, it will remain controversial and unstable: a pity. I'm in no hurry. I've ordered Henry Laurens' 3 vol. French history of the 'Holy Land' (1799-1967) and when I have read it thoroughly will return to the page. In the meantime User:Suicup's suggestion seems proper, thickening out all sections, and then to details later. Buon lavoro.Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How about:

It sought the establishment of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine (the historical homeland of the Jews among others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.106.132 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because the Zionist movement did not care to return to "others'" homeland. --GHcool (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If you edit an article dealing with Zionism,GHcool, you are expected to inform yourself about the subject before making obiter dicta of the kind above. There is thorough documentation on the Zionist leadership’s awareness, from the 1890s onward, that they were returning to another people's homeland, and would have to evict the indigenous population. Just two quotes:
(1) Lucien Wolf, then President of the Anglo-Jewish Association, replying to Israel Zangwill's transfer idea in 1919

(1a)'The Zionists, however dear may be their memories of 2000 years ago, came to the land as strangers, while the so-called Arabs - by which is meant the fellahin or peasantry - are the indigenous population who were in the country before the first invasion of our people, and who have remained there ever since

(1b)If the so-called Arabs were really Arabs - that is, natives of Arabia - and if the Jews were really Palestinians - that is indigenes of Palestine - there might be something to be said for your argument on the crazy basis of Territorial Nationality, which is the root curse of all our policies. But the Arabs are not Arabs. They are only the Moslemised descendants of the indigenous Canaanites, and hence they are in their rightful homeland which, however poor and feckless they may be, is their own. This is so well established an anthropological fact that you will find it referred to as beyond dispute in any good encyclopaedic article on Palestine.The Jews on the other hand, come from the very Mesopotamia to which you would now banish the Arabs. They never struck root in the country, although they certainly sanctified it by great doings... and they passed out of it because in reality it was too small for their great spirit and took the world for their stage'. Lucien Wolf, The Jewish Chronicle, (London), Jan 3 1919, p.19.

(2 Ben-Gurion, 1938)

'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. . . politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. The revolt 'is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews... Behind the terrorism is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self-sacrifice.' Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians, Barnes & Noble, New York, 1979 pp. 141-2

I.e.Only by the subtlest of pretextual discriminations can your sentence be justified, i.e., by construing it as meaning:'the Zionist movement, (though fully aware that Palestine was the homeland of another population) did not care to return to what was the indigenous Arabs' homeland. They cared to return to 'Eretz Yisrael', which was their own homeland, even though, at the same time it was coterminous with what Palestinians regarded as their own homeland, something Zionists didn't care about.
There is no way round the problem. This is a neutral encyclopedia, and the mention of Zionism immigration evokes automatically, as a balancing statement, a mention of the fact that the country was basically a homeland to native Palestinians. Otherwise, the conflict is incomprehensible, and the neutrality of Wiki infringed.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You missed my point, or perhaps I was not clear enough. What I meant to say is that Zionism was a movement to return to the Jewish homeland. To say that it is a movement to return to other people's homeland is a misrepresentation. Herzl would never say, "For two thousand years we've dreamed of returning to the land of the indigenous Arab population." For better or for worse, Zionism specifically singles out the Jewish homeland. --GHcool (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the point trying to be made is that while Palestine is the Jewish homeland, it is also the homeland of other peoples. Thus some feel that by putting in 'historical Jewish homeland' the implication is that Jews are the only people with a historic homeland in Palestine. Why is 'historical Jewish homeland' so necessary? The term Eretz Israel implies it anyway, and by leaving it out, we avoid a messy content war which will ultimately never be stable in the long run. The original proposal by Gatoclass is best. Suicup (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Shaw Report

There is a problem with the lines:

The report of the Shaw Commission, known as the Shaw Report or Command Paper No 3530, attributed the violence to "animosity entertained by the Arabs for the Jews as a result of the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future".[6]

First of all, the full quote is

Note the difference between "feelings of animosity" and "animosity" and the second sentence, without which the animosity comes off as unjustified or plain Anti-Semitism, but that's just a detail... The main problem is twofold:

  • This is not a quote from the Shaw Report itself, but from the comments of M. van Rees, the Dutch representative, at a meeting of the League of Nations paraphrasing the report,
  • van Rees mentions this part of the report only to criticise it as being inaccurate, detailing over several pages that the main cause was Arab disaffection towards the Mandatory Power (i.e. Great Britain) for not keeping its promises regarding Palestinian sovereignty.

Furthermore, the quote is used to imply that the Shaw Report attributes the violence to the Arabs. However, the article on the Shaw Report itself lists 6 "immediate causes of the outbreak", of which only the 3rd has anything remotely to do with the claim in this article.

This is obviously not a good quote. It's a quote on a comment on the report which is itself mis-characterised and is used to imply a conclusion that the report itself does not make. If nobody removes it, I will.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 23.01.2008 07:59

I based the quote on the Shaw Report Wikipedia article. The reference is used to corroborate, not to provide the quote. I will clarify this by adding the wikipedia article as a reference explicitly. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Uhm... Michael? I pointed out that the quote was not from the Shaw Report itself and that it mis-represents both the person who said it and the report itself. Either show me that I have somehow erred, or remove/rephrase it. pedro gonnet - talk - 25.01.2008 08:17
If the quote is not from the Shaw Report, then you should correct the Shaw Report Wikipedia article. You still seem to think that the quote came from that link when, in fact, it was taken from the Wikipedia article, where it says "The fundamental cause ...". In response to your claim that "the quote is used to imply that the Shaw Report attributes the violence to the Arabs," not quoted is the line "The outbreak in Jerusalem on the 23rd of August was from the beginning an attack by Arabs on Jews for which no excuse in the form of earlier murders by Jews has been established." That quote certainly does suggest that the Shaw Report attributes the violence to Arabs, but that is not the point of the quote which I included; the quote which I included is more sympathetic and notes Arab "disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future." ← Michael Safyan (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I added a {{Failed verification|date=March 2008}} template to that statement in the Shaw Report article. What surprises me a bit is that you chose that quote and not the conclusions (citing the article, "the immediate causes of the outbreak were..."). Can you modify the paragraph to quote those instead?
As I said below, I have ordered a copy of the report and hope to be able to post it in full soon enough. Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 28.01.2008 14:57
Pedro, perhaps I can suggest an improvement: The report of the Shaw Commission, known as the Shaw Report or Command Paper No 3530, was said by M. van Rees, the Dutch representative, to have attributed the violence to "animosity entertained by the Arabs for the Jews as a result of the disappointment of their political and national aspirations and fear for their economic future". M. van Rees himself argued that the Arabs "also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power." Basically, as I now read the document, van Rees thinks that the politically astute Arabs resented Britain but felt that they could only provoke the "illiterate classes ... by religious, racial or economic considerations than by political claims" and he agrees that they did provoke animosity in that manner. So, I think the proposed sentence should deal with your concerns about van Rees, and adds briefly his view, which still would not (if fully laid out) undermine the basic meaning. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a note. Fiddle with it as one will, the only proper way round the impasse (the article is a disaster by the way) is to find some good up-to-date historical works specifically dealing with the Mandatory policy papers and reports and their review in the League of Nations' Commission. As they stand those papers do not reflect the facts, but the politics and prejudices of the age. The fundamental difference between the two reports is that the Shaw Report was looking for formal legal proof of the Arab Executive and Muslim Clergy's responsibilities, and found none. It found evidence for incitement on both sides (most Wiki articles highlight Arab incitement alone). The Mandatory Commission said this was not adequate since the events deal with Arabs, and in an Eastern country where feudal conditions of life still existed, effective proof against the traditional religious and other leaders of the people would very rarely be found.
In other words, members of the Mandatory Committee said legal proof wasn't required, because Arabs are Orientals who characteristically hid the required proof.(Mr van Rees, reiterating this twice). Van Rees 'had not the least doubt that the responsibility for what had happened must lie with the religious and political leaders of the Arabs.' Van Rees' argument relied for its general premises on an article about the 'Arab Fellahins' Mind' written by M. William Martin for the Nouvelle Revue Juive , April 1930 p.22. I.e. as spokesman for the Commission he accepted the verdict of the Jewish Agency and articles written for the Jewish press. We know know, thanks to Israeli historians, that van Rees had almost no indepth knowledge of the complex intertwining causes, but was guided predominantly by the prejudices and sympathies of the age concerning 'civilized people' and 'primitive' orientals. Take the following remark:-
The Arab peasant is distinguished, not only in Palestine, but also in the other neighbouring countries, by the fact that he can always be induced to attack his true friends by his true enemies, who are the landowners.(translation. The Arab fellahin obeyed their enemies, the Arab ruling class, and killed their friends, the Zionist immigrants. The point of view is that Jewish immigration will improve the lot of the Arab poor, by wresting the land from its feudal owners and hiring Arabs with better wages and conditions, and that all Arab protests against Jewish immigration are excuses for continuing to exploit the Arab proletariat. In this the Mufti and other leaders were as responsible as Gandhi was in India for creating havoc!)
This is of course highly ideological, as are many primary sources. Contemporary historians can deconstruct that and contextualize the judgements (British desire for impartiality as a political requisite in order not to add fuel to the fire of Arab sentiments of betrayal vas. Mandatory commissioners, who had a colonial cast of mind and constantly pushed the British about subordinating their duties to the majority of population in order to fulfil the Mandate policy of allowing Jewish immigration)Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreeing that a historical/secondary source would be preferred, let me know if you find one. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should stick with the conclusions listed in the main article on the Shaw Report? They are quite un-ambiguous...
User:HG, the way I read van Rees' comments, is that the uprising was political (not just anti-Semitic) and had to do with concrete Arab fears regarding their national state. In your suggestion, you still have the original quote and add his main conclusion slipping-in the word "also", implying that both statements are equally correct. Yet van Rees explicitly states that the conclusion for the first quote is wrong. If we are to use this quote, then only in the context of, say: "M. van Rees stated that the report's conclusion that 'animosity entertained ...' is complete bollocks. In his opinion, the real reason for the violence lay..."
In any case, quoting van Rees here does not make sense. His words are being contorted to somehow imply that the violence is to be blamed solely on Arab-entertained "animosity" and has little to do with the History of the conflict. I have ordered a copy of the report from an antiquarian and will do my best to add it to WikiSource, hopefully to clear some things up. Cheers pedro gonnet - talk - 28.01.2008 07:45
You wrote: "that the uprising was political (not just anti-Semitic) and had to do with concrete Arab fears regarding their national state." It was both. This was conflict over land and political power, between two peoples who were defined by religious differences. So it's unnecessary to try to exonerate the Arabs of anti-Semitism here. Whether they were or weren;'t, clearly the motives were the political struggle for rights and power in the future state which would be established. So any malice displayed by local Arabs towards Jews arises from the political context of the time. that's not to dilute or emphasize whatever malice they muight have felt; merely stating the political and historical factors at work here. that's what we're supposed to do here, right? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I gather we're trying to use van Rees to present both sides. That is, it seems reasonable to me to rely on him both for the report and for his critique. Anyway, it bothers me that you say I was "slipping-in" the word 'also.' Here's the full quote, including 'also,' and it doesn't sound like he's saying that one idea is completely wrong, but rather that there's an additional factor: "In view of these convictions, the justification for which would be examined later, it could hardly be said that the Arabs felt resentment only towards the Jews. Doubtless, they felt resentment towards the Jews, but not exclusively. They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity." Well, doesn't the Shaw Report have an "animosity" quote that is very similar to the one now in the article? Good suggestion. HG | Talk 07:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
what are we arguing about here? the best way to assign guilt? yes, the mandatory civil servants had an imperialist view of the local peoples. yes, British official often tried too hard to be impartial, but often ended up not being impartial at all. Sometimes they favored the Arabs, sometimes they favored the Jews. yes, self-proclaimed solutions often took the form of mere political leanings and favors for one side or the other. yes, few officials, parties or historic figures appear to be wholly devoted to positive constructive solutions. Ok. so what? any history will only reflect the imperfections of the people involved at the time. I say we not keep trying to wring historical documents for motives, ideologies, or hidden political biases. We can simply report the factual actions and events. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with Steve. We should avoid any form of commentary from these sections -- which includes this supposed statement from the Shaw Report. pedro gonnet - talk - 28.01.2008 15:10
Contemporary documents are not the best evidence for the history of a period. They are primary sources for that period. I repeat. You may quote the Shaw and League of Nations reports for their political takes, but unless one leavens this primary documentation with what contemporary historians say, the use of these materials will be 'factitious'. Both the Mandate and the League of Nations Commissions were opposed to an Arab majority in Palestine having the same rights to nationhood assigned to emigrant Jews from Europe by the Balfour Declaration. Resistance to what a native majority saw as colonial usurpation might have, at the time, been dismissed as impelled by 'oriental fanaticism' 'benighted Arabs', 'animosity' or 'the Fellahin mind', language which reflects the prejudices of the period. We now know what Ze'ev Jabotinsky knew in 1923, i.e. that 'resistance to Zionist aspirations was wholly natural,' and not to be dismissed as an irrational upsurge of passions without due cause. The Shaw report as cited rightly understood this as well, being a reflection of what administrators on the ground knew, but phrased it in a language reflecting the prejudices of the time. If Tacitus wrote 'outbreaks of Jewish rebellion reflected the animosity of the people who feel disappointed at the loss of their national aspirations' it would be citable as Tacitus's view: it would have to be glossed however by contemporary historical research that revealed that much more than a simple passion 'animosity' was involved.
In a contemporary wiki article, one owes a responsibility to the full historical record as established by the latest historical research, and not just a partial jiggering of dated views from a select number of official, and deeply political documents insouciant of Arabs protests at the expropriation officially underway. What is being done here may be compared to a student citing Tacitus as an authority on the period ca.100 C. without reading and exploiting contemporary historians like Ronald Syme. Tacitus is a contemporary source for the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian, and attributes the strong resistance to Roman imperial adventurism to the pervicacia superstitionis, (stubbornness of superstitution). Mutatis mutandis the Shaw report speaks of 'animosity', though rightly adding it is grounded in well-founded grievances. Both documents are guides to Roman and British attitudes as much as to the real events. But no one takes Tacitus at face value (Steve's 'facts') anymore than we should take the Shaw Report as 'objective'. It needs supplemention by contemporary historians. The distinction may be subtle, but, ignored, it has damaged quite a few articles in here.Nishidani (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to rule any of these sources out. i just meant it's unnecessary to argue over the real motives or flaws behind various original documents of the time. We can assume that they are all flawed. So we can just go ahead and quote original documents as a useful but flawed view of what was happening at the time. Is the problem here that British officials keep saying how it is hard to find constructive compromise between the two sides, and that Arabs are displaying animosity? Fine we can quote that, and then provide other quotes to show Arab feelings of the time. There should be plenty of Arab leaders we can quote who had said that the Jewish communities should be expelled as intruders, and then we can try to indicate the political developments behind their reasons for making these statements. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My finicky remarks reflect problems elsewhere, where the Shaw Report and Mandatory Commission papers are given high focus, and contemporary historical works revising their very partial judgements are contested, ignored or given second ranking. One cannot develop on this page a detailed analysis of the Shaw Report. What editors should keep in mind is that primary 'political' documents are to be handled with great care, since they are thoroughly embedded in the prejudices and politics of the age, unlike historical works that reflect on them after decades, in the hindsight of greater archival knowledge, wider contextual understanding, and a changed climate of intellectual focus free of the constraints, formal and otherwise, under which the primary documents were written.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, and in fact I agree in some ways. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I took a WP:BOLD step and just removed the quote. The arguments/problems on which I based this move are:

  1. The section title is "History" and not "Blame", making half a paragraph dedicated to the report's supposed conclusions somewhat off-WP:TOPIC and WP:UNDUE. The report's recommendations, which would be on-WP:TOPIC, are not listed.
  2. The conclusion implied is not the conclusion drawn in the main article on the Shaw Report.
  3. The quote used to imply this conclusion is not from the report itself, as is implied by the text.

I tried to make these points as non-overlapping as possible so that we may discuss them one by one. Each of these points alone are a reason enough to have deleted the text, so f somebody wants to re-insert it, I would suggest the address all the points.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 30.01.2008 08:43

On 'animosity'. The Shaw Report, from a large number of accounts, gives a far more complex analysis. It says for example that one significant faction was the effect on Palestinian opinion caused by the negotiations at the World Zionist Congress mid 1929 for enlarged financial assistance from non-Zionists in helping the development of the Jewish communities in Palestine. This. Shaw's text says, contributed to a 'dangerous combination of anger and fear' among Palestinian Arabs on the eve of the riots. Note 'anger' and 'fear'. 'Animosity' connotes the psychology of resentment. Anger and fear are what real threats occasion. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TERRORIST VS MILITANT

This problem was brought up tangentially above and deserves a separate discussion. Contrary to assertions, there are objective standards for "terrorist" as there is a database of terrorist groups, and there are official lists compiled by US State Department and EU. Though sometimes arbitrary, these lists are a good guide. If someone is a member of one of those groups and if they have committed a violent act against civilians they are certainly terrorists. The terms "militant" and "fighter" are euphemisms used by press agencies who admit that they use them because they were threatened with violence if they wrote "terrorist." Wikipedia can't go by those criteria. It is absurd and arbitrary when a guy who blows up in Tel Aviv is called a "militant", but his brother who blows up in the London underground is called a "terrorist". At least, if an organization is listed as terrorist by US or EU and X belongs to it, article should say that X is a member of the Y group that has been listed as terrorist. Mewnews (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As acknowledged, all strictly off topic for this talk page of course, but I thought I'd comment quickly (especially as you didn't post this at the bottom of the page anyway, so it won't interrupt any current debate). If the EU or US label a group as terrorist, that is of course by definition a subjective assessment. The view of one country, or even of several countries, cannot be taken as a definitive assessment of fact, regardless of the topic under discussion. And the suggestion that press agencies don't use the phrase as they are under the threat of violence if they do seems a little far fetched, even if there have been occasions when more general threats have been made against them in conflict situations. Oh and finally, this is a bit of a non-debate, because Wikipedia articles mostly do use exactly the formulation that you have suggested (see the lead paras on Hamas, FARC, Provisional IRA etc). What they won't do - and nor in my view should they do - is state as a matter of fact that "Group Y is a terrorist organisation". --Nickhh (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
If "Group Y" publically stated that they are a terrorist group, could it then be stated as a matter of fact that "Group Y" is a terrorist group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.98.243 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Human Rights Watch, February 7, 2008, "Gaza: Israel’s Energy Cuts Violate Laws of War", http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/07/isrlpa17994.htm
  2. ^ Human Rights Watch, February 7, 2008, "Gaza: Israel’s Energy Cuts Violate Laws of War", http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/07/isrlpa17994.htm
  3. ^ 'Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza,' The Times 29/2/2008
  4. ^ [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959532.html 'MKs call for Gaza invasion in wake of escalation,' Haaretz 29/02/2008
  5. ^ ""The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion", Yad Vashem, accessed June 8, 2005.
  6. ^ League of Nations: Minutes of the Seventeenth Session
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli–Palestinian_conflict/Archive_13&oldid=1224910913"