|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is currently or was the subject of an educational assignment.|
Once again, a depressing example of the usual biases showing up. Deleted a bunch of anti-Israeli blather and a little bit of pro-Israeli blather that was irrelevant to this article.--adamatari 10:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, what language did the 'old yishuv' speak? I assume they used Arab for daily communication and hebrew for prayer.
There were different languages. The Ashkenazi Jews spoke Yiddish and the Sephardi Jews spoke Ladino. It was similar to Spanish the same way Yiddish was similar to German.
3/28/2009: ColumbusDude: It would be nice if the folks who put in the Hebrew words ("yishuv" for this article), would always put in the niqqud as an aid to the pronunciation. Even nicer are those articles that have the little pronunciation icons so you can hear the word in native Hebrew. Putting in the Hebrew (Yiddish, Aramaic, etc) word is one of the things that makes Wikipedia such an amazing resource. The more info, the better. Thanks (and thanks to all the folks who've created all these wonderful content-rich articles).
In the Old Yisuv, Ashkenazi Jews did tend to speak Yiddish as a first language. Sefardim though did not in the main speak Ladino. Most Sefardim in the Old Yishuv, spoke Hebrew as a main language and somtimes Arabic. I have also changed the word "Hebrews" to "Jews" in the translation of the meaning of Yishuv. Yehudi means Jew not Hebrew.
many if not all of the old yishuv were zionists in the sense that they wanted to come to Israel, perhaps not to establish the state at that time, but even in that sense there were iniatives to that cause for example in Tiberias. Any person who walks all the way to Zion from somewhere in the world is a zionist regardless of the political aspiration at the time. Therefore, one can't call most of these people as anti-zionists. On the contrary. Amoruso 19:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I have agreed with you on similar issues in the past, it seems here that the definition we are working with is of a more political nature, and there were certainly elements that opposed the modern occurrence for whatever reasons. Cheers, TewfikTalk 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- see with your approval the re-phrasing, similar to hebrew wiki. They were pre-zionist. I don't know the % of anti/non, and heb wiki doesn't mention it or discuss it. I think this is more accurate. Amoruso 06:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't ever heard Yishuv used in English to describe Israeli settlements, only for the pre-1948 states - the only Hebrew term I've heard used for them is hitnakhlut (התנחלות). Number 57 10:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect information in section on "British Mandate"
During the British Mandate World War I ended along with the Ottoman Empire. Britain gained control of Palestine through the Sykes-Picot Agreement. There was hope that British control would allow the creation of a Jewish national homeland as promised in the Balfour Declaration. The British Mandate was formalized in 1922 based on the Balfour Declaration. The British were supposed to help the Jews build a national home and promote the creation of self governing institutions. The mandate provided an agency in which the Jews could represent Jewish interests and promote Jewish immigration. This Agency was called The Jewish Agency for Palestine which was only created ten years later serving as the de-facto government of the Yishuv. Along with a Jewish agency there was to be a general self governing institution created in Palestine including Jews and Arabs. The yishuv feared such an institution due to the Arab majority but none was created in the end due to the Arabs refusal to cooperate with the Jews or British. The optimism that existed in the beginning of the British mandate soon diminished due to continued hardships in the Yishuv. Most of the European funds that supported the Jewish settlements before World War I ended. The Arabs instigated Riots against the Jews due to their opposition to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. The British limited immigration through yearly quotas, only those who received "certificates" could make Aliyah.
In Regards to the above section of the article:
1. Britain gained control of Palestine through the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The Sykes-Picot agreement established "spheres of influence" for France And Great Britain in the Middle East and not the right to govern.
2. The Balfour Declaration stated (I quote from the Declaration)"His Majesty's government will view with favor the creation of a national home for the Jewish People..." It does not establish the right of Britain to allow or disallow such a home.
3. Again from the Balfour Declaration "and will use their best efforts to facilitate the achievement of this object...), Basically the British promised to try really hard to help but didn't promise an outcome or define how much they would help create a Jewish state.
4. The Jewish Agency wasn't part of the Mandate for Palestine or created by th British government. It was created by the first Zionist Congress in Basle under the leadership of Theodor Herzl and came from his thesis Der Judenstaat which outlined the method by which a Zionist State should be achieved. There is a whole chapter in this book on The Jewish Agency and predates the Mandate for Palestine by a good 40 years.
5. Self government as a one state solution wasn't just opposed by Arabs the Jews also refused because they would be a minority and have no power in government. The Arab's weren't afraid of anything they just didn't want to give up their homes to a state run by a minority population.
6. Support for Jews in Palestine from Europe was replaced by support from Jews in Americ,a no real loss.
7. The 1929 Arab Riots had nothing to do with the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, these riots were in Reponse to a small retaining wall being constructed at the old West Wall of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Arabs thought the Jews had reclaimed the Temple and would destroy Muslim Holy sights that were built where the ruins of the Temple once were.
8. Enforcement of Aliyah or immigration restrictions by the British was minimal. Illegal immigration through various Zionist groups was not only possible but easy to achieve.
Overall this is shoddy work with no references and many misquotations and false interpretations. I recommend to anyone reading this article to look up the various source documents to see what is and isn't correct. Some of these documents include The Balfour Declaration of 1917, The Arab Riots of 1929, The Mandate for Palestine, The Sykes-Picot Agreement, Der Judenstaat (or Theodor Herzl), The Basle Program, The White Paper of 1939, The Peel Report, The Hussein-McMahon Correspondence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The article states: "The increasing numbers of Jewish immigration and land purchases along with the British Mandate angered the Arabs, bringing them to radicalism." The world radicalism is clearly biased in my opinion. Fighting against an occupying force is hardly considered radical; people don't customarily call the Founding Fathers radicals. Furthermore, the wording implies all Arabs were "radical," when some collaborated with the British and, of course, many did not revolt or fight the British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The Baltimore declaration
- Despite the reports of Nazi atrocities growing and the desperation of Jews needing a safe haven the British kept the doors of Palestine closed to Jewish Immigration. The Zionist leaders met in a hotel in Baltimore and concluded that due to the British behaviour, the British were an enemy to be fought.
This section contains no references or links to other Wikipedia articles. There is a Wikipedia article called the Baltimore Declaration, on a different subject. A Google search under Baltimore Declaration Jews gave a website The Prisma - . It contained a reference to the Baltimore declaration of 1942 but did not refer to the point made in the article. I found a statement made in 2010 - National Jewish Scholars Project: Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies: Baltimore, Maryland: The following statement appeared as a full page advertisement in The New York Times, Sunday, September 10, 2000, page 23, New England edition. : DABRU EMET: A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity - . It was, of course not relevant. It is possible that I could find a RS if I continued my search to the bitter end. It is however the duty of a person who wants tha section to remain to find an apprpriate reference.
- It is more than likely referring to the Biltmore Conference. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The British were caught by surprise and were unable to prevent the thousands of Arabs and hundreds of Jews that were killed in the revolt. The Haganah protected the Yishuv’s settlements while the Irgun and Etzel, more radical groups, attacked Arab settlements.
The only place in the article that describes more than a handful of deaths due to arab/jewish antagonism completely blows past the fact of a ten to one ratio of arabs being killed compared to jews. Then late in the article a listing of the evacuations of jews from come cities due to arab threats lists from a few to a few hundred without mentioning the tens of thousands of arabs killed or forced to flee from most of present day Israel during the same time, only mentioning that some groups attacked arab settlements. Why are centuries old arab cities and villages called settlements while Jewish areas are called cities and towns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)