Talk:Greater Israel

Clarity issues

It seems like the article discusses modern Israeli politics, but clearly it refers to the time of the Irgun and the British mandate. --GHcool 05:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

God your dense.

-G

from the nile to the euphrates

User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg claims there was never a belief by any Jewish leader that Israel should include land from the nile to the euphrates, that was pure propaganda. Chapter V of Lustick's excellent book and the writings of Avraham Stern himself give the lie to this assertion. —Charles P._(Mirv) 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A few may have invoked the passage in a speech or two, but no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates, the most hardline only supported including part of Jordan and a small portion of Syria, but today not even fringe extremists support this, your previous edit was extremely misleading.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

no leader, mainstream or fringe actually supported Israel existed from the nile to the euphrates—You are wrong. The link I provided was to Stern's National Revival Principles—not simply an invocation of the passage in a speech or two. Ian Lustick documents others who advocated this position. This page from GlobalSecurity.org documents more. Here is a page from the Jewish Virtual Library confirming that such boundaries were among the Stern Gang's goals. All of these are reliable sources; when they say one thing and a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor says another, which do you think the article should follow? Do you have a single source confirming your assertion that no leader ever had such ambitions? —Charles P._(Mirv) 06:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yair stern wrote that the bibilical promise is the "homeland" of the Jewish people, not that he will pursue this as the nation. It's two different articles in the principles. Amoruso 13:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was under the impression that Lehi had quite different goals. However I still believe that we could make it more clear just how little the land is actually sought today, The most crazy and extreme view really held of Eretz Israel isto include Palestine, Israel, and most of Jordan. Do you disagree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to rephrase it again soon. The third interpretation is not usually portrayed in Arab media, but rather used by Arab rhetorics. And Stern's views are barely worth mentioning. He was an insignificant figure in Zionist history, had only a few followers, and was a "lone wolf" operating as a terrorist rather than keeping in line with the Jewish population. Mentioning his bizzare views is like mentioning my uncle Moshe that also thinks about an Israeli state "from the nile to the euphrates".

--Gabi S. 10:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that he only had a few followers, I still think he was a signifigant figure. Perhaps we could put more emphasis on justs how much he was on the fringe.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the page, and moved Stern and Eldad to the introduction, clarifying that they were individual extremists. I hope it clears things up.

--Gabi S. 08:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as a quick followup, why is the area roughly defined by Genesis 15:18-21 described as as alleged by anti-Zionist and antisemitic groups. I understand that it is not a mainstream notion to extend the state of Israels borders to this extent, but should the fictional account from Genesis not be mentioned? --Uncle Bungle 05:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of mainstream vs. opposition groups. There is no political movement in Israel today which suggests an expansion of the Israeli borders. Quite the contrary - the question is whether or not Israel should give up lands conquered in June 1967. Even the most extreme right-wing movements talk about Israel in the post-1967 borders and not beyond that. About the Biblical notion of the "promised land" - the problem is that no one can locate its actual borders, and all Biblical and archeological evidences suggest that the Israelite kingdoms never reached the Nile river nor most of the Euphrate delineation. Interpreting the Biblical text in the most extreme manner, and suggesting that Israel or the Zionist movement adhere to such interpretation is indeed anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propoganda. drork 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border. There might be some debate over the Nile, but the Euphrates is fairly easy. Now, regardless of the actual historical evidence, the fairy tale says "God gave the land to Abraham", and listed all these kingdoms. Anyway, I'm just asking, not trying to push POV. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 15:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are talking about the mere Biblical text, then you can interpret it in several similar ways. It is hard to understand the exact context in which this text emerged. The term "river of Egypt" is indeed subject to at least three interpretation (the Nile itself, an ancient eastern extension of the Nile, or Wadi El-Arish). The term Prat (Euphrate) probably refers to the river known today by this name, but it might refer to a certain part of the river, rather than its entire length. And you are right of course - you cannot tag a plausible interpretation of the Biblical text "antisemite". drork 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So for the legend in the map, can we change the description to something like "One possible interpretaion of the biblical account, often used by anti-Semites"? --Uncle Bungle 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say "The widest possible borders of the promised land according to the Biblical account in Genesis". I sincerely don't think anti-semitism is relevant, as long as we present the map as one of the plausible interpretations of the Biblical text. drork 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Ok, I'm not trying to suggest anyone in Israel wants the border". There's nothign wrong in wanting it - but no one in Israel wants to starts wars in order to get them. That's the difference. Amoruso 18:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhmmn, well, there is something wrong with coveting thy neighbour, but thats totally out of the scope of Wikipedia. --Uncle Bungle 21:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's wrong through certain glasses but not through others especially when you consider that states were created through conquering empire decisions and on what people see as their homeland - this is all around the globe. The importance is not to engage in hostilities and to live in peace it's true. Amoruso 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I strain my local political knowledge, I cannot think of any Israeli group that talks about parts of Egypt and Iraq as Eretz Yisrael. I can recall one strange story about Lubavitchers who went to Turkey with a xerox machine, placed it on the Euphrate bank, and photocopied certain sacred book (it wasn't the Bible, but a book valued in the Lubavitch community). Then they spread these books as printed in the outmost point of Eretz Yisrael. This is actually a curiousity, similar to the Lubavitchers' search of a proper crown to the Messiah. drork 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgable enough about Jewish history will know which parts are Eretz Israel and which not. The difference is that Cannan is more holier than Eretz Israel in general. When I say knowledable enough on this issue, in terms of political parties we're talking about some in the likud and the ichud leumi in general. There is a major conception between the two terms or rather between the Promised Land and the borders that David And Solomon aspired and reached at times and between what's regarded as Cannan which is the holiest place - includes western Palestine and also includes the Golan Heights. Amoruso 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

map discussions

this is racist nonsense

Irredentism often is. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

we need a map. Cameron Nedland 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

we need three. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The map is extreamly innacurate. The "river of Egypt" is the El- Arish river, not the Nile. The eastern border DOES NOT include all the Euphrates but only the very northern part.

Sources? —Aiden 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

River of Egypt: Gen. 15 NAHAR Mitsrayyim = NILE

               Num. 34 NAKHAL Mitsrayyim = Brook of Egypt ending in the Mediteranean Sea at El-Arish,
               the original southern border of Erets Yirael and Djund Falastin
               until the British redrew the border in favor of Egypt.

To the best if my knowledge, wadi el-Arish to the edge of the Euphrates is the grandest Jewish idea, as those were the borders of Solomonic Israel, and indeed the largest natural borders for the western crescent. The Baathist idea doesn't jive with geography - all states included the Nile or Euphrates river valleys; I'm not aware of any state which just included the length of one bank. The maps should clearly differentiate between the Baathist idea and the Jewish irredentist ideas. As it stands now, a quick glance could leave a reader with an incorrect idea as to the actual irredentist position. Perhaps introducing a map of Western Palestine and the Transjordan, maybe with the West Bank and Gaza Strip outlined, in addition [and above] the current map, would more clearly convey the idea. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if there is even any mention of the Euphrates it is referring to part of Syria not Iraq or Saudi Arabia, which was the greatest territorial extant in history, and the idea of reaching the nile comes completly from the propaganda of Arab governments. Even so, really the largest irredentalist idea that actually exists today, is inclusion of all the West bank, Gaza, Golan, and very small parts of Jordan and the Sinai, but that is an extreme fringe belief.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The current conclusion as to what the verses mean is unsourced OR. While some sources interpret the edge of the Nile delta (Pelusian branch - see Brook of Egypt) as being a border, I couldn't find any sources for significant portions of Egypt outside the Sinai, nor major parts of either Saudi Arabia or Iraq. While I couldn't find a detailed description of the northwestern border's limit along the Euphrates, that includes not having seen any indication that it expands as far as the passage infers. I'm removing the aforementioned parts, of course if a source is presented I should be reverted. Remember that the map included describes anti-Israeli propaganda and not biblical exegesis. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--- The major problem with the map is that the key is wrong. The red, orange, and yellow area are the anti-zionist definitions. The red and orange area is sort of what Betar claimed should be the boundary of Israel back in the 1920s (They never laid claim to the Sinai, and their proposed boundary did extend to both sides of the Jordan River but not the whole "Trans-Jordan" (now the country of Jordan). And, to those who currently preach of "Greater Israel" today basically mean the current recognized boundaries of the State of Israel, plus the West Bank (sometimes referred to as "Judea and Samaria") and possibly the Golan Heights (although this is doubtful).

The truth is I'm not so sure that the article should include "anti-zionist" definitions, nor even the Betar definition since this was a proposal in the pre-Israel days and has never been referred to since Independence. I think it adds confusion about the term Greater Israel.

To understand the concept of Greater Israel today, you need to understand that the historic land of Israel was more connected to the hills of the West Bank than to the coastal land that present day Israel now occupies. To most advocates of Greater Israel, they see the West Bank as "historic Israel", and therefore must be made part of the state.

Since it had little historical relationship to ancient Israel, the Sinai never had much attraction to advocates of Greater Israel except as buffer territory, and probably was the reason it was so easily given up for a peace treaty with Egypt.

Region of king David?

The map proporting to show the region controlled by king David is clearly inaccurate - Israel and its people at no point controlled that extent of territory - I could accept it as a version presented in some story or religious text if it were so marked (though I see no place in the Bible where it states that David controlled any such territory).

actually it's common knowledge and in the bible about david and solomon's time. "ruled over all the kingdoms west of the Euphrates River from Tiphsah to Gaza; he was at peace with all his neighbors" (I Kings, 4:24) . Of course it's according to the bible, since that's the main source for David's kingdom, and this is in fact a biblical idea too - greater israel. And it also says in the intro "Biblical boundaries". Anyway, what was written was just the caption from bible history. Amoruso 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Greater Israel"

Would someone please give a justification for spending such a large proportion of this entry to Daniel Pipes' classification of linguistic usage of the term "Greater Israel"? And further, in what sense is he a good authority on this issue? PJ 23:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyperzionism

International Hyperzionist Movement “Bead Artseinu” (For the Homeland) pursue a goal of renaissance of Greater Israel in its biblical borders from the Nile to the Euphrates. 1 2--83.237.222.170 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#Israel

Yeah, is it really fair to say that Arab Nationalists are the ones who think there are Zionists who want this? It seems like there are some Zionists who ARE that vehement.