Talk:Kach (political party)

Just wanted to briefly mention why I edited the caption for Kach's poster. The literal translation is correct, but the sentence 'This time Kahane' does not make sense in English. I added parentheses as follows: 'This time [vote] Kahane.' 58.175.172.156 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the inclusion of Kach and Kahane Chai on the State Dept. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) was (Sept. 2004 - January 2005) challenged in a Federal Appelate court. The three judge panel ruled unanimously to uphold the 2003 redesignation of Kach and Kahane Chai and related aliases as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in October 2006.

Furthermore, as part of this case, the State Dept. was forced to make public the unclassified portions of its administrative record, that is, the basis for the inclusion of Kach and Kahane Chai and its aliase on its FTO list. The administrative record list numerous articles translated from Hebrew by the FBIS, as well as cables and other documents, listing the names of some individuals involved in Kach and Kahane Chai, and the scope of anti-Arab violence (as well as threats and violence directed at Israeli officials) upon which the designation is based.

---

I removed the following sentence: "However, no terrorist acts have been proven to be directly attributed to these groups". It is not clear how it relates to the Cave of the Patriarchs: it wasn't a terrorist act? It wasn't proven? It wasn't directly attributed? What is actually the information contents of this sentence? Uffish 15:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Let's try to get this page unprotected

Well, as no one involved seems to be disscussing the differences that have come up in the edit war, I will get my 2 pence in (I think protecting the page so soon might have been a little heavy handed, but on the other hand Jayjg and 69.221.60.181 aren't talking only reverting each other's edits). "Jewish supremisist" is not the term I would have used, personally, but it seems to me that a group that openly calls for the rejection of democracy, the establishment of a Jewish theocracy and the forced expulsion of all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza (and probably more if they had their way), calls for a stronger description than "a right-wing Israeli party". Likud is "a right-wing Israeli party". Kach are religious fundamentalists (some on the anti-Zionist left within Israel even describe them as a form of fascist). AW 00:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since no one is talking about this so far: SlimVirgin can we just agree to compromise on "religious fundamentalist"? AW

There is absolutely nothing wrong with openly calling for rejection of current style "democracy." Your so called democracy is responsible for the worst atrocities against the Jewish people in the history of the world. Hitler was a "democratically" elected leader. Hizbollah is a part of the democratically elected Lebanese government. Hamas is democraticaly elected Arab party and is currently leading the Arab people in the desputed territories. Yet no one seems to mind all them it's only when a Jewish party wants to rise up that is based on Jewish law, ethics and morality that everyone is quick to condemn it and make it illegal and call it a terroirst group.

---

The last sentence should read "Kleiner did not win, but many observers believe that if Marzel had been first on the list, he would have been elected since many religious voters who are supportive of Marzel did not vote for the list because the secularist Kleiner was listed at the top." As it stands it is somewhat unclear.

---

"…following statements in support of Baruch Goldstein's (himself a Kach member but his action were not out of the oganization but opertated on his own) massacre of Arabs at the Cave of the Patriarchs after his friends were killed by Arab Terrorists."

The statement in parentheses appears to have been written by someone with learning difficulties. Personally, I'm inclined to agree that BG was acting on his own initiative, but any such judgement would be highly speculative in this case. Therefore I will remove the sentence completely (it originally just stated: 'himself a Kach member'). If readers want to know about Baruch Goldstein they can go read the Baruch Goldstein page. Beerathon 13:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm completely perplexed, but I don't want to start another edit war. If you follow the links back to the Kahane Chai's homepage, what they say is their beliefs doesn't include any of what appears here. I think that much of what has been written in the article is fairly biased, and not based on the careful and impartial research that is standard to Wiki. I could suggest some major changes, but in the interests of the Wiki and true understanding, I'd suggest that people do follow the link and see what Kahane Chai does actually say its beliefs are.

And, as an aside, I knew Dr. Goldstein well, from before he came to Israel. What happened in Hevron in 1994 was so completly, 180 degrees different from his character, that one must ask what would have spurred this act, assuming the popularly accepted events are of any accuracy -- D'n 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I had a look at some of Kahane's writings, and came up with jewels like [1] and [2], which pretty much verify what's written in the article. Please do suggest whatever changes you're thinking of, as they are apparently not so obvious.--Doron 07:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

D'n - is there any serious dispute about the "popularly accepted events" - which is say that Dr. Goldstein walked into the mosque and shot a bunch of worshippers in the back? Whether or not what he did was a good deed is a separate question.

As to Dr. G you knew being so different from Dr. G in Hebron - it is not unheard of for psychopaths to leave most people unaware of their psychopathic nature. The friends, family and fellow church-goers of the BTK Killer were extremely shocked - does that in any way suggest that something must have happened that "spurred" his acts? Michael Voytinsky 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary

Under the list of terrorist attacks is the following:

• In February 1994 Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Palestinian worshippers inside the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, killing twenty-nine people and wounding many others. However, despite the accusation that this was Kach and Kahane Chai terrorism, neither group condoned this act. This is despite the fact that killing random innocent people is a common form of Palestinian terrorism against Jews.

• In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, supposedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks that targeted unarmed civilians, often including young children.

The bits in bold are, I feel, unnecessary commentary which adds little to the factual accuracy of the article. I am therefore removing them. --Black Butterfly 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Have removed bias similar to the above, second point was edited to:

• In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, allegedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks that targeted unarmed civilians, often including young children.

I have no wish to get bogged down in the Israeli-Palestinian "he said/she said" fallacy for now, but the wording currently in the article is a blatant attempt to insert a particular perspective. If you want to actually discuss this bring it here. --Black Butterfly 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting your whitewashing. Makhteret didn't target people who jumped out and shouted boo at Israelis, they targeted those who were murdering unarmed civilians particularly children. This is important for understanding what Makhteret was about and what motivated them. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not white washing. My wording - "terrorist attacks against Israelis" - is succinct and describes the facts of the situation. Your wording adds nothing to the understanding of the situation and just opens the way to "Israelis did X in response to Palestinians who did Y, in response to Israelis who..." - take a brief glance through other Wikipedia articles on this subject for how this can go.

"Terrorism" pretty much excludes the "jumping out and shouting boo" approach to political warfare, and describes the acts involved adequately. Adding in the wording you have done is a blatant attempt to bias the article.

Again, I have no wish to get into yet another slagfest on this, but the current wording smacks of POV.

It also bears noting that the wording as it stands does not mention any specific attacks which the Makhteret attacks were in retaliation for; it is therefore disingenuous to give details. --Black Butterfly 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Have now referred this to a mediation group, see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-18_Kach_and_Kahane_Chai_-_terrorism for updates. --Black Butterfly 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am willing to mediate this discussion. Kuratowski's Ghost and Black Butterfly please indicate wether you are happy for me to mediate. I think that both of you have valid view points and that possibly the best solution is one that meets a middle ground. However I will wait for your acceptance before commenting further. If you want to contact me visit my talk page or email me --Tmorton166 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy for you to mediate, hopefully we can reach some agreement on this. --Black Butterfly 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why Black Butterfly feels the need to suppress contextual information that aids in the understanding of Makhteret's motives. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because obviously, talking about terrorism is the same as suppressing knowledge of it. --Black Butterfly 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll take that as acceptance then Kuratowski's Ghost. I think the best way forward now would be to avoid personal attacks or sniping and to try and to find a compromise. It's important to remember that you BOTH have valid points and there isn't likely to be a solution that pleases everybody. How about you both suggest areas in which you will compromise. Ow about also considering making the sentence into 2 sentences. Kuratowski's Ghost you said that a major motivation of Makhteret was the attacks against civilians, particularly children. If that is the case it should be mentioned but not in a way that suggests a Bias for any of the groups. A 2 sentences structure would keep most of the 1st sentence and append a simple (for example) "attacks against Israli's" whilst a second sentence would introduce the idea that it was attacks against civilians / children that was the major motivation of the group. Just some ideas for you.

Is that a possibility? (compromise) -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds ok Kuratowski's Ghost 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There was no source given for which attacks in particular the Makhteret attacks were in retaliation for; further, I really don't see the relevance of bringing it up anyway if there's no proven link between Makhteret and Kach.

In response to Palestinian terrorist attacks is NPOV; it describes the situation adequately without any bias. Throwing in the comment about children, unless it has some direct link to this particular group (eg formed in response to a nursery bombing), is an attempt to influence the tone of the article. What of the Palestinian civilians and children? --Black Butterfly 11:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok thats a fair point. Is there any references or evidence that suggests or proves that this groups primary motivation was attacks against civilians and children? Kuratowski's Ghost have you got any sources? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think more to the point, is there any reason to emphasise this in a way that is not covered by the wording "terorist attacks against Israelis" - which pretty much by definition means attacks against civilians? --Black Butterfly 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

As it has been a week without comment I've decided to be bold and change the text to "terrorist attacks against Israelis". Anybody for a cup of tea? --Black Butterfly 10:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, I will leave it a few more days then close the case. Thanks for our inputs -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote)  ^talk 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the help, much appreciated :-). --Black Butterfly 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

reverted

Another user changed the title of one section to "alleged terrorist attacks associated with Kahanists". Given the content of that section the addition of the word "alleged" seemed quite unnecessary in that it makes clear the nature of the links. The second point down seems rather, ehm, odd:

• In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, allegedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks against Israelis.

Again, the "allegedly" is out of place, as AFAIK the existence of the attacks isn't in question, only their origin (?) and connection to Kach. --Black Butterfly 11:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tag on this article

I can't find an argument on this page for the dispute tag that appears at the top of the article. If no such argument is provided soon, the tag should be removed. --Zero^talk 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1984 Supreme Court ruling online

The 1984 Supreme Court decision overturning Kach's disqualification to run for election contains quite a bit of information that could be used in the article. It is available on the web in English (and presumably in Hebrew), see footnote 3. --Zero^talk 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a Terrorist Organization

From information I have been researching for a school project on terrorism, I have found NO conclusive evidence that Kahane Chai can be considered a Terrorist Organization. They do not kill innocent civilians to benefit in any way. They defend themselves from Islamic Terrorist Groups such as the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Members of Kahane Chai have committed terrorist acts, but the group has a whole does not appear to have. They also claim that they do no support Terrorism of any kind, and dissuade member from using terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The article Kach and Kahane Chai provides conclusive proof that Kahane Chai is designated as a terrorist organisation. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article tends to contradict itself, and it lacks citations. From information from various different sources, including books at my local library, I fail to see why Kahane Chai is designated as a terrorist organization. There has been NO proof that the group is responsible for killing innocent people. They have fought in self defense against Hamas and Hezbollah, but the Torah states that a Jew has the right to defend oneself. They are defending themselves, from real terrorists, not being terrorists.

so, the torah states that a jew has the right to defend himself if he is attacked? does a palestinian have the right to defend himself from the attacks from jews in his land? Keltik31 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That land belonged to the Jews long before it belonged to the Palestinians. Who's land is it??? The Jew's, as it has been for thousands of years.

You mean 60?

America used to belong tho the native americans before the pikgrims came and did what Israel did that was hundreds of years ago do the native americans have the right to come and force us out of are homes and deny us human rights no and unlike Israel they don't even if the isralies lived there thousands of years ago they don't have the right to persecute people. you just got owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.73.146 (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The land is given to the Jews by G-d, the Lord, creator of the universe -- It was thousands of years ago.

Yeah? Show us the signed property act then. You can't? It's mythology then. I am a historian, and I can safely base myself on Dr. Pelgrom of Leiden University, as well as Dr. F. Naerebout and Dr. S. Singor and their book "Antiquity", in stating that both Israelite and Filistine (Palestine) tribes have inhabited the area since roughly 1500BC. 82.176.211.33 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have a political/theological debate there are plenty of suitable avenues. This is not one of them.

We are not here to make subjective judgements on the term "terrorism", but rather, to present information. Some of said information includes the fact that some institutions, at some points in history, have described Kach and Kahane Chai as terrorist. this is not a subjective analysis. --Black Butterfly 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

--72.225.204.254 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)I agree 100% that Kach and Kahane Chai are not terrorist organizations. All "evidence" presented lacks any substance and is based on the actions of few individuals acting ALONE to defend Israel against the Palestinian terrorists. Kahane Chai and Kach never had any official statement condoning or promoting terrorism. Don't believe me? Go to kahane.org and try to find any statement supporting terrorism! There is NONE WHATSOEVER unless you consider biblical verses terrorism. The same individuals who label Kach as a terrorist organization would not label the PLO a terrorist organization while the PLO blatantly supports murdering innocent men women and children. Kach and Kahane Chai do not issue statement supporting any terrorist activity and all claims that they are a FTO are based on the actions of a few individuals acting alone.

this article does not make the claim that Kach and Kahane Chai are terrorist organisations; it only relates that certain influential bodies (EU, US State Dept, etc.) consider them as such. all references in the article should be considered as such.

if you can find a cite from a reputable source giving arguments why they should not be considered terrorist, please include them. --Black Butterfly 10:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

no pov

calling the attacks "terrorist" is POV. not alloed here. Keltik31 15:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Anti Kahanist Bias

This article has an very strong and unfair anti Kahanist Bias. There is absolutely no evidence that Kach and Kahane Chai are terrorist organizations. 1- These organizations do not exist anymore. 2- The only remnant of Kahane Chai is Mike Grudufzky, the owner on Kahane.org and he does NOT advocate terrorism at all. Go to kahane.org if you don't believe me. They only talk about Meir Kahane's works, Bible, Jewish Self defense and self defense and activist programs. 3- Baruch Goldstein acted by himself to defend Hebron against a planned Arab massacre by launching a preemptive strike. Even if you think I am crazy, it is obvious that Kach had nothing to do with this event since no one else was arrested for this which proves he acted alone. But the US still classifies kahane.org, which used to be affiliated with Kahane Chai as a "terrorist organization" even though there is no evidence since the Israeli government is afraid of R' Kahane's ideas becoming popular so they try to marginalize them and arrest Kahanist Jews for no reason.

wikipedia does not make judgements, it only reports information. this article deals with facts, namely that these organisations exist, have carried out (or, where relevant, been accused of carrying out) a number of attacks, and have been identified by a number of international agencies as terrorist.

note that this article is not making claims itself, but simply relating the fact that the US state department has made these claims.

if you can find reliable and factual cites for your claims above (in particular that Goldstein was acting pre-emptively against a planned massacre), please find them and insert them in the article.

taking your message point-by-point:

1. the article is past tense. that the organisations do not exist any more is therefore irrelevant.

2. this would be useful information to add to the article. perhaps you could create a "Kahane Chai today" section explaining what they do now.

3. the section on violence concerns violence associated with Kahanists, rather than claiming the organisation as a whole. Goldstein was known to have been associated with Kach and later carried out the shooting. the article does not claim that this was a Kach action, only that it was carried out by a Kach supporter - tho if there was an official response from the organisation it would be worthy of insertion.

--Black Butterfly 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Assasination vs murder of Kahane

What do sources say about this? Isn't there some "preferred" wording to be used here? I know this hass been discussed before. This effects multiple articles so I am not sure how best to proceed. TIA --Tom 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that he was assassinated - it was targeted killing of a political figure. Number 57 13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, works for me, I will go back and add it to the other pages I have tagged. More sources are better than less it seems. Cheers! --Tom 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)