Talk:Israel Shahak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Israel Shahak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Gore Vidal[edit]

In the Foreword to the fist edition (1994), Vidal said, “Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then, an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistlestop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’ As neither Jack nor I was an anti-Semite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.”[1]

  1. ^ Vidal, Gore. “Foreword to the First Edition”, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, by Shahak, Israel, pp. vi–viii. Pluto Books, 2008. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183q63d.3.

What is this rubbish doing in the article? It has nothing to do with Israel Shahak. Anyone is welcome to put it on Vidal's page. It does not belong here.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Problematical or useless[edit]

There's quite a lot of problematical (unverifiable) stuff here. I can't find any means of verifying the following.

Camera is not usable in my view on a WP:BLP page, and this article is about Shahak, not about Said.
  • Falk, Zeev (1967). "Gentile and Stranger in Jewish Law", in "Steps", translated by Arieh Rubinstein, published by the Movement for Torah Judaism, Jerusalem Post Press.
There are a zillion sources for this. All we have is a viewpoint mentioning Shahak, with a claim. The person in question does not appear to be notable-
  • El-Asmar, Fouzi (1975). To Be an Arab in Israel, Frances Pinter. ISBN 0-903804-08-5.
This is all very nice, but it's barrel-scaping
Given Ottolenghi's position his view can be included, but I keep getting a dead link notification.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The WP:BLP is no longer applies to this page.--Shrike (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Whoops! Thanks for that.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It was me who first added the Falk citation, but it has since been gutted in order to remove the key point. See the original to get what I mean. Falk's opinion is that Unterman's ruling overturned an existing principle rather than confirming one as is usually portrayed. Zerotalk 14:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks indeed.
In other words.

It is incumbent upon the State of Israel to appear as a kingdom of mercy and not to be stringent in applying the [Jewish] law. While I dissociate myself from the methods of action of Dr. Israel Shahak, who invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, it was this fiction that led Chief Rabbi Unterman to issue a ruling permitting the violation of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile. While no explicit permit has yet been discovered concerning prohibitions stated in the Torah itself. perhaps this was the opening of a new page in our attitude towards righteous Gentiles and non-Jews in general, the culmination to be hoped for being that there will be no gulf between moral feeling on the one hand and the Halakha on the other. Z. Falk, Gentile and Stranger in Jewish Law, in "Steps", translated by Arieh Rubinstein, published by the Movement for Torah Judaism), Jerusalem Post Press, ca. 1970, pp. 47–53.

was distorted to produce what we have:-

In 1967, Prof. Ze'ev Falk said he had disproved the claims of Shahak: “While I dissociate myself from the methods of action of Dr. Israel Shahak, who invented the case of a Gentile who was not given treatment on the Sabbath, it was this fiction that led Chief Rabbi Unterman to issue a ruling permitting the violation of the Sabbath in order to save the life of a Gentile

I'll restore Falk, since you have personally controlled the source.
There are other examples. I noted this yesterday, for example. The source states:

One comes away from this book with a stark sense of the fundamental illiberality of Zionism. As Israel Shahak explains, it was an explicit reaction against the individualistic Enlightenment and an atavistic attempt to restorethe stifling ghettosof 18th-century Poland. Zionism's fathers believed Jews could not live normal lives among gentiles—even in free, democratic societies—and propounded a notion of "Jewish people," rights that rejected the spirit of the age. Zionism, writes Shahak, "can be described as a mirror image of anti-Semitism," since it, like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world. Moreover, "both anti-Semites and Zionism assume anti-Semitism is ineradicable and inevitable." This attitude among Zionist Jews led to a capitulation to anti-Semitism in Europe, in lieu of a conviction to rally the world's liberal forces against it. Small wonder that some notorious anti-Semites, Eichmann, for example, have been attracted to the Zionist program. The results have been catastrophic.Shahak's paper makes much of the last 40 years understandable. Given Zionism's premises, it is unsurprising that Arabs would have been seen as obstacles to be swept away ruthlessly and that the state of Israel would be run ostensibly for the benefit of "the Jewish people," no matter the cost in the fives and liberties of non-Jews. Some of the horrifying results are documented in Anti-Zionism. The record of callousness and dishonesty is appalling, all the more so because it was done in the name of Judaism.

In other words Richman supported the kind nof reading Berger, Shahak et al made. This became:

In effort to explain the behaviour of the State of Israel towards their Arab neighbours, Prof. Shahak proposed that the Israeli interpretation of Jewish history produced a society who disregard the human rights of the Arab peoples, within Israel and around Israel.[10] That Zionism was a “régime based on structural discrimination and racism.” In the book review of Anti-Zionism: Analytical Reflections (1988), Sheldon Richman countered Shahak's description of Judaism, by personally characterising Shahak as a Jew for whom Zionism was a reflection of, and a capitulation to, European anti-Semitism, “since it [Zionism], like the anti-Semites, holds that Jews are everywhere aliens who would best be isolated from the rest of the world.”

I'm taking time over this. There are some sources that are extremely dubious, like Bodganor and Werner Cohn, neither of whom would be regarded in my view as serious sources in any respectable academic environment. But we need to keep them in to maintain some solidity of evidence on the hostile side of reception.Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The mangled text gave 1967 for Falk's view, while above you say ca.1970. I don't now how one can formulate the difference in the template. Is there any way one can track this down. By the way, checked up on Falk. He was an interesting chap who was quite aware of, and critical of, the problems Shahak spoke of, since he did a lot to try and modify the stringencies of halakhic rulings regarding women. See Professor David Golinkin, 'Ze'ev Falk - In Memoriam 1923-1998,' Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women's Studies & Gender Issues No. 2, Crossing into Modernity: Renegotiating Jewish Gender Identities (Spring, 5759/1999), pp. 214-217 Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
'While no explicit permit has yet been discovered concerning prohibitions stated in the Torah itself,' . .
This is obscure, but contextually suggests that Unterman's ruling was made in lieu of explicit permits in rabbinical tradition that finesse or get round the prohibitions in the Torah (that would not permit helping goys on the Sabbath). I think he is saying that Shahak was correct in his claim, but his methods were improper (if so then Falk was implicitly challenging, albeit with delicacy, the claims made about the state of halakhic law in Jakobovits's tirade) Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)