Jump to content

Talk:Land of Israel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

I believe they are called scales

A standard map feature noticeably absent is the dimensional scale. I am wanting to know the physical dimensions of the land. I think it's ironic that there are perhaps fifteen maps and the word Mile or Kilometer does not even appear in the article. Xgenei (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As the creator of the two Land of Israel maps, I expected (and got) lots of criticism but not this one. In both my maps, the current political states are indicated as colored areas in the background. from this and the dimensions of these states, you can do the math. It will be easier than calculating from a scale. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

the nation of Israel

if the abraham was to receive the promise of seed being numerous. and through his family linege. Israel is just a portion. are there not many nations under israel. where are the twelve nations located. twelve tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.140.102 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

how much land was given to Issac and then passed on to jacob and so forth. I see Israel bigger than the geographic pictures.

I can't see Israel having such a small portion when it says clearly that he would have a great name and nation. and that his land would be great.I feel that parts of Israel was much larger land. is it possible that we will discover this shortly. that we will uncover hidden treasure of this land.of documents hidden from history now recovered. land will soon find evidence that it was much larger than recorded. it would be nice to know geographically. of some evidence lurking nearby the mosque buried beneath the well. just a wish dream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.140.102 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems merger suggestion with '"promised land" is not valid

I will remove it unless there is active objection (the notice exists for several months and no discussion has begun since).Greyshark09 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a discussion in July 2008 in the talk page of Promised Land. The majority opinion was in favour of this this merge but, somehow, nothing was done. Do you want to do it? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this poll is valid any more, especially since the merger wan't done back then, and for almost 3 years everybody was "ok" that the merger wasn't performed. If you like to do a new poll, then ok, if not i will remove the notice.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Removed it, until new request is issued.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Neutral Point of View / Objectivity"

Kindly refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology Irrespective of the particular religious faith, "sacred" texts is improper {sacred to whom??} while explicit reference to the mythological nature of the assertions contained therein is fair.

This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with not smuggling in ideas of objective truth simply because it pertains to the Bible, or Judaism, et cetera.

The bare, self-serving mythos of alleging the Creator promised land {already occupied} to a specfic ethno-religious group *may* be true, but the problem is it can not be assumed as true. Please refer to the concept of tautology.

I know God wrote the bible because the bible says god wrote it... this is not the standard for an encyclopedia... 68.173.231.193 (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)fealsunachta

Neutrality

It feels that this page has several phrases that are in some way pro-Israel. I'll try to give some examples:

It occasionally surfaces in political debates on the status of the Palestinian territories.- When taken in context with the preceding text, grossly mis-understated and I think it fits a pattern of playing down the issues with Palestine/Arab neighbors.

Johann Friedrich Karl Keil is less clear, as he states that the covenant is through Isaac, but notes that Ishmael's descendants have held much of that land through time.[26] - This paragraph I wouldn't call biased, but, possibly on a side note, I think someone more familiar should point out the other ideas, such as God promised Abraham, Jews are no more descendants of Abraham then Christians and Muslims, ergo the 3 Abrahamic religions.

1918–1948: British mandate of Palestine under, first, League of Nations, then, successor United Nations; the Emirate of Trans-Jordan was separated from the rest of Palestine in 1922, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan became independent upon the expiration of the League of Nations Mandate in 1946. May 1948–June 1967: Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, for the Old City of Jerusalem and the larger part of the area; State of Israel for a smaller strip of land in the west June 1967 to present: State of Israel 1993 to present: State of Israel and Palestinian territories - Completely omitting Israels actions, using friendly language to work around the multiple wars and other widely considered war-crimes that are certainly important to the timeline.

Nonetheless, during two millennia of exile and with an almost continuous small settlement, a strong sense of bondedness exists throughout this tradition... - Clearly needs to be reworded, inaccurate, un-cited, and opinionated.

When Israel was founded in 1948, the majority Labor leadership, which governed for three decades after independence, accepted the partition of the previous British Mandate of Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states as a pragmatic solution to the political and demographic issues of the territory, with the description Land of Israel applying to the territory of the State of Israel within the Green Line. The then opposition revisionists, who evolved into today's Likud party, however, regarded the rightful Land of Israel as Eretz Yisrael Ha-Shlema (literally, the whole Land of Israel), which came to be referred to as Greater Israel. - Again undertones of bias, and innaccurate, not addressing the negatives of the event.

Usage by Palestinians (heading) - There's only one rather trivial idea addressed, could be improved.


Overall the language clearly seems skewed to pro-Israelism, and under playing most notably the Palestinian pov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.236.40 (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital cities of Israel by the Bible

hi !. please notice to this cities:

  • Jerusalem - capital of all jewish people
  • Shiloh - it was the temporary Capital of israel befor the first temple was built in Jerusalem.


פארוק (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for the article

I wonder if the article should be split in two - one part for the biblcal term, another for the way the term has been used in modern times?

The biblical term doesn't appear before the Exile - it seems to have been used in books like Numbers and Ezekiel to cement a sense of identity among the exilic community prior to the return to Judah. That's why the boundaries differ - sometimes they're pretty much coterminous with the Persian province of Beyond-the-River, sometimes much smaller. There are some good books in the references section (Meyer for example), but they need to used better.

I don't know anything about the modern period and can't help there. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel

Declaration of Independence of Israel

The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel commences by drawing a direct line from Biblical times to the present:

On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.

The previous rendition of this section above has several failings:-

1 It has no references.
2 If it is meant to be a quotation from the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel, it should say so.
3 If it is meant to be a suumary of Resolution 181(II), it is inaccurate:-
a) The Resolution recommenced not called for the establishment of a Jewish State.
b} The Resolution 'Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect': It does not require the inhabitants of Palestine to do anything and does not even mention the inhabitants of Eretz Israel or even Eretz Israel itself.Trahelliven (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy's completely un-necessary MASS revert for only one word

Revert reason "official jewish name"? you must be joking [1]
NMMNG -- WHY? You contest only one word. When a partial revert is available and considered appropriate? Please Re do appropriately... thx talknic (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you make smaller edits I won't need to revert the whole thing to correct your made up stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- A) Partial revert is available and recommended
B) "official jewish name"? Hebrew is a Jewish Language. It certainly isn't the official Arabic name. talknic (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG "I won't need to revert the whole thing to correct your made up stuff"... A) What "made up stuff" and; B) WHY?
1) Revert - The chronological order of events in the lede? I didn't make up the dates!
2) Revert - "a" when "the" no longer fitted the moved dialogue?
3) Revert - a reference to the Lon Mandate which shows the necessary chronological delineation of Palestine from TransJordan?
4) Revert - The Arab naming on the stamp, putting the section in breech of WP:NPOV
5) Revert - The CN pertaining to the chronological move? It's courtesy to point out that the move necessitated clarification of a partial statement.
The Article is Tagged:
Which calls for editors to attempt to address unsourced statements, et al.
Please undo, with the exception if you wish of the one word (Jewish) you objected to.( if you believe Hebrew isn't a Jewish language ) -- thx 15:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)talknic (talk)
I made a single revert. Like I said, if you make smaller edits I won't need to revert the whole thing.
The Mandate had 3 official languages. English, Arabic, and... Jewish?
I will suggest for the nth time (not sure why I bother) that you actually read some books about the topics of the articles you edit and use the terminology reliable sources use. That way you can avoid making up silly terminology that will get reverted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG --- One can do a partial revert. Assistance here [2]
"The Mandate had 3 official languages. English, Arabic, and... Jewish?" This is what I wrote // During the Mandate, the name Eretz Yisrael (abbreviated א״י Aleph-Yod), was part of the official Jewish name for the territory, when written in Hebrew// No mention of a 'Jewish' language.
Please stick to the topic, save your unnecessary personal remarks for elsewhere, do not ignore questions, stop hounding and partially revert .. thx talknic (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Spare me the silly lectures and try to stick to terminology common in scholarship rather than make up stuff as you go along. There was no "official Jewish name" for the territory. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- No Jewish documents contained the name? Not even the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the Jewish State? "...part of the official name of the territory" according Arabs or Jews [3]. If the latter, it would be what exactly if not a Jewish name? talknic (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
NMMNG -- you have addressed only one point of your unnecessary revert, the word "Jewish". Please Undo your revert, bar this one word issue ... thx talknic (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As NMMNG has only objected to one word and given no reason for any other issues, I've done a partial revert, sans his one and only objection talknic (talk) 01:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Land of Israel → Land of Israel (biblical) – Support The Land of Israel and the Land of Palestine are the same thing. They should redirect to the same page. (Currently, Land of Palestine redirects to Palestine) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not an endorsement of the current target of "Land of Palestine". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hatnote

"This article is about the divine promise of the Israel region to the Israelites, in Judaism. For the region itself, see Israel (region)" was removed from the hatnote with the edit summery "The new one is not correct, and does not reflect consensus.". What's incorrect about it? (this is somewhat related to #Requested move above.) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this is the same issue completely. First of all, this was an edit from yesterday, which reflects only the editor's personal opinion about this article, not a consensus version, which was "For other uses, see Israel (disambiguation)." And the main point is that his opinion is simply not shared by other editors here. This article is not about "the divine promise of the Israel region to the Israelites, in Judaism". Debresser (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That editor is me. I apologize if I incarceraty described the biblical concept, but this article is about the biblical concept, right? The consensus in the move discussion, which I agree with, seems to be that "Land of Israel" refers primarily to the biblical concept rather then the region in general, and a that a hatnote would suffice for those who are looking for the region in general. Also, can't we just fix the description rather then throwing out the hatnote? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
How about "This article is about the Israel region, as it relates to the divine promise of the region to the Israelites, in Judaism. For the region in general, see Israel (region)"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The distention between that one and the removed one and the this one is that that one can't be interpreted to mean that this article isn't about the land (if that's the incarceraty objection). Or alternatively, how about "This article is about the biblical concept. For the geographic region in general, see Israel (region)"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the hatnote we have and had. And I confer from the large majority of opposes in the section above this one, that other editors are also basically against. Debresser (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'm one of those opposes. How do the opposes imply that other editors are against this addition to the hatnote. If anything wouldn't alot of them support it? Hertz1888's oppose said "This article is primarily about a concept from the Hebrew Bible with a very specific name [...] It is definitely not the same as the [...] Land of Palestine", and mine said " "Land of Israel"'s primary meaning seams to be this biblical scene rather then the region in general". (Also, If you object to to the hatnote calling this a biblical concept, fine, call it religious concept, or something instead).
Secondly, you said, and I agree that "[t]he term "Land of Israel" is used mainly in two cases: in religious Jewish literature [...]" This article is primarily about that religious meaning of the phrase, correct? "[A]nd by Jewish people referring to that area (in any context)". So shouldn't we point readers who are looking for the article about the area in general, rather then in some specific religious scene, to right page? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
We do. With a hatnote saying "For other uses, see Israel (disambiguation)."
As to your first point. The fact that Jews of all ages have referred to this area by the name "Land of Israel", even in completely secular contexts, makes it impossible use the description you propose. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I'm not trying to define the phrase "Land of Israel", I'm trying to define the scope of this article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles are about concepts not definitions of words. If the scope of this article is primarily about the religious concept, and the parse can refer to the religious concept, or the secular, that's a reason to add the hatnote. Israel (disambiguation) is not specific enough concerning the major secular usage of this phrase to refer to the area in general.
Secondly, If this article (not the phrase itself, but the article) isn't just about the specific religious scene of the parse, what's the significant difference between the scope of this article and the scope of the Palestine article? From Palestine: "Palestine is a conventional name, among others, used to describe the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, and various adjoining lands. The region is also known as the Land of Israel".
If I haven't convinced you, and if no one else wants to participate in the discussion, I think we may just need to agree to disagree and end this discussion as no conciseness. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The name "Palestine"

Maybe the origin of the name precedes Roman era, but the Romans renamed Judea after Bar Kokhba revolt. The Romans won and renamed and merged Judaea into the Syria Palaestina province.--VoRo1ze (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Palestine#Etymology, to which Malik referred, seems to say the same. So why was this edit repeatedly reverted? Especially since it was sourced in the end. And very strange that the posting editor here reverted it himself... Debresser (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
The name Palestine does not come from the Romans "renaming" following the Bar Kokba revolt, for the simple reason that the name was already in use at least 500 years prior to that event. In any case this claim has been challenged by a number of editors and it is not sourced. If anyone is going to re-ad it they need an RS which explicitly supports the proposed text.
Also just noticed the source that the AHJ sock produced (http://www.simpletoremember.com/a/about/) it does not appear to meet the standards for an RS in historical articles. Dlv999 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Editor2020 removed the detailed descriptions next to each of the alternate names, a resolution which I think is probably best. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
As it happens I just found a 1820 map in the Internet Archive from Rees' (Plates volume 6, Number XXII) which has the following inscription on it
TERRA
FILIORUM ISRAELIS,
antequam in duo regna
dispertita fuit,
cum
Terra Philistæorum,
parte Phœnices,
LAND [of]
The children of Israel,
Before the two kingdoms
was distributed [or divided],
with
The land of the Philistines,
part of Phoenicea,

Crock8 (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The name palestine is not used in the New Testament text. Jesus used the names "Galilee, Samaria and Judea" . But the name "the land of Israel", is used once a in Matthew 2:19-21: "After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.” So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel." --ChristianChivalry (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Galilee, Samaria and Judea are parts of Israel. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian view in the lead

I've removed what is pretty clearly a source that doesn't meet WP:RS - in fact you will probably need several sources for this to show that this is an opinion shared not just by Evangelicals. Also, it shouldn't be in the lead if it isn't in the article. See WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is probably in the Christian beliefs section. Debresser (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Usage by Palestinians

Today, the Usage by Palestinians subsection was removed. The lame excuse for this removal of information that portrays the Palestinians in an unfavorable light was a referral to WP:COATRACK. I restored it, as being directly related and relevant to the concept of this article, "Land of Israel". Please give your opinions. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

While a section is justified, it's obviously this one is quite POV since it only interprets Hamas' Primary Source and then has Pipes and the Israel government critique such comments. I'm sure that comments about how Israel has kept taking more and more Palestinian land as evidence of such theories are more prevalent than some interpretation of a coin which is easily debunked. If it canNOT be rewritten in an NPOV way, it should be removed. So tagged. CarolMooreDC 19:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

The previous comment aside, it seems to me that if the section brings two points of view, as you say yourself, then that is balanced, and not POV. I therefore propose to remove the POV tag. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is automatically the case that having two points of view automatically makes something balanced. An extreme example would be a case where a viewpoint was contrasted with a straw-man counter-view rather than other more relevant counter-views. I am not saying that this is what is going on here. Just cautioning against the presumption that including two views precludes POV as that does not guarantee that both views are included with appropriate relative weight and also because there are normally more than two views on any given subject.
I do feel that there is something fishy about this section, although it is hard to say exactly what. It seems to be missing some context. It seems to jump straight into a list of specific examples without saying exactly what they are examples of or linking them clearly to the subject at hand. It then seems to get sidetracked by the business with the blue stripes, which seems a relatively trivial detail and yet takes up half the section. I am not saying that bit should go entirely; more likely we need a bit more to explain the core point here before we get into details like that. Personally, I would not have tagged it as POV, as I am not quite sure what the alleged POV is, but as confusing and in need of clarification. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and while I am here, I'd like to warn the anonymous contributor above against personal attacks. Wikipedia editors are entitled to be as POV as they like on their own blogs so long as they follow the NPOV rules here. If the only ones allowed to edit Wikipedia were those without POVs there would be nobody here but ClueBOT. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I was the remover of this section. There are thousands of things Palestinians have written about the "Land of Israel" concept, ranging from the completely ridiculous to serious scholarship. If someone wants to provide a balanced summary of it, there might be a case. Instead, all we had was an minor conspiracy theory that hardly anyone even remembers anymore, presented as if it somehow represents the view of an entire people. Besides obviously violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, it was embarrassing. A proper section would quote Palestinian writers such as Nur Masalha, Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Ghazi Falah. Masalha's book "The Bible & Zionism" discusses the concept extensively. Zerotalk 23:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The view of Yasser Arafat is very notable, being that the PLO has an altogether too official status as the representative of the Palestinians at the UN. So there is nothing undue here. If it was embarrassing, then you have him to thank for that. I think a few more things related to him are embarrassing, such as the fact that he was a terrorist. In any case, his words are notable. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
As in all such cases, the answer is to add more balanced material and to make sure that that already there is properly sourced with highest quality and least biased sources :-) CarolMooreDC 16:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Good editing consists of removing dross as well as adding good stuff. Debresser, the conspiracy theory was silly but the embarrassing thing was its inclusion in this article for the clear purpose of Palestinian bashing. It isn't notable either, it's a trivial historical anecdote. Zerotalk 04:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Here I completely disagree. But I appreciate your efforts to improve this section. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Replace with "Critics of term/concept" section

I spent some time doing research which I'll share below which leads me to believe that the views of Palestinians are just one of many of critics of the concept, some similar to the new material by Nur Masalha. Feel free to write up such a section (so I don't have to, and I'd prefer not to cause higher priorities). Most or all of these sources explicitly use the term:

Recent news stories on the topic which illustrate points made by critics:

  • Habayit Hayehudi head Naftali Bennett says: “I will do everything in my ability, forever, to prevent a Palestinian state from being founded within the land of Israel.”
  • Israel approves start of new West Bank settlement and settlers reject those who "question our very right to build and grow strong in the land of Israel” and Palestinian response.
  • Palestinians slam Israel for approving 3,000 housing units in Jerusalem and West Bank as a response to UN vote to recognize Palestine as a state and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying: “No matter how many hands are raised [at the UN], there is no power in the world that can disconnect the Jewish people from the land of Israel.”
  • Livni: PM paying lip service to two-state solution ...Livni also appealed to national-religious voters, saying that as a group they had great values but the extremists among them “who fight to keep every inch of the Land of Israel” and “give a monopoly on Jewish values to haredi parties” will lead Israel to cease to be a Jewish state....The Jewish people have a historical right to every inch of Israel, but to keep the country Jewish, we need to give some of it up,” she stated.
  • Hamas’ leader says Israel will become Palestine - Khaled Meshal, the political leader of Hamas, gave a defiant speech on Saturday, vowing to build an Islamic Palestinian state on all the land of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. “Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north. There will be no concession on any inch of the land." (Also NY Times mention with the phrase.)
  • a New Film Compares Life in Palestine to Apartheid South Africa - Democracy Now quotes ALICE WALKER intro: "This is the beautiful land of Israel and Palestine. The world’s three most prominent religions—Islam, Christianity and Judaism—consider it holy land. Each year, millions of people from around the world come here to pray for peace and prosperity. Yet this land is also a major center of conflict in the world today."

All this is just what I got in a quick search of "land of Israel" in books google and recent news.archives. Searches with more specific wording seeking different critical perspectives also could be found. Obviously more work needed to make it all hang together in an NPOV way. Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 07:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of this is relevant, but some is not. We should restrict ourselves to material that is specifically about the concept "Land of Israel", or about the phrase and its use. This article will expand into the entire I-P conflict if we aren't very selective. Zerotalk 11:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Obviously that will be decided on a case by case basis and within context of whole article. CarolMooreDC 17:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting poster

I saw this on a Jerusalem street. This is my photo of the upper part of a poster that was made in the 1920s by the 'Bezalel' school of arts.

Note the header "Tourism in Palestine" in English, while the Hebrew uses "התירות בארץ-ישראל". And then below that "Come and see Erez Israel" with in Hebrew "בוא וראה את הארץ". Debresser (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: early 'Usage in Israeli politics'

Referenced text was removed, undone (for a second time), and an attempt to improve its reference was made here. It was originally added here and seems to have become long-term consensus. Concerning how RS the source might be, I can add the following, and it be found again to be V'd

  • It was accessed May 20, 2008 from ____://www.falestiny.com/books/Zionist%20Colonialism%20in%20Palestine.pdf, which could not be re-accessed when attempted.
  • Some about its author is indicated as, ABOUT THE AUTHOR : Ph. D. FAYEZ A. SAYEGH Received his B.A. and MA. at the American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; and his Ph.D. at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Is Associate Professor of Political Studies at the American University of Beirut. ... and Founded the Research Center of the Palestine Liberation Organization; and served as a member of its Executive Committee.
  • Regarding what is presented here, versus what the ref says, and thanks to a saved copy, the original states:
Not only by ominous deeds, but also by ominous words, has the Zionist settler-state given indication of its intention, when the time was propitious, to grab new territories lying within the boundaries of what it claims as its national patrimony. The veteran Premier of the Zionist state, David Ben Gurion, on at least two occasions has solemnly announced, in two official state documents, that the state was created "in a part of our small country" (1), and "in only a portion of the Land of Israel" (2), and the state itself has proclaimed that "the creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historic Eretz Israel."(3).

(1) - State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5712 (1951(1952), Introduction p. x. (2) - State of Israel, Government Yearbook, 5713 (1952), Introduction p. 15. (3) - State of Israel, Government Yearbook. 5716 (1955), p. 320.

The book definitely is not neutrally worded. Imho the anti-Zionism in it is readily recognizable. But the corresponding paragraph in the article is worded neutrally, and sourced, and I don't think it should be removed. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I've located the Yearbooks near me and will look at them soon. Zerotalk 14:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparent agreement on what is a neutrally worded excerpt from an admittedly POV'd source is heartening. Much has changed in the last 50 yrs. Hopefully we will be able to learn how well their academic side passes a V muster. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


Ok.... The Government Year-books were published in Hebrew and English editions. I examined the English editions and found that the claimed page numbers check out and the reports are accurate.

  • Yearbook 5712 (1951/52). Essay by David Ben-Gurion, "The Call of Spirit in Israel" says "Only now, after seventy years of pioneer striving, have we reached the beginning of independence in a part of our small country.".
  • Year-book 5713 (1952). Essay by David Ben-Gurion, "Israel among the Nations" says "It has already been said that when the State was established it held only six percent of the Jewish people remaining alive after the Nazi cataclysm. It must now be said that it has been established in only a portion of the Land of Israel. Even those who are dubious as to the restoration of the historical frontiers, as fixed and crystallised and given from the beginning of time, will hardly deny the anomaly of the boundaries of the new State." A few sentences later he seems to refer to the Land of Israel as wider than Palestine: "More than one half of the Land of Israel in the West, its southern half, was empty and barren under the British Mandate..." (my emphasis).
  • Year-book 5716 (1955). An unsigned section "Israel, the State and the Nation" contains: "The State of Israel is the fulfillment of Herzl's vision in his book, 'The Jewish State.' It is called the 'State of Israel' because it is part of the Land of Israel and not merely a Jewish State. The creation of the new State by no means derogates from the scope of historical Eretz Israel."

If anything this is stronger than what was reported by Sayegh, and the only error (of ours, not of Sayegh as per above) is that the third extract does not indicate that it was written by Ben-Gurion. However, it is text from an official Israeli publication and is fine to present as such. Trivia: the first one is "Yearbook" and the other two are "Year-book". Zerotalk 05:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, first of all, thank you for your time checking. I say that with a sigh, a phew and an eye toward several AGFs. Strong statements were not uncommon in the 1950s. There was a similar tone to Ben-Gurion's statements on 7 November 1956, referenced here, which if checked, might be stronger also. A precursor from 22 October, referenced here, seems strong enough, fantastic or not. For context in domestic politics and competition on varying claims from the then-opposition, I suggest this reference for inclusion, because of its term-specific, chronological usage, as well as the importance of a 'map-image', which is currently either Biblical or absent. Regards CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Between exile and Herzl

Considerable content seems missing in this long period, from my outside perspective. Where is the religious Jewish context/content since the exile? Where is 'next year in Jerusalem', and its significance? Where is its synonym, Zion, before it gets -ism'ed? Are there concept- or term-specific responsa? I consider that these should be ref/link-mentioned, before they get summarized for transitional purposes under Modern history, in another long-standing edit. Those two millennia are currently missing from the article, but initially and easily could be included, by the insertion of dates within current prose. For reasons of simplicity and generally monolithic orthodoxy, this approach seems straight forward, until the Haskalah, and emancipation in some areas and with differing extents. But then, things get more complicated and variable, and generally out of my league.

After enlightenment, at least for some, this seems an important add to the article for its conceptual and term-specific usage chronologically. It and other intervening redlinks and a blue one do provide contextual transition between religion and politics concerning the land over time; and again specific map-images, are not currently included. Even I go to rabbis for a reference. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge

WHAT is "Homeland for the Jewish people"? (the CONCEPT is there, but as a separate article title/proper noun, I don't see it) Seems like some silly WP-concocted term when Eretz Yisrael exists. The articles are not overly long and can be merged as similar.(Lihaas (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

It is a modern political concept forming the foundation of zionism, whereas Eretz Israel is a religious concept which was appropriated by secular zionism. I think they are very different, albeit connected, concepts. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

(Partial) merger with Promised Land

The scope of this article needs to be discussed. As the article says, the term Eretz Israel is used only once in the Hebrew Bible, in Samuel, which is a reference we do not discuss in detail in the article. Instead the article focuses on the "promises" in Genesis or the "inheritance" (nahala or ahuzza) in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - these relate to either an unnamed "land" or to Canaan. This actual scope of the existing article is therefore almost exactly the same as the article Promised Land.

The section "9. Modern history" is the only section in this article which relates specifically to the term "Land of Israel". Even the etymology section discusses both terms. And we don't even have a proper section on the use of the term Land of Israel in the Talmud, which represents much of where its common and modern day usage derives from.

My proposal to fix this would be simply to merge the articles.

However, if that is too drastic, we could make "Promised Land" a clearly-defined sub-article of this one, and merge sections 1-8 into Promised Land, keeping a summary here. Then we can focus this article on the specific topic "Land of Israel", adding more detail on the Biblical usage in Samuel, in the NT in Matthew, and a lot more on the Talmudic concept.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Promised Land is basically Christian now in Western usage, while Eretz Israel is Jewish, so I think the two articles should be kept separate. Both articles are unsatisfactory, and I think there is merit in moving material to the Promised Land not bearing directly on the history of Eretz Israel. The Eretz article needs a thorough reworking on the technical variations in what the term denoted by documenting it in scholarly sources and not, as often here (WP:OR) from primary sources. There were numerous different claims, in rabbinical writings.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Nishidani. Do you have any sources which state that Promised Land is most common as Christian usage and Eretz Israel is Jewish? It feels right to me too, but if we can find some sources we can add it into both articles to clarify.
I will have a think through what areas of this article can most elegantly be moved to Promised Land. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll look, but to any non-Jewish native speaker of English, 'the promised land' is immediately recognizable whereas 'the land of Israel' has absolutely no biblical meaning. It is taken universally as referring to the contemporary state of Israel. To any Jew, the Land of Israel has very specific connotations not immediately associated with the state of Israel, but with the traditions of Jewish presence in a much wider area. 'Promised Land', like 'Israel' in Christian religious thought conserves the older Jewish tradition of a mystical, non-territorial set of entities, so that a Christian can think of himself as part of Israel (god-fearers united in their obeisance to the Deity of the OT/NT), just as Jerusalem the city is symbolic of the celestial city 'above' both in early Jewish and Christian traditions. Attachment to 'Jerusalem', to the 'city' was not a real-estate prospect as it is now, but a metaphysical yearning, much as aboriginals were attached to points in a landscape because of their symbolic figuring of a creation myth. By implication, the elephant in the room in many of the I/P articles is to spin this as a Jewish/Islamic territorial conflict, the two mainstays, occluding the fact that the Christian presence in, an attachment to, Palestine/Israel is as profound as either of the others, and indeed Zionism sprung out of Christian tourism, as much as from homegrown roots. The orthodox consensus for centuries was that eretz Israel was 'too religiously charged for Jews to live there' and attempts to do so risked an 'Ephraimite' extinction. The term itself had a diametrically opposed meaning to any secular state project (medinat Israel). See F. E. Peters here. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And here is that F.E Peters ref in English. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with Nishidani, and do not see a problem with the proposed merger between Promised Land and Land of Israel based on their usage. Especially since in my opinion "Promised Land" is not exclusively Christian, and "Land of Israel" is also used by Christians. But even if that were not the case, I still do not see the problem. If Christians use one term and Jews another, that is no reason to have separate articles for them, as long as they refer to the same thing. At most there should be a section about specific usage in the article. Debresser (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed that this was discussed before: Talk:Promised_Land#Merging_this_article_and_Land_of_Israel. My read of that discussion was that there was consensus to merge / partially merge, and a partial merge was carried out, but over time has lost its focus. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This are two different subjects and in my opinion they cant be merged. The concept of Land of Israel was not just religious. Palestine EY (Land of Israel) was the official Hebrew name of Mandatory Palestine between 1920 and 1948.Tritomex (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Promised Land is more common worldwide than Eretz Israel which is specifically Jewish, so I agree that the two articles should be kept separate.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I posted a general discussion about merging related article on WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sections to discuss

I have brought a couple of small sections from the article to the talk page for discussion. They were first added a number of years back, without discussion. I don't think they fit well into the article in their current form.

Main article: History of ancient Israel and Judah

Few, if any, archaeological remains of the Kingdom of David and Solomon have been uncovered to date that would accord with the huge conquests described in the Bible. It is more probable that the kingdom was smaller than described, encompassing only the areas settled by the Israelite tribes. The divided Kingdoms of Judah and Israel came into existence during the 8th century BC. While Israel encompassed the north of the country, including Samaria and the Galilee as far as Dan, Judah was restricted to a comparatively small area around Jerusalem, with a northern boundary near Mitzpah and a southern one around Hebron, probably not projecting effective rule as far as Beersheva. The Hasmonean Kingdom and the Herodian dynasty did rule a political unit that corresponds to the description, "From Dan to Beersheva."[1][2][3][4]

After the fall of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, political rule was held by the following powers:

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think they are appropriate. What do you think is wrong with them? By the way, I propose to restore them pending the outcome of this discussion. These are large removals, and I think it best to first garner consensus for them and then make the edits. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Debresser, can you support your view by explaining what you think the scope of this article is? The lead is focused on the biblical / theological concept. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The Land of Israel is a geographical term, and is therefore not be restricted time-wise. The lead, in turn, should reflect the content of the article, and not the other way around! Debresser (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It is now used as a geographical term coterminous with Israel/Palestine. In the rabbinical literature it is theotopological without agreement on where the boundaries are (is Haifa in there or not, etc.etc.) Surely? Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. With no defined boundaries, it's hardly credible to build out a detailed history of the region down to the modern day. And anyway, we already have numerous articles which do exactly that for the same core region, so another duplicate seems unhelpful to the project. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. Oncenawhile, Nishidani, do I understand correctly that this article would be more about the "promise" than about the "land"? Debresser (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's more about the concept, both religious and secular. The history is already at History of Israel, History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel and History of ancient Israel and Judah, all three of which already duplicate each other to a great extent. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I understand, and agree. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Other sections to discuss

For a concept I agree it is religious and secular, as well as theo-topological. But it is also strongly political, with specific party and contextual roots. While these aspects are covered in the article, they seem down-played, within the mix of content.

On another point. Should I assume that Eretz Israel or Eretz Yisrael are terms used in Yiddish, or Ladino? If that were the case, the term's longevity of usage might be better covered. Can someone confirm that? As far as the term's usage in the English language is concerned, I am ready to ref it as a political neologism that came on the stage only in the late 1970s. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Refs

References

  1. ^ Stuart, Douglas K., Exodus, B&H Publishing Group, 2006, p. 549
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference TyndaleBible was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ A history of Palestine: from the Ottoman conquest to the founding of the state of Israel, Gudrun Krämer, Princeton University Press, 2008, p. 12
  4. ^ Carol Meyers, "The Early Monarchy", Chapter 5, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. Michael Coogan, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 165ff. map on p. 167.

Structure and headings

Debresser, per my edit comment, I have put through the non-controversial tidyups, and left the article without putting through my proposed title changes.

This diff shows what i had proposed in terms of making the titles more representative of the content. It compares the current version to the one you reverted. Now that it is easier to see, could you comment specifically on what you like / don't like?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the diff speaks for itself. The two differences are the headers and the paragraph about Zionism. I see nothing wrong with the old headers, in fact, I think they are more correct. The paragraph about Zionism is chronologically out of place and not really relevant IMHO. By hte way, I am not sure I agree with the move upwards of the paragraph mentioning Matthew. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Debresser. Hmm. Let's forget the additional paragraph - I look it straight from the lead of Promised Land, but I don't feel strongly.
On the headings, there are just two points:
  1. "Jewish beliefs" and "Christian beliefs" are vague terms - they could include anything and everything, and encourage people to add a jumble of information with no logical structure. Reading the content of the sections, there are two topics in there: (1) laws for Jews in the land, and (2) beliefs about inheritance rights. My proposal is that topic-based headers are more useful to the reader than religion-based headers, particularly when the topics in each overlap. I don't really care what the headers are, so long as they make the topics clear and make it easy to navigate for both readers and editors.
  2. The first three paragraphs of the "modern history" should have a subheader to introduce them, because they are not introductory paragraphs but an important component of the story. Since they relate to early Zionism, that is a logical header, but feel free to choose another if you prefer.
Can you let me know your thoughts on this? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps headers like "Jewish point of view" and "Christian points of view" would be better and acceptable to you as well?
  2. I think the first few sentences (up to "if not in practice") are introductory. If you'd be fine with putting the subheader there, that would work for me as well. Debresser (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, we're agreed on 2. On the first point, that doesn't solve my concern. I think readers would benefit from a grouping of these issues by the actual subject of the point of view. It's very disjointed to put all the Christian views in one place and all the Jewish views in another, when many of these views overlap. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course they overlap, but that doesn't mean they can be treated in the same section, since they use different sources and reach different conclusions. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The real issue here is the "inheritance" point, which needs a lot more sources to do justice to. Let's leave this for now and reconsider in that context. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Outdent for a breather and other perspectives. I will generally stay out of chapter-verse discussions, and particularly interpretations thereof. Frankly, it says what it says. Depending on which version one reads however, as well as how much emphasis and faith the reader puts into it, if at all, the results vary widely and over time. Interpretations only add to the complexity, confusion, and more heat than light. In some cases there is no simple 'neutral voice' to describe these differences; each (main) should have its place to speak for itself. When it comes to religion and belief there is little consensus, and AGF may take a hit, both by definition and well-established historical precedent between and within Abraham's three facets.

For the first facet, it seems to me that this simple approach should be followed and would be helpful and constructive in discussing specific Biblical mentions for context, as promise, loss, prophesy and possession teetered through history. I seem to remember that lack of obedience and people not keeping their part of the bargain has also been used as reason for loss. This isn't mentioned and should be; it seems, well, religious. The influence of existential total loss, the birth of rabbinic Judaism and its influence on use of/reverence for the term are on the page, but seem improperly weighted, since it then became only a promise-based wish now lost; it tended to became a more glorified utopia, if only by the humanistic “greener grass” theory. Later messianic periods tended to emphasize this.

Discussion of the second facet is jumbled and missing much relevant material. In all neutrality Apostle Paul should get top billing to say what he said before Saint Augustine, interpreted it for further use. It is true that the Catholic Church used replacement theology; another trait is that they tended to minimize or just forget the OT and focus on the NT, and how it was interpreted by the Pope. Current content totally misses the reformation and its moderating effect on that replacement (save the present messianic boosters). Many across northern Europe fought church corruption and idolatry and demanded of that pharaoh to 'let my people go', so they could strive toward the promise, as they interpreted how to get there. It would continue and grow even more: "The land of Israel (Eretz Israel) occupies an important place in rabbinic thought less for its present sanctity than for the promise it represents. Many later readers of the Bible were so struck by this conceptual or mythological quality of the land of Israel that they would unlink it completely from the entire geographic region, as, for example, when the Puritans and Mormons termed America the "Promised Land”. The rabbis too understand land in highly symbolic and mythological, but never to the point of disconnecting it from a specific geographic location. To mourn the destruction of the Temple and the loss of control over the land is to hope for the future redemption; they are sides of the same coin.” (from Creating Judaism: History, Tradition, Practice, p.160)

I'll leave the third facet for others more atuned. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Etymology section

The two paragraphs from and until: "The first definition... can claim inheritance" overlap greatly with the introduction to the following section. Debresser, would you have any objection to me tidying this up? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Those two paraghraphs are about "Etymology and biblical roots", while the beginning of the next section is about "Biblical interpretations of the borders". That beginning is like an introduction to the detailed analysis of those verses in subparagraphs, and repeats the two paragraphs from the section above. I would say we don't need that introduction. Which means I agree with your proposal, in the direction of merging upwards, not downwards. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Biblical passages

10 years ago in this diff an IP added the full biblical references to the article. Does anyone think these are still needed? We don't even say which version of the bible the text comes from. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the article be benefited by these references? If the version is really important, it shouldn't be hard work to copy the text from whatever version you prefer and indicate it. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There are hundreds of wikipedia articles on biblical concepts - I have not seen any others which include all of the relevant biblical passages verbatim in the article. Have you? And, precedent aside, I think any benefit is negligible given that the links we provide to the biblical passages in the article direct a reader immediately to the specific passages. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No problem here, but if where there is some discussion about a specific verse, it seems reasonable to have it around somewhere in the vicinity. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, agreed. I will therefore remove the wall of text at the bottom of the article - we can add specific quotes back as needed. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Edelheit and Edelheit

CasualObserver'48, five years ago you added this text, which seems to me to be too close to the underlying source text:

Edelheit and Edelheit (2000), p.3: First, the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. Second, nonetheless, a strong sense of bondedness exists throughout the Jewish tradition and is expressed in terms of peoplehood or, in modern terminology, as a concept of nationality. Third, that from the very beginning this sense of peoplehood was identified with the Land of Israel, or (to use the traditional Jewish term) Eretz Israel. The fact that Eretz Israel was not seen as just a homeland, but also as a land of destiny, was intimately related to this sense of peoplehood and meant that Eretz Israel was always seen as central to Jewish life, in theory if not in practice. Finally, throughout the long years of exile Jews always hoped for some form of redemption and return to their ancestral homeland, with a small settlement existing almost continuously.

To my read the style of language is not consistent with the accepted wikipedia voice, particularly since the reality is well known to be significantly more complex than this romantic text suggests. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, if, 5 years hence, you now feel this content needs editing, I have no valid objections, except to note that as an editor personally devoid of such touchy-feely sentiment, I provided the RS's improved content neutrally and with proper credit. That content replaced a POV'd blanket statement that The religious Hebrew term Eretz Yisrael, was the common phrase used by Jews, regardless of what language they were speaking, to refer to their Biblical homeland,[6]. The edit has been long-accepted, and I do not considered it that close.
I am well aware that reality is significantly more complex than this single-source romantic text suggests, but at this point and to move more toward an "accepted Wikipedia voice", it might be better to add different, less romantically inclined sources for balance. I particularly suggest this one, by Louis Jacobs, which covers other important unincorporated topics and will shoot some holes in the current Jewish beliefs section (though they have since moved closer). On this topic, it says in part:
"Confined in the ghetto, European Jewry, constituting by far the largest segment of Jewry at the time, cultivated its own traditional way of life until the Western world and its culture was opened to the Jews after the French Revolution and the subsequent Jewish Emancipation... The Haskalah paved the way for the emergence of the Reform movement in early nineteenth-century Germany, a movement that posed the severest threat to the traditional way of Jewish life... The most far-reaching of the early reforms was the abolition of prayers for the restoration of the sacrificial system and for the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland, thus involving a complete reinterpretation of Messianic hope."
Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks CasualObserver'48. I agree with your proposal. Will consider in due course. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Overreliance on Shlomo Sand

This article references Shlomo Sand far too many times regarding the Land of Israel. This is a serious weakness in the article, because Sand's works are largely polemic rather than scholarly.
His claims appear before any others, first in your list of references.
His claims that the term "Land of Israel" initially applied only to the northern Kingdom of Israel, to the exclusion of Judah, and only was extended to refer to the whole land in post-Temple Rabbinical literature, are clearly bogus and confused.
Israel as a territorial entity indeed refers to the northern portion of the land, as distinct from Judah, during the period of the divided kingdoms, the Kingdom of Judah and the Kingfom of Israel.
However, elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, the mention of Israel and the Land of Israel are clearly referring to the whole land, north and south, including the Jerusalem and the area round it, for example:
Ezekiel 12:19, "Thus saith the Lord GOD concerning the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the land of Israel";
Ezekiel 12:10, "Thus saith the Lord GOD: Concerning the prince, even this burden, in Jerusalem, and all the house of Israel among whom they are";
Ezekiel 20:42, "And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country which I lifted up My hand to give unto your fathers.";
Ezekiel 21:7"'Son of man, set thy face toward Jerusalem, and preach toward the sanctuaries, and prophesy against the land of Israel...My sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh from the south to the north";
Ezekiel 33:24, "'Son of man, they that inhabit those waste places in the land of Israel speak, saying: Abraham was one, and he inherited the land; but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance.";
1 Samuel 13:19, "Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel" (in the days of Saul, referring to both North and South";
Joshua 11:22, "There was none of the Anakim left in the land of the children of Israel" (Anakim previously described as living throughout the land, north and south);
1 Chronicles 22:2, "And David commanded to gather together the strangers that were in the land of Israel; and he set masons to hew wrought stones to build the house of God." (referring to the building of the Temple in Jerusalem)
Shlomo Sand's remarks about the Land of Israel as mentioned in the New Testament are similarly confused (incidentally it is not once, but twice mentioned: Matthew 2:19 and Matthew 2:21). The text is NOT referring only to the land of Judaea around Jerusalem, but to the entire land (Judea, Samaria, and Galilee), in contradistinction to Egypt where Joseph was when he received the dream. When he enters the land, he fears to enter Judea because Archelaus reigns there, and he is warned again by God in a dream, and turns instead towards Galilee. Obviously, the text does not mean to say that God warned Joseph incorrectly in the first dream to go to Judea and then made a correction in the second dream to go instead to Galilee (as Sand's reading of the text would have us believe). Rather, the text's intended meaning is that Joseph was advised to enter the Land of Israel, but to avoid Judea and go rather to Galilee instead.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.152 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
HI, thanks for your contribution. You raise some interesting points. You may be right about Sand but let's check this carefully. Some reactions:
  • Your Ezekiel references are not "Eretz Israel" but "Admat Israel", which is better translated as "soil of Israel". See Blenkinsopp in ref 9 in the article
  • Your Joshua reference is the to land of the children of Israel
  • Your Chronicles reference relates to David's kingdom
  • Matthew 2:19-21 is one verse. It is the same episode.
  • For your other claims ("polemic rather than scholarly", "clearly bogus and confused", and your interpretation of Matthew), you will need to bring sources as these all appear to be subjective interpretations.
Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree completely with the first sentence of this editor. I have in the past claimed as well that Sand is a controversial person (sic!) with borderline fringe views, and that per WP:UNDUE he should be mentioned only summarily at best. His views are best treated in the article about him: Shlomo Sand. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please bring some reviews regarding this specific book which support your claim. Not political polemicists who just don't like his message, but respected scholars who disprove his scholarship in his book on this subject.
Otherwise bring this to WP:RSN, where we will almost certainly conclude that his work should be treated carefully on a case by case basis, not thrown out and marginalized altogether.
Even if you don't like him, his work brings some interesting angles on the usage of this the Land of Israel term. It's hard to credibly claim "fringe" when so few others have chosen to study this particular subject.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see the Shlomo Sand article, where both his personal controversiality as well as of his books are well sourced. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in that article criticizing the book we are using in this article. This sounds like poisoning the well. We should consider this relevant work on its own merits. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, I will address some of the points you addressed above:
  • There are some issues with Blekinsopp's explanation as quoted in ref 9 of the article. First of all, it is a bit of a red herring to claim that the Ezekiel references to "Admat Israel" (rather than "Eretz Israel") should be better translated as "soil of Israel" than "land of Israel", considering that a long list of Bible translations translate it as "land of Israel" in these passages. Moreover, Biblical lexicons (e.g. Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strongs Exhaustive Concordance) include "land", "territory", "country" legitimate definitions for "adamah", in addition to "ground", "earth", and similar words relating to soil.
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/127.htm
In the passages in Ezekiel where God is addressing "Admat Israel", it is clear that God is not addressing simply a piece of soil, but the country as a whole, thus the difference between "Admat Israel" and "Eretz Israel" in these contexts would merely be stylistic, rather than in actual meaning.
The same applies to Zechariah 2:12, referring to God's portion in the "Admat haQodesh", holy land, or sanctified land, rather than "holy ground" or "holy soil", in this context. (God's portion in the soil? God's portion in the ground?)
There are a couple of references that Blenkinsopp apparently omits concerning "Eretz Israel" seeming to refer to the whole land rather than just the northern portion of it (1 Samuel 13:19, 1 Chronicles 22:2). However, what Blenkinsopp does demonstrate is that there are indeed passages in the Hebrew Bible where the term refers to the whole land, and not just the northern portion corresponding to the Kingdom of Israel...thus refuting the claim of Shlomo Sand that the term "Land of Israel" originated in post-Temple rabbinical literature.
  • The references to the "Land of Israel" under Saul, David, and Solomon are relevant, because in their days, the "Land of Israel" referred to the entire Israelite territory, and not merely the portion of the 10 northern tribes that later constituted the Kingdom of Israel.
  • Subjective? Sand's interpretation of the Matthew 2:19-21 references to the "Land of Israel" as referring only to the area around Jerusalem does violence to the text in that it implies God initially gave Joseph the wrong instructions on where to go, and then had to issue a correction. Would such "second guessing" be consistent with theme of how God is protrayed in Matthew?
A number of Biblical commentaries in fact interpet the phrase "Land of Israel" in Matthew as referring to the whole country (not just Judea):
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/2-20.htm
Jamieson-Faussett: "...and go into the land of Israel—not to the land of Judea, for he was afterward expressly warned not to settle there, nor to Galilee, for he only went thither when he found it unsafe to settle in Judea but to "the land of Israel," in its most general sense; meaning the Holy Land at large—the particular province being not as yet indicated."
Gill's Exposition: "He does not bid him go to Bethlehem or Nazareth, or any particular place, but the land of Israel, where he might go even into any part of it, without fear;"
Meyer's NT Commentary: "εἰς γ. Ἰσρ.] Note the extent and indefiniteness of the designation; Joseph could thus afterwards turn his steps to Galilee without acting in opposition to the instruction."
Bengel's Gnomen: "Εἰς γῆν Ἰσραήλ, into the land of Israel) Joseph was allowed to choose the town or district, but not the country of their abode"
Pulpit Commentary "And go into the land. of Israel; any part of the holy and promised land."
This article, by the way, makes the convincing case that the passage from Matthew mirrors the story of the Exodus from Egypt. That being the case, Sand's use of the term to apply only to the area around Jerusalem is too restrictive.
  • I'm not suggesting that Shlomo Sand should not be mentioned at all, but the article cites him too many times, and should be condensed to a single citation. His book is hardly a scholarly work; the explanations he provides are proferred in the service of his ideology, specifically his harsh critique of modern Israel and Zionism, and the article should indicate that.
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.146 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi JD, to take your first three points in turn:
  • 1+2) You need to bring WP:SECONDARY sources to support your interpretations here. You may be right, but your interpretations are exactly that: "your interpretations". We are not allowed to cite WP:OR in wikipedia, but you may be able to find some sources on google books.
On Sand, don't forget that his book was originally published in Hebrew. So his entire book actually refers to the Hebrew term "Eretz Yisrael", not to the English term "Land of Israel". We should make this clear in the article.
  • 3) These sources are excellent and I suggest you add into the article. The conclusion should be that scholars have interpreted the land referenced by Matthew in numerous ways, and then perhaps we can provide examples.
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

JD, thanks again for your response. You have brought some good sources which we should put into the article. I suggest you sign up for a username and get involved!

To your last point, agreeing to put Sand into one sentence would be a lazy and unjustified conclusion. Most reviews I have read of his Land of Israel book suggest (a) it is not controversial in the same way as his previous Jewish People book, and (b) most of the facts he cites are already well known and accepted by scholars. Reviewers who criticized the work claimed that Sand has an agenda (ad hominem) and that the work was nothing really new. That's hardly a justification to conclude it comes close to violating WP:FRINGE. Anyway, unless anyone can bring alternative sources who devote as much focus to the history of the term as Sand does, we have limited choice but to consider the points he makes.

Note, I mean that last sentence exactly as I wrote it: "consider the points he makes". Given the strong views on the topic, we should double check (and double or triple source) any statement we reference to Sand. If there are claims that only Sand makes, then we need to think very carefully whether to include them at all, and if so we should probably not do in wikipedia's "neutral voice" (subject to consideration on a case by case basis).

TLDR: Let's not be lazy guys - Sand's work highlights some interesting angles on this topic, and we should consider each one carefully if we want this article to be balanced and informative. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very interesting, and even more controversial. Wikipedia is not about discussing theories and their relative merits, and we have a WP:UNDUE guideline for a reason. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to go down that debate, I suggest you follow the detailed guidance at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. So far you have just stated a dislike of the author, without a single comment on the actual statements being sourced. Let's stop wasting time, and get on with discussing this properly. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no dislike of Shlomo Sand. Please see WP:NPA. Also, please notice that I didn't invoke WP:FRINGE but rather WP:UNDUE, and that is not the same. You seem on this page as well not to hear me well. I have stated my opinion clearly. What is it you want to discuss further? I think this is a closed discussion, at least between the two of us. If you plan to add even more details to anything Shlomo Sand said, you will be reverted per WP:UNDUE. You can take it elsewhere for dispute resolution, but this is a WP:DEADHORSE. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how you are interpreting the application of WP:UNDUE here. Specifically, please provide the quote from the policy that you are relying on for your judgement. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop WP:Wikilawyering. Shlomo Sand has highly controversial opinions, that are by no means mainstream. Therefore, anything more than a mention of his most basic opinion will be undue wight to a non-mainstream theory. That is the crux of WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong. WP:UNDUE (and related policies and guidelines) is focused on the opinion, not the author. You are conflating the two, causing an unnecessary argument. We are agreed that each theory should be considered carefully. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That an Israeli historian writes a book specifically on the topic of this article, even if 'controversial', means nothing. Most good research is controversial because it is new, or breaks a staid paradigm. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oncenawhile Precisely so. WP:UNDUE relates to the opinion, and the opinion is not mainstream. That is precisely what I said. So I am not wrong, since I am not confusing anything here. sorry. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, great. You wrote above "the opinion is not mainstream". Which opinion are you referring to? Please be specific. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Most of them. Did you actually read his article? Debresser (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Please be specific. Otherwise we have no choice but to ignore you. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Please stop wikilawyering. Any attempt at ignoring the WP:UNDUE guideline will be met with immediate reverts. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:LASTWORD? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani Also very true. Which is why Wikipedia should be careful in the amount of attention it gives to new and disputed/controversial theories in comparison with older and more accepted ones. Debresser (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia gives enormous scope to memes that died on their feet decades ago (5 Arab armies invaded Palestine in 1948, ignoring that on that day, Israel's new armies were all over 'Palestine', even in Lebanon, and outside of its designated territory etc.) New research is 'controversial' mainly for newspapers caught up in 'positions'. There is not one book I have read on this area that, right, centre, or left, pro-or anti-Zionist, does not have me annotating errors, exaggerations, questionable ideas or interpretations. This is true of Shlomo Sand's work as it is of Benny Morris's. To be specific, it is not that Sand's work itself is 'controversial': certain chapters or leitmotivs are subject to peer challenge, while overall, much of what he writes is just arguing for what is already well known, pulling all of the disiecta membra of scholarly work together into one historical narrative. The way to use it, as most works, is to (a) refer to his thesis, and (b) then harvest his documented and sourced facts, wherever they are pertinent, leaving aside excessive use of his interpretations of those facts. Generally, he documents well, and will even respond to requests for exact pagination for anything he hasn't clarified. One should, finally, not make a general case against Sand in the abstract, but cite specific issues sourced to him, and ask editors to find corroborative details. Most of his argument on the Land of Israel is, to me, fairly obvious, but I and others should be responsive to this kind of request for further secondary source corroboration. Oncenawhile is just such an editor, I think.Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani Not just "subject to peer challenge" but "controversial" as well. Anyways, I think we can agree that we should be careful in using Sand as a source. Debresser (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think, as a general principle, any one source should be given privileged status on any page. Care is, as you say, required here. If there is something particularly odd-looking, then certainly, we should, on request, search for other sources to corroborate it. That should be the principle. Nishidani (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like we are all agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Shlomo Sand is absolutely unreliable source as he was discredited by mainstream historians, Israel Barthal went so far to accuse him for falsifications. He can not be used as any reliable for any historic claim, beside his views on his own work. It would be same as using Joan Peters for writing claims regarding Palestinian history.Tritomex (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a non-argument. Joan Peters was not an historian, and falsified her evidence, and her work was exposed as a fraud. It's on the public record. Shlomo Sand is judged by peers in his profession: some are highly critical (Bartal), others, equally competent, Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, Tom Segev praised it to the skies.Nishidani (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This Haaretz article says that Bartal's (and Shapira's) main arguments against Sand's first book were that he was saying "nothing new". That kind of criticism doesn't undermine our ability to use his work, once we have properly confirmed a given statement (per discussion above). Either way, Tritomex, I believe your entire comment relates to Sand's first book, which is not the subject of this discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The argument that he is saying nothing 'new' is self-defeating, Tritomex. Because if what he states is commonplace and often found in the academic literature, then ipso facto his views are representative of a notable range of historical opinions. Tony Judt said the same thing as Bartal, but added that the majority of Jews in the diaspora knew little of the scholarly results Sand synthesized, and he thought precisely for this reason that the book was iknvaluable. It was a bridge between the clichés of 'Zionist' simplifications and the realities of Israeli/Jewish/world scholarship. It deconstructed an 'ideological' mindset that is evidenced everyday in these articles, based on unfamiliarity with what scholars know.Nishidani (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)The argument you use therefore qualifies him as RS.
Joan Peters book was also praised by Jehuda Reinharz, Arthur Goldberg, Marty Peretz, Barbara Probst Solomon, Theodore H. White, Saul Bellow , Ronald Sanders and many others. Yet we do not use Peters as source for Palestinian history because her claims are at minumum controversial with mainstream historians. Sand was praised much less than Peters and has been debunked by leading Jewish historians like Simon Schama, Michael Berkowitz. Israel Barthal, Anita Shapira, Max Hastings and many others. He is unreliable source for any serious historic debate. As I said the allegations on Sand from the current most prominent living Jewish historian Israel Barthal is that Sand falsified Jewish historical sources. It does refer to his first book as his second book did not found too much attention but it discredit him from anything close to being relaible or questions he has been found at minimum controversial.--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I,e. you don't know what you are talking about. It's news to me that Max Hastings, one of whose books I recently reread, is a leading 'Jewish historian'. It is a matter of yawning boredom to me to be told what ethnic stripe a historian wears, in any case. I googled once just in case I missed something, and this is all I got. All good historians shake up or disturb a paradigm, or get things wrong, so labelling a Sand 'controversial' is meaningless. Raul Hilberg had a controversial reception for some of his core ideas, but no sane man held that against his repute as the greatest historian of the Holocaust.Nishidani (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Malik Shabazz Consensus was needed for the recent inclusion (not for exclusion) of the controversial author (accused of distortion of historic sources) in the article, and there was no consensus. Anyway he does not go in to the lead which summarize the context. There are hundreds of authors and historians writing on this subject, many of them prominent and not controversial yet they did not receive SPECIAL place in the lead. If you think otherwise explain it.--Tritomex (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether Sand is controversial is irrelevant. The question is whether the book is reliable, and you (and Debresser) have yet to provide specific evidence that the source isn't reliable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Malik, that is a bit like sticking your head in the sand and saying nobody is out there. There are many reliable sources in the article that both the author and the books are controversial. Why do you think that is? Because his theories are mainstream in the academic world, or the opposite? The questions of fringe (or at least undue) and reliable are already conclusions of the fact that the books are so controversial. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidence please. Please bring a single scholarly quote which suggests that Sand's Land of Israel book is unreliable. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of kindergarten math. Shlomo Sand is cited exiguously, 4 times, among 63 footnotes, one in every 15. Given the fact that his book synthesizes a lot of scholarship on the theme of this article, that means WP:Undue is automatically excluded. It is not a fringe work, for the simple reason that he is a professor of history in Tel Aviv, and reviewers often say, dismissively that what he writes is well known. Finally, a lot of names are appealed to here to support his cancellation. My impression is, editors are familiar neither with Sand's books, nor the critical literature. One example that comes to mind is Simon Schama. In his review (Simon Schama,'The Invention of the Jewish People,' Financial Times November 13, 2009)he writes:

Sand’s self-dramatising attack in The Invention of the Jewish People is directed against those who assume, uncritically, that all Jews are descended lineally from the single racial stock of ancient Hebrews – a position no one who has thought for a minute about the history of the Jews would dream of taking.

This is correct, but no editor will touch the deceptive lead of Jews which affirms with falsified WP:SYNTH footnotes that 'a position no one who has thought for a minute about the history of the Jews would dream of taking.'

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים ISO 259-3 Yehudim, Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious[18] and ethno-cultural group[19][20][21] originating from the Israelites of the Ancient Near East.

This nonsense is untouchable, irremovable, and very few, if any, serious historians would subscribe to it. Yet it remains there because it is a classic formulation of a Zionist ideological pseudoid. Rather than worry Sand to the death, it would be appropriate for editors to read modern scholarship on all of these issues, irrespective of the political angle, and begin to adjust articles so that they reflect, not ideological fixations, but the state of contemporary knowledge and debate. At least articles would begin to exude some of the intellectual excitement that abounds in Israeli/Jewish historical scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I note now the problem was diagnosed by a distinguished historian. Donald Sassoon, The Invention of the Land of Israel by Shlomo Sand – review The Guardian 18 April 2013

Much of what Shlomo Sand reveals is known to specialists. His achievement consists in debunking a nationalist mythology which holds sway in large sections of popular opinion. It also normalises Jews, since it challenges the belief in exceptionalism. Demystifying what the French call le roman national seems to be today one of the major tasks of historians (once they used to write it). This can be an uphill struggle, yet it is to the credit of the Israeli book-reading public that Sand's previous book, The Invention of the Jewish People became a bestseller. Truth-telling may be painful but necessary.'Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, You as an administrator know that inclusion of Sand needed consensus (and there was no consensus) and not the exclusion of this highly controversial author. Beyond this, Sand went directly into the lead, as the only author mentioned there, an unprecedented POV. This are the two objections regarding your revert and please explain why you added Sand WITHOUT consensus. Also, please revert your addition until consensus is reached if/where to add Sand .

One of the most prominent living Jewish historian Israel Bartal wrrites about Sand: "Sand repeats the method he employs vis-a-vis the place of the Khazars in Jewish historiography in connection with other topics as well, presenting readers with partial citations and edited passages from the writings of various scholars. Several times, Sand declares what his ideological position is. Like him, I am not one of those who support the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies against minority groups in this country in the name of arguments pretending to represent “historical values.” However, critical readers of Sand’s study must not overlook the intellectual superficiality and the twisting of the rules governing the work of professional historians that result when ideology and methodology are mixed...Moreover, the author’s treatment of Jewish sources is embarrassing and humiliating. What serious reader who knows the history of modern Hebrew literature can take seriously the views expressed in a book that defines “Bohen tsadik” (Investigating a Righteous Man), a satirical (fictional!) work by the Galician intellectual and supporter of the Haskalah Yosef Perl (1773-1839), as something that was written by a person named Yitzhak Perl and which “contains 41 letters from rabbis that relate to various aspects of Jewish life”? Who would attest to the accuracy of facts in a research study where it is stated that historian Joseph Klausner (1874-1958) — a scholar who never was (despite his burning ambition to do so) a professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and who, instead, served there as a professor of Hebrew literature — “was in fact the first official historian of the ?Second Temple period’ at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem”? Does such sloppiness reflect the author’s attitude to the subject of his researc?. Or, perhaps, because everything is an invention anyway, it does not really matter whether the “imagined object” is black or white?"--Tritomex (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Carlo Strenger writes Sand's book is not a pure work of history. In fact, it has a clearly stated political agenda. Anita Shapira wrote that Sand grabbed the most unorthodox theory in a field and then stretching it "to the outer limits of logic and beyond" with .half truths and misinterpretations..--Tritomex (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So Bartal disagrees with Sand. Two historians disagree, therefore one must be right? I suggest you attend some lectures on historical method. All historians disagree with each other. If I see Bartal being cited as stating:'the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies against minority groups in this country,' I would, like many others, note that he implicitly identifies 'this country' as the Zionist-Likud defined 'Land of Israel'. Bartal's remark shows that he too has a POV (like Sand), one that thinks Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank reside in this country(=Israel). He too is a 'controversial figure' because he is reportedly paid to lecture abroad to counter 'anti-Zionist' thinking (Asima Ghazi-Bouillon, Understanding the Middle East Peace Process: Israeli Academia and the Struggle for Identity, Routledge, 2009 pp.134-136). His fellow historians will challenge his conclusions (e.g.Arie Morgenstern,Hastening Redemption : Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel, Oxford University Press 2006 pp.253-4 n.188). None of this invalidates Bartal as an excellent source, and the same goes for SandNishidani (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Compare Bartal's critique of Shlomo Sand to Shlomo Aronson's review of Anita Shapira. Israel: A History. The Schusterman Series in Israel Studies. Waltham: Brandeis University Press, 2012. H-Judaic (March, 2013). It's far more devastating. But that's par for the course among historians, and in no way invalidates Shapira as a RS. For the same reason, Bartal's vague distaste does not invalidate Sand as a source.Nishidani (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
First, Barthal is a specialist of Jewish history wit highest ranking and Sand is a professor of French history and cinema history. Second Bartal and Shapira did not "disagree" with Sand but accused him of wrriting misinterpretations and half truths (falsifications) of Jewish historic sources. Third by writing (this country) he refer to country whose citizens Sand and Bartal are, without any ideological connotation and nowhere he mentions West Bank or Gaza or Palestinians (which is not the subject of his response, it speaks about the relationship between The State of Israel and its position on Israeli Arab citizens and their history.

Finally, Bartal is not discredited, nor found controversial by anyone, Sand is being accused of politically motivated falsification of sources, misinterpretations and fabrications. Additional historians claimed his sources of being politically motivated and unhistoric. see Carlo Strenger and many others. It is highly questionable if he could go anywhere in the article, but to position him and his views (which leading historians characterized as distortions and half truths) in lead is out of question. Controversial figures and controversial claims do not receive an unchallenged special position in the lead, which should summarize the context of this article. Malik Shabazz please as you are an administrator and as you added Sand, please respond to my questions and revert this addition until there is consensus for its inclusion in appropriate place.--Tritomex (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)--Tritomex (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tritomex, please stop confusing criticism of Sand with criticism of his book. Please stop yourself before you type the phrase "controversial author" again, because it's tiresome. Could you please provide some context to the quotes above, preferably in the form of bibliographical links to the original sources. Your bolding makes it very hard to read—I know what POV you're supporting, you don't need to bold it repeatedly—the important thing is whether the emphasis is in the original. Are you taking minor criticism out of context, or are you doing a good job summarizing long reviews? I can't tell. Knowing something about the original source will help. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, please don't add your comments in the middle of another editor's remarks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies to editors. Tritomex doesn't indent or list points, and this makes it difficult to reply cogently in sequence. I will plunk my comment here.Nishidani (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Inclusion of a work written by an historian, reliably published, and widely reviewed, who writes of the area he specializes in, does not require consensus for inclusion. It would, on the contrary, require consensus to overrule the standard norms governing reliable sourcing.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Bartal is a great historian, but not the last word, Tritomex. All of these adjectives blasting Sand boil down to exasperation over two errors, regarding Perl and Klausner: if you are familiar with the Times Literary Supplement, the New York Review of Books, the London Review of Books (150 pages of reviews by peers of each other's scholarly work), you will note that on every other page a specialist lists oversights, errors, or challenges emphases, etc. in the books under review. That disinvalidates nothing. No book is free of error, and in fields were ideology is a dominant discursive force field, as here, you are bound to get deep disagreements. Bartal's field is not Sand's field. As I showed, Shapira's scholarship is described as sloppily lacunose by Shlomo Aronson; Bartal is criticized for being a paid representative for the orthodox Zionist view;Donald Sassoon, Eric Hobsbawm, Tony Judt, historians of great distinction, applaud what Bartal and Shapira find disgusting. Finally, there is nothing controversial about key parts of what Sand argues: his position is close to what was the orthodox rabbinical view of Zionism in the late 19th century. Had his book been written then, the majority of Jewish scholars would have found little to contest in it, because Israel didn't exist, and the religious orthodoxy was hostile to any notion of a secular state in Palestine. Finally, you haven't replied to the key point: Sand is used 4 times in 63 notes: most of the sources do not specifically treat the issue, but mention it en passant. It is underused. Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Malik, my first objections was that Sand was placed in the lead, while there are many, if not hundreds of historians writing on this subject. What makes Sand (who is contrary to Bartal or Shapira) not an expert for Jewish history so special to receive such privileged place above all other historians if not his views described by Shapira and Strenger as politically motivated?

My second objections was that this inclusion was done AGAINST consensus, by force.

Anita Shapira [7] Danile Lazare wrrote: "Specifically regarding this book Sand’s investigation is more than justified, and it would be nice to report that his effort is subtle, sober and perceptive, as wide-ranging as it is morally serious. But it isn’t. Hobsbawm and the rest notwithstanding, The Invention of the Jewish People was a messy polemic – helter-skelter, tendentious and ill-informed. The Invention of the Land of Israel is better and winds up with a discussion of Zionist territorial ambitions that places Israeli policy in a new light. But it is undermined by a shaky concept of Jewish history. Sand rightly insists on the relevance of the ancient past to contemporary politics, but his distortions are an obstacle to a full understanding of the modern Israeli-Palestinian predicament. [8] "Israel Bartal charged Sand with “intellectual superficiality” and “twisting the rules governing the work of professional historians.” Sand’s alleged sins include the use of misleading citations, disrespect for historical details, and a slippery tendency to present extreme theories as though they reflect the scholarly consensus." Carlo Stregner wrote: "Sand's book is not a pure work of history. In fact, it has a clearly stated political agenda. From all the sound and the fury you might think that his agenda is to expel all Jews from Israel, or to abolish the Jewish state. It might come as a surprise to some who have not read the book that Sand's goal is to preserve Israel as a democracy with a Jewish character based on a Jewish majority." [9] Israel Bartal: [10] Sand declares what his ideological position is. Like him, I am not one of those who support the injustices committed by a number of Israeli government agencies against minority groups in this country in the name of arguments pretending to represent “historical values.” However, critical readers of Sand’s study must not overlook the intellectual superficiality and the twisting of the rules governing the work of professional historians that result when ideology and methodology are mixed" --Tritomex (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani who and where said that Bartal "is a paid representative for the orthodox Zionist view"?
It is a normal courtesy to read closely what your interlocutor writes, and click on the links, where provided, to ascertain the basis for her remarks. Do so.Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something, Tritomex? Those links all concern Sand's book about the Jewish people. This article cites a different book, The Invention of the Land of Israel. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, Thank you for responding. Not all of this accusations relates to his first book. Although his second book recived much less attention, for example Daniel Lazare writes specifically about his second book and accuse Sand for "distortions"

"Specifically regarding this book Sand’s investigation is more than justified, and it would be nice to report that his effort is subtle, sober and perceptive, as wide-ranging as it is morally serious. But it isn’t. Hobsbawm and the rest notwithstanding, The Invention of the Jewish People was a messy polemic – helter-skelter, tendentious and ill-informed. The Invention of the Land of Israel is better and winds up with a discussion of Zionist territorial ambitions that places Israeli policy in a new light. But it is undermined by a shaky concept of Jewish history. Sand rightly insists on the relevance of the ancient past to contemporary politics, but his distortions are an obstacle to a full understanding of the modern Israeli-Palestinian predicament." [11] Accusation made against him which I cited above (politically motivated distortions, “twisting the rules governing the work of professional historians,” “having clearly stated political agenda,” ”half truths and misinterpretations” etc) by leading historians makes him unreliable source for the subjects related Jewish history, even if they are made in relation to his first book. Beside this Malik, I find extremely problematic that Sand was directly placed in the lead as the only person whose views are presented there (where in fact context should be summarized). What makes him and his views so privileged above other historians? Allso, as his inclusion was done without consensus, unilaterally. --Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Lazare is a blogger, journalist and author. He wrote an interesting book on the American Constitution, as an independent left wing writer, but he he takes a thwack at a great historian like Timothy Snyder, just as he makes a target of Shlomo Sand. Snyder is an exceptionally gifted historian of the highest order, but his work is a mess, according to Lazare. He and Sand are professors of history at top universities, with a command of several languages, Lazare according to the Dutch wiki entry, studied English literature and is an autodidact in history. Some historians thing his work gross oversimplifications. So why, if you want to challenge Sand's professional status, do you cite Lazare, who has absolutely no academic background in this area?Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what makes Lazare any more or less qualified than any of us to offer an opinion about The Invention of the Land of Israel (except that the London Review of Books doesn't pay us). When I searched for myself, I found many fewer reviews of this book than The Invention of the Jewish People and, perhaps not surprisingly, they all split along partisan lines. I'm not convinced that we're relying on it too much in this article, but I do agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. I've reverted my last edit and removed the quote from the lead. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sand writes that in modern Israel "the term continues to serve as code, unifying political sensitivities and branches of cultural production."[1]
Thank you for moving this to talk page. I actually did not see that Sand was added here too. The section I primary objected was this "According to Shlomo Sand, the term connoted originally Samaria and adjacent areas in proximity of the northern kingdom of Israel, excluding Judea, and only took wing in rabbinical literature as a more general term after the fall of the Temple, perhaps in reaction to the growing prominence of Babylonian Judaism.[1]" In my opinion Shlomo Sand opinion on this issue is irrelevant for the lead. If this would be correct, this could be sourced with other historians without need to name one and to put his probably unique view on the subject directly into the lead. (Extraordinarily claims, needs proper NON political, NON partisan sources)--Tritomex (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
D'oh! I missed that bit. Here it is, in its entirety. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
According to Shlomo Sand, the term connoted originally Samaria and adjacent areas in proximity of the northern kingdom of Israel, excluding Judea, and only took wing in rabbinical literature as a more general term after the fall of the Temple, perhaps in reaction to the growing prominence of Babylonian Judaism.[2]

References

  1. ^ Sand 2012, p. 22: "The term “Land of Israel” which does not and has never corresponded with the sovereign territory of the State of Israel, has for many years been widely used to refer to the area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River and in the recent past to large areas located to the east of the river as well. For more than a century. this fluid term has served as an instrument of navigation and a source of motivation for the territorial imagination of Zionism. For those who do not live with the Hebrew language it is difficult to fully understand the weight carried by this term and its influence on Israeli consciousness. From school textbooks to doctoral dissertations from high literature to scholarly historiography from songs and poetry to political geography. this term continues to serve as code, unifying political sensitivities and branches of cultural production in Israel."
  2. ^ Sand 2012, p. 27.

Apropos sourcing

About 80% of the sourcing is totally inadequate, primary sources being used when most of them are commented on in numerous scholarly secondary sources.

  • Note 2 Bible.cc
  • Note 3 Bible Gateway
  • Note 4 Catholic Culture
  • Note 16 Torah Academy of Bergen County
  • Note 17 See 6th and 7th portion commentaries by Rashi
  • Note 23 Bible Gateway
  • Note 24 R. Yisrael Meir haKohen (Chofetz Chayim),
  • Note 25 Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim, Shmita
  • Note 26 ^ The Ramban's addition to the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot.
  • Note 27 Ezekiel 47:21
  • Note 28 Edersheim Bible History – Bk. 1, Ch. 10". Godrules.net.
  • Note 29 Edersheim Bible History – Bk. 1, Ch. 13". Godrules.net. 19
  • Note 30 "Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible – Genesis 15". Gotothebible.com.
  • Note 31 Genesis – Chapter 15 – Verse 13 – The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible on". Studylight.org.
  • Note 32 Parshah In-Depth – Lech-Lecha". Chabad.org
  • Note 33 Bible.org.
  • Note 34 Reformed Answers: Ishmael and Esau". Thirdmill.org
  • Note 35 The Promises to Isaac and Ishmael". Christianleadershipcenter.org.
  • Note 36 God Calls Abram Abraham". Washingtonubf.org.
  • Note 37 Nigeriaworld Feature Article – The Abrahamic Covenant: Its scope and significance – A commentary on Dr. Malcolm Fabiyi's essay". Nigeriaworld.com

The rest, dealing with Zionist and British primary documents on the state of Israel also are WP:Undue, and most have nothing to do with the topic. When they do, they are covered in secondary sources, like Sand's, and should be cited via such sources. In short, the article is a drafted nightmare of unreliably opinionated parsing of primary texts.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The reliability of each source dependents of its context. For example religious and other ideologically driven sources sources are not reliable for historic claims but are reliable for presenting religious/ideological views on those subjects.--Tritomex (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Since much of the claim to the Land of Israel is based on the Bible, it makes sense to bring it as a source. Primary sources are not ideal, but acceptable. Sand, on the other hand, is an unacceptable source, as his views are highly controversial, read non-mainstream in the academic world and contested. I have written about Sand already elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Um. The Tanakh does not define the 'Land of Israel'. read Sand's book. Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest a close reading of, to start with, Catherine Hezser's Jewish Travel in Antiquity, Mohr Siebeck, 2011 pp.44ff. It has several points that should be in this article. Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The reliability of each source dependents of its context. For example religious sources are not relaible for historic claims but are reliable for religious views on those subjects.--Tritomex (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the policy. All of these primary sources save perhaps two are thoroughly covered in numerous secondary sources. Every text in the Tanakh/Bible has several line-by-line commentaries. The concept of 'The Land of Israel' is extremely difficult to grasp, and therefore ipso facto we are obliged to look at how scholars with a comprehensive knowledge of primary sources handle it.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Religious source are reliable sources for the views of each and particular religion on religious subjects. On the other hand Sand is not reliable source regarding anything. As seen above he is accused of falsification of historic sources. He is an Israeli version of Joan Peters.Even if he would be reliable, as he is not, he does not go to the lead--Tritomex (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Um. Religious primary sources are very frequently subject to interpretative disputes, and that is why they should always be cited via an authoritative secondary source which evaluates them in the light of these disputes, controversies.Nishidani (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani What does it matter if the Bible calls it "Land of Israel" or not, as long as they mean the same thing? Also note that I was precise in using the word "based" instead of "defines". Debresser (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Whast is it here? They don't mean the same thing, the Bible had numerous distinct terms, and what you get in Ben Sira, Enoch, Daniel, etc., and the Tanakh and later rabbinical tradition has no agreed on definitions. The rabbis of 2nd /3rd century included Daraa in it, some biblical authority claimed it extended to the Euphrates; Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi in 1918 first defined it as everywhere from Sidon, southern Lebanon, to western Syria, the fertile plains of Jordan west of Amman, and from Aqaba to the Sinai's El Arish. There is a huge amount of technical discussions of these variations in ancient and modern times, and the article is basically clueless about them, precisely because no one is looking at the scholarly literature. The only time people step in to edit these articles in when Shlomo Sand is mentioned, only to keep him out. He is just one of dozens of sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That is basically my point. There is a variety of precise definitions, but whatever name they use for the territory they are describing, we here on Wikipedia call it Land of Israel, per popular custom. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Prior in lede

The idea that ancient religious texts can be warrant or divine right for a modern claim has often been challenged
Michael Prior, The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, A&C Black 1997 p.171: ‘As an agent of legitimacy in international law, the Zionist appeal to Tanakh for legitimation of its claims to Eretz Israel is not much more compelling than if the Portuguese and Spanish Governments today presented to the UN the bulls off Nicholas V and Alexander VI, which also claimed divine authority, in their bid to reclaim the lands of the New World. p.171.

Ian Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Guide for the Perplexed, A&C Black, 2012 p.13.

a. The author is not a sec. source, he's expressing his own moral response. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources, wp:rs#Biased or opinionated sources. Prior makes a flyby analogy between early modern intl law and the contemporary field. He's not an expert on that, does not discuss expert writing in the field, and does not even survey the or other political actors. So it is far from "careful" (in policy) to use his quote to support a claim about what "often" happens. He casually remarks presenting something "is not much more compelling than " something else without planting the argument in any identifiable ground of context, audience or purpose. All that, under the title, a Moral Critique, which his emotive wording an understandable non descriptive approach.

b. The seamless move from theology to law is a hijacking of the topic. I understand his book is more on the theological side, so it might have material relevant to the rest of the paragraph, about the religious ideas of inheritance of the Land of Israel. But it's his legalistic comment that you picked, which is not tightly related to the following discussion there, nor to the context you chose for it here. That's giving him wp:undue weight with regard to context.

c. This line does not reflect any content below wp:lede, you know it.

d. It is based on a strawman completely of his own making. You try to make it seem there is a continuance between the topics, but don't provide any legal view against which Prior's comment is addressed, if there are any. (Israeli officials basing formal land claim at the UN with the bible?) What is previously discussed is Jewish religious, and Christian status of the land, than you skip to an answer to Zionist use, that has not been presented (religious? civil procedure? international law? diplomacy? education?...), while Prior cites Buber of all zionists and discussed not the Right issue but an utopian aspect. That's using him in a kind wp:synth fashion. trespassers william (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is your policy argument. This place is supposed to run on policy principles. It is not a gamepark for the idle, or reverters without a viable reason. 'a strawman completely of his own making' is, by the way, a technical impossibility and an obscure use of the idiom. Michael Prior's book is a reasoned analysis. Prior studied semitic languages, and worked in that area for two decades, and is reliably published. His title use of 'moral' does not sum up the substance of his book. All I am seeing here is the use groupthink swarming to stop an article from being improved by intelligent collegial work. Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, I forgot about the policy that every talk page edit should be bloated to a condescending wall of text. Amended above.
The second source: he makes another point altogether: Recognition of the sovereignty right does not entail recognition of the inheritance right. Or, that a reader that accepts Israeli claims may or may not accept the political view that invokes the bible. I'll add this rejection may due to agnosticism, overruling defense considerations, supersessionism, care for indigenous rights, Jewish messianism etc. Prior's argument is that recognition of Inheritance right does not entail recognition of the sovereignty right. Personally, I agree emphatically with Bickerton, and more than not with Prior's strawman, but it's not their place.
Hey, that felt like what I did yesterday with an IP, [12].
trespassers william (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Michael Prior is certainly not reliable source for law or legality and I do not see any rational reason that justifies turning this article into religious debate. As Prior does not speak in the name of any religion or any group but his own name, I do not see the importance off adding him to the context, certainly not to the lead. Also there is no need to expand religious debates and religious views.--Tritomex (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Tritomex, what on earth are you talking about? Prior was an expert on the area, and the article no where illustrates the principle you just invented. His book in several places mentions also the theological issues of land, not just here, and this section is about religious beliefs regarding the land.Please master policy guidelines. Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that "prophecies that were superseded by the coming of Jesus" should go in the lead of this article, in the same way as I do not thing that in the article regarding Jesus Christ Jewish theological views should take third of the lead. Prior as a technologican has no formal education for law so his personal standing on law, legality or sovereignty rights are WP:UNDUE for this article.--Tritomex (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead on supersession might well be abridged in a synthetic statement, while retaining the body of that text in the main part of the article. As to your animus against Prior, it is incomprehensible. Any scholar or specialist writing on I/P issues will range over politics, law, history, society etc., while having only one field of specialization. This, Tritomex, is absolutely normal, and you are inventing, as they like to say round here, strawman arguments. Prior is making an acceptable historical analogy: he is not arguing a legal case (nor are the rabbis or Zionists for that matter).Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Should they wait to a separate response for what's above or continue from here? trespassers william (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Who are 'they'? Does 'to? stand for 'for'? And what is a 'separate response'?Nishidani (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Two days ago I reverted and put the basic arguments on the talk. You quickly accused me of laziness by the evening received the expanded version. Since, you havn't answered it. Take your time if you want, but let me know. trespassers william (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me translate that then. You elided, then restored the quote from Prior. I apparently accused you of laziness. That far, I have understood.Nishidani (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want to know why Prior is there still, it is because no policy-based argument, other than antipathy (to a Catholic priest?) is there. According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, a large part of the case for Israel's establishment and for its colonial possession of the West Bank (Israel+West Bank =Eretz Israel/Land of Israel) is based on a 'moral argument', one of which derives from the Bible' claim (2007:pp.78-110ff.esp.p.79) This article analyses a theological designation for Israel's moral claim to the land. No one objected to my expansion of the coverage on Evangelicals and Christian Zionists, but as soon as I cited, per WP:Due, the skeptical perspective on the biblical claim, via Prior, some editors bridled. They object that his argument is a legal one, and his book contains the word 'moral' while ignoring that part of the legal claim is based on a theological and moral argument, as outlined here. This reaction is therefore totally incoherent. We are still debating the point. At the moment, we have a dislike objection, nothing else. Nishidani (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Where is the ref to M and Walt? Is "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," Kennedy School of Government Working Paper No. RWP06-011 the right version? BTW, the policy arguments you wanted are still waiting. Look up. trespassers william (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have my copy, but a google link to the page where it is stated that, according to this view, 'it is clear from the Bible that Israel's creation is God's will'. What do you mean by 'arguments you wanted are still waiting'? None of the points made has any relevance.
(a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Bias in sources = 'Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.'
That is precisely what inclusion of Prior does.
(b)=Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.
Prior was a trained scholar, and is respectably published. There is no policy objection, but rather a policy citation that, on examination, proves question-begging.
(c)The rest of the objection is garbled opinionizing. I.e.'Prior makes a flyby analogy between early modern intl law and the contemporary field.' Prior states what everyone knows: there is no basis in international law for a land claim based on theology. He is stating the obvious, and makes an analogy of what would happen were this religious principle used more broadly than the unique case of Israel. Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As to WP:LEDE, this remark is incorrect, since the body of the article has extensive comments on the religious history and use of religious principle down through to modern times. I have already noted that most of the 3rd paragraph could be excorporated, substituted by a summary, while the material is placed in a relevant section. As it stood, it asserted an ideological-theological viewpoint without balance, and that was why it was expanded. This is done by consensus.Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to reply to this tomorrow or Monday, and to the 2007 source A little later. trespassers william (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(a)That's a given. The question is whether Prior is of due weight, or write in the same context as the preceding views.
(a again) "and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view"
I do agree with Prior's brief comment, on its level as a living-room-talk-like sentimental one, not a real argumentative "challenge" as you make of it. At any rate its inclusion gives the impression that he does make a legal case, because of the quote itself and because it is followed by a sentence about legal cases. You (See (c)), Tritomex and I are still battling to interpret how significant is the legal terminology of his argument, and that in itself make him not the best possible source, and our opinions worth expressing.
(c) You let yourself add "Prior states what everyone knows: there is no basis in international law for a land claim based on theology". The two of us would like to hear that from a lawyer, (no comment on the M and W yet) and once found, probably I won't object to marry their claims to Prior's. (What strikes me as odd in that shift from moral and historical statements to legalistic ones, is that (everybody knows?) many legal claims have ephemeral products that claim a cultural link. I know they all have their currency, but really don't know what is their value in legal terms. The same goes for indigenous rights claims. And Prior really doesn't help figure it out.)
If you have any source in international law that accepts land title can be based on religious claims that date back centuries, by all means provide it. I've, over the years, searched this, well, thoroughly, without coming up with an instance, and these claims are explicitly rejected in the Israeli legal system itself.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(b) To invoke, "it may be reliable in the specific context", one has to define the field one wants to balance, which is exactly what I argue has been stretched a bit. After all, it may also not be etc. (I guess you can find an author that argues every attempted land appropriation, and their legitimizing agents, is nothing but an attempt to subjugate foreign women and elongate the land in a phallic fashion. That won't be relevant to our context:) What the theological arguments presented above Prior (and the fascinating dialog with Christian Zionism below) have in common is that they go from within a religious or biblical-literal premise and suggest political action according to their interpretation. Does Prior?
(LEDE) So where do see a place for that point down the article? The best (only) spot I could find is after "Other Protestant groups and churches reject Christian Zionism on various grounds." This line can also be copied to the lede as is. But honestly I think Prior's point has found its best home at Zionism#Characterization as colonialism or ethnic cleansing, because it still looks like its moral context, i.e. its contradiction with indigenous rights, is the one most intended.
trespassers william (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Please note I thickened the lead with several sources while expanding its terms, to balance the wholly theological slant of the third paragraph as it originally was. Check the diffs. It was an extensive exposition of a cultural belief or claim. Prior's note is minimal, and it is commonplace analogy.
As is usual in Wikipedia (present editors excepted), people tend to work talk pages far more passionately than the associated articles themselves. Prior was a theologian dealing throughout his book with the theological-religious roots of Zionism, and its land claims. The paragraph in question deals with precisely this issue, and therefore it is appropriate. There's tons of stuff on this angle re 'the land of Israel' and its discussion esp, in religious/Christian quarters, all waiting there to be used in an appropriate section. A few more, only a few, because I am busy, but anyone can get this off google books by the truckload.
David P. Gushee, In the Fray: Contesting Christian Public Ethics, 1994-2013, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014 pp.228-229
Michael Prior ‘Israel-Palestine: A Challenge to Theology,’ in Stanley E. Porter,Michael A. Hayes,David Tombs (eds.)Faith in the Millenium, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 pp.59-83, pp.62-3
(2)It was made by Lord Sydenham in the British Parliamenty debate on the Balfour Declaration. Zionists, he said, "have no more valid claim to Palestine, than the descendants of the Ancient Romans have to this country." (3) The King–Crane Commission Report dismissed the Zionist claim. It wrote that the claim, "often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.' (4) 'The International Court of Justice 'rejected a concept of original, or ancient, title. In a dispute between Britain and France over two islands in the English Channel controlled by Britain in modern times, France claimed "an original feudal title." The court stated that France's ancient title "could today produce no legal effect." If ancient title were recognized, the result would be perpetual war, as communities claimed the land that belonged to their ancestors. Ancient title would require the dismemberment of many existing states.' (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, Duke University Press, 1990 p.69)
I.e. Prior's point is common and therefore cannot be isolated as a personal opinion by a non-expert; the analogy has precedents; International Law explicitly dismisses such claims, and Israel itself does not use that claim or argument in its own courts dealing with land title. Really, lads, more work on the expansion of the article, and less quibbling would do wonders here.Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My problems with the proposed sentence are:
  1. The quotation leads to the conclusion that the problem is the historicity of the warrant, more than its religious origin. Then why does the proposed sentence say "ancient religious"? I'd remove the word "religious".
  2. Why does the proposed sentence say "often", if the challenge is only in one book? I'd remove the word "often", and possibly say clearly "was challenged by Michael Prior in his book "The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique"."
Debresser (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. One could remove ancient.
'Often' is my memory. I've read that so many times (not with Prior's exact analogy though. In that sense one could also remove 'often'). It's not peculiar to Prior (Mearsheimer and Walt say similar things, and have a significant lot of extra material on the Christian Zionist theological reasoning to support the idea that Israel is entitled by divine right to all of the land (Eretz Israel) cf. pp.132ff. The Christian reasoning is, bizarrely, that Zionist repossession is a 'sign of the end', and thus Jews are completing the Christian God's design for Armageddon, unwittingly, but to a good end, since in the Christian fundamentalist vision, all Jews by taking possession of Eretz Israel will set down the premise for their own extinction or conversion on the Last Day. This anti-Semitic revocation of a Holocaust to end Judaism by decimation or conversion is cynically (in politically terms brilliantly astute) used by sections of the Jewish Zionists to gain political support from Christian America, since Zionists are more rational than Christian fundamentalists, and intelligently exploit the hallucinated illusions of the latter to confirm a secular reality. I'll look around further.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not think that an article about the land of Israel should elaborate in the lead the visions of "Christian fundamentalist" regarding Armageddon, "conversion on the Last Day" nor its political relationship with Zionism.This is simply not a subject here.--Tritomex (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nishidani You said that "ancient" can be removed. Didn't you mean "religious"? Debresser (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The religious claim is ancient. Either will do, though both would be better. It's just that I don't think this is worth worrying the article to death about. I really do think, having looked at sources, that editors should be expanding it, and not getting anxious about epithets. Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New section as proposed, to expand the lead para line re land claim and law etc

The idea that ancient religious texts can be warrant or divine right for a modern claim has often been challenged

  • According to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, a large part of the case for Israel's establishment and for its colonial possession of the West Bank (Israel+West Bank =Eretz Israel/Land of Israel) is based on a 'moral argument', one of which derives from the Bible' claim (2007:pp.78-110ff.esp.p.79)
  • It was made by Lord Sydenham in the British Parliamenty debate on the Balfour Declaration. Zionists, he said, "have no more valid claim to Palestine, than the descendants of the Ancient Romans have to this country."
  • The King–Crane Commission Report dismissed the Zionist claim. It wrote that the claim, "often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a 'right' to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.'
  • 'The International Court of Justice 'rejected a concept of original, or ancient, title. In a dispute between Britain and France over two islands in the English Channel controlled by Britain in modern times, France claimed "an original feudal title." The court stated that France's ancient title "could today produce no legal effect." If ancient title were recognized, the result would be perpetual war, as communities claimed the land that belonged to their ancestors. Ancient title would require the dismemberment of many existing states.' (John Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, Duke University Press, 1990 p.69)
  • Michael Prior, The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, A&C Black 1997 p.171: ‘As an agent of legitimacy in international law, the Zionist appeal to Tanakh for legitimation of its claims to Eretz Israel is not much more compelling than if the Portuguese and Spanish Governments today presented to the UN the bulls of Nicholas V and Alexander VI, which also claimed divine authority, in their bid to reclaim the lands of the New World. p.171.
  • David P. Gushee, In the Fray: Contesting Christian Public Ethics, 1994-2013, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014 pp.228-229
  • Michael Prior ‘Israel-Palestine: A Challenge to Theology,’ in Stanley E. Porter,Michael A. Hayes,David Tombs (eds.)Faith in the Millenium, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001 pp.59-83, pp.62-3 Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. I hope you do not plan to use all of these as references? You should probably limit it to sources that specifically mention Israel. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not an article about one sided political claims/propaganda of Zionist immorality, nor this article debates legal arguments regarding establishment of the State of Israel.--Tritomex (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. Who said it was? I am endeavouring to respond precisely and with evidence to editors who have addressed queries my way. Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd paragraphs re St Augustine

are all WP:OR and irrelevant. Unless one can show Augustine is specifically talking about 'the land of Israel', this has no place here. It sounds more like some Bible-bashing Christian polemic over the superior theological claims to God by Christians, as opposed to Jews. Anyone agree with me that it should be removed?Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though I actually have little idea what the topic of this article really is. Zerotalk 00:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

why two maps for the mandate period

What is the purpose for having two maps for the mandate period? The first one is barely relevant and its caption will be misunderstood, while the second one has more information relevant to this page (though the Picot-Sykes borders aren't much relevant). Zerotalk 00:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what your issue is - the two maps contain different information - one is 3 proposals based on Sykes-Picot (predating the mandate), the other is the actual mandate handed down by the League of Nations They illustrate different things, and both are relevant to the article. Epson Salts (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No, this article is about a religious-geographical concept. The only part of that section which is actually on-topic is the part about use of the name Eretz Yisrael in Palestine. None of it applies to Transjordan. Zerotalk 00:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The map shows the mandate handed down for Palestine, called "Ertez Yisrael" . What the issue? Epson Salts (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The only part ever called Eretz Yisrael is shown in the first map. Zerotalk 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It's shown in both. Epson Salts (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Which is why two maps is one more than necessary. Zerotalk 01:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. both maps show the territory that was called Erez Yisarel, but each shows a different modern day proposal for how that territory should be administered. The maps show different information. Epson Salts (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
There was never a proposal that Transjordan be part of the Jewish state other than the Zionist proposal shown in the first map that included part of it. That seems to be what you have in mind even though you aren't saying it, since the only thing in the second map that isn't already in the first map is the borders of Transjordan. Zerotalk 02:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
No, what's in the second map are the borders of the actual mandate handed down. Epson Salts (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mandatory Palestine/FAQ, the linked sources page, and the talk page archives. Sources are very clear on this. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
"The definitions of the limits of this territory vary between passages in the Hebrew Bible, with specific mentions in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Nine times elsewhere in the Bible, the settled land is referred as "from Dan to Beersheba, and three times it is referred as "from the entrance of Hamath unto the brook of Egypt” (1 Kings 8:65, 1 Chronicles 13:5 and 2 Chronicles 7:8)."."
Can someone please explain to me how a thousands year old mythology is related to 20th century imperialism ?? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the map is not relevant directly to the issue of the boundaries of the Land of Israel, but it is relevant to illustrate the boundaries of the British Mandate. All in all I am neutral on this. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Too bad, the British Mandate is not the topic of this article. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see anyone discussing. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been discussing this, at length, as have others. Do you think you are just going to show up after a two week hiatus and restore your preferred version? Epson Salts (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
You could ask an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. At the moment it would probably be closed as "no consensus for change". Debresser (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually ES is the only one arguing for two maps, which is the topic of this section. The only reason ES gave for including the second map is to support the Jordan=Palestine myth, which is not a reason at all. Zerotalk 00:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my argument, and not for the first time. Never once did I say Jordan-Palestine. In addition to me, No More eMr Nice Guy also rejected Maketoss' change. So , as Debresser says, there is no consensus for that change. Epson Salts (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Rather, you have no argument to refuse this correction and the only that seems to be yours is pov-pushing the myth that Palestine=Jordan, as Zero0000 states. Pluto2012 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No, my argument is presented above, and it is not Jordan=Palestine, You need to read more carefully. Epson Salts (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You said "what's in the second map are the borders of the actual mandate handed down" handed down to the Jews to become the Land of Israel? Makeandtoss (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
No, handed to the British. Epson Salts (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The British were not handed any territories, they themselves were the ones who drew borders in the sand and made "territories". Please enlighten me, on the connection between the British and the Land of Israel ? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The only authority the British had there was the one given to them by the league of Nations. Epson Salts (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
And how exactly is the Land of Israel related to what the British did? Makeandtoss (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The LoN gave the British their mandate while considering the historical connection of the Jews to that area, as embodied by the concept of the 'Land of Israel'. Epson Salts (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The LoN excluded Jewish settlement, they clearly did not legitimize any alleged "historical connections". Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the relevance of the British Mandate for this article about the Land of Israel, is that the the mandate was physically part of that same historical Jewish homeland. A fact that lead to the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, where the area allocated to the State of Israel was not identical to that of the Land of Israel, with all its far-reaching consequences up til the present day. Debresser (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Huh? In 1947, Arabs and Jews lived in the "Land of Israel", the partition plan simply allocated the Arab majority towns to an Arab state and the Jewish majority towns to a Jewish state (not always, but generally). The partition plan did not attempt to create a Jewish state over the so called "Jewish homeland", because there are so many interpretations and opinions to a Jewish homeland is. From the Nile to the Euphrates? Both banks of the Jordan? Both banks of the Jordan, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon?? The borders in this map are literally randomly made. Assuming that Winston Churchill sneezed harder (Winston's Hiccup), and he drew Transjordan's borders a couple of kilometers into Saudi Arabian territory, would the Jews now magically have "claims" to hundreds of square kilometers of desert? That is nonsense. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
You are stubbornly trying to make do as though editors here are talking about a direct connection, while the truth is that the connection is indirect. And that is still enough reason to have the map. It would be nice if you were to accept consensus on this issue, instead of hacking away at something that nobody is even claiming. By the way, if you wish, the connection can be viewed even as direct, in that the fact that the borders as dictated in 1948 by the British are significantly less than whatever interpretation of the borders of the Land of Israel, may have contributed to a certain impulse from religious Israelis to enlarge the borders. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
How is it not a direct connection? There are 6 maps in the article, one of which is a map of the Levant, while 4 maps are biblical interpretations of the "Land of Israel". You cannot simply superimpose maps because you think its relevant. Not to mention that 0 sources have been put forward to support any relevancy argument. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Dovid. Unlikely (a) the religious literature already envisaged larger borders (b) many Zionist leaders, among them Ben-Gurion in the 20s, foresaw an Israel larger than the British Mandate, including southern Lebanon, parts of Syria, Jordan and the whole of the Sinai. I asked you several months ago to specify what you understood by the Land of Israel, and you said you'd give it a thought. Editors who cannot, like all rabbinical tradition, determine what that means, should at least clarify this. Not knowing what is meant by the words we use renders all discussion pointless.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
To be more precise, the 'Land of Israel' as you cannot but know, in religious rulings is the land within which Jewish law prevailed, meaning where idolatry was absent, the sabbatical year observed etc.(certainly in a religious sense, not Tel Aviv).'The places where Jewish (religious) law did not prevail were not considered to be part of the land.' It's extraordinary to see how this article screws up the traditional rabbinical definitions with the modern hijacked political sense.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. This article should deal with all meanings of the term, not just "traditional rabbinical definitions". If a term changed over time you'd expect an encyclopedia article about it to cover everything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I found it unclear what precisely Nishindai's point is, but if that is it, then I agree completely with No More Mr Nice Guy. As I said above, Wikipedia articles can and do contain images and maps not only about their direct subject but also images and maps related to the subject in a less direct way. Debresser (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Expostulations like 'nonsense!' are void of content. Dovid, to clarify: listing the biblical passages in order, as from n.30 through to 40, for example, is improper. There are many secondary studies which analyse the differences between the two map types underlying the 'eretz israel' references both in the Bible and rabbinical tradition: the Jordan is an absolute boundary in one, and the idea probably reflects the views of the Jerusalem priestly caste: the larger imperial map imitates the Babylonian model, as it was understood by priests who had undergone exile. For over 2,000 years, unaware that the Bible reflects recensions of distinct priestly traditions and their reworking, the rabbis tried to iron out the divergences, but basically defined eretz Israel as where the laws stemming from the covenant were to be binding, the 'territory' was defined in terms of where the law was enacted or to be enacted in the future. NMMGG's non-point ignores the fact that the entire concept as a mythoreligious idea remained such for 2,000 years, and then underwent a modern recasting by secularists in terms of the geopolitical claims expressive of colonial ambitions, by people who had no understanding either of the internal contradictions in the concept, and of the fact that it amalgamates a dual set of priestly cosmologies, not an historical reality. The standard scholarly approach to a concept is to establish how it developed historically. This is generally known, except among Wikipedia editors.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hm, Nishidani. I seem to remember that you yourself are not a stranger to using expostulations of various types yourself... Anyways, what is the point of this Biblical analysis/exegeses? Debresser (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I've prefaced a response with 'nonsense' and then argued, usually citing relevant books, why I make that judgement. An exclamation without a reason is meaningless. As to the rest, I thought I needed to throw some historical light on why the eretz Israel discussions are indeterminate, since the 2 map controversy goes back to the 6th century BCE. I still would appreciate you telling me eventually what your view is on where Eretz Israel's borders are.Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Land_of_Israel/Archive_2&oldid=1043898177"