Talk:Neturei Karta/Archive 3

Controversies

there probably should be a controversy section like in many other wiki articles that are sensitive in nature. i see there are links to sites apposed to them, but maybe an author can interpret them and put it on this site??68.229.51.154 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation Problems: The sections wherein Iranian President Ahmedinijad is referred to as having advocated "wiping Israel from the pages of history" and of "denying the Holocaust" need to be adjusted. He didn't say these things, as any speaker of Farsi can attest. His words were mistranslated (on many occasions) by MEMRI, an organization headed by former Israeli intelligence officials and whose homepage emphasizes the "continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people." Obviously, they have an agenda, and their translations of any Farsi or Arabic speeches should be closely examined. UofM's Juan Cole, along with several others, offers accurate translation of the speeches.

like in any translation made in the UN everyone must assume that the interpreter is accurate. there is no point in argueing with the interpretations.68.229.51.154 (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of edit indicating that _no_ Jewish religious groups support NK

The fact that the Satmars, the sole group the NK have claimed any connection to historically, prominently backed this initiative puts the lie to any further efforts to attempt to present NK as supported by any Jewish religious group. Note, it is not just the 5-6 representatives of NK who went and shared spit with Ahmadinejad who are being targeted, it is the entire leadership of NK. Tomer^talk 05:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Please grow up. That link you are showing (which ynetnews.com prominently reported yesterday) belongs to the 'Jewish Defense Organization', a little group of Kahanist Zionazis. Satmar 'prominently backing' the JDO? Please grow up.

Satmar never criticized all of NK. It is only the 7 guys who went to Iran who were being criticized, both by Satmar-NY and by the Edah HaChareidis. See the Satmar daas Torah pashkeville, above on this talk page you'll find a link. Now please grow up.

Oh, edit: I forgot to mention that these guys are not 'NK', they do not represent NK and do not have any authority to speak in the name of 'NK'. They have been ejected from NK shuls in Jerusalem. --Chussid 09:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the above diatribe considered to pass for civility in the Chareidi world? Tomer^talk 00:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While Satmar has no connection to the JDO, there is evidence that the first Satmar Rov, R' Yoel Moshe Teitelbaum ZYA, condemned NK. This would have had to be before 1979 when he passed away and very likely before he suffered a stroke in the late 60's. However, I do not know which specific NK group he was referring to. Also, JDO are not Kahanists; they are a splinter group led by Mordechai Levy, whom I know personally (unfortunately). I can vouch that he is certifiably mentally ill as he spoke to me at length and kept referring to paranoid fantasies about people listening to our conversation and about noises that he heard while we were speaking in a quiet room on Shabbos. Neither the Teheran 6 nor Levy represent anyone other than themselves - both have a handful of fellow travelers.71.247.30.65 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The first Satmar Rov didn't condemn NK. That was up on wikipedia based on a quote from Divrei Yoel, which when I translated it from Yiddish, was actually a quote about Aggudas Yisroel. It has been taken down because of that. I personally think the perso who posted it should be banned from editing, since it was an obvious purposeful misquote. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Operation Crackpot, which called for people to be run out of their homes then posted their addresses and phone numbers, is a terrorist initiative. By every definition of terrorism I personally can think of, threatening people and harrassing them in their homes in order to silence their political views is terrorism. 88.154.27.69 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Operation Crackpot is one group of crackpots having fun with another group of crackpots. May the best crackpots win. However, the Teheran crackpots are widely condemned whereas the JDO is just a handful of misfits.

I'm wondering if anyone can produce a page from Der Yid regarding the Satmar denunciation. Around here (Jerusalem area) the Zali's are all denying it, and Reb Aaron's people are saying the Zali's did say it. Also, I have a radio broadcast of the DOr Acharon, one of Reb Aaron's poseks, yelling that the Zali's have, "slandered honorable Kanoyim," and supporting the Teheran goers. Can I post that as a source that Reb Aaron's people supported the Teheran goers? Any objections, and if so why? 82.81.68.170 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

someonelse found these, as above somewhere, but theyr'e no longer there. so i just uploaded them: Image:Satmaragainstnk.jpg Image:Satmaragainstnk2.jpg the 2nd one is the page from der yid. i know nothing about using radio shows as sources, but why not try it & see what happens...  ⇒ bsnowball  18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I read them. The reason they are no longer up at yeshivishworld is because these particular examples (there could be others) are forgeries. Maybe if someone can find real ones, it would be helpful. (They use the word Shoah in them, which is a Modern Hebrew word not used in Satmar releases. They use "the last war" or "the big war" or "the matter of the camps" in their releases.)Does anyone live near Zali area in the Us who could just tear one down and scan it or something? 82.81.103.16 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. You are correct that Satmar does not normally use the word Shoah, but it could be a policy change by R' Zalman Leib's people. The irony is that this is what they accused Reb Aaron of - using modern Hebrew. Anyways, it probably is not a forgery. It does seem a bit off though. Calling Iranians "Aravim" is not the most accurate description. In any case, it should be clarified that we are speaking of the Zali's. Kiryas Yoel hasn't made a statement. Shia1 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"de-poving" anyone?

can we remove, or discuss removal of, most/all of the a7 criticisms. they are know to be lies, this can probably be demonstated unequivocally, & no other real news source carried them. perhaps a couple of sentences on a7 'propaganda' is appropriate, but difficult to see how such wldn't be o r. (please note i'm not the annon who blanked that section recently, i don't think that was quite the way to go about it...) also can random criticism like "Such beliefs have led to accusations that the group perpetuates a "ghetto mentality" in which Jews have little to no agency in determining their fate in the world." (marked unsourced for some time) go?  ⇒ bsnowball  09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes and yes. --Chussid 10:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I put up an article from Malchama B'Amalek that disproved the "decades old ban" from our synagogues part of the arutz7 piece, but it was taken down by another user pretty fast without explenation. Can we have a real discussion over whether Ynet and arutz7 are valid news sources. I mean these are the people who had my wife in a panic because her MO family kept calling becase Ynet was saying Syrian troops had massed on the border during the Lebenon War. Shia1 23:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ynet is full of errors, intentional or otherwise. A7 has a particular point of view and is often biased. However, everyone, including anti-Zionists, is in agreement that the Teheran 6 represent no one and are deserving of ostracism and ridicule.

Thank you. Does everyone agree we should just remove those parts? Right now the article is internally contradictory. Everytime Neturei Karta breathes Ynet says Satmer put them in Herem. How many times can people be put in Herem? I'm not a dayan, but my understanding is that it is a one time deal. Also, can I ask something perhaps inflamatory? Has anyone put in a call to the B'datz to see if their statement is genuine? Given the amount of emotion and the demonstratable penchant of some to forge documents, it might be prudent. If I were to call, how would I site the call in the article. Would a recording be sufficient if then downloaded onto Utube? Shia1

the usual suspects say yes get rid of it all... but we have the same problem as with the a7 thing (although at least there many will agree it's propaganda, & fairly badly put together propaganda at that) we need reliable source saying its rubbish, or it's technically 'or'. with the phone call, it will be claimed it could be faked etc. is it not possible to find something in writing & translate it? otherwise if there is no discussion, agree, remove, see what happens. discuss if people disagree. & not revert (of course...) while there is discussion. ps last time this came up someone said the satmarer beit din have never put anyone in herem since the rebbe came to america, is this the case? it would make it less likely.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that the ynet and a7 nonsense needs removed, because it is self contradictory and, well, nonsense. How can someone put a group of people in Cherem multiple times? But the B'daz and later Zoli Satmar things just need confirmed. What confirmation process would satisfy everyone? BTW, people are making way to big a deal of the Zali statement. It's not a Cherem. I saw theyeshivaworld, or whatever, had the signs under, "The cherems continue." I suppose they can't read. The statement simply says those 7 should not be encouraged or assosciated with; basically consigning them to the same level as the Aggudah is on among the Satmar. Scratch your heads over that one. So, yes, it was forceful; but all it did was put Rav Weiss on the same level in the minds of half the Satmars (Reb Aaron's people said nothing, and, yes, the DOr Acharon flipped out on the Zolis over the whole thing) as the ROsh Yeshivah Lakewood, and one up from the OU who are considered idolators and treife wine for the Satmars. Oh the wonders of Kanoisdika politics. Shia1 08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Which statements are POV in the current version of the article?--Redaktor 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It kinda seems like a valid view, seeing as God DID banish the Jews from their home.. but it's not like they got it back themselves, AMERICA did that. That's not the same as fighting for it yourself before messianic times, it's, like, a gift. Japheth dwelling in Shem's tent and all that. Just returning the favor.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Numbers problems

You'll often find numbers disparity between number of delegates in any meeting cited by news sources, particularly in the Jewish press; and ones cited by NK or featured in pictures later. I'm reluctant to spill NKs beans, but they will announce a meeting and name the delegates going before they go, but often leave a few out or name more than are going to make it obvious when Op/Eds or News pieces were actually written before the actual meeting and just put in the paper after. It's a funny tactic and one they've used succesfully against Yeted Ne'eman several times. For example, after NKs first mission to Iran, YNeeman denounced the 4 delegates very harshly, except there were five. They also made comments about how foolish NK reps sounded at their Press conference at a certain hotel, when NK had switched it to a different hotel at the last minute. 82.81.103.16 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Desperate need of discussion

I would like to add to the history section, as it is very sparce. The problem is that NK history contains several incidents that many Zionist people may not be comfortable being mentioned. For example Amram Blau suffered blunt force castration by the IDF, the printer who printed the leaflett that NK gets its name from was murdered by the hagannah for his actions, and Moshe Hirsh was blinded by a settler. Also, doesn't the violence recently perpetrated against the Iran mission deserve mention? One site I saw brags that the London gentlemans car was destroyed and his home ruined?. Is there a way we can insert this information without it being so anger inducing that the article is vandelized back to its old extremely POV self again? Discussion? Shia1 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reb Amram Blau ZYA did not suffer blunt force castration "at the hands of the IDF." He was wounded by a shell during the 1948 war. There was no vandalism against anyone in London - Cohen is from Manchester. No one knows who threw acid at Hirsch.

Thank you for beginning the discussion. My source for Amram Blau's injury was the article, "We will not believe we will not follow." You are correct about Rabbi Hirsh's attacker, he was not apprehended, but he was dressed like a settler in Batei Ungarin. Do you think we should not mention about his appearence? I suppose there are arguments either way. Shia1

Okay, I found this article "The Lost Leader" (Time Magazine) September 10, 1965 which says AMram BLau was injured lightly by shrapnel, and found "We Do not believe, We will not follow," which says he was castrated by the IDF during a protest against Sabbath desecration. Since we have video now of the IDf conducting blunt force castrations in Armona, I think both are equally likely. Any ideas how to either clear up the confussion, or present both ideas? Shia1 08:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain that Reb Amram ZYA's halachic status was "ptzua daka" and not "saris." Would this back up the "shrapnel" version? 69.113.169.185 04:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

we could leave it out here here, as it would only be of noteworthy here if it were definitely 'zionist violence'. i missed the different versions, oops, in the blau stub (that needs a lot more btw) i suppose both versions can go in there? i avoided the whole issue as it's relation to the marriage controversy seemed a bit speculative, but it is all in "we will not follow". with other stuff, maybe most of weiss & tehran should go in weiss's article, just a summary here? also what do we think of removing the "they praised ahmedijad"? israelinfo.com isn't really rs in this context.  ⇒ bsnowball  10:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should take out the, "They praised ahmedijad." That is accurate. But it should be perhaps clarrified by what they praised him for. RIght now it is ambiguous to the point where it is not clear whether they praised him for having a nuclear fuel program, treating Iranian Jews nicely, being a snazzy dressser, or what. According to the transcripts of their speaches, they praised him for drawing a distinction beyween Judaism and Zionism, and for allowing them to speak. The problem is that if we put in just the facts of what was said, it ends up seeming that the 7 are not bad at all and that the people angry with them are overactionary zealots. There has to be a way to present the facts as they are while showing that the reaction was driven by perhaps justifiable emotions. Also, the whole section on their missions needs cleared up. It's not even chronological right now. I prupose it be made chronological, each mission mentioned, the reaction of the people they met with mentioned, any success from the mission mentioned, any negative consequences mentioned, the reaction of the various anti-Zionist groups to the mission mentioned, and the reaction of Zionists mentioned. If done like that, there will be a nice balance and a clear picture made instead of the POV hate fest presently on the page. Shia1 03:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Trying to Start Anything

Hey, whomever added the whole bit about Not Kosher etc. Cut it out, this place isn't a place for you to voice your specific objections about any group. If you do have a problem with a group like this one maybe you should try this trick. Find a well-respected or famous individual, let's say Joe Liebermen, (Who is no longer really so well-respected in a lot of circles, but still I think you get the point,) and say Joe Liebermen had said, "These guys are a bunch of idiots who don't represent Judaism." It would be more then OK to put that and even to write something like "Nearly all Jewish leaders and citizens oppose this group, for example Senator Lieberman said," etc. Also if you really want to make a statement sign your name. NOBODY likes someone who anonymously edits a page in a knowingly controversial way. I hope that we can all communicate civilly and that this was an honest misunderstanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatBrendan (talk • contribs) 02:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

There needs to be a clear separation between the Yerushalayim and perhaps Beit Shemesh "true" NK which follows in the ways of Reb Amram Bloy (Blau) ZYA and those who parade under the name Neturei Karta in the US and UK (as well as the Hirsches in Yerushalayim). 69.113.169.185 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I live in Ramat Beit Shemesh. The RBS Neturei Karta are hard-core followers of Rabbi Blau's son-in-law R' Moshe Hirsch. Last year, on YOm HaAtzmaut, there was a black flag and a Palestinian flag flying from every light post on the main street in RBS-B. ALso, the "true" Neturei Karta are mostly a fantasy of Yateed Neeman. Unless they are talking about R' K's people, at which point the main differences between them ar Rabbi k's people hold you shouldn't have public protests with goyim because you could come to marry them, use the internet because you could come to view evil things, and that it is permissable to bribe Aggudists to show your kids as being enrolled in their schools so the government can't take them away for truency; and R' Hirsch's people hold it is good to publicly demonstrate with anybody, the internet is not to be used for private entertainment, and bribing Aggudists makes you too friendly with aggudists. Everyone suports he meatings they do with goyishe leaders. ALso, can we clean up this article? THere are spots where it is pro-NK glurge, and parts where it is a anti-NK hate fest. Can't it juist be neutral? Shia1 03:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hirsch is not R' Amram Blau's son in law. He is Rabbi Katzenellenbogen's son in law. In any case it sounds like no one has really taken up the ways of Reb Amram ZYA. 69.113.169.185 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

R' Amram Blau's ways? Have your read, "Ani Koheles?" You might be thinking of Moshe BLau. 88.152.2.248 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Yisroel Dovid Weiss

Resolved

Support

1. Support. I still do not believe he is notable in his own right. -- Avi 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Even Neturei Karta excommunicated Mr. Weiss. See here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/nkcherem.jpg. Accordingly, Mr. Weiss cannot be part of NK. Now that his misrepresentations concerning his affiliation with NK has been exposed, the questions concerning whether those sources which supposedly revolve around Mr. Weiss's involvement with the Netueri Karta are even more poingant. I suggest, and this ought to mean something given my better understanding of this subject, that individuals who are not members of Neturei Karta should not be written about as though they are members of NK. Laymen should not be called Rabbis. Orhotodox Jews who shake women's hands should not be called Charedi. The list goes on. Even if we write an article on Weiss now (and what can it factually say, that he has Hungarian grandparents and that he has been excomunnicated for his misrepresentations to the world at large?) we have to be neutral, and factually correct. Although this appears to be obvious, it has not been the case for this subject. The continued deletions of basic and essential facts have been apalling. Given that it is now absolutely clear that he lied to all the sources, I suggest that we do not write about him nor do we include him in the NK. To do so would be outrageous. 67.81.158.13 17:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Absolutely oppose. There are lots of entries on Wikipedia for people less 'in the news' than YDW. Also YDW and NK are not the same entity, and merging would make him more 'official' as the NK world spokesman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoram Inger (talk • contribs)
2. Oppose. Weiss is notable enough for inclusion, IMO. CJCurrie 03:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

now two weeks old & very little interest. also has suvived afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yisroel Dovid Weiss) so this is now only deletion by stealth, am removing the merge tags.  ⇒ bsnowball  17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire Discussion page is hopelessly confusing and rambling. Is this what Wikipedia had in mind?? Furthermore, who decides when a particular group in NK assumes the title "fringe/radical Neturei Karta" as opposed to "mainstream Neturei Karta"? Since when did ANY part of NK become endorsed because certain individuals went to Iran, which is taboo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.2.198 (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Teheran section

This section is growing out of all proportion to the rest of the article. Can someone please edit it to a proportionate length?--Redaktor 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interpertations on Talmud Opposing NK

a while back i added this segment to the article but it was not well recieved and was eventually deleted by a couple editors. i'd appreciate some opinions on this text:

Interpertations on Talmud Opposing NK

The Tracte of Ketubot ("Marriege Contracts") is part of Nashim, the third order of the Mishnah containing the laws related to women and family life.

Other interpretations of the page (i.e., Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot Pg. 111a^[1]), include both that the people may come back to the land but the items of the Holy Temple must remain in Babylonia until a message from God is given (Jeremia 27, 21-22^[2]) and also a belief that this debate (Ketubot 110b-111a) applied only to the Babylonian Exile, lifted later [539BC] by Koresh^[3] (Cyrus the Great), ruler of the Persian empire who captured the area, and not to all exiles in general.

Another aspect of this short debate -- originating from a question about the type of currency to be used in the case of seperation in a country different than the one where the marriege took place -- would be that Rabbi Yehuda, was arguing with other Rabbis about them stating that Israel is more sacred than any other place, a statement first made in Pg. 110b. This short debate quickly turns to the topic of the sanctity of burial in Israel. Rabbi Yehuda repeats his views including the case of post mortem, and he's rebuttaled by Rabbi Aba Salla Rabba who gives Jacob (also known as Israel) as an opposing example to illustrate that Rabbi Yehuda is wrong.

-- thanks for your thoughts. Jaakobou 23:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

as it stands there is the problem of original research (tho this could probably be fixed), but more importantly it's arguable whether these interpretations belong in the article about nk, wouldn't they be more appropriate in article on 'religious zionism' or whoever it is who follows these interpretations? ps thnx for raising this in discussion rather than simply putting it back in :) ben  ⇒ bsnowball  11:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. obviously, considering NK base their entire ideology on ketubot 111a, it is very much relevant.. perhaps a sub-section under "criticism.
2. to the OR issue, it's not too hard to just read the text.. it's not an "open for interpertation" text, the text itself has a few rabbies debating - and this paragrah simply converts their words into simple english. Jaakobou 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Completely wrong. This is not criticism of NK; it is criticism of Jewish anti-Zionism, which is considerably larger than NK.

NK has about 1000 members worldwide, I would think. The majority of them are normal people who consider Yisroel Dovid Weiss, Moshe Hirsch etc to be idiots who should be locked up in a mental institute.

Satmar has about 100,000 adherents. If you don't believe me, check these links: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6445564357351911107&q=Satmar+sheva+broches ;

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=315640509711733551&q=satmar+motzei+shabbos ; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4982542403965709581&q=satmar+motzei+shabbos ; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4157835359297228704&q=Satmar+10%2F10%2F2006 ; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1253202060257145191&q=Satmar+sheva+broches .

They hold by exactly the same ideology as NK. So do many other groups, including the Edah HaChareidis of Jerusalem and all of its affiliated groups - not only Satmar, but also Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, and many others. The only difference is that they don't join hands with Arab Jew-murderers. --Rabbeinu 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jaakobou. Rebbenu is almost completely right, except he limited himself to much. YOur observation on Kesubos is criticism of the Heradi world as a whole, and could be moved to an article about the difference between haredim and mizrachniks. Not just those groups known as anti-Zionists hold the three oaths are broken by the State of Israel, also the Aggudah does. Even Rav SOloveitchik of YU (mizrachnik) held they would be, but he felt the HOlocaust suffering anulled the three oaths. His arguement on this point was not Talmudic, but existential. Then you have the problem of the Rambam in Iggeres Teman, the Maharal, the Sfas Emes, the Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, and the Chofetz Chaim all siting the 3 oaths as reason to oppose either mass immigration or Zionism.

You might be suffering from a little bit of what is called Observor bias. (That's not an insult btw. It's just something we all go through.) YOur observations on the text might seem more germane on this subject because the crowd you move in doesn't believe in the 3 oaths, so you might assume fewer people do than is the reality. Whether the 3 oaths are valid is really not very germane to the NK article, because the NK view on Kesubos is not its point of departure from the rest of Heradi Judaism.

The Aggudah (Ponovich, Belz, Gur, Tzanz, Biale, etc.) and the Kenoyim (Eidah, Satmer, Bobov, Dushinsky, the Shomrei Emunim, Brisk, Chasam Sofer, etc.) both agree the three oaths are broken by the State of Israel. The Aguddah is split. Some think that now that the State is formed it will lead to inevitable bloodshead without end but nevertheless there is no mitzvah to dismantle it because this may be the means through which the prophecized blood bath comes, and now that it is here, one may vote, take money from it, and become a citizen to minimize the damage done to its inhabitants by the government (Opinion of the Steipler Gaon); and those that believe it is a mitzvah to tear it down, but it is okay in the meantime to take money, vote,and become a citizen to minimize the damage done to its inhabitants by the government. (opinion of the Chazon Ish and Rav Shach)In reality the second group is better called the Degel crowd, but they are usually counted as Aggudists, mostly because the kanoyim lump all voters and takers together.

BOth of these groups disagree with the Kenoyim on the issue of whether it is okay to become a citizen, take money and vote; but not on whether the 3 oaths are violated. How NK differs from the rest of the Kenoyim is not a question on Kesubos, but of other issues. That is when they disagree at all. Often there is no disagreement at all, and NK is just the Yerushalmi wing of the Kenoyim. FOr example, the Eidah endorse the original Iran mission, and Satmer Kiryas YOel, led by Rav Aaron, endorsed this latest Iran mission. ALso NK and the EIdah have recently kissed and made up because the Bdatz is in need of its shock troops again for the gay parade. THese things swing back and forth in the heradi world. In fact, often Agudas HaRabonim (the Rabbinical arm of Aggudas Yisroel) tries to make up with NK when it needs people to put their bodies where ther mouths are. (FOr example very few Aggudist voters are willing to leave the Beis Midrash and get beaten up just to show displeasure at a video store in Geulah, but NK will.)

Personally, I think this article would be a lot richer if some of this would be explained in it, but I have sworn off attempting to fix it because people who really have no knowledge of NK or the Heradi world outside of how it portrayed in Religious ZIonist newspapers will just erase anything that makes NK look like anything but nuts or monsters. Shia1 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Shia1: check the article Haredim and Zionism. That article was written under the title "Haredi anti-Zionism", but Hasbara guys changed it to "Haredim and Zionism". It was all about the view of Chareidim on Zionism, but they changed to make "Eim HaBonim Smeichoh" (of Teichtal the rosho) seem equal in importance and relevance among Haredim to "Vayoel Moshe" - in fact, the article mentions Teichtal's disgusting work before it mentions Vayoel Moshe, as if it were more important! If you want to cooperate on that article, please do... --Rabbeinu 07:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the damage was limited somewhat at this point. However, it still says totally completely ridiculous things (see what it says about "Hardal"). "The Hardal community is a community of Haredim who support the state of Israel." A plain lie. --Rabbeinu 08:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

Would anyone object to a clean up. The BELIEFs section mentions history, HISTORY mentions beliefs, and the history section is really trimmed down on that issue. ALso, would anyone object to making the article reflect NK asa Jewish movement more than a political movement, or in addition to a political movement. These people have customs and practices, as well as beliefs and seforim unrelated to ZIonism, at least directly. COuld we mention some of these? (Like radishes in soup on Shabbos, unplastered walls, not listening to music b'klal, tikkun hatzos etc.)88.152.2.248 11:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

GLobalize

I added a globalie tag because the article mentions Jewish POv alot, but doesn't mention what Arabs and Muslims think of the Organization, which given their mission seems important. TumbleRumble 09:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Dates

This article is short on dates. When was NK founded? --Redaktor 04:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) It was founded. It developed over time. 203.214.137.16 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Itzse's edits

Itzse: NK does not consider 1 posuk to be more important than others. In case you didn't know yet: NK is the very most extreme in the entire Jewish world in all respects. (Lunatics such as Hirsch and Weiss do not count.) They consider all parts of the amidoh of the chagim to be equally important. Also, the article clearly explains that NK does not have 'members'. It is more like Breslov in this regard. Can you be a member of Breslov? --Eidah 22:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but that's the posuk that was translated into English, I merely also gave its Hebrew source. If you want give all the psukim in English and I'll give its transliteration in Hebrew or vice versa.

I actually know some NK members/adherents/idealists, and some are quite lax in Yiddishkeit; their ideology uber alles. There actually are NK'niks who are members in every liberal and social idealogy under the sun.

Breslovers are devotees to their Rebbe Reb Nachmon of Breslov; but the NK don't have Rebbes; every one I know considers himself a Rebbe and thinks he speaks for God. Itzse 23:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this article NPOV. Yes, in mussaf of the chagim there is that posuk. Fine. What about all other places in rabbinic literature where these things are mentioned? Do I have to make a list of all of them? I'd rather just have it say "rabbinic literature". Otherwise, I'm going to have to provide a list with hundreds of references to places in rabbinic literature where it says this? Please quit that nonsense.

Oh right, now I see what you mean. The fact that the article mentioned the exact English translation of something that happens to be a posuk in mussaf of the chagim was just a coincidence, as far as I can see. The person who first wrote that did not intend it to be a translation/quote from the siddur. It's just a coincidence.

Further, could you clarify whether these people that you know are in Jerusalem/RBS, or elsewhere (NYC, London)? There is no relation at all between the real Neturei Karta in Jerusalem and RBS (ie, yeshivas Torah VeYiroh), who have many hundreds of adherents, and the idiots in London and NYC, who are only a handful. Of those in London and NYC who call themselves "NK", I readily believe that they are less than exemplary Jews. I have heard too many things about

them. --Eidah 07:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, about Hirsch' faction. Note that (according to the article also!) the Edah HaChareidis - in its weekly paper, HaEdah - strongly criticized those who went to Iran. Now note that last week, a praising article was written in HaEdah about those ziknei Yerusholaim who went to defend the honor of Yerusholaim at the UN office in Jerusalem (for pictures - the same pictures which were printed in HaEdah with praising commentary - see [4]). Also, HaEdah published announcements for a yortzeit tish lezeicher Reb Amrom Bloi zt'l. These facts alone should clearly establish that there are indeed two different NKs. Further, see one of the most important sources for this article: http://orthodoxanarchist.com/stash_spot/documents/zionism/we_do_not_believe_we_will_not_follow.pdf . I suggest that you guys read that article VERY well.

I quote:

Over the past decade or so, the most extreme members of Neturai Karta have become obsessed with reaching out to those whom many Jews see as bitter enemies — Palestinian militants, Iranian fundamentalists — to tell them that “true” Jews oppose Zionism with as much vehemence as many Arabs do. ...... In the last two years, the cyclotron of ideological pressure has even turned Neturai Karta on itself, resulting in the final split, which occurred this past September on the day before the Jewish New Year — one that pits Hirsch Jr. and his allies against Hirsch’s first cousin, Rabbi Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen, grandson of both of Neturai Karta’s founders and the head of several of Karta’s most important institutions, including its synagogue, in Jerusalem. ........ Concerns about cooperation with Zionists, says the younger Hirsch, is what led to this year’s rupture within Neturai Karta. Two years ago, he says, he discovered the community school’s administration, headed by Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen, had asked parents for their children’s Israeli identity card numbers. The only possible reason for this request, Hirsch Jr. says, is that Torah v’Yirah, which runs the school, was plotting to receive government funds provided by the ministry of education for each Israeli child. Hirsch Jr. says his investigations revealed that the ID numbers were “lent” to another school, run by a sympathetic group of Hasidic Jews, which then funneled the money received back to Neturai Karta. Hirsch says that Israeli ministry of education officials will not confirm his allegations because they have received monetary kickbacks for their cooperation. He also says that his cousin has longed for some time to rid Neturai Karta of its extremist element, especially after the spate of suicide bombings in Israel, which has made Karta’s open support of Palestinians anathema to moderates within Neturai Karta, and to long-time Neturai Karta contributors in the United States. ........ Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen says the split is based not on ideology but on hurt feelings and family dynamics, but moments after saying this, he hands me a book published last year by a Neturai Karta scholar named Daniel Biton. Biton attacks the extremists for their deep involvement in “the Internet and the international media,” secular media they use to advance their message, and more importantly, for their “partnership and connection to Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian politics which involves serious transgressions,” including tacit or open approval of the murder of Jews. ..........

Now these things ARE the truth. Please read this VERY carefully. --Eidah 12:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

One more remark. I participated in a largely NK demonstration in (Ramat) Beit Shemesh on Sunday, and there were hundreds of adult men participating. Hundreds - without counting the children and women. I can upload some pictures tonight when I am at home (currently at work) for those interested. --Eidah 13:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you on anything here except that the verse in Mussaf is not here by coincidence. This verse is used as the first argument when you try to argue with them. Ignorant of history they will usually tell you that we were kicked out of Eretz Yisroel two thousand years ago. When I point out to them that the Churban Beis Hamikdosh was 1938 years ago and ask them when and where was the Mishnah and Talmud Yerushalmi compiled; in Mexico? They stare at you blank and try to move to another argument.

I am of the opinion that every translation of a Hebrew verse needs to have its Hebrew transliteration and its source. It will serve WP much better if the reader will be able to link to the Mussaf liturgy and get a better picture of the subject. I think that more information is better then less information. The subject doesn't have to be complete in the article but together with all its links the subject should be complete. Pardon my ignorance but I don't know of any rabbinic literature from where this verse was translated, only from the Mussaf liturgy. Please show me where to look for it, and then we'll take the discussion from there or put back its transliteration. Also I don't know what this verse has to do with NPOV.

As to where those NK'niks are, I'd rather not tell you as I prefer staying anonymous. I am aware of all the nuances of the ideology of NK; just as I'm aware of the nuances among Satmer, Agudah and Mizrachi. For the record, Reb Amram Blau ZT"L was a great man and so was Reb Aaron Katzenelenboigen altough they were considered extreme even among the kanahim. But the NK of today are unadulterated certified nuts with an ideology that has absolutely nothing with the Torah. The good news is that they themselves have in the last decade started making fools out of themselves and they will continue on that path in the foreseeable future. Itzse 16:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

COI check. It seems quite apparent both of these users and editors have strong COI problems and should not be editing this article. Please monitor yourselves. If you are either a massive fan of NK and affiliated with a right wing Eidah group or are so against due to religious or political reasons that you actually either argue or have gedanken arguements with them involving insults in real life, thats a COI problem. Edit articles you are less invested in would be my suggestion to both of you. Basejumper2 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing Source

Could the link "Condemnation of Neturei Karta" be sourced? There is no way to tell if it is speaking of NK at all. Jabial 10:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The joke is even bigger: it is a link to an extreme-right wing ultra-Zionist 'news' site belonging to a 'news network' so radical that the State of Israel has denied it a license to broadcast (as a radio channel). And we rely on THEM to report about anti-Zionist Jews. --Eidah 10:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, this was from Dei'ah veDibur, I hadn't even realized that. Was there an article in Yateed Ne'eman at all, or not? I would trust Yateed Ne'eman. If there was, who was it speaking about? I don't speak hebrew so I can't check myself. By the way, if this link can't be sourced, it should be deleted. --Jabial 13:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If no reliable source is given to say that the allegations of this link are true, this link should really be deleted. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is for deleting unsourced information. Can I delete it myself if no proof is given within a week? --Jabial 20:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Odenheimer source

I knew I had seen that article before (see the Hirsch article). The article does NOT make the claim that Hirsch's faction is more extreme. It says that there are extreme members of NK (See page 73). Sources need to be represented accurately. -- Avi 15:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Eidah, firstly, I believe you just violated 3RR on the article. Secondly, the sentence on page 76 is talking about INDIVDUAL people, not Hirsh's entire group. You are misreading or miscomprehending the article, I believe. -- Avi 15:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it doesn't mention that? It is clear to anyone with an IQ of 80 and above that the article is talking about 2 factions, 1 led by Katzenellenbogen and 1 led by Hirsch. Then let's see a few quotes:

"He also says that his cousin has longed for some time to rid Neturai Karta of its extremist element, especially after the spate of suicide bombings in Israel, which has made Karta’s open support of Palestinians anathema to moderates within Neturai Karta, and to long-time Neturai Karta contributors in the United States"

"“You want the dirt?” Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen asks. He goes on to describe combat ultra-Orthodox–style: extremists grabbing the synagogue podium on Sabbath eve"

"Zelig Reuven Katzenelbogen says the extremists once doused him with water thrown from a second-story window"

"the elder rabbi’s son-in-law sides with the extremists and openly humiliated his father-in-law in synagogue"

"Another important Neturai Karta elder has remained with the moderates while his wife supports the radical faction."

"Biton attacks the extremists for their deep involvement"

"The counterclaim of the extremist camp is that their outreach efforts are aimed at saving Jewish lives."

"Still, Neturai Karta extremists have aligned themselves not with the “gentile” United States, but with America’s fiercest international opponents."

And you claim that you do not see the words 'extremist' and 'radical' anywhere being used to reference to the camp of Hirsch / Weiss? If you say that again, I'm going to have to recommend that you get new glasses. Not meant to insult you, just a remark.

So, no, I'm not going to self-revert. You should get new reading glasses. It was your error that you erroneously reverted me. My edit was NOT wrong. Your edit constituted the removal of sourced info. I suggest that we leave it at this. --Eidah 15:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please read this section twice:

Biton attacks the extremists for their deep involvement in “the Internet and the international media,” secular media they use to advance their message, and more importantly, for their “partnership and connection to Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian politics which involves serious transgressions,” including tacit or open approval of the murder of Jews.

Is this referring to Hirsch, yes or no? Answer seems obvious to me. --Eidah 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The source reflects the precise wording of my last edit. 'Extremist' and 'radical' is not POV. This is the opinion (yes, yes) of the entire Jewish world. The ADL holds these people to antisemites, even! There is nothing controversial about characterizing Hirsch's tiny faction as 'extremist'. All sources describe it as such. These sources generally refer to his tiny faction simply as 'Neturei Karta', despite the fact that it is only a tiny minority faction within NK. And precisely that is what I want to correct. Odenheimer is the most serious source we have and I confirm everything it says as being correct.

The article must clarify that Neturei Karta (as a whole) does not support Ahmedinejad and did not have friendly contacts with Arafat. Therefore, I am now reverting once more to my last version. If anyone disagrees, let's discuss it here. --Eidah 09:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is very clear what is meant in this article by "extreme" and by "moderate." And the point that is being made is an important one. The vast majority of Neturei Karta did not support this diplomatic mission to Iran. There seems to be a desire to hide that fact (perhaps to discredit Neturei Karta through Guilt by Association). This is improper. We have a source here that clarifies that issue. If the issue is with words like "extreme" and "moderate" which, in a different context would be POV, then different terms can be used. Or, we could just make it clear that one side supports going to Iran and the other side doesn't. But in an article about Neturei Karta, it would be silly just to leave these facts out. --Meshulam 12:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It is in the interest of Zionist organizations to discredit all Jewish anti-Zionists. This is *not* POV. It should be mentioned, for example, that the condemnations by all other Jewish organizations (including by the Edah HaChareidis and by Satmar, for example) refer to the extremist faction of Hirsch - not to the larger and moderate faction of Katzenellenbogen. The original wordings of their condemnations DID reflect this; they specifically condemned those who went to Iran, not all of Neturei Karta. In fact, the name 'Neturei Karta' was not mentioned anywhere in the condemnations, since these groups hold Katzenellenbogen's faction to be the real and legitimate NK (and hold Hirsch and his followers to be a bunch of outlaws). --Eidah 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, then perhaps the way to approach the POV accusation is the let the quote reflect that the Hirsch faction is "viewed as extremist" and then provide sources. Then there is no violation of POV, or OR. It is important that this matter gets into the article, however. --Meshulam 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Check my latest edits. What do you think? Read Image:Nkcherem.jpg carefully (also, maybe you can improve my translation somewhat).

The wording of the condemnation had to be removed. It is totally unimportant to place such huge texts about the condemnation of a tiny group. All that needs to be written is that they were condemned by pretty much the entire Jewish world - and that's it. We'll see about sourcing etc later (maybe tomorrow). First, now, I'd like to hear what you think of my latest edits. --Eidah 12:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like it that such a HUGE part of the article is devoted to the extremist faction. I've already cut some of it. I think more of it needs to be removed. This is not useful information. Anyway, we'll see about that after Shabbos. I don't have much time left for Wikipedia before Shabbos. --Eidah 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie

Leaving the characterization of Hirsch's group as "extremist" out makes the entire article useless. If Hirsch's faction is not characterized as "extremist", then WHAT is the difference between the two groups, if not the fact that one is extremist/radical and the other is more moderate? The usage of the word "extremist" is not at all POV in this regard. Even (the real) Neturei Karta itself regards Hirsch to be an irresponsible extremist, who causes a huge chillul Hashem and goes straight against the path of Neturei Karta by associating with the Arabs and getting involved in politics. Let alone the rest of the Jewish world. Do you disagree with the fact that they are extremists? Could you name me one single Jewish group that does not consider Hirsch and his followers to be extremists? --Eidah 17:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion, and for that matter your opinion, is not significant to this discussion. "Extremist" is unquestionably a POV term, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. We are not at liberty to casually describe Hirsch's group as "extremist" (although we can indicate that others have described them this way -- perhaps you'll be willing to settle for that as a compromise). CJCurrie 22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have sufficient neutral reliable sources such as newspapers which describe them as extremist there's no POV issue with calling them extremists. Do we have such sources? JoshuaZ 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Eidah has brought sources from major Jewish sources (including the larget Neturei Karta faction, the Eidah Chareidis, the Satmar Rebbe from Kiryas Yoel etc.) indicating that they are considered extreme almost universally. The point Eidah is trying to make is a good one. If I were to start a group called "The United States Democrat Party" and then sponsor racist and antisemitic programming, it wouldn't be POV to say that I'm not the real thing. Same here. Just because some folks (perhaps including CJCurrie) can't tell the difference doesn't mean that its POV to distinguish which one is the real thing, and which one is a tiny handful of agitators with a knack for getting airtime. --Meshulam 23:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If we don't have an actually neutral source like a newspaper I'm not sure we can take their opinions for granted. If we have a newspaper or similar that shouldn't be an issue. In any event if we include something like "The following n factions of Neturei Karta, the Eidah Chareidit, etc. etc. have all said that they are extremists" that will get the point across to our readers while maintaining npov. However, I'd be surprised if there isn't a neutral source somewhere summarizing this (one issue is that to most Jews, even frum Jews, all of Neturei Karta seems extremist so they haven't bothered really paying attention to the differences that much). JoshuaZ 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I still do not believe that describing Hirsch's group as "extremist" is permitted under WP:NPOV. I'm aware that they're considered to be a fringe organization by other haredi groups, and I have no problem with clarifying this point in the article. I do have a problem with casually describing Hirsch's organization as extremist, when there are other, far more neutral terms that can be used in its stead. (It might also be worth noting that Wikipedia's articles are supposed to be written from a universal NPOV stance. Do you suppose the Palestinian Authority, for instance, would regard Hirsch's group as extremist?) CJCurrie 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

By way of an addendum, I would certainly be against describing Neturei Karta as extremist by virtue of their "associating with the Arabs", in response to a question posed above. CJCurrie 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that the comparison is to other Jewish groups. According to your logic, it is impossible to define "extreme," and therefore per se POV to use that term. I think that that's a stretch. When referring to a spectrum of political identities defined by their common allegience to Torah (in one form or another), Zionism being on one side, and anti-Zionism being on the other side, it is not a mere matter of opinion to describe Hirsh's group as "extreme." Rather it is an objective statement: Nobody else in the Torah-world has condoned such an extreme course of action as attending a conference that questions the holocaust hosted by Iran's President. The article makes it clear who NK is being compared to. POV comes in when we start saying things like, "they are extreme therefore they are incorrect, or evil." That would by POV. That's not happening here. We have reliable sources here that demonstrate exactly how extreme this small splinter group is, and how much respect it is given in the Torah world. There's no reason to hide the truth here, when the policy does not require it. I will also add that it is currently 3-1. There is a consensus. Unless there is anything else, I think this matter is put to rest. --Meshulam 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the views of four editors should be considered sufficient for consensus. In any event, I would have no objection to clarifying that most other Jewish groups consider Hirsch's group to be extremist -- this position is easily sourced, and is not particularly controversial. What I object to are the repeated references to "Hirsch's extremist faction" scattered throughout the article, which seems to skew the piece toward a particular POV within the Neturei Karta. CJCurrie 00:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. It is not considered extremist by most of the Jewish world, but by all of the Jewish world, without a single exception. There is no other Jewish group in the world that has publicly declared its loyalty to Iran/Ahmedinejad and to Hamas/Haniyeh. I am myself a member of the pretty extreme Orthodox community of Jerusalem and I am quite intimately familiar with these groups. I can assure you that everybody else in the Jewish world regards them as lunatics who are a big embarassment to Judaism. As I said before: not declaring them to be extremists is POV. Secondly, the word 'extremist' must be repeated throughout the article since this is an issue of which MANY people (say 99% of all Jews) are not aware, due to the media bias / ignorance which leads people to condemn all of Neturei Karta for what a little group of lunatics who have stolen the name are doing. --Eidah 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My response: (i) I'm aware of the fact that Hirsch's group is considered fringe within the Orthodox Jewish community, although I'm not certain it's accurate to say that all of the Jewish world, without exception, has condemned them. There have been Orthodox Jewish contributors to this page in the past, who were not themselves members of Neturei Karta but who nevertheless sought to ensure they were not portrayed in an unfair light. Moreover, it's my understanding that Hirsch's NK still has connections to the Iranian Orthodox Jewish community. Notwithstanding your views on NK (or my own -- I'm not a supporter of the group either), we have to avoid falling into a trap of hyperbole; (ii) I don't believe that Hirsch's NK has "claimed its loyalty" to Iran/Ahmedinejad and Hamas/Haniyeh; (iii) Hirsch's NK may be regarded as extremist within the Orthodox Jewish community, but it would be POV to argue that their ideology is "extremist" in a broader sense of the term. That's what I meant by a "universal perspective", earlier; (iv) in any event, I'd be willing to compromise on the word "radical" (which gets the point across, without risking POV). Would this still be acceptable to you? CJCurrie 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We could also use the word 'radical' instead. Let me answer some people's points. JoshuaZ: we have several sources, such as "Ha'Edah" and "Der Yid" (though it will be very difficult if not impossible for me to trace back the exact editions and pages).
As you mentioned, indeed, most of the Jewish world - except for other Haredi anti-Zionists such as Satmar - don't care about the differences. They hear the name "Neturei Karta", they see images of Hirsch and Weiss and Cohen parading around Teheran - and they've made up their opinion. Oh, by the way, regarding sources around the existence of two factions of which Hirsch's is the tiny extremist one:

• http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Impostors_in_Hassidic_Garb.asp "Moshe Hirsch ... a tiny splinter sect of Naturei Karta"
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3340592,00.html (this one has to be taken with a grain of salt)

Now, CJCurrie: if you look at the above link, and at the Neturei Karta condemnation ( Image:Nkcherem.jpg )not characterizing them as extremist is POV.
Also, note that even people of whom one might expect better - such as the 'Chief Rabbi' of the Zionists - mistakes one group of lunatics for all of NK: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=4471#more-4471 .
Newspapers (such as Ynetnews, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post) don't report this. They just write "NK members went to Teheran." They couldn't care less that this is only a tiny extremist faction that has stolen the name "NK" against the wishes of the NK leadership. Newspapers are NOT a reliable source on this issue. --Eidah 07:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a new picture for in the article: Image:BMToirohVeyiroh12082007-1.jpg, the BM of Toiroh Veyiroh, which was recently renovated and gets my vote for "most beautiful BM of Yerusholaim." --Eidah 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie: PNA, Hamas, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Jew Watch, etc. are not in the position to decide these matters. Since you seem to be either clueless or malicious, I suggest you leave this and other articles related to Jewish religion and Jewish history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, would suggest that you desist with your smears. CJCurrie 00:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop your attempts to turn WP into a battleground. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should anyone ever ask me to define the term "irony", I'll forward them to your response. CJCurrie 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that only Hirsch's group is extreme would in effect portray the rest of the NK as part of mainstream Judaism. Most religious Jews, me included, who are not Zionists consider all of NK as extremists. IMO Hirsch's type of actions is a natural outcome of the NK ideology and has started to permeate Satmar (which up to now were Anti-Zionists but not extreme) already, as seen in its last demonstration in Manhattan. Itzse 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hirsch's faction is extreme, compared to the other faction of Neturei Karta. Compared to 'mainstream Judaism', you could call all of Haredi Judaism extreme. We're talking here about Hirsch's faction vs. Katzenellenbogen's faction. Then, Hirsch = radical and Katzenellenbogen = moderate.

Further, your statements prove that you are totally unaware of the way these things work. The fact that a few people in a Satmar demonstration in Manhatten carried certain signs means one thing: those are NK-affiliated people (ie, not Satmar) who participated in that demonstration.

As for Satmar not being extreme: I suggest you get Vayoel Moshe, Al HaGeuloh VeAl HaTemuroh and some parts of Dibros Kodesh. --Eidah 07:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By Mainstream Judaism, I mean Orthodox Judaism ranging from Young Israel to the Eidah Hachreidis. Young Israel doesn't consider Chareidi Judaism extreme, I know them very well; they are strong supporters money wise of all Hareidi Judaism's Institutions. It could be that we have a different opinion of what constitutes a Hareidi, which is a different subject.

I'm not referring to the signs some demonstrators held which were NK signs; although Satmar should have yanked them away as the great Satmerer Rebbe Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum would have done. I am also not referring to the posters NK put up in the Satmerer Botei Midrashim calling to participate in the demonstration, which again the Satmerer Rebbe would have ordered it torn down. I am referring to the irresponsible things some of the demonstrators told the media; hypocritically forgetting that the Malchus shel Chesed is also included in the Al tisgari be'Umos.

I actually learned all the seforim you mentioned above, and have walked in your moccasins in my bocherisha years, but fortunately for not more then a mile. Don’t get me wrong; I consider you well intentioned and a good man.

The Satmerer Rebbe's shitah is a legitimate hashkafah based on the Torah and Ruach Yisroel Saba and has to be reckoned with. Even those opposed to his views, considered it as another legitimate hashkafah based on the Torah. His hashkafah was considered as the most extreme of all the legitimate hashkafah 's based on the Torah, but nobody considered him an extremist or a fanatic; everyone knew that his Ahavas Yisroel was boundless. On the other hand this same Satmerer Rebbe considered what you call the moderate faction of NK, as extreme; and it is said, that he said that the "Neturei Karte are worse then the Zionists". This demonstration didn't at all reflect his Shitah of Ilie ve'ilie benatzchoneimo, ve'ilie ve'lie beratzchoneimo. IMO it was totally a NK demonstration organized by Satmar.

Back to the point for writing. To write that Hirsch's faction is extreme is unacceptable to WP just like you can't use the word terrorist in WP. What you can do is write that so-in-so calls them extremist. On the same token you would need to write that so-in-so calls all of NK extreme. What the moderate element of the extreme NK, thinks of the extreme element of the extreme NK; should IMO also be included but not at the expense of skewing the overall picture. Itzse 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a clarification:

This article refers to Katzenellenbogen's faction as 'moderate' and to Hirsch's faction as 'extremist.' In the eyes of most of the Jewish world, both groups are viewed as extremist; the terms 'moderate' and 'extremist' are used here to relevate between the two factions of Neturei Karta.

--07:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, this clarification is good; but it still doesn't completely solve the problem. I have mixed feelings on the concept of "words to avoid". According to WP the words "extreme" and "terrorist" should be avoided. The way around it is to write that someone else says that such-and-such a group is extreme or terrorists. I haven't yet come to grips with this issue; because it then becomes a game on how and when to use those words, instead of using these words objectively, which should be the proper approach of Wikipedia. I disagree with the cliché "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter". I truly think that there is always an objective way of seeing things, although a human being cannot achieve true objectivity on everything; sometimes he himself stands in the way. But in a perfect Wiki world, there should always be enough people who can objectively use those words. So I would argue that a lot of the "words to avoid" should not be avoided; instead, it is the subjectiveness that should be avoided; and objective Wikipedians on a particular subject should keep in check, how and when those dreaded words are used.

Where I'm getting at is this; that whatever is the current rule of WP should be applied equally everywhere. I haven't seen enough articles to compare this to, so I'm not sure on how the word "extreme" should be used here. I would prefer that other editors who are in the know, weigh in on this. I am mostly concerned with blatant errors in WP, deliberate or not, or where I smell that someone tainted an article. Wherever I could, I try to set the record straight within the rules of WP. Itzse 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Now, with CJCurrie's replacing 'extremist' with 'radical' (which was my own idea), I think that we can declare this case to be 'closed.' Thank you for your cooperation, everybody. I am glad that the article now clearly says that those who went to Iran and Hamas are an ostracized minority group. This will serve to make the regular branch of Neturei Karta more acceptable to other Jews (after all, they are very strong anti-Zionists, BUT, they do NOT cooperate with the Arabs/Muslims who want to kill us!). --Eidah 09:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Eidah, I'm glad to see that your heart is in the right place. As much as I'm not a Zionist; I cannot stomache what is being done to our brothers and sisters, religious or not. I am not an apologist for Israel; but where the Arabs are wrong, we have no right to stick up for them. Hope to work with you on many articles in the future. Itzse 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm requesting Y to unprotect the page. --Eidah 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I? -- Y not? 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, you're talking, so I have done it. -- Y not? 03:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Labels

The article uses labels like "extremist" and "moderate." These are not encyclopedic for several reasons. First they are values judgements. It would be more helpful to simply explain what the views of each group are, and leave the judgements to the reader.

Secondly, I'm reading a lot about what the "mainstream" Jewish view is. A reminder might be in order to point out that this does not matter except in a segment on that view. Simply because the article is about a group within Judaism does not mean the Jewish view is the consencus. Rather the article should have a wider, world view as well. I'd like to also hear about how they are percieved in the Arab world, or among non-Jews of various stripes in Europe and the US. I'd really like to read about their self perception.

Thirdly, there's a lot of unsourced info here. Seeing that we are dealing with an insular group in an already insular world, the odds of anyone on wikipedia having first hand information on the group is extremely low, the odds of someone having a vendetta are very high, and the need to rely on good sources even highr. Lastly, as we are dealing with a group that is controversial, sources need to be unquestionably unbiased. This may mean some otherwise Jewish sources need to be discarded. We delt with this quite well a while back on the Moshe Freidman or somesuch article, and it can be prhaps used as a useful template for such a project. And as a foot note here, there is a part that says the Satmar Rav publicly abhored Neturei Karta. I am not aware of this being the least bit true. Aggudas Yisrael did not publicly abhor Neturei Karta during the Satmar rav's lifetime, so I would be surprised to find that he did. Is there a source for this? Basejumper2 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Edah HaChareidis

Hi, i'm working about the french article about neturei karta. I don't know exactly if Neturei Karta a official members of the edah. Perushim yes, and somme members of perushim are Neturei karta, but the organisation itself ? I somebody have the information, i'm interested. Please answer me on my page here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.44.89.227 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Karta is not an official member of the Eidah mainly because Neturei Karta is not officially a group or organization. It's simply a label for people from any group who share this ideology. Ex. There can be Breslov Neturei Karta, Dutch traditionalist Neturei Karta, Prushim Neturei Karta, Yeki Neturei Karta, Hungarian Neturei Karta. They tend to see themselves as the right wing of the Eidah, and the Eidah's shocktroops. (Which in this case means when a physical altercation is inevitable, they are the ones to volunteer to take the beatings.)

I was wondering about the split into two groups portion of this article. I'm not sure if it is realized but there are literally dozens of groups of Neturei Karta who agree and disagree over various points with each other. It might be better to view it along the same lines as Aggudas Yisrael. Just like Belz is different than Gur is different from Ponovich but all are Aggudah and agree on main points, so too there are London Neturei Karta, Beit Shemesh Neturei Karta, Monsey Neturei Karta, Monro Neturei Karta, Meah Sharim Neturei Karta, Baatei Ungarin Neturei Karta, Bnei Brak Neturei Karta, Tfat Neturei Karta, on and on. I guess what I'm saying is not to make a disagreement into a feud, or branching into fracturing. Basejumper2 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Numbers?

The article should give an estimate of the global number of members of both the radical and moderate factions. AxelBoldt 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

JewsAgainstZionism claim there are some 1 million non-Zionist Jews, of whom some 150,000 are anti-Zionist. The anti-Zionists include the communities of Satmar, Munkacz, Stolin, the Brisker schools of Talmudic study, and the Eidah Haredis. PR^talk 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou and 'Westboro' link

Jaakobou: the Westboro idiots are happy and celebrate when people die. They are happy and thank 'Jesus' when American soldiers die. Now, have you EVER heard of NK members celebrating the deaths of Israeli ('Zionist') civilians at the hands of Palestinian terrorism??? No, you have not!
Your comparing NK to the 'Westboro' nutcases is so incredibly sick and hateful that it makes me want to throw up. I will keep removing that link, forever, over and over again. --169.132.18.249 10:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

actually, i have heard of NK doing celebratory actions against israelis. however, i won't push the issue. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

NK and the Westboro Baptist Church are very similar organizations. The Westboro Baptist Church is covered heavily in American media, so it would be helpful to someone reading this article to have a similar organization to compare with. --PiMaster3 ^talk 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no comparison at all. 'Westboro' consists of a small group of complete idiots who are hated by everybody. Neturei Karta is a well-respected and established group in the Chareidi world of Jerusalem. I am talking here about the real Neturei Karta, which does not cooperate with Arabs/Muslims, does not join hands with Hamas/Fatah, and does not participate in non-Jewish anti-Israel demonstrations in other countries. I am not talking about the small collection of nutcases who went to Iran and do join hands with the Muslims and Arabs. You are intentionally besmirching the good name of a very large Jewish group with thousands of members. --169.132.18.249 10:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Neturei Karta with Satmar. They are two different organizations.--PiMaster3 ^talk 23:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologize me for using such crude language, but please, Cut the crap. Learn to read English. And now please just shut up and leave this article alone. The bottom of the article clearly states what I have just said. And if you could read Hebrew, you would read the poster by Neturei Karta that strongly condemns any and all cooperation with the Arabs, and any and all political activities. NK publicized that directly after the small group of nutcases led by Friedman and Cohen traveled to Teheran a year ago. If you cannot understand neither English nor Hebrew, that's your problem. By the way, I am a regular guest in both Satmar and NK shuls and have on occasion been shliach tzibbur in Satmar also, so you don't need to suspect me of not knowing the differences between them, because I know them 1000x better than you do. --217.132.41.120 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Website

The www.nkusa.org site no longer functions. Nor does the www.netureikarta.org, which links to it. I don't know if this is a temporary blockage; but if the position does not change in the next week or so we should remove all links to these addresses. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Neturei Karta ideology

Neturei Karta is an ideology. This statement is really superfluous because everyone who has studied this issue knows this. Even those who haven't studied know this. But someone has challenged it; therefore I'm stating it here, to give a chance anybody who for some reason thinks otherwise should say so.

I did a Google search for "Neturei Karta is an ideology" and many sites came up. This is the first one. Itzse (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a particularly encyclopedic site. In any event, the point isn't whether or not you consider NK to be an ideology, but whether most reliable sources describe them as such.

As I understand it, NK may be referred to as an "ideology", a "group" or a "religious tradition". Of these terms, "ideology" is the most politically loaded and "group" the least. I would think that "group" is the better term, as such. CJCurrie (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the best term is the correct one. I can't for the life of me understand why you don't like the term ideology. I also don't understand why "ideology" is politically loaded. I happen to be an expert on this subject, and can clearly tell you that NK themselves consider it an ideology; it has nothing to do with politics.

You don't particularly strike me as someone knowledgeable in the hashkofeh/philosophy/ideology of NK, so please ask someone you know from the NK before fighting me on this. Itzse (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as a social scientist, I would say that "ideology" is inescapably political. Not that there's anything wrong with politics, if that's what they're about. But the name itself (translated to "Guardians of the City") suggests that they are best thought of as a group. Anyway, what is at stake here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference between Satmar and Neturei Karta

My edit to explain the basic difference between them was changed, with the explanation that "this distinction with Satmar seems more than a bit forced (the language is dubious, and I don't believe there's any compelling need for the line)".

Here my friend, politics does play a big role. The NK adamantly want to downplay their differences between them and Satmar, because then they can claim that they represent a large amount of people, because they also represent Satmar. But we as Wikipedians need to play fair and fair means saying the brutal truth. If the language isn't good enough, it should be changed, but the basic facts needs to be stated. Itzse (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine and good, except for the fact that this article already distinguishes NK from Satmar. Adding another, more questionable line to the article doesn't really provide us with any advantage on this front. CJCurrie (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Jews at 2006 Iran Holocaust conference.jpg

The image Image:Jews at 2006 Iran Holocaust conference.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Prominence of criticism & other promblems

I'm reverting [5] most of the recent edits (except for improvements to the para on R. Goldstein) because there doesn't seem to be any need to move the 'controversies' out of the 'history' section. But more importantly the section on 'support' of the Indian bombings is a blatantly pov missuse of the given source. Please be more careful, if it has to go in it probably only needs a sentence or two, which must be supported by the sources. Thanx Misarxist 07:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the controversies in the histroy section for the time being. As to your second point, the group released a leaflet which stated that the attacks were a punishment from god. I won't use the language that they supported the attacks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Reinstating the citation for the 2008 Mumbai attacks

I've reinstating this section - I've changed the language to make it more npov and I've added another source. I've also placed it at the end of the article.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Links for active editors

• Neturei Karta makes rare visit to Gaza as part of the Gaza Freedom March. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox Jews celebrate Sabbath in Gaza . Tiamut^talk 17:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, but the JPOST link doesnt go anywhere.Lihaas (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I have just removed 2 instances of the phrase "radical" entered by someone with obvious biases towards Israel. The sources mention nothing whatsoever to call it radical. Now unless a source says so that is a loaded word filled with as much bias as one show. Any more instances of this must be removed or cited for the taq to go off.Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)