Talk:Nahum Goldmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Problematic passages

I've done what I can to clean this up. Here are what I'm aware of as outstanding:

  1. All there is on the WWII period is one anecdote.
  2. "Attempts to contact Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat in 1974 were even seen as high treason." Probably so, but seen by whom? Without agency, this passive-voice statement is a bit vacuous.
  3. "Goldmann thought this behavior to be foolish." What behavior? The accusation of high treason, or something else? And what evidence is there in this case for what he thought?
  4. Also, someone has noted in a comment that the sentence "Goldmann's vision was to make Israel the spiritual and moral center for all Jews, but a neutral state," is unclear about "neutral" with respect to what. The Cold War? (Maybe.) Sectarianism? (Unlikely.)

Can anyone clarify, preferably with clear citations? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:03, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

First, I'm glad that others with more knowledge have got involved; I was unsure about a number of the names of organisations, in particular. Jmabel's questions all bothered me too. Secondly, as regards the dates, though, I've checked this at the MoS talk page, and it's been agreed so far that my approach is consistent with the MoS. I prefer it, especially in longer articles like this one, because it keeps the summary simple and uncluttered, with the detail in the article. Thus the summary does summarise what's to come. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, you changed one sentence to read "advocating a position that the only chance of long-term survival for Israel was to accept the rights of the Palestinians as a people" This is still unclear - what "rights as a people" does it refer to? Also, I echo your concern about Goldmann's vision of Israel as a "neutral" country - in what sense? Jayjg (talk) 13:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the right of a people to self-determination (BTW, as of this writing our article on the topic is anemic). (I'm not aware of other rights generally considered to be inherently those of "a people".) This now generally accepted concept in international law was a major justification for de-colonization. I don't have a great citation for it, but if you search on right + people + self-determination you'll find plenty of half-decent ones (and some silliness from Northern Italy, etc.). Note that this right does not necessarily mean statehood. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that is a "right" under international law; it doesn't seem to be one that the Kurds or Tibetans can take advantage of. More problematically, you have presumed that this is what the sentence meant; however, more importantly, is this what Goldmann advocated? If we can't prove that he did, I don't think that the sentence should stay. Jayjg (talk) 14:13, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, rights of peoples are a very difficult thing to enforce, but it is exactly on this generally recognized principle that the Kurds and Tibetans base their claims against the powers that currently dominate their respective regions; if you really doubt that this is a principle under international law(and has been recognized as such roughly since the Treaty of Versailles), I'll do the research. The German-language article, which lists three references but lacks specific citations, says "das historische Recht der Palästinenser zu akzeptieren". I cannot imagine what, other than self-determination, "historische Recht" could possibly mean; in English, "the historic right of the Palestinians" is just flabby writing, so I wrote this more specific phrase. I'm not expert on Goldmann, but I believe it fits in with what I know about him (noting again, though, the ambiguity built into the notion of self-determination: it has been very differently interpreted at different times in different places). If you are looking for a specific citation for this sentence, I suggest you ask the author of the relevant sentence in the German Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
My main point is that this seems to be a POV interpretation of his views, rather than an actual elucidation of them; the rest, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant to this article. I don't think the sentence should remain as is. Jayjg (talk) 16:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jay, I'm not sure which you are objecting to: the original German statement or my extrapolation? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:12, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Both. It seems problematic either way; the original is unclear, and looks like editorializing on the part of the author, and the extrapolation is speculation. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to delete here, pending citation. I'll ask in the German Wikipedia and see if we can get this clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:54, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather vague, to speak of "the historic right of the Palestinians". Of course the historic right of self-determination was meant. This includes of course the right to live, the right of physical intact, the right of their own soil and protection of their own civilization and language, I suppose. I am not expert in Goldmann, therefore its interpretation, but somebody, who originally supported a common jewish-arab state and gets in contact with Yasser Arafat, looks upon the denial of dialogue between the Israeli government and the PLO and the continuation of ocupation for generations as injustice, which feeds antisemitism. As far as I remember correct, Yasser Arafat changed his stand of view to hatred against Israeli which may be influenced by the Israeli attitude. As far as German Neonazis tend to give reasons for their antisemitism, hatred and ressentments they refer to the Israeli ocupation. So I share Goldmanns point of view as far as I read about. Self-determination wasn't only a question of the Kurds and Tibetans, but refers also to the German unification 1990. de:Benutzer:Rosa Lux|Diskussion

(weird sig there; presumably reachable at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Rosa Lux.)

In short, Rosa Lux interprets this the same way I did, but also lacks a clear citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:52, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Well, does anyone know exactly what Goldmann's view on this was? Jayjg (talk) 19:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Translation details

  • Article: de:Nahum Goldmann
  • Corresponding English-language article: Nahum Goldmann
  • Worth doing because: new information
  • Originally Requested by:--210.128.247.147 04:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Status: translation in progress ... --Cain 12:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Complete - Cain 10:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Other notes:

In the long quotation, what do the brackets indicate? Editorial elucidations? If so, they needn't be part of the translation. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

  • Precisely, editorial elucidations. Especially necessary in a context with two "Samuels" involved in the anecdote. -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Who's the other Samuel? There are two mentions of Samuel Rosenman; am I missing another one? I've tried to tidy it again; is that better? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 9 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

  • Sorry, in Wise's case it's a middle name... -- Jmabel | Talk 23:16, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ah — I knew that there must be some reason for the misunderstanding. I was tending to read the article text and then make the edits; if I'd been editing wholly in the edit box (as I usually do, actually), I'd probably have been affected by the second appearance of "Samuel" in the WIkilink. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/h/Talk%7ENahum_Goldmann_b8a0.html"