Talk:Homeland for the Jewish people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Homeland for the Jewish people is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Homeland for the Jewish people is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Recent edits have focused on proposed names for a Jewish State in what eventually became Israel. This is off-topic. I have rewritten the article as an expanded version of its original form which foces on the idea of a Jewish nation-state. Discussions of what names Israel might've had are more appropriate to the History of Israel page. 68.10.25.55

"It has been suggested that the State of Israel adopt more inclusive and neutral symbolism." True enough, but an odd statement to make without citation. Suggested by whom? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:15, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

>>Good point...that kind of sourceless statement sounds like a FOX News soundbite.

Contents

[edit] Not every Jew is an Israeli citizen.

The statement "every Jew in the world is automatically a citizen of Israel by virtue of their ethnicity" isn't correct. The Law of Return only provides an avenue for citzenship. They actually would have to request, be granted and use an oleh's visa, or be issued an oleh's certificate in Israel to be Israeli citizens. A Jew who never goes to Israel would not be an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return.

Steggall 12 Nov 2004 04:26 (UTC)

You probably mean not every jew is an Israeli citizen. Israel would be pretty empty without any jews in it. Wyllium 04:33, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)
Obviously that's true, but I don't see how you're discerning that I'm stating the Jews from Israel are not Israeli citizens? Can you explain your remark further? [User:Steggall|Steggall]] 12 Nov 2004 04:59 (UTC)
Huh? Your headline was every Jew is not an Israeli citizen., in other words, no Israeli citizen is a Jew. I'm not debating any issue here, it's just semantic. Wyllium 05:09, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

OK, now I see. That's one of the problems with written communication versus verbal. When writing, a person might be stressing one word in a sentence while the reader stresses another word. What I was doing was expressing my response the way I would have verbalized it. In the article there is a statement that "every Jew in the world is automatically a citizen of Israel". If someone had spoken that to me, I would have replied, "Every Jew is not an Israeli citizen", with an emphasis on the word "not" signifying an implied "No," at the beginning of the sentence. But there was no way for a reader to discern that. Change made. [User:Steggall|Steggall]] 12 Nov 2004 21:02 (UTC)

[edit] Help achieve NPOV

I'll admit I'm more familiar with criticism of the Jewish State concept than supporting arguments so I'm not sure if I've done a good enough job of being fair to both sides of the issue. Please add to the "Criticism" section to help balance it out if you feel it needs it. (comment by 64.12.116.11)

Criticism section is at all not balanced. It need alot of work. Quoting Leftists like Noam Chomsky as though they represent the mainstream, or even multinationalists who are a minority within a minority (signified by Uri Avnery, Yahad, and Communist Arab Parties) does not add to the legitimacy of this argument at all. Rework it. (comment by 128.120.185.31)

Don't you just love it when people come in here anonymously and frame their suggestions in the imperative mode? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

And apparently believe the article needs to be blanked until their orders are met. Jayjg 23:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its not my job to order people around. I just mentioned that from my point of view giving credence to left wingers who have very little clout as though they represent something legitimate or mainstream is disengineous. I have made certain "disclaimer" type corrections to the criticism argument warning people who might use this source for their research paper that this criticism is on the fringe of political discource.

If you have a problem with it edit it as you wish, but as far as I can see, reverting the article back to its original as though it is "perfect" is wrong.

I have problems with certain words in the article such as "occupied" which is not at all a neutral term in this context, and I have problems with people reverting articles back to their original when the author himself has noted that he only knows negative criticism.

I have problems with certain words in the article such as "Jew" which is not at all a neutral term. Does "Jew" mean halacha "Jew" or "oleh" "Jew". The meaning changes from one sentence to the next. Are the "Russians" real "Jews"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 8 Nov 2005.

I for one have added more meat to the definition of a Jewish State.

You arent the only ones with a history degree here.

--Guy Montag

I've tried to edit to accommodate most of Guy Montag's content and still end up with a version I can also accept. However, the portion I have sectioned out as "A Jewish commonwealth" seems almost hopelessly POV: it's sort of an agenda of issues that Religious Zionism has to grapple with. (I also added an item to this list: "How to deal with the large number of Jews in Israel who favor a relatively secular state.") My own feeling is that the only way to de-POV this is that instead of putting it in the narrative voice of the article, we should cite a list like this either from some Religious Zionist individual or group, or from some scholar who has studied such groups, etc. I'm right on the edge of slapping an {{NPOV]] tag on the article over this section, but I'll hold off for at least a couple of days to see if someone can solve this. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


Jmabel, I like your revision of the article. You have made it much more NPOV. I will try to add some more sources to the Jewish Commonwealth article later. You are free to add as you wish because I am not the only source for this article. Also, it was a good idea to add on how to resolve the differences between "secular" Israelis and religious Jews and the fact that you added it as one of the problems to resolve. Although, I do not believe that there is a huge division between "regular" Israelis and religious Israelis but between vocal minorities within both sides.

I am happy that are moving forward to discussing the concept of the Jewish state outside the Middle East Conflict. People have to understand where the soul of Jewish nationalism stems from.

Best regards,

--Guy Montag

I like the current version better than it was when I posted my request for help to keep the Criticism section NPOV, but just to clarify--I didn't quote Chomsky because he's mainstream (nor did I imply anywhere that he is) but because I thought he succinctly stated the position of "Why should the Israeli state have an ethnic character?" Perhaps a counterquote should be included by a supporter of the idea of an ethnic state. I agree with Chomsky...I don't see why every ethnicity has to have its own state, but this isn't a forum for my views so if anybody knows a good quotation that summarizes the opposing view, please add it.

[edit] Ethnic?

"An ethnic group is a culture or subculture whose members are readily distinguishable by outsiders based on traits originating from a common racial, national, linguistic, or religious source." Ethnic Do "Jews" qualify as an "ethnic group" according to this Wikipedia definition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.166.191 (talk • contribs) 8 Nov 2005.

More or less. Historically? Beyond a doubt. Nowadays? Less so, because of widespread assimilation. But, I think, still enough so to make the category appropriate. Historically, the Jews are more of a "nation", but the statist use of that word has muddied its meaning, and especially in the context of an article discussing a state, it would be confusing. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the first view and the second view

In the paragraph below, I think we're asking too much of the reader. It would be great if someone could clarify what which views are the "first view" and "second view."

Partisans of the first view are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, secular or less traditional. Partisans of the second view are almost exclusively traditional or Orthodox, although they also include supporters who follow other streams of Judaism or are less traditional but conservative and would not object to a more prominent state role in promoting Jewish beliefs -- although not to the point of creating a purely Halakhic state.

--Doright 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

The is one argument made by opponents of the concept of a Jewish state which seems to be absent from the criticism section. Some people reject the notion that ethic self-determination is a "right" that all ethnic groups are entitled too. Thus they would reject a "Jewish right of self-determination" not because it's being claimed by Jews but because they reject the very notion of ethnic self-determination. Michael Neumann, in is his book "The Case Against Israel", makes this argument. --Cab88 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

Jewish people constitute a nation who deserve their own state under international law

There's no such international law, that "nations" deserve states, is there? —Ashley Y 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless they're Palestinian, then they do, right? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so, per se. But they do have the right to return under UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. —Ashley Y 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section is now a back-and-forth hodgepodge of mostly uncited arguments on both sides of the issue. - Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. People are just adding arguments that occur to them, without citation. All that crap should be removed if citations can't be found. —Ashley Y 06:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uganda Debate and its actual implications

I've moved this section to the Talk: page:

In the beginning of the Twentieth Century, Britain offered the possibility of creating a Jewish State in Uganda. Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, was inclined to accept the offer - at least as an "interim solution" - and seemed to have a majority for it within the Zionist movement. However, the Russian Zionists were strongly opposed to the idea and insisted that the Jewish state must be created nowhere else but in Eretz Yisrael with its emotive historic and religious connotations. Herzl was forced to give way (and died soon afterwards) and the issue became moot when the British withdrew their offer. Still, the memory of the Uganda Debate remains alive in present-day Israel and frequently crops up in political debates, regarding the crucial question of whether Israel should be "a state like any other state" in which case its location in a Biblically-hallowed land is in fact incidental and any other country would have done as well as long as Jews were able to settler there and create a state, or whether Israel has a "special destiny" and "historical task" which could take place nowhere else. Israeli writer Moshe Ayalon wrote an Alternative History of the Jewish State as it might have been, if founded in Uganda.

The paragraph is factually incorrect, consists entirely of original research, and is only peripherally related to the topic at hand. Also, I don't see why we should care that an author has written an alternative history novel about the topic. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the novel is quite superfluous, but the rest of the section is very relevant to this article. If the article is about the pros and cons of having a state, certainly discussion of where that state should be located is significant. (I can't speak to how accurate the writing is, except that it is common knowledge that Herzl did tend to accept the Uganda plan.) --Keeves 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Herzl initially rejected the idea, but in the wake of the Kishinev pogrom, thought it would be a good idea as an emergency measure. In any event how is that relevant to the creation of a Jewish state? What might be relevant here is whether or not there should be a Jewish state at all, not where it was to be created. The material in question is already covered in the Zionism article. Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian Culture in Hatikvah?

About Hatikvah, the article says: "it contains no mention of Palestinian culture."

Please, can someone tell me anything about palestinian culture, it is more correct to say arab culture. There is no palestinian culture anywhere. Or are you refering to suicide-bombings? , sorry I don't understand that part. --Klovs 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I'm in the mood to feed a troll. Y'know, I'm a Jew, and I hear in what you just wrote the same voice that says "Jewish culture? Are you referring to ragpicking and usury?" It's exactly as charming when said about the Palestinians. And exactly as informed. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "usually depending on who controls the Israeli High Court of Justice."

This definitely needs expansion, or at least citation. —Ashley Y 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious recent edits

I disagree with most of the recent edits by User:81.182.146.83, and unless someone makes a case for them here, I intend to revert most of them. Two of them I am going to revert without waiting: a perfectly good image was "replaced" by one that does not even exist (Is anyone watching this article?) and Herzl's Judenstaat, the origin of the term, was delinked.

  • "The current political situation in the Occupied Territories poses a moral dilemma in that the ongoing land confiscation potentially dilutes Jewish ethnicity as most of the population in these territories are non-Jews." Pure opinion. Unattributed.
  • In the list of practical and theoretical difficulties, after "Who is a Jew?", the anon added "What is a Jew? Does it include those cultural Jews that don't believe in God? Converts with no heritage to the original tribes?" The definition of a Jew has never required belief in God (an apikoros is still a Jew), and a convert is as much a Jew as someone of Jewish ancestry. To the best of my knowledge, neither of these has ever been disputed within the Jewish community.
  • "a state of all its citizens", previously piped to multiculturalism, is now a link to a non-existent article.
  • The following was removed:

    One final argument for a Jewish state as opposed to a Chomsky's idea of a Jewish "homeland" within a non-Jewish state is that many such "homelands" have been attacked or destroyed by the states containing them. Historically, this has occurred at one point or another in the majority of countries of Europe, from the English massacre of Jews at York Castle in 1190 and the Edict of Expulsion in 1290, to the Tsarist pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust of the 20th century. The argument then follows that only with a Jewish state can Jews be certain that the state itself will not be a threat to their lives or their way of life.

This probably should be cited to someone who holds this view (which should not be difficult to find) and restored.
  • "A final argument is the democratic one. All men are created equal (and in God's image) and a nation should be made up of its people without giving supremacy rights to a specific ethnic group." Wow. "All men" (sic) are "in God's image": in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Need I say more?

-- Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, these edits should be reverted. Beit Or 21:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I reverted further and attempted to remove some obvious POV and baseless claims. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot more to do here. For instance:

"Opponents of this view who argue from a secular basis counter that the Jewish people constitute a nation who have the right to their own state under international law -- in other words, that whatever the merits of post-ethnic and multi-ethnic "homeland" states, the state of Israel should not be held up as a test case for international law more broadly when countries less embroiled in conflict might prove simpler starting points for reordering the world according to post-nation-state principles.[citation needed]"

Where exactly does this rather intricate argument come from? If this weasel cannot be sourced, it should be deleted or replaced by something that can be. And so on. —Ashley Y 03:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. —Ashley Y 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IDI Poll

It would be good to know exactly what the poll questions were, the Haaretz article is rather vague. There's a mention here, but it's about the 2004 poll. —Ashley Y 02:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

K i'll try and get the question.--Urthogie 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this came out recently, perhaps the IDI will update their website with details soon (or perhaps there's more on the Hebrew side of the site). —Ashley Y 03:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polemics cleanup

I removed this unattributed editorializing: "Opponents to this view who argue on the basis of Jewish religious arguments, on the other hand, are less concerned with international law, and therefore found their assertion on the Torah's promises of Israel to the Jews." Let's try to resist the temptation to turn this article into what WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

moved Jewish state to Homeland of the Jewish People: "Jewish state" confuse the issue with the religion and the charcter of the state . Homeland for the Jewish people follow Balfour Declaration of 1917 and is more accurate and clear: it does not confuse the Jewish people and their country with the Jewish religion.

Most Poeple who are part of the Jewish people are not releigious - they are secular, yet they are part of the Jewish people (or Jewish nation). Israel is the country of these people. Zeq 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article name is very misleading. "State of the Jewish people" implies the "the condition of the Jewish people" meaning their economic, social and political conditions. "Jewish state" is much more widely used. Also, don't forget, that Jewish is not just a religion, but an ethnicity as well. "Homeland of the Jewish people" is not commonly used. Also the Israeli declaration of independence uses the term (which I think would be more important than the Balfour declaration).Bless sins 13:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I think the best one is homeland of the Jewish people - it is at least very accurate and thuse should be used. I don'y think we should choose article name just on popularity but based on what enecyclopedialy is the most accurate name to describe the subject. Zeq 13:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the name shouldn't stay as it is; as Bless sins points out, that name implies "condition of". The name "Jewish state" is likewise misleading; I believe it is based on a mistranslation of Hertzl's book title Der Judenstaat into English. A better translation would have been The Jews' state (or, but more awkwardly, The state belonging to the Jews). For the article, I vote for the "homeland" title, a la Balfour. Hertz1888 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "Israel as a Jewish state" or "Israel as a Jewish homeland"? —Ashley Y 07:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think putting Israel as the Jewish homeland/state become too political as there is a POV that Israel is not a Jewish state. So while this is discussed in the text I would not go as far as putting it in the article name. Zeq 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Support move suggested by Zeq. The new name would better describe the topic. Yahel Guhan 03:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Israel is the Jewish homeland" is either a redundancy or a tautology, if not both. "Israel the Jewish state" is (or should be) just as self-evident. Either is a better name than the ambiguous, confusing one we have now. Who's going to implement the change? Hertz1888 (talk)


== Jewish "People" is defined by ancestry.[citation needed] Race is defined by ancestry. ==

Maybe 0.1% of Jews are religious converts, but they are not "REAL JEWS". REAL JEWS have jewish BLOOD!!! Of course jews are not a RACE!!! - that would make ZIONISM racist, which would be unmentionable in Zionistpedia.

So, anyway, we need a precise definition of "Jewish People" or I will delete this article. Unless someone argues that this garbage is encyclopedic. 24.64.165.176 07:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Would the cowardly scum who vandalized my post please identify themself? 24.64.165.176 (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you check the edit history you will find that the post was itself regarded as racist. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss editing an encyclopedia article. Your hostile tone has no place here if editors are to collaborate in good faith. Please do not make matters worse by indulging in name-calling. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

== Olmert demands pals recognize "Jewish State" ==

So I come to WP looking up "Jewish State", but it does not exist!! There was once a "Jewish State" article but it has been censored. 24.64.165.176 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia is WP:Not a place for such discussions. Zeq (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

We are supposed to be neutral and balanced and not racist or nationalistic. But we have a very sympathetic and uncritical treatment of Zionism compared to how we describe other similar ethnic nationalist movements which are also characterized by belief in ancestral or god-given rights to an ethnic homeland, militarism, expansionism and elimination of minorities.
Hertz1888 says we are not allowed to discuss the possibility of bias or (perish the thought) that there might be people among us who might be trying to impose a pro-Israel spin.
This "article" is mostly just an exposition of the political doctrines of an ethnic nationalist movement - Zionism. This is a blatant content fork, it should be merged into the Zionism article.
The "Criticism" section is very weak, it does not even mention ethnic cleansing, racist immigration policies, land confiscation, settlements, discrimination in land and water allocation, education and other public services, Jew-only housing developments by the Jewish Agency and many other issues. There is an enormous body of critical material that is completely ignored here - how can this be explained except as anti-Arab spin?
The "Public opinion" section should be moved onto the talk page unless it can soon be made more balanced (did they ask the Jewish majority if they want "equal rights for minorities"?). 24.64.165.176 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
When this article started it had only critism but if you think this section need to be strenthen - why don't you do it ? btw, if you are Homey: Welcome back. Zeq (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Z and new anti-semit...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism Zeq (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] concept of international law????

The last part of this: Secular Zionism, the historically dominant stream, is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a people and in a concept of international law as premised on the self-determination of peoples through the nation-state structure. is clearly original research, and very likely to be untrue. Zionism has always denied the right of self-determination of the Palestinians/Palestinian Arabs, so the Zionist concept of 'Jewish right of self-determination' has nothing to do with international law. --87.208.1.240 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)