Talk:Matzpen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel Portal
Matzpen 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):
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Israel because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Israel}} template, removing {{WikiProject Israel}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Contents

[edit] Weasel Terms

the following changes were made and are posted here for discussion:

[edit] - Does Matzpen still exist

  • founded in 1962 and active until the 1980s in Israel/Palestine.

changed to:

  • founded in 1962 and active until the 1980s in Israel.

main reasoning: The Israeli movement was created within' Israel and not inside "palestinian territories", let alone that until 1967, there were only Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli territories and no Palestinian ones. Jaakobou 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Matzpen considered itself to be an organisation operating in areas under Israeli rule, rather than an "Israeli" movement. It had members in the 1967-occupied territories, as well as inside the state of Israel. So it is accurate and appropriate to describe it as operating "in Israel and Palestine", and I have restored the phrase. RolandR 12:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence of Matzpen still being active? I have not seen any new material from tem for at least a decade. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not at home at the moment. When I'm back, I can check my files; I'm sure they still meet in Tel-Aviv, and take part collectively in campaigns and demonstrations. They are also still active in London; a couple of years ago, I marched on an anti-war demo holding their banner, together with Moshé Machover. Shimon Tzabar was also with us. RolandR 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
for now i removed it per last phrase here [1], seems like you've added a factual error (also doesn't correlate with the rest of the article. Jaakobou 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The text does indeed say that, after a split in 1982, Matzpen members "continue to meet regularly every fortnight, but they no longer operate as a group" (this is also in English, at [2]). But this is contradicted by, for instance, the publication, on the same Matzpen website, of a July 2005 statement by in the name of Matzpen, which notes that Matzpen "has decided to endorse the call of Palestinian Civil Society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel". This confirms my understanding that they are (or at least in July 2005 were) still organising as a group. The same statement was also published by them in Hebrew, as was an obituary for their comrade David Shas, who died in October 2006. This includes a photo of him at the Matzpen picnic on 1 May 2003. I repeat, Matzpen is still active as a group; the statement on their website is incorrect, and contradicted by other documents there. RolandR 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have stopped being active at least 20 years ago. The last publication of the Matzpen journal dates from 1983, and whether a couple of people meet for picnics every couple of years is hardly relevant to the issue of absence of any structures or organised activitiesRangreen 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR, It sounds like you're clinging to (what seems to be) a single copy/paste article and an obituary(??) to support your theory. Jaakobou 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a look at the 1995 statement mentioned by RolandR, and it is not a statement by Matzpen, but a statement endorsed by Matzpen. The web page does suggest that Matzpen still has a PO box. The matzpen.org website is registered in the name of Eran Torbiner - the guy who made the film.
I do follow Israeli politics quite closely and have not seen any evidence of them being recently active as a revolutionary party (rather than a veterans club). Last week there was a General Strike in Israel, but there was no sign of any intervention on their part. The last I heard of them was during the first Intifada when they ran two front organizations: one was Hala Lakibush, and the second was Hafarperet. Hafarperet was based on young Israeli year olds who wrote a letter to Rabin to say that they refused to serve in the Territories. It was quite successful, producing a monthly paper, with around 30 members. The leaders were recruited into Matzpen. It looks like they liquidated themselves in the early 90s, with many of their members remaining active in the Committee to Free Vannunu, the Alternative information centre or becoming social activists. One of their splinters re-formed briefly in 2002 - The Socialist Workers Leauge and had a web site www.swlp.org (and can still be found at [3]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually much more complicated than that, Abu Ali. Hafarperet ("Mole") was a youth group associated with the Revolutionary Communist League, a descendant of Matzpen which was the section in Israel of the reunified Fourth International. Hala HaKibush ("Down with the Occupation") was based in Haifa and Tel-Aviv around former members of various Matzpen splits, but it was never -- particularly in Haifa -- a Matzpen "front". In Jerusalem, with a different balance of political forces, former Matzpen members were active in the Hadash-led Dai la Kibush ("Enough of the Occupation").

Meanwhile, the former Matzpen members, and others, who were actibve in the Socialist Workers League (your archive link doesn't appear to work, by the way) are still organised, as the section in Israel of the International Marxist Tendency. They have a website, in the name of the League for the Defence of Marxism, which appears very similar to the sites of other affiliates of the IMT; regular articles by their comrades appear on the main IMT website.

Other former Matzpen members operate as the Organisation for Democratic Action/Da'am, which is also linked to the Workers Advice Center (Ma'an) and to Challenge magazine.

Yet other former Matzpen members organise as the Committee for One Secular, Democratic Republic in All Palestine, and are involved in the production of Dialogue, "A Political Review of Discussion Between Arab and Jewish Activists of Palestine".

This is only part of the complex and scattered nature of the various descendants of the original Matzpen.

And, despite what Rangreen writes above, I believe that a group calling itself "Matzpen -- the Israeli Socialist Organisation" still exists, and occasionally organises. By the way, the statement I mention is from 2005, not 1995. And although it is indeed an endorsement of a Palestinian statement, the text states that Matzpen "has decided to endorse the call". If a group has a PO Box, and can decide to make decisions and issue them in its name, then as far as I can see the group exists. RolandR 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK it exists in the sense that a group of people who stay in touch and occasionally meet exists. But not in the sense of an active organisation, producing a regular paper, and interveneing in the struggle. And also not in the Wikipedia sense of doing anything significant enough to be commented upon in the Israeli mainstream media. Nevertheless it may be interresting to do an article about the evolution, spits of the Israeli Left. Any volunteers? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I found the following link [4] which says that Matzpen disbanded in the 90s as a result of disagreements amongst its leading members. Should the be included in the article? ابو علي (Abu Ali)
You've misread that (secondary) source, Abu Ali. What it notes is that the Revolutionary Communist League -- formerly Matzpen-Jerusalem, and with a magazine called Matzpen Marksisti -- dissolved. The comrades still meeting occasionally in Tel Aviv would dispute their claim to be the sole successor. I should create an article on the RCL, which certainly deserves one. RolandR 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I look forward to reading it. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] - 1967 occupation

  • The organisation grew in the period after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to the occupation and in favour of a de-Zionized Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

changed to:

  • The organisation grew in the period after the 1967 Six-Day War. Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to what they reffered to as "the occupation" and in favour of a "de-Zionized" Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

+++

  • With the rise of new, vibrant and less ideologicaly rigid protest movements in the 1980s, in opposition to the continued occupation

changed to:

  • With the rise of new, vibrant and less ideologicaly rigid protest movements in the 1980s, in opposition to what they described as "the continued occupation"

main reasoning: (1) the combination "1967 occupation" follows a strictly pro-arab/anti-israeli narrative and neglects the aggressive manouvers done by egypt and other in that period of time - i.e. POV presentation. (2) there are different designations to teritories and the current wiki-agreed designation is "disputed territories" and not "occupied" which is POV.

Shalom to my friend Jaakobou. The implication of the phrase "what they descrive as the occupation" rather than the simpler "the occupation" is that the West Bank was not occupied by Israel, but presumably liberated, redeemed, or whatever else. But as this is not a Kahanist blog or an Israeli foreing ministry propoganda site, we should call things as they are, hence the occupation will be called by its actual name. I will also point out that User:Jaakobou has given me a final warning for what he descibes as blanking this page: [5]. This is an attempt to intimidate those with another point of view by means of threats, an approach which I must say is characteristic of occupying regimes. Better to try to reach a consensus with those who disagree with you than try to intimidate them into submission. Best wishes ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello to my "zionist loving" friend Abu Ali, for starters, i'm not a kahanist and i consider the mentioning to be a personal attack since the movement is outlawed here in israel. secondly, you have not reverted your edit which was done after the talk page conversation occurred (and this is the second time you call out user RolandR to your rescue in a case of wikpedia abuse). lastly, but far more important - same as you might be displeased with the phrasing "what they describe as occupation", i am displeased with the discription "occupation" which is a narrative in support of the arab-muslim dar-al-harb theory. for instance, the term is neglected when jordan and syria and egypt are mentioned and israel is blamed for the Six day war. a more suitable terminology for a situation that is still disputed is "disputed territories" but since we are dealing with an extremists leftist group, we should use their terminology and place the quotation marks on it.
last note, if you and your friend keep "tag team revert" on articles i will be forced to report it - and that is not made as an intimidation threat, it is noted for proper wiki editing protocol... something you still need to get used to.
last last note, you should seriously consider self reverting and continuing the discussion here. Jaakobou 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Shalom Jaakobou, I didn't say that you were a Kahanist and a don't think that you are. The occupation is not a narrative but the reality on the ground. When you leave school and go to the arm y you will find this out for yourself if you are sent to man a machsom. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
ابو علي (Abu Ali), I've done my 3 years service like we're all forced to do because of the occupation narrative. regardless of your personal designation, the agreed-upon wiki term is "Disputed territories" (and not "occupation"). I first expect that you self revert your obvious tag-team revert so that i may remove the warning from your userpage. and secondly, that you give me a proper reasoning or better phrasing for a more suitable wikipedia agreed terminology for this article than "in opposition to the continued occupation". on a side note, you did not adress the first change as to the time/location of the creation of this organization. Jaakobou 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As you have been a soldier you will know from direct experience that the regime in the territories is a regime of occupation, a foreign regime maintained by military force, complete with checkpoints, and all the trappings of military rule. And as you have been a soldier, I would like to ask (as an unraletd point): What did the state give you in return for these three unpaid years of your life? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see that you did file a complain against me [6]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ابو علي (Abu Ali), please adress the issue of phrasing in the case of "occupation" on wikipedia, (not in a narrative "you will know from direct experience" lingo). Jaakobou 09:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! The article says:

Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to the occupation and in favour of a de-Zionized Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

. This is a perfectly NPOV description of Matzpen's aims. Adding in qualifications such as "so called" and "what they considered to be" is plain editorializing. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
NO, it's a perfectly POV presentation of Matzpens perceptions, for example, Just because a right-wing group might call Arab presence in Hebron "occupation of murdereous muslim", it does not mean that such a phrasing can be written as such without a "what they describe as" before it. Jaakobou 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that one is the truth, and the other is a lie. RolandR 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
RolandR, you keep confusing your personal narrative with "truth", should i remind you of the 1929 Hebron Massacre? and i'm not even going into previous large scale pogroms in Hebron from 1834 and earlier.
"what they describe as" should be inserted before claims that are largly in dispute... otherwise you could delete the name Israel from every article and replace it with "occupied palestine" - see presentation: [7] Jaakobou 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967 is not at all in dispute. This is the case according to both international and Israeli law. What is in dispute, is the justification for the occupation and the political future of the territories in question, but that's a separate issue.Rangreen 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six day war

That the Israeli army took control over those areas does not negate the difference between the term "occupation" and the less POV term "presence".. for starters, i think there should be no dispute what-so-ever about the first change inside the "first change", i.e. changing 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to 1967 Six-Day War. there can be better and less narrative phrasing for the other problematic portrayal on events. Jaakobou 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should there be no dispute? No matter what Jaakobou or anyone else says, this is not a politically-neutral change. The very name "Six Day War" is POV; it is an Israeli and Western usage, not accepted by Palestinians or the Arab world. RolandR 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
well then, RolandR, what is the wiki accepted term for the six day war ? Jaakobou 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Israca.jpg

Image:Israca.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] add a website to the external links

What about to add this website to the external links http://www.akiorrbooks.org/ with books were written by Matzpen members?

07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)