Talk:Homeland for the Jewish people

Early off topic edits

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

Neutral symbolism

"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)

REQUEST RENAME OF ARTICLE TO ZION(ISM)

It's one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somody (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Steggall 12 Nov 2004 21:02 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Here's one for you.

Hi, i've got a religion that says i get your house. GIVE ME YOUR HOUSE NOW I DESERVE IT.

Is that fair?--78.145.171.24 (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Uganda Plan was extremely important at the time, and is still the best known "other option". Why erase it completely? I put two sentences about it back into the article, if anyone cares to contribute more - please do.Cosainsé (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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."

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)

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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

Delete this article

If "homeland of the Jewish people" is used to describe the Zionist movement and the State of Israel why do we need this dinky little article that duplicates (and also contradicts) material in those articles. No wonder people think wikipedia is a JOKE!!! Fourtildas (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

I suggest that Occupied Palestinian territories be added after state of israel in the lede, since they have been used for this purpose for many years.93.96.148.42 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographical Location in the lede

The lede should mention that Palestine was chosen as the Geographical location for the Homeland for the Jewish people. I will add this.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

History

Why is there not a short history section at the beginning, summarising the rationale, and the evolution of the idea of a Homeland for the Jewish people? At the moment the article discusses internal problems, but not the establishment of the state.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Created this section using orphan material from the lede, and the last section of the article. Please expand!93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Other possibilities"

I think the Saramacca Project a.k.a. the Guyana Plan should be mentioned here. http://www.jewcy.com/arts-and-culture/saramacca_project Vernoeming (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"History: Though the Jewish aspiration to return to Zion has been a part of Jewish religious thought for several millennia..."

This is impossible. Judaism and the Jewish people haven't even existed that long.

"In writing about the historical developments of Palestine between 1250-586 (BCE), all of the traditional answers given for the origins and development of `Israel` have had to be discarded. The patriarchs of Genesis were not historical. The assertion that `Israel` was already a people before entering Palestine whether in these stories or in those of Joshua has no historical foundation. No massive military campaign of invading nomadic `Israelites` ever conquered Palestine. There never was an ethnically distinct `Canaanite` population whom `Israelites` displaced. There was no `period of the Judges` in history. No empire ever ruled a `united monarchy` from Jerusalem. No ethnically coherent `Israelite` nation ever existed at all. No political, ethnical or historical bond existed between the state that was called Israel or `the house of Omri` and the town of Jerusalem and the state of Judah. In history, neither Jerusalem nor Judah ever shared an identity with Israel before the rule of the Hasmoneans in the Hellenistic period."

Thomas L. Thompson (Professor of Theology, University of Copenhagen), "The Bible in History: How Writers Create a Past" (London: Jonathan-Cap, 1999).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.66.249 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2014‎ (UTC)

I provided a more exact time period. USchick (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling on the editors

I'm calling on the editors of this article on their political BS, Don't cat walk this. The idea of a Jewish homeland is CORE to Jewish culture and religion. There is no part of Jewish culture that does not recall Jerusalem, Zion and the Land of Israel, and beg for a return. The 19th and 20th century Zionist movement was a growth from those core values, which is why it succeeded. That puts "zionism" as such, smack into the core of Jewish values. There has been an effort to seperate Jewish identity from the desire to live in a Jewish homeland and political zionism. You can find exceptions to the Jewish norm, but it is worng to seperate the Jewish people from core aspects of their culture for 2 millinium. To profess, we don't hate the Jews, just the zionist, is to seperate Jews from their core values. Expecting Jews be become anti-zionist in the majority is the expectation that Jews will give up their heritage, in the majority, and to give a short hand for rabid antisemtitism.

• • • DO NOT remove the sections that roots the idea of a Jewish Homeland into mainstream Jewish Culture*** If you don't like the syntax, your welcome to fix it. But don't remove it.

14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)96.57.23.82 (talk)

There's no way to fix this sort of thing, or it's asking too much of other editors to do it: "homeland for the Jews began eiyh Zioist and seculists who precieved it", or this, "populaized the move to Israel inincluding". Please get outside help proofreading and fixing the entire edit before forcing it back into the article. Let's not have an edit war over this. It's not what you say, it's the way you say it. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Take a look now.. I'll come back if it is not up to snuff.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I call BS. In order to make this ridiculous claim, please provide at least one source that says all Jews think alike and want the same thing. If Zionism is "CORE to Jewish culture and religion" then why do Orthodox Jews denounce it? [1] According to sources, Zionism is driven by people who want to get rid of Jews. The Allies were all too happy to sanction a "Jewish homeland" far away from their own countries, where they could ship their own Jews and get them out of the way. “The Jewish state was a way of solving the Jewish problem… Once they had a state of their own, it would serve their very uniqueness. They would be normal like any other nation.” [2] In this statement: "The world powers gave legal ownership of modern Israel" who are these "world powers" who have the authority to give "legal ownership"? Another outlandish claim that needs a source please. USchick (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Your just a nut case. Nobody says all Jews think alike, certainly do they don't. Read what was written. And Orthodox Jews do NOT reject Israel as a homeland. Your pointing to a radical minorty as a represetation of the whole of Orthodox Judiasm because your a BIGOT. There is no part of the Jewish Prayerbook, or the Hagadah, or its celebrations, and life events that happen without recalling and calling for a reestablishment of a Jewish home in Zion. This is as core to Judaism as the Passion is to Christianity, or Mohammed is to Islam. So cut the crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.23.82 (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Final solution for the jewish question

Should be mentioned along with the idea of a jewish state. Final solution was a term dating back to 1897, not an idea from 1942. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.11.197.214 (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect "Jewish National Home"

The redirect Jewish National Home currently points to this page. I propose (and am posting both here and on the redirect's talk page) that the target be altered to Yishuv since "Jewish National Home" was the Yishuv's formal name (as per Article Two of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine.) 09:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Basle --> Basel

Sorry if this is out of place; I haven't ever previously tried to suggest edits on a locked page.

It's a small and easy fix, and I think uncontroversial in the context of this controversial page:

In the section "Relation to Zionism," the following sentence appears:

"This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence."

I believe that "Basle" there is a misspelling, and that it should be (per all other references on the page) "Basel," instead. Unless there's some justifiable alternate spelling, but I don't think so!

For anyone able to effect this change on my behalf -- Thanks!

timbo (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Basle" is the French spelling and "Basel" is the German spelling. As to which is correct, I think the answer is "yes", but since the majority of the current population are German speakers and the Protocols of the 1st Zionist Congress spelt it "Basel", I'll change it. But not the occurrence in direct quotation (which I didn't check). Zero^talk 05:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Antisemitism doesn’t have a hyphen

Antisemitism is one word with one definition - Jew Hatred, which is the fuel of this conflict by Jihadi extremists and their supporters. Am yisrael chai. 72.226.117.132 (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hyphen removed (according with WP article) and A replaced with a. Mcljlm (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

change X "Modern legal attempts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people began in 1839 with a petition by Moses Montefiore to Sa'id of Egypt for a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine." to Y "Modern legal attempts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people began in 1839 with a petition by Moses Montefiore to Sa'id of Egypt for a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, later known as the region of Palestine." 147.235.47.234 (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. This is nonsense. Montefiore and practically every other European called it Palestine. Zero^talk 09:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

I am again deleting "Modern legal attempts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people began in 1839 with a petition by Moses Montefiore to Sa'id of Egypt for a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine." because it is unsourced. Mistamystery put it back with a new source which doesn't support it. Actually the text is nonsense on multiple levels. To start with, Sa'id of Egypt was 17 in 1939 and never ruled Palestine. As the source and multiple sources that I looked at (including the diary pages that the new source refers to) say, it was Muhammad Ali of Egypt that Montefiore interacted with. More importantly, none of the sources refer to an actual petition beyond a verbal inquiry, and none refer to a "national homeland". In Safad, Montefiore gave a speech to the locals, "I shall apply to Mohhammad ‘Ali for a grant of land..." but there is no mention in his diaries or three biographical books that I examined of a formal application ever being made. Rather, Montefiore met Ali and raised the issue verbally. Montefiore's description of the meeting refers to the possibility of "renting" land for agriculture, nothing whatever about a national homeland or national anything else. Zero^talk 03:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

“Petition” may also mean appeal. It doesn’t literally need to mean file an actual petition.

And doesn’t the Egyptian anti-Ottoman action and presence in Palestine during the decade in question factor into the Montefiore anecdote? Or are we saying there is absolutely no basis for inclusion? Mistamystery (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Back at my computer. Understood re: the mixup with Sa'id but reviewing the Palestine Studies article again in more detail, it's pretty clear the original line added here was in reference to Muhammad Ali. I also think there's a mixup regarding the notion of there being a legal application when there is also a clear line in interpreting Montefiore's "petition" or "appeal" as being a verbal one - not a paper filing.

With that in mind, I still think there is basis for grounds for inclusion - even if in a separate more appropriately titled section. All said, understand your notes and appreciate you taking the time to explain your thinking. Mistamystery (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The combination of "legal attempt" and "petition" is not the same as "verbal appeal". Here is a relevant passage from Abigail Green, "Moses Montefiore: Jewish Liberator, Imperial Hero", p121, referring to his Safad speech:

"This famously prophetic diary entry has led later generations of Zionists to claim Montefiore as their own. Yet the language of nationalism is strikingly absent from a text in which Montefiore repeatedly refers to Jews as his “brethren”—a Christian term in English, with strong religious connotations. Tellingly, Montefiore only once used the word “nation” to describe Jews in his most complete surviving diary, and he did so in the traditional Sephardi sense of the word. Instead, Montefiore’s grand vision was the product of his dual identity as a religious Jew and a successful London businessman."

There is no question that Montefiore hoped to establish a Jewish agricultural colony in Palestine. But there is a yawning gap between that and "national home". Zero^talk 04:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Going to bypass The Palestine Studies article entirely and go to the cited source, his journals. The source quote in particular - which, in full - I don't think supports the assertion that Montefiore was simply looking to establish an agricultural colony:

"This grant obtained, I shall, please Heaven, on my return to England, form a company for the cultivation of the land and the encouragement of our brethren in Europe to return to Palestine. Many Jews now emigrate to New South Wales, Canada, &c.; but in the Holy Land they would find a greater certainty of success; here they will find wells already dug, olives and vines already planted, and a land so rich as to require little manure. By degrees I hope to induce the return of thousands of our brethren to the Land of Israel. I am sure they would be happy in the enjoyment of the observance of our holy religion, in a manner which is impossible in Europe."

On these grounds, I do think it supports the assertion of the desire for a national or homeland restoration movement. (explicit on use of the word "return") Obviously can include the counter by Green that disputes the assertion, but I think the language is too strong here to ignore.

Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26170/pg26170-images.html Mistamystery (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, reading more into a source than it actually says is OR. There is nothing here that contradicts Green. "Return" just means he accepts that Palestine was the origin of the Jews. "Homeland" refers to the nature of the proposed establishment in Palestine, not to whether it was a "return" or not. And, as Green notes, he is explicitly referring to it in religious terms. Also, this passage is only a recollection of a conversation with two locals. Zero^talk 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)