Talk:Kahanism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Libellous claims

I have deleted the libellous "random violence" paragraph. Firstly as the paragraph admitted none of the alleged events were committed by organizations claiming to be Kahanist or Kach related, the writer made up the Kahanist link. Secondly there has never been a case of people calling themselves the "Judean legion", there is a "Jewish Legion" but it is a legal community security organization that has never claimed or been accused of attacks. The Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea is a legal seminary that has never claimed or been accused of attacks. The other names are generally regarded as hoaxes not real organizations, the attacks they relate to were also not random but in retaliation to attacks on Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 03:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take it you plan to sue the US government sometime soon then... [1] - Mustafaa 04:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Amendment of a Certain Designation in order to revoke Kahane.net as an alias of Kahane Chai, also known as Kach, also known as Kahane Lives, also known as the Kfar Tapuah Fund, also known as The Judean Voice, also known as The Judean Legion, also known as The Way of the Torah, also known as The Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea, also known as the Repression of Traitors, also known as Dikuy Bogdim, also known as DOV, also known as the State of Judea, also known as the Committee for the Safety of the Roads, also known as the Sword of David, also known as Judea Police, also known as Forefront of the Idea, also known as The Qomemiyut Movement, also known as KOACH, also known as New Kach Movement, also known as newkach.org, also known as Kahane, also known as Yeshivat HaRav Meir, also known as the International Kahane Movement, also known as Kahane.org, also known asKahanetzadak.com, also known as Kahane Tzadak, also known as the Hatikva Jewish Identity Center, also known as the Rabbi Meir David Kahane Memorial Fund, also known as Friends of the Jewish Idea Yeshiva, also known as Judean Congress, also known as Jewish Legion, also known as The Voice of Judea, also known as No"ar Meir, also known as Meir"s Youth, also known as American Friends of Yeshivat Rav Meir, also known as American Friends of the United Yeshiva Movement, also known as The Committee Against Racism and Discrimination (CARD).
See also http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/rpt/fto/2801.htm#kach. - Mustafaa 04:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa, I think there are indeed plans to sue the US in some of these cases. The above is well known to be highly innacurate and shows that the US government has a very poor understanding of Kahanist groups. Some facts:

  • Kach and Kahane Chai were two different organizations not aliases for the same organization.
  • Both Kach and Kahane Chai disbanded after being declared illegal.
  • New Kach Movement, was a consciousness movement that existed in 2001 - 2002, it maintained websites (main site www.newkach.org) posting political commentary etc and organized meetings, it was never banned or accused of anything illegal. It disbanded as it was felt that there was no need for an organization competing with the Kahane Movement. By the time their name was added to the above list, they had already disbanded.
  • The Kahane Movment is also a consciousness movement. They run www.kahane.org. They also have never been directly accused of any illegal activity. They are not identical to Kach or Kahane Chai nor were they identical to New Kach.
  • There is no Judean Legion, they probably are thinking of the Jewish Legion, which also has never been accused of anything illegal and at times has worked in cooperation with the IDF as a civilian security organization. They have affiliations with the Kahane Movement but are a separate organization. Kahane Movement is largely a virtual community on the internet, Jewish Legion are a hands on community security organization.
  • The Yeshiva of the Jewish Idea is a seminary not an alias for the other organizations I mention, the Israeli police often raid them and confiscate computers etc the most they have been charged with is distributing inciteful material.
  • Some of the other names are simply charity funds.

Kuratowski's Ghost 11:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your compromise wording is good. Having seen the mess of implausible aliases they give for Hezbollah, I can certainly imagine that they messed up similarly on Kach - but of course their sources are scarcely likely to be public, so who's to check? - Mustafaa 02:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Just a thought

Mier Kahane himself gave an extensive interview that appeared in Playboy magazine some years ago, all the more so as Golda Mier was still Prime Minister I believe and the whole right wing shift in Israeli Politics was still wishful thinking on Kahane's part. His own words could enlighten greatly and be about as original source as could be easily found.

I remember the article but do not have/can't find it sold anywhere. If there is anyone with an old "60's Playboy collection perhaps they could include the article somehow. Dragonwlkr 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to update of Dec 30

As long as its accurate and fair which it is still not as explained below.

The addition in the Goldstein paragraph is unrelated becsue 'settlers' is a term for all people living in given areas and is not the same as kahane. In addition the paragraph of Natan-Zada is similar.

The indymedia link is annonymous and therefore not verifiable. This is a perfect example of "Original Research."

Nevertheless, I'm going to leave this page as is for a few days to both give more time for better verifiable sources from you (or others) and for me to try to find out more.

I just noticed your slanderous picture, posted on your indymedia site, of a kid with paint on their hands - a picture you claim is from a forum. Anyone could put any picture on any forum and your posting it where it is, is slander and intolerable on Wiki. You take an annonymous picture and post it near an existing organization without reason where it is irrelevant to the topic.

I am therefore removing your links immediately.

It is becoming quite clear that you are someone who should not be posting anything on Wiki about any topic since you put your biased feeling into all that you write.

ANYONE OUT THERE WHO KNOWS MORE HELP TO UPDATE THIS AND OTHER PAGES.

Update Dec 30

Added some additional sources (some of which I am sure will upset you). For the Kahanism in the USA section, I agree the first paragraph has no sources and reads like an ad for various individuals and groups listed, like it will help them raise money or something to be listed as Kahane representatives in the USA. For the following paragraphs I have provided links to the scans of the original documents.Dc-ijc 05:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of peace

OK for the sake of peace I have changed the page to make clear what the issues are and to give some time for sources to be obtained. Until it is verified the user should know what the issues are.

Please update with verifiable sources as soon as possible.

No sources and no verification

I didn't remove those paragraphs since I was giving time time for you to get the sources but since its not you ther's nobody to wait for.

You are disingenouus. For example, you put back the section of Asher Weinglass, which has no references.

In fact the Goldstein section should not be htere, since he was not part of any 'kahanist' group. The 'source' there is another Wiki article that mentions his being part of a 'kahanist' group with no source. As I pointed out a whole comission in Israel came to that conclusion that he was involved with no group.

(Its really surprising to me how inaccurate Wiki could be - and I always assumed it was accurate!)

As far as you example of Ahmanedijad, yes in fact if you could contact him and you wanted to write something negative - of course you should verify it! Why would you thnk differently?

Im going to leave up what you claim, is the only thing you put up, pending your verification. Seeing the proximity of the date that the 'source' was put up and the date you added your information leads me to believe that you or a friend put it up - especially since anything can be posted annonomously there.

Again read: : Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

  • In particular: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor."

Again, wholesale deletion is a violation

Hey, if you check the history of the article, I had nothing to do with the first paragraph of the Kahanism in the USA section.

Apparently you favor that any article on Wikipedia that mentions Ahmanedijad should be cleared first by asking him.

LOL!

I did not originate the article, and did not write or originate many of the sections you specify. If you want to improve the article, please submit specific suggestions.

You are deleting work by other editors arbitrarily, or rather, based on your own Kahanist bias (apparently).

I am looking forward to a non-violent resolution.

Dc-ijc 07:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Sources Is a Violation

Your first paragraph of Kahanism in the USA is unsubstantiated and, after looking into it, I found out false - and you provide no source. People many have similar views but that does not mean that they are run by people of another group. I asked you to VERIFY your claims. What betteer way than to present it to the EXISTING organization that has LIVING people that are AFFECTED by BIASED individuals like yourself. Maybe they can clarify, but apparently you have no interest in that.

In addition notice that there are NO sources for the categories:

  • Kahanism
  • Premesis
  • Outlawed
  • Baruch Goldstein
  • Eden Natan-Zada
  • Kahanism in Israel Today

You see, your statements in all of these categories are very wrong and they should be completely removed if you do not provide accurate RELIABLE SOURCES that is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH as REQUIRED by Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

  • In particular: "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor."

I think that you've done the right thing in applying for arbitration.

Wholesale deletion is a violation of Wikipedia rules

I've applied for arbitration and have no desire to get into a wikiwar. A few points:

1. I don't believe a contributor to a wiki article about, say, David Duke, needs to contact David Duke to confirm what is written about him. To begin with, it is a violation of the policy you yourself cited: no original research. I don't see how advocating that subjects of articles (who happen to be listed as terrorists) get to provide input on articles about their activities fits into the wiki process. If anyone has bias, it would be those individuals or member of the group that the article is about.

2. The article on Kahanism is not a biography of a living person, it is an article about a political movement which advocates and has endorsed violence against civilians, and has been subject to special designations by the US and Israeli governments as a result, which set limits to what the group or its supporters can and cannot legally do.

3. The section "Kahanism in the USA" is not original research -- it is based on an article posted on Indymedia, which contains scans of the original documents described in the section. Summarizing the documents is not "research." If the section comes to conclusions that go beyond the clearly sourced material, making highly controversial claims, certainly that can be challenged.


Dc-ijc 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Violation by poster Dc-ijc of Wikipedia rules

Now you are calling someone who considers your posts inaccurate a 'terrorist.' I suppose that clarifies things about you.

Please review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines "and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively ..."

In addition I asked you to be careful of the veracity and relavence of what you write - this is especially true of people and organizations that are around and can be contacted. Please read Wikipedia's instructions at the same link: "Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: 

   Editors should remove any negative material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that 
   do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. "

In addition: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies"

In addition You cannot do you own "original research." Wikipedia has this rule for people like you: most of the time "original research" is biased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

In summary: 1. Treat all with respect. 2. Be extra careful when refering to living persons and existing organizations which are run by people. 3. Do not put on things that are your own original research. (These things are almost always biased.)

Please follow Wikipedias rules for the benefit of all.

Terrorists Writing Their Own Articles?

This person writes that Asher Weissgan has nothing to do with Kahanism and only is "right wing", so he deletes it. Well please take a look at ***the first paragraph of the article*** which provides the following definition of kahanism:

Kahanism is a term used in Israeli political parlance to refer, first of all, to the ideology of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and, more generally, to other right-wing Religious Zionist movements or groups that share a belief in the fundamental tenets of that ideology, chief among them being the idea that the State of Israel should be governed theocratically, should accord full citizenship exclusively to Jews, and that all non-Jews should be either deported or allowed to remain as resident aliens with full economic and personal rights, but no political rights.

The Haarets article is a source. If you want to provide a different source with a different interpretation, that would shed some light, as opposed to deleting whatever material you find embarrassing to your group.

Also, a deadly drive-by shooting is hardly a response to "Arab instigation" -- it is terrorism.Dc-ijc 06:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

More Bias

Actually after relooking at this "definition" I see a lot of bias which is being corrected. Since I only became aware of Wiki and these 'definitions' recently I hope to correct this over the next few days.

I find it quite shocking that the paragraph on Asher Weissgan is there when there was no connection to Kahane! I see that you really can post nonesense on wikipedia.

You quote the newspaper rag Haaretz that says "right wing...it is almost impossible not to generalize" - that's your logic? First, Haaretz is an extreme leftist newpaper that hates anyone right-wing and second they talk about the 'right-wing' so why don't you put this paragraph in the wiki of the word 'right-wing?'

Indeed Eden Natan-Zada should not be there either - Did the thought ever cross you mind that he went to Kfar 'after' being upset at Arabs who were killing his friends?

Is this a place for definitions or political points with an agenda?

What does Yesh Din's report against settler's responses to Arab instigations have to do with Rabbi Kahane?

These items, being unrelated to kahane, are being removed.

Inacccurate Bias

The first thing that I noticed was your statement "This solicitation may be in violation ..."

Why would somebody use the word "may" - either say it does or doesn't - not "may." The only reason to state it is to try to discredit a group behind their back without finding out the details. In either case what is such a paragraph doing in a wikipedia, I thought - this is a place for definitions not political statements.

I then started to doubt the veracity of anything written here. I therefore decided to find out if you had even bothered to look into it - which it turns out you hadn't.

Yes, you contact any organization or person you speak about, if at all possible.

Please Cite Inaccuracies

The section "Kahanism in the USA" is based on documents that are scanned and viewable in the links to the section. Do you contact Al Qaeda or any of the other groups listed as FTOs to "verify" wikipedia articles? Of course not!

Dc-ijc 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this Article

Numerous points have been clarified in this article.

In particular the paragraph kahanism in USA has been removed due to inaccuracy. I have contacted the groups listed and have learned that none of them were contacted to verify the accuracy of what was put on wikipedia - in fact some of what is written is inaccurate. It would seem correct to at the very least contact any group that you expect to write about to verify accuracy.

REDEFINED

I have changed the opening definition of Kahanism on this page to better reflect the fact that the term has a wider meaning than simply the ideas of Kahane and Kach. (The specific ideology of Kahane is sometimes called "Kahaneism" in the secondary literature). From other comments here, it seems that some people have the impression that Kahanism is simply about expelling people who are hostile to Jews; one need only read the Kach Statement of Principles, the voluminous writings of Kahane, or better yet the secondary literature by social scientists on Kahanism to see that their goals are somewhat broader. All groups that I have seen referred to as Kahanist in the latter literature or in the Israeli press advocate a state of affairs in which full citizenship is granted solely to Jews, and non-Jews are given the option of leaving or staying on as resident aliens with certain preconditions, e.g., obedience to the so-called Noachide Laws and acceptance of an inferior status in accordance with the Maimonidean notion of "slavery." I will be making further edits to the substantive portions of this article later. To (hopefully) avoid a rancorous edit war, I will happily provide extensive references to primary and secondary documentation on any point of disagreement here in the talk page. Masarra 21:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


NPOV

I am fine having this article protected or otherwise flagged while someone authoritative and NPOV can set the record straight, but this article is currently overwhelmingly pro-Kahanist. I'm not the one trying to peddle a political line.

If a consensus is not reached, this is going to result in an edit war. --213.121.151.146 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Being honest about what Kahanism is not pro-Kahanist. Kahanism is not anti-Arab. Its against enemies of the Jews regardless of ethnicity. Kahanism does not want to expel people because they are Arab, it wants to expel those hostile to Jews. Yes most of the people in Israel hostile to Jews are Arabs but it is not the fact that they are Arab that Kahanists are concerned about its the fact that they hostile to Jews. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the stated aims of the Israeli government is to create a state safe from enemies of the Jews. Why, if all Kahanists want to do is to remove the enemies of Jews from Israel, which is a mellower goal than that of the state of Israel itself (Israel considers its remit to extend beyond its borders), would numerous Kahanist groups be listed as a terrorist organisation by Israel and the United States? No, they wouldn't. Meir Kahane made his position on the relationship between Arabs and Jews clear in his literature and in his speeches before, during and after his term in the Knesset. These include that a Jewish fundamentalist state, as was intended to be created, could not have non-Jewish citizens and that the Arabs would always be enemies of the Jews and covet the land from which Kahane intended to form this state. As a result, he frequently advocated, such as in the imaginatively-titled They Must Go, the removal of all Arabs from Israel, as well as the stripping of Israeli citizenship from (and resultant expulsion of most) Christians and other non-Jews in these lands. So let's not kid ourselves, nor others by insisting that Kahanists are pursuing a legitimate goal like arguing those "unwilling to live in peace with the Jews should be removed". Kahanists are racist. That's why the government of Israel banned Kach standing in elections. --213.121.151.146 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes all Israeli governments want safety from enemies but the difference between Kahanists and the mainstream is that Kahanists advocate removal of hostiles whereas the mainstream advocate peace deals, ceding land and or removal of Jews from certain areas. Kahane did not advocate an Israel free of non-Jews he advocated an Israel ruled by Halacha which allows for non-Jews who accept the conditions of ger toshev. As the article points out not all people labeled Kahanist agree with the idea of a theocratic government and simply want hostiles removed . Kuratowski's Ghost 10:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Meir Kahane did advocate an Israel with no Jewish citizens. Meir Kahane did state, explicitly, that all Arabs are enemies of Jews and should be removed. He wrote a book, They Must Go, previously mentioned, about the formation of a Jewish state where the only citizens are Jews. Kach was banned because the Israeli government considered them racist and, essentially, didn't like the idea of Kahane standing up in the Knesset and declaring war on a large proportion of the Israeli population, and were branded racist as a result. You would have us believe that they were banned for little or no more than opposing withdrawing settlers from the Gaza Strip. It's no wonder that Kahane features prominently in websites that propose the removal of the Arab population, or that the removal of the Arab population features prominently in websites that are Kahanist. Kahanism is the adherence to the major tenets of Meir Kahane's beliefs. That the Arabs will, as the Canaanites are described in the Torah, always covet the Land of Israel and thus remain the Jews' enemies is one of these. --213.121.151.146 12:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

His books are available online if you look for them. He went for an Israel ruled by Halacha which does allow non-Jews. He does explicitly refer to Arabs based on the reality that the current enemies of the Jews living within Biblical Israel are indeed Arab. The mainstream politicians (deliberately mis)interpreted this as inherent racism towards Arabs resulting in the outlawing of Kach. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is a misinterpretation, it's one perpetrated by advocates of Kahane's work as well as "mainstream politicians", which would certainly suggest that it's not deliberate. Kach's official website claims he said "for Israel there is only one answer: removal of the Arabs from Israel". This means that not only did he hold this belief himself, but that it is considered a significant enough belief to be taken up by his followers, which is surely what Kahanism definitively is. Did you say there were free electronic versions of They Must Go? That would be a very useful resource. If not, I'll go to the library for a copy. --213.121.151.146 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Am just taking a look at the very first sentance of the article (which does set the the tone for the rest of it..), and here it is "Kahanism is a right-wing Religious Zionist movement which some consider to be an extremist fringe movement...". Wouldn't "some" be one of those weasel word that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia when phrased like that? After all I'm sure "some" people would regard supports of President Bush (which I'm not, not even american) as an 'extremist fringe movement'! So as the first sentance of this article stands I can't see how it is NPOV, perhaps "extremist fringe movement" should be removed and readers can be left to decide for themselves if it is an 'extremist movement' or not based on their own standards after reading the article. Mathmo 04:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the article is unencyclopaedic 213.121.151.146 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In his later book, "Uncomfortable Questions for Comfortable Jews," he specifically writes that he DOES NOT want to evict all Arabs from the land of Israel, but rather is willing to give them a chance to stay in Israel assuming they pledge allegiance to the state, and give up political rights.Doom777 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Greater Israel includes what, exactly?

The page currently reads that the Kahanist desire a state covering "at minimum present-day Israel including the West Bank and Gaza Strip". This wording implies that Israel includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which it does not. Palestine is a geographic region that includes Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (and no other areas), so its usage is not only more correct, but less POV and more illustrative of significance of the collection of these lands. At the very least, it should be "Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip" to achieve the first two of these. --213.121.151.146 03:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Greater Israel is terroritory defined by the Torah in Deutronomy--Doom777 07:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

--need a link for that Lebanese that was killed in a car bomb a very short time before he was gonna give evidence against Ariel Sharon in the Hague for the Sabra and Chatila Massacre

Nobody was going to testify against Ariel Sharon in the Hague. Perhaps you meant Belgium
These acts of terrorism were instrumental in the establishment of the State of Israel. Persons who masterminded these actions (i.e. Menachem Begin, Yitzak Shamir, and others) achieved leadership positions in the Israeli government

These people achieved their positions in a perfectly democratic way about 40 years after they quit terrorism. Moreover, the Haganah never participated in attacks against civilians aimed at achieving a political gain, so it can't be classified as terrorist no matter how one twists things; Deir Yassin was before the establishment of Israel; finally, most Arab sources claim Sabra and Chatila was a Zionist conspiracy. --Uriyan

The following statement has been removed from the main article "Rabbi Meir Kahane supported forcible deportation of Arab Israeli citizens from Israel and a ban upon marriage or sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews." These viewpoints are by no means acts of terrorism! If they were, we would also have to add thousands of Islamic clerics to the Terrorism Against Israeli page, for they have the same views about Jews, and to a lesser degree, against Christians. [[RK]]

There was no unified Jewish leadership in Palestine at the time. Furthermore, various attacks by the Irgun and Stern Gang were done in full cooperation with the Haganah (the Night of the Bridges, for example), while others were not. On the other hand, while I have deep reservations about the Stern Gang (which happened to include a number of active Arab members) the Irgun not just a small, marginal group of radicals. If they were, B.G. would not have ordered the attack on the Altalena.

    • The Road Safety Movement has carried out drive-by killings of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank. The movement consists of settlers and has links to the Kach. (Is this true? Please provide documentation on the existence of this organization.)
  • USS Liberty affair. See Conspiracy theory
As to the Road Safety movement, I've yet to see any proof that it actually exists, not even mentioning theoretical accidents! USS Liberty was an American military vessel attacked by Israeli military forces. No matter how one twists this, it has nothing to do with terrorism. --Uriyan

This would be a much more useful article if someone would add years to each of the bullet points. Even someone like myself, who sides with Israel, would like to know if and when Israel's enemies have suffered terrorism. Because I'm against terrorism just as much as I'm for Israel's survival. Okay, maybe my priorities need straightening out, but at least give me some facts, okay? Ed Poor, Friday, June 14, 2002

I added the years (the exact dates when I knew them). -Uriyan
  • A number of Jewish groups in the 1930s and 1940s, such as the Stern gang and the Irgun gang, launched attacks against Palestinians and against British installations in the Mandate of Palestine.
  • Some Jewish extremists groups in Israel have plotted, attempted or succeeded in terrorist attacks against Palestinian targets; e.g. the 1994 Hebron massacre
  • The Jewish Defense League, a US-based Jewish terrorist organization, has been accused of attempting to bomb Arab targets in the U.S.
There are two pages to which the above may be relevant: Israeli terrorism (on which it's already present) and Terrorism against Arabs. Obviously, the alleged Israeli terrorism is a part of the greater subject of terrorism against Arabs. So, I think that rather by duplicating information between these pages, we should simply link them. Moreover, this is going to save us the effort of synchronizing the pages when we add some content, in addition to the headings that were outlined. --Uriyan

Serious question, seeking clarification about "...the Haganah never participated in attacks against civilians aimed at achieving a political gain, so it can't be classified as terrorist no matter how one twists things."

Just which groups were involved in the assassination of Lord Moyne? PML.

It was two members of the Stern Gang. Danny
The notion that Haganah was never involved in terrorism is simply incorrect. There was certainly a phase where the movement was deeply ambivalent about terrorist violence, but most of the time Haganah had no qualms about resorting to terrorism to acheive its goals. That is to say, they engaged in international arms smuggling (this was organized by Teddy Kollek, Hank Greenspun, and Al Schwimmer, the latter become famous later for his involvement in the Iran-Contra arms deals), assassination, bombing, sabotage, and all of the various activities that are understood to be implied by the word "terrorism." They were engaged in the 1940s in fierce competition with Irgun; it was the Haganah that sank the Altalena, after all. I am not saying this to condemn anyone or because I am opposed to this or that; it is simply historically inaccurate to suggest that Haganah had nothing to do with terrorism. Masarra 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the page should be re-written to refer only to terrorism by Jews against Arabs in Israel and the occupied territories (not including alleged Israeli state terrorism). The page should be renamed to something like 'Kahanist Terrorism'. Note it may be difficult to find out about Kach terrorism as Kach tends to use aliases a lot (some Kach aliases are 'Kahane Chai', 'Committee for the Safety of the Roads', 'Sword of David', 'Sword of Judea', 'Repression of Traitors').GCarty

That makes a big assumption, specifically that Kahaneism is a terrorist movement, which many people would disagree with.--Doom777 03:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kahanism, JDL etc etc are not about Goldstein and Natan-Zada

It seems that every article about rightwing Jewish movements are dominated with large sections on Baruch Goldstein and Natan-Zada, neither of whom are typical representatives of the movements. These should be cut down to appropriate size perhaps removed entirely. They are clearly there as part of the well known smear campaign against these movements. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

These article sections are relevant to the larger picture(regardless if these acts are terrorism/psychosis/etc) of israeli political climate in general.Igal Amir acted alone too.What influences this people?

Well if that is the case then by the same "logic" I would recommend that we similarly fill the article on the Democratic Party with a large section on Charles Manson. He is relevant to the larger picture seeing he voted Democrat, what influenced him blah blah blah. The Unabomber also acted alone .... :P Kuratowski's Ghost 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Khanism and Non-Jews

The Hazit party wanted to encourage more immigration of non-Jews with Jewish heritage to Israel. Is this common among all Kahanists? How does this fit in with wanting a Jewish theocracy? The Secretary of Funk 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

POV?

This article makes repeated references to "Arabs" as the target of invectives by many Kahanist groups. While I realize that even Kahane himself occasionally used the word "arab", it was meant to be synonymous with "Muslim", and this has been repeatedly clarified by both himself and those who support his idealogy when charges of rascism have been levelled against them. I'm not a Kahanist myself, so I can't make any claims as to what they actually believe, but this seems to be pretty accurate from what I've read; it's just an innaccurate and less politically-correct way of referring to Muslim populations in Israel because the number of Arab Christians within Israel are marginal compared to the diaspora of people who identify as Palestinians. My question is this- why is the word "arab" used repeatedly throughout the article when "Muslim" is meant? We want the article to be encyclopaedic, and this seems a bit POV considering it might not accurately reflect their beliefs (and would be immediately identified as rascist). I'll do a revision, if no one objects, but something should be put in the article as well to clarify the usage of "Arab" in rhetoric by Kahanists- and it should be NPOV. If the article isn't re-written and properly sourced as to the claims made, we should consider placing a tag on the page to reflect innaccuracy. As it stands, this article is lacking in citations, backing for the claims made in the article, and detail--- and is subject to repeated POV revisions by both Kahanists and anti-Kahanists because of this. Kaelus 17:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

POV title heading

A section in the article was changed to read "Alleged Kahanist actions in Israel". Given that several of the actions described took place in the West Bank. Whether this was genuinely inadvertant or an attempt to subtlely insert POV I couldn't say. --Black Butterfly 14:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV, as the West Bank is occupied by Israel, and is incorporated into and administered by the state, irregardless of whether it's claimed by other nations or not, or recognized as a legitimate holding by various members of the international community. I think rewording it otherwise might be more POV than saying it is "in Israel". Jordan no longer lays claim to it (so far as I know, though the name "West Bank" has stuck in Western media), and those sections and towns within the West Bank that are administered by the PA are actually legally granted autonomy by Israel (though in reality, many areas are pretty anarchic- the PA is pretty ineffectual in a lot of places). Kaelus 17:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Putting attacks in the West Bank as "Israel" is POV in that it presumes no distinction between the two, when the status of the area is under dispute. West Bank is the most common way of referring to that particular area and makes no POV judgement on whether it is "Palestine", "Israel", "Jordan", or whatever. --Black Butterfly 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Added category Racism

This is NOT a redundant category and it IS relevant to understanding this article and its relevance. Why is that hard to appreciate and WHY would you NOT want to include it??--68.9.116.87 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph reads:
Outlawed: Since 1985, the State of Israel has outlawed groups espousing Kahane's ideology as being racist, and forbids their participating in the Israeli government. The Kach party was banned from running for the Knesset in 1988, while the existence of the two Kahanist movements formed following Kahane's assassination were proclaimed illegal terrorist organizations in 1994 and the groups subsequently officially disbanded.


So it DOES belong in the category of Racism.--68.9.116.87 01:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why Category:Racism is Redundant

Category:Kahanism is under Category:Anti-Arabism which in turn is under Category:Racism (do you see how?). So, Kahanism is under the category of Racism, it's just under a sub-subcategory of it. Please, no more reverts. —EdGl 01:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then list Racism and NOT anti arabism..but you really should have BOTH...
That's not how it works. One should put the most specific categories possible. —EdGl 02:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. —EdGl 02:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Categorization of people, are you pushing an agenda here?? it does not help this article, please keep it here, thanks.--Tom 02:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who are you accusing? —EdGl 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Sub-categories and their parent categories should not both be on a page, per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes; please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

==kahane judged by the content of character, not by the colour of skin==131.104.138.33 (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Jewish Task Force

Apparently, members of the JTF forum are modifying the article in order to add mentions to the "organization" (or website). See here: http://zzz.ee/?i=gxn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.207.99 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for ending the edit war and giving up your attempts to make bulk changes without discussion. Now please justify removing references to JTF as a "Kahanist group", while it is self-identified as such. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding this edit, three things

  • The lead is a summary of the article body per WP:LEAD. This material isn't in the article body.
  • The material is completely unsourced and it is controversial. It can be removed by anyone at anytime simply on the basis of WP:V non-compliance.
  • There is no policy based reason to revert its removal. Editors who want this material should a) add it to the article body per WP:LEAD and b) ensure that it complies with WP:V.

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made small changes to clarify that this was Kahane's opinion and not a fact. Sol Goldstone (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I've moved it out of the lead. The sourcing is not good enough. The quote used to support the statements doesn't support the statements. Secondary sources rather than wiki editors need to interpret and summarise Kahane's primary sources and we need to cite those secondary sources. I was tempted to delete the whole thing and I may still do that. Whoever wants this in the article needs to comply with mandatory policy WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Also the source may be a copyvio. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is JDL a Kahanist group?

Not in a sense in which the term Kahanism is used... As explained in the preambula, Kahanism is a term coined later, present in Israel's politics... Sure, some Kahane followers were JDL members and then moved to Israel and joined Kach etc, but JDL continued to exist, most of its members relatively ignorant of Israeli politics and certainly not involved in it. --Vicky Ng (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so. The ADL calls them Kahanist which satisfies the WP policies. They certainly use his writing for their mission statements and major policies (even the anti-miscegenation which is surprising). Sol (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
ADL is not an RS for terrorist designation: they are not reporting that fact, but stating their own opinion, which is irrelevant (or otherwise you'd have to categorize an organization as terrorist in all cases when some other organization believes so). As far as principles of the JDL, mission statements, policies, etc, yes, they are based on Kahane, but pre-date Kahanism (subject of this article). --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not about terrorist designation (although that's an easy one to source for JDL) but about JDL as a Kahanist group. If a RS says it what more do we need? The article currently has the definition of Kahanism as "the views Rabbi Kahane expressed while he was active in Israeli political life" but it's sourced to the now banned kahane.org and it doesn't seem to be the definition that a lot of media/academic sources use which is roughly "over or relating to the ideas of Meir Kahane" with no temporal designation. Sol (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Race and Categories

Per recent edits. I saw someone had put this in the "Race and Politics" category and it had been reverted. Looking over it I can't think of another category that fits it better; it's a political philosophy with a strong emphasis on moving an ethnic/racial group out of a certain area. That's why it was banned. Sol (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide references specifically showing connection to race/racism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure thing! Here's the government summary of Kach's history, including how this party based on Meir Kahane's philosophy was banned as "manifestly racist" Here's an ADL report which outlines some of Kahane's principals including the need to remove Arabs from Israel. And as the article makes it very clear that one of the cornerstones of his philosophy was the need to transfer the Arab population from Israel. Those are just a few of many sources on the subject. As the article is already in the main category of Anti-Arabism how about I just put that cat tag in? Sol (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A great variety of things are called racist these days, including those that have nothing to do with race... Especially in Israel. Please find a more appropriate category. --Vicky Ng (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Pardon ? Opinions that are patently contradicted by reliable sources can't be included in the consensus process. The "Race and Politics" category is appropriate. The "Racism" category is appropriate. The "Religious fundamentalism" category is appropriate. There are probably many more that may be appropriate and supported by RS about terrorism, nationalism, perhaps even neo-fascism. If there were a "Blatant racism" category even it would be appropriate. A great many things are called racist by reliable sources. They get put in categories related to racism so that readers looking for issues related to racism can find them. Categories are there to help people find articles related to the category subject. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you missed the point: while there may be reliable sources for "racism" categorization, whether editors agree with the way RS defines the term racism or not, there are no sources for "race" categorization (as in "Politics and Race"). Race and racism and not synonymous. If such sources do exist, please present them. --Vicky Ng (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
They aren't synonymous, true, but it seems like a political philosophy chiefly concerned with race fits very nicely in the "Race and Politics" category. We do not, as far as I know, need an RS that says "Kahanism is all about Race and Politics". Let's see, sean's right about religious fundamentalism as supported and that seems reasonable. It looks like neofascism, terrorism, and nationalism are also well supported. Sol (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we do not need an RS that says "Kahanism is all about Race and Politics". An RS that says "Kahanism is a political philosophy chiefly concerned with race" would be sufficient. Similarly, sources would be required for the remainder of your list. Otherwise, it is, well, WP:OR... --Vicky Ng (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not too familiar with the Category policies, the only directions I could find are "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." and "Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." The section "Premise" supports "Race and Politics", Anti-Arabism,(Also Religious Fundamentalism), "Kahanist violence in Israel and the West Bank" covers Terrorism. Kahanism is right at the intersection of so many topics (religion, politics, violence, race) that it would be easy to overcategorize so I'm not sure which are best. Sol (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I do not agree that section "Premise" supports "Race and Politics" categorization. Per WP:CLN, "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Category:Kahanism is already in Category:Anti-Arabism. You may want to look for a narrower category than Religious Fundamentalism. Terrorism is not an appropriate parent category for this article (see premise); Kach and Kahane Chai article is already in Category:Jewish terrorism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, how about we just put it in "Anti-Arabism" (which weirdly falls under Anti-national sentiment, go figure) per WP:EPON? I'm not sure I understand the objection to "Jewish Terrorism" (which nicely is under the Fundamentalism cat) as Kahane did explicitly talk advocate using terror to discourage future attacks/make Arabs leave and his followers were happy to oblige. I think R+P is justified (it's a political theory mainly concerned with moving an ethnic group, right?) but maybe I'm missing something? Sol (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you can put this article into Anti-Arabism if it is already in a category (Kahanism) which is in Anti-Arabism. Objectin to Terrorism is that the subject of the article is an ideology, not a specific organization, movement, individuals or entity that may be charged with terrorism. Kach is already under Jewish Terrorism. The objection to R+P is that Kahanism has nothing to do with RACE and there are no sources supporting it. While some view the ideology as racist, the same sources view racism as something completely detached from race. Kahane, in fact, had Arab supporters, Arab allies promoting relocation in exchange for compensation, and even an Arab convert to Judaism who ran for Knesset with Kahane on Kach ballot. So, while some sources consider cultural or religious intolerance 'racism', even those sources would not go as far as to define race as a religious or cultural group. --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)Per WP:EPON putting it in Anti-Arabism is allowed. As to "Jewish Terrorism" I would agree if Kahane didn't expressly endorse terrorism as a cornerstone of his strategy for "defense", advocating reprisal killings and, in his book "The Jewish Idea", "to strike directly at Arab leaders and to bring terror into the streets of Cairo, Damascus and Tripoli." He doesn't even bother couching it in euphemistic terms of "preventive defense". As to the Arab supporters, that is interesting and should be put in the article but there are always exceptions to the rules (George Wallace had black supporters etc.); that doesn't mean the rules have changed. Kahane advocated many times that Arabs should be moved out of Israel. If the Knesset and the Supreme Court of Justice say his political philosophy is racist that is good enough for me. Sol (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You are still missing (or at least not addressing) the point: If the Knesset and the Supreme Court of Israel find Kach's platform racist, it does not mean that it has anything to do with race (as in "Race and Politics") or even with ethnicity. Regarding terrorism, the subject of this article is ideology. Terrorist acts are described in other articles. --Vicky Ng (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess I am missing the point. I don't understand how racist can't encompass race by its definition. In the High Court's words ""the aims of Kach and its actions are racist and . . . it seeks to violently deny the rights of segments of the population." As to the terrorism cat, I do not think it's limited to terrorist acts or terrorists themselves, just the general rules for category application. This ideology specifically advocates terror in no uncertain terms and has driven most of the Jewish terrorist attacks in Israeli and American history(not very many!). That's pretty strong case for inclusion. Sol (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Because these "segments" are not races (there is no source for this, and such POV most likely doesn't even exist). Terms 'racism' and 'racist' are loosely used, but not 'race'. Maybe you could find a better category, encompassing racist ideologies? Regarding terrorism, as I already suggested, see Definitions of terrorism. This article does not belong there - not because Kahanists have not committed terror attacks, but because these attacks are not the subject of the article. --Vicky Ng (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explaining, I'm starting to see where you are coming from on the "Race and Politics" angle. I think it's still a good choice but how about just "Racism" instead? As to the terrorism issue, I'd put it on the third opinion board but we already have a third opinion so that's ruled out. Sol (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Category:Racism is too general, and I do not see an appropriate subcategory, where the term would be given the same meaning as attributed to Kahanism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If Racism is the most specific category available then that's where it goes. The policy page makes it clear that cats can be used for anything satisfying the basic requirements. The majority (all two editors) think "Anti-Arabism", "Jewish Terrorism" and "Racism" are appropriate (unless im misconstruing sean in which case I apologize). Not a card I like to play but I don't think we are getting far and I 'd like to work more on the article. Sol (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Would Category:Ethnicity in politics be a better choice? --Vicky Ng (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Great find. Done and done =) Sol (talk) 05:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Racism cat again

The cat was added. It was removed with the edit summary "This category is for issues relating to racism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly racist."

Kahanism is not a member of the set "individuals, groups or media". It's an ideology, an -ism. There are several members of Category:Racism and it's subcategories that are ideologies, -isms, widely regarded in RS-world as racist. The removal of the category may be invalid.

I've started this discussion in the hope that it will help avoid edit warring. I have nearly zero interest in its outcome. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed before above in the #Why Category:Racism is Redundant section when the article used to be in a subcat of racism. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That's (not individuals, groups, or media) a reasonable argument. I've restored the cat. I hope that reverting my own reversion doesn't bring me in violation of 1RR. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=2728.msg15857#msg15857
    Triggered by \bjtf\.org/forum_english\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"fascist" removed

I've gone and boldly removed fascist from the article lede. There's nothing in the text or references of the article to support the designation "fascist"; from what I can find, the only support for the word "fascist" should link instead to Fascist (insult). 75.128.215.87 (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Christian Support Section

If the only example anyone can find of Christian support is one minister famous because he called Obama's mother "white trash", then this section might be WP:FRINGE. Including this section may give undue weight to a fringe point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor Orangemike greatly improved the article by changing the name of the section to "James David Manning support". I still question if including the section at all is giving undue weight to a fringe point of view. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kahanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kahanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kahanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kahanism/Archive_1&oldid=1136863732"