Talk:Jewish fundamentalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

What is this article supposed to be about?

Uh, what is this article supposed to be about? The title is "Jewish Fundamentalism", but this article contains nothing about this subject at all. Instead, it is about Orthodox Jews who also happen to be political extremists. But most Jewish fundamentalists have no such views. By the academic definition of the term, almost all Orthodox Jews may be termed "Jewish fundamentalists", yet only a tiny percent of them have views even remotely close to what is being claimed here. Also, of those Jews who do have such views, not all of them are religious fundamentalists at all. It seems to me that someone is using this term in a perjorative way, almost as an ad homenim attack. There is little meaningful substance in this entry as of yet. RK

Ok, I have tried to add some content which actually matches the title. But could we get some references to one of the strongest claims here: Do any Jewish settler groups really lay claim to all land between the Nile and the Euphrates? Where do they say this? Sources? And who do these people represent, if anyone? Are the people making such claims representatives of most settlers? (Not that I know of!) RK

Shouldn't we make a new entry to specifically describe the Jewish setllers in the West Bank and Gaza? I would hope that such an entry would portray the full diversity of political and religious views among the settlers, and not just the views of the most radical extremists. RK

The term Jewish Fundamentalism is widely used in exactly the meaning that it was originally used in the article (see the several links and books or seach the web). RK as so often has his own definition of terms.

Jennifer, stop misleading people and stop using ad homenim attacks. I happen to own some of those sources, and they do not use the term "Jewish fundamentalism" as a synonym for the Israeli settlers movement. For instance, the book "Piety and Power" explicitly states that the vast majority of Jewish fundamentalists are not in any way related to the settler movement. Have you read this book? RK

Since we have independent articles on Christian, Muslim and Hindu Fundamentalism, why exclude Judaism? In particular as it is such a widely discussed topic. I also dislike RK's opinion that all intolerant views that are expressed by some Muslims must be thorougly documented in several articles because that is how they are, while intolerance by Israelis should not be given independent articles because it doesn't reflect the viewpoint of all Israelis. /J.

Huh? What are you talking about? I agree with you that there should be an article on this topic, and I have even have contributed to it. Further, please stop misrepresenting about my beliefs. I find it distressing that you would fabricate a position I do not have, and then attack me for this non-existent belief. Please calm down. What I actually said to you was that the title was wrong, and that we should have an article in which the title reflects the content. So how do you twist that into an excuse for personal attacks on me? RK

A general question: is there a page on Wiki that explores the differing perspectives on the Arab-Israeli conflict that exist between the United States and Europe? It is often commented on, and having got to see some news coverage from the major American networks, it is quite dramatic. Whereas Europe reports Israel's involvement in places like the West Bank as 'occupation' and is quite sympathetic to the Palestinians (or at least explores their point of view), the identical story on the major US networks is usually carried from a dramatically more pro-Israeli perspective. (Americans coming to Europe often comment on the differing news coverage also - saying that Europeans get what they say - I'm only repeating what I've heard, not expressing an opinion - is a more balanced reporting of both sides than they ever get from the major networks states-side. ) JTD 02:47 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)

What would you suggest, Robert, for the title. I might suggest that 'fundamentalism' not be capitalised. and Jay, maybe this should be a subject within the media bias article. - Steven

Israeli settlement

See the article Israeli settlement. RK

The following has been removed from the article. I have not heardof this before, and I was unable to verify its accuracy. "Some Jewish setters in the West Bank and Gaza believe that a large portion of the Middle East has been given to the Jewish people by God. Some lay claim to all land between the Nile in Egypt and the river Euphrates in Syria, citing Biblical references from Genesis. People in this group interpret the concept of being God's chosen people in a way that can be described as racist. They often support ethnic cleansing of present day Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza to rid the area of Palestinian Arabs."

I did find a version of this claim (i.e. that all Israelis wish to conquer most of the middle-east) on a number of anti-Semitic sites that promoted anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, but I have been unable to find any quotes from actual Jewish organizations or groups that actually have this as a position. At the moment, it seems to be a widely believed myth. Of course, I would believe that if you look hard enough, you will find some individual Jews who do hold such views. You will also find individual Jews who hold that they were abducted by Space Aliens, under the leadership of Elvis Presley. What I am concerned about is how representative this claim is. Do more than a handful of kooks make this claim? If not, it should not be in this entry. Do a substantial minority really hold to this view? Then it should be discussed. I just would like to see some sort of authentication. RK

Unfortunately, there are settlers in various West Bank settlements that do believe that. Yes, they are an extreme fringe, but, for example, Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, formerly the rabbi of Yamit in the Sinai and now of the Temple Institute of the Old City, wrote a book about the biblical boundaries of the land of Israel. I believe it was called Gevulot Ha-Aretz. He does have a small following, particulalry in Kiryat Arab and Kfar Tapuach, both West Bank settlements. According to how I understand him, the Jews do not have to conquer the land, but if they do come to control it, they are forbidden to give it up. This was especially relevant with regard to Lebanon after the 1982 invasion. He even produced a pamphlet about it, which I own, called Ha-Har ha-Tov ha-Zeh ve-ha-Levanon. Once again though, it is a minority fringe, though there are some rabbis who will advocate that. Another one is Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba (chief rabbi of the town and head, with Eliezer Waldman, of the yeshivah there)--but note that because of his extremist positions he was denied the job of Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. I have personally heard him state his position on it. Danny 00:17 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I guess this is enough to warrant bringing this deleted section back into the article (unfortunately...) I am thinking about moving this text into the article on Israeli settlement, rather than keeping it here. It just seems that the great majority of those who could be considered Jewish fundamentalists don't have views which match the original content of this article, written by Jennifer. I suspect I would get along much better with those Jews who claim that "they were abducted by Space Aliens, under the leadership of Elvis Presley" than members of the "Temple Institute". RK

It would not serve the case that "there is no pro-Israeli bias" for there to be continued designs on splitting up articles critical of Jews, while leaving a disproportionate articles critical of others. This is not to say that the accusation needs to be responded to directly - or to take a defensive stance. I throw it out as a possibility. However, from my point of view, once again, it must be stated that these are issues of arrogance, and one is never wrong to point out such arrogance. 1. -Stevert

Stevertigo is a bald-faced liar; His claims are pure fiction. As anyone can see for themselves, the only issue was that Jennifer mistakenly began writing about the radical wing of Israeli settlers in the wrong encyclopedia entry. RK

Firstly, it is nice to see that RK does not succumb to the temptation of ad homenim attacks. Secondly, it is in fact so that the term Jewish Fundamentalism is most commonly applied to hardline religious settlers and their likeminded co-religionists. It's an established term and thus I hold the original text was not misplaced. Still, I welcome Danny's opinion here since he has a record of balanced and knowledgable judgement on these issues. In addition, though hardline settlers are a fairly small minority, they are well organized, have some political clout in Israel and are far from irrelevant. /J.

Um, Jennifer, it is not an ad homenim attack to point out when Wikipedia is being vandalized by a liar. I am saddened to see that you support writing deliberate fictions, and passing them off as fact. Further, you are simply wrong on this terminology. In fact, the sources which you cited explicitly contradict you. Doesn't this bother you? RK

Sorry RK, naturally calling someone a bald-face liar isn't personal, just an unemotional statement of fact.

Regarding definition of Fundamentalist Judaism: A good source which I linked to is "For the Land and the Lord" by Ian S Lustick, Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. He says about Jewish Fundamentalism: "Historically the movement is a zealous spin-off of Zionism that burst upon the Israeli scene in the triumphant days following the 1967 war" (in the preface) and in general he discusses Jewish Fundamentalism in a way similar to what I tried to do in the original article. He specifically differentiates Jewish Fundamentalism from traditionally pious people, e.g. Orthodox Jewry. Hence, so far, I am not bothered. I feel that the way you try to define the term is unconventional.

Hence, I repeat: Jewish Fundamentalism is most commonly applied to hardline religious settlers and their likeminded co-religionists. It's an established term and thus I hold the original text was not misplaced. Nevertheless, I am not a fundamentalist about this, so I will yield to good arguments. /J.

My turn. Actually, I tend to agree with Jennifer on this one. In the literature that I have seen, religious settlers in the West Bank are usually described as messianic and fundamentalist. On the other hand, fundamentalism can also be used to describe a number of different phenomena in contemporary Judaism, of which the Israeli settler movement is just one. The growth of the newly-Orthodox (the Baal teshuva) movement is another example of fundamentalism, and it is important because it is not just confined to Israel. In other words, I think RK is right too that there are other phenomenon that can also be called Jewish fundamentalist (and for this and the other articles, we need a good sociological definition of "fundie"). What does it all boil down to? I think the settlers should stay here as one very prominent group of Jewish fundamentalists, but the article should also be expanded to include other forms of Jewish fundamentalism as well (the baal teshuva movement, the rise of Shas, Habad, etc.). How's that for a compromise? Danny 04:25 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

A Solomonic judgment. I didn't know about Baal teshuva. /J.

"Sorry RK, naturally calling someone a bald-face liar isn't personal, just an unemotional statement of fact." - No, /J - you had it right the first time... -Stevert