Talk:Homeland for the Jewish people

message: It's one and the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somody (talk • contribs) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  REQUEST RENAME OF ARTICLE TO ZION(ISM) 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Ethnic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the first view and the second view 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Well, unless they're Palestinian, then they do, right? Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Uganda Debate and its actual implications

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Palestinian Culture in Hatikvah? 

message: This definitely needs expansion, or at least citation. —Ashley Y 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "usually depending on who controls the Israeli High Court of Justice." 

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

text: "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)

text: Deleted. —Ashley Y 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: K i'll try and get the question.--Urthogie 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  IDI Poll 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Polemics cleanup 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism Zeq (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Z and new anti-semit... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  concept of international law???? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Delete this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Occupied territories 

message: 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)
thread_title: Geographical Location in the lede

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
thread_title: "Other possibilities"

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: I'm calling on the editors

message: 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)
thread_title:  Final solution for the jewish question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect "Jewish National Home" 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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). Zerotalk 05:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basle --> Basel 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hyphen removed (according with WP article) and A replaced with a. Mcljlm (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism doesn’t have a hyphen 

message: 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)
replies: text: . This is nonsense. Montefiore and practically every other European called it Palestine. Zerotalk 09:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 April 2024