Jump to content

Talk:Jews/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Israeli definition

I want to question the claim (not only in this article) that Israeli law uses a different definition for "Jew" than Halakha does. In practice that may appear to be the case, but on looking closely at the immigration laws and regulations (I'm not so sure about other instances) we find they say that certain people will be treated as Jews, or given the same privileges as Jews, and so on, not that they are Jews. That is because Israeli law usually tries to avoid direct confrontation with Halakha. I don't have the time to research this properly but if someone has access to the actual texts that would be nice. --Zero 17:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The issue here is the confusion between the Law of Return, which facilitates immigration to Israel, and the definition of a Jew for the purposes of marriage etc., which is that of halakha. Those eligible under the Law of Return include the grandchildren of Jews (male or female), non-Jewish spouses of Jews, and people converted by an accepted list of Rabbis (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform). The Law of Return excludes Jews who have converted to another faith. This is radically different from the halakhic definition of a Jew, which includes those people whose mother is a Jew, and those people who have converted according to halakha. Halakha considers a person who converts to another faith to still be a Jew. Jayjg 17:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Everything you write is correct (but I'm not sure if you think you are agreeing with me or not). My point is that the Law of Return does not say that someone converting to another religion is not a Jew, it only says that they are not going to be treated as Jews for immigration purposes. So we can't say that the Law of Return uses a different definition of "Jew". It's a pedantic point. --Zero 19:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've significantly revised the section in question, let me know what you think. Here is a link to the actual Law of Return and its amendments: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950 Jayjg 20:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

non-national?

I realize there are many conflicting definitions, My guess is that non-national is somehow related to Jewish diaspora. However, Jewish nation existed well before the Babylonian captivity. Doesn't this non-national negate Jewish nation, Jewish people, etc? I suggest we remove non-national from the very first sentence, it is too confusing, to say the least. Objections? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Heaven forbid that there should be a single word in Wikipedia that even obliquely undermines the Zionist project. Hardly a suggestion, looks like fait accompli to me. -- Viajero 18:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I thought it was just an innocent mistake, but looks like it carried more negativity than I expected. Highly disturbing comment to a change that had nothing to do with Zionism. Since Judea was conquered and reconquered again, did this caused the Jews to stop being a nation they once were? Their only "fault" is they survived and persevered. If you got a problem with that, you're in a crappy company. Denying Jews (alone!) the right to nationhood is not anti-Zionist, it is antisemitic. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 20:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Viajero: I'm not a Zionist -- in fact, I'm about as emphatic a diasporist as there is -- and I think of the Jewish people as non-national, but this was an awfully controversial statement to make without qualification in the lead of this article. I haven't had a chance just now to look at how well the article deals with this controversial matter, but I can't think of where better to take up differing opinions on the question of whether the Jews constitute a nation. I would think it certainly should present all significant sides, using appropriate citations -- Jmabel 19:24, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't even know what a "non-national" cultural tradition is, it confused me. As for Viajero's comments, yes, of course, anything Jews do is part of the International Zionist Conspiracy. Jayjg 21:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought that the messianic portion would make the site interesting to those with an interest in the subject. "There is no reason that out of four links, two should be Lubavitch; even one link is more than their population warrants. Also, this is the *English* Wikipedia page" - I have to disagree that a population tally is necessary for inclusion. And The Toka Pona links to a site that isn't in English either. For a "Jew" article, it is reasonable to believe that those that follow that link may be able to read it. - Tεxτurε 21:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why? Your statement sort of implies that the only people who would be interested in reading anything that relates to the jewish people, judaism etc are those who are jewish. I haven't explored a lot of the links on this page, but thst's basically because i've only recently discovered it. I've no position one way or the other about non-english links, though i would suggest that they be marked as such. And before you ask, I'm not jewish. I'm also not a follower of ANY religion (if I had to be classed as anything i suppose secular humanist is the closest label). That doesn't however mean that i've no interest in cultures other than my own or in different religions. Markalex 22:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
First of all, I will point out the fact that the Federation of Jewish Communities of the CIS (Russia) (http://www.fjc.ru/default.asp) site is also a Lubavitch website, so that two of the links in this article are already devoted to Lubavitch. I guess the question is "why wouldn't three Lubavitch links be even better?" In answer, the links at the bottom are meant to be representative of the topics discussed, not exhaustive. They are also intended to link to sites which can give considerable amounts of information on the topic that could not be included in the article. There are literally thousands of Jewish websites out there, perhaps tens of thousands. Three links were allocated to each of the major Jewish religious movements; of the three Orthodox links, one was allocated to Lubavitch, even though it represents at most 10% of Orthodox Jews. The link given was to the main English language Lubavitch website, their "flagship" site, so to speak, a site chock-full of information about and by the Lubavitch movement and it's fairly recently deceased Rebbe. Additional links are not warranted, particularly links to Hebrew Language sites from an English article. As for Jews being able to read the Hebrew site, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for Jews alone, not even the articles on Jewish topics; rather, it is an encyclopedia for all people fluent in English, of whom Jews comprise at most one percent. And even for Jews, 40% of Jews at best are fluent enough in Hebrew to read the site, and an even lower percentage of those Jews who surf English encyclopedia pages. Perhaps the link would be appropriate in a Hebrew language Wikipedia version of this article, or, if there were no other webpages about Lubavitch, the link might even be appropriate here. But given that there is already (as mentioned) an excellent Lubavitch site available, one that, in fact, represents the movement, this link is superfluous.
Regarding the idea that the site might be "interesting" to people who read it, I am well aware of the aching desire Lubavitch Messianists have to spread the word that their deceased leader Rabbi Schneerson a"h is the Messiah, and their belief that Rabbi Schneerson a"h should be intensely interesting to everyone. As a result of this desire the Jew and Judaism articles on Wikipedia suffer a daily assault of anonymous editors adding links to their favorite Messianic websites because the Lubavitch sites currently linked to are only implicitly Messianistic. Nevertheless, the intensity of their desire does not make the links themselves more relevant to the article, which is about Jews as an ethnic group, and not about the individual many Lubavitchers believe is the Messiah. And rest assured, if there were three or four or ten Lubavitch links here, but they were not explicitly Messianist ones, then the Jew and Judaism articles would still be subject to daily link assaults from Messianists. Jayjg 03:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another questionable edit

I find the edit 05:46, Jul 3, 2004 by User:202.56.245.166 to be mostly a liability, but probably worth looking at selectively rather than reverting entire. Does someone want to take a look at it? -- Jmabel 19:19, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

This referred exactly to the passage addressed in the next section below. -- Jmabel 22:05, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

And another

Long edits into the article intro are generally suspicious, from whatever POV they are. I reverted this, but the removed segment is here for whoever thinks something can be salvaged (most of it is recounted somewhere in the article body):

In the purest sense, anybody, whosoever born of a Jewish mother is a Jewish person, regardless of his or her religion. In this, a woman is considered a Jewish mother, if she is of Hebrew descent. A person is considered as half-Jewish if s/he is born of a Jewish father and a non Jewish mother.
In an ethnic sense, the Jews are members of the people, or "nation", that traces its ancestry from the Biblical patriarch Abraham through his son Isaac and in particular Jacob, Isaac's son, as well as to those who subsequently joined them over the course of history as converts. Ethnic Jews include both "Observant Jews", meaning those who practice the Biblical and Rabbinic laws, known as the halakha, and those who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jews in a cultural or ethnic sense. These are sometimes called "Secular Jews".
The ancient Hebrews were once a race, with common blood and nationality. The ancient Hebrews called themselves as "Israelites" by nationality. The term 'Israelite', has racial and religious overtones. However the modern day term 'Israel', is free of these denotations. It regards a person to be 'Israeli' as long as one is a citizen of the state of Israel, whether he is a Jew or Arab or Christian. The present day Jews are neither a single race, nor a single nationality. Today the term "Jewish" refers to a people bounded not by statehood but by descent and origin.  :In that, the term 'Jewish' is more relevant today, than the term 'Jew'. Increasingly, more and more people of Jewish origin prefer to call themselves as 'Jewish', rather than 'Jew'. Because of the long and varied history of the Jewish Diaspora, no Jew or Jewish person today alive is Hebrew by race. Instead the Jews today are of Hebrew descent. The Samaritans are the only ancient Jewish people who are closest to the Old Testament Hebrews.

JFW | T@lk 22:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think Jews sometimes refer to themselves (and often non-Jews refer to them) as "Jewish" or "a Jewish person" rather than "a Jew" is because of the pejorative way in which the term "Jew" has often been used. As The American Heritage Dictionary points out:
It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as Jew lawyer or Jew ethics, is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as There are now several Jews on the council, which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun. Jayjg 22:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Origins of Karaite Judaism

Some editors here are adamant that Karaites do not descend in any way from the movement created by Anan ben David, but that does not reflect the generally held by scholars, nor by all Karaites. Of the five Karaite websites I have been able to find on the web, two recognized Anan's contribution to Karaism, two said nothing about Anan, and one said that Anan did not found Karaism, his movement was different from Karaism, and he used Rabbinic methods (the view, I believe, of the most persistent Karaite editor). Examples:

The orginisation of the Karaites was rather loose and informal until the sevnth century c.e., but after that, due to Rabbanite coersion, it became necessary to organise and by the next century the first universally recognized leader of Karaism was ‘Anan Ben-Dawid. A member of an aristocratic Rabbinite family, he discovered the follies of Rabbanism, and wrote the first systematic non-Rabbinic theological document. While Karaism existed before him, this is why he is often noted as the father of Karaism. http://www.orahsaddiqim.org/History/Events/Movement_of_Karaism_-_The_Begininng.shtml (Karaite website)
Then in the 8th century a last glimmer of hope appeared in the form of a shrewd leader named Anan ben David. Anan organized various anti- Talmudic elements and lobbied the Caliphate to establish a second Exilarchate for those who rejected the Talmud. The Muslims granted Anan and his followers the religious freedom to practice Judaism in their own way. Anan gathered a large following around him and his followers became known as the Ananites. Some time after Anan's death his followers merged with other anti-Talmudic groups and took on the name "Followers of the Bible" or in Hebrew "Bnei Mikra". Later "Bnei Mikra" was abbreviated into "Karaim" or in English "Karaites". http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml (Karaite website) Jayjg 01:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Earlier debate/s about Karaites here: Recently, on the Talk:Jew/Archive 3 page there were extensive heated debates about the following issues IZAK 06:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) :

There never was "one" Karaite group in history...:

"See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm

THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME.

"...As their doctrines, however, were not fixed, and as almost every age the Karaites were split into diverse sects, therefore they could not resist or make headway against the Talmud, whose strength is, to those who rightly understand it, that it has never purposed to make fixed rules, to last for all ages; deliberation and reasoning concerning the Halakhas according to the circumstances, is the principle of the Talmud; and the saying of the Talmud, "even when they say to you of right that it is left, and of left that it is right, thou shalt not swerve from the commandment," shows the opinion of the Talmud, that the practice of the ceremonies and precepts is dependent on the time, place and other circumstances. With this power the Talmud combatted all its enemies, and was victorious." IZAK 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The controversies between the Jews and the Karaites are recorded in many books, Karaite and Talmudistic, from the age of R. Saadia the Gaon, and his opponent Sahal ben Matzliah to the present time. In them can also be found the history of their alternate triumphs. But this is not our task here: we will remark only that from the days of R. Saadiah the Gaon, when the Rabbis had begun to have polemics with them, can be seen the deep mark the Karaite literature left on the Rabbinical one. Philosophy was from that time used in conjunction with the Torah; many Gaonim followed R. Saadiah's method of harmonizing the Torah and the philosophy of that time, that they should seem as mutual enemies. So the Karaites charged such men with infidelity, but others were themselves compelled to imitate them, and called in the aid of philosophy, of the divinity, to interpret the texts of the Holy Scriptures." IZAK 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The effect of the Karaites on the Talmudist Rabbis is made evident also in this: that since their time the rabbis also began to write down fixed Halakhas taken from the Talmud, that the readers should not otherwise by error adopt the Karaite rules, made by the Karaite leaders, which they might mistake for the rules of the Talmud itself, since they could not know the whole Talmud by heart. They composed, therefore, the "Halakhoth G'doloth" (Great Halakhas), "Sh'iltoth'derab A'bai" (Queries of R. Ahai), for the sake of the students, who could not themselves wade through the whole Talmud. But thereby they opposed the spirit and object of the Talmud itself, that the Halakhas should be matter for discussion, and modified in accordance with the requirements of the time and place. As soon as the Gaonim had permitted to propound decisions of the Halakhas, and to fix them, those Gaonim, who succeeded them, were compelled to teach that these decisions of the former Gaonim, even though given without proofs, are holy for the people, as if giver, from Mount Sinai. This circumstance added fuel to the quarrel of the Karaites, and gave them new points of attack. The hope of some great men of the nation to reconcile the Jews with the Karaites became naught, for although the Karaites quarrelled among themselves, and split into rival sects, yet they all equally hated the Talmud, reviled it, and insulted it, styling the two colleges, at Sura and Pumbeditha, "the two harlots" spoken of in Ezekiel, who (claimed they) referred to these colleges in his prophecy." IZAK 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"'According to Makrizi there were among the Karaites ten sects, differing from each other in their opinions, practice and festivals; they had no permanence, some rose, some fell, and in the tenth century only five large sects were found, named:'

  • 1. Jod'anim or Jodganim.
  • 2. Makrites or Magrites.
  • 3. Akhbarites.
  • 4. Abn Amronites or Tiflisites.
  • 5. Balbekites.
  • The reader will find in the books of Jost, Grätz, Fürst, Geiger, and in Hebrew, in "Bequoreth L'toldoth Hakaraim" an account of the particulars about which the various sects of the Karaites differed, and also the names of their leaders. IZAK 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "We do not think it necessary to give these details in this place. We will mention for illustration the latest sect, which wished to fix the day of Atonement only on a Saturday every year, because it is said "Sabbath Sabbathan," which means a Sabbath of rest (Lev. xxiii. 32), and they translate "a Sabbath of Sabbaths," and the first day of Passover on Thursday.
  • Thus each Karaite sect celebrated the Biblical festivals on different days, for each sect construed the texts in the Pentateuch by preference without being able to come to an agreement.
  • Thus also in respect of the observation of Sabbath: for some Karaites, their houses were during the Sabbath their prisons, where they did sit in darkness, and which they could not leave when their neighbors happened not to be Karaites like themselves.

"In this we see the power of the Talmud, that even those who were inimical to it or hostile to a large portion of it, Halakhas never had different opinions concerning the festivals and other such things, important to one particular nation; for they could not deny its general tradition..." IZAK 06:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some points to consider... 1) Did these groups call themselves Karaites, or were they *considered* Karaites because they didn't accept Rabbinical Authority? 2) There are various groups within Rabbinical/Orthodox Judaism. and 3) IZAK, there's no need to quote pages upon pages of what you've already said. --Josiah 07:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yoshiah: I did NOT quote "pages upon pages of what [I've] already said", I just provided the LINKS to past discussions that people may have forgotten or not be aware of. However, because it is so vital to this present discussion I ONLY quoted the LAST point as it shows the scope and internal conflictedness of the various Karaite movements over the centuries. IZAK 09:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


    • Izak, on my 1024x768 resolution, your quoting of previously posted materials is around 2 pages long. I'm not counting the links as part of those "pages upon pages".--Josiah 02:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The symbol image: Magen David and/or Menorah?

"The Magen David... is the symbol most commonly associated with Judaism today, but it is actually a relatively new Jewish symbol... In fact, the symbol is so rare in early Jewish literature and artwork that art dealers suspect forgery if they find the symbol in early works." (Source: [1]) I suggest we include both Magen David and menorah, "One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith is the menorah..." (the same source). IMHO, MD should consist out of two intertwined triangles. Also, the current image gets shifted (above/aside the table) with the change in the page width. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Jayjg 05:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that would work, but I think a Torah scroll would work just as well :)--Josiah 02:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

rephrased to capture three groups, the ethnic, the converted and the secular. How did Wikipedia lose the ethnic which is part (together with converted) of the operational definition for both Orthodox and Convservative?

Recast this yet again. The problem with the earlier definition is that someone without a preconception of Jews would think (especially with the mutually exclusive word "either" inserted) that there were two or more groups of people who were Jews without any real understanding of how the two groups overlap. A Jew, religious or not, is always either a descendent of Jews or a religious convert. No one can ever become a Jew simply by reading Maimonides, watching Milton Berle and eating bagels. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Sorry, but this def: A Jew is an active member of the Jewish faith (Judaism) by birth or conversion, a blood descendent of Jews who identifies with Jewish cultural tradition, or both. is also problematic: 1. What about inactive? 2. What about those who does not identify? (Marx, Trotsky, etc) 3. I strongly object to using the word "blood" here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about A Jew is a member of the Jewish faith (Judaism) by birth or conversion, a natural descendent of Jews who identifies with Jewish cultural tradition, or both.
Marx or Trotsky? How about Madeline Albright? How about Robert Moses, who sued the Jewish Encyclopedia to be delisted. That's difficult, because then we're dealing with outside definitions of a Jew. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not trying in any way to be offensive. I'm trying to come up with a short, simple, readable definition that someone who doesn't understand what a Jew is can comprehend. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

None taken. How's this: A Jew is a follower of the Jewish faith (Judaism) or a descendent of Jews, or both. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Short, accurate, understandable. But do you think it will lead to quibbles about Jewish descendents who have joined other religions and deny Jewishness? -- Cecropia | Talk 05:07, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
They are still considered Jews, at least by some. E.g. Marranos, or those who were baptised in the 1st centuries who were forced to spend both Christian and Jewish holidays in the presence of a priest to prevent the "backsliding". Or the assimilated German Jews who considered themselves 100% German in the early 20th cent. A census may be a dangerous thing if applied "properly". ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about a Jew who formally converts to another religion? He is still "a descendent of Jews." What about Robert Moses, who attended the Episcopal Church? But I have no objection to your wording, change it if you like; it seems incomplete but I can't some up with a simple qualifier at this point. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A Jew who formally converts to another faith is still considered a Jew by many (perhaps most) Jews, and by Jewish law as well. Jayjg 17:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I remember my family joking when Barry Goldwater ran for president of the U.S. , "Finally, one to the major parties nominates a Jew for president... and he's an Episcopalian." -- Jmabel 02:10, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

JudaISM

Judaism is not a combination of religious and secular. It is an "ism"--a belief system. It is the (English language) name of the Jewish religion. Jews practice Judaism when they do Jewish religious practice. A member of a secular Jewish organization like the Workman's Circle or a Zionist might be religiously devout Jews, but they are not practicing Judaism when they attend a meeting or engage in Zionist politics. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

not practicing Judaism when they attend a meeting or engage in Zionist politics. ???. Zionism is bringing Jews back to their homeland. This is a central tenet of Judaism. There are arguments among Jews over when and how this should happen. By human action, by an act of God, at this time, during the time of the Messiah, are some of the areas of discussion. But the core of Zionism...return of Jews to Israel, and Jerusalem in particular...is a core tenet of Judaism.

It is certainly a Jewish movement, and may seek to fulfill a goal of Jewish religion, but it is a political movement; it is not a religious practice. You may say it is a religiously inspired practice, though many Zionists are/were secularists. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The political movement is one group's method of fulfilling the religious tenet. see Jewish_eschatology where it is listed. Many Zionists were and many are secularists, Shinui for example. But despite their best intentions, Shinui in being Zionist is acting to fulfill a religious tenet of Judaism.

But Shinui does not view it as such; rather, they see it as a form of national liberation, as did almost all of the early Zionists, who were secular. The Zionist Congresses were not prayer services or religious retreats. Jayjg 18:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I concur strongly with Jayjg here. Many of my older relatives considered themselves Zionists. None of them were Orthodox, and few of them were more than nominally religious. Conversely, I know non-Zionist and even anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. At all times since the advent of the Zionist movement some Zionists have doubtlessly been religiously motivated, but certainly some have not. -- Jmabel 02:15, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • With the exception of the Satmar, no Religous Jew - whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstruction, Reform, Karaite, or otherwise - would say that Zionism is not an integral part of the Jewish Faith. Heck, even the Secular Jews would say that Zionism is an integral part of the Jewish Faith.--Josiah 02:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Zionism is a political movement intent on creating a Jewish homeland (usually in Israel), and is being confused with the religious belief that Jews as individuals should move to or live in Israel. By the way, before WWII the Reform movement was anti-Zionist (both Zionism as a political movement, and against the idea that Jews should move to Israel), and that attitude still exists to some extent in Classical Reform. Jayjg 17:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That's absurd. Are you telling me that organizations like Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (Hmm, we don't have an article, see [2]) don't contain a goodly number of religious but non-Zionist Jews? Many BTvS members would consider themselves Zionists, but many would not, and as far as I've been able to tell, it has little correlation to which ones are religious. And while I hesitate to link to what I consider a hate site, and wouldn't do so in the article itself... well, let me break up the URL with a blank and let you reassemble it so I don't help their Google score: http:// masada2000.org/shit-list.html ... I think the site is despicable, but it is true that many of the people they are attacking are indeed non-Zionist Jews, and plenty are religious (several are rabbis). -- Jmabel 03:05, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the link. That organization still believes in the existence of Israel, so I would label it a liberal Zionistic Organization, in contrast to a fundamentalist Zionistic organization that believes that all Palestinians should be kicked out. To quote their site: "As a pro-Israel organization Brit Tzedek unequivocally supports the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state, a position affirmed in our seven principles. The organization frames its work to open up dialogue within the Jewish community and to ensure inclusivity as we work for a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."--Josiah 03:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Many Jews in the 20s, 30s, and 40s belonged to organizations which were profoundly secular and yet still Zionist; the Farband (a secular Socialist-Zionist) movement would be a prime example. Zionism is a political movement, not a religious movement. Jayjg 17:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The belief in aliyah--return to Israel--is part of the Jewish faith--but "Zionism" is a political movement. It stemmed from the belief among many Jews that they would never be allowed to live in peace anywhere in the world (and especially in Europe) as Jews, so wanted a homeland, where Jews would be a majority, and run their own affairs. Palestine was desirable for obvious reasons even among the non-religious, but it was not exclusive. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:24, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, you say "Palestine was desirable for obvious reasons even among the non-religious"....could you say what the "obvious reasons are"? Uganda was another site under the control of the British and formally considered by the World Zionist Congress as an alternative to the Land of Israel.

Umm... I thought it would be obvious? :) As the location of the ancient land of Israel, it would be a natural choice, and have cultural meaning even for secularists. But I was making the point that many other areas were considered with the goal of creating an independent home for Jews apart from the goal of religious destiny. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Uganda was offered by the British, and a motion was adopted to create a committee to investigate it as a temporary refuge for Russian Jews suffering from pogroms. Even then, a large portion of the delegates walked out in protest. Jayjg 18:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To Cecropia: Well, sometimes what's obvious to one is not so obvious to another. Earlier in this thread: not practicing Judaism when they attend a meeting or engage in Zionist politics. ???. In Judaism the performance of a commmandment is NOT strictly dependent upon intending to perform the commandment. The level of dependency is discussed in detail in works of Jewish Law. Living in the Land of Israel is a commandment. Those individuals that live there fulfill the commandment whether they intend to or not. So we end up with members of HaShomer HaTzair (anti-religious) fulfilling an important commandment regardless of their intention, or even in spite of their heartfelt, express intention not to do so. This is why I said that Zionists are practicing Judaism when they attend a meeting or engage in Zionist politics. They are engaged in the preparatory steps to perform the commandment of living in the Land of Israel.

To Jayjg: Regarding Uganda, the reaction of the delegates indicates the depth of commitment to Israel and Israel only. The movement was not to get out of Russia to a Jewish land but to get out of Russia to THE Jewish land....no other land would do.

Yes, that was the feeling on the part of some delegates. However, the majority of the delegates (including Herzl) thought the situation in Russia was so critical that it was worth investigating other locations as places of temporary refuge. Jayjg 18:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

7 million non-Jews killed?

I thought the generally accepted number was 5 million. Jayjg 15:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • And, are we now headed towards counting and mentioning "all" casualties of World War II, all "victims" of Hitler's madness and Germany's aggression, which are estimated to have been about fifty million, and thus use a favorite "tactic" for anulling the immense importance of the GENOCIDE against only one people on an unprecedented scale? Let's stick to JEWS please, let other articles enumerate the staggering cost of the war on other population groups. IZAK 16:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Only one people? What about gypsies and retards and homosexuals? Sam [Spade] 16:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I believe the term "retards" is offensive. Jayjg 17:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The scale wasn't unprecedented, but other things were. Jayjg 20:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(That's not to say I think the mention of other groups is really appropriate on this page, though.) --Wclark 20:04, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Those issues are discussed in the Holocaust article. THIS article is about Jews and what the Holocaust did to them. IZAK 16:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • I thought that the number was 10 million. Oh well. But... I couldn't find where this is being covered? However, it might do good to clarify that the holocaust was not only a war against the Jews. Hitler equally hated Blacks & Gypsies.--Josiah 16:50, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Although Hitler did indeed think that Gypsies and Blacks (and Slavs and various other groups) were inferior races, and killed or attempted to kill them as well, his "war" was not against them, but rather against the Jews, who he saw as the only rivals to "Aryans" for world domination. Jayjg 17:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There were no "Blacks" in Europe, and the full force and scope of the Nazis was on the Jews as seen from the notorious Wannsee conference where Wikipedia researchers tell us that: "The Wannsee conference was the discussion by a group of Nazi officials about the "final solution of the Jewish question" (Endlösung der Judenfrage). It took place on January 20, 1942 in the Wannsee Villa overlooking the Wannsee lake in southwestern Berlin and would lead to the Holocaust."........ Note: it was the Jewish question they were concerened with primarily, not the "gypsy question", that was small potatos to the Nazis. IZAK 16:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of the figure, this is an article about Jews (and one which is already almost double the recommended article length). It is not intended to correct alleged "common misperceptions" among some unknown groups of people about non-Jewish deaths in the Holocaust, but rather to talk about Jews, including the effect of the Holocaust on Jews. An article on the Roma, similarly, might deal with the effects of the Holocaust on the Roma, and should not talk about the numbers of Jews, or Slavs, or homosexuals killed in the Holocaust as well. The Holocaust article, which this article links to, covers quite well both Jewish and non-Jewish aspects of the Holocaust in detail. That is what an article the Holocaust is for. It is not what an article on Jews is for. Jayjg 17:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do think the figure of those killed for other reasons is worth mentioning in passing. There is a common misconception that the only people killed in the death camps were Jews, when that simply isn't the case. The comparison to, e.g. the Roma is not symmetrical - David Gerard 18:30, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1) Why do you say this is a "common misconception"?
2) Why does an article about Jews need to "clear up" this "misconception"? This is an article about Jews, not about the Holocaust.
3) In what way is comparison to the Roma "not symmetrical"?
Jayjg 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1. Because it is a common misconception. Ask people how many people Hitler killed and many will respond 'six million'. 3. The comparison is not symmetrical because one group's losses is common knowledge, the other is quite obscure. 2. Well, you do have a point there ...
Of course, mentioning a number for others at all will require a reasonably hard and defined number - David Gerard 19:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1) I am dubious about how "common" the misconception is. 2) This is the main point anyway; the purpose of an article about Jews is not to clear up misconceptions (common or otherwise) about non-Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. Jayjg 19:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that since the Jews were the largest group of victims of the Holocaust, but not the only group: (1) the article about the Jews should mention in passing that there were other victims and (2) all other articles that refer to groups being systematically slaughtered by the Nazis, and especially any that give numbers of victims, should mention the Jews as well; in both cases this is to give appropriate perspective. -- Jmabel 18:51, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think the opposite; the article on the Holocaust should (and does) explain who and how many victims there were, while articles on each sub-group should stick to the facts of the Holocaust vis a vis that particular group alone. Jayjg 18:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for 5 million vs. 7 million non-Jewish victims, I was restoring the previous text from this article. Whatever number is given should ideally be sourced. This wasn't, but it is what was already there. -- Jmabel 18:51, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

"What was already there" is a bit misleading; as far as I can tell, that sentence was part of a huge number of individual edits made by one individual yesterday. For months before that, it was not "what was there". Jayjg 18:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jews/Archive_5&oldid=1089049841"