Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:34, 4 September 2007

Judaism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Haredi opposition to Zionism

Note: this comment was copied from Talk:Zionism.

One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources.

Satmar

Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie. I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :

"Jewish anti-Zionists today consist of a several very small and very vocal group - .... tiny groups of reactionary ultraorthodox Jews .... the Satmar "

Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.) Now, watch this:

• Rabbi Aharon, two weeks ago
• Rabbi Zalman Leib, a few months ago

Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total ite. As that site says: "The web site www.jewsagainstzionism.com claims that True Torah Jews are anti-Zionist. It belongs to the Ultra Orthodox Chassidic Satmar sect. The group numbers about 124,000 and believe that the Jewish homeland can not be created until the messiah comes."

• Next we have this one http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/LandIsrael/modern_landisrael/QuestioningZionism/Neturei_Karta.htm .

As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh? I quote:

"The anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-orthodox groups Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the estab­lishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act, conceived and born from sin. These groups vigorously deny the very legiti­macy of the collective political return to the Holy Land and to Jewish sovereignty. For them, this is the handiwork of humans, violating the Jewish people's oath of political quietism."

We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination."

• Next we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1820242,00.html this one, saying (about the previous leader of Satmar): "Similar numbers had greeted him when he visited Israel in 1999 - notwithstanding the fact that Satmar is the most anti-Zionist of all Hassidic groups."
• Then we have http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1439 this one. "The Satmar chassidim in New York are at the extreme end of the anti-Zionist spectrum." And also about Munkacz: "One of the strongest and most vociferous opponents of Zionism in pre-war Europe was R. Elazar Shapira, Rav of Munkacz, and author of Minchat Elazar."

Belz

Next we get to Belz.

• http://www.revisionisthistory.org/warren.html says "It seems that the Haredi (i.e. Hasidic) Belz rabbi, Yisachar Dov Rokach, speaking one recent Saturday night at the conclusion of the Simhat Torah, and in the wake of the mass shootings of Palestinian rioters in September by the IDF, warned against Jewish violence. He said the injunction to live by the sword was a "blessing which had been granted to the descendents of Esau, and not the sons of Israel." He warned of the danger which the Zionists were in as a result of Likud policies. Yisrael Eichler, a follower of the Belz rebbe, pointed out that the rabbi's talk was in keeping with the sacred admonition of "not provoking the gentiles.""
• Then we have http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V96I2P58-1.htm which notes that " the Belzers resisted emancipation and were particularly opposed to Zionism on the ground that a reestablished Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel must await the coming of the Messiah..." (And note that the same website says "it is estimated that, despite their rising profile and high birth rate, Israel's haredi population just barely exceeds 100,000 souls". A nice example of why NOT to trust such websites (FYI, the normally held figure in all censuses is about 600-700,000 people.)

Satmar, Belz, Tosh, Skver, Pshevorsk

• http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/99/mar31-99/front2.htm "The protesters, garbed in traditional black, included members of virtually all the chassidic groups based in Outremont, including Satmar, Belz, Tasch and Skver." And "The lengthy release, issued by a group called the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada, condemned the continued incarceration of the three without charges, and referred to "all forms of Zionism inherently antithetical to the teaching of our faith."" For what the CRC means, see http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf this and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm this.

Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The first Sentence was not updated

The article is entitle Haredim and Zionism yet the first sentence and opening paragraph begins Haredim anti-Zionism.

POV and sources

I found this article to be severely POV. First, you failed to even mention that these views are held by a minority. Second, you'll have to find a better encyclopedic sources than that:

• http://www.revisionisthistory.org is an antisemitic conspiracy theory site: not a WP:RS.
• http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com - What are their credentials? I don't believe it is a RS either.

More later. ←Humus sapiens 01:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The first one is just a google link.

The second one is the website of Satmar, which represents about 100,000 to 125,000 people. As you can see above, one of the other articles explicitly states so. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say Satmar? A google link is not good. ←Humus sapiens 09:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Read better. It's right there, quoted right here on this page. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They claim they are Satmar, but 1) that doesn't mean Satmar is them (a->b,!= b->a) 2)Satmar leaders have routinely come out against NK stating that they don't speak for Satmar. Both of your sources should not be considered valid. Yossiea 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Right above is the source. Furthermore, yes, Satmar is not NK. So what's the point? Does that website mention NK anywhere, aside from the article about Rav Amram Blau? Does it claim to be NK-affiliated? No, no, no and no. Your comment above is merely an attempt to push your own R-Z POV by getting referenced material deleted, since you want the entire world to think all religious Jews are Zionists. Not going to happen. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot get the reference tag to the first link about Rav Dushinsky (currently reference nr 5) to work properly. I have tried several solutions and yet the formatting does not work! I want it to look exactly like reference nr 6 (which directly follows it). What am I doing wrong?! --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems another editor knows more about this: ←Humus sapiens 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar as a whole does not have a website. They are virulently anti-internet. Having a satmar website is like PETA having a buger chain. You can call it PETABurgers and dead cow flesh, but it ain't PETA. People who grow up in households which conducted themselves along the lines of Satmar chasidus, and maintain many of the traditions, call themselves Satmar. That does not mean that they have ANYTHING to do with the official Satmar organization. The Rebbe and his inner circle run Satmar, and there is a bit of a controversy as to who the Rebbe is now anyway. So to say that ANYONE speaks for Satmar as a whole now is a near imposibility. What we do have here is some people who grew up as Satmar, or more likely a non-sanctioned Satmar breakoff - Neturei Karta - who are posting their philosophy on the internet. Wonderful. Everyone can do that today, from the Socialist Party to National Vangaurd to Likud to the British Labor party to Ugandan rebels. We know that TTJ and NK are virulently anti-Israel. We also know that if you put every single last one of them into a building, it may take up 20 floors of one Manhattan skyscraper (that's a fancy way of saying that there may be a fewe thousand at most - more likely a few tens of hundreds). To say that they speak for Satmar is just not true, regardless of what they call themselves. Next thing, I'll set up a website called "True Palestinians" and go and preach that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. Does that make it a viable Palestinian opinion? Of course not. Similarly, NK/TTJ do not speak for Jews, Orthodox Jews, Hasidic Jews, Satmar Jews, or ANYONE other than themselves. Anything else is not only WP:OR and not WP:V, it's also patently rediculous. Thanks. -- Avi 00:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Torah True Jews" is an organization of mostly Satmar Hassidim called "Nutrina" which is dedicated to spreading the message of anti-zionism, according to the Satmar view, to the Jewish community. They feel that Neturei Karta has failed because they focused too much on the non-Jewish community, alienating the Jewish community to the cause of anti-Zionism. Therefore, they use the internet and other media to spread their message, which is the Satmar view on Zionism. Bobover1 19:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Zionism and Israel

Daniel575: "anti-Zionism has *nothing* to do with supporting Israel or not, and I do not see what the fact that RZ has long traditions to with this article." Please do not remove sourced and relevant information. If you don't understand its relevance, perhaps learning about it may help. ←Humus sapiens 08:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is NO relation between the subject of this article and the history of Religious Zionism. You can write about the history of Religious Zionism here: Religious Zionism. I am not writing about the history and long tradition of Haredi anti-Zionism in that article either, am I?

Further, there is *no* connection between being a Haredi anti-Zionist and actively opposing the State of Israel in public. Most anti-Zionist Haredim would definitely say they support Israel when asked about it in a poll. So, that information is completely irrelevant. Besides, the article specifically mentions that it is about Haredim. If you want to provide figures, bring figures on what percentage of Haredim are (anti-)Zionists. Moreover, the article already notes that Ger and Lubavitch, some of the biggest Hassidic movements, actively support the State of Israel. So just what is your problem? Explain, please. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You are making a typical POV fork. Of course Religious Zionism is relevant, the views of a minority should be presented in perspective, see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If you insist in discounting the numbers I presented, provide proof please. ←Humus sapiens 09:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about ANTI-ZIONISM. Please check the title. There is another article titled Religious Zionism where you can write about that. I am not writing about anti-Zionism in that article either, am I? So is that article a POV fork? Stop accusing me of such things. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please check what you write: "Before the Holocaust, the Haredi Jewish response to Zionism was overwhelmingly negative, with several Hasidic groups calling Zionists the personification of Satan, blaming Zionism for the Holocaust" (highlight is mine). And this style is not encyclopedic. These are serious accusations, we need a quote and verifiable reliable source: author, work, year, page. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can see the source right there. Sefer Vayoel Moshe by the Satmar Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum zy'a. Want to check it? Buy it. And I will correct that slight error. I'm at work right now and busy. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct the lead. And reverted. Again, EXPLAIN WHAT THE HISTORY of RELIGIOUS ZIONISM has to do with this. Especially the 'long tradition' thing. In WHAT way is that related to this article? The gedolim condemned Zionism in the strongest possible terms long before Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook was even born. Haredi anti-Zionism goes much further back than Religious Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I request you to quit editing the article for now, until others get a chance to provide their opinion as well. Your edits were highly POV. Completely irrelevant. I quote:

"While the Religious Zionism has a long traditions, beginning with Rabbis Yehuda Shlomo Alkalai and Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, and the modern movement counts many groups and political parties, the Haredi Jewish response to Zionism was overwhelmingly negative, "

The sentence is not even correct, it was a very weird flow of words. WHAT does the fact that, according to you, RZ has long traditions, to do with the subject of Haredi anti-Zionism??? The history of Haredi anti-Zionism is much longer than that of RZ. Yet I did not mention this in the article. Your edits do not make sense at all, this is totally irrelevant. About the numbers in the lead, please explain their relevance --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, about the numbers. Yes, 82% of Jews support Israel. So what??? What is the relevance? Haredim are perhaps 15% of Jews in the world. That is not a subject for this article but for Haredi Judaism. And as for the number of total Jews who support Israel, that belongs in the articles on Israel and Zionism. This article already clearly says that, amongst others, Ger and Lubavitch support the state. These are some of the biggest Hasidic movements. So what is your problem? I do not see any POV here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this was an error, but you said above that we know that before the state, there was animosity against the state because that's what is printed in Vayoel Moshe. But that book came out well after the state was established. Once again, I imagine that's a mistake. But it does beg the question: How can you verify what most Chassidim believed before (or after) 1942? I think you'll agree that the NK websites are fringe websites. They impart information (and I don't question their reliability in terms of translating and reporting statements of gedolim), but they are not representative of anything larger than, as you have said, a couple hundred people. --Meshulam 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vayoel Moshe was written after 1948, yes. But it represents the opinion which nearly all gedolim had before the shoah. If you yourself say such websites are reliable for translations (and jewsagainstzionism.com isn't even NK), see the translations on that site of remarks by the Sfas Emes, Reb Yissochor Dov of Belz, the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe. Then there are the well-known points of Munkatsh, Vizhnitz, Bobov, and just about every other kreiz (Hasidic group). The difference is that before the shoah, essentially everyone (with the exception of a little group) opposed Zionism. After the shoah and the establishment of the State, some went after it (Ger, Lubavitch) and some remained opposed. That's what I wrote in the article as well. And how do we verify what most Chassidim believed? We look at what the Rebbes said and wrote and at the position of, for example, the Agudah. The Agudah dramatically turned around from anti-Zionism to passively supporting the state. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Name change to 'Haredim and Zionism'

What do the others think about this? Let's make it a general article on Haredi attitudes to Zionism, regardless of whether these are pro- or anti. That would solve Humus' accusations regarding this article being a POV fork. I have found an article on this issue to have been lacking for too long. Also, we need an article about Sephardi attitudes, with which I am not too familiar, though I know that there are both Zionist-Haredi Sephardim, neutral-Haredi Sephardim (most of them, like Rav Ovadia Yosef), and anti-Zionist Haredim (the Sephardi Edah HaCharedit, Rav Yaakov Hillel etc). --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm confused by this article because "haredi" in Israeli circles include Shas of course etc and the common perception is that they don't oppose Israel at all. In addition, today there is an additional term called "Haredi Leumi" (deserving its own article probably like in Hebrew wikipedia) who are part of the National Union party and are of course strong supporters of the state too. Amoruso 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote, indeed, we need to write more about Sephardim. I will try to gather some information on this, however, do not count on many neutral sources. I have seen some information on NK sites - translations of pamphlets of which I have seen and read the Hebrew original. See this link. I've seen pictures of the original and I confirm that the translation is accurate and not POV.

So-called 'Hardalim' are another issue altogether. They are simply Dati Leumi, only they are a little stricter when it comes to the amount of wine they use for Kiddush or for the amount of hair the women will show. They are Dati Leumi in everything. They live in Dati Leumi neighborhoods, they have a Dati Leumi philosophy, they go after the Dati Leumi rabbonim (like rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, rabbi Avraham Shapiro), they pray in Dati Leumi synagogues, they wear Dati Leumi clothing (maybe with a slightly bigger kippah and the men more often with a beard than regular Dati Leumi). They are simply Dati Leumi who are a little stricter in Halacha than the average Dati Leumi person. Calling them Haredim is ridiculous. The differences are *huge*, and Hardalim stand a thousand times closer to Dati Leumi than to Haredim. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. That's circular reasoning. Essentially, you have said that they are not Hareidi because they are Zionist. But their claim is that they are Hareidi Zionists. I understand that you consider that a conflict of terms, but it is POV to force that view on the article. --Meshulam 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Define 'Haredi'. 1) They don't dress like Haredim dress. 2) They don't pray like Haredim pray. 3) They don't listen to Haredi rabbis. 4) They don't live in Haredi neighborhoods. 5) They don't pray in Haredi synagogues. Now, what exactly defines them as 'Haredim', other than the fact that they are a little stricter in Halacha than the average Dati Leumi? In my Haredi synagogue, Hardalim are actually forbidden from serving as shliach tzibur. (Well, actually, the rule is that Ashkenazim may not be shliach tzibur unless they use Ashkenazi Hebrew. Hardalim don't.) --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

A Satmar looks, dresses and davens differently than other Charedim, are we now going to consider all others non-Charedim? If they call themselves Charedi, then they're Charedi. The Chazon-Ish didn't look, talk, dress or daven like the Satmer Rebbe, are you saying only one of them can be considered Charedi? Yossiea 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Satmar chassidim look exactly like all other chassidim. In fact, there is no single definite Satmar dress. Your above comment shows total ignorance of what you are talking about. Satmar has no real dress code. You will find all types of coats and all types of hats in Satmar. In some places, they mostly wear one thing - in other places, something else. I have seen Satmarer chassidim in all kinds of dress. Further, the Satmar Rebbe and the Chazon Ish most definitely both wore a long black jacket and (on weekdays both) a hat. 'Hardalim' don't. Comparing the differences between the Satmar Rebbe and the Chazon Ish to the differences between Haredim and Hardalim is like comparing the difference between a lion and a tiger to the difference between an ant and an elephant. Any Chareidi person can confirm this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. A Satmar chassid has different hashkafos, minhagim and dress than a Brisker guy. Yet, according to you they're both Charedim. Well guess what, Chardalim are Charedi too, they just dress a bit differently too. Just because you don't think they're charedim, doesn't make them non-charedim. It is this push to get your POV in every article that makes people start arbitration cases against you. You have got to learn to follow Wiki rules. Yossiea 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is identifying "Hareidi." I would posit that it is POV to say that Charaldim are not Hareidi (since they claim to be Hareidi). It is certainly accurate to say that Charaldim are different from other "Hareidim," and that can be reflected in the comments about them. But to keep them from being presented in the article is POV. --Meshulam 00:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I propose you start including 'Jews For Jesus' here: Judaism#Jewish denominations. After all, they call themselves a Jewish denomination. You are shooting yourself in the foot here. If I claim to be a Marsian, that doesn't make me one. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You could make any concocted parable you want, there is a great difference between the connection that Jews for Jesus has to Judaism, and the connection that Chareidim Leumim have with Chareidim. There is no Chareidi movement. There are numerous movements that are all vaguely categorized as Chareidi. Since this is an encyclopedia, and not a convention of the Edah Chareidis, Abudas Chassidei Dushinsky, or even the Neturei Karta World Council (Iran Chapter), the outlook we take should be as broad as possible. Your complaint with the Chardalim is that they are Zionist. To you, that disqualifies them. But since this is an article about Chareidim and Zionism, that cannot be the deciding factor! Otherwise this article would be very bleak indeed. I propose to include the CHardalim, and for us to come to a consensus now on how to do so. --Meshulam 11:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575, I don't think there's an argument really... the article talks about Haredim and there should be a small section who will mention the existance of Haredim Datiyim Leuim, with a "main" tag to a whole article about them in a perfect situation. Obviously the fact they can be considered Datiyim Leumim is true but the term exists and needs to be mentioned. Haredi in definition as I see it is Hared to Dvar Hashem (do you have a different definition ? what is the definition of Haredi? it doesn't exist AFAIK) and since then, it's quite flexible and article should reflect the terms using the word, this term uses the word. From what I understand, this article doesn't exist in english wikipedia yet - it exists in hebrew wikipedia already. it should also be mentioned in the Haredi Judaism article and others obviously IMO. Amoruso 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Less Extreme/More Extreme

All of the language about less extreme and more extreme is POV. The policy is that you demonstrate the subjective reality by showing the objective reality. For example, if you wanted to demonstrate that Bill is stupid, you would write "Bill has walked into the same glass door 6 times in 1 week, shattering it 2 times." You would not write: "Bill is stupid." Calling NK "more extreme" and Toldos Aharon "less extreme" etc. is unnecessary. The reader can understand the extremity of their position by comparing it to the other positions reflected in the article. --Meshulam 14:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Or we write things the way the press and other sources portray them. Every source describes NK as the most extreme movement regarding Zionism. On the other hand, I do agree with you somehow - it is inherently POV. We need to find a solution for this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is to accurately portray their ideology. Obviously, the leaders of NK wouldn't walk up to you and say "I'm an extremist." Lets be fair to them, and not tag them with that name. I think the media's portrayal is irrelevant (and I imagine you agree, inasmuch as the media is seldom correct in its portrayal of Hareidi Jews). If you think its important to say that they have been called extreme, then mention that the media calls them extreme. I don't think its necessary, but I won't object.--Meshulam 19:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV tag? Seems to me like all potential POV issues have been solved and the article is sufficiently sourced. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Eim HaBanim Semeichah

I have unfortunately added a 'disputed' tag to the page. The book 'Eim HaBanim Semeichah' is not a Haredi book. I would like to know exactly which Haredi / Hasidic movements agree with what it says and which Haredi gedolim have given it haskomos (approbations). There is no source whatsoever for this book being a 'Haredi book'. The only ones who believe what it says are the Religious Zionists. Until it is removed from the article, the 'disputed' tag will stay. --Daniel575 | (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed unfortunate that you have chosen to add a "disputed" tag to a book merely because you disagree with its viewpoint. In fact, no less authority than the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged that that book be published and distributed widely. It was written by a Hareidi Rabbi of unquestionable yichus (family connections). As above, the only reason that you question whether the book is Hareidi is that you disagree with its conclusions: Since, in your mind, Hareidi equals Anti-Zionist, anything failing that bar is disqualified immediately. I am sorry to be the one to have to inform you that the world is not that simple. Not even for Hareidim, who clothe themselves in black and white, but have a rather colorful abundance of different opinions and outlooks. I am requesting that we and anybody else who is reading this page come to a consensus about the issue. --Meshulam 11:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the Orthodox Union :

• "Most of the present students of the yeshivot and members of the Chassidic communities are naware of its existence,"
• "the other camps of Orthodoxy, most notably the non-Zionist yeshivah and Chassidic world, have almost automatically ignored or rejected Rabbi Teichtal and his book."

If anyone were to place this book in my shul, either I or the others would either burn it or throw it away with the trash. If you feel a need to mention this book on Misplaced Pages, please mention it in the article on Religious Zionism or create a new article on Hardal. I am not sure what that article should be called; probably 'Hardal' is best. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Like I said there, I don't think it belongs in Hardal it being a very modern term. I think this book belongs here and you should add what you wrote about it. It is after all about zionism so even if it's very not accepted book like you say it should have a mention IMO. I also think lead should change to reflect the fact that both Shas and Agudat Israel are involved heavily in israeli politics, media, discourse, public events like indepedence day ceremonies, and info from the Israeli section of Haredim... Cheers. Amoruso 22:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a Haredi book. The author himself condemns Haredim in it (translated in the translation as 'the Orthodox'). It is not found in any Haredi shul. There is no Haredi rabbi in the entire world who holds by its words. Those who do are, and classify themselves as either Hardal or plain R-Z. The author himself explicitly did not identify with Haredim. --Daniel575 | (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 has now decided that since he can't bar the book from being mentioned, he'll put into the article that Haredim have responded to the book "by ignoring it." I think that language is very POV, and problematic. Can I have a consensus?--Meshulam 03:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a plain fact. It is either ignored or condemned. Even the OU confirms this. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, it was in a very charedi shul I used to daven in. But again, this is how Daniel works. If he doesn't like something, in his opinion, it then becomes invalid to have another opinion. Yossiea 13:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He has a source from Berel Wein that essentially says that the Haredi world is largely unaffected by the book. (He keeps on saying "the OU," but I don't know where he gets that). I think that's a far cry from saying that "The Haredi world responded by ingoring the book." I had written that the book has had little impact on modern Haredim, but he doesn't like that. Not POV enough for him. I'm suggesting that we use my language rather than his because mine is not POV. --Meshulam 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your wording but I'm not up to bear the brunt of Daniel's bullying. Yossiea 14:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can take it as long as I have a consensus. With you, that's 2-1. Nobody else has opined. If they do, I'm pretty confident they'll take our side. Daniel's version is pretty blatant POV. --Meshulam 16:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

His latest edits are just too much. I think he's just upset because he got banned yet again from his favorite online discussion board. I am going to change it back to the way it was before, he should not be able to bully people around. Yossiea 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. And I am not your baby. If I am upset about something, I will decide to speak about that, and I don't need a Zionist heretic for that. I am not 'bullying' anyone around. On the contrary, you are continuously stalking me on Misplaced Pages, attacking me wherever you can. Half of your recent edits are edits in which you attack me. I have not seen any real serious useful contributions of YOU to Misplaced Pages. And further: leave A. I have now TEN TIMES changed 'Teichtel' into 'Teichtal', and you *censure*s keep reverting without actually LOOKING AT THE EDIT, so that you could perhaps change it back while leaving that correction intact. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Some questions:

1. Is it true that according to the OU article, Teichtal was banned completely from his own shul and banned from giving shiurim in other local shuls because of 'heretical views'?
2. Is it true that according to the OU article, the Yeshivishe and Chassidishe worlds ignore and reject his sefer?
3. Which Haredi movements hold by Eim HaBanim Semeichah today?
4. Which Haredi gedolim have said positive things or given haskomos to Eim HaBanim Semeichah?
5. Is it true that the OU article and the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article both call it a fundamental work of religious Zionist philosophy?

Please answer. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete the book. I am RZ and the book is part of a certain RZ philosophy. The author LEFT being haredi and he is certainly not Haredi in the book. WHat is read in a shul is not a proof. The term Haredi in HArdal does not refer to real haredim but RZ who have changed their ways. The Hebrew wiki lists it as a foundation of RZ and that the book was rejected by the Haredi community when it came out in 1943. --Jayrav 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this already. Nobody is calling the book that is universally accepted amongst Hareidim. It is, however, a book by a Hareidi Jew about Zionism. That point was made above and was agreed top again and again. Daniel made some edits that I asceded to. But the book remains a book written by a Hareidi Jew. I have never heard it suggested (other than by Daniel and now you) that R' Teichtal left Haredi Judaismby writing that book. --Meshulam 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

should be removed from lead IMO

with several Hasidic groups calling Zionists the personification of Satan, blaming Zionism for the Holocaust, accusing them of being the source of all evil in the world and defiling the entire world with their impurity. doesn't seem neutral if it referrs to one citation. several seems a bit weasely and it's not appropriate in the lead but somewhere in the article as "went as far as" IMO. Amoruso 17:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This refers to Satmar, Munkacz, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Vizhnitz, Slonim, Bobov, Breslov, Shomer Emunim, Lelov, Pshevorsk, Seret-Vizhnitz, and some of Belz. Would you rather prefer that the lead says: "with the Hasidic groups Satmar, Munkacz, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Vizhnitz, Slonim, Bobov, Breslov, Shomer Emunim, Lelov, Pshevorsk, Seret-Vizhnitz, and some of Belz calling Zionists the personification of Satan, blaming Zionism for the Holocaust, accusing them of being the source of all evil in the world and defiling the entire world with their impurity." ? I prefer to just state 'some'. 'Some' does not even imply a majority, what's the problem? It's written there to make clear just how intense this opposition is. Trust me, I hate Zionism more than any Fatah member does. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How come you hate Zionism but like to defend Israel I really don't understand that Daniel. Anyway, I lack the knowledge to argue with you about who or what haredi group objects what and the size of each, but the citation is only for one person and I think this language doesn't belong in the lead. Perhaps , with some being very extreme about it is better. You do realise that one needs to be specific and find me a quotation that says this wording exactly - it's not encyclopedic language if it's simply a direct quote from a single link concerning one rabbi. Amoruso 18:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realize this 'one rabbi' constitutes the highest leadership on earth for about 100.000 to 125.000 people in New York and about 100.000 people in Jerusalem? We're not talking about a neighborhood rabbi here. --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Zionism is the most disgusting thing in the world. Read Vayoel Moshe to know what I think about it. But. But. We are in this particularly bad situation all together. I have no alternative but to 1) defend Israel whenever I can, and 2) make it clear that I do not support the occupation, Zionism itself etc. The plain truth is that non-Jewish 'anti-Zionists' are plain anti-Semites, as Martin Luther King said. When they speak about 'Israel' and 'Zionists', what they mean is 'Jews'. And besides, doesn't this show I'm NPOV? If I were really so POV about these things, I would not participate in keeping the Israel article clean the way I do. Now, I am going to slightly change the lead. Tell me what you think of the new version. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well from my experience over your attitude in articles you seem to be the most zionist anti-zionist in the world :) It really does show NPOV but I think it's also something else. I think you like Israel but you oppose the historic nature that brought it to existance and you support these particular rabbis and what they say so you don't want to object that especially when you think that in practice it really doesn't matter, but that's my pyschological review of you ;) anyway friend, why not just say that this is what this famous rabbi says instead ? and maybe you'd agree to take it out of lead too. btw, if you are concerned about the situation all together, you do realise the use of anti-semites of these ... that's why I'm having trouble understanding your position. Cheers. Amoruso 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

btw, your last comments over the difference between non jewish anti zionists and the haredi anti zionists seems to be very relevant for article AND LEAD. And I think it's important to note - if those haredi support israel for the reasons you stated then it's really important to include it. Amoruso 19:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Daniel's frequent condemnation of posters, but it is important to be מקבל את האמת ממי שאמרה (admit the truth regardless of the speaker). The Satmar Rov's position on Zionism enjoyed and enjoys widespread support in the Haredi world. His characterization is that the state is a "maase Satan" (a work of Satan), and a number of other things. I don't recall him saying that Zionism is responsible for the holocaust. He says that the holocaust happened because of "avonoseini harabim" (our great sins), which is fairly standard language in Hassidic literature. Perhaps the context lends itself to an interpretation that he's talking about Zionism. That's an acceptable interpretation, though it might be WP:OR. I think that, harsh as it sounds, it is a reasonable enough inference to get past the WP:OR barrier. I won't object to that language, therefore. I don't recall the language "source of all evil" at all. I'd like a citation for that specific langauge (I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I just don't remember it). And I do recall the reference to the State as an impurity, etc. Since the Satmar position is so well know, and so pervasive, I don't see why a characterization of the Satmar position shouldn't appear fairly early in the article. However, I think its also important to note that Haredi Jews are not totally characterized by Satmar's position. As the article now mentions, Ger and Chabad-Lubavitch both have come out in support of the state (though not in support of Zionism-the-ideology). Also, many Litvaks who have been dubbed "Chardal," are literally Zionist leaning Haredim. That needs to be mentioned as well. But I think Daniel's characterization in the opening paragraphs of this article is spot-on (with the caveats that I mentioned). --Meshulam 20:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the ToC:
פרק כז: על ידי שמשתתפים עמהם שומרי תורה, מכשירים מעשה הציונות בעיני העולם - הציונים גרמו להריגת ששה מליונים מישראל רח"ל. ובסיבתם נסגרו שערי המדינות בפני ישראל - משל נאה על הציונים שהם הגורמים לכל הצרות, ושוב אחרי זה נעשו למצילים.
Also a nice explanation of the Haredi view on 'Hardalim'. Let's just make sure everyone understands that at least Satmar, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Vizhnitz-NY, Munkacz and several others (such as Pshevorks, Kretzhniff, Lelov, some of Bobov) follow everything from Vayoel Moshe to the dots, including the issur against voting etc. Others that accept the reasoning of Vayoel Moshe in principle but do vote and sometimes accept state money include (parts of) Brisk, Vizhnitz-BB, Belz, some of Bobov, and many of the serious Litvishe (read the Yated). --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, it's off-topic but how does all the anti-zionism coincides with the biggest religious figures in history ? Rambam, Ramban, Yosef Karo, etc, have all written very "zionist" letters which I've read myself. It's this basis that creates religious zionism and I just don't understand where the hostility to zionism as a concept came from. Zionism is NOT the zionist secular movement - it's a religious concept. If the whole argument is whether Jews should take the fate into their own hands or wait for the messiah... All the great Rabbis took the fate into their own hands and made a personal aliyah towards the land of Israel during the many centuries. Taking this from another article, and thus making this issue on-topic : "....differentiating between political and other forms of Zionism. Most (but not all) Haredim are opposed to political Zionism, but are supportive of the inherent Zionism present in Judaism Basically the term "Haredi anti-zionism is wrong. All Haredi if they're religious are supposed to be zionist. the modern zionist movement is something completely different which people can object to on various ground, for examply revisionist zionism of Jabotinsky. but all are Zionists ! (with the exception of fringe like NK...) ." Amoruso 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Lead and sources

Even that extreme Jewsagainstwhatever site does not bring anything about the PERSONIFICATION of Zionism etc. Read the translations, which may or may not be authoritative. If someone gives me proper mareh m'komos, I can go to my local Satmar shteibel and look up the VaYoel Moshe myself to verify some of these more extreme claims. It is yaduah (known) that the Satmar Rov (ZTVK"L) was very anti-Zionist, but I am very afraid that some of his writings are being mistranslated/taken out of context. -- Avi 02:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is about Haredi Judaism, why are all the examples Chasidic?!

The way this is written, it should be Hasidim and Zionism. As a nice Haredi Yeshivish Litvishe yungerman who spent seven years in Bais medrash (post high school) and six more years in Kollel, before having to make a living, I feel excluded . -- Avi 02:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a section on Litvaks. However, it is very lacking. Perhaps you can fill in the gaps. --Meshulam 03:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

See below -- Avi 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Zionism?

I really cannot, as it would likely be WP:OR. Firstly, define Zionism. Is it that of Herzl and Ben Gurion? That's actually likely dead now. Is it the Zionism of R' Yehudah HaLevi? Halevai we should all be like that. Is it the Zionsim of Shulamit Aloni? I bet you she doesn't even consider herself Zionistic, but some form of secular humanist or something. Is it that of Mafdal? Their own platform has changed a lot over the decades. Is it Agudah/Degel/etc.? Do they consider themselves Zionists? What do we MEAN by Zionism now? I am certain that it means so many different things to so many different people that an article like this is fatally flawed ab ibitio (or M'tchilaso, if you prefer). I would suggest this be broken into Satmar and Zionism, etc. At least we know that the Satmar Rov was referring to the secular Zionism of the 40's and 50's, and can pinpoint the articles of contention. The litvishe view? Everyone has their own reaction depending on how they interpret the loaded term "Zionism". All I can say is "Tzion Halo Tishali Sh'lom Asirayich" and "Im Eshkachech Y'rushalayim, Tishkach Y'mini" must be "Nichtivu al Luach Libecha". Does that make one a Zionist? Who knows? -- Avi 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I once more quote from the ToC of Vayoel Moshe:

פרק כז: על ידי שמשתתפים עמהם שומרי תורה, מכשירים מעשה הציונות בעיני העולם - הציונים גרמו להריגת ששה מליונים מישראל רח"ל. ובסיבתם נסגרו שערי המדינות בפני ישראל - משל נאה על הציונים שהם הגורמים לכל הצרות, ושוב אחרי זה נעשו למצילים.

Yeah it really sounds like it was just secular Zionism he hated, eh? He didn't object to religious Zionism? That's a common LIE of religious Zionists. On the contrary, according to VM, religious Zionists are actually much worse than the secular ones. The Torah opposition to Zionism has NOTHING to do with the (non-)religiosity of the state. Now about the Litvishe position: the Chazon Ish said that if the Satmar Rov hadn't written Vayoel Moshe he himself would have written it. Rav Aharon Kotler agreed with the Satmar Rov also. Rav Shach's anti-Zionist writings are well known. The Briskers need no explanation. It is true that the litvishe do vote and accept money, but they are most definitely not Zionists. Some of the common folk have gone astray, Hashem yeracheim, and have accepted aspects of the Zionist ideology, rachamana litzlon. But the view of the Gedolim remains the same. --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you understand the quote you brought and my point? I do not mean religious zionism as in frum people following Herzl, I mean R' Yehudah HaLevi, the Rambam, etc. All the quote your bring says is

Chapter 27: Because they partnerd with the Torah observant, they validated the actions of the Zionists in the eyes of the world. The Zonists caused the murder of six million from Israel (Heaven protct us). And because of them closed the gates of nations were closed before Israel. It is a nice allegory that their actions caused these problems, and then they were set up to act as saviors.

Where do we see that the Satmar Rov felt that one should not live in Eretz Yisrael? For that matter, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach all lived in Eretz Yisrael, and moved there from Europe, as opposed to going to the US. Further, Rav Shach was extremely instrumental in having the coalition between the Israeli political parties Agudah and Degel (Gimmel). So, you are proving my point that "Zionism" and "Religious Zionism" mean different things to different people. Religious Jews joining forces with Secular Zionism does NOT make it religious Zionism. See what I mean? -- Avi 13:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

R' Yehudah HaLevi and the Rambam etc never said to make a sovergn state before Moshiach, only to move to the Holy Land for spiritual reasons. Zionism is making a sovergn state before Moshiach. That is opposed by all Haredi Rabbis, but some say now that it exists we have to defend it, but all haredi rabbis agree if it would go away it would be better. Religious Zionists believe that it would be good if it were a religious state. Haredim say even if it were religious it would not be good, as we have to wait for Moshiach for a state, but settling is ok for individuals. Bobover1 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, this brings up the fact that Amaruso had a very good point, which is that much of the issue that is had with "Zionism" by various Chasidic groups is exclusive to the political entity known as Zionism, or the way it was known in the 40's, 50's, and 60's or so. To yearn to return to Israel/Zion/Jerusalem is an integral part of Judaism, and for thousands of years, people, both great and small, attempted the arduous trip from Europe to Israel to live on its holy soil. To this day, there are plenty of Hasidim that live in Israel, and neither vote nor receive money from the government they view as corrupt--both politically and spiritually. There are others who DO take part in the governemnt. Are they "Anti-Zionist"? It all depends on what Zionism means, in my opinion, which further underscores the inherent, and perhaps fatal, flaw in an article of this type. -- Avi 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We could ask these kinds of existential questions about almost any article title. The response each group has to Zionism will have a lot to do with that group's definition of Zionism. that will be reflected in the description included in the article. But you are wrong to say that the Satmar Rov's criticisms of Zionism are relegated to the 40'2 and 50's secular Zionism. There is little question that the Satmar Rov would be in favor of religious Zionism (something that is, in many ways, much more destructive than secular Zionsim, as far as Chassidism is concerned). --Meshulam 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the article to "Jewish religious concepts about Zionism". After all there's already an article about Haredim and their position about zionism there. I'm personally confused by this article. Definitely Haredim in the sense of Israeli haredim, those voting for parliament, do not share this anti zionist view, and I'm not talking about the moderate ones, but the more extreme. Haredim are just regular Israelis, from Yisrael Eichler to Arye Deri. Not to mention ZAKA ! There are of course anti zionists (in the real sense) in Mea Shearim, Bney Brak and in Brooklyn but I don't think they're a majority. Amoruso 06:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, yes, all Jews want to live here. However, we should simply live under the rule of Khaled Meshal, Ismail Haniyah and Mahmoud Abbas. They are the rightful rulers of the land, and I fully believe that if it were feasible to hand the land over to them we should do so without any doubt. Yes, I believe Jews are entitled to live in Eretz Yisroel. Get it? (Please note that I am saying "if it were feasible". Obviously this is not the case under the current circumstances.) Now, next, there should be Jews around the world. I believe it is written somewhere that under all circumstances, at least a majority of all Jews should be outside of Eretz Yisroel. This is, amongst others, in order to make it more difficult for our enemies to get all of us in one place. Imagine all Jews would be in E"Y, then Iran throws a few nukes on us (R"L), so there are no more Jews in the world! To prevent this, we have to be spread around the world. Imagine if all Jews would have been in Germany before the shoah, then there would have been no more Jews in the world now! Next, we are absolutely forbidden from ever doing anything that angers the nations of the world. Obviously, creating the State angered the nations of the world. In my opinion, "Israel" should immediately withdraw from all 1967-occupied territories, including East Jerusalem. Including the Temple Mount and Western Wall. We should beg the Palestinians to PLEASE allow us to daven at the Kosel, please let them allow us to. We should allow all Palestinian refugees around the world to return to their ancestral towns inside Israel and pay them the same amount of money that olim chadashim receive. And IY"H (may it be G-d's will) there will come a peaceful end to the existence of the cursed Zionist entity, may it be dismantled soon in our days. And may we merit to see the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeini, bias goeil tzedek, bimheiru veyumaini, umain. (Do I pass for a seat on the Edah?) --Daniel575 | (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look Daniel.... basically, I think adults should acknowledge that the Messiah, a real real one on a white donkey, won't come. Nor will the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Or rather he won't come just like that if one sits on his butt and waits for hitlers to rise without any ability to defend himself. Elohim Ozer Lemi Sheozer Leatzmo ! And you have to do something or else nothing will happen ! A Jew used to cry to God every night - why don't you let me win ONCE the lottery , something, I've never won anything in my life he says... After years, God finally replies "No problem, but BUY THE TICKET FIRST". If you want the geula to come, you need to work for it. Anyway, I still think and you confirm it that you still don't believe what you're saying. I mean really, read it, and think about it about the begging and everything - it sounds like something you read and found cool at the time but I'm sure you realise it makes no sense whatsoever. Peoples should be gathered in one place - wouldn't we be in danger when the Messiah comes too ? We shouldn't all be in Israel then either ? Usually people want to flock together but there are always those who will be in other places.... I really don't understand the argument anyway, if you're a nation then what choice do you have. Amoruso 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It is serious, I am absolutely convinced of the truth behind these words. It's quite obvious for anyone to see. The only thing we can do is to follow the daas Torah of the gedolim, and for me those gedolim constitute those of whom I have personally determined that their viewpoint is the most realistic and true one. The Satmar Rov is the closest to that. Did you know that, in contrast to the Litvish leadership, he held that 90-95% should go to work, get a job, and 5-10% should learn? That's why Satmar is actually a relatively rich Hasidic group. There are a lot of strange contradictions in the Haredi world. Those who outwardly appear to be the most extreme may actually turn out to be much more aware of the outside world than those who outwardly appear to be more modern. But well, as for me, I simply believe that the Torah leaders - such as the Satmar Rov, Rav Shach, and our contemporary gedolim, such as my own rav and gedolim like the current Rebbes, are the ones to follow. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I still am not able to grip this ideology and the logic behind it (no offense but such thoughts sounds mentally deranged to me :) ). I will be glad to contact talks like these in the future perhaps in e-mail etc. Amoruso 11:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe it's time for an Israel Misplaced Pages meeting. I've been thinking about that for a while. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, you may follow NK to your hearts content, but you cannot ascribe NK's views to the Satmar Rov directly. As I pointed out above, Perek 27 only ascribes the Holocaust to Zionism, nothing more. Secondly, the views you ascribe are those of the vast minority of frum yiden throughout the world. Lat I checked, Belz, Vishnitz, Ger, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avraham Yitzchak, etc. alll make their home in Eretz Yisrael. Further, the amount of non-Chasidic Haredi Jews in Eretz Yisrael is staggering. Why are they there? If not for the belief that avira d'ar'a machkim and that it is incumbent upon people to live in Eretz Yisrael if possible? What do you call that? Anti-Zionism? WP:NPOV#Undue weight forbids us from giving more credence and weight to minority and fringe opinions in articles other than those abouty said minorities. I am afraid you (not you in particular, but TTJ and NK) are misquoting/misconstruing the works of the gedolim to support your beliefs, and that a purely technical reading of the sources would not support Moshe Hirsch's position of begging Arafat for use of the Kosel, Rachmana L'tzlan. -- Avi 13:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, your Zionist lies do not change the truth. There are also many thousands of Satmar chassidim and numerous Satmar shuls in Eretz Yisroel. Nowhere does it say that one is forbidden from living here. The Satmar Rov himself lived in Jerusalem for years, before emigrating to the US. Further: Vizhnitz-NY, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Dushinsky and several others exactly believe and keep everything from the sefer Vayoel Moshe. Don't believe it? Get the sefer Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe and read the hakdamah. Further, the article itself notes that Belz and especially Ger and Lubavitch are a different world. Ger is one of the most pro-Zionist groups there is, comparable to Lubavitch almost. The article SAYS SO, straight in the beginning. Further, your comment about 'undue weight' is total nonsense. Satmar is the biggest Hasidic group in the world, and it is not only the position of Satmar but also of previously named groups. I have given examples of both extremes: on the anti-side, Satmar, Dushinsky; and on the pro-side, Ger and Lubavitch. Most of the others, like Belz and Bobov, fall in between (but are closer to the anti- than the pro-side). Please stop twisting the truth around. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Neturei Karta is also based in Eretz Yisroel. Rav Moshe Hirsch of NK is himself an immigrant from America. So are several extremely anti-Zionist Hasidim I know (including myself). There is absolutely no halacha anywhere that forbids Jews from living in Eretz Yisroel. There is halacha forbidding us from 1) taking control of the land, 2) massively immigrating 'like a wall', and 3) rebelling against the nations of the world. There is nothing wrong with moving here to live between the Arabs in peace. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, NK <> Satamr, although NK would have you believe it so. Undue weight applies. Also, please remember civility. I have never called you a liar, please treat others in kind. Remember Hillel HaZaken? Lastly, it's kind of funny to that you call me a Zionist 1) I live in the US 2) I do not have plans on moving to EY now (l'da'avoni). Remember that we all have points-of-view, but that wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, and that the points-of-view must be PROPERLY represented according to wiki policy. Emes Ma'Aretz Titzmach and Kol Hameyvi Davar B'shem Omro, Mayve Geulah L'Olam, bring the original sources, not the TTJ "translations" and cherry-picking thereof. No one argues that the GAAVAD BDTZ (ZTVK"L) was very anti-Zionist. But not on the level of NK. -- Avi 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, Satmar is very large, but not all Satmar are adherents of the NK/TTJ philosophy. To ascribe the views of the mi'ut (almost tiny subset) to the views of the k'lal (larger group) is a misrepresentation of Satmar's philosophy. Do we haveany writings of the past Rebbe (Z"L) that can clarify Satmar's position as of a few years ago, for example? -- Avi 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do, that the holy sefer Vayoel Moshe written by his holy uncle is the words of Torah, the words of truth, and that it is a great mitzvah to spread the sefer to everyone. See the hakdamah to Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe, of 4 years ago. Now, let's just clarify that the position of Egypt is that it wants Israel destroyed and it sees Egypt as its enemy. Why? . That's why. Never mind what the leadership says. According to you, it's all about individuals. Right? Or is it the position of the Egyptian government which determines Egypt's stance towards Israel, as a country? In the same way, even if half of Satmar would turn into Zionists (R"L, HASHEM YERACHEIM) that will not change the fact that Satmar is anti-Zionist. The stance of Satmar is determined by the Rebbe(s), just as the stance of Egypt is determined by Mubarak. Clear? --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) And you lied, in calling my view 'the NK view'. My view is not NK - my view is exactly, down to the letter, that which is written in the holy sefer Vayoel Moshe, and in the sefer Al HaGeulah VeAl HaTemurah. I know both of them fairly well and also actively distribute them to others (pretty much like Lubavitchers distributing the Tanya). Your previous remarks (of 13:50) show that you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. --Daniel575 | (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So, as I asked a number of times above, please give me mareh m'komos so that I can verify what you are saying. It shouldn't be that hard of you are as much of a mumche in those s'farim as you claim . Lastly, please remember that mentchlechkeit and kavod ha'briyos are policies here in wiki when you make statements. Thank you -- Avi 14:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm at work right now and don't have them with me. Anyway, why should 'Hakdamah of Sefer Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe' not suffice? What do you want? I don't think the hakdamah even has page numbers. The sefer doesn't have an ISBN either.... so what do you want, the publishers' phone number? If you don't believe me, buy one yourself. I have provided you the exact reference. Anyway, tonight I will try to photograph the hakdamah - I don't have a scanner, so that has to be done with a webcam, which I do have. --Daniel575 | (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding Daniel's lack of mentshlechkeit and civility, I believe that he has demonstrated successfully that the views he has expressed (with the amendments that I made earlier) in the name of the Satmar Rov A.) reflect the Satmar Rov's actual position and B.) enjoy widespread support in the Haredi world. I can go into greater detail about why I believe this later (I, too, am at work). Suffice it to say that Daniel now has a majority on his side with respect to the statements in question. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the NK sites accurately translate the pieces of Vayoel Moshe in question. I have been busy lately, but I will try to check them with the original (I own the sefer). --Meshulam 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The translations of especially wwww.jewsagainstzionism.com are completely correct. (Note that that website is not NK, but Satmar.) See:

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaum.cfm

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/teitelbaumMayJewsWageWar.cfm (about 1967)

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe1.cfm

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/vayoelmoshe2.cfm

These are all proper, correct, factual translations. I actually have two editions of Vayoel Moshe here: the full Vayoel Moshe (all three maamorim: Shalosh Shevuos, Yishuv Eretz Yisroel, Loshon HaKodesh) which is in Ksav Rashi (which I don't really like, especially combined with the difficult language of VM!), and Yalkut Amarim Vayoel Moshe, a shortened version of only the maamar Shalosh Shevuos. The latter contains praising statements by the gedolim of the Badatz of the Edah HaChareidis shlita, the previous Satmar Rebbe Moshe Teitelbaum zy'a, Reb Yisroel Moshe Dushinsky shlita, and Rav Shmuel Wosner shlita. Dated 4 years ago. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a total misunderstanding here of what Zionism is. Zionism has nothing to do with the traditional desire of Jews to return to the Holy Land to serve the Almighty. Zionism is a belief that Jews should be like other nations, therefore we need a land. This has nothing to do with the love for the Holy Land of the Ramban, Rambam, Yehudah HaLevi, Rav Yosef Karo, etc. The question is not about living in the land or the eventual return through the Messiah, the question is whether the Jewish people may take sovergnty of the land, or any land, before the Messiah, which was forbidden by all authorities. During the "Golden Age of Spain" many rich Jews asked the Rabbis if they could take their money and buy the Land, and the answer was an unequivicable "NO!".

The various views of Zionism can be divided as follows:

Liberal Secular Zionism Hertzl - no religious or Jewish cultural content, followed by Haganah then today's Labor Party in Israel - in order to stop anti-semitism, Jews must become a nation like any other, with a land, etc. Which land it is does not matter much, however there is some ancient Jewish history connected to the Holy Land which would make it preferable, but not neccessary. There is no holiness to the land, since they are totally secular, therefore it may be given away to make Israel a more normal state

Conservative Secular Zionism Jabotinsky - slight religious much cultural content, followed by Irgun then today's Likud Party in Israel - some religious people support, but a non-religious movement

Liberal Religious Zionism Rabbi Melchior - Mizrachi

Moderate Religious Zionism Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchik - Mizrachi

Right Wing Religious Zionism Rabbi Kahane - Kach

Haredi Zionism Rav Tau, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu

Moderate Haredi non-Zionism/pro-Zionism Rav Eliyashiv, Rav Ovadiah Yoseph, Ger, Belz, Slonim (Jerusalem), Boston, Klausenberg, Stolin, Modzitz, Lubavitch - Agudah (Except for Lubavitch) - maybe the Medinah is good, who knows, not for sure, but in the mean time support it, some say you can give away land some say no

Haredi non-Zionism/anti-Zionism Rav Shach zt"l, Rav Aaron Kotler zt"l, Viznitz (Bnei Brak), Mir, Ponevitch, - Agudah - The Medinah is bad but as long as it exists we should vote to make sure it doesnt get worse and we can take money from them, and we can raise a flag on independence day to show thanks to the government for giving money, but we do not recognize anything religious about the medinah

Haredi Ambivilent Skver, Bobov - officially anti-Zionist but don't wear it on their sleave

Moderate Haredi anti-Zionism Viznitz Monsey, Brisk, Rav Yechezkel Roth, Toldos Avraham Yitzchak, some Satmar - CRC-Edah HaCharedis (except for Viznitz which is Agudah), anti-Zionist, the Medinah is bad, but we can still be friendly with Agudah leaders, cannot take money from government, cannot vote except in municipal elections.

Right Wing Haredi anti-Zionism Satmar, Dushinsky, Toldos Aaron, Tosh, Spinka, - basically the same as above but less likely to be seen so often with Agudah leaders, but still recognizes them as great Torah scholars

Extreme Haredi Anti-Zionism Neturei Karta and Bnei Yoel extremists who protest against gedolim from Agudah

Extreme extreme Haredi Anti-Zionism some Neturei Karta who have been publicly seen together with non-Jewish anti-zionists

this is just my opinion above Bobover1 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Hello. I am Crz. I just protected the article, and will now hear what it is you want it to say. We'll discuss it, reach consensus, and I'll implement the changes. - crz crztalk 18:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel's position

Some questions:

1. Is it true that according to the OU article, Teichtal was banned completely from his own shul and banned from giving shiurim in other local shuls because of 'heretical views'?
2. Is it true that according to the OU article, the Yeshivishe and Chassidishe worlds ignore and reject his sefer?
3. Which Haredi movements hold by Eim HaBanim Semeichah today?
4. Name us some Haredi movements that call Medinat Yisrael 'reishit tzmichat geulateinu'.
5. Which Haredi gedolim have said positive things or given haskomos to Eim HaBanim Semeichah?
6. Is it true that the OU article and the Hebrew Misplaced Pages article both call it a fundamental work of religious Zionist philosophy?

Please answer.

For the record, my position here is that this book should be removed from the article. It is not a Haredi book. The author was formerly Haredi. He then left Haredi Judaism when he adopted Religious Zionism. He was banned from all shuls in Munkacz. The Yeshivishe and Chassidishe world (which as far as I know together constitute the Haredi world) ignore and/or reject the book. Not a single Haredi movement in the world holds by it (ie, by 'reishit tzemichat geulateinu'). Not a single Haredi godol has ever given it his haskomoh. Therefore, it should be placed where it belongs: in the article on Religious Zionism. Not here. This article is about the HAREDI view on Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam's Position

We have already reached a consensus about this issue above. As usual, Daniel waited a few days, and reverted back to his version (that was previously rejected by consensus). According to the OU article, R' Teichtal was banned from certain shuls, for teaching his positon. The article lamented that many in the Haredi world today do not learn this book.

But that is irrelevant to the question of whether the book is a Haredi book. As I said earlier, and as was the consensus, Haredi does not mean "anti-Zionist." There are many Haredim, including the Hardal community (who Daniel refuses to call Haredi, and he refuses to allow any mention of them in the article) who do take this book very seriously. It may form the the basis of some religious zionist thought today, but that does not detract from the fact it is a book written by a Haredi figure about Zionism.

Daniel's only argument is that by writing the book, R' Teichtal removed himself from the Haredi community. That kind of circular logic will get us nowhere. He might as well rewrite the article to say: "Haredim, by definition, hate zionism." Also, he is wrong about the fact that no Haredi godol has put his haskomo on it.

Even allowing for his strange definition of Haredi, he nonetheless would have to admit that the Lubavitcher is Haredi. As I said before, the Lubavitcher Rebbe encouraged the book to be published. He ignores that because he doesn't like the book, and therefore doesn't want it to be referenced in the article.

As usual, he unilaterally has taken it upon himself to defy consensus, and to force his view on the rest of us. There have been numerous complaints to Admins about this behavior, and so far nothing has been done about it. I respect Misplaced Pages's policy of not using a heavy hand to interfere with editing of articles. But I respectfully submit that the time has finally come for an Admin to protect the rest of us from Daniel's beligerant attitude. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meshulam (talk • contribs) .

Discussion

(I, Meshulam, am going to answer these comments individually, and indent my comments)

1. Nobody considers Hardalim to be Haredim. I have never seen any article, any publication, referring to Hardalim as Haredim. Nor have I ever met anyone who made this equation, aside from you.

The name Hardal means Haredi Daati Leumi. They call themselves Haredi. My opinion is irrelevant. --Meshulam 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. If somebody writes a heretical book which contains thoughts contradictory to the opinion of the Haredi leadership, that person is indeed no longer Haredi, and his books are no longer 'Haredi books'. The exact same thing applies to Natan Slifkin. Nobody will call his books 'Haredi books', for the simple reason that the Haredi leadership has totally condemned them and he himself was nearly put in cherem. The Haredi opposition to Teichtal is and has always been even stronger, much stronger.

As I wrote above, R' Teichtal was a Haredi. He wrote this book. It is therefore a book written by a Haredi. That it is not a majority position (though it is adopted by Hardal) is irrelevant. --Meshulam 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The Lubavitcher Rebbe perhaps encouraged the work to be published, but did not agree with its contents. It did not become official Chabad policy. Many, many other sources confirm that the last Lubavitcher Rebbe strongly opposed the idea of the Zionist entity having any religious significance.

That is your own WP:OR, and it begs the question: Why would the Lubavitcher Rebbe encourage the printing of something he disagrees with. Nobody is trying to make the Lubavitcher Rebbe out to be a Zionist. I merely pointed out that, despite what you have indicated, this book does have support in the Haredi community.--Meshulam 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It is not me who is forcing any view on anybody - it is you who is doing so. I again request you to give us an overview of Haredi movements which have adopted this heretical book as their policy regarding Zionism or Haredi gedolim who have given it haskomos. I can give you the answers to both issues: none and none. It is not a Haredi book, not by any means. According to your view, if some famous Haredi rabbi would write a book claiming that the Koran or the Trinity are true (CH"V, R"L, L"A), that book would still be a 'Haredi book', correct? Well, that's not how it works. If a book contains thoughts which are in direct and obvious contradiction with the established opinion of the entire Haredi world, that book is not a 'Haredi book' and should not be presented as such. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the fallacy of your position. You start of by blanketly declaring Haredi Judaism to be anti-Zionist. That makes the article irrelevant. If Haredi-ism is synonymous with anti-Zionism, I request that this entire article be deleted for being irrelevant and unnecessarily repetative. Obviously, your characterization is off. Rather, the position espoused by R' Teichtal is Haredi because it was espoused by a Haredi Jew, speaking on his own behalf, but also speaking emphatically as a Munkatcher Chassid. It is historically a Haredi position inasmuch as it was adopted by this particular Haredi. It is a modern Haredi position inasmuch as the Hardali community has adopted it. You may claim that the Haredim Daatim Leumiim are not Haredi (despite the fact that it is the first word in their name). But that is only further evidence of your circular logic. Finally, and most importantly, this issue has already been agreed to by consensus above. (See the section labeled Eim HaBanim Semeicha). Daniel unilaterally reverted the article to his preferred version in defiance of the consensus. As usual, he has created an edit war where there previously was consensus and agreement. He is a hardliner, dedicated to peddling his own version of the "Truth," oftentimes in defiance of consensus and of Misplaced Pages policy. --Meshulam 21:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

So here is the solution. We split this up in multiple articles:

Litvish Judaism and Zionism

Hasidic Judaism and Zionism

Hardal

Chabad-Lubavitch and Zionism

Chabad is too much of a story on its own to be included in the article on 'Hasidic Judaism and Zionism', therefore it should have an article of its own. This way, you can include the 'Eim' sefer where it belongs - on either or both of the Hardal and Chabad pages. Do you agree with this solution? If so, we can start implementing it tomorrow (I have to go soon). --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. That's just another way to confuse the issue. Its bad enough that it has to be separated into "Haredim and Zionism," which is already a split and a breakaway from the Zionism article.--Meshulam 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. Look at it this way Meshulam, if Chareidim Accepted this Seifer (if you can call it one) and Zionism(CH"V), then Yiddishkiet as we know it would cease, and we would all be assimilated apikosiche shmudim. No one would be there to hold on to the Torah(again CH"V). HKB"H would have destroyed us and then there would be no way for the Moshiach to come, bimheiroh b'yomeinu. Eim Habonim Semeichah is a heretical work. End of Discussion. --Shaul avrom 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Meshulam) That's nice. Now please explain how that's relevant per WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Misplaced Pages policy is what is relevant, not personal halachic opinions JoshuaZ 22:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, all of the above is 100% WP:POV. This stuff isn't exactly encyclopedic. I propose that the article is revert back to the way it was above, when we had a consensus, before Daniel unilaterally changed it to fit his own POV agenda. --Meshulam 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to comment, but quite frankly I don't have the patience to fight with Daniel. I will just say that in a shul I davened in previously, the book was in wide circulation. And that shul was as Charedi as it comes. The fact, and I say fact, because I "know" Daniel from other sites as well, (where he was banned for much of the same behavior he shows on wiki) is that as a newcomer to Judaism he is still in the stage of "If my rabbi disagrees with it, then it must be evil." He brings in OR and tries to pass it off as acceptable WikiStandards and he hopes to get it in by just wearing you down by arguing. Please take a look at the RFC that was opened against him. As for his claims, I see no reason to go through them, as Meshulam has done a fine job. I will just end by saying that he scares away editors. (And I should add that Daniel deleted this once.) Yossiea 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack against Daniel by this user. It's completely unacceptable to impugn his religious positions. - crz crztalk 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it might have been over the top, but sometimes people have to realize where Daniel is coming from and why he is so fundamental with his writing and editing. This is not his personal sandbox, his methods of discussion and editing scare away users not willing to enter into an edit war with him. Yossiea 16:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in diagnosing the guy. But I am interested in making sure that articles are clear of WP:POV and WP:OR. I think we have established that Eim HaBanim Semeicha was written by a Haredi Jew, and that it was controversial at the time. We also have confirmation that the book continues to enjoy popularity among some Haredim (though not the ones Daniel575 hangs out with), and is not exactly on the bestseller list among others. I don't think it is appropriate to say that Haredim have responded to the book by ignoring it. The article about the book that Daniel keeps on quoting laments that more Haredim have not taken the book seriously. But that does not mean that "Haredim have responded to the book by ignoring it." If someone wants to say that the book has not been met with universal acceptance, I would say that that is accurate. But the book is a Haredi book in a number of ways. Lets leave it to the readers to decide whether it deserves that label, rather than to someone with a clear bone to pick. I have edited the article to reflect what the consensus decided above. I have left the line about how R' Teichtal was banned from some shuls. That much is true and verified, so it should be in the article. I don't think it has been demonstrated that the majority of Haredim ignore the book, as Daniel said. That remains OR and possibly POV as well. So I removed those comments. --Meshulam 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm gone. Goodbye. Good luck with Yossiea writing NPOV about these issues. I can't take it any more. Bye. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV and Disputed Tags

I think that the disputed tag and the POV tag can be removed at this point. There is no genuine disagreement that hasn't been clarified through consensus. --Meshulam 06:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardng suggest to merge to Zionism

Absolutely not. The Zionism article is already long and full of POV disputes. Aside from the management issue of having that many POV fights on one page this is simply too long to contain there. JoshuaZ 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I can live with that. --Meshulam 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

'Hardalim'

They are not by any measure or standard 'Haredi Jews'. They are, instead, somewhere halfway in between Modern Orthodox and Haredi. This is the truth. I do not accept lies in the article. Next, many of them do not support the state. There are amongst them those who pray for the state to be dismantled, who refuse to serve in the army, and sing the Neturei Karta anthem. They want the state to be replaced by a theocracy led by Adin Steinsaltz' 'Sanhedrin' and Baruch Marzel et al. The article should reflect these facts. The version to which I changed it correctly portrayed the facts, explaining that Hardalim are neither Modern Orthodox nor are they Haredim, and that they are strong Religious Zionists (by definition). Whether or not they support the state depends on the individual. As I said, some of them strongly oppose the 'fascist' state which drags Jews out of their houses and forbids Jews from living anywhere in Eretz Yisroel. Repeat, the article should reflect these facts. Please discuss, before reverting again. This edit war is not an honest attempt at improving the article, but rather a huge series of personal attacks by people who don't give a cent about the factuality of the article. It happens to be the case that I do care. --89.138.135.212 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, we already have a consensus on this. Just because you don't call them Charedim, doesn't mean they are not charedim. Yossiea 19:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sultan Knish. Let's turn it around.

1) They don't dress like Haredim.

2) They don't pray like Haredim.

3) They don't follow or listen to Haredi rabbis.

4) They don't live in Haredi neighborhoods.

5) They don't go to Haredi schools or yeshivos.

6) They don't speak Yiddish (neither do all Haredim speak Yiddish, of course).

7) They don't vote for Haredi political parties, but for the extreme right.

Now, please explain to me: on what basis do you classify these people as 'Haredim'? Also, I feel to see this 'consensus' you are talking about. Please provide me a link to this 'consensus'. --89.138.135.212 20:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not SK.

1) They dress like haredim, because they are Haredim. That's what being Chardal means. 2) They pray like haredim, because they are Haredim. That's what being Chardal means. 3-7) They are haredim. On what basis do I classify these "people" as Haredim? Simple, they are called Chardalim because they are Charedi Dati L'eumi. That means they are charedim. We can turn this around and say that most Jews are not religious, therefore Chassidim are not Jews because they don't dress like Jews, etc. Enough already.Yossiea 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's circle redenations.

1) They don't dress like Haredim. Haredim wear white shirts only and dark jackets, and black kippot. These guys wear colored shirts, gardening pants, kippot srugot, and the women wear shirts with texts on them (like 'lo nislach velo nishkach') which is totally ossur in the Haredi world.

2) They don't pray like Haredim. The Ashkenazi Hardalim pray in Sephardic Hebrew, which is forbidden according to quite a few poskim. In Edah shuls, Ashkenazim are forbidden from being shliach tzibbur if they want to daven with Sefardi pronunciation. This is written in the official shul regulations posted in all Edah-affiliated shuls, including mine. --89.138.135.212 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't dress like your type of Haredim, but since they are Hardal they dress like Hardal type of Haredim. They are Haredim. You can't say that just because they are not like you, then they can't be charedi. They may not be Edah material charedi, but they never claim to be. If majority rules, then charedim are not Jewish because most Jews don't wear black pants and white shirts and most Jews don't have payos, etc. (It's also very sad that uniform is the sole criteria for inclusion into your sect of Judaism.)Yossiea 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish my Yeshiva was actually Chareidi(It's not even Chardal, barely MO). I'm frum and Ashkenazi, but I am forced to Doven for the Omud in "Havarat S'faradit. BTW Yossiea, You cant be Chareidi and D"L. Just not possible. Another reason not to hold by things said by Rav Kook Z"L. --Shaul avrom 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very possible, by the very fact that they are Chardal means they are Charedia and Dati Le'umi. You may not like it but that doesn't change anything.Yossiea 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel575 (through his sockpuppet) is now trying to undermine Hardalim because they don't fit his POV desired mold for the Haredi position on Zionism. His and Shaul Avrom's attacks on this article are POV, plain and simple. --Meshulam 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

He's doing it again. Daniel/Shaul Avram, RZ, MO and Chardalim are not the same. Furthermore, Chardalim are Charedi, they are just Charedi Dati Leumi. Just because they don't fit your version of Charedi doesn't mean they are not charedi. Yossiea 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

To prevent Daniel from editing I have semi-protected the article. JoshuaZ 05:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I've removed links to the most obviously non-reliable sources. Personal propaganda sites apparently run by a Private Mail Box in Brooklyn do not meet Misplaced Pages standards. Jayjg 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is so objectionable about the links. When discussing anti-Zionism, it seems natural to get links from anti-Zionist organizations. Also, many of the links were to translations. As it is, the translations are pretty spot-on. If you can find better translations, please do.--Meshulam 06:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the relevant policy: WP:V. An anonymous private mailbox does not qualify as a reliable source. Who publishes this site? What are their qualifications? How do I know any of it is true? What is the editorial oversight process? I don't care if the sources are pro-Zionist, anti-Zionist, neutral, whatever, but find reliable ones. If you re-insert references from non-reliable sources again, rather than finding proper sources, the next step is to start deleting it. Jayjg 03:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The site is run by an organization called "Torah True Judaism." There is no reason to believe that any of the material, especially the translated material, is incorrect. There is absolutely nothing in WP:V that indicates the sites are unreliable. Most importantly, this has been discussed before elsewhere. This is just another POV attempt at attacking this article.--Meshulam 17:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is "Torah True Judaism"? Who runs it? How is it organized? It appears to be an individual with a mailbox. Anyone can claim to be an "organization" on their personal websites. Jayjg 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The website does not seem like a reliable source. However, most of the claimed material is translations of other sources. The easiest thing to do would be for someone to track down the original sources or reliable translations of them. However, as it stands the sources are non-reliable. JoshuaZ 18:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the source as it currently is, cannot be considered a reliable source and does not fit the criteria of WP:V. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as most of the sources are merely translations, all that has to happen is for someone to determine that the translations are accurate. For a number of the translations, I have done that myself. --Meshulam 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages cannot quote "Misplaced Pages editors Meshulam and Shaul avrom" as sources". Please bring reliable sources. Jayjg 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"determine that the translations are accurate. For a number of the translations, I have done that myself": Wikipedians are not WP:RS per definition. Thus, even if jewsagainstzionism.com were a WP:RS and conforming with WP:V, which they are not and do not respectively, our assessment of their data wouldn't make it WP:RS retroactively. If, say Bernard Lewis, or, if you must, Juan Cole would comment and cite their material, we could cite these scholars. However, as long as no notable source does, we are not to do that either. --tickle me 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it is certainly possible to refer to the books themselves. They are reliable sources. www.jewsagainstzionism.com etc merely translates them. --Meshulam 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the following. I have been a stickler for following WP:V and WP:POV in the past. And this new decision that jewsnotzionists is not a RS goes a little far, in my opinion. The information cited to in the article is almost on the level of "common knowledge" in Orthodox Jewish circles (the fact that Satmar, Bobov, etc. are anti-Zionist). The Toldos Aharon Rebbe (and his brother the Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok) write very frequently about what they dub the evils of Zionism. Their father did so as well. I can quote some of the statements in his various books, if anyone wants. There is no doubt about Satmar etc. I do understand that a RS is necessary. But, given the fact that the information is undeniably true, I think that the bar should not be so high as to rule out jewsnotzionists. Regardless, I will do my best to find sources for these things. I have placed some fact stickers on other statements in this article that are unsourced (but are also undoubtedly true). I have done so because I believe in fairness. The "fact-checkers" on this page have relegated their criticism to criticism of anti-Zionist claims, and have left essentially untouched the various claims made about groups that are either neutral to, or perceived to be supportive of, either the State of Israel or Zionism.--Meshulam 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's pretty simple. Are "Jewsagainstzionism.com" or "Jewsnotzionists.org" recognized publication/media enterprises? Do they have an editor, a staff and subscribers? Or are they partisan sites designed to present a particular viewpoint, created by an anonymous party, without any oversight? It is not the job of Wikipedians to determine the accuracy of the content from a source -- this is why Verifiability policy explicitly states, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." It is, however, our responsibility to include only sources which we know to be reliable. A Website such as these fails, because in large part, it is merely a mouthpiece for a particular ideologue (in the case of "Jewsnotzionists", for example, it's Yisroel Dovid Weiss, listed as the site's administrative contact) -- just as articles about Neturai Karta from the extreme Jewish Defense Organization also fail. The only citations one could allow from such Web sites would be in reference to themselves. Find published sources that say what you're trying to cite.--Leflyman 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch!

Somebody has sprinkled different articles on Hasidim with claims that Ger, Belz, and (in another article) Chabad are zionist. This is confusing and untrue. With the exception of the hardal, no hasidic group is "pro-zionist." Agudath Israel of Israel, which is under the leadership of the Gerrer Rebbe, encourages its supporters to vote because it views voting as a tool with which to fight wicked people in the government. Voting, in the hasidic mindset, has nothing to do with any zionistic leanings. --Yodamace1 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinkus

How is this quote notable enough to merit entry in the article? Are we going to comb through all sifrei sh'aalo v'tshuva to find any mention of Zionism? I think undue weight needs to be invoked. -- Avi 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I have never heard of R' Pinkus does not mean that he is not notable. But Shuli hasn't demonstrated that he is remotely notable (even on Avi's talk page, which is not the right place to have this conversation). If nobody demonstrates his notability, I will remove the statement in accordance with Avi's opinion.--Meshulam 00:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

Why is there a section about Neturei Karta in this article that is actually longer than the section about Chardal? Neturei Karta might have a few hundred followers worldwide? Chardal is a large movement in Israel today. Truth be told, I think that Neturei Karta should be given, at most, one sentence in this article. In terms of the Hareidi relationship with the land of Israel, they are near to insignificant. --Meshulam 02:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please source the 'large movement' claim? Further, NK is very relevant in these matters. Please do not attempt to project your own pro-Zionist POV on this article. NK has thousands of adherents. According to some definitions, I myself am included (the group which I am a member of is commonly referred to as "Neturei Karta" even though we are Chassidim and don't have any connection with them). And my movement happens to have several thousand adherents. --Rabbeinu 07:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A.) I don't write with a POV. I certainly have no pro-Chardal bias. I am merely stating the facts. B.) NK is loud. That does not make them relevant. C.) No reputable source has placed them in the thousands. D.) Stating that you are frequently called an NK member is irrelevant, especially since you immediately claim that you don't have any connection with them. --Meshulam 09:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Sourced Material"

Daniel575/Rabbeinu accuses me of vandalism for removing sourced material. Of course, I said when I deleted the material that it was irrelevant in the section where it is brought, and that it is repeated elsewhere in the article. I never questioned the source. It is not vandalism to remove a nonsequiter from an article, no matter how well sourced it is. As usual, Daniel575/Rabbeinu immediately (he didn't even wait a minute) reverted the article without any discussion after I changed it back and requested some clarification. Now I make my request even plainer: --Meshulam 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is Daniel575? Next: please tell me exactly where it speaks about Bobov, Tosh and other groups. Please tell me where else it notes that Zionists are (B"H) a minority among the Orthodox rabbinical leadership. --Rabbeinu 10:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How about we work on improving the article instead of fighting each other? I want that despicable tag gone from the top of the article ASAP. I suggest you bring some Reliable Sources on the 'Hardal' group since it is so well-known, large and influential according to you. Note that sources don't have to be online. A sefer can also be a source. For example, perhaps you could bring us something from the seforim of Shlomo Aviner, Dov Lior and other Hardalim. --Rabbeinu 10:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewsagainstzionism.com

Why is this website not a source on anti-Zionist Jews? That website contains some unique material which cannot be found anywhere else, for example the statements of the Maharitz (the Govad) zy'a to the United Nations in 1947. Or CRC declarations. Does anyone dispute the factuality of these links: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyjuly1947.cfm , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyJerusalem.cfm , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/dushinskyNov1947.cfm . Further: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf , http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm . Is anybody disputing the validity of these links? I am not asking for your opinion regarding this website. I am merely asking you whether this is factual. Are anti-Zionists capable of providing information about anti-Zionism? If not, then I am afraid that all links Zionist websites about Zionism must also be deleted, since then Zionists cannot be trusted to provide information about Zionists either. --Rabbeinu 10:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, do not dispute the validity of those links. I have argued as much elsewhere. --Meshulam 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. I noticed previous discussions on this subject. Wasn't accusing you of anything. Thanks. --Rabbeinu 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

General discussion

I hope that you agree with my edits to the article today. I have especially improved the intro, making it a flowing story from one extreme via the moderates to the other extreme. Next, we are going to use this source: http://depts.drew.edu/rel/Munkaczer%20Rabbe.pdf to write about Munkacz. --Rabbeinu 11:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent edits.--Meshulam 12:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will continue tomorrow or tonight. --Rabbeinu 12:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New History

The problem with the new "History" section is that A.) it does not explain why religious Jews were (are) so against Zionism and B.) it makes it look like it was the anti-Religious aspect of Zionism that they objected to. Granted, that must have been icing on the cake, or more, it was not their primary objection. That has to be made clear. --Meshulam 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

One can't quote Vayoel Moshe as the primary source for Haredi antiZionism; it was more than 50 years too late. I don't claim to know what the primary objection was, but the anti-religious nature of Zionism was not just the "icing on the cake". Anyway, the article had no historical perspective at all until now. I am open to improvement—I called it a draft. --Redaktor 15:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of other statements that were made about Zionism from the Gedolim of the early period in Zionist history. Also, commentators from before Zionism was even on the radar have been clear about the meaning of the three oaths. I'll bring a few of those quotes that clarify the issue. But I don't oppose your new section (I think it should be altered a bit). You're right that some historical perspective was necessary, and I thank you for authoring it. --Meshulam 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Amnon Yitzhak

Suggest that Amnon Yitzhak, a representative of resurgent Haredi Judaism amongst Oriental Jews should be discussed and his vehement opposition to Zionism.

Most Hareidim still don't support Zionism nor its state

I deleted all references that ger vizhnits or any other hareidi support Zionism because they join the Keneset, this is a false POV by very extreme elements who make this accusation unjustly on all those groups they are opposed to Zionism and its state, but they also vote to get money for the Torah institutions but not at all saying that the Zionists are good this is a lie. Please don't revert it without any source.--יודל 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefardim

We need to fix the sephardim section - add Yaakov Hillel (a famous Sefardi anti-Zionist), as well as lbcl"c the Baba Sali, and the Sephardi Eida Chareidis. Also, the school (something Yoel) - the sephardi school that doesn't take any money from the govmt. Why does the article say no sephardi opposition. Also, Ovadia Yosef used to be a big kanoi; maybe this should be mentioned? Lobbuss 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the word opposition means something more active or voicefull not just an opinion, i think they are not more opposing in this then vizhnits ger and all other hareidim unless u can find sources.--יודל 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The jpost blog article was simply false, as many of the responders to it said. The writer was totally ignorant and simply IGNORED the entire Sefardi opposition to Zionism. That's the Zionist way of handling criticism: simply deny that the criticism exists. You have vandalized my previous version. Please stop doing that. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea: Hardal

They used to be plain Mizrachi guys with little kippot, shirts and sandals, and the girls wearing short sleeves and nude lower legs. That's pretty much the definition of Modern Orthodox. And are you really going to claim that they are no longer Religious Zionists?! They don't believe in Religious Zionism any more?! --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not MO's. MO's is mostly an American thing. In Israel, the RZ are not neccesarily MO's. In addition, the fact that they are Chardalim show that they're not MO, but Charedi in hashkafah. I would venture to say that they are primarily from the RZ camp, but also from the growing camp of American olim who don't fit into the pure Charedi mold. Yossiea 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am saying - they USED TO BE modern orthodox. Israeli RZ *is* Modern-Orthodox. Machon Meir, Merkaz HaRav etc, IS modern-orthodox. If the women there wear short sleeves and skirts barely covering the knees, the guys wear plain t-shirts and sandals and shorts and small kippot, then that is called modern-orthodox and that is not by any standards 'Haredi'. What I am saying is that they USED TO BE like that, and they left that, and started becoming stricter in these things: dress, and other things such as shabbat observance and kashrut and general halachic things. You fail to understand that America/the OU does not have the copyright to the term 'modern orthodox' - Israel has 'modern orthodoxy' also, and the vast majority of the settlement movement still falls under that category. --Eidah 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you are incorrect. RZ and MO ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. Some MO's are RZ, some MO's are not RZ's. Some RZ's are MO and some RZ's are not MO. Dress is irrelevant. Again, they're chardalim because that's how they identify. They are from the RZ camp, not the MO camp. There is no MO camp. There are Charedim, Chassidim, Litvaks and RZ. MO doesn't really fit in. Yossiea 13:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eida on this one, MO they were before becoming Hardel, nothink has changed in regards to their Zionism beliefs. Most religious Zionists are in the category of the American modern orthodox, modern orthodox has nothing to do with America its simply a term described of orthedox jews who a'rnt Hariedim. So Yosias edits are false uncalled and simply out of line to revert it from MO to RZ, please stop doing it--יודל 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid's edits

Yidisheryid: we have previously had big wars about this here. We came to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to divide the section about Haredi groups in 1 section about those groups which typically adopt a pragmatically supportive stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Ger, Belz, the Litvaks, Klausenburg, Chabad), and those groups which typically adopt a negative, opposing stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Satmar, Dushinsky, Neturei Karta, and organizations such as the Edah and the CRC). Could you explain exactly why you keep completely destroying this division? Further: Dushinsky is a separate group, just as Satmar is a separate group. Further: the CRC is not a subdivision of Satmar. Yossiea, I ask you also to look at this and thus to revert the order of the groups to my previous version, which was made in consensus and which 'Yidisheryid' keeps messing up. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear eida, i have no issue on the sections just a few chabad i can see in devided but al other Hasidim cannot be divided because they are the same opinion towards Zionism, crc isn't even a different group they are just a rabbinic organisation controlled and comprised mainly by satmar so i would not give it a separate header, we cannot make sections for a the satmar rabbis and organizations that have been expressing somewhere sometime a statement about this issue why make so much headers to inflate your cause please consider that their are other people here reading this who will get the false picture that satmar is huge and bigger and more then others which isn't true let all stamar ideas and statement be under their respective section. i agree that Eidaa groupd should not be part of satmar since they are a organizing organization of all those jerusalem groups, dushinsky included, which are indeed opposed to Zionism, why make dushinsky extra group? are they not just like Toldos ahron and other eidanikas?! and stop using the word consensus as if i am not part in this process, everybody can revert minor thinks without talk pages until somebody explains why its not a minor edit which u only now did and i successfully answered--יודל 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him and submitted his name to the admins for 3RR and edit warring. Let's hope he stops. Which one has the order of Chassidim? Yossiea 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the way it was *before* he started messing things up. We had a list of "groups that typically support the State of Israel" (such as the Litvishe, Ger, Belz, Chabad) and list of "groups that typically oppose the State of Israel" (such as Satmar). That was the consensus we had. Now look at the way things are! It's a huge MESS now! --Eidah 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg u not to just revert al my edits to that Inst because that list was slanderous unsourced POV, they do not support any form of Zionism. it is an opinion and i agree some satmars are by this opinion, but don't write it down as fact, u can write that the satmars look at them as supportive of Zionism but not as given fact that they are indeed which they are not, i dont have sources that they aren't, but i may and i am obligated to erase those accusations even though most users want it inside.--יודל 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check the dozens of edits he messed up. I'll see if I can find something. Yossiea 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just check the last edit from before the hurricane hit. --Eidah 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:), I think I found a good one. I found one of your edits and put in the Chassidim section. You might want to visit the admin board and see YY's section there and comment if neccesary. Yossiea 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems fine. Now I'm off in 20 minutes, back on Monday (no internet at home!). Let's let things rest for a while and take a step back, take a deep breath, enjoy our shabbos meals and next week we'll all be happy and cooperate and turn this into an even better article, and Hakudesh burich hi will send us mushiach tzidkeini, bimheiru veyumeini, UMEIN. ;) --Eidah 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

The page has been protected for three days. Please use this time to discuss changes to the article and come up with a compromise, rather than fighting back and forth. You are all rational people, and I am sure a solution everyone can accept can be arrived at. See Misplaced Pages:Edit war and Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

The protection will expire in three days; when it expires, the edit warring starts again, people will start to be blocked, and the page protected for longer periods. Neil ム 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Neil, u protected this page with a pov version but since u r not Jewish u don't have the knowledge to say which one was the POV version, i ask u to revert it to yesterdays version, so not to be a hand unknowingly to slanderous accusations. thanks--יודל 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I will only be online again on Monday morning (Zionist time). --Eidah 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a solution everyone accepted. We had a discussion weeks ago and we reached a consensus. The article as it stands now is based upon the consensus. YY's edits are breaking that consensus with his edits that don't make any sense. Yossiea 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. We need to move on from here. I think the way it looks now is fine. Though the section about 'newspapers' needs some work, but we'll see about that next week, iy'h. --Eidah 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, as YY is clearly not in agreement, then it can't be a consensus that everyone presently accepts. Try and discuss things with him over the next few days. If, when the article is unprotected, he still is unwilling to engage with his fellow editors and discuss controversial edits, instead edit warring over the article, his editing privileges will be revoked for longer and longer periods. Neil ム 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yossiea 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardal

As per Wiki's article itself, RZ is not the same as MO. Religious_Zionism so stop reverting. This is a talk page, we use it to talk about changes before we make the changes. Try it out. Yossiea 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, at this point I am unsure how your actions are any different from those of Yasheryid. You are both edit warring, and at least he is offering explanation for his edits using edit summaries. You, on the other hand, are simply rolling back his edits with no explanation other than "discuss on the talk page" (and, worse, describing them as "vandalism" when they clearly are not). Please explain on this talk page just why the entirety of his edits are unacceptable to you. Neil ム 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was heavily edited before and protected as well. We came to a consensus using the talk page and the article is pretty much "final." His edits are extremely controversial and he is not discussing it beforehand. All I am doing is reverting to a prior acceptable edit and telling him to discuss his changed on the talk page. This is a fairly large talk page and many things were discussed. He is not interested in discussions, he is interested in pushing his POV across. Yossiea 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles