Talk:Revisionist Zionism/Archive 3

Balfour Declaration

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I maintain that it is not accurate to assert that Revisionist Zionism sought the creation of a Jewish state in accordance with these aims. CJCurrie 05:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You may maintaine that position, but it is innacurate. Jabotinsky lobied for British support to settle the Land of Israel based on the Balfour Declaration, and the Revisionist Movement was largely a form of liberal nationalism. Guy Montag 05:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's the "nothing shall be done ... existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" part that I'm taking issue with, as regards the Revisionist ideology. CJCurrie 01:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the Iron Wall by Jabotinsky? [1] In this piece, Jabotinsky eleborates that under ideal circumstances, the Arabs would be integrated into a Jewish society, but reality has gotten in the way, and that only after the Arabs accept the existance and inevitebility of a Jewish state, will they be accepted into the liberal nationalist conception of a Jewish democratic state. It fits perfectly well with the Balfour Declaration, even if an Anti Zionist Jew British MP insisted on inserting the lines about the protection of non-Jewish communities. Guy Montag 06:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook

On what basis are Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook called "anti-Zionist"? - Jmabel | Talk 07:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

As neither Guy Montag nor anyone else has responded to the above question for over two months, I am removing these words. Please provide a basis for this description before reinserting it. Anomalocaris 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed cited material

What is the basis for having removed "'…on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich'", cited to Heller, 1995, p. 70? Usually removal of cited material requires discussion, or at least a clear edit summary. - Jmabel | Talk 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the citation to http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/irgunazi.htm was removed with the inaccurate edit summary "dead forum link". The link is perfectly live (I just accessed it), and it is passage from a book by Lenni Brenner. The table of contents is up a level at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner; the entire book appears to be online. Now, one could well argue that Brenner is a not an appropriate source on this, but that is an entirely other question than "dead forum link". - Jmabel | Talk 22:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There's also been a lot of cited material removed recently over at Lehi (group). Derex 06:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No cited material was removed from anywhere. The link didn't work for me, and it's a non WP:NPOV link. It's an extremist forum site. The wording is controversial, you can add it again, but then we'll have a discussion as in the Lehi article at the moment, no problem. The jist of it, which is not controversial and disputed - the actual approach - is still in the article. Amoruso 08:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that only centrist sources be used. - Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no problem , but it was stated as fact which was the problem, and it's disputed and not proven, so a more assured version was used. Amoruso 15:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

RIght, but anyway Brenner is not the source for this material. This web site is only linked because it makes the material available, but the material itself comes from the source (Yisraeli) that Brenner cites. --Zero^talk 07:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still confused about what is going on here. All of these changes were most recently made in Amoruso's latest edit.

1. Why, exactly, was the abovementioned Brenner link removed as a citation for "In 1940 and 1941, NMO proposed intervening in World War II on the side of Nazi Germany", which has now been left uncited?
2. Why was the quotation "'common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO'" changed to "'common interests could exist between the NMO and Germany'"? And in any event, who exactly is being quoted here? With either wording this should have clear attribution and citation.
3. Similarly "'actively take part in the war on Germany's side' in return for German support for 'the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich'", cited to Heller, 1995, p. 70, was replaced by (uncited) "'actively take part in the war on Germany's side' in return for German support for 'the establishment of the historic Jewish state'" (end of quotation). Is the citation to Heller incorrect? If it is correct, it seems to me that "on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich" are not words to be tossed away lightly.

This is all in one paragraph. There seem also to be other matters in contention here, but this seems to me to be particularly salient. - Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to be confused, it's all explained actually. Since there's not definite proof that Lehi used the word "totalitarian" that was ommitted. Lehi's version do not say this word. So a more neutral version without the word "totalitarian" was used. That is all. One can say that the totalitarin word is said to be in exitance but then it will be disputed by other sources or one can simply not use this word. quite simple actually. Amoruso 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing deleted, sourced version restored. Simple as that. The word "totalitarian" appears in the letter from Lehi that still sits in the German archives. Amoruso doesn't like it, we can feel sorry for Amoruso. --Zero^talk 11:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting aside your personal attacks, it's only about accuracy. Neither one of us seen the letter, and there's no scan available for it. It's just surprising that only a scan of the first page letter is available. Besides that quotation from Yisraeli, Lehi in their transcripts never used the word "totalitarian" to explain this event or any other event. Amoruso 22:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing all the sources, I agree the letter is real, however it's been confirmed it wasn't written by Lehi themselves in Ada Amichal's Biography of Stern "In purple". I linked it all directly to the Lehi article to avoid repetition and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Amoruso 04:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)