Talk:Zehut/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Zehut. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Comment
I agree with the disclaimer. However, it really takes time until there is something as neutral point of view. There is currently nothing like that on Zehut. There are people for it (both on left and right), there are people clearly against (both on left and right), but whenever I find someone (Amit Segal for example), who tends to be neutral, he is so neutral, one cannot use it on the article. --AsiBakshish (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:WESTBANK is clear, you may not say that "Judea and Samaria" is the name of a current place. This is not about the administration of the territory within the context of that administration. VwM.Mwv, you are violating that guideline, and the exception you claim very specifically disallows the use of that term here. Kindly self-revert. nableezy - 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
As I explained in the edit summary and in the note, this has nothing to do with geography. Zehut wants to change the administrative regime of the territory. Please tell me how § 5 does not apply. M . M 21:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- How does it not apply? What the exception says is in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area. When you write applying full Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria you are very specifically calling a land mass Judea and Samaria (and the exception requires "Area" to be included and capitalized). When you write and removing construction freezes in Judea and Samaria you are writing about a land area. Same for Individual Arabs in Judea and Samaria. You are saying that there is a place called Judea and Samaria and these things are happening in that place. That is disallowed by the naming convention. When you write about the modern place between the Jordan River and the Green Line you may not call it Judea, Samaria, or Judea and Samaria. nableezy - 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You may be right about the last two, but the first one refers specifically to an administrative change. What aboutapplying full Israeli sovereignty to the Judea and Samaria Area
(which is an administrative territory that currently is not under full Israeli sovereignty)? Honestly, that was my initial thought, but I removed "Area" as I wanted to include the West Bank in parenthesis, and it would've been confusing to include both. M . M 21:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- Yes, it is talking about changing the status of the territory. It is not talking about the current administration of what Israel designates as the Judea and Samaria Area. It is talking about a land mass and what the party would like to do with the land mass. It isnt, for example, saying that the supreme authority for the Judea and Samaria Area be removed from the Ministry of Defense and moved in to the Ministry of the Interior. You are allowed to use "Judea and Samaria Area" when you are talking about the district specifically and talking about the administration of that district. Your use here was about the territory, not the legal entity in Israeli law. nableezy - 21:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"It isnt, for example, saying that the supreme authority for the Judea and Samaria Area be removed from the Ministry of Defense and moved in to the Ministry of the Interior." Actually, that's excactly what it is saying. Please read the cited sources. M . M 22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)- No, Im sorry if Im not being clear on this with how I worded it. It is not talking about changing the administration of the Judea and Samaria Area. Like for instance modifying how the regional councils interact with it, or a specific military order about the Civil Administration. It is talking about something larger than that, it is talking about changing the status of the West Bank entirely, not simply changing the current administrative regime. Annexation is something that happens to a territory, not an administrative district. When you are discussing annexation you are definitionally discussing a territory. nableezy - 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it is talking about changing the status of the territory. It is not talking about the current administration of what Israel designates as the Judea and Samaria Area. It is talking about a land mass and what the party would like to do with the land mass. It isnt, for example, saying that the supreme authority for the Judea and Samaria Area be removed from the Ministry of Defense and moved in to the Ministry of the Interior. You are allowed to use "Judea and Samaria Area" when you are talking about the district specifically and talking about the administration of that district. Your use here was about the territory, not the legal entity in Israeli law. nableezy - 21:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- How does it not apply? What the exception says is in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area. When you write applying full Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria you are very specifically calling a land mass Judea and Samaria (and the exception requires "Area" to be included and capitalized). When you write and removing construction freezes in Judea and Samaria you are writing about a land area. Same for Individual Arabs in Judea and Samaria. You are saying that there is a place called Judea and Samaria and these things are happening in that place. That is disallowed by the naming convention. When you write about the modern place between the Jordan River and the Green Line you may not call it Judea, Samaria, or Judea and Samaria. nableezy - 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
In the words of Menachem Begin when debating the Golan Heights Law: You use the word "annexation". I do not use it. And if you read the Zehut platform, you'll see that their position is even less related to annexation. Anyway, I'll lay off this issue for a while now. Perhaps another editor will weigh in. M . M 22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, fine, applying sovereignty is something that happens to a territory, not an administrative body. nableezy - 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"applying full Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank"
What does this mean? Is the intent to annex the West Bank? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes.--TMCk (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Should the article say so, instead of using a euphemism? --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Per their platform - they do not use annexation. They are discussing a return to pre-Oslo (1967-93) in stage-3, and possibly something else (without saying annexation) in stage-4. IDF control over area A (presently controlled by the PA) would be asserting sovereignty but would not be an annexation. They do, however, seem to be taking the legal position that all British Mandate territories belong to Israel (citing a particular legal opinion), so per this view annexation wouldn't be required (note that this is inline with the long standing Israeli position - territories conquered in 1948 were added to Israel by an ordinance particular to Mandate territory)). Absent a sourcing saying "annexation" (or "סיפוח" in Hebrew) - we should probably avoid it. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Should the article say so, instead of using a euphemism? --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Here's a source: These Seven Parties' Fates Will Decide Israel's Election | Haaretz | "Moshe Feiglin's Zehut — a bizarre far-right/libertarian party calling for annexation of the West Bank and legalization of cannabis — is the latest ..."
- That's a short summary by Anshel Pfeffer (who used to be the London correspondent and mainly wrote for the English side - not the original Hebrew reporting (which is translated to English)). The Haaretz piece he links to - The Jewish Supremacist, Pro-marijuana Party Tipped to Be in Israel’s Next Parliament doesn't use "annexation" but rather:
"If Zehut has its way, the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians would be “canceled” and “the legal situation restored to its pre-Oslo status.” Feiglin would then offer three options to the “non-Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria.” ...
. I think we should go with the more detailed piece. Per my understanding of the platform (which matches the reporting by Haaretz), Zehut considers the West Bank to be legally part of Israel and therefore an annexation, per Zehut, is not necessary. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's a short summary by Anshel Pfeffer (who used to be the London correspondent and mainly wrote for the English side - not the original Hebrew reporting (which is translated to English)). The Haaretz piece he links to - The Jewish Supremacist, Pro-marijuana Party Tipped to Be in Israel’s Next Parliament doesn't use "annexation" but rather:
- Note that the source puts “the legal situation restored to its pre-Oslo status” in quotation marks. That's another euphemism for annexation. Wikipedia does not user euphemisms. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Umm no - that is actually a return to a military occupation with a military civil affairs adminstration - the West Bank was not annexed (well, ignoring the West Bank as Taiwan in relation to the British Mandate view) between 1967 and 1993.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Political position
Zehut is bringing something new, something that doesn't really fit into the political left-right spectrum. According to this poll, [1] only 53% of Israelis consider the party to be "right-wing". Should we include "right-wing (disputed)" in the infobox, or just remove the political position section altogether? My judgment might be a bit biased since I am a Zehut supporter, so I'd like other editors' inputs as well. M . M 18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd peg them as Right-libertarianism - but one would need a source for that. The Israeli public probably is a poor judge here (considering that the main right wing party in Israel - Likud - supported a welfare state for much of existence (Bibi moved a bit away from this early in his career, but then moved back)). JPost, TOI, JTA - [2], [3], [4] used this. Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
How about these two? [5] [6] IDI says "personal liberty" and "libertarian economic positions"; I think that can be reasonably interperted as right-libertarianism. And JPost seems like a clear cut, starting out with "The leader of the rising Zehut Party is attracting more than just young potheads to his libertarian platform", and going on to mention a number of obviously free market policies. M . M 19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)- "Moshe Feiglin’s libertarian Zionist Zehut (“Identity”) party"[1] right-wing[2][3] "While Zehut is considered a right-wing party with libertarian tendencies, its dedication to advancing personal freedom overlaps with many center-left policies."[4] as such, ideally I would think it should be "right-wing" with Libertarian as an ideology because we don't consider an ideology to be a political position, as political positions are on the right-left spectrum, and the only exception is with the Third Position, or Syncratic parties, however, Libertarianism is generally considered to be part of the mainstream right-wing politics, and within the right-wing spectrum. ShimonChai (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is actually a Left-libertarianism - though in this case (as in US politics - e.g. the US libertarian party) - this is the right wing version. Libertarian by itself (absent context - e.g. implied in the US system) only discusses government control vs. personal liberty. The left wing version has communal property (rejecting private ownership of resources, for instance). As for the Israeli meaning of right/left - which is unique in being tied to a large degree to security/foreign-policy (hawks / doves) - that's an orthogonal issue. (and in most countries - left/right is per economics). My digression on theoritical politics aside - yes - I think it is safe to call them right-wing (in this case econ + foreign policy hawks) libertarian. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems we all agree that Zehut is right-wing in terms of economy and secutiry, and supports individual liberty (wherever that may place on the left-right spectrum). I agree with Icewhiz that these positions are best summarized as "right-libertarian", which I've now added along with some of the sources above as well as this one, [7] which explicilty refers to the party as "Right-Wing, Libertarian". M . M 16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is actually a Left-libertarianism - though in this case (as in US politics - e.g. the US libertarian party) - this is the right wing version. Libertarian by itself (absent context - e.g. implied in the US system) only discusses government control vs. personal liberty. The left wing version has communal property (rejecting private ownership of resources, for instance). As for the Israeli meaning of right/left - which is unique in being tied to a large degree to security/foreign-policy (hawks / doves) - that's an orthogonal issue. (and in most countries - left/right is per economics). My digression on theoritical politics aside - yes - I think it is safe to call them right-wing (in this case econ + foreign policy hawks) libertarian. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Moshe Feiglin’s libertarian Zionist Zehut (“Identity”) party"[1] right-wing[2][3] "While Zehut is considered a right-wing party with libertarian tendencies, its dedication to advancing personal freedom overlaps with many center-left policies."[4] as such, ideally I would think it should be "right-wing" with Libertarian as an ideology because we don't consider an ideology to be a political position, as political positions are on the right-left spectrum, and the only exception is with the Third Position, or Syncratic parties, however, Libertarianism is generally considered to be part of the mainstream right-wing politics, and within the right-wing spectrum. ShimonChai (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, someone has added "right-wing to far-right" to the infobox, which I figured was only a matter of time. I think we should return to the original idea: not list any political position there. As for the lede, I've added "libertarian" with a note of "in addition to libertarian, the party has been described as far-right and nationalist" as per five sources: The Jerusalem Post, Israel Democracy Institute, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Times. 5/5 include "libertarian"; 2/5 include "far-right" and "nationalist". (Edit diff [8]). M . M 09:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, first of all right-libertarian is not a political position, it is an ideology. Political positions are either left, centrist, or right. I kept right-wing, but I also put far-right because that’s what sources say about the party. I believe it should be on there. -108.52.209.4 (talk) 15:00, 07 April 2019 (UTC)
- It is worth noting that following the elections, Zehut has made a clear effort to move away from the “beyond left and right” image they cultivated in the April elections towards a clear right-wing self-identification: ‘Zehut would this time around clarify from the start that it is a right-wing party.’ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/feiglin-says-hell-run-again-in-september-elections-will-be-more-modest/). Consequently, I would support changing the position to right-wing.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)