Talk:Jews/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Jews. 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

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Jews in France

There are repeat statements on this page that most of France's Jews are Sephardic. Does anybody have statistics on this? (Most of the Jews I know are Ashkenazis..) David.Monniaux 22:46, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi David: See for example: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/vjw/France.html "Post-Holocaust Era: France became a haven for postwar refugees and within 25 years its Jewish population tripled. In 1945, 180,000 Jews were living in France, and, by 1951, the population reached 250,000. An influx of North African Jews immigrated to France in the 1950's due to the decline of the French empire. Subsequent waves of immigration followed the Six-Day War, when another 16,000 Moroccan and Tunisian Jews settled in France. Hence, by 1968, Sephardic Jews were the majority in France. These new immigrants were already culturally French and needed little time to adjust to French society. Today more than 600,000 Jews live in France, 375,000 live in Paris. There are 230 Jewish communities, including Paris, Marseilles (70,000), Lyons (25,000), Toulouse, Nice and Strasbourg. Two of the major problems facing French Jewry are assimilation and anti-Semitism." IZAK 01:35, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NOTICE: Protection

This article was protected because it has been vandalised 24 times in the last 2 days. -- Graham :) | Talk 01:46, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd think that vigilant watching and reversion would be the solution to that. There's no actual "dispute" to be resolved, and the article will always be the target of bigots. It can't be "protected" forever -- except by constant attention from those of good will. - Nunh-huh 01:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Protection is a good temporary measure because of the sheer number of vandalisms over the weekend (24 is a lot for any page) but it is only ever a temporary one. Once I'm sure the vandals have got bored and gone away I'll remove the protection. -- Graham :) | Talk 01:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protection removed. Will reprotect if vandalism continues. -- Graham :) | Talk 08:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-1965]]
"Isaac" on the altar. "Abraham" is tested. Genesis 22

Anti-missionary

I have started a page about what an Anti-Missionary is. Please make any corrections to it that you feel would be beneficial. User:Yoshiah_ap

Today's Jews

Wouldn't most of Jewry today be considered Reform and/or Atheist, not Rabbinical as the article seems to implies? "Almost all Jews today are "Rabbinical Jews"" User:Yoshiah_ap

even tho' most Jews today are not religious at all, yet almost all Jews do derive their ancestry from "Rabbinical Judaism" which was the type of Judaism practiced by the vast majority of Jews for 1,800 years from the onset of Talmudic times until the dawn of the secular age in the 19th and 20th centuries.IZAK

Etymology of Jew

Etymology: From http://www.etymonline.com which is generally dependable: '12c., from Anglo-Fr. iuw, from O.Fr. giu, from L. Judaeum (nom. Judaeus), from Gk. Ioudaios, from Aramaic yehudhai "Judah," lit. "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced O.E. Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah." ' User:Wetman The etymology at the head of this article needs to explain the anomaly about the '-ry- ending.

From what I know of linguistis it could not derive from Judaeum. It looks like one of those faux-pas which has slipped into the conventional explanations like for example the "1400BC Aryans" where there is apparently no scientific basis for this. hyperdictionary.com says Jew is a synonym of Hebrew. Certainly Italian Greek & most slavic languages (the first three translations of the Bible were in Greek Latin & Slavonic) all call Jews as Hebrei Ebrei or Jevrey. If you think it should be reverted until more evidence is presented feel free. User:Zestauferov

To the contrary; -ry is a suffix also found in other English words, deriving from the French -rie (eg saloperie.) How would you explain "Freemasonry", or "nunnery"? Or "fairy", which is from French fÈe? The traditional etymology is entirely plausible. - Mustafaa 19:44, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Samaratins

"But the Samaritans do have an oral Law) Learn more about them from the website the-samaritans.com" [email protected]

Origins of Hebrew and Jew

The article states:

The most common view is that the Middle English word Jew is from the Old French qiu, earlier juieu, from the Latin iudeus from the Greek corresponding to the Hebrew y'hudi, ultimately from Judah, name of a Hebrew patriarch and the tribe descended from him. The Old English equivalent was Iudeas. An alternative and much less common view is that Jew is from Jewry from the greek evrei meaning "Hebrews." Under the latter view, Abraham, Israel and other patriarchs are regarded as Jews while under the former only the descendants of the Judaeans would be Jews, strictly speaking.

I have removed the last sentence; the common useage of a word often has litle or no relation to the word's historical, linguistic origin. Many people assume that the word "Jew" is derived from evrei; yet this does not mean they have a different definition of "Who is a Jew" than people who go by the more accepted derivation (i.e. the former one in the paragraph.) People do have different ideas of how the ancient Hebrews are related to the Jews of today, but that is better described in a separate paragraph. This latter idea is discussed in the article on Israelites. RK 00:55, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Shalom RK, I think it is very valuable and relevant to the article to tie to that etymology an explanation of why Abraham and Isaac & other patriarchs are considered Jewish (which also explains how a person can be a Jew without being very religious). It is not fair to those without an indepth knowledge of all the parameters to omit this clear & simple explaination very relevant to the article. If it does not belong where it was then place it somewhere else in the article but let's not omit it.

Re the opening para: "still identify as Hebrews in a cultural or ethnic sense." None of the Jews I know identify as "Hebrews." The identify as Jews. Why this strange squeamishness about the word Jew? Adam 12:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Understanding Jews as Hebrews & vice-versa

Jews are Hebrews! I never met a Jew who does not consider Abraham and the patriarchs to be Jews. Adam

Yes, most religious Jews believe that Abraham and the other Biblical patriarchs were Jews. But this is not the point. Historians use the name "Hebrews" for the group of people that would later become Israelites, and later "Jews". However, it is a historical anachronism to use the word "Hebrews" to refer to Jews today. Most people don't even use the term "Israelites" to refer to the Jews today. JeMa 15:09, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why? Because even if the most common sources argue that Jew come from Judah, that is not how it works in our mindsets nor in the more obscure sources. No one can deny that these figures were Hebrews and that is the best way to look at the word Jew. Most dictionaries also give Hebrew as one of the meanings of Jew and a member of the Judaic religion as another meaning. I don't know why there is always such a fuss made about it. Orthodox Jews would reject someone as a member of their religion and that is fine because if they do not follow their ways. However it is not automatic that the same orthodox Jew (Judaicist) would have a problem in accepting that person as a Hebrew if it were claimed. Hebrew is the cultural element Judaic is the religious. Because of the arguments of etymologists both may be called Jews. Some Jews (Hebrews) are more Jewish (Judaic) than others in their religious beliefs but that does not divide us we are all Jews (Hebrews) regardless. The fastest growing religion in Israel is Buddhism but does that mean there are fewer and fewer Jews (Hebrews) in israel? Of course not. But it does mean that a lot of Jews (Hebrews) practice Buddhism. And it does mean that there are fewer Jews (Judaic practitioners) in Israel.

Perhaps this concept is difficult to grasp for non-Jews who do not come from an ethnic community living amongst people who couldn't care less about their ethnic origins. Because Jews are white people cannot accept our national identity being different from our national citizenship. This probably explains why some people in anger asked why Jews don't just get israeli citizenship if we don't consider themselves British. If Jews were green in colour then ironically it would have been more acceptable that we identify ourselves as a seperate nation. Colour blindness works in many ways.

Don't be too hung up on finding a difference between Jew and Hebrew. There isn't any significant difference. The difference is in the level of one's Judaism (easy to illustrate) or descent from one of the 12 tribes (very difficult) and that is all. That makes everything very clear [note ironic tone]. Adam

You seem to be using a technical term incorrectly. Historians reserve the term "Hebrew" to refer to the ancient people from which the Israelites (later, Jews) came. They do not use these words as synonyms. Also, most religious Jews do not refer to themselves as Hebrews. They only call themselves Jews. Your points about Jews as a people versus Jews as those who practice Judaism is well taken. I do not think that anyone is disagreeing with you. This is only a point of terminology that we are trying to clarify. The people you are talking about are called "Jews", not "Hebrews". JeMa 15:18, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

For historians there is a difference in using these words. They use the term "Hebrew" to refer to the ancient ethnic group, not very well defined, from which the Israelite tribes eventually sprung forth. You are using the same word in a different fashion, as a synonym for "Jew". JeMa 15:18, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

JeMa 1. No the people I am refering to are called Jews 'and/or' Hebrews (?!?!not Hebrews!?!?!). You might be confused about this. Jew does 'not' just refer to anyone who is a descendant of Judah in religious practice or otherwise. 'Such' people are called Judaic. Jew 'does' on the otherhand refer to Israelites AND the patriarchs. That is why the arguments on the etymology being from Juda are not only wrong but also confusing. I am not the only one doing this, every Jew I have met thinks the same way. Morover the majority of languages in Europe call us Hebrews. They are right. Jew as a synonym for Hebrew is the simplest and easiest way to look at it. We are forced to use Jew in english because the use of Hebrew is "otherwise engaged", but in our own language we call it and ourselves Hebrew. 2. An encyclopaedia should explain the Jewish question simply. 3 I am not absolutely sure that every Historian would agree with your over simplified view (I don't for example), but those who would certainly contribute to clouding the issue. As far as we are concerned All Hebrews are Jews but not all Hebrews are Judaic.

You are using terminology that I am not familiar with. I have never heard of Judaics; how do they differ from Jews? Also, I did not say that the word "Jew" refers to descendents of Judah. I agree that such a useage is incorrect. The article on the ancient Israelites explains this issue. (In short, many descendants of the ancient tribe of Judah are not Jews. They have long been assimilated into other cultures, and are now gentiles.) Also, are you saying that in Europe, English speakers do not refer to Jews, but instead refer to Jews as "Hebrews"? JeMa 17:39, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard of Judaics either. I don't believe I have ever used this plural noun. However, I have used the adjective Judaic to describe one's level of Judaism. But one's level of Judaism is not very connected to one's Jewishness. Being Jewish is a question of belonging to the Hebrew nation. Some Jews may disagree with me if I say that being a part of the Hebrew nation entails more than simply an Israeli passport. It is however 'usually' taken for granted that every Jew will also be Judaic to some extent or other. I.E. Judaism will be practiced at some level or other. But that is only usually the case. Even an orthodox will accept them as a Hebrew without accepting them as Judaic. The problem is in ENGLISH (not every language) there is no noun for someone who practices Judaism, so the same noun which Jews understand and use to mean Hebrew to ALL intents and purposes (i.e. Jew whether or not one agrees that the term ultimately derives from Yevrei) is also used to describe one's level/adherance to Judaism. I don't know how you got the idea that English speakers in Europe refer to Jews as Hebrews. I wrote that the majority of Languages in Europe call us Hebrews meaning rather than claim that our national name derives from Judah their names for us include an initial aspirant &/or vowel also a b/v an r and a final high vowel. The idea I was hoping you might catch is that when most English speaking Jews say Jew they mean Hebrew (except in very few circumstances). When someone asks me why I don't eat pork I say because I am Jewish, but if they take it to mean I am talking about my religion, they are making their own conclusions. I do what I do because that is part of my nationality. That is because they do not understand what it means to be a Hebrew in nationality. Likewise when they meet an Israeli at a dinner party they might be surprised after having gone through the efforts of finding out which foods are not Kosher to see that the guest in question loves shellfish. This area is comparable with asking why someone from one part of the world eats 12 dishes on christmas eve they would not be surprised when that person says because I am Polish so too are certain things Jews do a part of our culture and nationhood regardless of how Judaic our lives are (i.e. what level of Judaism we may or may not practice living at).

I think the phrase "die weltweit am schellsten wachsende j¸dische Gemeinschaft" should be translated as "not all Wikipedia readers know German" (for instance I don't know German). Sabbut 06:44, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. JeMa 17:39, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Agreed

Israeli legal definition of Jew

Can someone please provide information on the Israeli legal definition of a Jew and how the Israeli government goes about classifying people by religion and "ethnicity"?

The definition used by the Israeli government are explained in the Israel sub-articles. They are similar to the definitions used by the Aram Muslim countries in the region. (However, Israeli's citizenship laws are much, much more liberal than the laws of any of their surrounding Arab Muslim nations.)) RK 14:06, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I guess you mean the "Population groups in Israel" page? Not the first place one would look. Logically shouldn't it be on this page?

Come to think of it, yes! You are correct that this was an oversight. I have added a section on this subject to this page. I also have slightly expanded the page on Population groups in Israel. RK 13:47, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

This seems to imply that the legal definition is traditional Jewish law + law of return but it sort of leaves the reader guessing. Also the preceding sections indicate that there are people who consider themselves Jewish according to various definitions. Are disputes handled through the normal legal system? Also I see this statement below:"However, the Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions."

Keith from Calgary 20:15, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have moved this new paragraph here, just for clarification: and it is ironic that the traditional & modern legal Jewish authorities consider Jewishness as Hebrew ethnicity which can be adopted by anyone willing to adopt as a way of life a conservative form of the Judaic religion or naturalisation process at the very least while other types of religious Jew are not considered Jewish. Thus introducing oneself as a secular or ethnic Jew actually emphasises ones Jewishness from an official perspective.

I am not sure what you mean by this. This is a run-on sentence. What do you mean by "conservative form of the Jewish religion". And what other forms of the Jewish religion do you believe exists? Are you using the word "conservative" as a euphemisim for "ultra-Orthodox"? RK 01:38, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

Two items:

Judaism and conversion of non-Jews

1. Judiaism does not hold that truly rightous individuals must convert to Judiaism. Non-Jews that observe the seven commandments given to the children of Noah are rightous. This is a significant difference beteen Judiaism and Christianity and Islam. In Christianity, the uncoverted are damned; the Jews are particularity damned and particularly sought out for converstion. Islam allows Jews and Christians some inferior legitimacy vis a vis Muslims.

Judaism does not consider non-Jews as damned. However, Judaism does believe that it is better to be a righteous Jew than a righteous non-Jew. Judaism is a higher standard. Somebody who lives up to a higher standard is better than somebody who lives up to a lower standard. However, the higher standard is a contract, as such somebody who signs the contract is responsible to uphold its terms while somebody who doesn't does not have to uphold them.

It is therefore quite possible for a righteous non-Jew to be considered better than a nominally religious Jew because the non-Jew is living up to his responsibilities and the Jew is not really doing so. However, a righteous non-Jew, unless he has a good reason, would in order to further his righteousness have to become a Jew. Ezra Wax

Reform Judaism and "Halachah"

2. Do Reform and other forms for Judiaism use the term Halachah?OneVoice 10:24, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, they use the term, but no, they do not accept it as normative. That is, they accept that Jews used to live by halachah, but they hold that Jews no longer need to do so. For them, living by Jewish law and custom is totally a matter of personal autonomy, and any or all parts of it can be disposed of. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

There is no such thing as traditional Jewish law and current Jewish law. There is only one Jewish law. Christianity believes in a new testament. Judaism does not. Any Jewish law that is not based on traditional Jewish law, is thus not Jewish, it is something else. If there are disagreements as to how Jewish law should be interpreted, those must be dealt with, but then they are disagreements within Jewish law. Discussing the truth of Jewish law does not belong in this article. This is an article about who is Jewish, not whether Judaism exists. If non-Orthodox Judaism has criteria by which they determine Jewishness, they should be stated, otherwise they are unknown. Ezra Wax

I don't think that's accurate. The Jewish law followed by American Reform Judaism is still "Jewish law" by most definitions of the term (or at least they claim it is, and this is accepted by a large proportion of American Jews), despite not being the same as "traditional Jewish law". You cannot write this article based on the assumption that a large proportion of American Jews aren't "real Jews", as that's a highly POV claim not accepted by many millions of people. --Delirium 03:47, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree on this point. Reform Jews are very clear that they are not following Jewish law; their current literature still holds that Reform Jews are not obligated to follow any form of Jewish law; they hold the entire idea to be outdated, if not insulting. The hightest authority for Reform Jews is their own personal autonomy. Even within their rabbinical seminaries most of their rabbis do not study Jewish law in any depth, and do not observe Jewish law to even one tenth the level of your average Orthodox layperson. For Reform Jews, the words in Jewish law books are suggestions that are left up to the individual to follow. They consider themselves "post-halakhic". RK 18:48, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Ezra claims "There is no such thing as traditional Jewish law and current Jewish law. There is only one Jewish law. Christianity believes in a new testament. Judaism does not. Any Jewish law that is not based on traditional Jewish law, is thus not Jewish, it is something else."

These pious claims are incorrect. Can Ezra point out us to a book which has this mythical "Jewish law" in it? In the real world, there are many volumes of Jewish law, each of which was written in a different community, in a different time period, and each of which is accepted (or rejected) by a given Jewish community. The responsa literature is wide and varied . In a wider sense, of course, Jewish law does exist and it does have a certain coherence to it; one can even talk about the traditional halakhic process. However, the narrow view of it has never existed within traditional Judaism. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since the closure of the Talmud, all Jewish law is based on it. Differing customs all find roots in the Talmud, or are compatible with it. Anything incompatible with the talmud is not jewish law. Any interpretation of the laws of the Talmud that seems forced must be able to defend itself. Ezra Wax

That's true. I think that Jews of all denominations would agree on this. I didn't think that this point was in dispute. RK 00:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

This view of Judaism is so narrow that most Jews who lived as traditional Jews would actually fall outside the purview of Judaism. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Somebody who is Jewish and believes in the Jewish law, just does not properly keep it, is practicing Judaism. It is when he is practicing a religion that does not believe in Jewish law, such as non-Orthodox Judaism, that he is not practicing Judaism, no matter how carefully he adheres to their teachings. Ezra Wax

This is an old discussion, but I agree 100% with Ezra, and I am sad to say that this article has taken a stance that is far from objrctive.Zestauferov 03:52, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Orthodox view

Many rabbis, even Orthodox rabbis, would disagree. Many hold that those who do not follow Jewish law are not practicing Judaism; while they may be Jewish, they also may be practicing no religion at all. This is certainly true for many of my own relatives, who although Jewish, no longer practice their faith. In contrast, what matters for many rabbis is whether or not someone is observant of Jewish law, even if they not call themselves Orthodox. I know Jews who came from Conservative and even Reform backgrounds, who do not consider themselves Orthodox, who are religious and Shomer Shabbat. They are certainly held as practioners of Judaism, even by the Orthodox Jews in the town in which I live! The Orthodox Jews of my town view them as having certain mistaken beliefs, no doubt, but they still view them as practicing Judaism. RK 00:19, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

In regards to the modern denominations of Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism, Ezra does have a point. These movements publicly and consciously reject the idea that Jews should live by any form of Jewish law, even liberal forms of it. These movements even have many rabbis who insult those Jews who choose to keep kosher and follow Shabbat. I have read recent publications by leaders of these movements who advise their followers not to follow most aspects of Jewish law, and who atatck Jewish law as "fundamentalist". When they do so, they are not using this term in its correct technical sense, but merely as an ad homenim attack against observant Jews. Ezra is also right to say that many Jews have severed most bonds with what historically is known as "Judaism". Ezra has is not denying that most Reform Jews are Jews; he is only denying that they are observing Judaism. And from what I have read and seen, in this regard he is correct. Most American Jews do not claim to be observing Judaism. There is a huge difference between saying "I am Jewish", which is a very easy thing to do; in fact, there are many agnostics, humanists, Unitarians, atheists, neo-pagans and Chrisitians who happen to be ethnically Jewish. They can easily say "I am a Jew!" But this is very different from people saying "I try to observe the laws, customs and traditions known as Judaism". Observing Judaism takes effort and knowledge. RK 18:43, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)

Jema: Since you object to what you removed and since I think that you think I am responsible for it, I want to respond. I don't object to your removal of what was written. I merely edited what was written there previously. I objected to what was previously and didn't want to delete what somebody else wrote, so I changed it to more accurately reflect what I believe. What was there before I edited was also polemical, just not in a way that you object to. Ezra Wax

Jews before Mt. Sinai

Before Mount Sinai it is not clear whether our forefathers had the status of Jews. As such any conversions that might have taken place would not be the same as the conversions since Mount Sinai. Therefore, I think the whole bit about the wives of the patriarchs and of Moses should be removed. Ezra Wax

Agreed. The status of such people as Jews is not clear, even in traditional Jewish law. According to modern day historians, and some Orthodox rabbis, the entire idea of a "Jew" before the time of Moses is a historical anachronism. Many modern historians hold that the entire idea of a "Jew" is an anachronism before the time of the Sourthen Kingdom of Judah came into being. (In this view, before then such people would be termed "Israelites" or "Hebrews".) This concept is discussed further in the article on Israelites. Danny knows quite a bit about this subject, and could probably answer most questions on it. RK 14:23, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

The patriarchs and their wives

Removed paragraph "Even the wives of the patriarchs were Jews or converts except for Esau's and Hagar, which might explain why their children have not usually been considered Jews. Moses's Midianite wife must also have been of Keturah's line else there would not have been any importance over circumcising their son until he was old enough to choose to convert himself."

Hi Ezra Wax, Hi RK! Some rabbis I have spoken to have affirmed that Abraham and his wives and all of his men who were circumcised with him and the wives who stayed with them were Jews. Maybe this does not sound neutral, but the POV exists and so should be included otherwise it would not be truely NPOV don't you think. I ask you both to think about the topic in Hebrew (or even Ladino if you are Sephardi) not English. Now what do we call all Jews in Hebrew? Now according to these languages then was Abraham a Jew? So then why not try to explain to English speakers why the Patriarchs are Jewish instead of confusing the identity of our very own people because we have started to let our understanding become dominated by a foreign language? Zestauferov

Principles of Judaism

Does this seem a little strange to anyone else?

The mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence to Jewish principles of faith does not make one lose one's Jewish status. However, the Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions.

How does one "adhere to principles of faith"? believe perhaps, endorse, espouse, but adhere? One could adhere to principles of behavior, adhere to the law, adhere to a course of action, but to faith?

That is what the sentence means. English speakers in America sometimes say that they adhere to certain beliefs. Still, we can replace this word with another if you like. JeMa

"mere belief" seems to carry with it the idea that belief alone is not enough. a wiff of the Christian faith vs works issue? perhaps it should be reworded to reflect the idea that one needs to both believe, at least in the content of Sh'ma, and to actualize that belief though deeds. (based upon the idea that there is a God and that God demands behavior of people that is proper...that people should strive to behave in a holy manner even. hints/source of the islamic idea of greater jihad?) that belief that fails to modify one's behavior is sterile, stillborn. that behavior that is not rooted in belief, is subject to one's own considerations, perhaps somewhat too flexible. then there is the issue of community, to be a Jew one must cleave upon the community....the idea that one can not be a Jew alone, but only in a community. one is tempted to say perhaps even a minyan but that might be to far a stretch. ;) thoughts in the wee hours. thoughts on how this could be reworded? OneVoice 01:52, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with faith versus works. Judaism will not accept anyone into their religion on the basis of beliefs alone. Not even my half-Jewish relatives (I am not considered Jewish by Jewish law, either, but that is no problem as I "worship" UU style.) Judaism requires acts in addition to beliefs. JeMa

Actually you are right in that the meaning of the sentence is not actually clear as it stands. What is the objective of that sentence? Is it trying to point out that becomming Jewish is not about believing but about living and that once one has become Jewish, it is impossible to leave? Or is it trying to describe that the Israeli interior position does not accept as Jewish people who convert to Judaism but as long as someone with traditionally accepted Jewishness has not joined another religion they will be accepted? If the latter is this accurate?Zestauferov 14:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The objective is to provide information on how Judaism differs from other religions. People always assume it is like Christianity, and that one can convert to Judaism by only accepting Jewish beliefs. Not so. This paragraph has nothing to do with the State of Israeli and its ministries. JeMa

Ok, got you. Maybe you could try to alter the sentence on the page to make its meaning more implicit? ThanksZestauferov 08:14, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That distinction isn't entirely accurate: you cannot convert to, say, Eastern Orthodoxy simply by accepting their beliefs either (there is a process of conversion, baptism, and chrismation that has to be followed). --Delirium 03:07, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Karaites

On Karaites, according to all the sites mentioned on Karaites, they do not consider the Talmud as the Oral Law (or believe in the Oral Law ever existed), but never said anything about the Mishna. Karaites can be pretty much divided into two groups - those who call themselves Jews, those who don't (mostly ethnic Turkish). Take for example the sermons from here, http://www.karaites-usa.org/Target_Tanakh/index.htm which groups books of the Tanakh not part of the Torah.

Being that they don't believe in the oral law, they don't believe in the Mishna, as the mishna is a compilation of the oral law. Ezra Wax

We do not accept the Mishna, Gemmarah, etc. as being authorative. Of those who do not call themselves Jews, but are Jews, do not call themselves Jews as a result of a combination of the ban of Religion during the Communist era and attempting to avoid anti-semetic laws in Russia. There is another group known as Karaites that are actually a Tribal group that worships a "Tengri", and venerates trees. They also do not claim to be Jews, but that hasn't stop the anti-semites from bothering them.

Photograph

Larger image

Hi, I scanned this photograph out of the March 1914 issue of National Geographic Magazine. I think its a beautiful example of early color photography, and wondered if someone might consider it of use for illustrating some Wikipedia article on Jewish realated topics. The photo is now in the public domain.

The original caption says: "AN ARABIAN JEW These Jews, claiming to be of the tribe of Gad, have lived for centuries in Yemen in Southern Arabia."

Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've used it to illustrate the Tefillin article. -- Infrogmation 04:27, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Jews

I consider the continuing removal on my section on stereotypes of Jews to be vandalism. If you delete text that is factual, verifiable, and non-biased, you must give a reason. The fact that it points out true facts that might not necessarily be favorable to a certain group is not a valid reason.

Why text inserted by 67.75.19.59 is repeatedly deleted

User:67.75.19.59 has insisted on adding this text to the article:

Stereotypes of Jews

Because the Jewish religion does not forbid the loaning of money at interest, a disproportionate number of Jews have become bankers and money lenders. This has led to negative stereotypes of Jews as being greedy, avaricious, and money-oriented.

A disproportionate number of Jews are also pornography directors, which has further aggravated negative stereotypes against them. However, it is quite likely that these stereotypes are simply due to centuries-old religious animosity.

I believe this does not comform to NPOV. 67.75.19.59 claims to be the victim of "Unjustified deletion of factual, verifiable, non-opinionated text" -- BCorr § Брайен 05:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Google bomb

Just saw this on the goings on and thought I'd let everyone watcthing this article know - this article is currently being google bombed so that it will displace an anti-semetic website as the #1 google hit. [1] [2] →Raul654 22:22, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't even on the first page of google hits when the bomb started, and had moved up to #4 when the story first broke on news sites. Moved up to #2 now, 3 weeks after the start. Cool! Arvindn 03:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

please link to chabad and Lubavitch Network --Jew 11:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a great insight into one of the oldest religions in the history of mankind. Thank you for keeping the truth and not changing the history the way some have done. etragrammaton

Now it's #1. --Joshuapaquin 02:12, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Update: April 20, 2004 Fox News does a story on the "Jew" google results. Mentions that "Jew Watch" has been knocked down to #2, but doesn't mention Wikipedia (#1!) - Nunh-huh 23:43, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fox news is not allowed to mention wikipedia. (Since we're not commercial, they have to pretend that we don't exist.) Arvindn 03:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why do they have to pretend so?

P.S: Most other mainstream media are a little better. They write about us, but change the URL to www.wikipedia.com. Arvindn 03:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Judah" and the tetragrammaton

From the article:

In Hebrew, the name "Judah" contains the four-letter Tetragrammaton,

Is this so? I wouldn't have thought that there were enough consonants in "Judah"? Anyone know enough Hebrew to confirm/deny this? -- The Anome 14:56, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Judah in Hebrew is actually Yehudah which is written YHWDH which is the tetragrammaton plus D. --Zero 02:09, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Germany past & present

The sentence "The experiences during the Nazi era, a cosmopolitan and anti-nationalistic post-war education, and the political movement of the Sixties have created an atmosphere of tolerance in Germany which is still missing in many post-communist states." is bad written English (main verb near the end) and should be turned round but I'd rather someone else did it to avoid changing the meaning. BozMo (talk)

Hi BozMo: Done! IZAK

New section on Anti-Semitism

Someone just added two new paragraphs on anti-semitism to the article here: Jew#Victims_of_Anti-Semitism. It seems a bit out of place since there is already a link to anti-semitism. Opinions? Comments?
Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:06, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. →Raul654 02:07, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

And now User:IZAK has added much more, including this POV-titled section: Jew#Why_so_few_Jews?_And_why_are_people_obsessed_with_them?. Does someone want to try to work on this article? I think it needs a lot of help at this point -- it's too long and has too many tangential sections, like the history of the ancient Israelites. I'm not expert enough to separate the wheat from the chaff in the current revision. -- BCorr|Брайен 04:27, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Few Jews

Hi Bcorr: To ask why there are "so few Jews" relative to the world's population is not an unreasonable or POV question. It is a question asked by demographers and historians who search for the reason why a people so prominent in world history has remained so small in numbers when other nations, such as India or China who are just as ancient, and are their size have swelled over the centuries. The other question, about "why the Jews?" is as old as history, since many historians both past and present have grappled with that old British phrase:"How odd of God, To choose the Jews?"! It does beg for an answer. IZAK

Hi IZAK -- the short answer: most of this belongs in Judaism, rather than Jew. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:11, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hi again Bcorr, I thought it over and have renamed it "Jewish population" so that the focus is on Jews as an ethnic "population group", not a matter of Judaism as such. Thanks for the input. IZAK

Sub groups

Why are some subgroups of under "Common terms" and others under "Communities"? Shouldn't all be in one section? I would expect the Bene Israel and the Juhurim (Mountain Jews) to fall in the same section of the article -- Jmabel

Jmabel: Yes, I have tried to reorganize this now. IZAK 15:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Too many external links

Up until now, the rule of thumb is that about 10 external links is the maximum. This article currently has 61 external links(!!). In general, "see also" is depricated. If it's worth reading, it should be mentioned in the article. We have 13 of those. Unless someone else does it, I'm going to prune down both of those sections. →Raul654 01:08, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Raul, Let me see what I can do...IZAK

Islam has 59, but nobody replied to my request... silsor 01:48, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Just say that unless someone else does it, you're going to. That's usually enough to convince the people who care about the article to do it themselves. If not, "be bold" and do it yourself. →Raul654 01:50, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't be too darn bold on the external links! Often they are included in an article like this because they are effectively references. Since our notion is that the "References" section doesn't include web sites, this happens a lot. Make sure you are not killing the article's references. -- Jmabel 06:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Google again

I am not sure if the editors of this page are keen followers of the attempt to googlebomb this page described under [googlebomb] but I thought I'd let you know you have slid a bit further down the rankings now and on my understanding of google's algorithm the above remarks about external links would also help with this: you will improve overall page rank (since the pages claim equal relevance) by linking this page to internal Wikipedia pages which linked back again rather than by having lots of external links. BozMo (talk)

the editors of any Wikipedia article should aim to make it the best possible encyclopedia article on that subject. That is more important than, and may occasionally conflict with, tuning the article to lift its ranking on any particular search engine (no matter how good the cause may be). If you want to help Googlebomb this article, do so by linking to it on your own site, rather than by distorting Wikipedia itself. -- Mpt 17:25, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism (See also "Protection" below, as of 26 April `04)

I am disappointed that the response to the Googlebombing of this Wikipedia entry was to remove the content and replace it with yet another link to a hate site. Thankfully, this link is 404. Replacing the top spot in the Google hierarchy with the Wikipedia entry would not have prevented searchers from finding the hate site, and Google quite rightly refused to take the site out of the rankings. But now the Wikipedia entry has been *replaced* by a link to a defunct hate page, and that *does* make the search for good, intelligent information that much harder, and allows the hate groups that much more control. This was a very bad decision.

That was quite simply vandalism, and I reverted the article to its previous state. Its an inherent feature of Wikis that they can be vandalized, however normally such vandalism is found quite quickly and reverted. Due to the googlebombing this article might attract more antisemitic vandals then it did before, but - even YOU could have fixed it, just read at Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. andy 13:47, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that, and I'm more glad than I can tell you to see the original excellent page restored. Thank you, very much.

Persecutions

Why are article sections "Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" subordinate to the heading "Victims of Anti-Semitism". Isn't this a bit tendentious? -- Jmabel 05:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jm, since 99% of the world's Jews live/d in countries where the other people are either Moslem or Christian, and that's where the persecutions took place, it's logical it seems. IZAK 21:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I'd be willing to bet that 100% of them lived somewhere on planet earth. Would we be justified in saying that they were persecuated because they lived on earth? Stats 101 - association does not imply causation. →Raul654 21:58, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Raul: Planet Earth? Now that is a stretch isn't it? It's not a case of "causality" either. The fact of the matter is that Jews have lived mostly in Europe (and now in the Americas) where MOST of the people were/are Christian/Catholic, and in the Middle East where Islam reigns. So what is so hard to figure? Japan, India or China, with huge populations and significant religions have not had any major long-term significant contact with Jews as a large sub-group in their midst, whereas Christians in Europe and Moslems in the Middle East always have had. IZAK 23:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Christian Attitudes to Jews" and "Arab and Islamic Attitudes to Jews" are under the heading of "Victims of Anti-Semitism". If all the jews lived in places that were ruled by Muslims or Christians, then *of course* that's where the anti-semitism would occur - they have to be there for it to happen. The implication is that they were persecuted *because* they were living alongside Christians and Muslims, which as Jmabel said, is very POV. →Raul654 23:46, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Raul: I think the point is moot (mute?) as someone has re-titled the section in question: "Persecution", and then given it new sub-headings, "Nazi", "Christian" etc...that makes things fit contextually, it seems. IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arab & Islamic

Continuing on this, I added the following to the section that was recently retitled "===Arab and Islamic===". IZAK promptly removed it without explanation.

Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, was killed in 1066 by a mob opposed to what they saw as undue power for a non-Moslem. However, it would have been unimaginable for a Jew even to have risen to a similar position in the Christian portion of Europe at that time.

Modern Arab and (to a lesser extent) other Moslem attitudes toward Jews are often colored by opposition to Zionism and to the policies (or even -- for some -- the existence) of the state of Israel.

IZAK, are you questioning the factuality of this? If so, what exactly are you disputing? If not, what exactly is your objection to this material? -- Jmabel 00:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel: The accuracy is OK, but the paragraphs are already laden with the main points of Jewish suffering in Moslem lands. What is gained by adding the info about Joseph HaNagid? On the latter points, there is already mention that the Arabs' negative attitudes are influenced by Zionism and Israel. This article's main focus is on "Jews" as an ethnicity in history until the present.IZAK 02:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baath party

The Baath party stuff is misleading. Sure, Jews did also leave after the Baath party takeover in Iraq; but by that time, only 6,000 out of the original 130,000 were left[3], the rest having fled earlier, so Baathism can scarcely be claimed as a major factor. - Mustafaa 19:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Put in something about the earlier departure due to the pro-Nazi government then. Snowspinner 19:36, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That isn't true either. Most Jews left in 1952-3, after the government which had briefly supported the Nazis had long since been thrown out by the British. The immediate reason Iraqi Jews left was because of the tensions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, although no doubt earlier history helped persuade them. - Mustafaa 19:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hence my not putting it in. Regardless, the Baathist government caused the remainder of the Jews in Iraq to depart, and it's sensible to mention. Still, go ahead and put corrections in. Snowspinner 20:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sadat & Nazism

Oh, and [4] agree with other sources: Sadat was imprisoned for being anti-British, not for being pro-German. - Mustafaa 19:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Err, Mustafa, did you see this in the source you site:"...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..."

Mustafa: Word play is silly, to say that Sadat was anti-British and "not" pro-Nazi is poor logic and goes against what he did. Sadat was actively in touch with the Axis and was atempting to bring Egypt in on their side AGAINST the British as Axis Allies. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Syria

As for Syria, please do not make one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships, and an ally of Vichy France, into a "welcoming" home for its Jews as it was not. The vast majority of Syria's Jews fled because of its various governments' attitudes to them. It's, oh so convenient to "blame it on the Israelis", but that is just what it was, an excuse to squeeze their Jews, most of whom picked up and ran as fast as they could from the tyranny. IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Syria "one of the worst totalitarian dictatorships"? By all means. But its tyranny is even-handed. How are Syrian Jews worse off than any other victims of Assad? Syria is no more welcoming to the Jews than to the Sunnis or Shia or Druze or anybody else, but it has made every attempt to keep them in the country. - Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamic world

This article is NOT about the "Arab or Islamic view" of Jews, and placing all the blame on the Israeli conflict etc, it is about the history of Jews as an ethnicity, and no matter what summersaults of logic one may perform, it is still a huge travesty of history that almost one million Sephardic Jews in the modern Middle East were forced to flee their ancient homes in the Islamic world they had been part of as productive, good and loyal citizens.IZAK 03:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And when were they forced to do this? Hmm, just after the emergence of Israel. You think the two events might be connected in some way? Naaah...

Mustafa: Some will say that this is too "pro" Israeli, but it does convey the FACTS as most Jews understand them to be:

JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, the measures taken against Jews in some Arab countries, notably Iraq, were quite unjust - although Jews also left en masse from countries like Morocco, which treated them as well (or as badly) as any other citizens. But it would be willful blindness to claim that this mistreatment had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, given both the timing and the actual statements of the governments involved - and the major Israeli campaigns to persuade them to leave, which according to some Sephardi sources went so far as planting bombs in synagogues[5]. - Mustafaa 18:48, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: "Israelis bombed synagogues"??? When??? Before or after the falafel and humus was served :-) ??? Is this yet again desperation trying to "always pin the blame on Israel", what about all the bombs that Arabs threw at synagogues??? Come now!:

I gave you the link; it's not my claim, it's an Iraqi Jew's. He may be full of it, or he may be telling the truth; don't ask me. Mustafaa 20:59, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: The point is that YOU MUST TRY TO AVOID TO BLAME THE (JEWISH) VICTIM/S FOR THEIR OWN MISFORTUNES. The Arabs and Moslems MUST take full responsibility for THEIR share of the disenfranchisement, loss of property, persecution, expulsion, and cruelty towards their Jewish fellow countryman in the lands of Islam. I know its hard sometimes, but try to avoid the knee-jerk response of "It's the Jews' or Zionists' fault" every time even a mouse squeeks. IZAK 02:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So when an Iraqi Jew says Israel was prepared to bomb synagogues in order to get the Jews out of Iraq, your reaction is that his statement is part of Arabs trying to evade their share of responsibility for the Jews' exodus? Sounds to me more like Israelis trying to evade their share of responsibility for it! - Mustafaa 06:53, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Be reasonable now, are you saying that because "AN" unkown "Iraqi Jew" (who is he by the way??) alleged something about Israel, then that is "why" the Jews left Iraq? This is too absurd. Israel, or its birth, was NOT solely "responsible" for Iraq kicking out about 120,000 of its (Iraqi) Jewish citizens. By the way, why would they suddenly want to "blame" people (the Jews) who had lived PEACEFULLY in their midst for over 2,000 years for something that was being done in "Palestine". Is it not self-defeating and illogical? IZAK 09:00, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No-one is saying that the rise of the modern State of Israel had "NOTHING" to do with the animosity to Jews in Moslem lands.
What is being said is that it was NOT the "ONLY" factor, NOR was it necessarily the "PRIMARY" factor, as since about the END of the 19th century, for over 100 years there were RISING TENSIONS and hatreds that were BUILDING UP for a variety of reasons (for example):
Some had to do with Moslems THEMSELVES as the Arabs were rising up against the Islamic Turks (the Turkish Sultan had the Caliphate, the supreme position in Islam, which drove the Arabs mad with rage and jealousy), and the Jews were seen as being tied in with the Ottomans who had: first welcomed them after Spain's expulsion of its Jews in 1492; and then allowed them gradual entry into Palestine for FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to the chagrin of the Arabs. By the time the British took over in 1917 there were already tens of thousands of Jews living in Palestine for many generations.
The rise of modern NATIONALISM with calls by local leaders for "national" Arab states that put pressures on vulnerable ethnic minorities such as the Jews in their midst, who became convenient "scapegoats" for the failures of the new Arab "revolutionary leaders" to come up with "rewards", so they conveniently incited mobs against the Jews' quarters and took away the Jews' wealth (all in the name of "nationalisation" of course,(just another name for state sanctioned robbery) and it was oh so convenient that way out somewhere in the swamps of the Galilee a few "Zionist" pioneers had the temerity to get rid of the mosquitos and plant crops, all "good enough" reason to sanction anti-Jewish resentment and even riots from Morocco to Iraq in Arab eyes;
The rise of Fascism and Nazism in Europe with those anti-Semitic movements influencing the thinking and aspirations of rising young Arab leaders;
Founding of the Moslem Brotherhood of extreme Islam, such as we see in the present with Al Quida of which so many Arabs our "proud"; and
The Pan Arab ideology which was espoused, for example, by Nasser and Saddam Hussein, that called for a "Pan Arabian" alliance that was self-centered in its Arab-Islamic self-adulation and CHOSE to make "Israel" into a conevenient "rallying-cry" to unite the Arab masses, and which resulted in hatred and pressure against Jews in Arab lands to leave...(but which actually misfired as these movements brought the Arab states into conflicts with the superpowers...but that is another story). IZAK 02:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The founders of modern Arab nationalism were Christians almost to a man - Michel Aflaq, to name the most prominent. They founded it specifically as an alternative to religious-based nationalism, in which they would have lost out. The movement was joined by many Jews (notably in Egypt). Hostile to linguistic minorities, maybe; hostile to religious minorities it wasn't! The rest of this rampant speculation is scarcely worth the effort of a reply; just read up about it, and you'll see that the situation was far more complex than you think... Oh, and Netanyahu.org can scarcely be claimed to represent the majority even of Israelis, let alone all Jews. - Mustafaa 21:04, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Which is the "rampant seculation" part?: Firstly, "nationalism" means all kinds, "religious" and "secular" so why confuse things?; The Arab uprisings against the Ottomans?; the influence of Fascism?; the role of the Moslem Brotherhood?; the influence of Pan Arabism?; the failed leadership of those like Nasser and Saddam Hussein?; Do you claim that these factors had "nothing" to do with the Arabs' modern hating for the Jews?;..... You know what, I think for now http://www.netanyahu.org/jewinarcounb.html JEWS IN ARAB COUNTRIES BEFORE AND AFTER 48 may have a rational factual way about it, that may be hard to stomach for those not accustomed to hearing the "other side" of the story. IZAK 03:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Religious" nationalism barely existed at that point; it resumed much later in the twentieth century. As for the factors: yes, Arab uprisings against the Ottomans had nothing at all to do with hating Jews, and the rest of the factors you list, while relevant, are massively overstated. - Mustafaa 06:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi Arabs such as Anwar Sadat were imprisoned

Copied from User talk:IZAK

Hi IZAK -- It's a pretty serious allegation that Anwar Sadat was "pro-Nazi" as opposed to "anti-British" -- do you have some citations that are pretty clear that he was a supporter of the Nazis? Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 03:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Bcorr: I am surprised you do not know this piece of important history. See even the source Mustafaa cites [6] says clearly: "...And finally, the young Sadat admired Adolf Hitler whom the anticolonialist Sadat viewed as a potential rival to British control..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See some important examples from the web:

[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4934 Islam �s Nazi Connections] :"...Major Nazi sympathizers of this era include Ahmed Shukairi, the first chairman of the PLO; Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, future presidents of Egypt; and the founders of the Pan-Arab socialist Ba'ath party, currently ruling Syria and Iraq. One Ba'ath leader has since recalled of this time: "We were racists, admiring Nazism, reading their books and sources of their thought. We were the first who thought of translating Mein Kampf." Many of the Nazi sympathizers of this era have never repudiated their beliefs; some still openly parade them....Thankfully, the Nazis of course lost WWII and the abortive alliance between Islam and Nazism never panned out. Sadly, there exist Moslems today, not on the fringes but in the mainstream of their nations, who still view this as a great lost opportunity based on profound natural affinities." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Islamism, fascism and terrorism : "Islamism, or fascism with an Islamic face, was born with and of the Muslim Brotherhood. It proved (and improved) its fascist core convictions and practices through collaboration with the Nazis in the run-up to and during World War II. It proved it during the same period through its collaboration with the overtly fascist "Young Egypt" (Misr al-Fatah) movement, founded in October 1933 by lawyer Ahmed Hussein and modeled directly on the Hitler party, complete with paramilitary Green Shirts aping the Nazi Brown Shirts, Nazi salute and literal translations of Nazi slogans. Among its members, Young Egypt counted two promising youngsters and later presidents, Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar El-Sadat. Whether al-Banna, who had already been in contact with German agents since the 1936-39 Palestine uprising against the British, or someone else introduced Sadat and his free officer comrades to German military intelligence is not known. But in the summer of 1942, when Rommel's Afrikakorps stood just over 100 kilometers from Alexandria and were poised to march into Cairo, Sadat, Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the German attacking force and - with Brotherhood help - preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt's capital. A treaty with Germany including provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt had been drafted by Sadat, guaranteeing that "no British soldier would leave Cairo alive". When Rommel's push east failed at El Alamein in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail...." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Beyond the Pale: Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Arab world :"...When in 1953 a rumour spread that Hitler was still alive, the Egyptian newspaper Al Musawwar asked several leading Egyptian personalities to write him a personal letter. One of those who did so was Anwar Sadat. His message was this: "My dear Hitler! I congratulate you from the bottom of my heart. Even if you appear to have been defeated, in reality you are the victor. You succeeded in creating dissentions between Churchill, the old man, and his allies, the Sons of Satan ... Germany will be reborn in spite of the Western and Eastern powers. There will be no peace unless Germany once again becomes what she was." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1942-1952, Egpyt: Nasser's Nazis and the CIA : "In the summer of 1942, when German General Erwin Rommel �s Afrikakorps were poised to march into Cairo, Anwar Sadat, Gamal Nasser and their buddies were in close touch with the attacking force and � with help from the Muslim Brotherhood � were preparing an anti-British uprising in Egypt �s capital. A treaty with Germany had been drafted by Sadat. It included provisions for German recognition of an independent, but pro-Axis Egypt, and guaranteed that �no British soldier would leave Cairo alive. � When Rommel �s push east failed in the fall of 1942, Sadat and several of his co-conspirators were arrested by the British and sat out much of the remainder of the war in jail. Islamist-fascist collaboration did not cease with war �s end. King Farouk brought large numbers of German military and intelligence personnel as well as ranking ex-Nazis into Egypt as advisors. It was a bad move. Several of the Germans, recognizing Farouk �s political weakness, soon began conspiring with Nasser and his �Free Officers, � who, in turn, were working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, to overthrow the king..." IZAK 04:39, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, thank you for your detailed reply with citations. I have to say that each of them -- such as the http://www.us-israel.org/about/index.shtml -- are very pro-Israel sites, and are not very balanced, IMHO -- and shouldn't be the basis for such strong allegations. I did some searching of my own, and the only citations I could find were eaither very clearly pro-Israel, right wing (like these from Campus Watch and Commentary magazine) were reader reviews of books like The Closed Circle here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566634407/002-9789435-4591258?v=glance&vi=customer-reviews -- or were comments left on bulletin boards, etc., like this one from the Seattle Times comment board: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/mideast/comments.html

Bcorr: The only question before us is whether Sadat was or was not a PRO-Nazi sympathiser, if not an outright Quisling (as the one from Norway). Regardless of the views of the Jewish sites (and they may be "forgiven" for being pro-Israel), the FACT remains the same about Sadat's pro-Nazi activities no matter which way you "slice it", to merely "categorize" his beliefs and activities as "anti-British" anti-colonialism misses the point, as the Nazi Germans ruthlesly COLONIZED all the lands they occupied, so what was Sadat's "rush"? One can only conclude he and his cohorts would have been happy with an "Islamic Republic of Nazi Egypt" which, mercifully, the British denied them. IZAK 02:42, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

CIA

Also, the same Asia Times article you quote above [7] goes on to say:

"And yet another player fond of playing all sides against the middle had entered the game prior to Farouk's ouster: In 1951, the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of president Teddy, who in 1953 would organize the overthrow of elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh and install Reza Pahlavi as Shah) opened secret negotiations with Nasser. Agreement was soon reached that the US, post-coup, would assist in building up Egypt's intelligence and security forces - in the obvious manner, by reinforcing Nasser's existing Germans with additional, "more capable", ones. For that, CIA head Allen Dulles turned to Reinhard Gehlen, one-time head of eastern front German military intelligence and by the early 1950s in charge of developing a new German foreign intelligence service. Gehlen hired the best man he knew for the job - former SS colonel Otto Skorzeny, who at the end of the war had organized the infamous ODESSA network to facilitate the escape of high-ranking Nazis to Latin America (mainly Peron's Argentina) and Egypt. With Skorzeny now on the job of assisting Nasser, Egypt became a safe haven for Nazi war criminals galore. The CIA officer in charge of the Egypt assistance program was Miles Copeland, soon a Nasser intimate. "

Bcorr: We are NOT discussing the CIA here. What they did as part of ESPIONAGE/COUNTERESPIONAGE is a different subject. Your question was about Sadat's pro-Nazi leanings, and I cited the sources. Whether the sources are pro or anti anything is also not the point. The FACT remains that Sadat was a strong admirer of Hitler, the Jews' arch-enemy. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Egyptians during World War Two

I'm not denying the fact that both Egyptians and Israelis did everthing they could to expel the British from the Middle East, but so often in wartime, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- and even when wars are not raging, there are events like the US-Iran-Israel arms-for-hostages Iran-Contra affair that create strange bedfellows. And if you don't mind, I'm copying this all to Talk:Jew so others can weigh in. Thanks again, BCorr|Брайен 13:24, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr: Diplomatic and political dealings are one thing. All states and vested parties do it. But in the case of Sadat, his life's history proves that not only was he personally positive about Hitler, he also was determined to give the Nazi army under Rommel all the help it needed to enter Egypt. There was no "Israeli" policy to Nazi Germany, as there was no "Israel" until 1947. The MAJORITY of the Jewish population of Palestine was VERY pro-British, and clamored to enter its army to fight AGAINST the Nazis. Whatever minimal contacts there were with German officials was for the purpose of SAVING Jews from Hitler's gas-chambers, and keeping the doors of Palestine OPEN to Jewish immigration during the Holocaust. The Stern Gang acted to PROTEST Britain's closed-door policies, and NOT as a sign of any "liking" for Nazism, unlike Sadat and his cohorts who actually liked and emulated the Nazis. IZAK 23:32, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If the quotes are correct - though I don't put much confidence in their sources - then Sadat did negotiate with the Nazis, and appreciated their role in attacking other colonial powers. But that does not imply that he supported them, as BCorr pointed out, any more than the fact that early Israel had close relations with the USSR and got many of their weapons from Communist states means they were Stalinists. Mustafaa 17:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Sadat did much more than "negotiate" with the Nazis, he liked them and coddled up to them.

In contradistinction, remember, during World War Two Stalin was RIGHTLY admired by many Jews for many GOOD reasons:
He fought Hitler to the death; Stalin's Red Army, which had over half a million Jewish men and officers in it, were the ones that conquered Berlin and had the pleasure of bringing about HITLER'S DEATH! and the end of the evil Third Reich;
Indeed, many of Israel's early founders were Socialists and Communists and were close with the USSR, but at the same time they were also ZIONISTS and DEMOCRATS and thus were very wary of Stalin, as he was of them.
It was Stalin who thought he could take advantage of these politically vulnerable and ideologically kindred Jews at the founding of the State of Israel, as they needed and accepted his aid AGAINST the Arabs, but the Israelis were always fully commited to DEMOCRACY and opposed Stalin's totalitarianism;
(P.S. Stalin's first wife was Jewish, and his brother-in-law, Lazar Kaganovich, an athiestic communist hardliner, was on the Politburo with him till the end. Some have even speculated that it was Lazar Kaganovich who was behind Stalin's death in 1953, when Stalin began to plan the deportation of the the USSR's Jews to Siberia. Silly Stalin!) IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Rightly" admired by Jews? The man who killed 5-10 million people, according to the Wikipedia? Good to know that you've got a double standard about genocides. - Mustafaa 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Nobody is saying that Stalin was a "nice man", he was a tyrant. But he was a key ally against Hitler. During World War Two Stalin's USSR was one of the three Allied Powers and was welcomed as such by Winston Churchill of Great Britain and Franklin Roosevelt of the USA. Churchill himself justified his alliance with Stalin inspite of his own anti-Communism by saying in the British House of Commons: "If Hitler were to invade Hell I would support the Devil (against Hitler)". Stalin had an ambivelent relationship with his country's Jews, and they with him. From the point of view of SOVIET JEWS during the Holocaust, there was no "double standard", to them Stalin was the man who DECISIVELY DEFEATED and DESTROYED their arch-enemies: Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, and the Third Reich during the "Great Patriotic War", their name for Russia's struggle against Germany during World War Two. This does NOT mean to say that "EVERY" Jew on the planet is an "admirer" of Stalin, on the contrary, but the fact remains that to the millions of Russian Jews at the time he was their "hero". IZAK 01:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, he was a crucial part of the destruction of Nazism. But that's no excuse for admiring a mass murderer like Stalin. Zionism was the worst national threat the Palestinians faced at that time; does that make it OK if a Palestinian admires Hitler? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" indeed... - Mustafaa 01:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: You make it sound "so casual", sure this and sure that...Stalin was the war-time leader of the USSR and many secular communist Jews (NOT the religious or Orthodox Jews whom they hated and banned) had helped him build the new Soviet Union, they needed him to defeat Hitler for obvious reasons not just as Jews but as part of an eastern Slavic country that Hitler would have devoured. I strongly disagree with you: Zionism was NOT a threat to anyone. On the contrary, every Jew who arrived in Palestine brought greater wealth, creativity and jobs to Palestine. Most at one time were just simple Orthodox Jews who wanted to study Torah and pray in the Holy Land of their own ancestors. Later the secular Zionists arrived, but their focus was on CULTIVATING the LAND turning it from deserts into something good for everyone: Jew and gentile. It is fanatical inciters of Arab emotions against Jews who are to blame for the riots that killed innocent Jews in Palestine, then and now. REMEMBER: To this day it is Arab Palestinians who clamor for jobs in Israel and NOT vice-versa. If a Palestinian admires Hitler it only shows how deluded they are politically and ideoligically. IZAK 02:07, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And anyone who admires Stalin or Mao is just as deluded as someone who admires Hitler. I make no distinctions among murderers of millions. - Mustafaa 06:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: You know, for someone who gets very specific about PRECISE facts in Arab history, you tend to zoom out when the subject is not to your liking. This is not a comparative study of history's mass-murderers. The subject is "ethnic Jews" here. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and others were all tyrants and cruel totalitarians. Mao had NOTHING to do with Jews, he ruled over a billion Chinese. Hitler ruled over most of Europe and he wanted ALL the Jews DEAD. Stalin ruled over the USSR, and he killed millions of people, INCLUDING many JEWS. It just so happens to be that during the Jews' darkest hour of the Holocaust, Stalin kept the borders of Russia open to any Jewish refugees fleeing eastwards to Siberia, and he was the one to destroy the Nazi killing machine and thus those Jews under Stalin were saved. So within that context the Russian Jews admired him. Soon he would be plotting to wipe them out to, but he failed. Jews today do NOT "respect" or "venerate" Stalin at all, (unlike some Arabs who idolize Hitler), but at the time he was viewed with favor by his Jewish countrymen for his role in destroying Hitler. IZAK 09:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Silly Stalin" !

"Silly Stalin"--now there's a vivid phrase! I remember the last days of Stalin, and somehow I could never picture calling him "silly." Especially not to his face, :) Cecropia 03:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear Cecropia: Yeah, now, 50 years after his death, it's "official", Stalin can be called "silly" as we watch (formerly athiest) Putin shake hands with rabbis and give them awards, (former Soviet anti-Zionists) hugging Israeli diplomats, and (previously communist politicians) opening up Russia to the arch-capitalist "oligarchs" some of whom are Jewish by birth...what a world... IZAK 04:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, Brave New World! :) Cecropia 04:31, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baathists in Iraq & Syria

"The rise of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq resulted in their large ancient communities fleeing as refugees." This is factually incorrect in two respects: practically the entire Iraqi Jewish community had fled before the rise of the Baath party, as pointed out earlier, and the Jews of Syria were actively prevented from leaving by the Baath Party until 1992. - Mustafaa 17:31, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: Playing word games is not an alternative to history. The rise of the Baath parties was a process that took many years. By the time they took over in Iraq many Jews had fled PRECISELY BECAUSE it was the moment they were dreading. Similarly in Syria, it was the actualization of the Jews's worst nightmares as whoever remained were made into prisoners of the state, and that is why so may had tried to flee earlier. It was the OPPOSITE of "spring is in the air" for a very long time for the Middle East's Jews! IZAK 03:14, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Making provably false statements is not justified by the mere fact that they happen to fit what you think was the broader picture. - Mustafaa 21:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: So then you are saying that the Baathist phenomenon, as represented by Nasser of Egypt, Assad of Syria, (they were "united" through the United Arab Republic), and Saddam Hussein of Iraq should be somehow "EXCUSED" and "NOT" be taken as a major historical "sympton" of rabid hatred of Jews in those lands? Baathism was rooted in Fascism, and molded itself as such and was in the making for over fifty years, it represents an "age" in modern Arab history that contributed to the exodus of the Sephardic Jews from those lands. IZAK 02:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

First, Nasser was not a Baathist (and Assad was not in power during the UAR); second, anti-Semitism is a quite minor part of the evils of Baathism, and the people who have suffered worst from the two Baathist governments by far have been Kurds and Iranians in Iraq and Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, not Jews; third, Baathism is not an "age" in modern Arab history, it's a sad part of the history of precisely two Arab countries, and the present of one. It never made its way into the vast majority of Arab countries. - Mustafaa 06:41, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mustafa: The point is that the conditions were good enough in both Egypt and Syria that they could actually be "united" in a United Arab Republic. Nasser was also taken with the infusion of socialist, in fact SOVIET ideals, to the point, that he allied himself with the USSR and they armed him to the teeth, just as the Soviets INFLUENCED and ARMED Syria and Iraq. All three of these countries had OVERTHROWN their own Arab-style monarchies, and opted instead for SOVIET-style centralized economies and extremely SECULAR life-styles and outlooks rooted in a kind of socialistic and xenophobic "Arab egalitarianism", but with strong military central control of the levers of power. So, Egypt both before and after Nasser, Syria before and after Assad, and Iraq before and during Saddam, all SHARED a common ideology which in Syria and Iraq was formaly called "Baathism" and in Egypt it was "Nasserism" (also part of "Pan Arabism"). The net result for the Jews was that it was bad for any remaining Jewish citizens, and bad for Israel as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq always targeted Israel for war and destruction since it blocked their various paths. IZAK 09:34, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup

Someone (User:131.165.63.132, contribs) thought it would be nice to list this under Wikipedia:Cleanup, without leaving {{msg:cleanup}} here. I've removed this and made a fuss on the talk page. Please support me - the allegation is ridiculous. JFW | T@lk 23:16, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Israelite"

Current text has:

In modern English, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews."

I would think it would be more accurate to say:

In modern English, outside of Jamaica, where the word "Israelite" has been appropriated by the Rastafarians, "Israelite" is not commonly used in any context, but one can refer to "religious Jews" or "secular Jews."

Any reason not to change this? After all, Jamaican English is no less "modern" than US or UK English. -- Jmabel 05:58, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that this may open a "pandora's box" of all those groups, not just Jamaicans, but also the Mormons and all groups that claim to be "Israelite" or the "Lost Tribes of Israel". The article is talking in terms of the treminolgy as it applies to the Jewish people as an ethnicity and NOT to any other groups or sects that have "adopted" the name "Israelite" for themselves to become exceptions by name. IZAK 20:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What about the fact that Israelite is used in Modern English to refer to Biblical Jews? Rmhermen 20:49, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Given that, I am going to edit in a wy that I think embraces all of that. -- Jmabel 23:54, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)