Talk:1977 Israeli legislative election

phrase coined by TV anchor Haim Yavin - mistaken
I'm from israel and write in wikihebrew. the phrase coined by the anchor was

"מהפך!"

not

"מהפכה"

the former means to turn something up side down (for example if you are the minorty - and you won an election - then you turned the house of representative up side down by winning)

- the latter means revolution - wich is something completley different. --217.132.241.139 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Expand Template
The expand template was added because:
 * words like “dramatic shift” and “revolution” are properly used in the lede, and
 * “ huge turning point in Israeli political history” is properly included in the #Election section, and
 * the article includes absolutely no issue discussion about what makes the article so important, other than a bare right versus left political reference.

Various issues are easily ref-eable from several povs. The article is near the roots of a continuing Wikipedia and real world hot topic. It appears ‘consensus’ has not discussed issues, since article creation. Unfortunately, my bias suggests consensus wants to keep it that way; it seems to be No-POV rather than NPOV. I have added the following references to assist [my emphasis].

BYLINE: ANGUS DEMING with MILAN J. KUBIC in Jerusalem SECTION: INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 35 LENGTH: 748 words
 * From lexisnexis: Newsweek May 30, 1977, THE ZEALOT

During Israel's struggle for independence, when he headed the Jewish underground organization known as Irgun Zvai Leumi, Menahem Begin worried about the men he sent out on terrorist operations. "His first question," an old comrade-in-arms recalls, "was always: 'How will the boys get away?'" Begin had less concern for the lives of his British and Arab enemies. His guerrillas planted bombs in crowded marketplaces, murdered British soldiers and blew up a wing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing more than 90 people. The Irgun also killed 250 Arabs, including women and children, in a raid on the village of Deir Yassin.

"You call me a terrorist, but I call myself a freedom fighter," Begin said later. "Everything I did was for the freedom of the Jewish people." But David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister, was revolted by Deir Yassin and other Irgun atrocities, and he and Begin remained bitter political enemies. Begin was known for inflexibility. "Menahem Begin is simplistic," says a Western diplomat. "It's black and white with no nuances or subtleties."

Begin hardly looks like a zealot. Slight, baldish and bespectacled, he resembles a Talmudic scholar more than a former fugitive with a price of 10,000 British pounds on his head. His Old World courtliness is legendary - he regularly kisses ladies' hands - and in Israel's open-collared society he is conspicuous for his suit and tie. Begin can be a spellbinding orator in Hebrew, English, French, Polish, German or Russian. But he is a man of simple tastes: potatoes are his favorite fare, reading his only pastime. (His latest book: "FDR's Last Year".) He lives quietly with his Polish-born wife, Aliza (they have three grown children, two daughters and a son), in a modest apartment in Tel Aviv.

Fundamentalist: Above all, Begin is a Zionist who believes with fundamentalist fervor in the right of Jews to live in all of Eretz Israel, the Biblical land that includes Judea and Samaria (and thus all of the Israeli-occupied West Bank) as well as the Gaza Strip. Born 63 years ago in Brest Litovsk, Begin made his first political speech at the age of 12 and later was a leader in Poland of Betar, a Zionist youth organization. He studied law in Warsaw, but after Russia invaded Poland in 1939 he was arrested and sent to prison camp in Siberia. (Begin's parents and a brother died in German extermination camps.) Later, the Soviets allowed Begin to join a Polish exile army, and when his unit was sent to British-controlled Palestine, Begin joined the Irgun.

When Israel achieved statehood, Begin formed the opposition Herut (Freedom) Party and was elected to Parliament, where he became a permanent fixture as the ruling Labor Party's chief gadfly. Just before the outbreak of the 1967 war, Begin was brought into a government of national unity as a minister without portfolio. But the quit in 1970 when Prime Minister Golda Meir, under pressure from Washington, renewed a cease-fire with Egypt along the Suez Canal. Since Israel was rewarded with fresh supplies of U.S. military hardware, even some of Begin's admirers questioned his judgment on that occasion. "It was one of his blunders based on blind adherence to principles," says Elimelech Rimalt, former head of the Liberal Party. "Begin is a man of absolutes; he does not see politics as the art of the possible."

Defections: In recent years, Begin's star had seemed to wane. Henry Kissinger considered him a nonentity and other U.S. diplomats ignored him. There were defections in Likud among Knesset members who chafed at Begin's autocratic leadership. "He is so dogmatic and self-righteous that most of the Likud members are afraid to talk back," said Akiva Nof, one of four Likud deserters. "Those who talk are purged. Begin tolerates no competition, and he allows nobody else to grow." Another former Likud deputy accused Begin of sophistry: "He is one of those people who can prove that two equals four. What's worse, he believes it."

Last March, Begin suffered a severe heart attack, complicated by pneumonia, from which he barely recovered. But now he seems to have bounced back. Two days before the elections, Begin engaged Labor leader Shimon Peres in a television debate, and later a newsman asked him if his health might oblige him to retire from politics. Replied Begin: "If four years from now I can say that I helped rescue [the West Bank] for the State of Israel, I might very likely retire."


 * From Israel’s Contested Identity and the Mediterranean, The territorial-political axis: Eretz Israel versus Medinat Israel, p.8]"Reflecting the traditional divisions within the Zionist movement, this axis invokes two concepts, namely Eretz Israel, i.e. the biblical ‘Land of Israel’, and Medinat Israel, i.e. the Jewish and democratic State of Israel. While the concept of Medinat Israel dominated the first decades of statehood in accordance with the aspirations of Labour Zionism, the 1967 conquest of land that was part of ‘biblical Israel’ provided a material basis for the ascent of the concept of Eretz Israel. Expressing the perception of rightful Jewish claims on ‘biblical land’, the construction of Jewish settlements in the conquered territories intensified after the 1977 elections, which ended the dominance of the Labour Party.  Yet as the first Intifada made disturbingly visible, Israel’s de facto rule over the Palestinian population created a dilemma of democracy versus Jewish majority in the long run.  With the beginning of Oslo and the option of territorial compromise, the rift between supporters of Eretz Israel and Medinat Israel deepened to an unprecedented degree, the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin in November 1995 being the most dramatic evidence."

A passage from George Lenczowski’s American Presidents and the Middle East, p.164, during Jimmy Carter’s preparation for the continuing Geneva Conference (1973). "“In the meantime, a major event occurred in Israel. The May elections in that country brought to power Menachem Begin, leader of the Likud coalition and formerly a militant chief of the fighting group Urgun Zvai Leumi and the Herut Party. His was the so-called the revisionist program, calling for territorial annexation and intransigence toward the Arabs.  In July 1977, Begin paid Carter a visit in Washington.  Their talks revealed a wide disparity of views.  Begin defended Israel’s right to establish and expand Jewish settlements in the occupied territories.  Carter reminded him that the United States opposed such actions as contrary to international law.  He outlined to Begin his program, which consisted of five points: (1) achieve a comprehensive peace affecting all of Israel’s neighbors: (2) peace to be based on UN Resolution 242: (3) peace would involve open borders and free trade; (4) peace would call for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories to secure borders; (5) a Palestinian entity (but not an independent nation) should be created. Begin responded that he could accept all of these points accept the Palestinian entity."

Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-order, additions and the NPOV tag
Despite urging, other editors have not yet edited this page; therefore, I feel it necessary to question its neutrality. This may also spur the collaborative addition of opposing views to develop consensus and move the article toward NPOV. Relevant RS’d blockquotes seem least susceptible to problems with OR and SYNTH. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the blockquotes; I don't feel they add anything to the article, as really they are too long. Also, I don't see any POV issues at all, so I have removed the tag. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ....And I have re-inserted your removal of RS and V'd sources. If you disagree, please add your own ref.  I would also be most appreciative if you could provide an opposing view.  Continued deletion of referenced material, based solely on editorial opinion, or Idontlikeit, may be seen as un-collaborative and contrary to policy.  This is getting silly, please try a more reasoned approach.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the bias of the viewpoints provided, I just don't see the point of inserting someone's opinion on the matter. Let the facts around the election talk for themselves. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I agree; they are RS and V'd. Please bring sources you find informative/supportive on the subject. The facts around the election naturally talk for themselves, as they have again. That is RS'd history and easily referenced, as has been noted on this talkpage for 5 months, without comment. Possibly you didn't see or hear that. Regarding opinion, while similar opinions used in the lede, e.g. 'dramatic shift' and 'the revolution', are indeed indicative, they are less-than informative. The refs I provided contain (incomplete) specifics, which are much less nebulous, and far more encyclopedic. Your continued and complete deletion of this notable relevant material, might be seen as violating Wiki-policy on several levels.

I note that another editor has also deleted all RS material related to 'Significance and aftermath', but his reasoning is UNDUE, which may be a more acceptable approach. I have requested that he too re-balance by addition, because continued re-balancing by total deletion of RS and V'd material is vandalism; it could be seen otherwise also, but that would include a loss of AGF. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The stuff in the lead about "revolution" is there because it is one of the most remembered things about the election. On the other hand, I doubt that many people are aware of the thoughts of two foreign journalists ten years after the events. You seem to be inserting the quotes in order to disparage Likud and Begin, and whilst I am certainly no fan of either, this is not the place for it, and I will not damage the article by inserting right-wing POV to create balance, as this is utter nonsense. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  09:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the section is missing Israeli sources? Then please add some to indicate differences, as repeatedly requested. If you are saying that foreign journalist opinion is not notable, or unimportant, then such an opinion would be non-neutral on its face.  If you are unaware of others' povs, then you may not read widely enough, or possibly you fail to see the forest for the trees.  If you feel that the provided opinions of an academic and a journalist, with 10- and 20-years perspectives following the election are insufficient (but which you continue to delete), then I will also add another journalistic one from the immediate election era, as well one indicating an international impact of election's significance, relative to contemporaneous happenings.  Possibly the ref with "the traditional divisions within the Zionist movement, this axis invokes two concepts, namely Eretz Israel, i.e. the biblical ‘Land of Israel’, and Medinat Israel, i.e. the Jewish and democratic State of Israel", should be added into the background section.  All those, by the way, have been on this talk page since Nov.'08.  I can certainly understand your hesitation to add "right-wing POV to create balance", but this might be necessary to do our NPOV editorial job, but there are other ways. May I suggest easily ref's differences between Labor and Likud, between their histories and voting patterns, personalities and acceptance of other points of view.  These refs deal with the election and those elected; it is their history as much as, for example, it would be Clinton's or George W.'s. The periods are over, but their legacies live on.  If you see this "in order to disparage Likud and Begin", this is wrong, but your right to do so; I see it as only history, or opinion of history.  Please, let's stay NPOV, continued complete deletion will likely and simple go elsewhere. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically you have no support for this, so I'll continue to remove the offending stuff. If you want to write about Begin's support for settlements, why not just state some facts in the aftermath section that after 1977 settlement activity in the West Bank increased significantly (if it did, I have no idea), using stats, rather than some vague critique of Likud and its ideology (which belongs in the Likud article). пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment – I agree with Number 57—let's not turn this article into a quotefarm. Ian Lustick's contemporary views on the subject are not notable in any way, and there's no reason to include the viewpoints of every single author and journalist to "balance" the article. WP:V and WP:RS are not the only two policies that exist on Wikipedia. In fact, the only non-negotiable policy that has always existed on Wikipedia has been WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, which these quotes are in clear violation of, is an integral part of WP:NPOV. —Ynhockey (Talk) 11:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a quote-farm is not totally desirable, however it avoids typical 'conflict area' complaints of OR and SYNTH, so it is somewhat a toss-up; my editorial intention is to edit by addition of material. I admittedly have been pushing RS and V, because that is what are being continuously and totally deleted.  As for NPOV, I similarly agree it is required, but thus far, the NPOV tag which I added, was immediately deleted, with the indication that no reliable sources, or discussion was needed, this appears less-than neutral.  Your mention of UNDUE is an absolutely valid point, as I also noted above.  The problem is that editors can only provide proper weight between different points of view if those different points of view are provided.  During this editorial episode, there is nothing different being provided; anything and everything provided is just deleted, edit warred. So, encyclopedically speaking, where is the proper weight between something being added and everything being deleted?  If that is the case, as it appears, how would an editor even know if differences of opinion exist.  I have never found a distinctly opposing RS, and since none have been provided, I will continue to add what is readily available and RS.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag again. There is no bias in the article as currently it merely states facts. Not sure why this is being added once the quotes are deleted, as they were actually the only things causing a bias. I've also moved the expand tag to the aftermath section, as this seems to be the thing you want to improve. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  07:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Israeli legislative election, 1977. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1978_12_IsraelArab.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israeli legislative election, 1977. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909204606/http://www.fpri.org/peacefacts/023.199511.sicherman.rabinappreciation.html to http://www.fpri.org/peacefacts/023.199511.sicherman.rabinappreciation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)