Talk:Hebrew labor

Wikify
An interesting article, which should be mentioned elsewhere.

Let us wikify it into Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy and more.

See my comment and quotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy why I think so. Zezen (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Stick to definition, or else it becomes yet another electronicintifada.net page
The definition offered in the lead is:

"Hebrew labor" or "conquest of labor" is a term referring to the ideal adopted by some Jews in Ottoman and Mandate Palestine during the late 19th and early 20th centuries to favour hiring Jewish rather than non-Jewish workers.

And this is a reasonably correct definition - it lacks some very basic info that must be included, but at least it doesn't misrepresent the term. That precludes discussing here any real or perceived call for, or policy of, preferentially employing Jews in Israel, i.e. later than the early 20th century. That is a different topic and goes under I/P conflict, Bantustanisation, apartheid yes or no, etc. Find the right article and place it there, but not here. I am referring here to the "Israel" paragraph in this article, which is dealing with events from 2004 onwards and has no connection to the topic at hand. We cannot have one clear definition, and add at ease content that doesn't fit it however you twist it.

"Hebrew labor" as explained in the first sentence of the lead refers to a clearly defined principle of early Zionism, that sprung up as a reaction to antisemitic tropes of Jewish laziness, physical decadence and unworthiness, of exploiting the others' "honest work", etc., as opposed to the ideal of the "natural man", i.e. the peasant, who has immediate contact and a "natural" perception of mother nature, time, history, to some: spirituality, etc. (see anything from Narodniks, The Triumph of the Farmer or Industry and Parasitism and Tolstoy - look aslo here - to every other movement self-defining as "progressive" in those decades). "Hebrew labor" was a quite clearly defined concept, reacting to and going along with those schools of thought. The purpose of "Hebrew labor" was the "progress and rebirth" of the Jews, and not by any stretch of the imagination the theoretical base for removing others from the labour market - anywhere. The fact of Jewish unemployment in Palestine and the risk to the pioneers' subsistence came later and if those who were affected did invoke the "Hebrew labor" principle in their favour towards Jewish employers (did they?), that would have been a spin given to a concept, and not a way to follow it. If one starts blurring the definitions, anything and everything can be connected and interwoven into one article. There are enough topics where what has been "smuggled in" here can fit, I/P specialists will know that long list of articles better than me. But here it only deserves a "See also" link to the article of your choice where the current "Israel" paragraph has to be moved to. Even there, please stay rational and try to make the needed distinctions: Everyday workplace racism, religious fundamentalist fatwas, fascist hate speech, and fear reactions coming right after and as the intended result of terrorist attacks, Intifada-related or not, are very distinct categories and are in no way the same thing.

Encyclopedias nowadays are trying not to be propaganda platforms, but repositories of knowledge systematically organised by rational criteria. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Horribly POV
Intentional, I guess, because the used sources offer the whole definition with both the idealistic and the pragmatic aspects and their consequences. Arminden (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)