Talk:Kach (political party)

Jewish Task Force
The largest and most active Kahanist organization in the world today is the Jewish Task Force (www.jtf.org). It's based in New York City and gets fairly frequent media mentions in America and Israel. There should be some way to mention this without violating POV rules. Otherwise it looks like all Kahanist organizations in the world today are defunct. And this article very unhelpfully provides no way to get further information from this. There's also no mention of Chaim Ben Pesach, who worked closely with Mr. Kahane for almost 20 years. The article as written is very inferior without these two pieces of information! KyZan (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)KyZan
 * The article is about Kach and Kahane Chai. What is the JTF connection to these organizations? IMHO, it makes more sense to reference JTF from Kahanism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe add a list of Kahanist organizations/people in the see also list 24.85.161.72 (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Just wanted to briefly mention why I edited the caption for Kach's poster. The literal translation is correct, but the sentence 'This time Kahane' does not make sense in English. I added parentheses as follows: 'This time [vote] Kahane.' 58.175.172.156 (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the inclusion of Kach and Kahane Chai on the State Dept. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) was (Sept. 2004 - January 2005) challenged in a Federal Appelate court. The three judge panel ruled unanimously to uphold the 2003 redesignation of Kach and Kahane Chai and related aliases as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) in October 2006.

Furthermore, as part of this case, the State Dept. was forced to make public the unclassified portions of its administrative record, that is, the basis for the inclusion of Kach and Kahane Chai and its aliase on its FTO list. The administrative record list numerous articles translated from Hebrew by the FBIS, as well as cables and other documents, listing the names of some individuals involved in Kach and Kahane Chai, and the scope of  anti-Arab violence (as well as threats and violence directed at Israeli officials) upon which the designation is based.

--

I removed the following sentence: "However, no terrorist acts have been proven to be directly attributed to these groups". It is not clear how it relates to the Cave of the Patriarchs: it wasn't a terrorist act? It wasn't proven? It wasn't directly attributed? What is actually the information contents of this sentence? Uffish 15:39, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Let's try to get this page unprotected
Well, as no one involved seems to be disscussing the differences that have come up in the edit war, I will get my 2 pence in (I think protecting the page so soon might have been a little heavy handed, but on the other hand Jayjg and 69.221.60.181 aren't talking only reverting each other's edits). "Jewish supremisist" is not the term I would have used, personally, but it seems to me that a group that openly calls for the rejection of democracy, the establishment of a Jewish theocracy and the forced expulsion of all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza (and probably more if they had their way), calls for a stronger description than "a right-wing Israeli party". Likud is "a right-wing Israeli party". Kach are religious fundamentalists (some on the anti-Zionist left within Israel even describe them as a form of fascist). AW 00:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Since no one is talking about this so far: SlimVirgin can we just agree to compromise on "religious fundamentalist"? AW

- There is absolutely nothing wrong with openly calling for rejection of current style "democracy." Your so called democracy is responsible for the worst atrocities against the Jewish people in the history of the world. Hitler was a "democratically" elected leader. Hezbollah is a part of the democratically elected Lebanese government. Hamas is democratically elected Arab party and is currently leading the Arab people in the disputed territories. Yet no one seems to mind all them it's only when a Jewish party wants to rise up that is based on Jewish law, ethics and morality that everyone is quick to condemn it and make it illegal and call it a terrorist group.

==> Let's not confuse "democratically elected" and democracy. While democratic elections are a necessary precondition for a legitimate democracy, they are certainly not sufficient by themselves (freedom of speech, separation of legislative and executive powers, equality under law, etc., come to mind, as some of the previous examples show). It also may be acceptable to call for rejection of a democracy "style" (for instance modifying some election laws allowing, for instance, citizens abroad to vote) - it's a different matter to call for the rejection of the democracy itself and replacing it by a religious (Halacha) state (as Kahane wanted). I am making this comment, even though all this is not really relevant to the original subject, because I hear lately this confusion a lot (especially in Europe, where the fact that Hamas was democratically elected is used as equivalent to "Gaza is democratic" and means that Gaza should be treated it as having a legitimate government). Whoever wrote the text above actually buys into this confusion, but uses it in just the opposite way to make (Israeli or any other) democracy potentially not legitimate by association (just as "Hitler's democracy"). Well, for that person's information, even though Hitler was indeed "democratically elected", very quickly the Nazi State (controlled by the Nazi party) stopped being a democracy and became a Fascist State (one of possible government types). I don't know by the way how to define Gaza government (maybe a theocracy?), but it is certainly not a democracy (nor a state), though it was "democratically elected". Lebanon is considered a democracy, even if in my opinion of quite a "different flavor" compared to Israel (and probably not what people from Western Democracies would expect from a democracy). I am an Israeli, by the way. <== [GeorgeBG] -

The last sentence should read "Kleiner did not win, but many observers believe that if Marzel had been first on the list, he would have been elected since many religious voters who are supportive of Marzel did not vote for the list because the secularist Kleiner was listed at the top." As it stands it is somewhat unclear.

-

"…following statements in support of Baruch Goldstein's (himself a Kach member but his action were not out of the oganization but opertated on his own) massacre of Arabs at the Cave of the Patriarchs after his friends were killed by Arab Terrorists."

The statement in parentheses appears to have been written by someone with learning difficulties. Personally, I'm inclined to agree that BG was acting on his own initiative, but any such judgement would be highly speculative in this case. Therefore I will remove the sentence completely (it originally just stated: 'himself a Kach member'). If readers want to know about Baruch Goldstein they can go read the Baruch Goldstein page. Beerathon 13:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

-

I'm completely perplexed, but I don't want to start another edit war. If you follow the links back to the Kahane Chai's homepage, what they say is their beliefs doesn't include any of what appears here. I think that much of what has been written in the article is fairly biased, and not based on the careful and impartial research that is standard to Wiki. I could suggest some major changes, but in the interests of the Wiki and true understanding, I'd suggest that people do follow the link and see what Kahane Chai does actually say its beliefs are.

And, as an aside, I knew Dr. Goldstein well, from before he came to Israel. What happened in Hevron in 1994 was so completly, 180 degrees different from his character, that one must ask what would have spurred this act, assuming the popularly accepted events are of any accuracy -- D'n 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good idea, I had a look at some of Kahane's writings, and came up with jewels like and, which pretty much verify what's written in the article. Please do suggest whatever changes you're thinking of, as they are apparently not so obvious.--Doron 07:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * D'n - is there any serious dispute about the "popularly accepted events" - which is say that Dr. Goldstein walked into the mosque and shot a bunch of worshippers in the back? Whether or not what he did was a good deed is a separate question.


 * As to Dr. G you knew being so different from Dr. G in Hebron - it is not unheard of for psychopaths to leave most people unaware of their psychopathic nature. The friends, family and fellow church-goers of the BTK Killer were extremely shocked - does that in any way suggest that something must have happened that "spurred" his acts?    Michael Voytinsky 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary commentary
Under the list of terrorist attacks is the following:


 * In February 1994 Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Palestinian worshippers inside the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron, killing twenty-nine people and wounding many others. However, despite the accusation that this was Kach and Kahane Chai terrorism, neither group condoned this act. This is despite the fact that killing random innocent people is a common form of Palestinian terrorism against Jews.


 * In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, supposedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks that targeted unarmed civilians, often including young children.

The bits in bold are, I feel, unnecessary commentary which adds little to the factual accuracy of the article. I am therefore removing them. --Black Butterfly 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have removed bias similar to the above, second point was edited to:
 * In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, allegedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks that targeted unarmed civilians, often including young children.
 * I have no wish to get bogged down in the Israeli-Palestinian "he said/she said" fallacy for now, but the wording currently in the article is a blatant attempt to insert a particular perspective. If you want to actually discuss this bring it here. --Black Butterfly 09:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am reverting your whitewashing. Makhteret didn't target people who jumped out and shouted boo at Israelis, they targeted those who were murdering unarmed civilians particularly children. This is important for understanding what Makhteret was about and what motivated them. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 22:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not white washing. My wording - "terrorist attacks against Israelis" - is succinct and describes the facts of the situation. Your wording adds nothing to the understanding of the situation and just opens the way to "Israelis did X in response to Palestinians who did Y, in response to Israelis who..." - take a brief glance through other Wikipedia articles on this subject for how this can go.
 * "Terrorism" pretty much excludes the "jumping out and shouting boo" approach to political warfare, and describes the acts involved adequately. Adding in the wording you have done is a blatant attempt to bias the article.
 * Again, I have no wish to get into yet another slagfest on this, but the current wording smacks of POV.
 * It also bears noting that the wording as it stands does not mention any specific attacks which the Makhteret attacks were in retaliation for; it is therefore disingenuous to give details. --Black Butterfly 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Have now referred this to a mediation group, see Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-18_Kach_and_Kahane_Chai_-_terrorism for updates. --Black Butterfly 11:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am willing to mediate this discussion. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost and Black Butterfly please indicate wether you are happy for me to mediate. I think that both of you have valid view points and that possibly the best solution is one that meets a middle ground. However I will wait for your acceptance before commenting further. If you want to contact me visit my talk page or [mailto:morton.thomas@googlemail.com email] me --Tmorton166 12:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be happy for you to mediate, hopefully we can reach some agreement on this. --Black Butterfly 12:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why Black Butterfly feels the need to suppress contextual information that aids in the understanding of Makhteret's motives. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 00:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, because obviously, talking about terrorism is the same as suppressing knowledge of it. --Black Butterfly 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll take that as acceptance then Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost. I think the best way forward now would be to avoid personal attacks or sniping and to try and to find a compromise. It's important to remember that you BOTH have valid points and there isn't likely to be a solution that pleases everybody. How about you both suggest areas in which you will compromise. Ow about also considering making the sentence into 2 sentences. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost you said that a major motivation of Makhteret was the attacks against civilians, particularly children. If that is the case it should be mentioned but not in a way that suggests a Bias for any of the groups. A 2 sentences structure would keep most of the 1st sentence and append a simple (for example) "attacks against Israli's" whilst a second sentence would introduce the idea that it was attacks against civilians / children that was the major motivation of the group. Just some ideas for you.
 * Is that a possibility? (compromise) -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 17:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 00:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There was no source given for which attacks in particular the Makhteret attacks were in retaliation for; further, I really don't see the relevance of bringing it up anyway if there's no proven link between Makhteret and Kach.
 * In response to Palestinian terrorist attacks is NPOV; it describes the situation adequately without any bias. Throwing in the comment about children, unless it has some direct link to this particular group (eg formed in response to a nursery bombing), is an attempt to influence the tone of the article. What of the Palestinian civilians and children? --Black Butterfly 11:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok thats a fair point. Is there any references or evidence that suggests or proves that this groups primary motivation was attacks against civilians and children? Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost have you got any sources? -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think more to the point, is there any reason to emphasise this in a way that is not covered by the wording "terorist attacks against Israelis" - which pretty much by definition means attacks against civilians? --Black Butterfly 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As it has been a week without comment I've decided to be bold and change the text to "terrorist attacks against Israelis". Anybody for a cup of tea? --Black Butterfly 10:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough, I will leave it a few more days then close the case. Thanks for our inputs -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the help, much appreciated :-). --Black Butterfly 08:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

reverted
Another user changed the title of one section to "alleged terrorist attacks associated with Kahanists". Given the content of that section the addition of the word "alleged" seemed quite unnecessary in that it makes clear the nature of the links. The second point down seems rather, ehm, odd: Again, the "allegedly" is out of place, as AFAIK the existence of the attacks isn't in question, only their origin (?) and connection to Kach. --Black Butterfly 11:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In the 1980s The Makhteret, a resistance group with links to Kach, allegedly staged several attacks against Palestinian officials who were believed to have spearheaded various terrorist attacks against Israelis.

Dispute tag on this article
I can't find an argument on this page for the dispute tag that appears at the top of the article. If no such argument is provided soon, the tag should be removed. --Zerotalk 13:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

1984 Supreme Court ruling online
The 1984 Supreme Court decision overturning Kach's disqualification to run for election contains quite a bit of information that could be used in the article. It is available on the web in English (and presumably in Hebrew), see footnote 3. --Zerotalk 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a Terrorist Organization
From information I have been researching for a school project on terrorism, I have found NO conclusive evidence that Kahane Chai can be considered a Terrorist Organization. They do not kill innocent civilians to benefit in any way. They defend themselves from Islamic Terrorist Groups such as the PLO, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Members of Kahane Chai have committed terrorist acts, but the group has a whole does not appear to have. They also claim that they do no support Terrorism of any kind, and dissuade member from using terrorism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.77.19.102 (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The article Kach and Kahane Chai provides conclusive proof that Kahane Chai is designated as a terrorist organisation. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article tends to contradict itself, and it lacks citations. From information from various different sources, including books at my local library, I fail to see why Kahane Chai is designated as a terrorist organization. There has been NO proof that the group is responsible for killing innocent people. They have fought in self defense against Hamas and Hezbollah, but the Torah states that a Jew has the right to defend oneself. They are defending themselves, from real terrorists, not being terrorists.

so, the torah states that a jew has the right to defend himself if he is attacked? does a palestinian have the right to defend himself from the attacks from jews in his land? Keltik31 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That land belonged to the Jews long before it belonged to the Palestinians. Who's land is it??? The Jew's, as it has been for thousands of years.

You mean 60?

America used to belong tho the native americans before the pikgrims came and did what Israel did that was hundreds of years ago do the native americans have the right to come and force us out of are homes and deny us human rights no and unlike Israel they don't even if the isralies lived there thousands of years ago they don't have the right to persecute people. you just got owned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.73.146 (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The land is given to the Jews by G-d, the Lord, creator of the universe -- It was thousands of years ago.


 * Yeah? Show us the signed property act then. You can't? It's mythology then. I am a historian, and I can safely base myself on Dr. Pelgrom of Leiden University, as well as Dr. F. Naerebout and Dr. S. Singor and their book "Antiquity", in stating that both Israelite and Filistine (Palestine) tribes have inhabited the area since roughly 1500BC. 82.176.211.33 20:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to have a political/theological debate there are plenty of suitable avenues. This is not one of them.
 * We are not here to make subjective judgements on the term "terrorism", but rather, to present information. Some of said information includes the fact that some institutions, at some points in history, have described Kach and Kahane Chai as terrorist. this is not a subjective analysis. --Black Butterfly 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

--72.225.204.254 20:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)I agree 100% that Kach and Kahane Chai are not terrorist organizations. All "evidence" presented lacks any substance and is based on the actions of few individuals acting ALONE to defend Israel against the Palestinian terrorists. Kahane Chai and Kach never had any official statement condoning or promoting terrorism. Don't believe me? Go to kahane.org and try to find any statement supporting terrorism! There is NONE WHATSOEVER unless you consider biblical verses terrorism. The same individuals who label Kach as a terrorist organization would not label the PLO a terrorist organization while the PLO blatantly supports murdering innocent men women and children. Kach and Kahane Chai do not issue statement supporting any terrorist activity and all claims that they are a FTO are based on the actions of a few individuals acting alone.


 * this article does not make the claim that Kach and Kahane Chai are terrorist organisations; it only relates that certain influential bodies (EU, US State Dept, etc.) consider them as such. all references in the article should be considered as such.
 * if you can find a cite from a reputable source giving arguments why they should not be considered terrorist, please include them. --Black Butterfly 10:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Black Butterfly thusly;
 * "The same individuals who label Kach as a terrorist organization would not label the PLO a terrorist organization while the PLO blatantly supports murdering innocent men women and children."
 * The same people. Right.  People like the United States government, the European Union and - get this - Israel itself?  I mean forget the international community, forget the West, forget the Arabs.  The freaking state of freaking Israel says Kahane Chai is a freaking terrorist organization.  What more do you freaking want?  I suppose the Israelis are part of an anti-semetic conspiracy too? 147.9.177.126 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

no pov
calling the attacks "terrorist" is POV. not alloed here. Keltik31 15:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfair Anti Kahanist Bias

This article has an very strong and unfair anti Kahanist Bias. There is absolutely no evidence that Kach and Kahane Chai are terrorist organizations. 1- These organizations do not exist anymore. 2- The only remnant of Kahane Chai is Mike Grudufzky, the owner on Kahane.org and he does NOT advocate terrorism at all. Go to kahane.org if you don't believe me. They only talk about Meir Kahane's works, Bible, Jewish Self defense and self defense and activist programs. 3- Baruch Goldstein acted by himself to defend Hebron against a planned Arab massacre by launching a preemptive strike. Even if you think I am crazy, it is obvious that Kach had nothing to do with this event since no one else was arrested for this which proves he acted alone. But the US still classifies kahane.org, which used to be affiliated with Kahane Chai as a "terrorist organization" even though there is no evidence since the Israeli government is afraid of R' Kahane's ideas becoming popular so they try to marginalize them and arrest Kahanist Jews for no reason.


 * wikipedia does not make judgements, it only reports information. this article deals with facts, namely that these organisations exist, have carried out (or, where relevant, been accused of carrying out) a number of attacks, and have been identified by a number of international agencies as terrorist.
 * note that this article is not making claims itself, but simply relating the fact that the US state department has made these claims.
 * if you can find reliable and factual cites for your claims above (in particular that Goldstein was acting pre-emptively against a planned massacre), please find them and insert them in the article.
 * taking your message point-by-point:
 * 1. the article is past tense. that the organisations do not exist any more is therefore irrelevant.
 * 2. this would be useful information to add to the article. perhaps you could create a "Kahane Chai today" section explaining what they do now.
 * 3. the section on violence concerns violence associated with Kahanists, rather than claiming the organisation as a whole. Goldstein was known to have been associated with Kach and later carried out the shooting. the article does not claim that this was a Kach action, only that it was carried out by a Kach supporter - tho if there was an official response from the organisation it would be worthy of insertion.
 * --Black Butterfly 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, a bias against a terrorist organization. What a concept. 147.9.177.126 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Makes me wonder how many Jews tacitly support this organization.

Assasination vs murder of Kahane
What do sources say about this? Isn't there some "preferred" wording to be used here? I know this hass been discussed before. This effects multiple articles so I am not sure how best to proceed. TIA --Tom 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious that he was assassinated - it was targeted killing of a political figure. Number   5  7  13:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source, works for me, I will go back and add it to the other pages I have tagged. More sources are better than less it seems. Cheers! --Tom 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

avigdor lieberman said to have been a member
israel's own haaretz publication covers this: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061172.html

perhaps this merits a mention on this page? 24.190.132.242 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The name "Kach"
An anon deleted the claimed derivation for the word Kach: "(Hebrew: כ"ך‎, an acronym for Kahane LaKnesset (Hebrew: כהנא לכנסת‎, lit. Kahane to the Knesset))".  I suspect anon is quite correct, but now we have no explanation.  Everywhere I look, I just see the explanation that כך means "thus", but somewhere there must be an official explanation.  Anyone know where?  I'm guessing that "thus" was inspired by the Irgun slogan "rak kach" (only thus). Zerotalk 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the Hebrew wiki it makes the same claim about it being an acronym. כהנא לכנסת is also used several times on the Kahane website, though nowhere does it say that it's what Kach stands for. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also see that site uses כך rather than כ"ך as the spelling in multiple places. The same is true on Knesset sites here for example.  Is the issue discussed on the Hebrew wiki talk page?  If not, can you ask there please? My Hebrew is not good enough. Zerotalk 02:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is discussed on the Hebrew talk page (whether to use gershayim or not). Someone has also written that the name "Kach" actually came about through the ballot letters assigned to the party by the Central Elections Committee - thus suggesting that it might be a backronym. This is feasible as in its first elections the party ran as the "League List", but again, there is no evidence. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that it was because of the ballot letters, which were "advertized" as Kahana [to the] Knesset, similarly to how Avoda's advertizements all contain the word Emet (Truth), which are their ballot letters. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some sources that say the name was inspired by the Irgun slogan. Is this controversial?Prezbo (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's cited to those sources, I see no reason why it can't be included. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  08:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not an acronym -- as has been discussed here, it means "thus" and comes from the slogan "only thus." As such, it should be spelled without the gershayim (כך and not כ״ך) as it is on the Hebrew version of the page. Someone with access please make this edit, it really confused me because the spelling implies its an acronym! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gershonmk (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Platform
If this was a political party, shouldnt we explain what their platform was at the time? "Kahanist" doesnt explain much. --Metallurgist (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How so?--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Metallurgist is right, the article should summarize the Kach election platform. Zerotalk 07:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion about year of emigration from U.S. to Israel
There seems to be some confusion about the year of Kahane's emigration, with the main article on Kahane and several sources I've seen giving the year as 1971, whereas the current article, using the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a source, gives the year as 1969.    ←   ZScarpia  18:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

From the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Kahane:


 * ''After being imprisoned for conspiring to make bombs, Kahane moved to Israel in 1971.
 * There Kahane formed the Kach Party and stirred nationalist fervor against Arabs, whom he campaigned to remove (violently, if necessary) from Israel and all Israeli-occupied areas. He won a seat in the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in 1984, but his term ended when Israel banned the Kach Party for its antidemocratic and racist beliefs.

   ←   ZScarpia  13:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The book "Brother against Brother" by Ehud Sprinzak, which has a chapter on Kahane, says he emigrated to Israel in September 1971. This is a rather authoritiave book so I think we should adopt it over the MFA web page. Zerotalk 12:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-RS
I have once again removed content that uses sources that clearly don't qualify as reliable according to Wikipedia's requirements. The content should not be restored until and unless someone can demonstrate that think-israel.org and ahavat-israel.com qualify as RS for unattributed statements of fact in the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. That is the function of WP:RSN. WP:V compliance is mandatory so in the meantime this content should stay out of the article. If the content is factually accurate and notable it will have been published by sources that unambiguously qualify as RS. Those sources should be cited instead.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 14:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have cited it to a Bradley Burston article and Israel National News. The latter is not exactly famed for its NPOV, but I can't see why it wouldn't be a WP:RS here, particularly as a Haaretz editor also cites the figure for 12 seats. Number   5  7  15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No longer designated by the EU
Since Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010. (I have insufficient editing rights for semi-protected pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penalist (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Kach and Kahane Chai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209042421/http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca:80/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx to http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-eng.aspx#KACH
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717111554/http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/hstoll/research/Israeli_Election_Results.xls to http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/hstoll/research/Israeli_Election_Results.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070214183300/https://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/key-issues/protecting/fto_aliases.shtml to http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/key-issues/protecting/fto_aliases.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061122094511/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/kach.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"After being convicted for sedition for distributing pamphlets advocating violence against Arabs, Binyamin Ze'ev Kahane and his wife were both killed in a Palestinian ambush in December 2000"
This has nothing to do with the article, and implies a cause and effect; namely that because of his pamphlets he was killed. In fact, his death was merely for being a Jewish settler, the Palestinians were unaware of who they killed; they just wanted to murder Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.60.235.57 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kach and Kahane Chai. 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/20021216072525/http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm to http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm

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) 03:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved
I've moved the article from "Kach and Kahane Chai" to "Kach (political party)" for a couple of reasons: Cheers, Number   5  7  22:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) These were two separate (albeit linked) organisations and the current title seems to be fooling editors into thinking that it's the name of a single organisation (see this version of the Meir Ettinger article).
 * 2) The article is largely about Kach.

Merge proposal of Sicarii (1989)
The recently created article of Sicarii (1989) clearly fails criteria for notability set forth in WP:CORPIND. The sourcing in the article consists of WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources from 1989-1991 which cover a police investigation that went no where (a suspect was arrested, released after a few weeks. No charges or trial). In addition there are 4 secondary sources. Lustick-1993, written close to the events, mainly consists of news clippings. Kelly/Maghan is from 1998, uses very flowery language, and devotes a paragraph to the Sicarii - and most of that paragraph is on the historical Sicarii which this alleged group is its namesake (the 1989 group gets 2 sentences that are not related to it being a namesake). Crenshaw/Pimlott-1997 is factually inaccurate (turning a shooting, per multiple NEWSORGs, into a bombing) and devotes a single paragraph to the Sicarii in a section mainly about Kach. Pedahzur/Perliger-2009 is a better source than the 3 previous ones (written well after events, devoted to the topic (Jewish terrorism)) - however it sees fit to devote approx. 1/3 of a paragraph (+ a blurb in the timeline with the 1989 attack saying they claimed responsibility) - - framing the Sicarii as a movement of Kach activists who were protesting the banning of Kach from the 1988 elections. While Sicarii is clearly non-notable, it does seem some content can be salvaged from that article into this one, and that Kach is a suitable merge target per WP:ATD-M. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging Articles for deletion/Yoel Adler discussion participants . Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 *  Support as nominator. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – I learned some new information from this article so it could be useful, but per nom it fails multiple notability and sourcing guidelines, and others not mentioned here. A merger makes sense. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No: This page was turned around to be about a person in the group, rather than the group itself. A move that was strongly objected by Emass100, which as of now is the page's principal author. Then it was put up for deletion because of the WP:BLPCRIME violations added to it. One can't help but to think that then putting the same page up for "merge" immediately after the "delete" proposal failed is misuse of the process. Personally, I have no strong opinions one way or the other, but I feel that it is Emass100 that should decide. If he or she supports a merge to Kach and Kahane Chai then I would also be in favor, otherwise no. ImTheIP (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify - The AfD close was a procedural one as the article had undergone changes prior to the nomination. The AfD did not evaluate the present article, nor was there a consensus that it was notable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To further clarify, the administrator who closed the vote wrote "Close and reverted article back to before being hijacked". Hence why I think it is not right to immediately thereafter nominate the article for merging. ImTheIP (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in said "hijacking". The pre-"hijacking" article has some salvageable content - but it is still rather clearly non-notable. A merge is a good alternative here for deletion. A procedural close does preclude re-nominating the article immediate for deletion.Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Support because there is not enough known about the 1989 "sicarii" to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the sources treat them as distinct, and books published years later fully satisfy any issue regarding sourcing or meeting the GNG.  nableezy  - 17:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose — If this prior discussion was any indication of results here, then this subsequent proposal is a waste of time. Enough editors believe that the subject establishes independent notability and have been expanding the article since yesterday. These proposals where we already know the results are counterproductive. Inevitably, however, I see this going to AFD again to reach similar conclusions.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. --NSH001 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Distinct organisations. No source claim they are the same or a breakaway group. Sicarii's goals were more than just protesting the exclusion of Kach from the 1988 election. Sicarii independantly notable. A paragraph in a book can be considered "significant converage if that's all that's needed, especially in Jewish Religious Terrorism. Also, the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star article count as secondary source as they are Analysis per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Article about the arrest of the suspect from 1990 are secondary sources the group when they talk about their attacvks committed the year prior. Emass100 (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Insufficient source support for the claim that the topics belong together. Zerotalk 23:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above Huldra (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 29 March 2020
Category:Fascist parties should be removed because there is nothing to support the claim that the party is Fascist. -- 187.58.92.128 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The word "fascist" does not appear in the article, so that category appears to have been unsourced. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 3 June 2020
Kach and Kahane Chai are designated as a terrorist organisation by the EU - however, the relevant category Category:Organisations designated as terrorist by the European Union has not been applied. Is it possible to apply the cateogry to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatryoshkaNL (talk • contribs) 18:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ plus Category:Defunct organizations designated as terrorist in Asia was also added.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Kach no longer designated terrorist by USA
Kach is no longer going to be designated as a terrorist group by the US State department, seeing as they never killed anyone. In fact, Meir Kahana was the first terror victim of Al-Qaeda in 1990 when he was killed in New York City. Someone please update the article to reflect this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:500:1AF5:BC7F:2F12:1E1A:3C1E (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations from the US State Dept: search for Kach. See it?  nableezy  - 02:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as the news, that is being removed as defunct, not because they were not a terror group.  nableezy  - 02:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2022
Change the following sentence to show that the US no longer designatess the group as terrorists. See following citations https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/20/us-removes-ultranationalist-israeli-group-from-terror-list and https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-removes-radical-jewish-group-kach-4-others-from-list-of-terror-organizations/

Today, both groups are considered terrorist organisations by Israel,[3] Canada,[4] the European Union,[5] Japan,[6] and the United States.[7] 46.117.204.46 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see section immediately above. And per your Aljazeera source, "The State Department said Kahane Chai and the other four groups will retain their SDGT designations" Cannolis (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Islamophobia
Change criticism of islam to islamophobis this is a xenophobic organisation 193.210.167.118 (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2023
The following change is recommended to provide context into discussed events. Care has been taken to keep phrasing and details neutral.

Change "In 2022, the United States removed the group from its list of terrorist organizations." to "In 2022, the United States removed the group from its list of terrorist organizations, alongside 4 inactive groups.

The citations for the above sentence is a dead link. The following is a suitable replacement: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/16/1099088398/u-s-to-remove-groups-from-foreign-terrorism-blacklist DanielTheManual (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: why is the subordinate clause "alongside 4 inactive groups" relevant to this sentence? Colonestarrice (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying directly it was due to inactivity would be presumptive as the reasons were not publicly disclosed. However the grouping alongside other inactive groups is suggestive that the removal was not due to a reevaluation of Kack's goals and means of action, which readers may presume if not given the additional context.  I thought providing context without conclusion in the most neutral feasible language reflects known facts most accurately. DanielTheManual (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I've updated the broken ref using your source but I've not included this text because it still strikes me as extraneous and redundant. Colonestarrice (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Defense League is not a paramilitary wing of Kach
The JDL operated almost exclusively in the U.S. and Canada, and thus does not fulfill the definition of a political paramilitary wing of a political party. Aside from both being founded by Meir Kahane, the groups are fairly different in their goals (one being combatting antisemitism in America, the other being more focused on religious Zionism and anti-Arabism). A. Rosenberg (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)