Talk:Zehut

Comment
I agree with the disclaimer. However, it really takes time until there is something as neutral point of view. There is currently nothing like that on Zehut. There are people for it (both on left and right), there are people clearly against (both on left and right), but whenever I find someone (Amit Segal for example), who tends to be neutral, he is so neutral, one cannot use it on the article. --AsiBakshish (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:WESTBANK
WP:WESTBANK is clear, you may not say that "Judea and Samaria" is the name of a current place. This is not about the administration of the territory within the context of that administration. , you are violating that guideline, and the exception you claim very specifically disallows the use of that term here. Kindly self-revert.  nableezy  - 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained in the edit summary and in the note, this has nothing to do with geography. Zehut wants to change the administrative regime of the territory. Please tell me how § 5 does not apply. M   .   M  21:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How does it not apply? What the exception says is in the context of that administration and not merely referring to a specific land area. When you write applying full Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria you are very specifically calling a land mass Judea and Samaria (and the exception requires "Area" to be included and capitalized). When you write and removing construction freezes in Judea and Samaria you are writing about a land area. Same for Individual Arabs in Judea and Samaria. You are saying that there is a place called Judea and Samaria and these things are happening in that place. That is disallowed by the naming convention. When you write about the modern place between the Jordan River and the Green Line you may not call it Judea, Samaria, or Judea and Samaria.  nableezy  - 21:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right about the last two, but the first one refers specifically to an administrative change. What about applying full Israeli sovereignty to the Judea and Samaria Area (which is an administrative territory that currently is not under full Israeli sovereignty)? Honestly, that was my initial thought, but I removed "Area" as I wanted to include the West Bank in parenthesis, and it would've been confusing to include both. M   .   M  21:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is talking about changing the status of the territory. It is not talking about the current administration of what Israel designates as the Judea and Samaria Area. It is talking about a land mass and what the party would like to do with the land mass. It isnt, for example, saying that the supreme authority for the Judea and Samaria Area be removed from the Ministry of Defense and moved in to the Ministry of the Interior. You are allowed to use "Judea and Samaria Area" when you are talking about the district specifically and talking about the administration of that district. Your use here was about the territory, not the legal entity in Israeli law.  nableezy  - 21:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "It isnt, for example, saying that the supreme authority for the Judea and Samaria Area be removed from the Ministry of Defense and moved in to the Ministry of the Interior." Actually, that's excactly what it is saying. Please read the cited sources. M   .   M  22:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Im sorry if Im not being clear on this with how I worded it. It is not talking about changing the administration of the Judea and Samaria Area. Like for instance modifying how the regional councils interact with it, or a specific military order about the Civil Administration. It is talking about something larger than that, it is talking about changing the status of the West Bank entirely, not simply changing the current administrative regime. Annexation is something that happens to a territory, not an administrative district. When you are discussing annexation you are definitionally discussing a territory.  nableezy  - 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In the words of Menachem Begin when debating the Golan Heights Law: ''You use the word "annexation". I do not use it.'' And if you read the Zehut platform, you'll see that their position is even less related to annexation. Anyway, I'll lay off this issue for a while now. Perhaps another editor will weigh in. M  .   M  22:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, fine, applying sovereignty is something that happens to a territory, not an administrative body.  nableezy  - 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

"applying full Israeli sovereignty to the West Bank"
What does this mean? Is the intent to annex the West Bank? --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes.--TMCk (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the article say so, instead of using a euphemism? --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Per their platform - they do not use annexation. They are discussing a return to pre-Oslo (1967-93) in stage-3, and possibly something else (without saying annexation) in stage-4. IDF control over area A (presently controlled by the PA) would be asserting sovereignty but would not be an annexation. They do, however, seem to be taking the legal position that all British Mandate territories belong to Israel (citing a particular legal opinion), so per this view annexation wouldn't be required (note that this is inline with the long standing Israeli position - territories conquered in 1948 were added to Israel by an ordinance particular to Mandate territory)). Absent a sourcing saying "annexation" (or "סיפוח" in Hebrew) - we should probably avoid it. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Here's a source: These Seven Parties' Fates Will Decide Israel's Election | Haaretz | "Moshe Feiglin's Zehut — a bizarre far-right/libertarian party calling for annexation of the West Bank and legalization of cannabis — is the latest ..."
 * --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a short summary by Anshel Pfeffer (who used to be the London correspondent and mainly wrote for the English side - not the original Hebrew reporting (which is translated to English)). The Haaretz piece he links to - The Jewish Supremacist, Pro-marijuana Party Tipped to Be in Israel’s Next Parliament doesn't use "annexation" but rather: "If Zehut has its way, the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians would be “canceled” and “the legal situation restored to its pre-Oslo status.” Feiglin would then offer three options to the “non-Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria.” .... I think we should go with the more detailed piece. Per my understanding of the platform (which matches the reporting by Haaretz), Zehut considers the West Bank to be legally part of Israel and therefore an annexation, per Zehut, is not necessary. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the source puts “the legal situation restored to its pre-Oslo status” in quotation marks. That's another euphemism for annexation. Wikipedia does not user euphemisms. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Umm no - that is actually a return to a military occupation with a military civil affairs adminstration - the West Bank was not annexed (well, ignoring the West Bank as Taiwan in relation to the British Mandate view) between 1967 and 1993.Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Political position
Zehut is bringing something new, something that doesn't really fit into the political left-right spectrum. According to this poll, only 53% of Israelis consider the party to be "right-wing". Should we include "right-wing (disputed)" in the infobox, or just remove the political position section altogether? My judgment might be a bit biased since I am a Zehut supporter, so I'd like other editors' inputs as well. M  .   M  18:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd peg them as Right-libertarianism - but one would need a source for that. The Israeli public probably is a poor judge here (considering that the main right wing party in Israel - Likud - supported a welfare state for much of existence (Bibi moved a bit away from this early in his career, but then moved back)). JPost, TOI, JTA -, , used this. Icewhiz (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about these two?  IDI says "personal liberty" and "libertarian economic positions"; I think that can be reasonably interperted as right-libertarianism. And JPost seems like a clear cut, starting out with "The leader of the rising Zehut Party is attracting more than just young potheads to his libertarian platform", and going on to mention a number of obviously free market policies.  M   .   M  19:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Moshe Feiglin’s libertarian Zionist Zehut (“Identity”) party"[1 ] right-wing[2 ][3 ] "While Zehut is considered a right-wing party with libertarian tendencies, its dedication to advancing personal freedom overlaps with many center-left policies."[4 ] as such, ideally I would think it should be "right-wing" with Libertarian as an ideology because we don't consider an ideology to be a political position, as political positions are on the right-left spectrum, and the only exception is with the Third Position, or Syncratic parties, however, Libertarianism is generally considered to be part of the mainstream right-wing politics, and within the right-wing spectrum. ShimonChai (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is actually a Left-libertarianism - though in this case (as in US politics - e.g. the US libertarian party) - this is the right wing version. Libertarian by itself (absent context - e.g. implied in the US system) only discusses government control vs. personal liberty. The left wing version has communal property (rejecting private ownership of resources, for instance). As for the Israeli meaning of right/left - which is unique in being tied to a large degree to security/foreign-policy (hawks / doves) - that's an orthogonal issue. (and in most countries - left/right is per economics). My digression on theoritical politics aside - yes - I think it is safe to call them right-wing (in this case econ + foreign policy hawks) libertarian. Icewhiz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems we all agree that Zehut is right-wing in terms of economy and secutiry, and supports individual liberty (wherever that may place on the left-right spectrum). I agree with that these positions are best summarized as "right-libertarian", which I've now added along with some of the sources above as well as this one,  which explicilty refers to the party as "Right-Wing, Libertarian".  M   .   M  16:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Now, someone has added "right-wing to far-right" to the infobox, which I figured was only a matter of time. I think we should return to the original idea: not list any political position there. As for the lede, I've added "libertarian" with a note of "in addition to libertarian, the party has been described as far-right and nationalist" as per five sources: The Jerusalem Post, Israel Democracy Institute, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Times. 5/5 include "libertarian"; 2/5 include "far-right" and "nationalist". (Edit diff ). M   .   M  09:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, first of all right-libertarian is not a political position, it is an ideology. Political positions are either left, centrist, or right. I kept right-wing, but I also put far-right because that’s what sources say about the party. I believe it should be on there. -108.52.209.4 (talk) 15:00, 07 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that following the elections, Zehut has made a clear effort to move away from the “beyond left and right” image they cultivated in the April elections towards a clear right-wing self-identification: ‘Zehut would this time around clarify from the start that it is a right-wing party.’ (https://www.timesofisrael.com/feiglin-says-hell-run-again-in-september-elections-will-be-more-modest/). Consequently, I would support changing the position to right-wing.--Jay942942 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Platform
The citation for the platform, is the overall platform, not citing the specific quotes about the platform or ideology. The problem with this is, if someone wants to verify the claims, they have to go through several interconnected pages on the parties website, rather than just the actual part of the platform that is being cited. This would be like citing a google scholar search result instead of an actual paper. ShimonChai (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But lots of these positions aren't just mentioned in one specific section, they're part of several ones, and make up the basis of the whole platform. It may be better to add a note saying "the following is a summary" or something like that. Zehut is actually noted in several sources for having an especially long & detailed platform; we could add a note about that, too. M   .   M  08:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They have a summery that lists everything of what is already included, and it's a single page so it's much easier for people to verify the claims. ShimonChai (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it now. M   .   M  09:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nationalism
It isn't enough to call Zehut "Zionist", because most Israeli parties define themselves as Zionist parties - whether they are right-wing, centrist, or left-wing parties. Zehut is a very nationalist party, even more so than Likud or Bennett's "New Right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.119.129.172 (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit redundant to include nationalism, as Zionism is more specific and otherwise synonymous. Besides, I already added nationalism to a note in the lede. You will have to explain what excactly you mean by "very nationalist", and provide sources for it. M   .   M  13:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been described as "ultra-nationalistic". [1][2][3][4][5][6] ShimonChai (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As usual with superficial coverage from outside Israel - these sources lack nuance. Feiglin himself has an ultra-nationalist background (harking back to Zo Artzeinu) - however the party is a wider mix - numbers 2-3-4-5 are not (while 6 is). Some of the candidates are from The New Liberal Movement (Hebrew), number 4 (a woman) is from a men's rights movement (Hebrew). Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I think you are right about your point about specific members. It's also possible that they came to the conclusion that the party is ultra-nationalist based on their platform relating to the conflict. Also, there are a few Israeli sources that also call the party itself ultra-nationalist. ShimonChai (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will admit to OR / dim recollection of coverage above (though in relation to shallow election coverage conflating party #1 with the party - I stand pat) - anyway we should have better sources following the election itself - possibly more depth, less election spin - assuming Zehut gets in (probable) and stays cohesive (I have my doubts - could split - my OR).Icewhiz (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the election is tomorrow, and there will probably be a ton of new citations within the next few days mentioning their political position and ideology, I can see a good reason to wait for the time being. ShimonChai (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ultranationalism is described by Wikipedia as a key foundation of fascism...support for authoritarian political arrangements verging on totalitarianism... Far-right is described in similar terms, but there are two major differences: its usage is backed by more reliable sources, and it's a much broader term (which can be applied to certain issues out of many). These sources also use nationalism instead of ultranationalism, which is essentially the antithesis of Zehut's main philosophy - libertarianism. M   .   M  15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding what Wikipedia calls it see WP:CIRCULAR, also, your argument that Zehut is the "antithesis" of ultra-nationalism would need to be backed with WP:RS... Generally I am fine with just having Zionist in the infobox, the reason I posted the citations originally was because of your response to the unregistered user. ShimonChai (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

"One state solution" as policy
While this description in the infobox is technically accurate, I think this might be a bit misleading -- most English speakers associate "1ss" with the idea of a "binational state", which unless I am horribly uninformed, is not what anyone in Zehut has proposed, which tends to be more in line with this. RS do cover this -- Jerusalem post: []; IPF: []. I'm changing it to "absorption of the West Bank" (I realize annexation could be provocative) -- but am open to revisions of this should more nuance be necessary. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's still a one state solution, including some absorption. There are one-staters both on the left and on the Palestinian and Israeli right - they just differ in details. It is referred to as a one-state solution by Zehut - "one state for one people" and by RS - e.g. Haaretz, JPost. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is interesting -- who are the "one people" of Zehut's "one state for one people"? As far as I can glean it has not been Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs being equally Israeli in essence -- they (like most) link Israeli/Jewish identities, ex (emph mine) []. While, granted, it's fringey to say Israel does not have a Jewish identity, most Israeli parties do not support the 1ss, and this does not seem like a formula for binational statehood. 1ss where its Arabs as a national minority in a Jewish state is technically 1ss, but perhaps people may misunderstand...--Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Gaza aspect does complicate things. --Calthinus (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They support a Jewish state - "A Jewish State – A state that matures from Zionism of existence to Zionism of destiny; from survival mentality to the mentality and challenge of perfection of the world." . Not all one-state solutions are bi-national. Hamas advocates a single-state solution, and I don't think it includes bi-nationalism AFAICR. Icewhiz (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Expulsion or formally instituting a system with different rights for different ethnicities (I wont use the a-word here) hasnt generally been called a one-state solution. Hamas also supports, or has supported, "one state for one people", but I dont think Ive ever seen it called a "one-state solution". Our article on one-state solution very specifically says it is a binational state, and that is not what Zehut supports. Some other wording is necessary.  nableezy  - 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A democratic bi-national state is only possibility within the wide sphere of a one state solution. Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would (honestly) love to discuss possible futures but FORUM. Hamas wants a single state, but who calls it a solution in English? except when comparing "driving 8 million people into the sea" to another "Solution"...:/... Granted, Zehut is not Hamas. Imo this is still likely misleading -- mostly to people who are not already familiar with Israeli politics. Zehut certainly likes the phrase themselves [|and they also do talk about expanding citizenship rights to Arabs beyond the line if they choose "Option C"] (what their role in a Jewish state is is theoretical I guess). At this point I'd rather survey what RS besides the ones we already have say.--Calthinus (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree with what? The article one-state solution defines itself in the lead as"Proponents of a unified Israel advocate a single state in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with citizenship and equal rights in the combined entity for all inhabitants of all three territories, without regard to ethnicity or religion."Is that what Zehut supports? If not why are you including that wiki-link? I'm going to reword it to single Jewish state.  nableezy  - 17:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a source, and that blurb is sourced to a 2009 oped by Muammar Qaddafi. The lede there has alternative formulations as well.Icewhiz (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok? How does that address wikilinking to something that is about a different topic?  nableezy  - 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Same topic. The form of government is a detail within any one state framework - it also differs wildly within left wing solutions (from an equal rights to all atheist state to a Lebanon model that recognizes rights for each ethnic/religious bloc and assigns some sort of powersharing between recognized groups... Democracy or Communism... And so on and ao forth) - there is no single "one state solution".Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody can click one-state solution and see that it is covering a binational state. Im not sure why you are pretending otherwise, as it is literally a click away for anybody who wants to look.  nableezy  - 17:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this actually shows both sides of hte conundrum well. The page mentions the Israeli right-wing version but it gets only one sentence in the lede versus a paragraph and more for the bi/non-national formulation that Western intellectuals are fonder of, and the pattern is similar on a larger scale for the page as a whole. --Calthinus (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

this needs to account for Gaza. Your version doesn't.--Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How so? I only put what they support, a single state in Israel and the West Bank.  nableezy  - 17:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Gaza too per Zehut. I will quote Vox - "The “one-state solution” would merge Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one big country. It comes in two versions. One, favored by some leftists and Palestinians, would create a single democratic country. Arab Muslims would outnumber Jews, thus ending Israel as a Jewish state. The other version, favored by some rightists and Israelis, would involve Israel annexing the West Bank and either forcing out Palestinians or denying them the right to vote. Virtually the entire world, including most Zionists, rejects this option as an unacceptable human rights violation." - this is within the one-state sphere.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, will adjust.  nableezy  - 17:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as the one-state sphere, reliable sources (eg Haaretz) qualify "one state solution" with, for example, "without granting citizenship to the Palestinians." Just saying Zehut supports a one-state solution with a link to an article focused nearly exclusively on a binational state when they do not support a binational state is misleading.  nableezy  - 17:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that in the infoboxes for the New Right and United Right who's positions on the conflict are similar to that of Zehut, the page One-state solution is used to describe their policy on the west bank. I do not think that the Zehut page should be different to them in that regard. Perhaps a link to the Proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank is best. Gibzit (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the problem here is that Zehut also apparently proposes the inclusion of Gaza within the single Jewish state.  nableezy  - 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think that their policy towards Gaza is a big enough part of the party's policy to be included in their "ideology" in the info box. The current solution is definitely not a good one, considering that having an entire sentence as an ideology is unique to Zehut's infobox and goes outside the purpose of having one.Gibzit (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree the current sitch is not ideal. The best long term solution is fixing Proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank to Proposed Israeli annexations of Palestinian territories, and also include Gaza in that page too.--Calthinus (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No, as the annexation of the West Bank, or portions of it, is discussed much more widely than Gaza.  nableezy  - 18:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2021
Please change the typo "unnessecary" to "unnecessary" under section Platform. Regards, 223.17.177.154 (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thank you very much and Happiest of New Years to you and yours!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)