Talk:Haredim and Zionism

Sephardic Haredim and "Real Zionists"

There is clearly a disagreement here about Sephardic Haredim. First of all, I have removed the following sentence:

"In contrast to real Zionist parties, Shas has expressed a willingness to agree to land-for-peace negotiations, and former Shas chairman Aryeh Deri was highly praised by Palestinian negotiators."

As I have already said, Zionist parties such as Meretz, Kadima, Avoda, and now, under Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud, have all advocated the principle of land for peace. To argue that "real Zionists" do not support land for peace is absurd. It is also clearly NPOV since it makes a determination about who is a "real" Zionist and who is a "fake" Zionist which, with all due respect Piz, you are neither qualified nor permitted to make. Please stop reverting to this nonsensical statement.

Secondly, I have once again restroed the section about Rav Ovaida's position on Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut. The quote which you sourced from Yabia Omer specifically says (emphasis added):

Yabia Omer, part 6: ""כיוצא בזה ראיתי בשו``ת ישכיל עבדי ח``ו (או``ח סי` י אות ז) שג``כ העלה שאין לגמור ההלל בתוך תפלת יום העצמאות אפי` בלא ברכה, מפני שעדיין אויבינו קמים עלינו לכלותינו, ואין לך יום שאין קללתו מרובה מחבירו, ועונותינו הטו אלה, כי היצר הצורר בעוכרינו להסית את ישראל מדרכי ה` וכו`, ומכיון שאין כאן אלא אתחלתא דגאולה, ואינה גאולה שלמה לכל עם ישראל, לכן אין לתקן לומר הלל גמור בתוך התפלה אפי` בלי ברכה, ורק אפשר לומר מזמורי ההלל לאחר סיום התפלה, בלי ברכה, כי פשוט שאין לנו להכנס בספק ברכה לבטלה. עכ``ד".

The parts in bold say: "One should not say a full Hallel in the tfila, even without a blessing", and, "One may say Hallel after the end of the tfila, without a blessing." So please stop saying that Rav Yosef "opposes" saying Hallel - that is not a proposition born out by the source which you cite.Sstr (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most Hareidim still don't support Zionism nor its state

I deleted all references that ger vizhnits or any other hareidi support Zionism because they join the Keneset, this is a false POV by very extreme elements who make this accusation unjustly on all those groups they are opposed to Zionism and its state, but they also vote to get money for the Torah institutions but not at all saying that the Zionists are good this is a lie. Please don't revert it without any source.--יודל 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sefardim

We need to fix the sephardim section - add Yaakov Hillel (a famous Sefardi anti-Zionist), as well as lbcl"c the Baba Sali, and the Sephardi Eida Chareidis. Also, the school (something Yoel) - the sephardi school that doesn't take any money from the govmt. Why does the article say no sephardi opposition. Also, Ovadia Yosef used to be a big kanoi; maybe this should be mentioned? Lobbuss 10:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

the word opposition means something more active or voicefull not just an opinion, i think they are not more opposing in this then vizhnits ger and all other hareidim unless u can find sources.--יודל 11:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The jpost blog article was simply false, as many of the responders to it said. The writer was totally ignorant and simply IGNORED the entire Sefardi opposition to Zionism. That's the Zionist way of handling criticism: simply deny that the criticism exists. You have vandalized my previous version. Please stop doing that. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea: Hardal

They used to be plain Mizrachi guys with little kippot, shirts and sandals, and the girls wearing short sleeves and nude lower legs. That's pretty much the definition of Modern Orthodox. And are you really going to claim that they are no longer Religious Zionists?! They don't believe in Religious Zionism any more?! --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They are not MO's. MO's is mostly an American thing. In Israel, the RZ are not neccesarily MO's. In addition, the fact that they are Chardalim show that they're not MO, but Charedi in hashkafah. I would venture to say that they are primarily from the RZ camp, but also from the growing camp of American olim who don't fit into the pure Charedi mold. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am saying - they USED TO BE modern orthodox. Israeli RZ *is* Modern-Orthodox. Machon Meir, Merkaz HaRav etc, IS modern-orthodox. If the women there wear short sleeves and skirts barely covering the knees, the guys wear plain t-shirts and sandals and shorts and small kippot, then that is called modern-orthodox and that is not by any standards 'Haredi'. What I am saying is that they USED TO BE like that, and they left that, and started becoming stricter in these things: dress, and other things such as shabbat observance and kashrut and general halachic things. You fail to understand that America/the OU does not have the copyright to the term 'modern orthodox' - Israel has 'modern orthodoxy' also, and the vast majority of the settlement movement still falls under that category. --Eidah 13:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but you are incorrect. RZ and MO ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. Some MO's are RZ, some MO's are not RZ's. Some RZ's are MO and some RZ's are not MO. Dress is irrelevant. Again, they're chardalim because that's how they identify. They are from the RZ camp, not the MO camp. There is no MO camp. There are Charedim, Chassidim, Litvaks and RZ. MO doesn't really fit in. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eida on this one, MO they were before becoming Hardel, nothink has changed in regards to their Zionism beliefs. Most religious Zionists are in the category of the American modern orthodox, modern orthodox has nothing to do with America its simply a term described of orthedox jews who a'rnt Hariedim. So Yosias edits are false uncalled and simply out of line to revert it from MO to RZ, please stop doing it--יודל 15:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid's edits

Yidisheryid: we have previously had big wars about this here. We came to the conclusion that the best thing to do would be to divide the section about Haredi groups in 1 section about those groups which typically adopt a pragmatically supportive stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Ger, Belz, the Litvaks, Klausenburg, Chabad), and those groups which typically adopt a negative, opposing stance vis-a-vis the state (such as Satmar, Dushinsky, Neturei Karta, and organizations such as the Edah and the CRC). Could you explain exactly why you keep completely destroying this division? Further: Dushinsky is a separate group, just as Satmar is a separate group. Further: the CRC is not a subdivision of Satmar. Yossiea, I ask you also to look at this and thus to revert the order of the groups to my previous version, which was made in consensus and which 'Yidisheryid' keeps messing up. --Eidah 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear eida, i have no issue on the sections just a few chabad i can see in devided but al other Hasidim cannot be divided because they are the same opinion towards Zionism, crc isn't even a different group they are just a rabbinic organisation controlled and comprised mainly by satmar so i would not give it a separate header, we cannot make sections for a the satmar rabbis and organizations that have been expressing somewhere sometime a statement about this issue why make so much headers to inflate your cause please consider that their are other people here reading this who will get the false picture that satmar is huge and bigger and more then others which isn't true let all stamar ideas and statement be under their respective section. i agree that Eidaa groupd should not be part of satmar since they are a organizing organization of all those jerusalem groups, dushinsky included, which are indeed opposed to Zionism, why make dushinsky extra group? are they not just like Toldos ahron and other eidanikas?! and stop using the word consensus as if i am not part in this process, everybody can revert minor thinks without talk pages until somebody explains why its not a minor edit which u only now did and i successfully answered--יודל 15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have warned him and submitted his name to the admins for 3RR and edit warring. Let's hope he stops. Which one has the order of Chassidim? Yossiea ^(talk) 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the way it was *before* he started messing things up. We had a list of "groups that typically support the State of Israel" (such as the Litvishe, Ger, Belz, Chabad) and list of "groups that typically oppose the State of Israel" (such as Satmar). That was the consensus we had. Now look at the way things are! It's a huge MESS now! --Eidah 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg u not to just revert al my edits to that Inst because that list was slanderous unsourced POV, they do not support any form of Zionism. it is an opinion and i agree some satmars are by this opinion, but don't write it down as fact, u can write that the satmars look at them as supportive of Zionism but not as given fact that they are indeed which they are not, i dont have sources that they aren't, but i may and i am obligated to erase those accusations even though most users want it inside.--יודל 15:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to check the dozens of edits he messed up. I'll see if I can find something. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just check the last edit from before the hurricane hit. --Eidah 13:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

:), I think I found a good one. I found one of your edits and put in the Chassidim section. You might want to visit the admin board and see YY's section there and comment if neccesary. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems fine. Now I'm off in 20 minutes, back on Monday (no internet at home!). Let's let things rest for a while and take a step back, take a deep breath, enjoy our shabbos meals and next week we'll all be happy and cooperate and turn this into an even better article, and Hakudesh burich hi will send us mushiach tzidkeini, bimheiru veyumeini, UMEIN. ;) --Eidah 14:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

The page has been protected for three days. Please use this time to discuss changes to the article and come up with a compromise, rather than fighting back and forth. You are all rational people, and I am sure a solution everyone can accept can be arrived at. See Wikipedia:Edit war and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

The protection will expire in three days; when it expires, the edit warring starts again, people will start to be blocked, and the page protected for longer periods. Neil ム 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Neil, u protected this page with a pov version but since u r not Jewish u don't have the knowledge to say which one was the POV version, i ask u to revert it to yesterdays version, so not to be a hand unknowingly to slanderous accusations. thanks--יודל 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I will only be online again on Monday morning (Zionist time). --Eidah 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a solution everyone accepted. We had a discussion weeks ago and we reached a consensus. The article as it stands now is based upon the consensus. YY's edits are breaking that consensus with his edits that don't make any sense. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. We need to move on from here. I think the way it looks now is fine. Though the section about 'newspapers' needs some work, but we'll see about that next week, iy'h. --Eidah 14:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, as YY is clearly not in agreement, then it can't be a consensus that everyone presently accepts. Try and discuss things with him over the next few days. If, when the article is unprotected, he still is unwilling to engage with his fellow editors and discuss controversial edits, instead edit warring over the article, his editing privileges will be revoked for longer and longer periods. Neil ム 14:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardal

As per Wiki's article itself, RZ is not the same as MO. Religious_Zionism so stop reverting. This is a talk page, we use it to talk about changes before we make the changes. Try it out. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossiea, at this point I am unsure how your actions are any different from those of Yasheryid. You are both edit warring, and at least he is offering explanation for his edits using edit summaries. You, on the other hand, are simply rolling back his edits with no explanation other than "discuss on the talk page" (and, worse, describing them as "vandalism" when they clearly are not). Please explain on this talk page just why the entirety of his edits are unacceptable to you. Neil ム 14:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This article was heavily edited before and protected as well. We came to a consensus using the talk page and the article is pretty much "final." His edits are extremely controversial and he is not discussing it beforehand. All I am doing is reverting to a prior acceptable edit and telling him to discuss his changed on the talk page. This is a fairly large talk page and many things were discussed. He is not interested in discussions, he is interested in pushing his POV across. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

my edits are only controversial in your single issue of Hardel which was addressed by me and user Eida, unfortunately he is blocked now but u were clearly in the minority on this point, on the other disgreements i have spoken here above to the respective users and sections please don't try to block this article.--יודל 14:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the Wiki article? RZ is not the same as MO. I'm not sure why you keep editing it to something that is clearly not true. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Besides the fact that the way it is written now is the best of both worlds. I'm not sure why you see the need to edit it.)

Furthermore, he keeps claiming that he does utilize the talk page. I haven't really seen that. Have you? Not only that, his constant editing to call Hardal MO is not true, as the Wiki article on RZ clearly points out. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe in bringing links from the same page, from one section to the other, to proof something in the bottom that was proven in the top of the page, references and footnotes should be only be reserved for side or outside points. You only are lying here to manipulate a lazy sysop should block the article as if there is no talk on talk page! Look up in all the privies sections and see how i answer u and u ignore them. please don't fool sysops who don't read before they block like u did on Friday to me, but fool me once fool me twice and the joke is on u.--יודל 14:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel

The section headed "Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel" starts with Ger and Belz. Later on the article says that Hamodia publishes articles attacking Zionism. Since Hamodia is a Gerrer-controlled paper, this is inconsistent. An earlier section lists Chazon Ish et al as "opposed to the State of Israel" notwithstanding that these same Litvishe leaders approved of voitng in Israeli elections. The article needs to distinguish voting and participation in the democratic process, on the one hand, from support for Zionism, on the other. The two are not synonymous. --Redaktor 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe its proper to have a section titled like this either Belz is only supportive of Zionism when u ask satmars.--יודל 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the concept. You are assuming that Haredim are not capable of naunce. One can be supportive of the state and still continue the old hundred-year-old argument. Rabbi Porush z"l, the leader of Agudah, did in fact come close to calling Agudah Zionist. In Conversations with the Rebbe, he indicates that he has trouble with Oslo, but that he only has one MK.Mzk1 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

m:The Wrong Version

Yudel, Yiddisher, I am not going to comment on who is correct and who is not here, but I suggest you start discussing this anew, sans the David/Eidah issue. Iz chutsch Elul zman, and perhaps with the yamim noraim fast approaching, you both can approach this issue in the spirit of arevus. Remember, Kol Machlokes Shelo L'Shaym Shomayim, ayn sofo L'hiskayem!

In a nutshell (for the non-Yiddish/Talumd Aramaic speakers) please approach this issue in good faith, and I suggest anew, and work out your differences on talk.

To facilitate the above, I have locked the page for a week to help focus on discussion and not edit warring, and I will clean up the talk page for that purpose as well. -- Avi 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks i hope by then the blocked user will already have established his status here and we will be able to talk without any insults. Also please do not forget to remove this slanderous POV as the above section points out as if Belz or other Hasidim sopport Zionism. thanks--יודל 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record because you don't seem to get it, I'm not Daniel. I've actually reported him several times for suckpuppetry in the past. You are more than welcome to edit here but please discuss things first on the talk page. Be prepared to back your statements up. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Step one, rabosai, is to attempt to talk about the article and not each other. יודל, if you believe, and have evidence, that Yossi is Daniel, then you should report the issue on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Otherwise, it is improper harrasment to make unsubstantiated claims about another editor, and I will not even begin to bring in the Lashon Hara and Rechilus elements thereof. So both of y'all, please comport yourself with the dignity and class I am sure you both are capable of. Thank you. -- Avi 15:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have proof to this but since one name is already blocked i will not go ahead and make my case because i do not want him blocked on this name and on any other names. Case closed, i am stopping to accuse him of any think which is not pertaining from now on, after all he got me blocked so u can understand my pain, but i forgave him and i forgot. Now can u start to erase the Slanderous POV against Belz and all other Hasidim. Or i should turn to other sysops to try this?--יודל 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I'm not Daniel. I would love to see your "proofs." 2) You obvioulsy have no idea how Wiki works if you think that people are just going to remove "the slanderous POV about Belz" just because you request it. Wiki works on RS, NPOV, etc. Please try to keep that in mind. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen i may be newer then u here but i learn the tricks very fast. Here and i am asking u not to belittle me as if only u know how wiki works last time i checked, any assertions about living people must be sourced i don't have to challenge it with sources once i or some future user can challenge a assertion that it negatively affects its subject matter in real life, it has no place in wikipedia without a source. I ask again of user Avi to erase this, i don't even think i have to mention that this was approved by Eida Pichus and lastly user redkover what ever his name in the one above comment about belz.--יודל 16:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, carrot does not seem to be working. Let's try stick. Rabosai, continued personal attacks will result in a temporary suspension of wikipedia editing privileges to protect the integrity of the project. In other words, please stop attacking each other and get down to discussing the article. A Ksiva V'Chasima Tova and a gut gebentched yar to you both, now please get on and act like mentchen. Y'yasher Kochachem, V'chol tuv (in other words, thank you). -- Avi 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi if u don't have patience to Look and read my comments how i answer u then stop saying that i don't talk. be quite and come back when u have time to read, nobody is in a rush here. although i would ask u a 6th time please erase the slanderous piece about Hasidim supporting Zionists, its unsourced and u as a sysop should know better then not reverting to such a version, by now i wsil not asking u anymore this think i have stated alerting other sysops about your unheard off conduct, please don't make this into a bigger struggle because your record will be tarnished by this ignoring my plights, and daring to say that i am silent.--יודל 16:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the paragraphs (regarding Ger and Belz), as currently constituted, are defamatory. However, I agree with you that it is unsupported and likely original research. I will place tags to that effect in the article now, and let Yossi have a week or so to find suitable sources for the information before it gets deleted. I will start a new section below for that purpose. -- Avi 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources requested

Groups which are generally supportive of the State of Israel: Ger and Belz Hasidim

This section needs sourcing. Please find sourcing soon, or it will be removed. Thank you. -- Avi 17:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

While I was not the author of that section, and like many of the sections here seem to be unsourced, I will try to reason. (Firstly, it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.) The main reason why I would say Ger and Belz, as written, is pragmatic in their support is that they are the largest bloc in the Agudat_Yisrael political party. Being a member of the Knesset certainly is a level of support. I'm not sure how much more is needed. It seems pretty clear cut to me. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(In addition, and I'm not sure how we can "verify" this, but it's one of those things that are "known" to all in Israel. Certain groups are "more Zionistic" than others, and Ger and Belz falls into that category.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 14:36, September 4, 2007

Being a member of something does only proof that they are there to suck some community programs and influence the state away from Zionism and more into a democracy ike America, where all frum Jews and secular and Arabs r evenly. there r a lot of Arab members of the Knesset that do not support the Zionism, and Agudas Yisruel ahs one in a half members in keneset. there are sephardim arabs litvakes and many more forms of Jewish groups who do not support Zionism. this isn't a source and it has no place here as proof to call so broadly all those hasidic groups supporters of Zionism. Especially when other users have declared openly that Belz is not part of Agudah, they go every election with somebody who promises them the most money--יודל 18:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossi, while you may be correct (and I am not making a value judgment) relying on reasoning to support a point, no matter how valid, does violate the original research and/or original synthesis policies of wikipedia. If the statement cannot be directly traced to a reliable or verifiable source, it really needs to be removed, I am afraid. -- Avi 18:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't being a part of the government mean you are part of the government? That is why Satmar split from the Agudah and formed the Edah, they opposed the State and therefore did not want to be part of an organization that supports the state, no matter how little. They support the state, at whatever level they do, by virtue of the fact that they participate in the State. Satmar and the Edah don't participate and don't support. Furthermore, if we go ahead with deleting this then I'm afraid 90% of the article would have to be deleted. This part I think would fall under WP:CK. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes i do have axe to grind with them i am entitled to have a personnel opinion, but that is non of your business please stop attacking me personal here. the facts u have written is all wrong if a gere chusid joins the government to extract funds and influence it away from Zionist ideology, it proofs nothing just that he opposes Zionism with a different approach then satmar, they deal with reality and use means to bring it to a end, like the satmars who do nothing just scream and shout from rooftops they actually act and take to the polls.--יודל 19:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

יודל, your assertion of the thought process behind any group's joining the government is also original synthesis. While one can be part of a government while opposing it, you and Yossi both must bring sources to confirm your positions. Your personal interpretation, or his personal interpretation, is not acceptable in-and-of-itself. Both of you, please find sources or the pertinent sections will be removed. -- Avi 19:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi i beg u please stop your blatent one sided handling of the situation here when he throws insults on me u r silent or u talk to me as if i am silent here, now when i refute his reasoning that it does not proof nothing u r trying to paint me as if i tried this reasoning to make it as a source, i haven't edit this page on any reason i just say that reason is not alone enough to have this slanderous negative info, i know u already said that u think its not negative, neither do i, but don't deny some people look at it negative. This is ridicules u leave this for a week, if u will not stop making yourself as if u don't know or understand, i will take this up with u on further action until this page will be corected, please lets not go there and erase this Unsourced POV.--יודל 19:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reb Yudel, I believe I am trying to treat you both evenly and fairly, in accordance with wiki policy. If you believe that I am mishandling the situation, by all means, bring it up on WP:ANI and ask for a third, fourth, or fifth opinion. -- Avi 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Reb Avraham i don't give a damn u r mishandling the situation, thios is clearly your own situation there was no real edit war and u came in and decided to bock it, good for u, it is your choosing, and its not my business if u want to say over and over that i dont talk while u r cleary ying, all i ask is delete slanderous unsourced accusations. i have already emailed other sysops lets see what is their opinion. Good Luck--יודל 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Aza Lashon mittn Elul? Yudel, is this how you want to enter the yamim noraim? Rachmana L'tzlan. -- Avi 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, when you edit in wikipedia, you agree to be bound by its rules; whether you agree with the rules and/or their results. We have processes to handle disputations and interpretations of policy; none of being rude, demanding, abusive, or creating a chilul HaShem are acceptable processes. -- Avi 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi Please do mot lecture other users, u dont remind me of Elul u remind me of Uder, on one hand u agree that this is clear policy that it must be deleted. But on the other hand u give it a weak as if u r allowed to break the policy here, Please don't divert the subject like u do each and every comment of yours stop talking about Elul and about myself the issue is very clear we have unsourced line that Belz supports Zionism and it must be deleted, not after one week but after one second u r clearly against the policy here and it makes me really wonder how u r a sysop here?!.--יודל 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ershtens, it's Adar; Uder is either the word "or" in Yiddish or a misspelled k'chal (ayin Yoreah Deah siman 90). Secondly, it is apropos: Yom KiPurim . Thirdly, you misunderstand. It is not defamatory, so it is not to be deleted posthaste. Original research and unsourced contributions are forbidden, but there is a reason we have the family of unsourced templates: because we give some time for editors to find sources, as long as the potentially incorrect and currently unsubstantiated claim is not libelous. So, I reiterate that you may wish to review and refresh your understanding of wiki policy. Lastly, you think that because this wi wikipedia that I am patur from HoChayach ToChiach? If you tell me that you will persist in acting in a way that could be perceived as a chillul af al pi kayn, then I have fulfilled my chiyuv. -- Avi 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again u r circumventing the subject here to divert other sysops atention from the issue at hand. Please stop playing this game here. Stick to the issue if the line is considered slanderous by only one humen and can therefore be chalanged like i do already for 2 days, even if u disagree on its negative nature, it must be deleted in the spit second not prolonged with your long side points of Ellul and Adar and Kidush and chilul, For the 15'th time: Please delete it since it has no source--יודל 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your attacks against myself and Avi I have brought evidence that Belz is somewhat supportive of the State. "have adopted a pragmatic stance of co-existence with the State of Israel." Pragmatic because they are in the Knesset, etc. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

U did not linked to any outside source your reasoning cannot count here for sources since i refuted them as false reasoning.--יודל 16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm stepping in for the first time in a while, but, Reb Avi and Reb Yossiea are correct in their machshovos and corrections. and the adar-uder thing, some things aren't meant to be spelled phonetically, especially in the galitziner havuroh. --Shuliavrumi 01:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Yossiea's 4 Sept. post. Its not that certain groups are more zionist, they are just fighting from within, buttering up the goverment for it to, Pardon the pun, Slip away, af al gav they aren't apparently doing much to fight the government. But,(to quote reb avi and the Mashgiach) Rabbosai, ah bissele saychel please, this is causing sinas chinam, this is causing Moshiach tzidkeinu from coming b'mheiroh b'yomeinu. Yet, from here on out we should be zoche to a gute chasima, a git gebentched yor und a shoneh d'geuloh yovo im moshiach tzidkeinu, Kayn yehi rutzon Umayn. --23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaul avrom (talk • contribs)

Back on topic

Please find some sources for this section before the week is up, or it will be removed. Place sources here please. Thank you. -- Avi 01:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the article is that they pragmatically support the state of Israel. The source, or one of the sources, is that they are in the Knesset, are the main backers of a Knesset party, etc. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is original synthesis if it were true, and it is not necessarily true, as being a member of the government does not ipso facto (Minay u'Bey) demonstrate support of said government. Being in "opposition" is a time-honored tradition. Thus, if you cannot find a reliable and verifiable source, that section will need to be removed. -- Avi 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

While I was not the author of that section, and like many of the sections here seem to be unsourced, I will try to reason. (Firstly, it seems that YY is going against any chassidishe sect that is supposedly supportive of the State.) The main reason why I would say Ger and Belz, as written, is pragmatic in their support is that they are the largest bloc in the Agudat_Yisrael political party. Being a member of the Knesset certainly is a level of support. I'm not sure how much more is needed. It seems pretty clear cut to me. (In addition, and I'm not sure how we can "verify" this, but it's one of those things that are "known" to all in Israel. Certain groups are "more Zionistic" than others, and Ger and Belz falls into that category.Doesn't being a part of the government mean you are part of the government? That is why Satmar split from the Agudah and formed the Edah, they opposed the State and therefore did not want to be part of an organization that supports the state, no matter how little. They support the state, at whatever level they do, by virtue of the fact that they participate in the State. Satmar and the Edah don't participate and don't support. Furthermore, if we go ahead with deleting this then I'm afraid 90% of the article would have to be deleted. This part I think would fall under WP:CK. I think YY just has an axe to grind with anything that smacks of any chassidishe sect supporting Israel. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, support that relies on an editors reasoning and cannot be sourced to somewhere in print or online, usually indicates a original synthesis or original research issue. Thank you. -- Avi 03:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if a movement is a member of the government, that is pragmatic support of the government. That, and WP:CK is good enough for me to say that they are pragmatic in their support. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I suggest you request a ruling somewhere, because it differs greatly from common knowledge. That the sun shines on the earth is common knowledge. That water is wet is common knowledge. That a particular group of people support a government because they take part in parliamentary procedures is not common knowledge. -- Avi 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The claim is not that they support the government, rather they take a pragmatic approach to government. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the entry in its entirety:

The Ger and Belz Hasidic movements have adopted a pragmatic stance of co-existence with the State of Israel.[citation needed]

Again, I'm not saying they're gung-ho, but they are pragmatic, after all the article will continue to state that they are in the government.

While both movements have a history of anti-Zionism before the establishment of the State just like that of all other Hasidic movements, their positions are comparatively mild. [citation needed] While they do not say prayers for the State of Israel, they do vote, and Ger mildly opposes withdrawals from the occupied territories.

This is a two part entry, the citation needed tag breaks up the entry. They are comparatively mild because while they don't say prayers for the state, they do vote and partake in Israeli politics.

Ger and Belz are two of the most influential movements behind the Israeli political party Agudat Yisrael, which together with the Litvishe Degel HaTorah forms United Torah Judaism.

Again, this is showing a pragmatic approach to the State, compared to the Eidah or Satmar, etc.

If that is so, why are they in the "generally supportive" section? -- Avi 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's because they are not generally opposed, like the Eidah, Satmar, Dushinsky, etc. If someone wants to re-word the headers, I'm OK with that.

How about "generally supportive or pragmatic in their approach to Zionism" or something similar? The opposed section I think can remain the same. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Groups which are generally opposed

I would like sources for the litvisher and Eidah section. All items referenced was pre-State. I would like sources post-State, but I am willing to go WP:CK on this, as well as on the Belz/Get because it's "just one of those things that everyone knows." Yossiea ^(talk) 03:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should move the Lithuanian ('Litvish') Haredi Judaism section to the support/pragmatic section. They are not as vocal as the Eidah and they vote. That puts them in the pragmatic grouping. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

With the new grouping, I moved the Litvishe group to the support/pragmatic as the entry clearly states that they vote, have their own party, etc. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Page re-opened

Without reliable and verifiable sources listed above, I have deleted the material in question and re-opened the page for editing. Please add material together with sources. Thank you. -- Avi 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So you basically didn't read a word I wrote and just caved to the Daniel-like behavior of YY? Sadly, this is the reason why Wikipedia can't be used as a true encyclopedia, because authors are scared away by aggressive and ad-hominemy authors. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User avi have deleted whole chunks that were never in question. i have undone his deletion--יודל 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardal is under "not so opposed?" :) I think what we should do is rename the heading to Support/Pragmatic and have another one for Opposed. Whether or not they are supportive is up for grabs, but they are certainly pragmatic and that would eliminate some issues. Besides, the current wording is not very professional, IMO. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do fix it.--יודל 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the heading. As it stood it didn't make sense and it was too negative. This looks more NPOV, IMO. I think we can close this dispute, it looks OK to me. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all information that has been unsourced for seven months, with the exception of the Tshuvas Reb Moshe where I will attempt to look up tonight when I get home from work. As time goes on and more information remains unsourced without the minimum standards that wikipedia requires, the article will continue to be pruned. Sourcing requirements will be applied evenly and equally to all elements of the article, without regard to political positions. Re-adding removed material without sources would be considered improper; seven months is more than adequate time to find sources.

Yossi, as I pointed out above, no matter how obvious it is to you, without a reliable and verrifiable third-party source, it isn't allowed under wiki policy. -- Avi 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:CK is for? It's irrelevant now as it's now in a different category, but if everyone knows that they vote, that's good enough for Wiki. How else can you explain them in the Knesset if nobody voted for them? Yossiea ^(talk) 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even so, WP:CK does state that “…although, as always, if your edit is challenged, no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you must cite a reliable published source.” You were challenged by Yudel, so you need to find a source. If it is that obvious, it should not be too hard, no? -- Avi 16:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a Wiki article on the Agudah party: Agudat_Yisrael. Like I said, it's moot now that the heading wording was re-worded. Besides, I think this whole article was originally created to WP:POINT and to push a POV so I wouldn't be too upset if this page was deleted. Yossiea ^(talk) 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yossi, wikipedia can never be brought as a support to itself, and that goes for any wikipedia mirror such as Answers,com. Are there sources IN the article you can use? -- Avi 16:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is the Jewishvirtuallibrary website. It is also, and I can't keep saying this, common knowledge that the Agudah is chassidshe and Degel Hatorah Litvish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Agudah=Litvish/Belz Chsidish is OK. Please bring the JVL source. -- Avi 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I added two references. One was the JWL site and the other was a Haaretz article detailing the debate over who should be in UTJ and how one of the people were the rebbe's choice. Yossiea ^(talk) 18:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Avi stop speaking in my name i have never challenged yosia on your edits against him, see my talk how u even dear to agree that your deltion here was part of your job and i disagree.--יודל 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

So who made these statements (among others I can bring):

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

-- Avi 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All those statements is meant on one word that belz is suportive of the Zionistic state once its written in context that they are not that opposed as satmar but only like viznits and like all hasidim litvakes and main stream Hariedim ike Yossia has fixed it, it is true and not anymore a fact without sources, because the big picture as satmar vs. the whole Hareidi world is well referenced and sourced.--יודל 16:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rules are rules, Yudel. With the various and opposite points of view that are being brought by various editors here; strict adherence to policy is the best tack to take to make sure more edit wars do not result. -- Avi 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

and lets be very clear about the last statement, YY and Yosia havnt broken any rulls only the third user who's name sounds like this last signutre of the statmenet so he should adress his words to himself first and foremost.--יודל 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, now you are engaging in personal attacks. Please desist. -- Avi 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry that u jumped here but i don't speak about u personal, not did i mentioned your name it was a comment on a comment that u named my name, if u see this as a persanal atack then surly your coment is also a persanal atack and i apoligise and ask u to apoligise to me and the other user.--יודל 17:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Newspapers

Avi, nothing major, and I'm posting here merely as an FYI, but the Yated is the main newspaper of Litvaks, the Hamodia is Chassidishe. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know about the Yated and Pinky Lifshutz; he lives near my parents . Whether or not the HaModia and or the Yated is fundamentally chassidish or litvish is irrelevant. The Yated is a suitable source for this material without our making qualitative statements about it. -- Avi 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, that's why it's merely an FYI, I'm just being nit-picky. Also, Pinky Lifshutz is the American Yated, they have nothing to do anymore with the Israeli Yated. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

True :) -- Avi 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Now about the sockpuppet case....... :) (Can you just close the case or something?) Yossiea ^(talk) 21:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather someone not involved take a look at this point. Especially as I feel Yudel has been less than civil towards me, I want to make sure that there is no appearance of impropriety (Moznai Tzedek, Avnei Tzedek, Ayfas Tzedek, V'Hin Tzedek...) -- Avi 21:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Crc and Dushinsky don't belong in seperete sections=

Crc is like the Moetses Gedoly HaTora from the Agudah, it is just a satmar rabbinical organization, and dushinsky is part of the Eida. Just like we don't make a separate section for all the different Agudah groups we do not inflate one side more of the other especially when dushinsky and crc are a minority of Hareidim, who most Hareidim r more with the Agudah on this issue then with Satmar, and the improper separate sections for those 2 groups makes the article sound as if more hareidim are with Satmar that's a false POV impression. thanks--יודל 12:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

I nominated this article for POV checking. As it stands now, the article is weighted heavily and pushing one view. Yossiea ^(talk) 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to expand on that please? Do you mean that there is not enough weight given to pro-Zionist haredim? Feel free to add whatever you can find! --Redaktor 15:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeing with yosia here the header of the article gives some false POV pushing, what does Haredim have to do with Zionism, we aren't supposed to make such an article in the first hand, i think this article is better to be renamed as a selective group of haredim who are busy with Zionism and their life is all about Zionism and Haredim, those groups of Haredim that do not have to do with Zionism should not be mentioned at all. I will now rename this article as Orthodox Jewish Anti-Zionism.--יודל 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Page Move

Why the page move? The lead is all about Haredim and the article is all about Haredim. I don't see the need to move the page. Furthermore, such an action on a controversial topic is not proper. I will revert, and if you feel the page should be moved, start a discussion on the talk page. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the article it should not only be about Haredim.--יודל 15:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell. The article is still H and not OJ so the page should remain here. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok i will take my time to further edit this page according to your concerns.--יודל 16:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

U Tube videos

Avi is currently involved in edit waring [7] [8] with other users including myself that posting u tube isn't in accordance with this policy WP:EL, i urge him to explain himself which part of that policy the videos are in contempt.--יודל 13:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yidisheryid: An "edit war" is not a "one way street" it involves more than one party and it looks like you are in it as much as anyone else. Try WP:CIVIL before requesting from the world to jump in "on" others. IZAK 00:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry it is avi against 2 users.--יודל 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very limited view

This seems to be almost a coalition of anti-Haredi Zionists and anti-Zionist Haredim to give a rather lopsided picture. I recently heard an academic lecture at which the lecturer (a woman in full Dati Leumi regalia) has done a study which showed that Haredim participated in all aspects of the state including the underground and the illegal immigration. The people in the DP camps were tired of running, and didn't want to go anywhere but Israel - there are plenty of sources for this.

Participation in the Army was higher than now, not lower. For one thing, there were few exemptions before Menachem Begin. There used to be Gerer units. The Ponovitcher Rov is widely quoted as not saying Tachanun on Yom Ha'atzmaut. And Hesder is Dai Leumi (except for half of Shala'avim); you are thinking of Nachal Heredi.

Also, please differentiate between anti-Israel and anti-(or non-)Zionist. Agudah-type publications (how come no-one mentions Mishpacha?) are very pro-Israel, at the same time as they attack the movement. I was in Meah Shearim during the shelling in 1980 that led to the First Lebanon War, and they were saying Tehilim for three days straight.

Finally, this is all if one defines Haredi based on Zionism (which I believe to be correct). If one considers Chassidim Haredi, then I recommend the (positive) article that appears in Kulmus (supplement to Hamodia or Mishpacha) last Pasach which mentioned the Zionist (and socialist!) Chasidim who founded Kiryat Ata (just North of me) and K'far Chasisim.

Please stop rewriting history. Thank you. Mzk1 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rav Moredchai Eliyahu is Chareidi?

The section of reasons for opposition says that the late Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu is Chareidi. On what basis is this claim made; the Dati Leumi certainly don't treat him that way?Mzk1 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If he was chareidi, I'm Reform. No sane person would call him chareidi. No disrespect intended, it's just the plain truth. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although many of his views are quite Chareidi. For example, his view on Mechitza appears stricter than Rav Moshe's. And he stated that a soldier should refuse a direct order rather than listen to a woman singing.Mzk1 (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous edits on 2 and 10 Oct 2011

Hi anon. The Edah, and affiliated groups, strongly oppose Zionism. Not secular Zionism - but all forms of Zionism. Our viewpoint is that it is forbidden for Jews to rule over the Land of Israel, forbidden to organize massive immigrations to the Land of Israel, forbidden for Jews to oppose/rebel against the peoples of the world, and more, until the coming of the Messiah. Our opposition to Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with it being secular or it being so-called 'religious' Zionism. For us, 'religious Zionism' falls into the same category as kosher pork. Please stop your completely false, unbased and misleading edits immediately. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)