Talk:Theodor Herzl

Typo in "Family" Section

I think there's a small typo in the fourth paragraph of the "Family" section in the article. Currently, it reads "Hanz Herzl voluntarily had himself circumcised 29 May 1905". However, everywhere else in this section, the article spells the name of Theodor Herzl's son as "Hans" rather than "Hanz". Ariel Don (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Zero^talk 08:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the supererogatory 'voluntarily' doing there? Hans was a deeply disturbed adolescent at the time (and for all of his life) as everyone knows, and Amos Elon for one states he 'underwent circumcision apparently at the urging of Herzl's disciples.' Nishidani (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

Change "Pinkser" to "Pinsker" in the last paragraph of section "World Jewish Congress" of this article. I assume based on context that "Pinkser" refers to Leon Pinsker. Ariel Don (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ariel Don:  Done. GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Atheism

There is an archived discussion about whether he was an atheist or not. I don’t know the answer. But I do know it’s strange for this article to have three separate categories at the bottom saying he was an atheist, while the rest of this article doesn’t address the question at all. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently he was 2601:40F:600:32E0:4C28:4161:785F:11F4 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you please provide reliable sources about it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Zionist forefather Theodor Herzl was an atheist, as was his close colleague Max Nordau.[1] found on an LSE blog, not suitable for the article. imilarly, political Zionism’s founder, Theodor Herzl, was a secular agnostic and perhaps even an atheist. Israel’s founding generation was anti-religion and convinced that Judaism as a faith was on the verge of dying, as the veteran peace activist Uri Avnery recalls [2] seems to be a thesis of some kind. I think "secular" is probably a better description, since it's not clear if he was agnostic, atheist, or simply not religious. Andre🚐 02:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a difficult question without a clear answer. I've seen sources going both ways. In Herzl's diaries there are many statements invoking God in terms that a theist would use, but there are also things like this:

When I say “God” I do not mean to offend the free-thinkers. As far as I am concerned, they can use “World Spirit” or some other term in place of this dear old wonderful abbreviation by means of which I get across to the simple intelligences. In our academic battle of words, we still mean one and the same thing. In fact, in belief as well as in doubt we mean the very same thing: that it is inexplicable! (June 12, 1895)

I incidentally mentioned my views on the Deity. I want to bring up my children with a belief in what might be called the historical God. To me, “God” is a beautiful, dear old word which I want to retain. It is a wonderful abbreviation for conceptions that might be beyond the grasp of a childlike or limited intellect. By “God” I understand the Will to Goodl The omnipresent, infinite, omnipotent, eternal Will to Good, which does not immediately prevail everywhere but is always victorious in the end. For which Evil, too, is but a means. How and why, for example, does the Will to Good permit epidemics to exist? Because epidemics cause musty old cities to be torn down and new, bright, healthful cities to come into being, with inhabitants who draw a freer breath.

Thus, anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the divine Will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.

My conception of God, is, after all, Spinozistic and also resembles the natural philosophy of the Monists. But I think of Spinoza’s “substance” as something inert, so to speak, and that incomprehensible universal ether of the Monists seems too intangible and too vague to me. But I can conceive of an omnipresent will, for I see it at work in the physical world. I see it as I can see the functioning of a muscle. The world is the body and God is the functioning of it. The ultimate purpose I do not and need not know; for me it is enough that it is something higher than our present condition. This I can again express with old words, and I gladly do so. Eritis sicut dei, scientes bonum et malum [Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil]. (August 18, 1895)

These quotations from "The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl", ed. Patai, trans. Zohn, Volume 1, are of course unusable without secondary source support. Zero^talk 06:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024

In this phrase:

On 2 July 1946, Norman wrote

please remove 1946, since two sentences earlier there's a reference to "29 June 1946". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024 (2)

In this phrase:

Mission in Washington, D.C., In late August

please remove the second comma, since there are two separate sentences here. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Herzl's one-time dream to convert Jews to Christianity

It's INSANE that nothing of this is mentioned on the most consulted edition of Wikipedia. This is thoroughly covered on the Hebrew edition. In Israel, Haredim have delighted themselves for decades with sending around VHS tapes detailing this (YouTube now allows automatic subtitling from Hebrew, fyi)

I don't have much time right now to write that stuff, and you people might do a better job at this than me anyway. I found his complete translated diaries here, and the original German can be found around here. Happy learning. Synotia (moan) 15:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The OCR'd diaries are here, even easier for Ctrl+F'ing. Synotia (moan) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2024

The following quote from his diary should include the text immediately before and after the chosen citation. It is all part of the same relatively small paragraph. The text in bold is what I think should be added.

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly. Let the owners of immovable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.

This is on PDF page 97 of the following document: https://ia903407.us.archive.org/2/items/the-complete-diaries-of-theodor-herzl/The%20Complete%20Diaries%20of%20Theodor%20Herzl.pdf

Additionally, the sentence in the Wiki article prior to that quote uses it for misleading purposes:

"Herzl had confided to his diary the idea of spiriting the Arab population away to make way for Jews"

But the entry is not talking about Arabs, it is talking about the poor. In fact, the diary section immediately following the prior quote and written on the same day reads:

"It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire old world a wonderful example."

Thanks for reading :)

Baskismash (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Better Baskismash to use https://archive.org/details/completediarieso0001unse/page/88/mode/2up as the source since it leads directly to page with that entry. Mcljlm (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty handy, didn't know it existed. Thank you!

I also just noticed that quote is used twice in seemingly contradicting ways. In the "Diplomatic liaison with the Ottomans" section it is used to show intent to remove Arabs from the region. But, in the "Writings" section, it is used to show tolerance, humanitarianism, and inclusion. I believe the latter is actually representative of Herzl's views as written in his diary, while the former is a mischaracterization. Baskismash (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I knew Baskismash that all 5 volumes were at https://archive.org/details/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzl_201606/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume1_OCR/mode/2up and https://archive.org/details/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume3OCR/TheCompleteDiariesOfTheodorHerzlEngVolume1/mode/2up but I only discovered Vol. 1 on its own after entering Complete Diaries Of Theodor Herzl in IA's search box. Mcljlm (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

At the time he wrote these diary entries, Herzl was not certain that the future Jewish commonwealth would be in Palestine. So it is not precise to report it in terms of "Arabs", though of course a Palestine application of the principle could only be about Arabs. It is worth reading the following few pages regarding how Herzl envisaged the "voluntary expropriation" to be carried out by secret agents. Calling any of this humanitarian is a real stretch; actually it is the same "it will be good for the natives" claim that colonialists always make. But, anyway, our personal analysis is not valid content in this article. For a scholarly source, start with this article of Penslar. Penslar notes that Herzl later wrote much the same thing, though in more diplomatic language, in a public document. Zero^talk 03:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is not precise to speak in terms of "Arabs" then why is the language in there? It shouldn't be. Making it about Arabs only serves the purpose of contradicting what Herzl was quoted as saying in the preceding paragraph about the letter, which showed him as, at a minimum, tolerant of the local population.

----

What follows is more about my personal response to you and less about the wiki article.

Penslar has his own controversies. The thought exercise you linked to (besides being sparsely sourced and largely opinion) is using this same quote to try to claim malevolence. That's a circular reference and a mischaracterization in the sense that it contradicts Herzl's own words. I am also curious which public document you're referring to where Herzl writes much the same thing? The language "dark scheme" shouldn't appear in anything serious in academia, anyway. But I digress...

I have read Herzl's diaries and he never once speaks ill of Arabs or the theoretical "local population." He spoke of trying to incentivize people to leave so they could bring more Jews in, but he never envisioned force.

Another diary quote incoming:

"There is an Arab movement which intends to make a descendant of Mohammed Caliph. The Caliphate was stolen by Sultan Selim. Now it ought to be restored, as a sort of papacy with Mecca as Rome!"

And finally, many real estate transactions are carried out by "secret agents" specifically to avoid prejudice and price gouging. There is nothing nefarious about that. Herzl consistently mentions his humanitarian intentions in his diary as well. His plan consisted of bringing Jews, prosperity, and inclusion to Palestine. Isn't that humane, and not in the "it will be good for the natives" sort of way?

Now, I understand that Israel itself is a complicated topic which does indeed include people who did bad things. This seems like it's projecting a bit of that onto the wrong person. Baskismash (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

(1) Whichever country Herzl had in mind when he wrote those words, "the penniless population" implies most of the population. (2) Herzl's malevolence or benevolence should be judged by independent experts, not by himself. (3) You misread the "descendant of Mohammed" entry; there he is just reporting the opinion given to him in person by Ali Nuri Bey. Nuri was a Swedish journalist who became a Turkish citizen then was appointed Turkish Consul-General in Rotterdam until he was sentenced to life imprisonment for intrigues against the Turkish government. Given how badly Herzl wished to make deals with the Turkish Sultan regarding the future of Arab Palestine, it is most unlikely that he would be proposing to replace the Sultan by an Arab. (4) Since you say you have read Penslar's article, why are you asking me which open document he is referring to? Zero^talk 12:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is an article that may help you understand my view (linking to the Herzl part):

https://www.meforum.org/711/benny-morriss-reign-of-error-revisited#:~:text=Herzl.%5B15%5D-,Distorting%20Herzl,-Consider%2C%20for%20example

1) That is true, but he also spoke of finding the least inhabited land to move to. Which is what they did end up doing. He also spoke of paying high prices, providing loans to displaced people, and doing land swaps with them. Hindsight shows us that did indeed happen. Omitting those in favor of a [kick out the locals] sort of view is disingenuous at best, and libelous at worst.

2) I agree, but his words and actions are all we have to go by. It is not right for these people to put words in his mouth or to distort the meaning of what he did say. Particularly when they need to selectively quote him to do it.

3) Fair point, I see that now. My mistake.

4) Yes, I have read the entire thing and am still not sure what you are referencing. My guess is the JOLC charter? Not sure why you won't just tell me what you're referring to. After all, to assume is to make an ass out of u and me, right? Regardless, don't you see it as an issue that Penslar also selectively quoted that passage? It's manipulative to slice quotes like that in almost any context.

I think it's at least absolute fact that the paragraph I keep talking about is a partial quote. That prompts the question, "why was part of it left out?" To answer that, I think of the meaning conveyed. If the additional parts of the quote are included, it changes the meaning. That means those additional parts should not be left out. Right? Because if words need to be omitted to convey a desired message, that is not the honest message.

Wikipedia's own policy warns on this:

"Quotations should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful not to quote material out of context to avoid misrepresenting the meanings and intentions of the source."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#:~:text=Quotations%20should%20be%20representative%20of%20the%20whole%20source%20document%3B%20editors%20should%20be%20very%20careful%20not%20to%20quote%20material%20out%20of%20context%20to%20avoid%20misrepresenting%20the%20meanings%20and%20intentions%20of%20the%20source. Baskismash (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a reason I never cite Karsh on Wikipedia. Anyway, I dispute "Penslar also selectively quoted that passage" as it is a false claim. Zero^talk 00:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It leaves out the very first sentence in that paragraph in Herzl's diary:

"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us."

Why only quote 90% of the entire entry? That's what I mean by selectively quoting something. Baskismash (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, why don't you cite Karsh? I am unaware of and currently unable to find anything that brings his credibility into question. Baskismash (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A scholar is entitled to consider that that sentence has no evidentiary value. So Herzl claimed to be proposing something of benefit to the state (note well: not to the residents of the state). Would you expect him to claim the opposite? As before, it is not for Herzl to judge his own historical standing anyway, and this sentence has no other content. Regarding your last question, I try to maintain a higher sourcing standard than the bare minimum demanded by policy and have a list of "wiki-reliable" sources that I consider unreliable from experience. Karsh and Pappe are both on that list. Some others, too. Zero^talk 01:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you've already made up your mind on this. Is this just your decision based on your preferences, or do other editors have a say as well? Baskismash (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway for the time you spent on this. Baskismash (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

IT doesn't look like there is any kind of consensus to implement this request, so I'm closing it. (t · c) buidhe 23:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

two possible improvements

could someone with edit access please change the sentence in the last paragraph of the 'Diplomatic liaison with the Ottomans' section

 'As to al-Khalidi concerns...' to ' As to al-Khalidi's concerns...'

the sentence requires an apostophe s to denote possession. 

also,the last paragraph of the 'World Jewish Congress' is pretty sub-standard.

thanks Potholehotline (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Please add as the last sentence in Early Life ...

At the same time, Herzl was trained as a fencer, and in the late 19th century he wrote articles about fencing duels between Jews and French anti-Semites. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:55B3:6538:8C66:9F00 (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)