 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Leibowitz and homosexuality
editI am deleting the section about Leibowitz's attitude towards homosexuality. First, it is far from being certain what his view on the subject was. He was willing to talk about it and did not denigrate the seriousness of the problem for religious people finding themselves in such a predicament. However, he did not suggest any changes - of a humanistic kind - in the traditional "halachah" and did not talk about a need for special dispensations for such people. Second, this topic is not of the more predominant topics in Leibowitz's writings. His political views, his discussion of values and facts as being two totally separate categories, his expectations of a state of Israel, his views on women's emancipation, etc. were much more important and deserve mentioning. Homosexuality is not a particularly pressing subject for Leibowitz, it is clearly important, as everything else, but its importance may be as great as the importance of his view on the institution of kibbutz, or on the treatment by the government of Sefardic Jews after their having come to Israel, and the article in Wikipedia should mention it only if it purports to include absolutely everything ever said by the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.178.110 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per the article "noted for his outspoken and often controversial opinions on Jewish ethics, religion and politics" seems to me his referenced views would be more than appropriate for the article. If the views were unimportant then they wouldn't be spoken or written about. Benjiboi 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Leibowitz did not talk a lot about homosexuality and this is not where he was controversial. He was 'controversial' in his political and religious views, do not invent things about the man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.73.210.21 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the sentence on that theme is rather cumbersome: "...homosexuals should do their best to remain observant Jews". Isn't it meaningless, as according to that world-view, _all_ Jews "should do their best to remain observant Jews"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.143.206 (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Political Views
editI have removed the previous date given for Leibowitz's "Judeo-Nazi" remarks, which stated it was "shortly after the Six Day War in 1982". Unless 15 years later is considered "shortly after" this cannot be accurate. Can anyone help with this? I have been told that Liebowitz made these comments after Israeli soldiers were caught on camera beating a Palestinian stone-thrower during the first Intifada but I cannot find a source to corroborate this.
- Maybe this video will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3csrCx5Ndo I don´t speak hebrew so I am not really sure.--Mrfoxtalbot (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
A citation is also needed for the statement that Liebowitz "repeatedly affirmed his belief in the validity of the Zionist endeavor". The previous link was broken but belonged to the website of the World Zionist Organisation, which i do not think can be viewed as an impartial source.Stillmans39 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
undue?
editYou all are removing what he himself says as UNDUE? Explanation please. nableezy - 16:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Leibowitz said many things. What MEMO chose to summarize in a piece not about Leibowitz is UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thats nonsense, Leibowitz talking about his own views in a biography of Leibowitz is definitionally not UNDUE. Why should we not include what he said about Qibya? How is it UNDUE in the biography of Leibowitz to include his views? nableezy - 16:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Here are sources discussing Leibowitz's view on Judeo-Nazi
- NYTimes obit
- LATimes obit
- The Zionist Ideas: Visions for the Jewish Homeland--then, Now, Tomorrow
- Washington Post
Tell me again how including this is UNDUE? nableezy - 17:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Given the lack of response, I am restoring that material. nableezy - 18:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
External links
editBoth external links are broken. If it's not possible to replace the URLs with article links at the same sites - nothing indicates the intended articles - they should be replaced with others. Mcljlm (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)