Talk:Matzpen

Weasel Terms

the following changes were made and are posted here for discussion:

- Does Matzpen still exist

• founded in 1962 and active until the 1980s in Israel/Palestine.

changed to:

• founded in 1962 and active until the 1980s in Israel.

main reasoning: The Israeli movement was created within' Israel and not inside "palestinian territories", let alone that until 1967, there were only Egyptian, Jordanian and Israeli territories and no Palestinian ones. Jaakobou 17:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Matzpen considered itself to be an organisation operating in areas under Israeli rule, rather than an "Israeli" movement. It had members in the 1967-occupied territories, as well as inside the state of Israel. So it is accurate and appropriate to describe it as operating "in Israel and Palestine", and I have restored the phrase. RolandR 12:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of Matzpen still being active? I have not seen any new material from tem for at least a decade. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at home at the moment. When I'm back, I can check my files; I'm sure they still meet in Tel-Aviv, and take part collectively in campaigns and demonstrations. They are also still active in London; a couple of years ago, I marched on an anti-war demo holding their banner, together with Moshé Machover. Shimon Tzabar was also with us. RolandR 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

for now i removed it per last phrase here [1], seems like you've added a factual error (also doesn't correlate with the rest of the article. Jaakobou 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The text does indeed say that, after a split in 1982, Matzpen members "continue to meet regularly every fortnight, but they no longer operate as a group" (this is also in English, at [2]). But this is contradicted by, for instance, the publication, on the same Matzpen website, of a July 2005 statement by in the name of Matzpen, which notes that Matzpen "has decided to endorse the call of Palestinian Civil Society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel". This confirms my understanding that they are (or at least in July 2005 were) still organising as a group. The same statement was also published by them in Hebrew, as was an obituary for their comrade David Shas, who died in October 2006. This includes a photo of him at the Matzpen picnic on 1 May 2003. I repeat, Matzpen is still active as a group; the statement on their website is incorrect, and contradicted by other documents there. RolandR 16:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they have stopped being active at least 20 years ago. The last publication of the Matzpen journal dates from 1983, and whether a couple of people meet for picnics every couple of years is hardly relevant to the issue of absence of any structures or organised activitiesRangreen 17:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR, It sounds like you're clinging to (what seems to be) a single copy/paste article and an obituary(??) to support your theory. Jaakobou 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at the 1995 statement mentioned by RolandR, and it is not a statement by Matzpen, but a statement endorsed by Matzpen. The web page does suggest that Matzpen still has a PO box. The matzpen.org website is registered in the name of Eran Torbiner - the guy who made the film.

I do follow Israeli politics quite closely and have not seen any evidence of them being recently active as a revolutionary party (rather than a veterans club). Last week there was a General Strike in Israel, but there was no sign of any intervention on their part. The last I heard of them was during the first Intifada when they ran two front organizations: one was Hala Lakibush, and the second was Hafarperet. Hafarperet was based on young Israeli year olds who wrote a letter to Rabin to say that they refused to serve in the Territories. It was quite successful, producing a monthly paper, with around 30 members. The leaders were recruited into Matzpen. It looks like they liquidated themselves in the early 90s, with many of their members remaining active in the Committee to Free Vannunu, the Alternative information centre or becoming social activists. One of their splinters re-formed briefly in 2002 - The Socialist Workers Leauge and had a web site www.swlp.org (and can still be found at [3]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually much more complicated than that, Abu Ali. Hafarperet ("Mole") was a youth group associated with the Revolutionary Communist League, a descendant of Matzpen which was the section in Israel of the reunified Fourth International. Hala HaKibush ("Down with the Occupation") was based in Haifa and Tel-Aviv around former members of various Matzpen splits, but it was never -- particularly in Haifa -- a Matzpen "front". In Jerusalem, with a different balance of political forces, former Matzpen members were active in the Hadash-led Dai la Kibush ("Enough of the Occupation").

Meanwhile, the former Matzpen members, and others, who were actibve in the Socialist Workers League (your archive link doesn't appear to work, by the way) are still organised, as the section in Israel of the International Marxist Tendency. They have a website, in the name of the League for the Defence of Marxism, which appears very similar to the sites of other affiliates of the IMT; regular articles by their comrades appear on the main IMT website.

Other former Matzpen members operate as the Organisation for Democratic Action/Da'am, which is also linked to the Workers Advice Center (Ma'an) and to Challenge magazine.

Yet other former Matzpen members organise as the Committee for One Secular, Democratic Republic in All Palestine, and are involved in the production of Dialogue, "A Political Review of Discussion Between Arab and Jewish Activists of Palestine".

This is only part of the complex and scattered nature of the various descendants of the original Matzpen.

And, despite what Rangreen writes above, I believe that a group calling itself "Matzpen -- the Israeli Socialist Organisation" still exists, and occasionally organises. By the way, the statement I mention is from 2005, not 1995. And although it is indeed an endorsement of a Palestinian statement, the text states that Matzpen "has decided to endorse the call". If a group has a PO Box, and can decide to make decisions and issue them in its name, then as far as I can see the group exists. RolandR 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK it exists in the sense that a group of people who stay in touch and occasionally meet exists. But not in the sense of an active organisation, producing a regular paper, and interveneing in the struggle. And also not in the Wikipedia sense of doing anything significant enough to be commented upon in the Israeli mainstream media. Nevertheless it may be interresting to do an article about the evolution, spits of the Israeli Left. Any volunteers? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I found the following link [4] which says that Matzpen disbanded in the 90s as a result of disagreements amongst its leading members. Should the be included in the article? ابو علي (Abu Ali)

You've misread that (secondary) source, Abu Ali. What it notes is that the Revolutionary Communist League -- formerly Matzpen-Jerusalem, and with a magazine called Matzpen Marksisti -- dissolved. The comrades still meeting occasionally in Tel Aviv would dispute their claim to be the sole successor. I should create an article on the RCL, which certainly deserves one. RolandR 13:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading it. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

- 1967 occupation

• The organisation grew in the period after the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to the occupation and in favour of a de-Zionized Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

changed to:

• The organisation grew in the period after the 1967 Six-Day War. Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to what they reffered to as "the occupation" and in favour of a "de-Zionized" Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

+++

• With the rise of new, vibrant and less ideologicaly rigid protest movements in the 1980s, in opposition to the continued occupation

changed to:

• With the rise of new, vibrant and less ideologicaly rigid protest movements in the 1980s, in opposition to what they described as "the continued occupation"

main reasoning: (1) the combination "1967 occupation" follows a strictly pro-arab/anti-israeli narrative and neglects the aggressive manouvers done by egypt and other in that period of time - i.e. POV presentation. (2) there are different designations to teritories and the current wiki-agreed designation is "disputed territories" and not "occupied" which is POV.

Shalom to my friend Jaakobou. The implication of the phrase "what they descrive as the occupation" rather than the simpler "the occupation" is that the West Bank was not occupied by Israel, but presumably liberated, redeemed, or whatever else. But as this is not a Kahanist blog or an Israeli foreing ministry propoganda site, we should call things as they are, hence the occupation will be called by its actual name. I will also point out that User:Jaakobou has given me a final warning for what he descibes as blanking this page: [5]. This is an attempt to intimidate those with another point of view by means of threats, an approach which I must say is characteristic of occupying regimes. Better to try to reach a consensus with those who disagree with you than try to intimidate them into submission. Best wishes ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello to my "zionist loving" friend Abu Ali, for starters, i'm not a kahanist and i consider the mentioning to be a personal attack since the movement is outlawed here in israel. secondly, you have not reverted your edit which was done after the talk page conversation occurred (and this is the second time you call out user RolandR to your rescue in a case of wikpedia abuse). lastly, but far more important - same as you might be displeased with the phrasing "what they describe as occupation", i am displeased with the discription "occupation" which is a narrative in support of the arab-muslim dar-al-harb theory. for instance, the term is neglected when jordan and syria and egypt are mentioned and israel is blamed for the Six day war. a more suitable terminology for a situation that is still disputed is "disputed territories" but since we are dealing with an extremists leftist group, we should use their terminology and place the quotation marks on it.

last note, if you and your friend keep "tag team revert" on articles i will be forced to report it - and that is not made as an intimidation threat, it is noted for proper wiki editing protocol... something you still need to get used to.

last last note, you should seriously consider self reverting and continuing the discussion here. Jaakobou 09:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Jaakobou, I didn't say that you were a Kahanist and a don't think that you are. The occupation is not a narrative but the reality on the ground. When you leave school and go to the arm y you will find this out for yourself if you are sent to man a machsom. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ابو علي (Abu Ali), I've done my 3 years service like we're all forced to do because of the occupation narrative. regardless of your personal designation, the agreed-upon wiki term is "Disputed territories" (and not "occupation"). I first expect that you self revert your obvious tag-team revert so that i may remove the warning from your userpage. and secondly, that you give me a proper reasoning or better phrasing for a more suitable wikipedia agreed terminology for this article than "in opposition to the continued occupation". on a side note, you did not adress the first change as to the time/location of the creation of this organization. Jaakobou 17:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As you have been a soldier you will know from direct experience that the regime in the territories is a regime of occupation, a foreign regime maintained by military force, complete with checkpoints, and all the trappings of military rule. And as you have been a soldier, I would like to ask (as an unraletd point): What did the state give you in return for these three unpaid years of your life? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I see that you did file a complain against me [6]. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ابو علي (Abu Ali), please adress the issue of phrasing in the case of "occupation" on wikipedia, (not in a narrative "you will know from direct experience" lingo). Jaakobou 09:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! The article says:

Its aim was to create a broad front of people opposed to the occupation and in favour of a de-Zionized Israel, which will form part of a socialist federation of the entire Middle East.

. This is a perfectly NPOV description of Matzpen's aims. Adding in qualifications such as "so called" and "what they considered to be" is plain editorializing. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NO, it's a perfectly POV presentation of Matzpens perceptions, for example, Just because a right-wing group might call Arab presence in Hebron "occupation of murdereous muslim", it does not mean that such a phrasing can be written as such without a "what they describe as" before it. Jaakobou 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that one is the truth, and the other is a lie. RolandR 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RolandR, you keep confusing your personal narrative with "truth", should i remind you of the 1929 Hebron Massacre? and i'm not even going into previous large scale pogroms in Hebron from 1834 and earlier.

"what they describe as" should be inserted before claims that are largly in dispute... otherwise you could delete the name Israel from every article and replace it with "occupied palestine" - see presentation: [7] Jaakobou 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That the West Bank and the Gaza Strip were militarily occupied by Israel in 1967 is not at all in dispute. This is the case according to both international and Israeli law. What is in dispute, is the justification for the occupation and the political future of the territories in question, but that's a separate issue.Rangreen 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Six day war

That the Israeli army took control over those areas does not negate the difference between the term "occupation" and the less POV term "presence".. for starters, i think there should be no dispute what-so-ever about the first change inside the "first change", i.e. changing 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza to 1967 Six-Day War. there can be better and less narrative phrasing for the other problematic portrayal on events. Jaakobou 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should there be no dispute? No matter what Jaakobou or anyone else says, this is not a politically-neutral change. The very name "Six Day War" is POV; it is an Israeli and Western usage, not accepted by Palestinians or the Arab world. RolandR 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

well then, RolandR, what is the wiki accepted term for the six day war ? Jaakobou 12:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Israca.jpg

Image:Israca.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

add a website to the external links

What about to add this website to the external links http://www.akiorrbooks.org/ with books were written by Matzpen members?

07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rangreen's cleaning of 16:02, 26 July 2009

Rangreen hi, I'd like to receive some explanation from you about the reasons you had erasing the facts about "Matzpen's Case" and not theoretical only side of it's activity. As I think we are at Wikipedia, not at Matzpen's propaganda site. Or you have another opinion?

My one is obvious, so I have to return the article to it's '23:37, 23 July 2009' version till your explanation.
- Igorp lj (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your vandalism. Israeli domestic spy agencies are (1) not a source of political analysis, and (2) they never referred to Matzpen in the source you cite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangreen (talk • contribs) 12:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC) The section that was removed on "Matzpen's case" is a distortion: neither Matzpen nor any of its members were on trial; the Israeli spy agency did not refer to them on its web site, and its version - in any event - reflects a political agenda rather than 'facts'. Rami Livneh and Meli Lerman were nor part of any espionage network, they were never charged with espionage or with having anything to do with Syria, and they had nothing to do with the Adiv-Turki organization. That they are lumped together in this text, and conflated with Matzpen, is an attempt at smearing all of them rather than offering any facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangreen (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC) By the way, I doubt that a Wikipedia item on Alexander Solzhenitsyn would use a KGB official characterization of him as a traitor and lunatic as a valid source of information about him, or that an item on Nelson Mandela would use the apartheid secret police's definition of him as a communist terrorist as a valid source about his politics or even merely a legitimate opinion...Rangreen (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

vandalism - you say?

That's the pity to see here at Wikipedia so clear Marxists' love & technique to blame anybody in what itself is responsible for. The best example of real vandalism is your "editing" of 16:02, 26 July 2009 as well as your current one – without any evidence – only wp:Original Research with so known Marxist’s jargon.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn & KGB?!
I have to remind you that just Marxist's government and its KGB victimizes A. Solzhenitsyn. I may not understand those peoples who either not living in the former USSR or does not read even if a couple of words about what really is the practice of Communist’s power makes such comparisons with Israel. May be you can say me what would be a fate of your “heroes” from Matzpen if they were not in democratic Israel but under Communist’s KGB? It'll be interesting to know your version.
Returning to the subject: before you really bring some references to prove what you wrote – I have to undo your wp:Original Research. Sorry.
- Igorp lj (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There was no "Matzpen Case", Matzpen was never on trial, nor were any of its members at that time. The sentence about how it was defined by Israeli state security is simply a lie and therefore was removed.Rangreen (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) As for the KGB/Shabak/FBI/Boss (bureau of state security in apartheid South Africa), they are all security police forces whose task is to eliminate political dissidents- I wouldn't trust a word they are saying with regard to political opponents, and definietly not use any of them as a historical source: they are paid to lie in the service of the stateRangreen (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if Igorp is lying deliberately or simply misunderstands the text. Either way his version distorts the facts. The Shabak report he relies on is not about Matzpen: it does not target the organization, it does not characterize it in any negative way, but refers to it as "an anti-capitalist and anti-Zionist organization", it does not accuse Matzpen of anything, and does not apply terms such as terror, espionage or treason to it (this can be ascertained easily by going to the report itself). None of the people mentioned in the report were members of Matzpen at the time they were arrested, or at the time they supposedly committed offences against state security. The report does refer to some of them as FORMER members of Matzpen, in the past tense. The report is full of inaccuracies and unsupported statements, but that's a different story. To present it as evidence of "the Matzpen case" is simply a fabrication (whether out of malice or ignorance is not really important).Rangreen (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Instead of normal discussion - personal attacks ?

“I don't know if Igorp is lying deliberately or simply misunderstands the text”. - how it’s boring with you.
That’s the pity but I’ve already had to write above, that methods of Rangreen are so similar to such ones of the KGB he mentioned there.
So I can just repeat his sentence but with true name and some addition: “I don't know if Rangreen is lying deliberately or simply misunderstands the text”. Or simply attempts to whitewash the dirt deals of Matzpenists and to use Wikipedia as propaganda site.
And it’s so interesting to see how he tries to come unscrewed, changing his versions

• from “neither Matzpen nor any of its members were on trial” to “The report does refer to some of them as FORMER members of Matzpen”,
• from total denying of Shabak to the efforts to use for his purposes its only official text what I’ve brought to here.

By the way, it’ll be useful to place it here (not only in Article) to let compare just here between Rangreen’s tricks to resolve Matzpen (ISO), Red Front and Revolutionary Communist Alliance, and what really is written NOT only by Shabak:
yet from Rangreen:

• they never referred to Matzpen in the source you cite
• the Israeli spy agency did not refer to them on its web site
• Rami Livneh and Meli Lerman were nor part of any espionage network

versus

• even that, what is written in current Article version (may be by himself :) ):

In 1970 the organisation started going through a process of ideological and organisational fragmentation, with some members leaving to form new groups, such as …Ma'avak (Revolutionary Communist Alliance), with a Maoist orientation, led by Ilan Albert and Rami Livneh. A further split within the latter organisation saw the formation of the Revolutionary Communist Alliance - Red Front, led by Udi Adiv and Dan Vered…

• from Shabak:
  • Amongst the detainees there are two young Israeli-Jews, extreme left wing activists and pro-Chinese communists, who were active in “Matzpen
  • Udi Adiv ... a member of an ultra-Maoist segment of Matzpen called “The Red Front”. This group was at the time Matzpen's most radical segments.
  • Turki had recruited Udi Adiv in the summer of 1971, after meeting him at a “Matzpen” conference
  • Adiv began in the work of recruiting Jewish members to the network. In this way, he recruited Dan Vered, David Cooper and Yehezkel Cohen
  • the most well-known was the account of the connection between two members of the “Matzpen” faction “The Revolutionary Communist Alliance” and a member of the PLO. The two, Rami Livne and Mali Lerman, were arrested and confessed.
  • and The End with avove-mentioned names:

In March 1973, Turki, Adiv, Vered, Subhi and Kar‘awi were convicted of treason. Turki and Adiv were sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment, Subhi and Kar‘awi were sentenced to fifteen, and Vered was sentenced to ten years. Yehezkel was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and Cooper was sentenced to five. Other members were also sentenced to various periods of imprisonment. Only one of the accused was acquitted due to insufficient proof.

Rami Livne and Mali Lerman were convicted and after appealing, their sentences were eased: Livne was imprisoned for four years and Lerman for two. The publication of the affair in the media on December 8, 1972, caused great shock amongst the public, due to the unprecedented fact of Jewish participation in an Arab network of espionage and terror. The media called the network “the Jewish-Arab espionage and terror network”, although the Jews were only one small cell in a broad Arab network. The effect of this shock was even greater because of its timing: the network was exposed a short time after the Lod Airport Massacre (May 1972), which was carried out by individuals sent by terror organizations, and the murder of the Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympics (September 1972).
The focus of public attention was, of course, focused on the Jewish members of the group, especially Adiv, a former kibbutz member and Vered, a high school teacher and counselor.

The comparison between Adiv, who betrayed the country and the late Uri Ilan, an IDF soldier who committed suicide in the Syrian prison in the early 50’s, both from Kibbutz Gan Shemuel, was inevitable. The message that Ilan wrote before committing suicide, “I did not betray,” became a national legend in Israel.

Yet references - NOT from Shabak, but mainly with the same names and facts what Rangreen so tries to hide or to explain from one side only.

• Davis, Uri, Arab Studies Quarterly:

In February 1973 Israel was rocked by the political trial of Daud Turki, Udi Adiv and Dan Vered, together with their comrades in the Red Front. The trial marked a milestone in the history of the democratic and anti-Zionist opposition in Israel. It transpired that the Red Front, a splinter offshoot of the Socialist Organization in Israel (Matzpen in the early 1970s) aimed to form a common anti-Zionist military resistance underground for Arabs and Jews inside Israel and link forces with the PLO resistance to Zionism and the Israeli occupation. Some thirty people, Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel, were brought to trial. In the course of the trial it became known that Udi Adiv traveled clandestinely to Damascus via Athens to meet PLO resistance leaders. The case - dubbed by the Hebrew press as the "Syrian spy ring trial" - was to become the most sensational political trial in Israel to date. Udi Adiv and Daud Turki were sentenced to seventeen years imprisonment each. Dan Vered received ten years. Israel and Syria were on the war path and later in the same year, the third Israeli-Arab war to rock the region, the October 1973 war, was launched as a successful joint Egyptian-Syrian attack against Israeli forces in the occupied Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights.

• Time Magazine:

First, Adiv became a member of the Israel Socialist Union, generally called Matzpen (Compass) after its publication. The group is revolutionary socialist and condemns Jewish colonialists for seizing all of Palestine from the Arabs. Two years ago, Adiv formed the Revolutionary Communist Alliance-Red Front, which has world revolution as an ill-defined goal, and enrolled a dozen members. Among them were Dan Vered, 28, a fellow Sabra and a high school math teacher in the small town of Kfar Saba east of Tel Aviv; David Kupfer, 26, a sometime petty thief and burglar as well as a dedicated Communist; and Yeheskel Cohen, 30, an Iraqi-born hotel clerk who speaks six languages.

Last week all four faced life sentences for espionage. Under questioning, Adiv and Vered admitted visiting Damascus, flying there by way of Athens and Cairo on Israeli passports and special papers provided by an Arab contact. Adiv, according to police, told his Syrian hosts as much as he knew about Israeli military bases and weapons and about anti-fedayeen protective devices installed along the borders. He was taken to watch Palestinian guerrilla training and be instructed in sabotage himself. "I taught them much more than they could teach me," he told interrogators haughtily.

Adiv returned home with instructions to pass on further information on Israeli military operations. But Israel's intelligence agency—commonly called Shin Bet from its Hebrew initials—has infiltrated radical groups. And when Shin Bet learned that Adiv's organization was planning a move of some sort, it smashed the ring.

• Arie Bober, February 1972 : (including some Israeli opinions about Matzpen in 60-70 ths ):

M. Bar-On, head of the youth department of the Jewish Agency and former chief educational officer of the Israeli Army, declared in the March 31, 1970, issue of Yediot Aharonot:

“Matzpen is nothing more than a gang of traitors ... Matzpen is the same as Fatah ... They are the real initiators and planners of the poisonous Fatah propaganda against Israel ... [that is] distributed in Britain and Europe ... Matzpen doesn’t want peace ... they are traitors and self-haters and their only wish is to destroy Israel and its people and to erase their name from under the sun.”

On June 4, 1970, the parliamentary caucus of the ruling Labor Party discussed a motion to that effect presented by Knesset member Matilda Gez. Prime Minister Golda Meir opposed the step, not from any consideration of democratic principle, but because, as she put it, “Matzpen would be more dangerous underground than it is now.” [5]

Under the headline Action Against Israelis Who Slander the State Abroad Will Be Considered, the July 15, 1970, Ma’ariv reported: “The Foreign and Justice Ministers were invited to a meeting of the coalition leadership to make a final decision on the action to be taken. There was general agreement that this phenomenon must be stopped.” The report continued, “Mr. Y. Klinghoffer [member of the Knesset] said that he will press for a law permitting revocation of the citizenship of Israelis who slander the state abroad.”

An especially lamentable aspect of the witch-hunt campaign against dissenters has been the haste with which many “doves,” ‘liberals” and “radicals” have rushed to disassociate themselves from the ISO in order not to further antagonize the Zionist establishment. Indeed, Moshe Sneh, until his death in 1972, leader of the Zionist faction of the Israeli Communist Party, and Uri Avnery, leader of the New Force Party and publisher of Ha’olam Hazeh, led the attack on the ISO...

• Arie Bober, IV.Conclusion  :

The ISO is today in the very early stages of the development of such a party. In it are gathering the initial cadres of this party. They are being educated both theoretically and practically, and they are being tested in the experience of actual social struggles as they exist today. They are gaining the experience and the numbers that will make it possible for them to lead the great mass struggles of the future, struggles that will bring about the break with Zionism, the development of mass revolutionary socialist consciousness and the eventual achievement of state power through the victory of socialist revolution in Israel.

The most funny thing is that under these facts though he has to change its “fairy tale” about Matzpen to more real one.
One may compare for example his versions of ‘16:02, 26 July 2009’ and the current one of ‘14:33, 28 July 2009’.
It’s was so hard for him, but now he already “knows to write” even though such semi-truth as :

• one of the organizations to emerge out of Matzpen, the Red Front, had a brief history of just over a year. At the end of 1972 many of its members were arrested and charged with espionage and collaboration with the enemy (Syrian military intelligence)…
  

So I hope we may find compromise concentrating my references and his info under NEW paragraph titled something as “Matzpen & "Syrian spy ring trial" (as it was in Israeli mass-media) :).
To be continued in the Article according to my opponent's willing for cooperation. - Igorp lj (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The Red Front trial

The facts in this case are as follows:

The Red front was created in 1971, as a split from the Revolutionary Communist Alliance - Ma'avak, which itself had left Matzpen in 1970. Many of the Red Front members were arrested in December 1972 (in other words, 2.5 years AFTER they had left Matzpen). Others who were arrested and charged at the same time had never been Matzpen members.

Matzpen as an organization, and its members at the time, were NOT targeted by the Shabak. None of them were arrested, and the Shabak report does not make any reference to them as having been involved in 'espionage' and 'terrorism', as individuals or as a group.

Matzpen and other organizations that split off from it (two factions of Matzpen, Avangard, Ma'avak) were not involved in any of the activities attributed to those arrested at that time, and disagreed with the tactics adopted by them. However, they expressed their solidarity with the detainees, condemned their persecution and prosecution, campaigned against their torture, and denounced the whole affair as a 'show trial'.

Turki, Adiv and their colleagues admitted they went to Damascus but denied working for Syrian military intelligence. Their goal was to establish links with revolutionary Palestinian organizations. Their vision of armed struggle as part of an overall revolutionary campaign was not shared by other Matzpen factions and split-offs. It was based on the notion of joint Jewish-Arab uprising against Zionism, imperialism and Arab reaction, rather than on collaboration with the existing Arab regimes (which they denounced).

Livneh and Lerman were NOT part of the 'network': they were charged with something completely different, having met a Palestinian activist in Jerusalem, and not reporting to the security police about their meeting. They were never charged with espionage, terrorism and the like

I have included a separate section on the trial in the current version, because it is important indeed (though already covered in other wikipedia items).Rangreen (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What occupied territories?

The article refers to " the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's occupation". User:Breein1007 has repeatedly removed a link from this to the article Israeli-occupied territories, claiming that the article and sources refer only to the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, while the linked article refers also to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. However, the sources do not make this distinction, and Matzpen consistently opposed all Israeli occupation, including that of Sinai prior to 1979. It is both distorting the sources, and deceiving the readers, to argue that Matzpen opposed only the occupation of the areas currently part under control of the Palestinian Authority, and to suppress this link. RolandR (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please show me in the source where you see this. I have been unable to find any such thing after reviewing the source. If not, I will be submitting a report of your edit warring based on WP:OR. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli rule over the West Bank and Gaza was always more controversial in Israel than its rule over the Golan Heights and Sinai. I can give several reasons to that, but that's beside the point. I think it's common sense to infer that Matzpen objected the Israeli rule in the GH and Sinai. It would be very hard to find a source that specifically indicate these areas, because the focus has always been on the WB&Gaza (even today), and yet it is highly unlikely to assume that Matzpen acknowledged the Israeli rule on the GH and Sinai. I think this is a case that qualifies for "Use Common Sense". DrorK (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Dror, but I have to disagree. I don't think that's common sense at all. The Israeli rule over WB+Gaza Strip has always been more controversial in Israel than Golan because many more Israelis are against the former than the latter. It is WP:OR to assume that Matzpen had anything against the rule of the Golan unless there is a source to indicate this. It is highly documented that Israelis have always been and still are very nearly unanimous in the opinion that the Golan is and will always be a part of sovereign Israel. WB+G on the other hand is much muddier. Breein1007 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be original research to claim that, when Matzpen documents refer to "the occupied territories", they mean anything other than the Israeli-occupied territories. If you want to argue this, you would need to provide a reliable source for this claim; from my knowledge of Matzpen, its history and positions, I do not believe that this would be possible. Just because you believe that the Golan Heights should remain under Israeli rule, and you assert that "Israelis have always been and still are very nearly unanimous" in this same opinion, it does not follow that Matzpen, a dissident radical organisation, believed this. Common sense dictates that words convey their normaal meaning, unless there is proof to the contrary. RolandR (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat myself one final time. Show me in the source where it states your claim. When I looked at the source, it discussed only the West Bank and Gaza. If you can't show me where it says otherwise in the source, you are inserting unsourced claims into the article. Your "knowledge" of Matzpen is useless to our purposes. Breein1007 (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

<- I don't understand this edit war. This Matzpen page states 'Immediately after the war, Matzpen called for Israeli withdrawal from the newly occupied territories and against an attempt to impose a political settlement. This statement was published in the first issue of Matzpen published after the war, in July 1967.' (my bold). That seems to be completely unambiguous, no ? Also, does anyone know where exactly the image used in this article came from ? I can't find it and I'd like to see what else they have as the artwork is superb. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term, as used by Matzpen, is completely unambiguous. They did not spell out what exactly constituted the occupied territories, because it was obvious to them, and to everyone else. They clearly never entertained the possibility that, forty years later, an editor on Wikipedia would dispute this and argue that, since they didn't specifically identify them, their usage must have reflected what he described as "nearly unanimous" Israeli opinion.

Because of this, contemporary sources do not appear to mention the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Sinai. Nor do they mention the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; they just state "the occupied territories". It is possible, through close textual analysis, to see that they included all of these territories. For instance, in their famous statement of 1 January 1969, "Down With the Occupation", they criticise the emphasis by Israeli strategists on “the presence of the Israeli Defense Forces along the new lines, from the shoulder of Mount Hermon, along the Jordan River and on the banks of the Suez Canal up to the Straits of Solomon”"[8]. This was endorsed in the 2005 statement endorsing the call of "Palestinian Civil Society for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights, writing "Thirty eight years into Israel's occupation of the Palestinian West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel continues to expand Jewish colonies"[9]. Similar references can be found elsewhere; while it will not be possible to find a single reference indicating that Matzpen accepted the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem.

The graphic was taken, with permission, from a copy of the magazine in the archive of the International Socialist Group. It is also available on the website of the Israeli Revolutionary Action Committeee Abroad[10]. Although uncredited, it was the work of Shimon Tzabar, who was a noted graphic designer as well as an author and activist. RolandR (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for your very comprehensive reply. Glad to see Shimon Tzabar has an article. Wiki coverage of political graphic design isn't great. I only discovered recently that there wasn't an article about Viktor Deni which was a bit surprising. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a most bizarre exchange: there is not a single reference or even a hint that Matzpen failed to oppose the occupation of the Golan Heights. From June 1967 onwards, its position (and the position of all its factions) called for withdrawal from ALL the occupied territories without ANY exceptions, ever. Look at any of the publications contained in The Israeli Left Archive (the first item in the External Links section) and you will remain without doubt as to the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.0.242 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, just to be pedantic, regarding Breein1007's statement "It is highly documented that Israelis have always been and still are very nearly unanimous in the opinion that the Golan is and will always be a part of sovereign Israel." is incorrect. It's about "two-thirds of Israelis who object to withdrawing from the Golan Heights even for peace with Syria". Sean.hoyland - talk 12:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

I added the POV-check tag because I belive there are several statementrs that are not neutral. Especially in the Red Front trial section. Bob (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you point to the statements in that section that you find to be non-neutral? Looking at it, it seems to me to be very factual and accurate, and any POV statements regarding their motivations are clearly ascribed to the defendants, rather than being written in Wikipedia's neutral voice. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

this reply does have the unintended consequence of evoking hilarity. The section in question reads collaboration with 'the enemy.' The failure to pick up the objection on this point should fairly be seen as a cause for a permanent denial of further wikipedia editorship 84.213.82.142 (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Have I got this right? Some random IP, with no other edits to its credit, calls for me to be permanently blocked on the basis of a talk page edit I made more than nine years ago, in which I ask another editor to explain the reason for an NPOV tag. What a preposterous suggestion! RolandR (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

At the bottom of the page under the heading External Links the hyperlink to the documentary "Matzpen" is broken.

I believe that the documentary is now hosted on YouTube @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfcFno2pqJg

92.40.31.85 (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done It appears the link is correct. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Still looking for a publisher?

In the Origin section, there is a reference which may no longer be accurate:

[... the book] Peace, peace and there is no peace - an English translation was completed in 2009, and the authors are looking for a publisher.

Is this still the case? Worth fixing, if not. Otherwise, it should be "...an English translation was completed in 2009, unpublished, as of August 2016". Volker Siegel (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I have amended the text, including a link to the online translation at Aki Orr's site. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Matzpen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723100725/http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?u=120&p=doc4 to http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?u=120&p=doc4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723100734/http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?u=120&p=doc3 to http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?u=120&p=doc3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724020406/http://matzpen.org/index.asp?p=revolution50 to http://matzpen.org/index.asp?p=revolution50
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915230126/http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/document/mideast/toi/index.html to http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/document/mideast/toi/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723100741/http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?g=67 to http://www.matzpen.org/index.asp?g=67

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)