Talk:Meir Kahane

Untitled

Why is he listed in the category "American Criminals"? 148.78.243.121 04:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes on supposed affair

It must be noted that this affair was denied and has no coroborating evidence. The only people writing about it are Rabbi Kahane's political nemesis.

It must also be noted that unlike what someone wrote below: "Since the NYT source is impeccable..."(sic) the NYT has been caught red-handed in allowing lies to fester when it is against those whose politics they dislike. References for that have been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 04:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NYT is a good source per WP:RS. I can't see any real policy grounds for removing the section and some of the changes you've made don't really fit in with the style requirements. You could be entirely correct and it's a political concoction, I have no idea, but it meets the standards for inclusion as far as I can tell. Sol (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't read your own source WP:RS. :)

"The reliability of a source and the basis of this reliability depends on the context. No source is universally reliable. Each source must be carefully weighed in the context of an article to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source."

I didn't suggest taking away the section - is that a straw man? It is proper to note the context and the people reporting per wikis guidlines that you refered to.

If you feel something doesn't fit in the style guidelines then be specific and point out how or make it stylistically pleasing. Don't remove something because you personaly don't like it.

I did not do that and neither should you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a strawman. If the information were from a bad source then it should be removed. If you've got any sources talking about how the NYT's is wrong on this/made it up/etc. then you could insert them as a counterpoint but you can't editorialize within the article itself. It's not because I personally don't like. Sol (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand my point. Its not the "New York Times" but its the author that is being questioned. The point about the NYT is that they do not have a double-check but rely on the authors.

I gave a source indicating the author's bias and that is his own statement on his desire to broing Rabbi kahane down for the Rabbi's political beliefs which this author is in in disagreement with. So I am willing to hear how you would put in the very fair questionability of this source. But to ignore that totally ... wrong and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Obituary makes no reference to what it is supposedly referencing which is why I'm removing it. The village voice statement has no reference either and it is being removed until reference is made.

I note that there are people here removing items from this page with no reason given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairnsquare (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No relevant relation to topic titled section; no corroborating evidence to heavily biased anti-Kahane author who called Kahane "EVIL, a militantly strutting minion, a redeeming thug, a shtarker, had racist supporters, his legacy caused slaughters among supporters under his spell, and was cruel."ShivatTzion (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The revision about borders is not supported by the sources. The interview makes no claim about land being seized only in war-ipso facto, the most reasonable interpretation is "minimal borders".70.190.102.49 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Nosair was aquitted?

"Kahane was assassinated by El Sayyid Nosair in Manhattan in 1990 after concluding a speech in a New York hotel"

El Sayyid Nosair article states: "He was also charged by the State of New York as the gunman who killed Rabbi Meir Kahane...While acquitted of that charge Nosair was convicted of weapons charges"

Wikipedia find Nosair guilty as charged? I'm sure his lawyers will find that interesting.

Placed requests of sources on all the assertions of Nosair being convicted of murder that I noticed. The editor with such a casual disregard for the facts even had the gall to place this in the so-called encyclopedia!!! LOL -> "Nosair was acquitted of murder because no witness had actually seen him pull the trigger." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.224.251 (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

One doesn't need an eye witness to find a murderer guilty of murder. He was seen immediately after firing the shot with the smoking gun, he ran away and shot some one else. The reason he was acquitted was because his liberal Jewish lawyer tricked the predominantly black jury into believing that Kahane hated blacks (which he did not). The judge rightfully criticized the not guilty verdict as being inconsistent with the evidence. (David Kessler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am puzzled about this part:

"The killer was recharged, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment some years later, after the discovery of his membership in one of Sheikh Omar Abd El-Rahman's terror cells connected to Al-Qaeda in the United States."

In the first place, it is a confusion to refer to Omar abd-al-Rahman as connected to al-Qaeda. The 1992 World Trade Center bombing was a separate conspiracy from the 2001 attack. I also want to know: how was Nosair "recharged"? We are not supposed to have double jeopardy in the United States. This needs elucidation. Hadding (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits since May 1st 2007

Or there abouts. If you look at the differences, there seems to be quite a bit of difference. Can anybody look at all the changes and see what is what. I remove a little bit about Goldstein. Thanks! --Tom 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC) I sorry, but you forgot towrite down an Israeli and a Jewish Nazi, it is much more relevant then describing him as an activist.

To call him a Nazi is both silly and dishonest. There is no record of killing any Arabs, although he did advocate expelling them. (David Kessler) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

OK, if the assassin wasn't a terrorist or murderer, what is he? Also, do folks agree that Kahane was assassinated or should it be murdered? Thanks, --Tom 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just because the man was murderer you can't call the responsible a terrorist. Just called it responsible/s.190.173.223.91 19:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this was an assassination and should be called so. Kahane was a political activist, a leader of a nationalist movement, if you will. Since the nature and purpose of the killing was definitely political based on religious motives, the responsible is to be called terrorist Ehud 04:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If the supposed assassin was acquitted, he should not be described as the killer. Even in America one is presumed innocent until proven guilty - or did the "Patriot Act" do away with the presumption of innocense?

Intro

'I edited expansions in the intro. which is not supposed to contain them. The second contains this material, which is regiven below in the appropriate section dealing wih Kahane's death. It can't stay in both places, and should not be in the intro. since that deals with Kahane not with Al Qaeda, and terrorist incidents:-

'El Sayyid Nosair later stood trial for the murder in state court and was acquitted of murder, though convicted of firearms possession. Later he faced Federal charges including Kahane's murder as part of the 1993 al Qaeda terrorist truck-bombing of the World Trade Center and plots to bomb the United Nations building and to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. He was convicted on these Federal charges and is serving a life sentence. 'Nishidani 15:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

References

"Former member"

I deleted the word "former" from "former member of the Israeli Knesset". He's dead, so it doesn't matter much that he's a former MK.

It was restored with the explanation that he was expelled from the Knesset before he died. I don't see how that is relevant. It doesn't make the word "former" any more useful.

Finding a concise encyclopedic way to explicitly mention that he was expelled in the opening paragraph may be useful, though. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Former in "former member of the Israeli Knesset" is VERY important. It recognizes the fact that he was expelled. if it wasn't in there people may get confused. Contribiter423 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Psudeonym"

Psudonym is a purposefully loaded word, and difficult to spell. Meir Kahane had pen names, just like Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut and tens of thousands of other authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.146.35 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

JTF Support

I think that it is obvious, that a Kahanist group is one of his supporters. Thus it doesn't need to be placed on the Supporters list. --Doom777 (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so obvious to the non-jewish or Kahanist reader.

Please don't remove it.

Likeminas (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? While a non-Jewish or Kahanist leader won't know all Kahanist groups, if someone knows that JTF is a Kahanist group, it is obvious that they support him. Also, why single out this group, while there are many other Kahanist groups? --Doom777 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiability so if you know of any other groups that support him and can provide a source for it, please by all means, feel free to include them as well.

Nonetheless, you cannot remove sourced information on the basis that you don’t like it.

Likeminas (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Is JTF truly a kahanist organization? Are there any valid sources that prove it exists outside of its website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.93.235 (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps on trying to link JTF article. What's the connection? Ideology? Link it to Kahanism, not here. --Vicky Ng (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Meir Kahane's Life as Michael King

• • • • 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)In 1971, as reported by Michael T Kaufman in The New York Times (and subsequently followed up by The Village Voice in the early 1980s), Rabbi Kahane lived a double life in the 1960s. He lived as Rabbi Meir Kahane in Brooklyn as the founder of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a columnist of The Jewish Press and a loving father and husband. In addition, under the pseudonym of Michael King, he had an apartment on the upper East Side of Manhattan where he lived with a gentile woman, Gloria Jean D'Argenio. In 1966, Rabbi Kahane/Michael King sent a letter to Ms D'Argenio where he unilaterally ended their relationship. In response, Ms D'argenio jumped off the Queensboro ("59th Street") Bridge; she died of her injuries the next day. Rabbi Kahane admitted to Mr Kaufman that he loved Ms D'Argenio and had sent roses to her grave for months after her death.

//www.nytimes.com/1994/03/06/weekinreview/remembering-kahane-and-the-woman-on-the-bridge.html It has been speculated that Rabbi Kahane's rabid anti-Jew/gentile relationship stand was at least partially based on his own unhappy experiences.

• • • • 14:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the NYT source is impeccable, I don't see any reason why this can't go into the article. Zero^talk 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I added this section to the main article back in September, 2009. Why was it removed from the article? I subsequently readded it in April 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SurfFlorist (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Let's Talk Cats

It keeps coming up in this article so it seems like time we address it: should Meir Kahane be in one of the terrorism categories? Sol (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What keeps coming up is pure vandalism. --Vicky Ng (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In the manner it's been done, pretty much, but it's got some merit. Kahane did found/lead at least 2 groups labeled as terrorist organizations, enunciated a philosophy of Jewish terrorism against Arab terrorism and was arrested for his involvement in various plots. Does that justify the label? Maybe. Sol (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? Groups labeled as terrorist organizations long after his assassination for actions he had nothing to do with? So, let's add Jesus and Mohammed to terrorist categories then. Regarding "philosophy" and "plots", see WP:TERRORIST. --Vicky Ng (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If it were solely on the grounds of groups he started later being labeled terrorist organizations then I'd agree. But I think the stronger argument for putting him in the "Jewish religious terrorism" category is his role as the ideological foundation for extremist rhetoric and his very clear encouragement of terrorism. That plus his arrest record relating to various terrorist plots, in America and Israel, doesn't leave much question that he was actively involved in the ideas he espoused. This isn't labeling him a terrorist(WP:TERRORIST only covers in-article but I could be wrong), per se (although plenty of RS do), but acknowledging his role as a central figure in the philosophy and political foundations of Jewish terrorism. Bonus reading: Planned biological attack against the USSR? I'm glad that one got shelved. Sol (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. He could have discussed capturing a Marsian city with the same degree of seriousness as a Soviet City. Don't forget, this is in the middle of Cold War, not long after Vietnam, student unrests, etc. JDL's protests were no different from countless rallies of those times, none of them leading to terrorist designation. Their "terrorism" - always gimmicky, only to get their story on page 1. Yeah, "terrorists" holding meetings at their Brooklyn headquarters, how amuzing. Don't you see a fundamental difference between this article and other articles categorized as terrorists? --Vicky Ng (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I had to do a double-take when I read the FBI report, it was too bizarre not to share. Sol (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the formal designation of terrorist groups by the FBI and Treasury Department didn't begin until the 90s, not that it's the only source that matters for WP's purposes. The JDL was involved in a number of violent attacks and plots under Kahane's leadership (from the ADL):

September 27, 1970: Two members of the JDL, Avraham and Nancy Hershkovitz, were arrested in an alleged plot to hijack an Arab airliner. The two were arrested at Kennedy Airport carrying firearms and explosives. They were later indicted on six counts by a grand jury but pleaded guilty only to a charge of passport falsification.

May 24, 1972:In an apparent effort to disrupt U.S. - Soviet relations, four people, two of which were reported to be members of the JDL, were arrested and charged with bomb possession and burglary in a conspiracy to blow up the Long Island residence of the Soviet Mission to the UN.

July 17, 1973:Rabbi Kahane stated in Israel that he had written to JDL members in the U.S. suggesting they blow up the vacant Iraqi Embassy in Washington.

February 8, 1975:Rabbi Kahane was accused of having conspired to kidnap a Soviet diplomat, to bomb the Iraqi Embassy in Washington, and to ship arms abroad from Israel, when he was there in 1972. As a result, a federal judge scheduled a hearing on revocation of Kahane's 5-year probation, dating from a July, 1971 conviction for making a firebomb.The judge subsequently found Kahane guilty of violating his probation, and imposed a one-year prison term, which Kahane began serving on March 18 of that year.

Multiple RS call the group a terrorist organization and Kahane a terrorist. I think this claim has merit. Sol (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If the american conviction content in the article stands, we definitely should categorize him as a terrorist, since he was apparently convicted of terrorist acts, and admitted as such. I havent checked the article history since 2010, but if its been there consistently for a while, the category should be added.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

KAHANE AND BIRCH SOCIETY

One reason why Wikipedia often cannot be taken seriously as an "encyclopedia" or even presenting fact-based articles -- is revealed by this article on Kahane.

Contrary to claims made in this article, Kahane never "infiltrated" the Birch Society for the FBI nor was he ever a "consultant" to the FBI concerning the JBS. Even his widow, Libby, told me that she had no corroborating documentation for this claim.

I possess the entire FBI HQ file on the JBS (12,000 pages; HQ 62-104401) along with most FBI JBS-related field office files -- and there is no mention whatsoever of Kahane nor is there any document which mentions somebody whose description would correspond to Kahane.

In addition, FBI field offices that used informants within any organization had to first prepare a summary memo about their proposed informant and then request authorization from HQ to use them.

After HQ approved use of the informant, periodic field office reports were submitted to HQ which summarized whatever info the informant provided and the field office would characterize every informant's data in terms of reliability (such as "of known reliability" OR "unknown reliability" OR the office assigned a percentage such as "informant information found to be 95% accurate".

BUT there are no such documents in any FBI JBS-related file because the FBI never sought or had informants within the Birch Society!

For an actual example showing how an FBI field office requested permission to use an informant and reported on reliability of information received, see the following documents pertaining to Rev. Delmar Dennis who infiltrated the most violent Klan in our nation's history---the White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi. Notice, too, that the Bureau assigned a code name and symbol number to every informant. Significantly, NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST on Kahane with respect to "infiltrating" the JBS for the FBI.

http://sites.google.com/site/ernie124102/dennis

Beyond that, every FBI informant usually had expenses (e.g. travel to/from meetings, purchasing publications, membership dues, etc.) plus many were compensated for their services weekly --- so, obviously, FBI files always contain expense reports or memos reporting whatever monies were paid to them. BUT there are no such memos or reports whatsoever in ANY JBS file----because the FBI never had informants inside the JBS!

Furthermore, you have to ask the obvious question: what information about the JBS did the FBI supposedly want that it could not obtain except by “infiltration” by "informants"?

Lastly -- the FBI never conducted a formal investigation of the JBS. Informants were used by the Bureau primarily in instances where official investigations were conducted -- such as, for example, inside the KKK and CPUSA.

There were, of course, people who contacted the FBI of their own volition and then provided unsolicited raw information. In fact, many JBS members and JBS officials contacted their local FBI field office to ask questions, to report information such as telling the FBI they planned to subscribe to a Communist publication or to tell the FBI about some person or organization they suspected of being "subversive" or "pro-Communist", etc. If the contact was in person or by phone, an FBI Agent usually recorded the information in memo form and the memo became part of the JBS file (and/or other relevant files) but it was considered RAW information--which had not been verified as to accuracy.

The FBI Chicago field file on the JBS (100-36671) contains a serial which illustrates how unsolicited raw information was often received from citizens---but the person providing the information was not an FBI informant.

Serial #420 is a 29 page memo concerning a February 25-28, 1966 National Coordinating Committee meeting of the W.E.B. DuBois Clubs of America (Chicago file 100-40865). The FBI characterized the person who provided the information contained in that memo as “has furnished insufficient info to determine reliability”.

Page iii of the memo contains a “remarks” section at the bottom which makes the following comment about the person who provided the information:

“He is not being considered for PSI (potential security informant) because he holds ‘ultra-right’ views and it is not believed he could be controlled. However, he has been advised the FBI will be happy to receive any information he has that he feels might be of interest to the FBI. [Name deleted] because of his ‘ultra-right’ views is afforded no direction by the Chicago office.” [Chicago 100-36671, #420; 3/31/66].

It is not uncommon for FBI files to reflect information received from people whom the Bureau described as "mentally unbalanced" or "a bigot" or "extremist". It is also clear from FBI files that certain types of people would not be seriously considered as informants--including those whom the Bureau thought might want to use their association for personal benefit or who might embarrass the Bureau because they were unstable or irrational or considered to be political extremists.

For example: In an FBI memo dated January 21, 1964, the Bureau proclaimed that...

"As a matter of fact, the Bureau will not approve any individual for development as a confidential informant if he is a member of the John Birch Society." [FBI HQ file 62-104401, serial #2027, 1/21/64 memo to Mr. Callahan from (name excised)].

While it is possible that Meir Kahane contacted the FBI in New York City to report something he thought they might like to know, that hardly would convert him into an "FBI informant" Ernie1241 (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo

I added a photograph of the graffiti, 'Gas the Arabs'. I understand there have been some passionate efforts to blank the photograph across several languages of Wikipedia, but I've only seen it done for apparently nationalist reasons. Given that there are reliable sources which connect vandalism in Hebron calling for the murder of Arabs to Meir Kahane, is there a sound reason for blanking the photograph? If using the photograph here seems unacceptable to you, or fails to meet some standard, why is it unacceptable, and what is that standard? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to add two citations which include imagery of this particular graffiti, and restore the photograph. Please respond to these remarks, here, if you feel the need to blank the image. DBaba (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that this specific graffiti can be linked to Meir Kahane? It's , at best, speculation. In essence, anyone could be responsible for it and contribute it to the JDL - not unlikely, given that the painting is in English. Anyway, the burden of proof that this graffiti can really be linked to JDL/Meir Kahane is yours. Knowalles (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the former picture (with beard) of Rabbi Kahane in this article was removed/deleted and replaced with the current picture?ShivatTzion (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

@ShivatTzion: I was wondering that too; it most probably was a copyright issue, which is taken very seriously around here. StonyBrook (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Kahane quotation: "I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not will be slaughtered."

A 1971 Kahane quotation from Chapter 9, The Righteous Assassin, of The Fall of the House of Bush, Craig Unger, 2007, pp.133-134:

In two years' time, [the Arabs] ... will come to me, bow to me, lick my feet, and I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not will be slaughtered.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that book reliable? Anyway the quotation is from "The False Prophet" by Robert Friedman, page 217. I can only see a snippet. Zero^talk 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Writing a proper reply is taking me a long time unfortunately. I'm having difficulty even just writing a short reply to your question about reliability. It's an interesting question because, although his books obviously don't fall into the category of academic writing which is regarded as most reliable, Craig Unger made his career as a journalist writing for and editing a number of magazines and newspapers which would themselves normally be regarded as reliable (without being very publicly sued). Most of what Unger has to say about Kahane would, in any case, actually be better cited back to the sources he himself uses, Robert Friedman being a main one, though he does make an interesting claim, original to himself but stretching things too far I think, that, because of El Sayyid Nosair's (fairly tenuous) links to Osama bin Laden, Kahane should be counted as the first victim of al-Qaeda. The question then arises as to whether sources such as Friedman should be regarded as reliable. I would say, notable and worth attributing material to, definitely, but without corroboration, for anything controversial, not reliable on their own.     ←   ZScarpia   23:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I have Friedman's book. It seems pretty thorough and well-sourced (including multiple interviews with Kahane and his associates). I believe Friedman's book is a reliable source for this article. Friedman says that the Hebrew weekly Kolbo Haifa reported a public speech Kahane made in Haifa on June 28, 1985. He said "No one can understand the soul of those beasts, those roaches...we shall either cut their throats or throw them out." Then later "In two years time they will turn on the radio and hear that Kahane has been named Minister of Defence. Then they will come to me, bow to me, lick my feet, and I will be merciful and allow them to leave. Whoever does not leave will be slaughtered." It sounds pretty shocking, but after reading all the other examples Friedman brings it is not at all implausible. Zero^talk 10:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A Los Angeles Times report from October 1985 which describes a meeting in Los Angeles at which Kahane appears to have said something similar (with the exception that he would be Prime Minister instead of Minister of Defense): Edward J Boyer - Kahane Means Terror to Arabs, He Says in L.A., 30 October 1985. At the end of the report, there is mention of Kahane being stripped of his American citizenship, something which isn't currently described in the Wikipedia article.     ←   ZScarpia   03:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another report of it from 1985, but this one says he give it up in 1988. Confusion reigns. Zero^talk 03:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's another Los Angeles Times article about it. The first article does say that Kahane sought an injunction to overturn the loss of his citizenship. Perhaps he was succesful.     ←   ZScarpia   04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

More still: Los Angeles Times - Kahane Seeks Citizenship, 26 October 1988. The article says that Kahane did formally renounce his US citizenship in September 1988 (and then announced a month later that he wanted it back again). So, it looks as though he either managed to over turn the loss of citizenship of 1985, or, at least, have its implementation frozen until 1988.     ←   ZScarpia   14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

According to this article he was indeed stripped of his citizenship; he fought that decision and he won, having his citizenship restored in 1987. --_W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 18:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some links:
- Laurence Jay Silberstein, Robert L. Cohn (editors) - The Other in Jewish thought and history, 1994: Chapter 12 - Gerald Cromer - The Creation of Others: a Case Study of Meir Kahane and his Opponents.
- Los Angeles Times - Meir Kahane collection.
- Ehud Sprinzak - Kach and Meir Kahane: the Emergence of Jewish Quasi-Fascism, from Patterns of Predjudice, Volume 19, Numbers 3 and 4, 1985 (published byThe American Jewish Committee)
- A blog devoted to Kahane's writings: Barbara Ginsberg's Desktop Rabbi Meir Kahane Writings.
- Meir Kahane, Revolution or Referendum, 1990.
- Raphael Cohen-Almagor - Vigilant Jewish fundamentalism: From the JDL to Kach, Terrorism and Political Violence Volume 4, Issue 1, 1992, Pages 44 - 66.
- Gerald Cromer - Negotiating the Meaning of the Holocaust: an Observation on the Debate about Kahanism in Israeli Society, 1987.
    ←   ZScarpia   05:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Rav-Kahane.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rav-Kahane.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

Tugsandtost (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC) In sources I suggest you include in your bibliography Janet L Dolgin's Jewish Identity and the JDL Princeton University Press 1977.|}

Is there something particular from that book that you think should be said in this article? Or something already in this article that is supported by this book? Otherwise it is senseless to refer to a source without actually referring to it Cannolis (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)|}

Please remove the anti-Semitic vandalism from this article.

Anti-Semitic vandalism is here, calling the defense groups he formed against anti-Semitism "so-called" defense groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.74.188.234 (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I want to add a categroy but I can't as the article is protected

The category is "American people of Latvian-Jewish descent", as his mother Sonia (née Trainin) Kahane is Latvian born. 79.180.33.238 (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source describing his mother's place of birth? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3436600294/kahane-meir.html "Kahane was born Martin David Kahane to Rabbi Charles Kahane, who immigrated to the United States from Palestine, and Sonia Trainin Kahane, who emigrated from Latvia." (lines 3-4)

https://jewishbook.ca/en/never-again-p-1721.html?language=en "Rabbi Meir Kahane was born in 1932 in New York. His mother came to America in 1919 , her parents had fled there from Dvinsk (now Daugavpils , Latvia) , fleeing the Bolshevik regime" (lines 1-2, under "ABOUT THE AUTHOR OF THIS BOOK")

+ Hebrew Wikipedia http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%9B%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%90 מאיר כהנא נולד בברוקלין שבניו יורק ב-1932 ליחזקאל שרגא כהנא, יליד צפת, ולסוניה, ילידת לטביה"‏‏,"

ילידת לטביה = Latvian Born

+ Russian Wikipedia https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5,_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D0%B8%D1%80 "Мать рава Кахане — Соня (Сарра) Трейнина, попала в Америку в 1919 году, когда её родители бежали из Двинска (ныне Даугавпилс, Латвия), спасаясь от большевистского режима, отец — Чарльз (Иехезкиэль-Шрага) Кахане, уроженец Цфата."

In google trasnalate: "Rabbi Kahane's mother - Sonia (Sarah) Treynina, came to America in 1919, when her parents fled from Dvinsk (now Daugavpils, Latvia), fleeing the Bolshevik regime, the father - Charles (Iehezkiel-Shraga) Kahane, born in Safed." I hope that's enough. 79.180.33.238 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

So.. I provided sources. It's been a week. can someone add the category please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.41.26 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Book

User:UnequivocalAmbivalence: the book sure exist, you cannot have looked very hard if you didn´t find it: see this and this, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, neither of those have the same subtitle as the book cited in the article (Eyes Upon The Land: Talks by the Lubavitcher Rebbe on the Holy Land). Secondly, I could still find no mention of Meir Kahane in either of those sources, and you have not provided any such quotation, so until a quote and page number is provided to support the statement being made, I am going to delete it, as it is an exceptionally controversial claim and requires multiple quality sources per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the book? Have you checked it? Huldra (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I checked every available version, including the link you provided. Do you have a specific location where this claim can be found? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don´t have the book, and there is no preview anywhere (that I know of). Which is why I wonder why anyone can dismiss it, *if* they have not checked the book. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, as transcripts of the book are available online and do not seem to contain the information, and because this definitely falls under the description of WP:EXCEPTIONAL, particularly the part about "reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended", multiple high quality sources are required, and if the information is valid it should be easy to find supplementary sources. Also, WP:CHALLENGE states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Also WP:ONUS states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", so the burden of proof that what is being said actually occurs in the source is upon those wishing to include the material. Policy seems very clear on this, so I don't see how it is abnormal to dismiss a contentious rumor like this until proof can be provided for its legitimacy.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Meir Kahane. 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/20070930153827/http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0799/9907081.html to http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0799/9907081.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr4x36zY to http://www.mfa.gov.il
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kahane.org/meir/interview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Grammar and readability

The author should go back through this article and clean up the grammar and syntax. There are places where it reads like gibberish.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:ec26:9a00:84f:d8fc:dd0e:46dd (talk • contribs)

Feel free to take active part in improving this article. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Meir Kahane. 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/20090913042344/http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/50163/ to http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/50163/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090913042344/http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/50163/ to http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/50163/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100414090038/http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp to http://www.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926205341/http://www.adl.org/presrele/extremism_72/4016_72.asp to http://www.adl.org/presrele/extremism_72/4016_72.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/kach.htm

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) 01:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this sentence make any sense?

"Howerver, Kahane himself opposed the Black Panthers because they had supported anti-Jewish riots in Massachusetts had left-wing views." Should that not be 'and had left-wing views'?Doug1943 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

@Doug1943: Yes, was corrected. StonyBrook (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

John Birch/Gloria Jean D'Argenio

I don't know much about Kahane, and I was confused by the "Infiltrating the John Birch Society" section. First it says that his wife claimed that he infiltrated the John Birch society, and that "later" he was in a relationship with a woman who killed herself. This implies that there was some connection between the two events, but I can't see what it is. Could somebody who knows more about him clear this up?—Chowbok ☠ 14:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No relevant relation to topic titled section; no corroborating evidence to heavily biased anti-Kahane author who called Kahane "EVIL, a militantly strutting minion, a redeeming thug, a shtarker, had racist supporters, his legacy caused slaughters among supporters under his spell, and was cruel."ShivatTzion (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One fix would be to rename "early life" to "personal life" and move it there, clarifying that incident allegedly happened in 1966. I have not read it, but according to People, Robert I. Friedman's biography also mentions this incident. The book was published by a Chicago Review Press imprint, and appears reliable, at least on the surface. Grayfell (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Lacking any better suggestions, I have made this edit, here. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your edit of moving it to this section. I'm going to add the denials by American Israeli attorney Larry Dub and wife Libby Kahane/lack of proof/demonizations-defamations by Kahane-hating journalists with reliable source.ShivatTzion (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Your comment suggests you should review WP:NPOV first. Mentioning Dub's nationality suggest a significant misunderstanding of how these things are decided, so please carefully review WP:RS, as well. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I added it into the article; edit/correct it as you see fit, but I don't see it violating NPOV and RS policies. The author Netty C. Gross gives both sides and is clearly neutral; and the Jerusalem Post have as many anti-Kahane material as they do pro-Kahane material. But, I do have one question? How are Kaufman and Friedman considered non-biased, neutral (even reliable), when they are two anti-Kahane Kahane haters who clearly hate, defame and smear Kahane, calling him, "EVIL, a militantly strutting minion, a redeeming thug, a shtarker, had racist supporters, his legacy caused slaughters among supporters under his spell, and was cruel," etc, etc? Just wondering?ShivatTzion (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The article you cited does give several details of the incident, but your edit was not a fair or neutral summary of that source. In fact, the only comment from Libby which is specifically about this incident is her saying "I have no proof".

The details of the source you chose to include were not unambiguously relevant to this specific incident. For example, the sentences on libel suits were several paragraphs removed from mentions of D'argenio's suicide, and seem just as likely related to the Sol Hurok firebombing incident as to this one suicide. Since it is not clear from this source what this is refering to, we cannot assume that it's about D'argenio's suicide. Another example is that the source says "...Kahane himself did not hide Evans' identity and established a charitable foundation in her name, which he advertised in JDL publications..." which means there is something more to this than pure fabrication. As I said above, your decision to mention the lawyer, and to emphasize his nationality, is a distraction. Dub had not even met Kahane until several years later, and his only relevant comments are speculative. If Dub's opinion is relevant, you would need a reliable, independent source contextualizing why it is relevant.

The purpose of these edits should not be to cast doubt on these journalists just because they are controversial, it is to neutrally summarize what these sources are saying. To put it another way, false equivalence is not appropriate. I have therefore trimmed the addition to more succinctly explain Libby Kahane's position, with attribution. The source could probably be used to expand the article in other ways, but I will leave that to someone else. Grayfell (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are far more experienced than I am here on wiki, and I thank you for your help and what you pointed out. So whatever you say, do, edit, remove, etc., I will not argue with you at all. The only few things I'd say is you say these journalists are merely "controversial," but I'd say they clearly are extremely biased Kahane-haters who absolutely hated Kahane and defamed and smeared him, with the undeniable proof of this being their own words, calling him ,"evil, cruel, shtarker, thug, and an endless amount of others." They would not nor could not be considered fair, reliable, unbiased nor even close to being neutral, nor reporting (controlled by leftist-liberal fake news media) truthful facts that were actually fact-checked; their accusations are also speculative; and I don't think Friedman had met or known Kahane in the 1960's either. Ie - yellow-journalism "reporting" and blatant, deliberate lies, all with the intent to defame and smear. Right before referring to Kaufman's accusations, the source also says ,"Libby Kahane says both books (including Friedman's) are "seriously flawed by bias and inaccuracies." I honestly thought she was referring to this specific accusation, but I can see where she sounds like she is referring the entire book (s), not just the one accusation.ShivatTzion (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps if the article were expanded to discuss Friedman's book, it would be appropriate to mention Libby Kahane's rejection of it.

If we accept that both Kaufman and Friedman are biased, we must also accept that Libby Kahane is biased in a different way. This is not a slight against Libby Kahane, it is just an observation that we cannot easily compare how a wife views her husband to how investigative journalists view a politician. In practice, "bias" means very different things to different people, and is rarely useful, even if it seems obvious.

Instead of Wikipedia editors like us attempting to try and decide who is too biased, or who is more biased, we look at other things. Ideology is not, as a general rule, one of those things, or at least not primarily. Therefore, someone's opinion that these sources are leftist-liberal fake news media is not relevant by itself. What we look for are things like editorial oversight, a history of fact-checking and retractions, and a positive reputation among colleagues as demonstrated by things like industry awards or citations. The journalism of the New York Times is overwhelmingly accepted by Wikipedia editors as a reliable source, because it has a strong history of all of these things. I certainly do not always agree with the NYT, but my personal opinion doesn't really matter for this, and I accept that the Wikipedia community's reasons are valid. Grayfell (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I have both of Kaufman's NYT articles and also Friedman's book. Kaufman's research was a solid piece of investigative journalism and there is no cause to present it as dubious. Most importantly, Kahane confirmed the main points himself in person. Friedman quotes another NYT journalist (Richard Severo) who was present when Kahane confessed and gives a large amount of extra detail (pp. 71–75). It is fine to add that Kahane's wife says she "has no proof" (but not that the incident lacks proof as our article incorrectly says now). Zero^talk 06:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Grayfell. Yes, the wife and even the attorney can/would be considered biased as well. The attorney, despite his nationality/religion, also dismisses the accusation. I have numerous articles and books of Rabbi Meir Kahane, written by him as well as others (Libby, Shemer, Goldberg, Douglas Kent) which were all solid pieces of journalism and investigative journalism. I had never read/heard about it, but I actually could care less if this specific accusation was true or not. Kahane-haters have had and will always have an endless amount of other accusations/wrongdoings/shortcomings etc - the vast majority of which were/are/will be blatant, deliberate, outright lies, all with the intent to defame and smear. Whomever Kaufman or Friedman (despite their nationality/religion) wrote for, or what wiki considers reliable sources, they are a couple of extremely biased anti-Kahane people (certainly unfair, extremely biased and not neutral) who were both driven by a visceral hatred of Kahane. Friedman's hit piece animus ("book") calls Kahane, a “con man,” a “philanderer,” an informer, a rabble-rouser, a bloodthirsty villain, a very bad man, a loser, a nut, a very nasty fellow, a right-wing zealot, etc." His hatred of Kahane is clear on every page. Kaufman calls Kahane, "evil, a militantly strutting minion, a redeeming thug, a shtarker, had racist supporters, his legacy caused slaughters among supporters under his spell, and was cruel." Their hatred of Kahane is clear - unfair, extremely biased and far from neutral. Anyways, good luck all in your wikipedia endeavors.ShivatTzion (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Writing something negative does not prove someone is biased, nor does writing something you disagree with. The suicide of D'argenio was reported in NY newpapers the following day with mention that she was upset over her fiance's rejection (there is a photo in Kaufman's 1994 article of her being dragged from the water) and her parents and room-mate both identified Kahane as her "fiance". The existence of the Estelle Donna Evans Foundation is trivial to check in government registers. Overall there isn't the slightest reason to doubt the story. So his wife and lawyer claim to doubt it; what do you expect them to say? Zero^talk 12:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving the alleged accusation aside, if you can't clearly see that Kaufman and Friedman are unfair, extremely biased and far from neutral Kahane-haters, both driven by a visceral hatred of Kahane, then you simply aren't recognizing reality/truth. So they claim this; what do you expect them to say? I could care less if the accusation was true or not; I don't agree or disagree with it. Few people in history were as maligned as Kahane. Amazing that there were even 36 Torah/Orthodox Jewish leaders/sages/scholars/rabbis/etc., who "supported" Rabbi Kahane in the "Support" section of this article, considering all the other (irrespective of the D'Argenio accusation or whether it was true or not) blatant, deliberate, outright lies said about him (all with the intent to defame and smear). I guess that only proves that saying/writing something positive does not prove someone is biased, nor does saying/writing something you agree with. Farewell.ShivatTzion (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"arab gunman"

In the last paragraph in the introduction it says Meir Kahane was murdered by an Arab gunman. However, Egyptians are not Arab. It would be more accurate to say "Egyptian-American gunman" or just "gunman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.180.123 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Black Panthers

This sentence is problematic because it is not cited: "However, Kahane himself opposed the Black Panthers because they had supported anti-Jewish riots in Massachusetts and had left-wing views." A quick google search reveals no information on Black Panthers supporting anti-Jewish riots in Massachusetts, nor the occurrence of anti-Jewish riots at the time when the Black Panther party was active. Therefore, if this information is true, it needs to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.180.123 (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionable early funding for JDL

I was reading the article The Woman on the Bridge. It details the suicide of Gloria Jean D’Argenios (a.k.a. Estelle Evans), who committed suicide after Meir Kahane (a.k.a. Michael King) broke-off an affair with her.

King/Kahane said he setup a memorial foundation in her name after she died, but it was used to funnel money to the Jewish Defense Fund:

[After her death] ... he set up a memorial foundation in her name, which was a Trojan horse to raise money for the organization that became the Jewish Defense League.

And:

All his underlying hatred for others seeded the origin for the JDL in the spring of 1968. “We have no great funds, no great influence, so the answer is simple: to do outrageous things,” he told New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman in January 1971. Money had to be raised, though, and it required setting up charitable, tax-exempt foundations. One of them, incorporated in August 1967, a full six months before the official existence of the JDL, bore the name of Estelle Donna Evans.

And:

When [New York Times reporter Michael Kaufman] Kaufman asked Kahane about the foundation’s namesake, the rabbi claimed she had been his former secretary in his failed consulting operation, she had died of terminal cancer, and her “well-to-do” family had endowed the foundation.

Finally:

Kaufman and fellow Times reporter Richard Severo felt something was off about the foundation and set out to prove their suspicions that it was fraudulent. In the process, they unearthed Kahane’s dangerous hypocrisy: promoting ethnonationalism and preaching against intermarriage while covering up an affair with a non-Jewish woman. “We could have changed the history of Israel,” Severo said nearly two decades later. “I wonder how many of his Orthodox supporters would have continued to follow him … if they knew the man was a charlatan?”

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

US Citizenship

In the course of some reading on US nationality law, I came across Kahane's case. Clearing up some earlier confusion on this (see Kahane quotation "...") I added some additional details about the two separate revocation/renunciation proceedings related to his citizenship in Immigration to Israel — Election to Knesset: the first initiated by US Department of State, challenged by him, and overturned in court; the second initiated by him, later challenged by him, but upheld in court.

Hopefully this is not in violation of the current discretionary sanctions for this topic.

Compwiztobe (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

NB also the correction to the year in which the Knesset changed its nationality rules, 1987 not 1985 --Compwiztobe (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

References

High school stunt

"he attended high school at both Abraham Lincoln High School and the Brooklyn Talmudical Academy" is subpar for Wikipedia. The Kahane entry at https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/kahane-meir has the activist senior "quit his Jewish high school to attend a local public school" and this was after being accepted at am Orthodox/right-wing post-HS yeshiva. A proper wording would first of all state BTA/Brooklyn TA first. The OU/Orthodox Union's https://jewishaction.com/books/rabbi_meir_kahane_his_life_and_thought article, in reference to FORMAL education, omits the stunt. There's enough 'activist' material to showcase without this. NPOV need not play up this stunt. Pi314m (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:COPYPASTE in Personal Life section

This part is direct copying from the Sarah Weinman article in The Cut:

Robert Friedman reported, "In reality, Kahane used the money to help finance the JDL." That meant two different things: funding the purchase of supplies for bombings and fattening his own wallet, spending lavishly on trips for himself.

I'd fix this myself but am posting here due to 500/30 pseudo-ECP on the article.

Also, on the subject of Kahane's affair with Ms. D'Argenio, the article says "Journalists Michael T. Kaufman and Robert I. Friedman have separately said...", but the Weinman article indicates that Friedman was repeating the information discovered by two New York Times journalists (working together), Kaufman and Severo, not that he independently corroborated their research many years later. So "separately said" is source inflation. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The first item seems to be copyvio so I'll paraphrase. In the second item, you are right that Friedman didn't corroborate the story. However, he interviewed Kaufman and Kaufman's editor and provides interesting information about how Kahane reacted when Kaufman and Severo told him in person that they had uncovered the story and also about the debate at the NYT over whether the story should be published. Zero^talk 02:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Friedman and Weinman are perfectly good sources for the public record of what the New York Times journalists say they found out at the time, it just should not be phrased in a way that suggests outside corroboration (rather than belated disclosure by the same group of people). Sesquivalent (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit (thanks) puts in wikivoice that Kahane had an extramarital affair with the woman. That's supported by the available sources but "proposed" is not. The only source on this is Kaufman saying in the 1990's, that in 1971 (five years after the event), "her roommate told me that Estelle had told her the rabbi had promised marriage". To get from this to multiple independent sourcing of a marriage proposal would involving SYNTHing and guesswork based on Kaufman's other statement --- that by Kahane admitting to "everything" he confirmed that marriage proposal was part of the story. Obviously that's debatable, even ignoring any questions of SYNTH, since Kaufman does not see fit to specify about this seemingly crucial bombshell while elaborating many other details.

I think in general the emphasis of the article is wrong here. Friedman's book makes it abundantly clear that Kahane was a lifelong womanizer and was eventually expelled from the JDL for that, so the fact of an affair is a relatively minor component of the story. The use of the woman's death to raise funds for JDL and himself is much more notable, but even that seems less important than the (currently not covered in article) machinations between Kahane and the New York Times reporters and editors, also covered by Friedman. In effect Kahane, rather amazingly, somehow managed to enormously influence the operations of the leading US newspaper and its coverage of him. Multiple meetings with the top editors were held. This is covered at some length by Friedman and should be given weight in the article, and less to the mere fact or details of an affair.Sesquivalent (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible Dead Link(s)

Q: would it be valid to change kahane.org --> https://www.kahanefoundation.org/ ...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard from NYC (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that this website has anything to do with Meir Kahane, it's a international peace organization which includes Muslims which is against the Kahanist ideology. RowanJ LP2 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 election and Itamar Ben-Gvir

Kahane's relevance to current affairs is missing. Can someone add? The page currently reads "His legacy continues to influence militant and far-right political groups active today in Israel", which doesn't capture the fact that his followers (Itamar Ben-Gvir particularly) have now will have huge influence in the Government after the 2022 election. In the Legacy section, there is nothing after 2017. This needs updating as Kahanists have become more involved in the mainstream, and Itamar Ben-Gvir and others are reaching a new generation of Israeli voters. That's worth noting, as it is particularly meaningful when someone who has been dead for a long time is inspiring contemporary political movements. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/10/israel-leader-of-far-right-jewish-power-party-pays-tribute-to-late-racist-rabbi 2A00:23C7:A829:B401:F4A9:A5D0:8232:AA30 (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree that Kahane's relevance to current affairs through the Otzma Yehudit/Religious Zionism political party (Itamar Ben-Gvir, etc) being the 3rd largest party (much like Kahane's Kach party being the 3rd largest party in 1988 had Israel not disenfranchised Kahane's voters) in the Knesset of Israel should obviously be added to this article.108.30.240.77 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Kahane's view of the Arabs who live in Israel should be added to article

Kahane's view of the Arabs who live in Israel should obviously be added to this article, and Kahane's view was: Kahane's central claim and view was that the Arabs living in Israel are and will continue to be enemies of Jews and Israel itself.108.30.240.77 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

Please change the misspelled word synagogs in this article sentence, “Kahane publicized his Kahanism ideology through published works, weekly articles, speeches, debates on college campuses and in synagogs throughout the United States” to the proper spelling of synagogues. Thank you. 2601:589:407E:CB0:C006:180B:832:430E (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

He is a terrorist . Say a terrorist. Convicted for terrorism is a terrorist

Kach too was recognized as terrorist organization. Mention it. Its crucial 2A02:6680:2102:D89A:11D9:DA18:1F01:DAEE (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)