![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
"The anti-Zionism of Left-leaning movements and parties, from Bolsheviks of 1917 to present days Greens, Feminists, Gay movements and Libertarians doesn't have official explanation and often contradicts general positions of these parties. From late 1990s anti-Zionism is a mandatory requirement for a supporter of gay rights, abortions, emission control, public education, artistic freedom, gender equality etc, despite Israel's clear progress in this areas over its neighbours. Bolsheviks claim that Zionism removes Jews from participation in revolutionary activity in their countries of birth may be still valid." This is clearly biased. The writer is clearly using arguments against left-wing anti-zionism instead of just stating facts. After that the phrase "Bolsheviks claim that Zionism removes Jews from participation in revolutionary activity in their countries of birth may be still valid." is used to ridicule the movement.
An utterly ridiculous statement, on so many levels. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed. Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Louis Farrakhan, etc. are "far left"? Are anti-Zionist liberals, conservatives, and libertarians "far left"? Yeah right. The article also claims that the "far left" (which is never defined) is marginal and isolated within American society. Yet the author contradicts zirself in the same sentence with the claim that the "far left" is highly influential in academia and media. This article is a joke. It needs severe editing, but I'm sure the hyper-POV author responsible for the garbage will simply reinstate it.
Since Zionism entails a state based upon "racial"/ethnic discrimination and displacement of native peoples, one can be anti-Zionist by virtue of consistently applied anti-racism. Is all consistent anti-racism in America on the "far left"?
-Platypussy
Platypussy is quite correct. The "Law of Return" is about as clear-cut a case of ethnic discrimination as one could ask for, especially considering that Jews whose ancestors hadn't been there for 2000 years are allowed by it to "return" while non-Jews who were born there are not. However, that is irrelevant to the narrower point, which is that Platypussy is also right about the ridiculousness of "American anti-Zionism is confined to the far left". Pat Buchanan, if nothing else, should illustrate the folly of that statement. - Mustafaa 22:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and as retorts go, "Jews are not "race" so racism is inapplicable" is awfully reminiscent of "Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, because Arabs are Semites". The problem can't be swept under the carpet just by picking holes in definitions. - Mustafaa 22:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
in reference to all that is written above: essentially, the whole lot of writers has neglected to understand (or refuse to understand) is that anything anti-zionist, or anti-semetic (in these cases) is completely lost in rhetoric. the fact is that when a group of people of any distinct belief system gather in any one place, another distinct group of people will undouptedly rise against it. the simple matter is, despite what some old text or tome may say.. when you force your beliefs onto others, they will begin to hate you. this horrible truth becomes a wave of sentiment that will only grow with time. the reality is this: isreal is not a real country... merely an idea that is supported by a specific group of people and opposed by another. had the 'homeland' of isreal not been created from the oppressive powers that gathered to form it, none of this would even be talked about. mumble on all you want... if someone forced their way into your backyard and only had some random piece of paper as 'proof' that they had a 'right' to do so is ridiculous and the opposite of everything that is right and just. put that in your pipe and smoke it..... Zod
Interesting point Zod. Doubtless it would suck to be on the receiving end of such a note. However, it is important to note that, historically, there is no such parallel to a note. The Jews of what would eventually become Israel moved into what was then "Palestine" by peaceful means, buying land, often at exorbitant prices, from mostly Arab landlords. Following the Holocaust, it became clear to many, both in power and not, that there was some validity to the idea that the collective "Jews" would never be truly safe until they had a land of their own in which to decide their own destiny. Thus there began to be something done about the Balfore Declaration, only accelerated by the fact that many of the Jews who had been displaced by the Nazis (many, like my grandparents, the only survivors of their entire families and towns), wished to emigrate to what was then Palestine. This of course presented a problem to the British rulers of the area, who were under strong pressure by the ruling powers in the Arab world to block any such immigration (if your interested in the result, look up the internment camps in Cyprus following World War II; again an experience my grandparents underwent). Such a mass Jewish emigration into Palestine was naturally a threat to the control of Palestine by Arabs. Soon Israel was declared a nation in the UN, a declaration that included a land partition based on population densities, where areas that were majority Jewish to be under Jewish rule, and areas that were majority Arab to be under Arab rule (there were of course instances of compromise for the sake of territorial continuity, such as appropriating Haifa, a split city, to the Jews, or Hebron, another split city, to the Arabs). This partition resulted in only about half of what is currently Israel being placed under Jewish rule, with the other portion to be made into the Arab state of Palestine, including the city of Jerusalem placed under International rule. It has been argued that the reason the ruling powers among the Arabs pressured the British to arrest post-holocaust Jewish immigration into Palestine was due to their foresight of such a solution. Either way, the common desire among Arabs to see no Jewish state established (perhaps because of the frequent encouragement of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiments in Arab populations by Arab rulers, such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), predisposed them to reject this proposition, as they did. Thus, even as the leaders of the nascent state of Israel were convening to sign its Declaration of Independence, Egypt had already launched bomber aircraft to raid Tel-Aviv (a Jewish city). It was under such auspices that the Israeli war of Independence began. There has been much talk of the Jewish expulsion of local Arab population during this war. For the most part, these accusations appear to be historically false, although certainly with some exceptions. Especially in the countryside and villages of Palestine, Arab populations were encouraged (or scared to, either by threats or propaganda about the Jewish intentions) by those in charge of Arab forces to vacate the region as to expedite the advance of the Arab armies on Jewish positions. These populations were told that they merely had to leave for a short while, during which the Arab armies would complete their mission of "pushing the Jews into the sea" (if you don't believe me that this was a major slogan of the Arab armies during the Israeli war of independence, feel free to look up declarations from individuals such as the General in charge of the Arab armies, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Saudi prince ruling at the time). When this mission did not proceed as planned the Arabs who had once lived in Palestine were, needless to say, left out in the cold. However, though this from of emigration apparently accounted for the majority (by capita and land area) of the reduction of the Arab population of Palestine during the War of Independence, it would be false of me to claim it accounted for all. There were instances were Israeli forces expelled the local Arab populations of a given area, such as in Haifa (I think it was Haifa...). Even these occasions, however, must be considered in light of historical circumstance and military necessity. Many of the local Arab populations in these areas had aiding the Arab armies, either with intelligence or logistics. Thus, though it was certainly not the most pleasant decision, there was some objective validity to the decision of Jewish commanders to evict the residents of a city or hillside where they knew they would soon be fighting. To the benefit of the Jewish forces, following the war they did in many occasions allow the populations which they had themselves evicted to return. There are, however, a handful of darker incidences which demand mentioning; these are major black marks on the otherwise humane behavior of the Jewish forces. The most famous of these, is the massacre of a certain Arab village by the Lechi. Lechi, or the Stern gang as they are more often called, where essentially Jewish terrorists, which the mainstream Jewish defense movement had tolerated mostly (according to memoirs of the leadership) to prevent civil war within the Jewish population. The Stern gang believed in doing absolutely anything to assure Jewish independence, including acts of terrorist bombing, which they did against the British forces in the pre-Independence period with little regard for the lives of civilians. During the warm this Stern gang, comprising of under 300 individuals, was given a single village to garrison. It is unclear why, but following a paranoid episode by their commander, they proceeded to massacre almost all the inhabitants of the village they were garrisoning. As soon as the mainstream Jewish leadership found out about this, their unit was recalled, and its leadership tried and imprisoned. There can be no excuse for the actions of these individuals, and their terrible atrocity will forever be a burden of shame that the Jews of Israel must bear. For their behavior, I can offer no mitigation. I only ask those reading this to remember that their actions were not that of the mainstream Jewish forces nor corresponded to the beliefs of the vast majority of Jews. Overall, I hope what I've written helps clarify the myth that the Jews, or the British, "kicked out" the Arabs living in Palestine. I'm always up for more discussion though. --Almonator
Anti-Zionism is the denial that Israel has a right to exist, and that the Jewish people have a right to an independent nation in Israel, and is therefore not fundamentally different from anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is just another way for anti-Semites to critize Jews, while hiding under the pretext that they are not anti-Semetic. It is not a coincedence that most anit-Zionists critize Israel for ficticious violations of human rights, while deliberatley ignoring countries like Saudi Arabia, who violate almost all human rights laws know to man, and Darfur, where non-Arabs are currently being ethnicaly cleansed. --Stu
Two points:
-- Wclark 04:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
This is Adam's remark on his most recent edit: "since most Israelis think that anti-Zionism is just another word for anti-Semitism, it cannot be classed as an "extremist" view - this is always a subjective term anyway." When I essentially suggested something similar, ie that many Israeli politicians and right-wing groups have promoted such views, I started being labelled an "anti-Semite" by RK and was harassed at various points for "anti-Semitic views" or making "straw man attacks on Jews." Can the non-Zionophobes (Zionophobes being Adam's euphemism for people who lean towards disapproval of Israeli actions in disputed territory) get their act together and decide who or what is an extremist, and who or what is an anti-Semite for expressing commonly acknowledged views, before making arbitrary judgements on article contents and contributors? -- Simonides 05:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Google search results for:
Looks like it's actually the majority view, to me. -- Wclark 05:09, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
This is a very silly argument. The view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism is a completely mainstream view among Israeli Jews, probably the majority view, and is also common among Jews outside Israel. Most of the Jews I know, even those who dislike Sharon and think Israel should withdraw from all the territories, hold this view. It therefore cannot be classed as "extremist." The word "extremist" is in any case a very subjective term and should only be used when there is clear agreement that a person or opinion is "extreme". That is not the case here. Adam 05:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please do not make edits on this topic until we've discussed it more first.
I didn't mean to incite an edit war, and I'm sorry. I should probably explain why I picked out this section in particular. I think that many people hold the opinion that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, and that they'll be looking for this POV to be represented in the article (and will consider it biased if they don't find it). Therefore, I think the comparison should be visibly made near the beginning of the article, with appropriate links to distract them and hopefully get them off the page and looking elsewhere (probably at the Anti-Semitism article). I made a similar point recently regarding the Zionism article and how it should visibly mention the controversy surrounding Zionism (and provide a link to Anti-Zionism to draw off the attention of people who'd otherwise complain about that article). (Thanks to Adam, by the way, for coming up with a very good new intro that accomplishes this goal.)
That said, I think these sentences still need work:
I find "reprehensible" too harsh a word, and I think that point could be made more effectively if the (overly long) sentence were restructured and rephrased. There are two distinct points being made, regarding anti-Semitism:
I think this distinction should be made as clear as possible, since only the first point could really be considered reprehensible. Also, I think perhaps the information on anti-Semitism should be in its own section, with "Anti-Semitism" displayed prominently in the title, so that it will catch the eye of those looking for such comparisons and draw their attention to that section (and away from the rest of the article).
I'd suggest we come up with some proposals for changes here on the talk page, come to some sort of agreement, and then make the agreed-upon changes to the article itself. -- Wclark 05:41, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
How about:
..or is that even more confusing? -- Wclark 05:58, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
:::I agree, except the point is to confuse things. The Arabs are the Jews of today (and who were the jews before there were jews?), Arafat is like Washington, and the murderer becomes the victim with a change of context. To create the momentum and will for action, especially for action that under an honest light would be morally reprehensible, people redefine situations. With the acceptance of new definitions or associations, nazis become heros saving the german people from the infiltration of the jewish malaise. There is no interest in the truth here, only achieving a particular objective, creating the will for action, or at least stilling objection to actions. It is interresting that those who are often vilifying the state of israel are outraged at being vilified. Is vilification a one way street? What makes them, the vilifier immume from their own practices. This tactic is an effective way to criticise ones opponent for criticizing you. There is so much information and mis information intentionally created for the sole purpose of re-aligning the argument in a manner more favorable to victory that any discussion dissembles into broad generalizations that turn serious issues into straw men. Like being anti-zionist is the same as anti-racist. And please don't turn this into an opportunity to try and reassociate one point of view with another. Arafat was not like George Washington. Arafat was Arafat and Washington was Washington and each has to stand on the merits of their paricular actions. Any attempt to compare is to try to inject negative or positive associations from the one onto the other, irregardless of the particular actions of the individuals. Anti racists are anti racists and anti zionists are anti zionists. Being anti racist is about being against the discrimination of any particular group and being anti zionist is discriminating against a particular group, in this case the Israelis, though it has been historically used as a cover for descrimination against jews as well, like it or not. I understand the desire to try and keep things truthful, factual and rhetorically honest, and I lament the fact that we are dealing with those who do not. But let us understand that this is a tool used by everyone for il or for good, either way its deception. Myp
Americans usurped their country from native americans, in fact, the English were second in line to 'dicover' it. So should all you yanks be third in line for right to be there? Australia, was homeland to aboriginies - English criminals were deported there next... So the Zionisms ideology states that it should simply be the aboriginies.. next in line, the British, who have any rights to the country. The Romans moved in on Britain and took it over from the Celts.. anyone in Britain, without Celtic blood line - should have lesser rights. This is the ideology of Zionism applied to other countries. Sound fair? I am Jewish, and anti-zionist, they are two seperate things and the fool who claims any anti-zionist is hiding behind the title for exemption from what they really are - anti-semitic, should come see me. ___________
I feel very frustrated at this sentence under the definition of anti-Semitism. It is clearly non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionist attitude: Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Argumentation: I have nothing against Jews but I deny the right of colonists (of any origin) to determine the fate of Palestine. It is dificult to think how other ethnicities that are dispersed and lack a national territory, like the Roma can self-determinate in the usual manner (forming a state and separating from the occupying power).
Yet, as it is part of an oficial document quoted, I'm not touching it. Yet it should be reviewed. -- Sugaar 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who can write that "most Jews are not Zionists" is clearly either totally ignorant or malicious, and in either case disqualifies himself from serious consideration in this discussion. Adam 06:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't accomplish anything to declare each other "ignorant", "malicious", a "boor" (or even "whimsical"). Nor does it accomplish anything to assert that one person knows more than another, or to make sarcastic comments. (There, I think I've covered everybody now.) Think to yourself before you post something (even to this talk page) "What do I hope to accomplish by posting this, and is this the most effective way to do that?" Please? -- Wclark 17:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
I am not sure why 209.etc (aka Lance6Wins) continues to insert this material; the statement is not nearly as important as he makes it out to be, and the quotation he gives is different to that in the official declaration. First, the declaration was not a solemn doctrine or an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e. not a required article of Catholic belief), but a statement by the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (see Christian-Jewish reconciliation), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce dogma. What the committee said is just its considered opinion, and the article already says that both Jews and non-Jews (the committee includes both) equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; so why does this instance deserve highlighting? Second, the exact wording (as published on the Vatican's website), in context, is this (emphasis mine):
HTH. —No-One Jones 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I find this formulation propagandistic: "Palestinian leadership formally recognised Israel as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, although that recognition has been rendered inoperative in practice since the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000." This is some editor's POV masquerading as scholarly analysis. Also, I think it is propagandistic to say that "Other Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Syria may still desire the destruction of Israel but no longer say so openly," since the Saudis put forward a rather reasonable peace proposal that involved recognition of Israel, but the proposal was never taken up. I think that was in 2002. -- C Colden 12:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first statement is not "propagandistic." Since 2000 the Palestinians have reverted to the position that a settlement must include the Right of Return, which amounts to a repudiation of the 1993 recognition of Israel, since the "return" of 5 to 8 million Palestinians would effectively destroy Israel. The second statement may or may not be true, and it may be that the Saudis would be prepared to recognise Israel under certain circumstances, but it is not "propagandistic." It would be better of your disagreements with other editors were not framed in such an abusive tone. Adam 12:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first statement is at the least POV: the return of some proportion of the Palestinian refugees (it being extremely unlikely that all 4 million, not 5-8 as you suggest, would return) would not destroy Israel. The second is clearly speculation. - Mustafaa 08:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved with this muddy issue by editing the page, but the recent edit by 195.70.48.242 seems highly POV and should be heavily modified or deleted altogether. Livajo 17:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the edits by 195.70.48.242. They didn't add any relevant information, and they were very POV. 128.253.203.31 17:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there any sort of accepted definition of anti-Zionism? The one in the article here borders dangerously on original research since it:
This section should be little more than a definition from a "legitimate source" of anti-Zionism post 1948 and some accurate way of describing jewish resistance to the idea in prior to and after the Holocaust. Statements like "Many Jews (and some non-Jews) argue that some forms of anti-Zionism are also forms of anti-Semitism." need to be rigorously backed up by some serious authorities in the field, such a linguists and anthropologists. A columnist for some publication simply wont suffice.
"Second, some Jews are anti-Zionists. Jewish anti-Zionism exists mainly among socialist or radical Jewish intellectuals outside Israel. There is also a minority among Orthodox Jews, both inside and outside Israel, who reject Zionism as contrary to the will of God." Thats totally unbacked. Someone needs to dig up some statistics on these remarks, or at the very least a poll carried out by an organization which specializes in that field. Again, some author for a news paper or organization news letter does not cut it.
Does any have numbers on number of Jews who were anti-Zionist before being tragically killed defending their homes and businesses from Hitlers regime? "Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Yeah, this is unbacked too. Has there been a scientific study done on this, if so, it should be cited here. What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". Again, a column in some publication is not sufficent. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Throughout this document I have stated to the effect "a quote from some columnist does not suffice". Let me be clear that if the source article sites some reasonable research with published findings, then the article obviously qualifies. ----
Thank you Mustafaa. Not to be rude: I do not want this talk page section to become an us vs them. Lets have constructive work on this section. Some serious charges against the content have been brought forth and need to be answered. Personal attacks do not help work towards that goal. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has this article ever been brought before the Arbiration committee? The more I read it the more it looks totally like original research. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are all sorts of links presented here, and in earlier Talk:, showing that anti-Semites use the term interchangeably with Jew; what other evidence is needed? Jayjg 03:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem with Wikipedia is that NPOV is worked out amongst a bunch of editors, then 5 months later a new bunch of editors come along who haven't read any of the previous discussions and want to hash it all out again, and the original editors are gone. Here is and earlier comment of mine: Regarding Zionist as a code word for Jew, here's one simple example: Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal Here's a page that uses the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, and resurrects all the old anti-Semitic libels: Kosher Kerry Cons Christian America Here's a page that says that Kosher symbols have no religious significance, but just support Zionist "murders" [8] Here's a Muslim site which admits quite candidly that "Jews" and "Zionists" are used interchangeably [9]and another Muslim site doing the same [10] and another writer using them interchangeably [11]and here again As a muslim,we believe in that Jesus is alive and was not killed by The Jews(zionists). And the many sites referring to the "Zionist Occupied Government" or ZOG (here are some examples: [12] [13] and the "anti-Zionist" actions of the Polish government in 1968 etc. All you need is a few minutes and a search engine to find hundreds of pages and sites using the words interchangeably. Jayjg 03:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wanted, among other things, some names of "many jews (and some non jews)" who supported the theory that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism . It should be noted that some of these people are, too, political activists (Martin Luther King). I also question their abilities to make the claim beyond their personal feelings, since it requires detailed analysis of the definitions and uses of the terms. There are so many of them, I'll drop the point, since there is a link now in the article readers can easily examine the source and draw their own conclusions.
"Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Does anyone have documented instances of this? -- Uncle Bungle 04:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After clicking the links I am going to reiterate a previous statement: What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". To argue "some anti-semites" demands a list, ideally by someone with the authority in the field (ie a Psychologist). Judging by the content, it looks as though the author was using the term Zionist interchangably with the term Facist, but thats purely my POV. Again, be very careful whom you cite on this since someone could just as easily take a list of controversial sites (as you just did) and point and say "see see anti-Ziomism == anti-Semitism". -- Uncle Bungle 13:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At he very least please include a link to the above url backing that statement. It is only fair to the readers, who are going to wonder "who has made this statement"
ogf
Im going to pull this to remove clutter in a few days.
According to the wikipedia article lingustics:
Contextual and independent -- Contextual linguistics is concerned with how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived.
Since Chomsky is a professor in the field of linguistics, he is certainly qualified to comment on the word anti-zionsim and its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived. -- Uncle Bungle 03:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone doesn't forget how to be a linguist, therefore he still is. Whatever your POV on the man, he still holds his office at MIT and he is certainly qualified to speak on the issue. -- Uncle Bungle 03:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is akin to arguing that if a Judge says that abortion is wrong, they are not speaking as a judge, but as an anti-abortionist. You're right, Chomsky is both, and that should be reflected. When the traffic settles I'll include a link to political activist. You can not deny, however, that any statement made by the man is that of a linguist, since, he is exactly that.
You're right of course, its not a definition, but it is an opinion from a qualified individual. I am yet to find a dictionary which defines anti-Zionism, by the way. So far lots of "anti-Zionism is opposition to zionism", but that is a neoglism defined (in its article) as the act of inventing a word or phrase.. -- Uncle Bungle 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where the comment is published, if an expert in a certain field makes a statement, it has to have been made in their capacity in that field. Furthermore, the comment was part of the response to the question: "You sometimes say in talks and interviews that you used to be called a 'Zionist', and now you're called an anti-Zionist'..." and thus deals with Zionism and anti-Zionism, not Israel, Palestine or any other related issue. Since the man is established in the field, he is certainly qualified to comment on the usage of the terms. -- Uncle Bungle 04:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If an experienced auto mechanic wrote in "Canadian Autoworkers Workers Monthly - protecting canadian jobs" (fake publication for example) that "Japaneese cars have inferior engines", the argument that he was not speaking in his capacity as an auto mechanic would be written off as ridicilous. Again, the publication is irrelevent because of the mans qualifications. When he makes a statement, it is inherently in his professional capacity. You don't suddenly turn off your abilities and make some far-fetched remark, and then turn them back on walking out the door. While he may not have been speaking for the Linguistics Department at MIT, he was certainly speaking as Noam Chomsky, Lingustics Professor -- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nearly everything the man says is a lingustic analysis of some sort (how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived). He has a PhD in the field.
"chomsky appears to turn off his mental abilities" is totally POV. If you have a source on that, I would like to see it. For someone to make a remark like that, they should probably be a qualified psychiatric physician. -- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know POV is allowed here, I simply said I wanted to see a source on your statements. "propaganda masquerading as political analysis" back that with something soldid, and I mean MORE solid than a PhD, a chair as a professor at a major university, over a dozen books, etc. Another article in the Guardian will not do the job.
-- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The most devastating articles in the Anti-Chomsky Reader are not those that expose the ideological prejudices, factual misrepresentations, and distorted logic of his political writings but the two at the end of the book that tear up his reputation as one of the towering intellects of our time. Two essays about linguistics reveal Chomsky’s output in that field to be not the work of a rare, great mind but the product of a very familiar kind of academic hack. His reputation turns out not to have been earned by any significant contribution to human understanding but to be the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findings." [14] Jayjg 15:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Academic credentials for Keith Windschuttle? -- Uncle Bungle 16:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the sake of saving space on the talk page I propose changing the body of this section to read:
While Chomsky is an established and well respected expert in the field of linuistics, some prominent authors are sharply critical of his work. And follow up with some links. Is this acceptable?
And by linguists. Chomsky is best described as controversial (I personally like his politics far better than his linguistics, although both suffer from an inability to engage the other side), but his views continue to overwhelmingly dominate the field of syntax (not to mention computational linguistics.) Ever since Syntactic Structures, Chomsky has been the man to rebel against, and transformational grammar the theory to challenge. Making yourself into the orthodoxy of the field is no mean achievement. If you want evidence - he's apparently the most cited living person between 1980 and 1992... [15] - Mustafaa 21:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have two very different propsals for the future of this article, which should put an end to the NPOV dispute. I like to think of it as a roadmap to peace.
The first is to totally disband the page, moving the content to the appropriate realated articles. For example, anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism could be covered as a section in anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be covered as a subsection of that article. Historic opposition to Zionism (especially pre-Holocaust) could be covered in the main Zionism article. This article could then be used as a disambiguation page. I think it is a good idea because it would let readers consider the concept of anti-Zionism in the larger context of the related articles.
I favour the first solution but expect massive opposition to it, and as such have a second proposal. It can be broken down as follows:
During the first phase of this process it would be best to not add any new information or points of view. Take what we have and document it. During the second phase, resorting to edit wars is likely. I propose that before anything is removed, the idea be discussed in the talk page. Finally, the third phase is also likely to incur angry talk pages and edit wars. It is important to remember that even if you disagree with a point of view, so long as it comes from a reliable source it deserves inclusion.
I think this is a good idea because as long as the statement is nonspecific enough to fit withing the context of its supporting material, it can ultimately be left up to the reader to decide if the statement is specific enough and the source reliable enough for their intellectual needs. This should hopefully put an end to neutrality and factuality disputes, since a source for the point will be included inline.
I would appriciate any comments on these proposals, or alternatives. Constructive work is almost impossible with endless editwars, so lets prove it, all of it, and go from there.
-- Uncle Bungle 16:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When did I say this article was about anti semitism? -- Uncle Bungle 19:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A new section was created by user:Menj called "Islamic response to Zionism", but it went on to discuss what I would call an Islamist response, not an Islamic one. I moved a paragraph about the "Islamist narrative" out of "Arab anti-Zionism" and put it instead in the new "Islamic response" category, but there should be some discussion about what is an Islamic response and what is an Islamist one. I'm also not sure this could be called "anti-Zionism" when there's reference to it being a "disease" (making it sound to me like anti-Semitism). I'm also unsure about Menj inserting the photograph of a book cover, when the book was written by someone calling for the destruction of Israel. Does that look like a Wikipedia endorsement? I'm hesitant to delete this section because I'm not familiar with the book or the author. If he's regarded as a legitimate Islamic scholar then his views shouldn't be deleted. But is he? Slim 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Who has identified these "types of anti-Zionists"? -- Uncle Bungle 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The question is straightforward. As a reader, I want to see an essay, or something to that effect, by a person who is qualified to speak on the issue (poli sci for example) that clearly identifies these to be the two "main groups" of anti-Zionists and outlines their goals, as this section of the article does. -- Uncle Bungle 20:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
Please provide. -- Uncle Bungle 20:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The issue is that the opening statements which form the cornerstone of the section are not backed by any sort of reference text. -- Uncle Bungle 22:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your understanding is correct. I think it is important, from a readers standpoint. -- Uncle Bungle 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I was looking at the last two statements of the section. Both begin "Other anti-Zionists" which is bad for flow. I was wondering about sources for these comments, the reason being that I think the two statements could be combined as one. It has been my experience that those who consider the circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel illegitimate, would settle for a unified state. Either way, right now it reads quite badly, and I'm open to suggestions. -- Uncle Bungle 16:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article is missing a viewpoint that I have heard expressed many times, and I was wondering whether anyone else noticed the discrepancy.
The viewpoint I am referring to, which is definitely anti-zionist, is that the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish (racewise) state is a racist ideology. For balance, if an English politician ever said that England was a country for those with English blood first and foremost, that politician would be eviscerated by the press. The politician's statement implies that people who are racially English are more valid citizens than immigrants to England of other races. Without a doubt, this policy is racist in the simplest sense-- it discriminates based on race. I have heard many similar criticisms of what is perceived as Israeli racist policy:
In fairness to me, these aren't my arguments. I would like to name-drop some authors, but my attribution is bound to be wrong. Regardless, I strongly feel that these arguments belong in this article, and would begin to fill a glaring hole. Ultimately these arguments charge that Anti-Zionism is part of being anti-racist, which is something I have heard many times, but cannot find (anymore) on wikipedia.
I'm sure that someone is bound to be offended, so I say peace to you now, brother or sister... :)
MisterSheik 07:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering your points:
-- Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering yours :)
Cheers :) MisterSheik 20:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering your points:
-- Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did some more article-reading, and I found the content on "Zionism and racism". So now I agree with you that we shouldn't duplicate content. However, I still think that this should more prominently linked to in this article, rather than just a vague link at the bottom of this page. Perhaps a section with a "main article" link.
Regarding "my two points". I think they're complimentary-- Two forms of (possibly) unfair discrimination: Religious and racist. Not contradictory at all. :)
Cheers MisterSheik 01:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I must be miscommunicating :)
Israel only offers the so-called "right of return" to people who are, in their eyes, racially jewish, which means part of ancient or modern jewish colony, etc. etc. This right of return is not, for example, offerred to Arab Palestinians regardless of whether they marry an Israeli or convert to Judaism or do anything else differently. This "right of return" is not granted regardless of race. Clearly, it is a racist policy.
From my understanding, it is much easier to immigrate to Israel if you practice Judaism. This is religious discrimination. Here I am talking about the immigration policy.
MisterSheik 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the utopia that exists in my head, race is really only useful for things like description of people by sight, etc. Culture, I think, makes a much better group identifier in most of the cases for which we use race.
With this in mind, my interest in anti-zionism shouldn't be taken to be anger over the israeli-palestine conflict. Even if this conflict was non-existant, I would still believe that having a country that exists for a particular race of people is a denial of the universal truth that we are all equal souls. This denial is what I feel is implied by Zionism and that is what I find offensive about it.
America is also multi-cultural and multi-religious, but that does not imply that it is a bastion of non-discrimination; surely, there is still inequity. Just as there is inequity (in my eyes) in the ideology of some fanatical Muslims that seek to convert some middle-eastern countries into Muslim states. Nevertheless, all of this inequity can be methodically exposed within doctrine-- and this is my point... as above :)
I would like to know, the people who removed my references to the Ethiopian Jews, are they disputing the facts or their mentioning in this article? since the accusation of Zionism as racist gets a fair mention here, it is imperative to mention some totally neutral facts in relation to it- that the Jews are not only white, there are also black Jews and Oriental Jews who are closer racially to the Palestinians than to Europeans. Any opposing view has to explain itself. If Zionism is racism, which race is it, and which races does it oppose? the accusers seldom mention this. Are the jews a race? are the palestinians a race? Jews from Ethiopia I mean I would understand it if such an accuser believed that there are only white (Aryan...;) Jews, then such an accusation is at least not logically problematic. But to agree that peoples from the same race can be racist against each other, how can that be? if you are so sure of yourself, aren't you supposed to be only too eager to explain? User:Unlessimwrong
This article includes a number of logical and factual errors: A. "The defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948."
The state of Israel came into being in 1948. The Zionist movement did not formally contemplate a state until the Biltmore declaration of 1942. Anti-Zionism had existed in one or another form since the 19th century and certainly since 1902. Anti-Zionism before 1948 could not possibly have been against the existence of the state of Israel, because the state of Israel didn't exist and nobody was thinking of making such a state before 1942. Anti-Zionists believe at least one of the following two propositions:
1- The Jews are not a people. 2- If the Jews are a people, they should not establish their own national home (not necessarily a state) until the Messiah comes (ultraorthodox Jewish anti-Zionism).
Anti-Zionist opposition to the existence of the state of Israel stems from the above two propositions, or from anti-Semitism, or from Arab self-interest.
B.- "Before the 1930s the majority of the world's Jews who were in a position to express an opinion could loosely be considered anti-Zionist, in the sense that they did not actively support the Zionist project for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the use of the expression "anti-Zionism" to describe their attitudes needs to be heavily qualified."
Actually, the statement is rubbish. Most Jews were not Zionists in the 1920s, but they were not "anti-Zionists." The Jewish Agency formed in 1929 included both Zionist and non-Zionist organizations.
C.- " But Reform Jews did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine and reconstitute a Jewish nation within its borders. Rather, they rejected the view that they themselves had an obligation to do so."
The above is misleading. The Reform Jewish movement explicitly rejected the idea that the Jews were a people. In the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 they stated: " We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of wany of the laws concerning the Jewish State."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs002/pittplat.html Ami Isseroff, www.mideastweb.org
Hi, Reform Judaism had its roots in the German enlightenment/assimiliationist movement, and it has a complex history that extends well before the Pittsburgh declaration and well before ZIonism. An excellent book on the subject is "The Pity of it all" by Amos Elon, Henry Holt, 2002 (or in Hebrew "German Requiem" 2004). They did not object to Zionism per se, because Zionism per se did not really exist - only the sense of Jewish national identification, which was an issue for German Jews.
Your statement "As a movement, early Reform Judaism was not anti-Zionist in the same sense that the other Anti-Zionist groups in this article were." is misleading and besides the point, because no two groups were ever "Anti-Zionist" in "the same sense." Your point "The point of this section is to note that the term "Anti-Zionism" is so loosely defined that it covers many totally distinct groups" indicates the problem with the definition of anti-Zionism in this article, which apparently includes also non-Zionists, Jews who were sympathetic but didn't want to move to Palestine immediately etc. It is a bad definition, and therefore it is a bad article. The assimilationists in Germany did not lose their objection to Jewish peoplehood or to Zionism as far as I know. I believe Walther Rathenau defended the 'non-people' issue very strongly with the backing of most of the enlightened Jewish community. He insisted that he is a German and that the Jews are part of the German Volk. Eventually he committed suicide after the Nazis came to power I believe, but that doesn't prevent others from taking up the same ideas today. In the USA, the Reform Movement gradually became non-assimilitionist and non-anti-Zionist as well, but that happened mostly after WW I.
You wrote: "But they never denied the right of Jews to move to the land of Israel if they so wished."
As far as I know, NO anti-Zionist movement _ever_ denied the right of (Individual) Jewish people to move to the land of Israel. Arab anti-Zionists object to mass immigration because they fear it will displace them, but most Palestinian anti-Zionists tell us they were quite happy with the situation as it was in the 19th century. Jews could come to the land then and some did.
Many of the Neturei Karteh live in Israel. Anti-Zionists of every stripe are quite happy with the idea that there will be a Jewish minority living in Israel under Arab rule, as long as those Jews do not try to set up a state or national home in any sense. In other words, as long as Palestine or the Vilayet of Al-Quds or whatever it might be called is no different from the USA or Britain or Germany or Iraq with regard to national rights of Jews.
Anti-Zionism of the Jewish-Marxist and the Jewish-assimilationist varieties objects to Zionism because it objects to the idea that the Jews are a people. Individuals of the "Mosaic faith" can live wherever they want, including Palestine, but cannot claim separate nationhood. In particular, German and British assimilationists were very upset by the idea that Jewish peoplehood would cause them to be suspected of dual loyalty. They objected to Zionism long before there was a state and long before the state was an official aim of the Zionist movement.
Anti-Zionism of the Jewish ultra-orthodox kind has to allow that the Jews are a people - "am Yisrael" - the people of Israel. However, they believe that this "chosen" people must not do anything practical regarding Jewish national rights, because these will be asserted by the Messiah, who will strike down the evil gentiles and initiate the rule of God's Chosen People. It is amusing to see that doctrinaire leftists and pro-Palestinians champion these medieval racist ideas with the same enthusiasm that right-wing Zionist Jewish fanatics welcome the support of Evangelical Christians.
Of course, the different groups that often quote each other and may link to each other on the Web each may have very different reasons for opposing Zionism, ranging from idealist anti-nationalism to Palestinian land claims to racism of different types, and with all stops in between. However, they all agree that there must not be a national home for the Jews. This was characteristic of these groups BEFORE there was a state of Israel and also when having a state was not a goal of ZIonism. Therefore, opposition to the existence of the State of Israel is a characteristic of anti-Zionism, but not the defining characteristic. [Ami I.]
I think the choice of illustration for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" doesn't respect the NPoV. These two images are linked to an antisemitic wing of anti-Zionism. The anti-Zionism in arab countries gathers an important number of points of view, so I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab anti-Zionism only by arab antisemitic propaganda. -- Marcoo 13:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
First, sorry for my english.
I answer your question : Of course, for example Azmi Bishara, a politic leader coming from the arab minority in Israel, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore he is anti-Zionist (he asks for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin). I don't think that Bishara is anti-semitic. Many people like him share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries.
-- Marcoo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
As I explain above, I proposed to remove the two illustrations for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" because I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab and Soviet anti-Zionism only by anti-Semitic propaganda.-- Marcoo 13:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about the opposite, did you explain why these pictures would represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought ? I travelled in many arab countries, lot of people are Anti-Zionist but only few of them are Anti-Semitic. So I think it's not neutral at all to illustrate arab Anti-Zionism by Anti-Semitic pictures. There is a significant strain in Zionism with extremist militants, is it a reason to illustrate Zionism with a pic about extremist zionists ? -- Marcoo 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do I defined Anti-Semitic ? It's the racism against the Jews. About the pictures, there is no evidence that they represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought, so I think it is not relevant and neutral to let them.-- Marcoo 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So if you recognize we cannot be sure, I propose to remove this pics because they are a way to take position (suggesting that they represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought), not NPoV. -- Marcoo 22:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But you didn't say why you are "strongly against the removal of the pictures". -- Marcoo 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What does "represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought" in your opinion" : -> I have no answer for that. This question is complex because of the meaning of "main". "main" in the american perception ? "main" in the arab-israeli conflict ? That's why I think it's is very difficult to be relevant to illustrate "Arab Anti-Zionism".
Could you answer just two questions :
There is another solution : to separate Arab Anti-Zionism into two parts "Anti-Semitic Arab Anti-Zionism" and "Non Anti-Semitic". -- Marcoo 12:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Such Anti-Zionist caricatures are typically considered Anti-Semitic partly because they use Anti-Semitic motifs, not necessarily because they slander Jews in general (although this distinction is slim and not necessarily intended by the publisher). In other words, while borrowing motifs from traditional Anti-Semitism (and perhaps doing so intentionally out of genuine Anti-Semitism), these caricatures are usually (at least at the superficial level) aimed at Zionists, not Jews in general. The Soviet caricature in the article demonstrates this, where the spider has "Zionism" written on its back, not "Jews". The Arabic caricature, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be making this distinction. Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, and the editors of this article are correct in illustrating it. I propose:
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs.-- Doron 07:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs." -> I agree with that point.
The point I disagree is "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda". I think you're talking about the propaganda you've heard of. I lived in Arab countries and from my view point the Anti-Semitic motifs are a very rare aspect of Anti-Zionist propaganda, even in pictures or cartoons. And it alos depend of the arab country you are (more in Egypt for example). In palestinian territories or in Israel, the Arab use of Anti-Semitic motifs is almost inexistent. -- Marcoo 08:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I alreeady answered this question above, but I do it again. For example a large part of the Arab Anti-Zionist mouvement in Israel, with for exemple the leader Azmi Bishara, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore they're anti-Zionist (they ask for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin), and for more than 99 % they don't used any Anti-Semitic motifs for their propaganda. Many Arab people like them share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries. In the US, many Arab intellectuals are or were sometimes anti-Zionist, like Edward Said, but they're not Anti-Semitic. In Jordan, in palestinian cities, in Lebanon, in North Africa, many politic leaders have expressed Anti-Zionist positions, but never used Anti-Semitic motifs.
"Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a typical example of PoV. That's why these pictures should be removed to respect a NPoV.
-- Marcoo 21:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Note, Said lived in the USA and Bishara lives in Israel." And ? Bishara is not part of Arab Anti-Zionism ? It doesn't count ?
"The Soviet cartoon is very typical and is far from the worst." -> The fact "it's far from the worst" is true, it's a fact, you or I can prove it, a fact on which there is no serious dispute. Ok. But about if it's typical or not, it can only be a point of view. When you say that something is typical of something or not, it's always a appreciation. I re-read the WP:NPOV : "By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." . I think for our subject there is an Anglo-American focus here. Because most of Arab Anti-Zionist propaganda you can heard of in the US is about Anti-Semitic motifs, you make the conclusion that it's a typical aspect.
"Here are just a few links concerning Arab anti-Zionism:" -> So what ? You can show me as many PoVs you want, they're still PoV.
-- Marcoo 12:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"the burden of proof is on you." -> If I wanted to write in the article that Anti-Semitic motifs are not typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, of course the burden of proof should have been on me. But here you affirm that Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, which is for me just a PoV, and it's a reason for you to let the pictures, so it's obvious that the burden of proof is on you. -- Marcoo 14:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice selection. On Wikipedia, "seems" is not enough to be considered as a fact. -- Marcoo 00:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To answer to Guy Montag : I don't think it's a good idea to look for an alternative picture, because there probalby will be another long dicussion about what is typical or not of Arab Anti-Zionism. So I propose to only remove the actual pic because it suggests that "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a fact, whereas it is just a PoV. -- Marcoo 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's the deal with this external link? http://www.mideasttruth.com/ Mid-East Truth It has been removed and re-added repeatedly. Is it anti-zionist or anti-anti-zionist? It appears to be anti-anti. If it is relevant why shouldn't it be included? Thanks, - Willmcw 19:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I claim that it is a hate site. It advioocates special treatment of members of a racial group purely on the grounds of membership of that group. If we took that "tasteless article" and substituted "jew" for "muslim" throughout you and the JDL would have a fit - and I'd be none too happy either - it would be wrong. Or are you saying that it would be acceptable to advocate giving all jews a hard time because of the actions of some of them?
By all measures, even that article is not tastless. Hate sites usually have low standards, and if this is as "offensive" as the site gets ( in my perticular view it actually has a valid point that it is putting forward through satire) than there is no reason to remove it. There is nothing racist about that article. Islam is not a race and it is not demonizing Islam.
Guy Montag 00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So singling out one single group for special treatment for no other reason than they beling to that group is not in bad taste? Sounds a lot like the editorial policy of Der Sturmer to me. Personally I am less tolerant and think we should treat all bigotry face on.
"First they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist...... "
It's a good poem - look it up 62.253.64.15 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And to pretend that race hatred is acceptable because it is targeted at "not your race" does a worse one. 62.253.64.14 23:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you feel insulted then look to your own morals and attitudes not to mine. Guy Montag seems to hold these views as "a valid point that it is putting forward". 62.253.64.14 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Your position in this discussion has been profoundly immoral and degrading" in YOUR opinion. Personally I find no loss in the discontinuation of debate with those who defend openly racist POV. 62.253.64.14 01:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CAMERA: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Is a general media watchdog site (albeit one watching the press views on current affairs in Israel and surrounds) - I dont see any special relevance to the topic in hand. Any objections to a delete? If we are going to keep it then at least link to a "search" for "anti-zionism" within the website.
The groups listed have a few thousands members at most, and views that are radically different from the vast majority of Jews and Jewish organizations. I think that qualifies them as "fringe". Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
Agreed. Even the Satmar have condemned Neturei Karta and their affiliates as having no Chesed Yisrael (love of the Jewish people) and as heretics.
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
The state of Israel has a few million people - compared to China does that make it a "Fringe" nation? Can I insert this into all of the Israel related articles? The "fringe nation of Israel"? No - that would be unreasonable.
You guys have got to stop with the constyant POV please. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Compared to other Jewish groups, their views are certainly on the fringe. Also, please see the 3RR violation section below. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
Look, I perfectly understand when people object to pov terms, but this is a clearcut case. Anti Zionism can be a situational Jewish theological position, and it is for Satmar, but Satmar objects to the secularism of the state of Israel and not that it exists, Neturei Karta is universally condemned by everyone as holding heretical theological positions with regards to Israel. When it comes to theology, you cannot argue, pov, you can argue the facts. The facts state that Satmar, the largest Anti Zionist Jewish group has condemned Neturei Karta and their affiliates as heretics. They are on the fringe of Jewish life. Here is the letter of condemnation [25].
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
"Even among Charedi, or ultra-Orthodox circles, the Neturei Karta are regarded as a wild fringe. After some of them took part in an anti-Israel rally in the United States earlier this year, an advertisement in the Orthodox press excoriated those who had joined 'the enemies of our people'. It is significant that the denunciation was endorsed by most of the major Charedi groupings in New York, including some with a staunchly anti-Zionist theology, such as the powerful Satmar Chasidic sect." The Guardian November 25, 2002. [26] Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
I don't understand the comparison. To qualify as Orthodox you have to fulfill certain religious qualifications. All the Orthodox sects have condemned Neturei Karta as heretical. "Fringe" is already giving it more legitimacy than it deserves.
Revision as of 6 July 2005 20:03 62.253.64.14 (Talk | contribs) <- this was me rolling back as per policy. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
Not at all. I have actually been seeing "lost edits" here too recently - stuff seems to get out of synch for a few mins. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
Honestly guys - you will never meet anyone who cares less about doctrinal disputes within the Jewish Faith (I'm athiest) but "Fringe" just sounds like an attempt to marginalise these groups - and to some extent depricate their sincerely held point of view. That's just not policy. Personally I think you visit their site and it's pretty obvious they're 2 sandwiches short of a picnic - but we shouldn't be editorialising this in the main article. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Their views are marginal, that is what should be noted. Whitewashing facts isn't wiki policy either.
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
You could try "Freaks" perhaps? 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
I'm smiling despite myself.<G>
The site jewsnotzionists.org lists the following groups:
"A partial listing of some well-known Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist groups:
* Bene Yoel * Breslov * Brisk * Hazon Ish * Kaschau * Krasna * Kretcheniff * Malochim * Munkacs * Neturei Karta * Nitra * Pupa * Satmar * Skullene * Slonim (Weinberg) * Toldoth Aharon * Toldoth Avrohom Yitzchok * Tosh * Wiznitz Hassidic sect based in Monsey, NY "
So its description would seem inaccurate whatever adjective we choose.
However this looks like a bunch of "sects" (is there a better word?) to me. Certainly more than one guy and some friends who paint placards. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
OK - so lets agree that "Jews Not Zionists - Fringe Orthodox Jewish group" is NOT an accutrate description of that site - and leave the other one aside for the moment.
How about "Jews Not Zionists - Umbrella site for various groups opposed to Zionism" - a sugestion - feel free to improve. 62.253.64.14 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
I could very happily live with no descriptions - or at least having minimalist ones. I suspect that some of the "anti anti zionist" links probably belong to nutcases and "the fringe" as well (most of the Isaerli citizens I know are the same sort of middle of the road rasonable guy I like to think I am) - I doubt they are mainstream. I just really object to having descriptions which colour the first interaction with the site. If you allow "fringe" then you end up with everyone describing sites they disagree with as "marginal", "extremeist" etc. 62.253.64.14 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
Cant you be "apostate orthodox" if orthodox judaism is what you have abandoned? I like the version post GM's edit though. 62.253.64.14 8 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
62.253.64.14/62.253.64.15, you have reverted this article more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. This is what is known as a Wikipedia:Three revert rule violation. Those who violate the 3 Revert Rule are generally blocked from editing. I strongly recommend you restore the previous version of the article and work this out on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
No - I think it was guy montag at 19:58. How do you make it out as me? If it was me I'll change it for today. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts in 24 hours. Note, you were reverting two other editors, Guy Montag and HKT; neither of them reverted more than twice. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
"A small minority of Jews, however, continue to oppose Zionism on either political or religious grounds."
A small minority of Jews in general, but then again Orthodox Jews are a small minority of Jews these days. However, within Orthodoxy I'd say it is much larger than most people think - the Lubavitcher Rebbe was Anti-Zionist and most of Chabad today is (though, au contraire to Satmar, they do not make a big deal about it..)-- Josiah 00:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Unless we can figure out how large part it is why not just write "a portion of..."? // Liftarn
Mizrahi, please explain how a clearly anti-semitic caricature is "specifically" anti Zionist? According to this article:
How is this caricature related to anything but vile hatred towards Jews in general regardless of Zionism and Israel? Also, how can you say that it is "not necessarily anti-semitist? Hell yes it is anti-semitic. Ramallite (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism! Anti-zionism is merely a manifestation of anti-semitism!
The 20th Century saw the destruction of empires and the creation of many new countries in their wake. This, of course, resulted in a myriad of disputes and wars - many a lot more bloody, unjust and barbaric than anything involving Israel - yet some people specifically target Israel and campaign against its very existence. This denial of the legitimacy of Israel's existence is what separates Anti-zionists from ordinary critics (although extreme unreasonable criticism is also rooted in anti-semitism).
Leaving aside peripheral arguments about social policy, Anti-Zionists often justify their unique objection to Israel's creation and existence on the grounds that:
A. the creation of Israel involved the destruction of Palestine.
However, there has never been a country called "Palestine". Until the modern State of Israel was formed, the land had been occupied by successive foreign empires since the destruction of the previous Jewish homeland.
Do these people oppose the creation of other states that have been freed from colonial occupation (for example Tunisia, the USA, Indonesia etc.)? If not, why are they biased against the JEWISH state?
B. the creation of Israel involved the Palestinian Arabs losing land and property. The same could be said in countless circumstances throughout history and across the world. The previous Kingdom of Israel was destroyed after the Romans threw out most of its Jews and changed its name to Palaestina.
The creation of Pakistan involved the dispossession of Indian Hindus. Serbs lost land & property in Bosnia. How many anti-zionists are equally opposed to the existence of Pakistan & Bosnia?
The bulk of British Mandate Palestine (and about a third of Ottoman Palestine) is now part of Jordan. Jordan annexed the West Bank and kicked out all the Jews. Are anti-zionists are equally opposed to the existence of Jordan? If not, why are they biased against the JEWISH state?
C. The Jews were 20th Century immigrants to the area. What about Arab immigration? At the beginning of the century, the census shows the Arab population was around 400,000. By mid century it had swollen to 1.3 million. Arabs from Lebanon, Syria & Egypt emigrated there because of the development brought be returning Jews.
D. Zionism and the subsequent creation of Israel came about on the grounds of a religious doctrine that places Jews above non-Jews.
It is true that, aside from a miniscule minority of extremists, most religious Jews feel that God gave their people the State of Israel. Many Christians share this view and even the Koran states:
"And thereafter We (Allah) said to the People of the Book (the Jews): 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" (5) (Koran 17:104)
Italy's Imam Palazzi states:
"Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources. Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology."
Israel is of course, secular, liberal and pluralistic. There are much more obvious examples of theocracies in this world, but do anti-zionists also campaign against their existence?
Jews are more than just Judaism. Indeed, some Jews are atheists.
Take out the religion and there is still Jewish culture, identity, cooking, humour - even possibly some DNA - linking them. Some call the Jews a "people", some call them a "race", some call them an "ethnicity", but they started off as a Canaanite tribe in the land that eventually became Israel.
Even without the doctrinal aspects, the historical link of the Jewish people to their homeland is as valid as any other.
Do anti-zionists also oppose the territorial claims of Native Americans? Do they object to the homeland of the Irish? the French? What about the Palestinians????
Even in its most "sensitive" form, anti-Zionism hinges on double standards. Vehemently denying the right of Israel to exist on grounds that are ignored in the many more extreme examples across the world.
The question is - why are anti-zionists biased against Israel. What is unique about "The *JEWISH* State"?
Is it the cooking? Is it the design of the flag? Is it the (admittedly atrocious) pop music?
No, it can only be down to prejudice.
I have searched the EUMC reports published in 2005 and earlier reports and couldn't find the definition displayed in the article. Could someone please cite the publication and, if possible, the page where the EUMC defines anti-Semitism? If this definition can't be confirmed then it should be removed from the article. Yodakii 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I am removing this paragraph as original research: Thus, although the governments of most Arab and Muslim countries have continued to proclaim their opposition to Zionism, most were likely willing in practice to accept the settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute set out in the Oslo Accords, which proposed the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the mutual recognition of Israel and a new state of Palestine. Most, possibly all, governments would still accept such a settlement if one were again put forward. Public opinion in the Arab and Islamic world is another matter, but it is likely that a settlement involving the creation of a Palestinian state would lead to a decline in anti-Zionist sentiment. - What prevented all those nations to create a Palestinian state during 19 years when WB was controlled by Jordan and GS by Egypt? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph I changed did not conform to NPOV. As it currently reads, it presents two sides of the Anti-Zionism debate: the idea that Anti-Zionism is prima facie antisemitism, and the idea that tarring all Anti-Zionists with the brush of antisemitism is meant to stifle debate. The section on Hasidic (please note single "s") anti-Zionism is interesting and useful, but needs to go elsewhere, preferably in its own article if it isn't already. IronDuke 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The {{POV}} flag has been removed because of the lack of a clear definition of what the complaints are, and how they can be fixed. If they are in the archives, that does no good to newer editors coming to this article. Please list them below, and then restore the tag as needed.
Remember. Suspected policy violations should be specificly deliniated with atleast the slightest bit of a clue of how they can be fixed-- Tznkai 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As the article and its links correctly state, the Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns began well before Stalin and lasted well after his death. Nikodemos, I am sorry but I'll have to revert your edits again. "Soon after Joseph Stalin's rise to power in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Zionism began to be viewed as a form of " bourgeois nationalism," - this is wrong factually, please see Yevsektsiya. "Official Soviet anti-Zionism reached a peak during the last years of Stalin's rule, roughly 1948-1953." - by what metrics/according to whom? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Z=R is not an encyclopedic definition but rather an annulled accusation. It is wrong and POV to put it under a bullet as if it is still a valid definition. ← Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Otherwise anti-zionism as a form of anti-racism become misrepresented. Or perhaps it would be an idea to define anti-zionism rather then zionism. // Liftarn
Since nobody objected to using bulletpoints or came up with a better alternative I guess it's OK... But I'll have a go at it. // Liftarn
The introduction fails to make an introduction to Anti-Zionism. Instead it presents Zionism. It would make so much more sense to write about the subject of the article. The "may for instance be" is because Anti-Zionism may be almost anything from racism to anti-racism. "Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel" [27], but OK "choosen people" is perhaps the wrong words. Would "historical right" be better? I'll give it a try. // Liftarn
You are still defining Zionism, not Anti-Zionism. // Liftarn
In what way is it POV? // Liftarn
Yes, either that or "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Racism". All the headings have the form of "NNN anti-Zionism" or "Anti-Zionism and NNN". What would you suggest? // Liftarn
The current into failes to define Anti-Zionism and instead define Zionism (and we have an entier article for that). I have tried to reword it to instead define Anti-Zionism, but it keeps getting reverted. Unless it manages to define Anti-Zionism it has to go. Ok, so your're cool with "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Racism"? I think "Anti-Racist Anti-Zionsim" sounds better since that type of Anti-Zionism oposes Zionism on the basis that they consider it a form of racism. // Liftarn
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
"The anti-Zionism of Left-leaning movements and parties, from Bolsheviks of 1917 to present days Greens, Feminists, Gay movements and Libertarians doesn't have official explanation and often contradicts general positions of these parties. From late 1990s anti-Zionism is a mandatory requirement for a supporter of gay rights, abortions, emission control, public education, artistic freedom, gender equality etc, despite Israel's clear progress in this areas over its neighbours. Bolsheviks claim that Zionism removes Jews from participation in revolutionary activity in their countries of birth may be still valid." This is clearly biased. The writer is clearly using arguments against left-wing anti-zionism instead of just stating facts. After that the phrase "Bolsheviks claim that Zionism removes Jews from participation in revolutionary activity in their countries of birth may be still valid." is used to ridicule the movement.
An utterly ridiculous statement, on so many levels. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed. Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Louis Farrakhan, etc. are "far left"? Are anti-Zionist liberals, conservatives, and libertarians "far left"? Yeah right. The article also claims that the "far left" (which is never defined) is marginal and isolated within American society. Yet the author contradicts zirself in the same sentence with the claim that the "far left" is highly influential in academia and media. This article is a joke. It needs severe editing, but I'm sure the hyper-POV author responsible for the garbage will simply reinstate it.
Since Zionism entails a state based upon "racial"/ethnic discrimination and displacement of native peoples, one can be anti-Zionist by virtue of consistently applied anti-racism. Is all consistent anti-racism in America on the "far left"?
-Platypussy
Platypussy is quite correct. The "Law of Return" is about as clear-cut a case of ethnic discrimination as one could ask for, especially considering that Jews whose ancestors hadn't been there for 2000 years are allowed by it to "return" while non-Jews who were born there are not. However, that is irrelevant to the narrower point, which is that Platypussy is also right about the ridiculousness of "American anti-Zionism is confined to the far left". Pat Buchanan, if nothing else, should illustrate the folly of that statement. - Mustafaa 22:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and as retorts go, "Jews are not "race" so racism is inapplicable" is awfully reminiscent of "Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, because Arabs are Semites". The problem can't be swept under the carpet just by picking holes in definitions. - Mustafaa 22:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
in reference to all that is written above: essentially, the whole lot of writers has neglected to understand (or refuse to understand) is that anything anti-zionist, or anti-semetic (in these cases) is completely lost in rhetoric. the fact is that when a group of people of any distinct belief system gather in any one place, another distinct group of people will undouptedly rise against it. the simple matter is, despite what some old text or tome may say.. when you force your beliefs onto others, they will begin to hate you. this horrible truth becomes a wave of sentiment that will only grow with time. the reality is this: isreal is not a real country... merely an idea that is supported by a specific group of people and opposed by another. had the 'homeland' of isreal not been created from the oppressive powers that gathered to form it, none of this would even be talked about. mumble on all you want... if someone forced their way into your backyard and only had some random piece of paper as 'proof' that they had a 'right' to do so is ridiculous and the opposite of everything that is right and just. put that in your pipe and smoke it..... Zod
Interesting point Zod. Doubtless it would suck to be on the receiving end of such a note. However, it is important to note that, historically, there is no such parallel to a note. The Jews of what would eventually become Israel moved into what was then "Palestine" by peaceful means, buying land, often at exorbitant prices, from mostly Arab landlords. Following the Holocaust, it became clear to many, both in power and not, that there was some validity to the idea that the collective "Jews" would never be truly safe until they had a land of their own in which to decide their own destiny. Thus there began to be something done about the Balfore Declaration, only accelerated by the fact that many of the Jews who had been displaced by the Nazis (many, like my grandparents, the only survivors of their entire families and towns), wished to emigrate to what was then Palestine. This of course presented a problem to the British rulers of the area, who were under strong pressure by the ruling powers in the Arab world to block any such immigration (if your interested in the result, look up the internment camps in Cyprus following World War II; again an experience my grandparents underwent). Such a mass Jewish emigration into Palestine was naturally a threat to the control of Palestine by Arabs. Soon Israel was declared a nation in the UN, a declaration that included a land partition based on population densities, where areas that were majority Jewish to be under Jewish rule, and areas that were majority Arab to be under Arab rule (there were of course instances of compromise for the sake of territorial continuity, such as appropriating Haifa, a split city, to the Jews, or Hebron, another split city, to the Arabs). This partition resulted in only about half of what is currently Israel being placed under Jewish rule, with the other portion to be made into the Arab state of Palestine, including the city of Jerusalem placed under International rule. It has been argued that the reason the ruling powers among the Arabs pressured the British to arrest post-holocaust Jewish immigration into Palestine was due to their foresight of such a solution. Either way, the common desire among Arabs to see no Jewish state established (perhaps because of the frequent encouragement of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiments in Arab populations by Arab rulers, such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), predisposed them to reject this proposition, as they did. Thus, even as the leaders of the nascent state of Israel were convening to sign its Declaration of Independence, Egypt had already launched bomber aircraft to raid Tel-Aviv (a Jewish city). It was under such auspices that the Israeli war of Independence began. There has been much talk of the Jewish expulsion of local Arab population during this war. For the most part, these accusations appear to be historically false, although certainly with some exceptions. Especially in the countryside and villages of Palestine, Arab populations were encouraged (or scared to, either by threats or propaganda about the Jewish intentions) by those in charge of Arab forces to vacate the region as to expedite the advance of the Arab armies on Jewish positions. These populations were told that they merely had to leave for a short while, during which the Arab armies would complete their mission of "pushing the Jews into the sea" (if you don't believe me that this was a major slogan of the Arab armies during the Israeli war of independence, feel free to look up declarations from individuals such as the General in charge of the Arab armies, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the Saudi prince ruling at the time). When this mission did not proceed as planned the Arabs who had once lived in Palestine were, needless to say, left out in the cold. However, though this from of emigration apparently accounted for the majority (by capita and land area) of the reduction of the Arab population of Palestine during the War of Independence, it would be false of me to claim it accounted for all. There were instances were Israeli forces expelled the local Arab populations of a given area, such as in Haifa (I think it was Haifa...). Even these occasions, however, must be considered in light of historical circumstance and military necessity. Many of the local Arab populations in these areas had aiding the Arab armies, either with intelligence or logistics. Thus, though it was certainly not the most pleasant decision, there was some objective validity to the decision of Jewish commanders to evict the residents of a city or hillside where they knew they would soon be fighting. To the benefit of the Jewish forces, following the war they did in many occasions allow the populations which they had themselves evicted to return. There are, however, a handful of darker incidences which demand mentioning; these are major black marks on the otherwise humane behavior of the Jewish forces. The most famous of these, is the massacre of a certain Arab village by the Lechi. Lechi, or the Stern gang as they are more often called, where essentially Jewish terrorists, which the mainstream Jewish defense movement had tolerated mostly (according to memoirs of the leadership) to prevent civil war within the Jewish population. The Stern gang believed in doing absolutely anything to assure Jewish independence, including acts of terrorist bombing, which they did against the British forces in the pre-Independence period with little regard for the lives of civilians. During the warm this Stern gang, comprising of under 300 individuals, was given a single village to garrison. It is unclear why, but following a paranoid episode by their commander, they proceeded to massacre almost all the inhabitants of the village they were garrisoning. As soon as the mainstream Jewish leadership found out about this, their unit was recalled, and its leadership tried and imprisoned. There can be no excuse for the actions of these individuals, and their terrible atrocity will forever be a burden of shame that the Jews of Israel must bear. For their behavior, I can offer no mitigation. I only ask those reading this to remember that their actions were not that of the mainstream Jewish forces nor corresponded to the beliefs of the vast majority of Jews. Overall, I hope what I've written helps clarify the myth that the Jews, or the British, "kicked out" the Arabs living in Palestine. I'm always up for more discussion though. --Almonator
Anti-Zionism is the denial that Israel has a right to exist, and that the Jewish people have a right to an independent nation in Israel, and is therefore not fundamentally different from anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is just another way for anti-Semites to critize Jews, while hiding under the pretext that they are not anti-Semetic. It is not a coincedence that most anit-Zionists critize Israel for ficticious violations of human rights, while deliberatley ignoring countries like Saudi Arabia, who violate almost all human rights laws know to man, and Darfur, where non-Arabs are currently being ethnicaly cleansed. --Stu
Two points:
-- Wclark 04:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
This is Adam's remark on his most recent edit: "since most Israelis think that anti-Zionism is just another word for anti-Semitism, it cannot be classed as an "extremist" view - this is always a subjective term anyway." When I essentially suggested something similar, ie that many Israeli politicians and right-wing groups have promoted such views, I started being labelled an "anti-Semite" by RK and was harassed at various points for "anti-Semitic views" or making "straw man attacks on Jews." Can the non-Zionophobes (Zionophobes being Adam's euphemism for people who lean towards disapproval of Israeli actions in disputed territory) get their act together and decide who or what is an extremist, and who or what is an anti-Semite for expressing commonly acknowledged views, before making arbitrary judgements on article contents and contributors? -- Simonides 05:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Google search results for:
Looks like it's actually the majority view, to me. -- Wclark 05:09, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
This is a very silly argument. The view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism is a completely mainstream view among Israeli Jews, probably the majority view, and is also common among Jews outside Israel. Most of the Jews I know, even those who dislike Sharon and think Israel should withdraw from all the territories, hold this view. It therefore cannot be classed as "extremist." The word "extremist" is in any case a very subjective term and should only be used when there is clear agreement that a person or opinion is "extreme". That is not the case here. Adam 05:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Please do not make edits on this topic until we've discussed it more first.
I didn't mean to incite an edit war, and I'm sorry. I should probably explain why I picked out this section in particular. I think that many people hold the opinion that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, and that they'll be looking for this POV to be represented in the article (and will consider it biased if they don't find it). Therefore, I think the comparison should be visibly made near the beginning of the article, with appropriate links to distract them and hopefully get them off the page and looking elsewhere (probably at the Anti-Semitism article). I made a similar point recently regarding the Zionism article and how it should visibly mention the controversy surrounding Zionism (and provide a link to Anti-Zionism to draw off the attention of people who'd otherwise complain about that article). (Thanks to Adam, by the way, for coming up with a very good new intro that accomplishes this goal.)
That said, I think these sentences still need work:
I find "reprehensible" too harsh a word, and I think that point could be made more effectively if the (overly long) sentence were restructured and rephrased. There are two distinct points being made, regarding anti-Semitism:
I think this distinction should be made as clear as possible, since only the first point could really be considered reprehensible. Also, I think perhaps the information on anti-Semitism should be in its own section, with "Anti-Semitism" displayed prominently in the title, so that it will catch the eye of those looking for such comparisons and draw their attention to that section (and away from the rest of the article).
I'd suggest we come up with some proposals for changes here on the talk page, come to some sort of agreement, and then make the agreed-upon changes to the article itself. -- Wclark 05:41, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
How about:
..or is that even more confusing? -- Wclark 05:58, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
:::I agree, except the point is to confuse things. The Arabs are the Jews of today (and who were the jews before there were jews?), Arafat is like Washington, and the murderer becomes the victim with a change of context. To create the momentum and will for action, especially for action that under an honest light would be morally reprehensible, people redefine situations. With the acceptance of new definitions or associations, nazis become heros saving the german people from the infiltration of the jewish malaise. There is no interest in the truth here, only achieving a particular objective, creating the will for action, or at least stilling objection to actions. It is interresting that those who are often vilifying the state of israel are outraged at being vilified. Is vilification a one way street? What makes them, the vilifier immume from their own practices. This tactic is an effective way to criticise ones opponent for criticizing you. There is so much information and mis information intentionally created for the sole purpose of re-aligning the argument in a manner more favorable to victory that any discussion dissembles into broad generalizations that turn serious issues into straw men. Like being anti-zionist is the same as anti-racist. And please don't turn this into an opportunity to try and reassociate one point of view with another. Arafat was not like George Washington. Arafat was Arafat and Washington was Washington and each has to stand on the merits of their paricular actions. Any attempt to compare is to try to inject negative or positive associations from the one onto the other, irregardless of the particular actions of the individuals. Anti racists are anti racists and anti zionists are anti zionists. Being anti racist is about being against the discrimination of any particular group and being anti zionist is discriminating against a particular group, in this case the Israelis, though it has been historically used as a cover for descrimination against jews as well, like it or not. I understand the desire to try and keep things truthful, factual and rhetorically honest, and I lament the fact that we are dealing with those who do not. But let us understand that this is a tool used by everyone for il or for good, either way its deception. Myp
Americans usurped their country from native americans, in fact, the English were second in line to 'dicover' it. So should all you yanks be third in line for right to be there? Australia, was homeland to aboriginies - English criminals were deported there next... So the Zionisms ideology states that it should simply be the aboriginies.. next in line, the British, who have any rights to the country. The Romans moved in on Britain and took it over from the Celts.. anyone in Britain, without Celtic blood line - should have lesser rights. This is the ideology of Zionism applied to other countries. Sound fair? I am Jewish, and anti-zionist, they are two seperate things and the fool who claims any anti-zionist is hiding behind the title for exemption from what they really are - anti-semitic, should come see me. ___________
I feel very frustrated at this sentence under the definition of anti-Semitism. It is clearly non-anti-Semitic anti-Zionist attitude: Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Argumentation: I have nothing against Jews but I deny the right of colonists (of any origin) to determine the fate of Palestine. It is dificult to think how other ethnicities that are dispersed and lack a national territory, like the Roma can self-determinate in the usual manner (forming a state and separating from the occupying power).
Yet, as it is part of an oficial document quoted, I'm not touching it. Yet it should be reviewed. -- Sugaar 23:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who can write that "most Jews are not Zionists" is clearly either totally ignorant or malicious, and in either case disqualifies himself from serious consideration in this discussion. Adam 06:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't accomplish anything to declare each other "ignorant", "malicious", a "boor" (or even "whimsical"). Nor does it accomplish anything to assert that one person knows more than another, or to make sarcastic comments. (There, I think I've covered everybody now.) Think to yourself before you post something (even to this talk page) "What do I hope to accomplish by posting this, and is this the most effective way to do that?" Please? -- Wclark 17:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
I am not sure why 209.etc (aka Lance6Wins) continues to insert this material; the statement is not nearly as important as he makes it out to be, and the quotation he gives is different to that in the official declaration. First, the declaration was not a solemn doctrine or an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e. not a required article of Catholic belief), but a statement by the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (see Christian-Jewish reconciliation), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce dogma. What the committee said is just its considered opinion, and the article already says that both Jews and non-Jews (the committee includes both) equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; so why does this instance deserve highlighting? Second, the exact wording (as published on the Vatican's website), in context, is this (emphasis mine):
HTH. —No-One Jones 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I find this formulation propagandistic: "Palestinian leadership formally recognised Israel as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, although that recognition has been rendered inoperative in practice since the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000." This is some editor's POV masquerading as scholarly analysis. Also, I think it is propagandistic to say that "Other Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Syria may still desire the destruction of Israel but no longer say so openly," since the Saudis put forward a rather reasonable peace proposal that involved recognition of Israel, but the proposal was never taken up. I think that was in 2002. -- C Colden 12:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first statement is not "propagandistic." Since 2000 the Palestinians have reverted to the position that a settlement must include the Right of Return, which amounts to a repudiation of the 1993 recognition of Israel, since the "return" of 5 to 8 million Palestinians would effectively destroy Israel. The second statement may or may not be true, and it may be that the Saudis would be prepared to recognise Israel under certain circumstances, but it is not "propagandistic." It would be better of your disagreements with other editors were not framed in such an abusive tone. Adam 12:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first statement is at the least POV: the return of some proportion of the Palestinian refugees (it being extremely unlikely that all 4 million, not 5-8 as you suggest, would return) would not destroy Israel. The second is clearly speculation. - Mustafaa 08:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved with this muddy issue by editing the page, but the recent edit by 195.70.48.242 seems highly POV and should be heavily modified or deleted altogether. Livajo 17:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the edits by 195.70.48.242. They didn't add any relevant information, and they were very POV. 128.253.203.31 17:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there any sort of accepted definition of anti-Zionism? The one in the article here borders dangerously on original research since it:
This section should be little more than a definition from a "legitimate source" of anti-Zionism post 1948 and some accurate way of describing jewish resistance to the idea in prior to and after the Holocaust. Statements like "Many Jews (and some non-Jews) argue that some forms of anti-Zionism are also forms of anti-Semitism." need to be rigorously backed up by some serious authorities in the field, such a linguists and anthropologists. A columnist for some publication simply wont suffice.
"Second, some Jews are anti-Zionists. Jewish anti-Zionism exists mainly among socialist or radical Jewish intellectuals outside Israel. There is also a minority among Orthodox Jews, both inside and outside Israel, who reject Zionism as contrary to the will of God." Thats totally unbacked. Someone needs to dig up some statistics on these remarks, or at the very least a poll carried out by an organization which specializes in that field. Again, some author for a news paper or organization news letter does not cut it.
Does any have numbers on number of Jews who were anti-Zionist before being tragically killed defending their homes and businesses from Hitlers regime? "Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Yeah, this is unbacked too. Has there been a scientific study done on this, if so, it should be cited here. What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". Again, a column in some publication is not sufficent. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Throughout this document I have stated to the effect "a quote from some columnist does not suffice". Let me be clear that if the source article sites some reasonable research with published findings, then the article obviously qualifies. ----
Thank you Mustafaa. Not to be rude: I do not want this talk page section to become an us vs them. Lets have constructive work on this section. Some serious charges against the content have been brought forth and need to be answered. Personal attacks do not help work towards that goal. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Has this article ever been brought before the Arbiration committee? The more I read it the more it looks totally like original research. -- Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are all sorts of links presented here, and in earlier Talk:, showing that anti-Semites use the term interchangeably with Jew; what other evidence is needed? Jayjg 03:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The problem with Wikipedia is that NPOV is worked out amongst a bunch of editors, then 5 months later a new bunch of editors come along who haven't read any of the previous discussions and want to hash it all out again, and the original editors are gone. Here is and earlier comment of mine: Regarding Zionist as a code word for Jew, here's one simple example: Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal Here's a page that uses the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, and resurrects all the old anti-Semitic libels: Kosher Kerry Cons Christian America Here's a page that says that Kosher symbols have no religious significance, but just support Zionist "murders" [8] Here's a Muslim site which admits quite candidly that "Jews" and "Zionists" are used interchangeably [9]and another Muslim site doing the same [10] and another writer using them interchangeably [11]and here again As a muslim,we believe in that Jesus is alive and was not killed by The Jews(zionists). And the many sites referring to the "Zionist Occupied Government" or ZOG (here are some examples: [12] [13] and the "anti-Zionist" actions of the Polish government in 1968 etc. All you need is a few minutes and a search engine to find hundreds of pages and sites using the words interchangeably. Jayjg 03:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I wanted, among other things, some names of "many jews (and some non jews)" who supported the theory that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism . It should be noted that some of these people are, too, political activists (Martin Luther King). I also question their abilities to make the claim beyond their personal feelings, since it requires detailed analysis of the definitions and uses of the terms. There are so many of them, I'll drop the point, since there is a link now in the article readers can easily examine the source and draw their own conclusions.
"Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Does anyone have documented instances of this? -- Uncle Bungle 04:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
After clicking the links I am going to reiterate a previous statement: What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". To argue "some anti-semites" demands a list, ideally by someone with the authority in the field (ie a Psychologist). Judging by the content, it looks as though the author was using the term Zionist interchangably with the term Facist, but thats purely my POV. Again, be very careful whom you cite on this since someone could just as easily take a list of controversial sites (as you just did) and point and say "see see anti-Ziomism == anti-Semitism". -- Uncle Bungle 13:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
At he very least please include a link to the above url backing that statement. It is only fair to the readers, who are going to wonder "who has made this statement"
ogf
Im going to pull this to remove clutter in a few days.
According to the wikipedia article lingustics:
Contextual and independent -- Contextual linguistics is concerned with how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived.
Since Chomsky is a professor in the field of linguistics, he is certainly qualified to comment on the word anti-zionsim and its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived. -- Uncle Bungle 03:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone doesn't forget how to be a linguist, therefore he still is. Whatever your POV on the man, he still holds his office at MIT and he is certainly qualified to speak on the issue. -- Uncle Bungle 03:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That is akin to arguing that if a Judge says that abortion is wrong, they are not speaking as a judge, but as an anti-abortionist. You're right, Chomsky is both, and that should be reflected. When the traffic settles I'll include a link to political activist. You can not deny, however, that any statement made by the man is that of a linguist, since, he is exactly that.
You're right of course, its not a definition, but it is an opinion from a qualified individual. I am yet to find a dictionary which defines anti-Zionism, by the way. So far lots of "anti-Zionism is opposition to zionism", but that is a neoglism defined (in its article) as the act of inventing a word or phrase.. -- Uncle Bungle 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't matter where the comment is published, if an expert in a certain field makes a statement, it has to have been made in their capacity in that field. Furthermore, the comment was part of the response to the question: "You sometimes say in talks and interviews that you used to be called a 'Zionist', and now you're called an anti-Zionist'..." and thus deals with Zionism and anti-Zionism, not Israel, Palestine or any other related issue. Since the man is established in the field, he is certainly qualified to comment on the usage of the terms. -- Uncle Bungle 04:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If an experienced auto mechanic wrote in "Canadian Autoworkers Workers Monthly - protecting canadian jobs" (fake publication for example) that "Japaneese cars have inferior engines", the argument that he was not speaking in his capacity as an auto mechanic would be written off as ridicilous. Again, the publication is irrelevent because of the mans qualifications. When he makes a statement, it is inherently in his professional capacity. You don't suddenly turn off your abilities and make some far-fetched remark, and then turn them back on walking out the door. While he may not have been speaking for the Linguistics Department at MIT, he was certainly speaking as Noam Chomsky, Lingustics Professor -- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nearly everything the man says is a lingustic analysis of some sort (how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived). He has a PhD in the field.
"chomsky appears to turn off his mental abilities" is totally POV. If you have a source on that, I would like to see it. For someone to make a remark like that, they should probably be a qualified psychiatric physician. -- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I know POV is allowed here, I simply said I wanted to see a source on your statements. "propaganda masquerading as political analysis" back that with something soldid, and I mean MORE solid than a PhD, a chair as a professor at a major university, over a dozen books, etc. Another article in the Guardian will not do the job.
-- Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"The most devastating articles in the Anti-Chomsky Reader are not those that expose the ideological prejudices, factual misrepresentations, and distorted logic of his political writings but the two at the end of the book that tear up his reputation as one of the towering intellects of our time. Two essays about linguistics reveal Chomsky’s output in that field to be not the work of a rare, great mind but the product of a very familiar kind of academic hack. His reputation turns out not to have been earned by any significant contribution to human understanding but to be the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findings." [14] Jayjg 15:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Academic credentials for Keith Windschuttle? -- Uncle Bungle 16:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the sake of saving space on the talk page I propose changing the body of this section to read:
While Chomsky is an established and well respected expert in the field of linuistics, some prominent authors are sharply critical of his work. And follow up with some links. Is this acceptable?
And by linguists. Chomsky is best described as controversial (I personally like his politics far better than his linguistics, although both suffer from an inability to engage the other side), but his views continue to overwhelmingly dominate the field of syntax (not to mention computational linguistics.) Ever since Syntactic Structures, Chomsky has been the man to rebel against, and transformational grammar the theory to challenge. Making yourself into the orthodoxy of the field is no mean achievement. If you want evidence - he's apparently the most cited living person between 1980 and 1992... [15] - Mustafaa 21:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have two very different propsals for the future of this article, which should put an end to the NPOV dispute. I like to think of it as a roadmap to peace.
The first is to totally disband the page, moving the content to the appropriate realated articles. For example, anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism could be covered as a section in anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be covered as a subsection of that article. Historic opposition to Zionism (especially pre-Holocaust) could be covered in the main Zionism article. This article could then be used as a disambiguation page. I think it is a good idea because it would let readers consider the concept of anti-Zionism in the larger context of the related articles.
I favour the first solution but expect massive opposition to it, and as such have a second proposal. It can be broken down as follows:
During the first phase of this process it would be best to not add any new information or points of view. Take what we have and document it. During the second phase, resorting to edit wars is likely. I propose that before anything is removed, the idea be discussed in the talk page. Finally, the third phase is also likely to incur angry talk pages and edit wars. It is important to remember that even if you disagree with a point of view, so long as it comes from a reliable source it deserves inclusion.
I think this is a good idea because as long as the statement is nonspecific enough to fit withing the context of its supporting material, it can ultimately be left up to the reader to decide if the statement is specific enough and the source reliable enough for their intellectual needs. This should hopefully put an end to neutrality and factuality disputes, since a source for the point will be included inline.
I would appriciate any comments on these proposals, or alternatives. Constructive work is almost impossible with endless editwars, so lets prove it, all of it, and go from there.
-- Uncle Bungle 16:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When did I say this article was about anti semitism? -- Uncle Bungle 19:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A new section was created by user:Menj called "Islamic response to Zionism", but it went on to discuss what I would call an Islamist response, not an Islamic one. I moved a paragraph about the "Islamist narrative" out of "Arab anti-Zionism" and put it instead in the new "Islamic response" category, but there should be some discussion about what is an Islamic response and what is an Islamist one. I'm also not sure this could be called "anti-Zionism" when there's reference to it being a "disease" (making it sound to me like anti-Semitism). I'm also unsure about Menj inserting the photograph of a book cover, when the book was written by someone calling for the destruction of Israel. Does that look like a Wikipedia endorsement? I'm hesitant to delete this section because I'm not familiar with the book or the author. If he's regarded as a legitimate Islamic scholar then his views shouldn't be deleted. But is he? Slim 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Who has identified these "types of anti-Zionists"? -- Uncle Bungle 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The question is straightforward. As a reader, I want to see an essay, or something to that effect, by a person who is qualified to speak on the issue (poli sci for example) that clearly identifies these to be the two "main groups" of anti-Zionists and outlines their goals, as this section of the article does. -- Uncle Bungle 20:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
Please provide. -- Uncle Bungle 20:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The issue is that the opening statements which form the cornerstone of the section are not backed by any sort of reference text. -- Uncle Bungle 22:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Your understanding is correct. I think it is important, from a readers standpoint. -- Uncle Bungle 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I was looking at the last two statements of the section. Both begin "Other anti-Zionists" which is bad for flow. I was wondering about sources for these comments, the reason being that I think the two statements could be combined as one. It has been my experience that those who consider the circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel illegitimate, would settle for a unified state. Either way, right now it reads quite badly, and I'm open to suggestions. -- Uncle Bungle 16:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article is missing a viewpoint that I have heard expressed many times, and I was wondering whether anyone else noticed the discrepancy.
The viewpoint I am referring to, which is definitely anti-zionist, is that the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish (racewise) state is a racist ideology. For balance, if an English politician ever said that England was a country for those with English blood first and foremost, that politician would be eviscerated by the press. The politician's statement implies that people who are racially English are more valid citizens than immigrants to England of other races. Without a doubt, this policy is racist in the simplest sense-- it discriminates based on race. I have heard many similar criticisms of what is perceived as Israeli racist policy:
In fairness to me, these aren't my arguments. I would like to name-drop some authors, but my attribution is bound to be wrong. Regardless, I strongly feel that these arguments belong in this article, and would begin to fill a glaring hole. Ultimately these arguments charge that Anti-Zionism is part of being anti-racist, which is something I have heard many times, but cannot find (anymore) on wikipedia.
I'm sure that someone is bound to be offended, so I say peace to you now, brother or sister... :)
MisterSheik 07:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering your points:
-- Jayjg (talk) 18:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering yours :)
Cheers :) MisterSheik 20:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Answering your points:
-- Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I did some more article-reading, and I found the content on "Zionism and racism". So now I agree with you that we shouldn't duplicate content. However, I still think that this should more prominently linked to in this article, rather than just a vague link at the bottom of this page. Perhaps a section with a "main article" link.
Regarding "my two points". I think they're complimentary-- Two forms of (possibly) unfair discrimination: Religious and racist. Not contradictory at all. :)
Cheers MisterSheik 01:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I must be miscommunicating :)
Israel only offers the so-called "right of return" to people who are, in their eyes, racially jewish, which means part of ancient or modern jewish colony, etc. etc. This right of return is not, for example, offerred to Arab Palestinians regardless of whether they marry an Israeli or convert to Judaism or do anything else differently. This "right of return" is not granted regardless of race. Clearly, it is a racist policy.
From my understanding, it is much easier to immigrate to Israel if you practice Judaism. This is religious discrimination. Here I am talking about the immigration policy.
MisterSheik 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the utopia that exists in my head, race is really only useful for things like description of people by sight, etc. Culture, I think, makes a much better group identifier in most of the cases for which we use race.
With this in mind, my interest in anti-zionism shouldn't be taken to be anger over the israeli-palestine conflict. Even if this conflict was non-existant, I would still believe that having a country that exists for a particular race of people is a denial of the universal truth that we are all equal souls. This denial is what I feel is implied by Zionism and that is what I find offensive about it.
America is also multi-cultural and multi-religious, but that does not imply that it is a bastion of non-discrimination; surely, there is still inequity. Just as there is inequity (in my eyes) in the ideology of some fanatical Muslims that seek to convert some middle-eastern countries into Muslim states. Nevertheless, all of this inequity can be methodically exposed within doctrine-- and this is my point... as above :)
I would like to know, the people who removed my references to the Ethiopian Jews, are they disputing the facts or their mentioning in this article? since the accusation of Zionism as racist gets a fair mention here, it is imperative to mention some totally neutral facts in relation to it- that the Jews are not only white, there are also black Jews and Oriental Jews who are closer racially to the Palestinians than to Europeans. Any opposing view has to explain itself. If Zionism is racism, which race is it, and which races does it oppose? the accusers seldom mention this. Are the jews a race? are the palestinians a race? Jews from Ethiopia I mean I would understand it if such an accuser believed that there are only white (Aryan...;) Jews, then such an accusation is at least not logically problematic. But to agree that peoples from the same race can be racist against each other, how can that be? if you are so sure of yourself, aren't you supposed to be only too eager to explain? User:Unlessimwrong
This article includes a number of logical and factual errors: A. "The defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948."
The state of Israel came into being in 1948. The Zionist movement did not formally contemplate a state until the Biltmore declaration of 1942. Anti-Zionism had existed in one or another form since the 19th century and certainly since 1902. Anti-Zionism before 1948 could not possibly have been against the existence of the state of Israel, because the state of Israel didn't exist and nobody was thinking of making such a state before 1942. Anti-Zionists believe at least one of the following two propositions:
1- The Jews are not a people. 2- If the Jews are a people, they should not establish their own national home (not necessarily a state) until the Messiah comes (ultraorthodox Jewish anti-Zionism).
Anti-Zionist opposition to the existence of the state of Israel stems from the above two propositions, or from anti-Semitism, or from Arab self-interest.
B.- "Before the 1930s the majority of the world's Jews who were in a position to express an opinion could loosely be considered anti-Zionist, in the sense that they did not actively support the Zionist project for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the use of the expression "anti-Zionism" to describe their attitudes needs to be heavily qualified."
Actually, the statement is rubbish. Most Jews were not Zionists in the 1920s, but they were not "anti-Zionists." The Jewish Agency formed in 1929 included both Zionist and non-Zionist organizations.
C.- " But Reform Jews did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine and reconstitute a Jewish nation within its borders. Rather, they rejected the view that they themselves had an obligation to do so."
The above is misleading. The Reform Jewish movement explicitly rejected the idea that the Jews were a people. In the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 they stated: " We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of wany of the laws concerning the Jewish State."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs002/pittplat.html Ami Isseroff, www.mideastweb.org
Hi, Reform Judaism had its roots in the German enlightenment/assimiliationist movement, and it has a complex history that extends well before the Pittsburgh declaration and well before ZIonism. An excellent book on the subject is "The Pity of it all" by Amos Elon, Henry Holt, 2002 (or in Hebrew "German Requiem" 2004). They did not object to Zionism per se, because Zionism per se did not really exist - only the sense of Jewish national identification, which was an issue for German Jews.
Your statement "As a movement, early Reform Judaism was not anti-Zionist in the same sense that the other Anti-Zionist groups in this article were." is misleading and besides the point, because no two groups were ever "Anti-Zionist" in "the same sense." Your point "The point of this section is to note that the term "Anti-Zionism" is so loosely defined that it covers many totally distinct groups" indicates the problem with the definition of anti-Zionism in this article, which apparently includes also non-Zionists, Jews who were sympathetic but didn't want to move to Palestine immediately etc. It is a bad definition, and therefore it is a bad article. The assimilationists in Germany did not lose their objection to Jewish peoplehood or to Zionism as far as I know. I believe Walther Rathenau defended the 'non-people' issue very strongly with the backing of most of the enlightened Jewish community. He insisted that he is a German and that the Jews are part of the German Volk. Eventually he committed suicide after the Nazis came to power I believe, but that doesn't prevent others from taking up the same ideas today. In the USA, the Reform Movement gradually became non-assimilitionist and non-anti-Zionist as well, but that happened mostly after WW I.
You wrote: "But they never denied the right of Jews to move to the land of Israel if they so wished."
As far as I know, NO anti-Zionist movement _ever_ denied the right of (Individual) Jewish people to move to the land of Israel. Arab anti-Zionists object to mass immigration because they fear it will displace them, but most Palestinian anti-Zionists tell us they were quite happy with the situation as it was in the 19th century. Jews could come to the land then and some did.
Many of the Neturei Karteh live in Israel. Anti-Zionists of every stripe are quite happy with the idea that there will be a Jewish minority living in Israel under Arab rule, as long as those Jews do not try to set up a state or national home in any sense. In other words, as long as Palestine or the Vilayet of Al-Quds or whatever it might be called is no different from the USA or Britain or Germany or Iraq with regard to national rights of Jews.
Anti-Zionism of the Jewish-Marxist and the Jewish-assimilationist varieties objects to Zionism because it objects to the idea that the Jews are a people. Individuals of the "Mosaic faith" can live wherever they want, including Palestine, but cannot claim separate nationhood. In particular, German and British assimilationists were very upset by the idea that Jewish peoplehood would cause them to be suspected of dual loyalty. They objected to Zionism long before there was a state and long before the state was an official aim of the Zionist movement.
Anti-Zionism of the Jewish ultra-orthodox kind has to allow that the Jews are a people - "am Yisrael" - the people of Israel. However, they believe that this "chosen" people must not do anything practical regarding Jewish national rights, because these will be asserted by the Messiah, who will strike down the evil gentiles and initiate the rule of God's Chosen People. It is amusing to see that doctrinaire leftists and pro-Palestinians champion these medieval racist ideas with the same enthusiasm that right-wing Zionist Jewish fanatics welcome the support of Evangelical Christians.
Of course, the different groups that often quote each other and may link to each other on the Web each may have very different reasons for opposing Zionism, ranging from idealist anti-nationalism to Palestinian land claims to racism of different types, and with all stops in between. However, they all agree that there must not be a national home for the Jews. This was characteristic of these groups BEFORE there was a state of Israel and also when having a state was not a goal of ZIonism. Therefore, opposition to the existence of the State of Israel is a characteristic of anti-Zionism, but not the defining characteristic. [Ami I.]
I think the choice of illustration for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" doesn't respect the NPoV. These two images are linked to an antisemitic wing of anti-Zionism. The anti-Zionism in arab countries gathers an important number of points of view, so I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab anti-Zionism only by arab antisemitic propaganda. -- Marcoo 13:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
First, sorry for my english.
I answer your question : Of course, for example Azmi Bishara, a politic leader coming from the arab minority in Israel, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore he is anti-Zionist (he asks for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin). I don't think that Bishara is anti-semitic. Many people like him share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries.
-- Marcoo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
As I explain above, I proposed to remove the two illustrations for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" because I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab and Soviet anti-Zionism only by anti-Semitic propaganda.-- Marcoo 13:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What about the opposite, did you explain why these pictures would represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought ? I travelled in many arab countries, lot of people are Anti-Zionist but only few of them are Anti-Semitic. So I think it's not neutral at all to illustrate arab Anti-Zionism by Anti-Semitic pictures. There is a significant strain in Zionism with extremist militants, is it a reason to illustrate Zionism with a pic about extremist zionists ? -- Marcoo 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How do I defined Anti-Semitic ? It's the racism against the Jews. About the pictures, there is no evidence that they represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought, so I think it is not relevant and neutral to let them.-- Marcoo 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So if you recognize we cannot be sure, I propose to remove this pics because they are a way to take position (suggesting that they represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought), not NPoV. -- Marcoo 22:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But you didn't say why you are "strongly against the removal of the pictures". -- Marcoo 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"What does "represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought" in your opinion" : -> I have no answer for that. This question is complex because of the meaning of "main". "main" in the american perception ? "main" in the arab-israeli conflict ? That's why I think it's is very difficult to be relevant to illustrate "Arab Anti-Zionism".
Could you answer just two questions :
There is another solution : to separate Arab Anti-Zionism into two parts "Anti-Semitic Arab Anti-Zionism" and "Non Anti-Semitic". -- Marcoo 12:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Such Anti-Zionist caricatures are typically considered Anti-Semitic partly because they use Anti-Semitic motifs, not necessarily because they slander Jews in general (although this distinction is slim and not necessarily intended by the publisher). In other words, while borrowing motifs from traditional Anti-Semitism (and perhaps doing so intentionally out of genuine Anti-Semitism), these caricatures are usually (at least at the superficial level) aimed at Zionists, not Jews in general. The Soviet caricature in the article demonstrates this, where the spider has "Zionism" written on its back, not "Jews". The Arabic caricature, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be making this distinction. Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, and the editors of this article are correct in illustrating it. I propose:
Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs.-- Doron 07:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs." -> I agree with that point.
The point I disagree is "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda". I think you're talking about the propaganda you've heard of. I lived in Arab countries and from my view point the Anti-Semitic motifs are a very rare aspect of Anti-Zionist propaganda, even in pictures or cartoons. And it alos depend of the arab country you are (more in Egypt for example). In palestinian territories or in Israel, the Arab use of Anti-Semitic motifs is almost inexistent. -- Marcoo 08:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I alreeady answered this question above, but I do it again. For example a large part of the Arab Anti-Zionist mouvement in Israel, with for exemple the leader Azmi Bishara, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore they're anti-Zionist (they ask for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin), and for more than 99 % they don't used any Anti-Semitic motifs for their propaganda. Many Arab people like them share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries. In the US, many Arab intellectuals are or were sometimes anti-Zionist, like Edward Said, but they're not Anti-Semitic. In Jordan, in palestinian cities, in Lebanon, in North Africa, many politic leaders have expressed Anti-Zionist positions, but never used Anti-Semitic motifs.
"Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a typical example of PoV. That's why these pictures should be removed to respect a NPoV.
-- Marcoo 21:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Note, Said lived in the USA and Bishara lives in Israel." And ? Bishara is not part of Arab Anti-Zionism ? It doesn't count ?
"The Soviet cartoon is very typical and is far from the worst." -> The fact "it's far from the worst" is true, it's a fact, you or I can prove it, a fact on which there is no serious dispute. Ok. But about if it's typical or not, it can only be a point of view. When you say that something is typical of something or not, it's always a appreciation. I re-read the WP:NPOV : "By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." . I think for our subject there is an Anglo-American focus here. Because most of Arab Anti-Zionist propaganda you can heard of in the US is about Anti-Semitic motifs, you make the conclusion that it's a typical aspect.
"Here are just a few links concerning Arab anti-Zionism:" -> So what ? You can show me as many PoVs you want, they're still PoV.
-- Marcoo 12:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"the burden of proof is on you." -> If I wanted to write in the article that Anti-Semitic motifs are not typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, of course the burden of proof should have been on me. But here you affirm that Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, which is for me just a PoV, and it's a reason for you to let the pictures, so it's obvious that the burden of proof is on you. -- Marcoo 14:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice selection. On Wikipedia, "seems" is not enough to be considered as a fact. -- Marcoo 00:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To answer to Guy Montag : I don't think it's a good idea to look for an alternative picture, because there probalby will be another long dicussion about what is typical or not of Arab Anti-Zionism. So I propose to only remove the actual pic because it suggests that "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a fact, whereas it is just a PoV. -- Marcoo 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What's the deal with this external link? http://www.mideasttruth.com/ Mid-East Truth It has been removed and re-added repeatedly. Is it anti-zionist or anti-anti-zionist? It appears to be anti-anti. If it is relevant why shouldn't it be included? Thanks, - Willmcw 19:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I claim that it is a hate site. It advioocates special treatment of members of a racial group purely on the grounds of membership of that group. If we took that "tasteless article" and substituted "jew" for "muslim" throughout you and the JDL would have a fit - and I'd be none too happy either - it would be wrong. Or are you saying that it would be acceptable to advocate giving all jews a hard time because of the actions of some of them?
By all measures, even that article is not tastless. Hate sites usually have low standards, and if this is as "offensive" as the site gets ( in my perticular view it actually has a valid point that it is putting forward through satire) than there is no reason to remove it. There is nothing racist about that article. Islam is not a race and it is not demonizing Islam.
Guy Montag 00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So singling out one single group for special treatment for no other reason than they beling to that group is not in bad taste? Sounds a lot like the editorial policy of Der Sturmer to me. Personally I am less tolerant and think we should treat all bigotry face on.
"First they came for the communists, I did not speak out because I was not a communist...... "
It's a good poem - look it up 62.253.64.15 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And to pretend that race hatred is acceptable because it is targeted at "not your race" does a worse one. 62.253.64.14 23:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you feel insulted then look to your own morals and attitudes not to mine. Guy Montag seems to hold these views as "a valid point that it is putting forward". 62.253.64.14 23:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Your position in this discussion has been profoundly immoral and degrading" in YOUR opinion. Personally I find no loss in the discontinuation of debate with those who defend openly racist POV. 62.253.64.14 01:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
CAMERA: Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Is a general media watchdog site (albeit one watching the press views on current affairs in Israel and surrounds) - I dont see any special relevance to the topic in hand. Any objections to a delete? If we are going to keep it then at least link to a "search" for "anti-zionism" within the website.
The groups listed have a few thousands members at most, and views that are radically different from the vast majority of Jews and Jewish organizations. I think that qualifies them as "fringe". Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 19:49 (UTC)
Agreed. Even the Satmar have condemned Neturei Karta and their affiliates as having no Chesed Yisrael (love of the Jewish people) and as heretics.
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
The state of Israel has a few million people - compared to China does that make it a "Fringe" nation? Can I insert this into all of the Israel related articles? The "fringe nation of Israel"? No - that would be unreasonable.
You guys have got to stop with the constyant POV please. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 20:07 (UTC)
Compared to other Jewish groups, their views are certainly on the fringe. Also, please see the 3RR violation section below. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)
Look, I perfectly understand when people object to pov terms, but this is a clearcut case. Anti Zionism can be a situational Jewish theological position, and it is for Satmar, but Satmar objects to the secularism of the state of Israel and not that it exists, Neturei Karta is universally condemned by everyone as holding heretical theological positions with regards to Israel. When it comes to theology, you cannot argue, pov, you can argue the facts. The facts state that Satmar, the largest Anti Zionist Jewish group has condemned Neturei Karta and their affiliates as heretics. They are on the fringe of Jewish life. Here is the letter of condemnation [25].
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
"Even among Charedi, or ultra-Orthodox circles, the Neturei Karta are regarded as a wild fringe. After some of them took part in an anti-Israel rally in the United States earlier this year, an advertisement in the Orthodox press excoriated those who had joined 'the enemies of our people'. It is significant that the denunciation was endorsed by most of the major Charedi groupings in New York, including some with a staunchly anti-Zionist theology, such as the powerful Satmar Chasidic sect." The Guardian November 25, 2002. [26] Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)
I don't understand the comparison. To qualify as Orthodox you have to fulfill certain religious qualifications. All the Orthodox sects have condemned Neturei Karta as heretical. "Fringe" is already giving it more legitimacy than it deserves.
Revision as of 6 July 2005 20:03 62.253.64.14 (Talk | contribs) <- this was me rolling back as per policy. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
Not at all. I have actually been seeing "lost edits" here too recently - stuff seems to get out of synch for a few mins. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)
Honestly guys - you will never meet anyone who cares less about doctrinal disputes within the Jewish Faith (I'm athiest) but "Fringe" just sounds like an attempt to marginalise these groups - and to some extent depricate their sincerely held point of view. That's just not policy. Personally I think you visit their site and it's pretty obvious they're 2 sandwiches short of a picnic - but we shouldn't be editorialising this in the main article. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Their views are marginal, that is what should be noted. Whitewashing facts isn't wiki policy either.
Guy Montag 6 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)
You could try "Freaks" perhaps? 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
I'm smiling despite myself.<G>
The site jewsnotzionists.org lists the following groups:
"A partial listing of some well-known Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist groups:
* Bene Yoel * Breslov * Brisk * Hazon Ish * Kaschau * Krasna * Kretcheniff * Malochim * Munkacs * Neturei Karta * Nitra * Pupa * Satmar * Skullene * Slonim (Weinberg) * Toldoth Aharon * Toldoth Avrohom Yitzchok * Tosh * Wiznitz Hassidic sect based in Monsey, NY "
So its description would seem inaccurate whatever adjective we choose.
However this looks like a bunch of "sects" (is there a better word?) to me. Certainly more than one guy and some friends who paint placards. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
OK - so lets agree that "Jews Not Zionists - Fringe Orthodox Jewish group" is NOT an accutrate description of that site - and leave the other one aside for the moment.
How about "Jews Not Zionists - Umbrella site for various groups opposed to Zionism" - a sugestion - feel free to improve. 62.253.64.14 7 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)
I could very happily live with no descriptions - or at least having minimalist ones. I suspect that some of the "anti anti zionist" links probably belong to nutcases and "the fringe" as well (most of the Isaerli citizens I know are the same sort of middle of the road rasonable guy I like to think I am) - I doubt they are mainstream. I just really object to having descriptions which colour the first interaction with the site. If you allow "fringe" then you end up with everyone describing sites they disagree with as "marginal", "extremeist" etc. 62.253.64.14 7 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
Cant you be "apostate orthodox" if orthodox judaism is what you have abandoned? I like the version post GM's edit though. 62.253.64.14 8 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
62.253.64.14/62.253.64.15, you have reverted this article more than 3 times in the past 24 hours. This is what is known as a Wikipedia:Three revert rule violation. Those who violate the 3 Revert Rule are generally blocked from editing. I strongly recommend you restore the previous version of the article and work this out on the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)
No - I think it was guy montag at 19:58. How do you make it out as me? If it was me I'll change it for today. 62.253.64.14 6 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
That's 4 reverts in 24 hours. Note, you were reverting two other editors, Guy Montag and HKT; neither of them reverted more than twice. Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
"A small minority of Jews, however, continue to oppose Zionism on either political or religious grounds."
A small minority of Jews in general, but then again Orthodox Jews are a small minority of Jews these days. However, within Orthodoxy I'd say it is much larger than most people think - the Lubavitcher Rebbe was Anti-Zionist and most of Chabad today is (though, au contraire to Satmar, they do not make a big deal about it..)-- Josiah 00:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Unless we can figure out how large part it is why not just write "a portion of..."? // Liftarn
Mizrahi, please explain how a clearly anti-semitic caricature is "specifically" anti Zionist? According to this article:
How is this caricature related to anything but vile hatred towards Jews in general regardless of Zionism and Israel? Also, how can you say that it is "not necessarily anti-semitist? Hell yes it is anti-semitic. Ramallite (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Anti-zionism is not the same as anti-semitism! Anti-zionism is merely a manifestation of anti-semitism!
The 20th Century saw the destruction of empires and the creation of many new countries in their wake. This, of course, resulted in a myriad of disputes and wars - many a lot more bloody, unjust and barbaric than anything involving Israel - yet some people specifically target Israel and campaign against its very existence. This denial of the legitimacy of Israel's existence is what separates Anti-zionists from ordinary critics (although extreme unreasonable criticism is also rooted in anti-semitism).
Leaving aside peripheral arguments about social policy, Anti-Zionists often justify their unique objection to Israel's creation and existence on the grounds that:
A. the creation of Israel involved the destruction of Palestine.
However, there has never been a country called "Palestine". Until the modern State of Israel was formed, the land had been occupied by successive foreign empires since the destruction of the previous Jewish homeland.
Do these people oppose the creation of other states that have been freed from colonial occupation (for example Tunisia, the USA, Indonesia etc.)? If not, why are they biased against the JEWISH state?
B. the creation of Israel involved the Palestinian Arabs losing land and property. The same could be said in countless circumstances throughout history and across the world. The previous Kingdom of Israel was destroyed after the Romans threw out most of its Jews and changed its name to Palaestina.
The creation of Pakistan involved the dispossession of Indian Hindus. Serbs lost land & property in Bosnia. How many anti-zionists are equally opposed to the existence of Pakistan & Bosnia?
The bulk of British Mandate Palestine (and about a third of Ottoman Palestine) is now part of Jordan. Jordan annexed the West Bank and kicked out all the Jews. Are anti-zionists are equally opposed to the existence of Jordan? If not, why are they biased against the JEWISH state?
C. The Jews were 20th Century immigrants to the area. What about Arab immigration? At the beginning of the century, the census shows the Arab population was around 400,000. By mid century it had swollen to 1.3 million. Arabs from Lebanon, Syria & Egypt emigrated there because of the development brought be returning Jews.
D. Zionism and the subsequent creation of Israel came about on the grounds of a religious doctrine that places Jews above non-Jews.
It is true that, aside from a miniscule minority of extremists, most religious Jews feel that God gave their people the State of Israel. Many Christians share this view and even the Koran states:
"And thereafter We (Allah) said to the People of the Book (the Jews): 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd.'" (5) (Koran 17:104)
Italy's Imam Palazzi states:
"Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources. Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology."
Israel is of course, secular, liberal and pluralistic. There are much more obvious examples of theocracies in this world, but do anti-zionists also campaign against their existence?
Jews are more than just Judaism. Indeed, some Jews are atheists.
Take out the religion and there is still Jewish culture, identity, cooking, humour - even possibly some DNA - linking them. Some call the Jews a "people", some call them a "race", some call them an "ethnicity", but they started off as a Canaanite tribe in the land that eventually became Israel.
Even without the doctrinal aspects, the historical link of the Jewish people to their homeland is as valid as any other.
Do anti-zionists also oppose the territorial claims of Native Americans? Do they object to the homeland of the Irish? the French? What about the Palestinians????
Even in its most "sensitive" form, anti-Zionism hinges on double standards. Vehemently denying the right of Israel to exist on grounds that are ignored in the many more extreme examples across the world.
The question is - why are anti-zionists biased against Israel. What is unique about "The *JEWISH* State"?
Is it the cooking? Is it the design of the flag? Is it the (admittedly atrocious) pop music?
No, it can only be down to prejudice.
I have searched the EUMC reports published in 2005 and earlier reports and couldn't find the definition displayed in the article. Could someone please cite the publication and, if possible, the page where the EUMC defines anti-Semitism? If this definition can't be confirmed then it should be removed from the article. Yodakii 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I am removing this paragraph as original research: Thus, although the governments of most Arab and Muslim countries have continued to proclaim their opposition to Zionism, most were likely willing in practice to accept the settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute set out in the Oslo Accords, which proposed the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the mutual recognition of Israel and a new state of Palestine. Most, possibly all, governments would still accept such a settlement if one were again put forward. Public opinion in the Arab and Islamic world is another matter, but it is likely that a settlement involving the creation of a Palestinian state would lead to a decline in anti-Zionist sentiment. - What prevented all those nations to create a Palestinian state during 19 years when WB was controlled by Jordan and GS by Egypt? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 06:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph I changed did not conform to NPOV. As it currently reads, it presents two sides of the Anti-Zionism debate: the idea that Anti-Zionism is prima facie antisemitism, and the idea that tarring all Anti-Zionists with the brush of antisemitism is meant to stifle debate. The section on Hasidic (please note single "s") anti-Zionism is interesting and useful, but needs to go elsewhere, preferably in its own article if it isn't already. IronDuke 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The {{POV}} flag has been removed because of the lack of a clear definition of what the complaints are, and how they can be fixed. If they are in the archives, that does no good to newer editors coming to this article. Please list them below, and then restore the tag as needed.
Remember. Suspected policy violations should be specificly deliniated with atleast the slightest bit of a clue of how they can be fixed-- Tznkai 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As the article and its links correctly state, the Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns began well before Stalin and lasted well after his death. Nikodemos, I am sorry but I'll have to revert your edits again. "Soon after Joseph Stalin's rise to power in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, Zionism began to be viewed as a form of " bourgeois nationalism," - this is wrong factually, please see Yevsektsiya. "Official Soviet anti-Zionism reached a peak during the last years of Stalin's rule, roughly 1948-1953." - by what metrics/according to whom? ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Z=R is not an encyclopedic definition but rather an annulled accusation. It is wrong and POV to put it under a bullet as if it is still a valid definition. ← Humus sapiens ну? 10:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Otherwise anti-zionism as a form of anti-racism become misrepresented. Or perhaps it would be an idea to define anti-zionism rather then zionism. // Liftarn
Since nobody objected to using bulletpoints or came up with a better alternative I guess it's OK... But I'll have a go at it. // Liftarn
The introduction fails to make an introduction to Anti-Zionism. Instead it presents Zionism. It would make so much more sense to write about the subject of the article. The "may for instance be" is because Anti-Zionism may be almost anything from racism to anti-racism. "Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel" [27], but OK "choosen people" is perhaps the wrong words. Would "historical right" be better? I'll give it a try. // Liftarn
You are still defining Zionism, not Anti-Zionism. // Liftarn
In what way is it POV? // Liftarn
Yes, either that or "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Racism". All the headings have the form of "NNN anti-Zionism" or "Anti-Zionism and NNN". What would you suggest? // Liftarn
The current into failes to define Anti-Zionism and instead define Zionism (and we have an entier article for that). I have tried to reword it to instead define Anti-Zionism, but it keeps getting reverted. Unless it manages to define Anti-Zionism it has to go. Ok, so your're cool with "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Racism"? I think "Anti-Racist Anti-Zionsim" sounds better since that type of Anti-Zionism oposes Zionism on the basis that they consider it a form of racism. // Liftarn