![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
There is an important dimension to the holocaust that is generally ignored with regard to Zionism. This is the fact that Zionist leaders during World War 2 refused to entertain propositions presented by both the Nazis and the Allies, regarding the deportation of European Jews to various countries around the world. A common attitude held by Zionists at the time was that the mass prosecution of Jews would result in the creation of a Jewish state after WW2. To quote Greenbaum: "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe". I'd like to see these element of Zionism added to Wiki... -- Zimmer79 on 23 September 2007.
Listen, I'm at work now and this requires a lengthy response. To be honest I'm not sure its worth my time, however:
1.Wikipedia seeks to work on academic standards. The Rabbis you are quoting are not acamedicians and mostly believe that the earth was created 5700+ years ago. They are not a relaiable source. 2.The issue of how the Jewish Agnecy leadership (that is the Zionist leaders in Palestine) responded to the holocaust is best addressed by Tom Segev, 7th million. He feels their repsonse was inadequate. Whatever individuals said BEFORE the war, and they may have said these things, does not provide proof of any alliance. These are unfortunate indivudal statements and were made before the Nazi extermination program. At best they provide evidence that not enough was done, not of malice. A statement to the effect that the leadership was criticezied for not doing enough could be inserted into the page. 3. Zionist groups led the Warsaw ghetto uprising and were at the forefront of Jewish resistance both in gettos and in the forests. 4. the story about the gestapo I have never heard and don't believe.There is no way the Spanish would have agreed to it. 5. The murder of most of Europes Jews significantly weakened the worlds Jewish communities and made a state less likely. there was no way of knowing if there would be sympathy after the war. As it was the British damn near created an Arab state in Palestine. 6. The Zionists were warning about the importance of anti-semitism and providing Jews with tools to confront it. It is reasonable to claim that they underestimated what Hitler was capable of and did not repsond fast enough. The orthodox Jews who you are quoting are probably bitter because of that. 6. just because it says somehting somewhere online doesn't mean its true. Just because they say they are jewish doesnt't mean they are. Just because they are Jewish doesn't mean they speak the truth. 7.Whatever your intention, the opinoins you are expressing are, in my opinion, in effect anti-semitic. I assume you are misguided rather then malicious, so I will try to explain why I think this. a. the vast majority of the world's jews are today Zionist and in over reacting to these stories you are implying that they are culpible in the Holocaust. b. Your assumption of Zionist consipriacies is a manifestation of classic Jewish-consiparzcy theories such as the Protocosl of Zion. The Zionist movement fucntions as a democratic sysstem with elected representatives and a wide range of opinions and not as a conspiratorial manipulative body. the leaderhsip of the Jewish Agency and of the Zionist movement were elected. C. claiming that a significant body of Jews would deliberatley cause their own people to be murdered ina gruesome fashion is deeply offensive. d. I should add that my mother and gradnmother were murdered whille my uncle and aunt who were zionist were saved because of their efforts to reach Palestine. My fahter was saved because a pro-Zionist member of parliament in England asked the Foreign secretary to give him a visa. 8. whatver their failing the zionists basically fight for the Jews. they may make mistakes but these are honest mistakes. Their basic interest is not in doubt. I hope this helps and ask that you not be offended, my aim is to educate not to insult. Telaviv1 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding the above information if there is no further interest in discussing it. [Unsigned: Zimmer79 [1] ]
"The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70,". - This is a total lie - you can't have a desire to return if you left voluntarily (after profitably selling your property to Palestinians) and there is nothing to prevent you from returning (except that the money is better in Rome or Florida or NYC). Fourtildas 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
oh yes, nothing to stop you except the hordes of angry arabs. Nope, nothing a all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 ( talk) 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If your mother's mother's mother was "Jewish" then you are "Jewish". Even if you never heard of "Jews" you are "Jewish" according to WP and fundie Judaism and fundiXianity. And Zionism is Jewish supremacy - ask any Nazi - they will recognize the similarity. I've been thinking of writing an article on ethnic/racial/religious/nationalist/supremacist movements, but these articles seem to get deleted by people who are uncomfortable with the obvious comparisons.
BrandonYusufToropov keeps trying to introduce, without discussion, a lengthy quote into the Anti-Zionism section:
In the modern period, certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, some vehemently so. Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book ‘’A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism,’’ that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:
BYT is well aware of how controversial any additions to this article are, and particularly, given the history of his lengthy and sustained disruption here in the past, how controversial his additions in particular are bound to be. More specifically, as has been explained to him numerous times in the past, the Anti-Zionism section is merely a summary of the lengthy Anti-Zionism article; as such, it should not contain quotes from any individuals, much less one-sided quotes like that. Please keep in mind the section should be a brief summary of the other article; the quote does not add any specific knowledge not already summarized in that section. BYT, it's quite disappointing that you tried to slip this in without any discussion, and then continued to revert it; if you would like to insert it, please explain why, and then get consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In don't see this particular quote mentioned there; where is it? I also note that the discussion you linked to was from August 2006, whereas you first slipped that quote into the article in January 2007. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The absurdly long sub-section was cut down to a reasonable size on December 26. Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is lengthy and one-sided, and certainly not appropriate for a summary section, as detailed above. The quote can be found in the Anti-Zionism article, where it belongs. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
BYT, you're repeating months-old arguments, and please review straw man. Do you have any other response to my points above? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've explained the reasons over and over; usually when I do that, you just start a new section, pretending that you haven't read or seen or understood the reasons. I'll repeat them one last time for you:
As for your other ideas, WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus, and you would undoubtedly benefit from your "break" advice far more than I would. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
... see link here. [5] BYT 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
(Rfc comment) I don't see any need for a lengthy 4-line quote in the anti-Zionism summary. There is a whole page for that material. The anti-Zionism section needs to be a general summary of the other article. Adding a quote from one person tips the balance, invites further unneccessary additions and is against the preferred article guidelines
which state "..those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the sub-topic covered in that section". So no, I don't believe this article should carry the quote.--
Zleitzen (
Talk)
13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In summary
Hope that helps. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mackan79, the content you are trying to add here may belong to anti-Zionism or some other articles related to the conflict. Please reread the title of this article. Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To explain my last revert further, I'm not sure that another 6.5k of text in a 71k article is appropriate for what is essentially a summary. Also, Mackan's version raises concerns of POV and undue weight. GabrielF 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried again, with basic explanation in the edit summary. I appreciate the thought that we shouldn't get into details about criticism here, but the existence of Arab/Muslim criticism seems pretty huge. As to the other parts, I removed some details, but think it's appropriate in a section on Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism to at least give post-Zionism its own paragraph. I hope we can work with this; I'd like to make a few more changes, but thought I'd put that up for comment. Mackan79 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor as recently added a large number of {{ fact}} (almost every sentence). That tag is not a "weapon" to assert a POV. An {{ unsourced}} tag at the top of the article, and endeavoring to find sources (there are many, by the way...) is the preferred approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people are continually reverting any mention of Arab/Muslim opposition to Zionism. An argument is being made that material in this section must first appear on the Anti-Zionism or Post-Zionism page, per WP:POVFORK. There are simply two problems: 1.) WP:POVFORK doesn't say that, but also 2.) This material is discussed on Anti-Zionism at great length.
For reference, I had reduced the material on Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism to four sentences:
This section is being reduced to two sentences:
Is there a reason we are not mentioning the opposition of Arabs and/or Muslims? Ironically, in the extended "International Support for Zionism" section above, we state that King Faisal I of Iraq supported Zionism. Mackan79 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that it's what you want to see happen. I hardly see how it's clear that it is what must happen. Unless, of course, you own this article. BYT 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the obsession to talk about disputes and antisemitism, eh sorry, anti zionism (same thing) in this article all the time. Clearly this article is only about Zionism. Unless you're well informed with Zionism, this article is probably not for you (speaking generally). This article should not be a source for disputes. Amoruso 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Re Humus' concern, I changed the phrase to "some of the most," which is supported by that source and many others. One other: Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. Routledge, pg. 98. "Indeed, the fact that Arab anti-Zionism has invariably reflected a hatred well beyond the 'normal' level of hostility to be expected of a prolonged and bitter conflict would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to Zionist activitiy, it is rather a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the viscisitudes of the Arab-Isarael conflict." Disregarding his conclusion, he seems to make the background point pretty clearly. If another phrasing is preferred, however, I remain open. Mackan79 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See Anti-Zionism#Types_of_anti-Zionism
See also Anti-zionism#Arab_anti-Zionism
See also Anti-Zionism#Muslim_anti-Zionism.
Incidentally, I agree (if this was a concern) that the dual reference to racism wasn't necessary, but I continue to think that some reference to Arab and Muslim opposition is necessary if not to whitewash the subject. I'll try something again later; suggestions welcomed. Mackan79 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why, if I may ask, are you holding up the hoops here, as though for a trained dog to jump through? Is there a policy point I'm missing here? If so, could you please cite it, as opposed to issuing orders? Once again, who gave you the deed of ownership on this article, please? BYT 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you just deleted sourced text providing readers with an understanding of Arab and Palestinian responses to Zionism. Would you like to explain why you did this, or was it simply a whim that you don't feel like illuminating? BYT 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And precisely which point would I be "disrupting" WP to make? That Arab opposition to Zionism exists, and that mention of same is germane to this article? The republic shudders, yes. Now, to the heart of it: is the act of disagreeing with you somehow to be considered an assault now on the entire encyclopedia? Please do clarify precisely what you mean here, Jay. BYT 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." [10] I hardly see how this principle is relevant when I am not even attempting to ascribe any position to you, but instead asking you, as the admin you are, for clarification on your implication, above, that I have somehow violated WP:POINT. Once again: What "point" do you believe me to be "disrupting" WP to make with this edit? [11] BYT 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section Zionism#Opposition_or_ambivalence, I added two {{fact}} templates. Can someone please get references. I'll give ya'll at least two weeks.-- Urthogie 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Citing only what proponents consider Zionism to be -- "diaspora nationalism" -- seems to violate WP:NPOV. BYT 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that "diaspora nationalism" is not from a POV source. It's from a book on "nations and nationalism." [12] There is therefore no NPOV issue, you're making this up. Even if this was a Zionist source (which it isn't), I'd still disagree with your interpreation of NPOV, by the way. But that's beside the point. This source is a book on nationalism in general, not a Zionist book.-- Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again -- can we have a (civil) discussion about the balance of views presented in the opening graph?
It may be helpful for me to share a close analysis of section in question:
Described as a "diaspora nationalism,[3] <passive voice does not say who's doing the "describing">
... its <Zionism's> proponents ... <apparent referent "proponents" provides a clue, of dubious grammatical quality, to reader that the answer to the question "who's doing the describing" here is or could be this collective noun "its proponents" -- in any event, "its" must refer either to that collective noun or to "Zionism," in which case WP is guilty of failing to say, in the text of the article, precisely who describes Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism" -- or, for that matter, who describes it as something else.>
... regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4] <we are now definitely making a political statement from the point of view, and using the language of, "its proponents", and excluding the language of "its opponents," a courtesy we do not extend to, say, Irish nationalism, Note that Irish nationalism does not pretend to know what I.N. actually "is," or offer a single quote from a single volume to convey how it is "described," but the article rather points out that it is "contrasted" with the position of the Unionists, a concession to reality that appears to me worth modeling here.> BYT 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Here. [13].
There's actually quite a lot to choose from in this particular part of the ocean. But I cite this quote against my better judgment, because (if I may) you are changing the subject (check the opening of this discussion). Specifically, you are ignoring my larger point, now repeatedly put to you, that "diaspora nationalism" is one of many possible, citable, ways to describe Zionism, and that there is no valid reason to pick it over something that a contemporary opponent of Zionism might come up with, other than the fact that it's presently popular in Israel. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Let's take this from a different angle. Is it your opinion that the reader should not be told, in the text of the article itself, precisely who "describes" Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism"? A yes or no will do. Thanks. BYT 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So your position is yes, we should avoid mentioning who holds this view in the opening graph.
With respect, that's irresponsible, because Adam Heribert, in Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians, (RoutledgeCavendish) [14] holds that "extreme" Zionism is ethnic nationalism, another of the four types identified by Gellner.
Arnold Toynbee (to bring out the big guy) also holds that Zionism is ethnic nationalism. "... it is not ethnic nationalism per se that is bad, but Jewish ethnic nationalism, which should be given up and exchanged for another one." Arnold Toynbee on Judaism and Zionism: A Critique, Oskar K. Rabinowicz - 1974 (W.H. Allen).
There are dozens more like this, I believe. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And this brings us (back) to my point. Why are we using your formulation, rather than Toynbee's? Because you say it's unique to Zionism? BYT 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. We can put the change under whatever category you want. I suggest we rewrite the sentence in question so that it reads:
Zionism's aim was and is the self-determination of the Jewish people; it has today become a form of ethnic nationalism. BYT 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? You don't even offer a draft of the passage under dispute, and you call that trying to work collaboratively? "Compromise" means you get precisely the terminology you want, only in more detail. Give me a break. This article really is a perfect metaphor for the mess in the Mideast. You get to say what Zionism "is," from your chosen sources, and in your words. Do you actually want an improvement in the process here? I think not. Fine. Back to battling edits. BYT 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Institute of Historical Review of Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle"
New York Review of books on "The Fateful Triangle"
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on "The Fateful Triangle"
"The Fateful Triangle" referenced in Publishers Weekly
Chomsky interview on Zionism -- ZNET
Thought and Action interview with Chomsky on Middle East and political issues
Chomsky interviewed at Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
-- BYT 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How about:
opposition to Zionism has come from a variety of areas, ranging from religious to nationalist to political dissent of the ideology as either immoral or impractical.
How would you modify that?-- Urthogie 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections <haredi ref here> to competing claims of nationalism <Palestinian critic ref here> to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical <Chomsky Reader ref here>
To be honest I don't think the reference is even necessary, as it's not a disputable sentence. Mind if I remove it, per Wikipedia:References?-- Urthogie 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE has nothing about being allowed to restore unnecessary references. The question here is if its necessary. It's clearly not.-- Urthogie 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why am I pointing out that it's your opinion? Because you're treating it as a fact. What's "clearly unnecessary" to you is irrelevant. Your sticking the words "clearly" or "obviously" in front of your opinion doesn't turn it into objective reality. The objective reality here is twofold: 1) we agreed to it, and 2) there is not a whisper of authority in WP:CITE that authorizes, or even suggests, the removal of the cite. Peace, BYT 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
“With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )
And other mainstream cites, including:
A.N. Wilson: The Decline of Britain in the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 104
If there's persuasive evidence this is a fake quote, please supply it and discuss it here, rather than simply removing cited material. BYT 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
a: "Promote" is a red herring, I think, Jay -- we're talking about "opinions" of leading Zionists. That's what the passage in question is about.
Here's your quote: "Although he did not declare it openly, his conversation with fellow delegate Aaran Aaronsohn shows that he regarded the expulsion of the Arabs as a prerequisite (see Masalha 1992: 12-13). Weizmann described the native population as the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path. (see Flapa 1979: 56, and Ingrams 1972:31-32)' (Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry By Michael P. Prior; Routledge, 1999, page 192.) By what possible calculus does a description of Weizmann's views on this issue constitute
original research? Again, I encourage you to read the actual text of what you're citing.
b: Humus, your simply declaring that everything I've cited is "not a reliable source" seems inappropriate and counterproductive to me.
c: If the quote is fake, we shouldn't use it. Let me do some digging. BYT 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, and try not to tell me what I'm promoting. I'll show you the same courtesy, okay?
By the way, the speed with which something you disagree with becomes "narrow" and "polemic" makes my head spin. Something tells me the problem with those books is that you disagree with them. And let's face it, when you disagree with them, the standards shift around here.
("What's the REAL source for Beowulf? Huh? Did you look at the manuscript? Or are you just looking at a copy? Hmmmmmmmm?")
Now, here's the part where we build some trust and actually start working on the article together, Jay, just like we're freaking supposed to.
FYI, I did some research on Wilson and found he had been involved in a literary hoax that involved preying on his weakness for using unsubstantiated quotes in nonfiction works. That's got my spider-sense tingling.
Maybe he fell for something here, too, in which case I'll withdraw the edit. Something tells me Chomsky wouldn't use something like this and cite "Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140" unless he was sure of his stuff. Oh, wait, I forgot, Chomsky is the antichrist.
Howzabout you let me try to figure out if someone other than ardent Zionists has objected to this, okay? You guys may well be right. If you are, problem solved. If you're not, you can go back to tag-teaming me if that makes you feel better, but personally I hope you'll eventually start thinking about ways to pursue "truth even unto its innermost parts" with me on this woefully unbalanced article, to use Louis Brandeis's phrase. (A plug for my alma mater, sorry.) BYT 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That "straw man" thing is getting a little old -- why don't you wait until I actually ascribe a position to someone before accusing me of doing so inaccurately?
Back to our top story tonight ...
More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann once told to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value." Y. Heller, Bamavak Lemedinah: Hamediniyut Hatziyonit Bashanim 1936-48 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-48 (Jerusalem, 1984), p.140. [17]
Not a whisper I can find from any source that this is a falsified quote -- to the contrary, it shows up again and again, obviously translated from the Hebrew into more than one version. BYT 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Thanks for the reminder on that. Here's what it says. "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known .... should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." Not a word about it having to be an original source, by the way, but I will cite that below nonetheless, under "Source the first."
If I may summarize:
Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)
Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).
Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [18] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [19] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).
Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.
Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.
Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.
Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomering'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky often doesn't use primary sources for his quotes. I've even emailed him about this other fake quote he used and he blamed it on a secondary source (Flapan).-- Urthogie 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you intially claimed that I was inserting a false quote. [21] Is that still what you're saying, or isn't it? If so, on what do you base your claim? BYT 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jokes aside, do you have any evidence to back up this claim? [22] If you don't, it's okay to say, "No, I don't." BYT 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
These references are all extremely removed and partisan reproductions of the quote, and the entire thing really smacks of mistranslation/noncontext. I recommend that the original be provided if we don't want it viewed through the lens of extreme POV sourcing. Tewfik Talk 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
BYT, you keep citing "Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)". Have you actually read that source? I believe it is in Hebrew. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, if this dubious material is accurate, it appears to be more suited to the Anti-Zionism article; the claims made in it are brought up almost solely by anti-Zionists, in polemic works.
Jayjg
(talk)
17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that WikiProject Palestine appears to be getting off its feet. However, I am not sure this article belongs in WikiProject Palestine. While Zionism undoubtedly had a massive effect on the lives of Palestinians. It is a Jewish (Israeli) ideology not a Palestinian one. I feel that including Zionism as part WP: Palestine is the equivalent of including the articles about arab nationalism or Fatah in WP: Israel. Perhaps this discussion should be continued on another page so that all issues over jurisdiction can be ironed out. Oneworld25 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.)
Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"?
I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot.
I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far. BYT 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
BYT, please refer back to the discussion above. As has been explained many times, there are issues with the claims and sources, and you can't keep starting new sections to discuss material that has previously been discussed. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So what do you guys need to see from me? BYT 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, what do you need to see from me on this? We should resolve this by working collaboratively. BYT 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Finkelstein: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).
Masalha: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [24] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [25] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).
Chomsky: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.
Wilson: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.
This "straw man" business -- it's an ongoing theme of yours. Let us clarify. When you wrote this:
... what exactly were you getting at, if it wasn't that I needed to have read it in Hebrew? BYT 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.
Back up, please. Whether you personally are dubious about a published source is irrelevant. Finkelstein published it, whether you wish he had done so or not. When your personal decree about whether something is or is not dubious is what determines what goes into this article, we are all in a great deal of trouble.
Now. You said that it was a straw man argument that I had invented for you, this business about my having to read the quote in the original Hebrew. Above, you are saying that only the "primary source," Heller's book, in Hebrew, is "what [I] must cite." Which is it?
When you accuse me of setting up a straw man for you, Jay -- which you do quite regularly -- you are obliged to back that up. It's a lot like accusing me of lying. I resent that.
You have been applying this standard to me, by asking me whether I'd read the Hebrew -- while you were not at the same time applying that "Have you read the original language" standard to, say, the English translations of Jabotinsky's work that appear in this article. How, specifically if you please, is my pointing this out a straw man? BYT 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: You implied you had read the original, when you cited it directly on several occasions, both in the article and on this Talk: page. I challenged that claim more than once, and you eventually admitted that you hadn't read it at all.
I've got an idea. Why don't you a) stick to what I say, rather than what you believe me to imply, and b) abandon the notion that you are somehow empowered to challenge people about what they have and have not read. It's rude and it does not foster good communication on talk pages.
Re: That deals with your straw man argument; please desist from making them in the future.
Not in the least. A straw man argument, for what feels like the fortieth time, is when I maintain that you hold a position that you in fact do not hold, and argue against that imaginary position. Even if I had claimed to read Hebrew, or Mandarin, or Sumerian, I would still not have imparted any position to you. I would like to ask you again, please, to identify ...
Re: you invented a straw man argument that I was insisting on an "original language standard" for quotes... -- I missed the part where I maintained that this was in fact your position.
So far, I've given the English translation of Jabotinsky, of which you presumably approve, as an example that this "one-language" standard isn't what you're currently doing.
Are you quite sure I didn't ask you whether this was your position? Are you quite sure I didn't do so to clarify whether you were being entirely consistent in your evaluation of quotes that make it into this article?
Perhaps you could quote the passage that's confusing you. BYT 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
All very entertaining. "Any such quote" referred to the slight variations on Weizmann's "kushim" quote, as I believe you know. No version of it seems to satisfy you except one that is incomprehensible to or, even better, concealed altogether from, the English-speaking reader. My question was (and is), were you planning to run the whole article that way? If that's a straw man, I'll buy you a cigar.
To the point. If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.) BYT 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to see this (it's not like you at all), but you failed to answer a direct question. Maybe you missed it:
If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.) BYT 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is probably as good as we'll get without quite a bit more research.
This is a translation from the Hebrew of Arthur Ruppin's speech as reported by Joseph Heller.
Dr Weizmann once told me how he received the Balfour Declaration. And when I asked him, 'And what did you think then in reality on the Arab question?' he replied, 'The English told us that [there are] some hundred of thousands [of] blacks there, and this has no importance.' This shows me that at that time our leaders didn't have a clue regarding the Arab question, and even much later they relegated this question to the margins.
This is translated into English from Heller, Yosef. Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 (The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948), Jerusalem, 1984, p.140, quoting the protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, May 20, 1936.
Ruppin's speech was made in German, and the original is in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem. I am going to try to get it, but it may take some time. Weizmann may have spoken to him in Hebrew, English, or German; we don't know.
Joseph Heller's reporting of the speech in his 1984 book was in Hebrew. I don't know who first translated it into Hebrew. The English above is Heller's translation of the Hebrew, plus some copyediting tweaks (punctuation fixes, or text added in square brackets). This is as faithful a rendering as we can hope to find without reading the original German text.
As to whether we should include it, I think we should. This is an important part of early Zionist and Israeli history. Ruppin and Weizmann were both pivotal, as was the British government, and this quote sheds some light on all three. If we use it, we can leave out the other secondary sources (AN Wilson etc): Heller is the secondary source they all quote, and we now have a translation of the text directly from him. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Humus that it may make sense to prune Jabotinsky back a bit, but otherwise am very satisfied with the (massive) amounts of work you've done on this. BYT 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Jewish nationalism currently redirects to Zionism. Shouldn't there be a seperate page on Jewish nationalism which briefly introduces the different sorts of Jewish nationalism, of which Zionism has been the most significant but not the only one? (For example, Territorialism, Bundism, Simon Dubnow's Folkism, Jewish autonomism are all also forms of Jewish nationalism. BobFromBrockley 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not put a link at the top of Zionism to other forms of Jewish nationalism? Telaviv1 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just had a quick look at this article. Does the article says that at the beginning of the movement, the majority of Rabbis rejected the idea but it was gradually accepted for various reasons (which the article should explain)? It might be already there but I couldn't find it. -- Aminz 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the sentance "This has led to a loss of support for Zionism among the political left, especially in Europe" link to a page about anti-semitism? they arent one and the same thing. Fennessy 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section "New Jewish mentality" in the sentence: "One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov..."
As far as I know the word "ideologue" is generally used as a pejorative.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ideologue 1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Why is that word used in this sentence? 216.87.87.19 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the article page: Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs, many of whom view .... That sounds a bit bias. Critics are made to look like a sort of ignorant vox pop. I would think it would soun better if first where mentioned the usual critics. Scolars etc. Then mention that critism has a large popular support in arab countries ( btw are all Palestinians Arabs? ) Something like:
Opposition to Zionism comes from various sources. Academics like Chomski, X, and Y are opposing Zionism on various grounds. There is also Jewish opposition from groups like A and B. A opposes on religious grounds, B opposes on filosophical grounds. Political opposition comes primairily from nations surrounding Israel. This is opposition has a large popular support.
I feel this sounds more balanced. But considering the accuracy of the debate I feel I do not know enough details to modify the front page.
Aixroot 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's simply not true there are neo-nazi groups worldwide that are in opposition to zionism and they only recruit white members also many non nazi groups despise political zionism ( 82.47.164.103 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
How much information should this article (which should be about Zionism) give to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? This has been the subject of something close to a revert war, instead of being discussed here. Personally, I think roughly this amount of information is appropriate:
In 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Russian Far East but the effort failed to meet expectations and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population.
Whereas this much seems too much, when the topic is Zionism:
n 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast, a project now over 70 years old. Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, also the Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, said "one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions." It is estimated that at least 3,000 Jews live today in the city. The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. [29] The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia estimates the number of Jews in Russia at about 1 million, or 0.7 percent of the country's 143 million population. Sheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan -- just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population. [30] Concerning the Jewish community of the oblast, Govenor Nikolai Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [31]
If the short version does not strike the right tone, perhaps an alternative could be given, but surely not of more than one or two sentences. BobFromBrockley 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In 1934, the Soviet Union established the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. [32] Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan, its capital. [33] Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [34] The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. [35]
or as I would suggest, a more contemporary statement such as below.
The Jewish Autonomous Oblast continues to be an autonomous oblast of the Russian state. [36] The Chief Rabbi of Birobidzhan, Mordechai Scheiner, says there are 4,000 Jews in the capital city. [37] Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [38] The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004 on the 70th anniversary of the regions founding in 1934. [39]
Culturalrevival 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on many of the issues here, because I am not highly knowledgeable, but I did get the page protected so maybe I should be the one to try and open discussion. Let's try and keep it calm and reasoned. Thus far, I have seen the following objections to the current (protected) version:
And the following defenses:
That last one was me. Just to elaborate; I think it's safe to say that Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, etc etc were not empty ghost towns before European Jews showed up, and a quick read of Jezreel Valley reveals that its settlement was accomplished through the eviction of some 8,000 fellahin. Well, hope that gets the ball rolling. Eleland 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not familar with the disputes that led to protection (but not surprised that they were bitter), anyway please remember that Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews were no less Zionist then Ashkenazi Jews and were, from the start a significant part of Zionist migration.
More importantly, I think the Antisemitism template should be inserted into the article at a suitable point, as the Zionist political movement was very much a response to Antisemitism.
The land in Jerzereel was purchased legally and efforts were made to help Fellahin evicted. I think this point was discussed in the Peel report. Telaviv1 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not intending to take sides in this dispute, but I did want to suggest that attribution carries no implication that the sources involved are unreliable so long as it is equally applied to all sides. It's a common approach in Wikipedia to address disputed accounts. That is, it's reasonable to require adding words like "According to [new historian(s)]..." before what new historians say, but if this is done, per WP:NPOV it would also be appropriate to require adding words like "According to [conventional historians]..." when reporting what conventional historians say. I agree that per WP:NPOV, so long as the sources involved are appropriate for inclusion in the first place, the article cannot explicitly or implicitly appear to endorse one account as true and should report both accounts in a similarly sympathetic tone, although it can indicate which is the majority and which the minority account. Best, -- Shirahadasha 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
I am removing the sentence "Formally organized in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, the movement was then composed mainly of Russian Jews with leadership provided by Austrian and German Jews.[2] Vienna was the original centre of Zionism.[2] " Not only is it not true, it is also not supported by the reference it provides. The Zionist movemet was based in Switzerland ("In Basel I created the Jewish state" - Herzl). Telaviv1 10:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Muslim Zionism, any more than Buddhist Zionism; certainly some individuals support Israel, but there is no movement comparable to Christian Zionism. Maybe supporters of Israel in Islamic communities could be discussed in some article about moral supporters of Israel, but it's totally out-of-place here.-- Pharos 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is grossly undue weight. Muslim Zionism deserves about half a sentence. Currently, the section is about 40% the size of the "anti- and post-" section. Does anyone think for a second that Muslims supporting Zionism constitute, in the history of Zionism, anything like 40% as significant a factor as anti- and post- Zionism? I know we have whole articles on Anti- and Post- Zionism but individual articles are required to be balanced in themselves. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this discussion seems to have ended a week ago with (what seems to be) an agreement, I removed the "unbalanced" flag. Emmanuelm 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page is doing two things at once, on the one hand its providing a summary of Zionism as an ideology and, on the other a history of Zionism. I think it might be helpful to create a seperate history of Zionism (nto to be confused with the history of Israel) and then one could remove most of the history stuff. It would make this page more digestible (and shorter). What do you think? Telaviv1 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed this new section, as it seemed to me repetitive of material elsewhere, rather non-neutral, in need of a lot of punctuation/grammar clean-up, and out of sequence in the article. But it contains some referenced material, including a chunky quote, so maybe bits of it could be used. Here it is:
Aim and ideological justification Zionism sought to establish a state that the Jews could claim fully as their own. Its founder, Theodor Herzl formulated an answer against anti-semitism, based on the ideas of 19th century German nationalism. According to this nationalism people owed their primary loyalty to their nation, i.e. their ethnic group. Unlike other nations the Jewish nation did not have a state but was dispersed in their Diaspora. There they almost inevitably became victims of anti-Semitism. Herzls answer was the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jewish nation. In that way the Jews could become a people like all other peoples and anti-semitism would cease to exist. [2] [3] This aim of the type of Zionism started by Herzl, Political Zionism, was adopted by all other main types of Zionism. Labor Zionisms main aim was the establishment of a socialist state for the Jews. Cultural Zionisms main goal was the establishment of a new spiritual center for the Jewish nation, which not neccesarily required the establishment of a Jewish state, but did require the establishment of a Jewish majority. [4] According to Hannah Arendt in 1946 Herzls image of the Jewish nation being surrounded by enimies was shared by the Zionist movement and the Jewish masses. [5]
The establishment of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state in Palestine was fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They would either have to move or become a minority in their own country. Nonetheless mainstream Zionism never doubted its historical right to establish a Jewish majority on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. Zionism justified this with two 'facts': the bond of the Jewish nation with Palestine, as derived from its history, was unique, while the Arabs of Palestine were part of the Arab nation and therefore had no special bond with Palestine. Therefore the Jews had a preemptive right to Palestine. [6] For example Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings influenced deeply the labor leaders, wrote in 1921 :
'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country ? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' [7]
According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'.
BobFromBrockley 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'.'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible... It all came from us; it was created among us... And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' [8]
I replaced the section describing Zionist justifications for their claim on the land of Israel. The section gives pov's of Finkelstein and Hellberg. For NPOV other views may be added (if you can find them in a reliable source). -- 129.125.35.249 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is "New Jewish mentality" the right title for this section [40]? How about "Cultural Zionism" or "Zionist culture"? BobFromBrockley 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing to justify this claim "the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel.". The peaks of immigration to Palestine were 1925 34,386, 1933 37,337, 1934 45,267, 1935 66,472, 1939 31,195 (eg this site). The post-war figures seem to be these: 1945 1,036, 1946 21,710, 1947 25,503 (though these are by ship, maybe a few more arrived overland). PR talk 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
very interesting so today you use the holocaust to justify your stealing even though you were stealing land prior to the fictional event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.51.252 ( talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
what I haven't seen addressed yet is, the distinction between: zionism = a homeland for the Jewish people, versus the new definition of "Zionism equals racism," that Zionism means the homeland must remain distinctly Jewish, and so citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion. Can that be expounded on in the article? thx Alextheblade 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Zionist writers basically look to create a liberl-democratic state in which minorities have typical rights for such a state. Try reading alneuland by Herzl to get a picture. There was no consitition for a state perpared in advance so the issue was never precisely worked out but your statement "citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion" is not based on fact. I think the information you want is in anti-zionism. Zionism = racism is not a definition. Racism is a totally different phenomena. I added some new section headings to make the obectives and strcture of the zionist movement more obvious and easier to find by people such as yourself. Telaviv1 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
because the history takes up so much of this page at this point, I am giong to move much of the content to History of Zionism per WP:SUMMARY. In the mean time, it would be helpful if someone can create a summary for this article. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am currently rewriting the article and probably responsible for it getting too long.
There is still a lot fo stuff that needs to be added, but also a lot of things that can be removed. I have reached the 1945-1948 period and will put most of that into a seperate article relating to the Zionist conflict with Britain. A lot of the post 1948 seciton is, in my opionion, irrelevant but I haven't got down there yet. In response to this comment I took most of the sections on Socialist and Cultural Zionism and moved them to the relative articles.
there may be other bits which can be moved into different articles, for example the bits about opposition to Zionism cold be moved to anti-Zionism except that the anti-Zionism entry is a total mess. Telaviv1 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Telaviv1, please don't remove reliable and sourced material. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give all pov's if there is more than one. So please leave this 'According to Flapan .... . According to Porath ....'. I'm not reverting your Porath text either. -- JaapBoBo 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Porath is the undisputed authority for the early history of Palesitnian Nationalism. Its a two volume book. The Flapan work you refer to (I have read it) is not about Palestinian Naitonalism and is being quoted out of context. Telaviv1 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you quote someone - anyone - who says Porath is mistaken? You simply don't know what your talking about.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say enough about non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine before the twentieth century. It points out that there were Jews living in Palestine both before and after the Jewish rebellions against Rome, but it doesn't give us a good idea of just WHO those others were. Also, I'd like to see some discussion of how those Jews who were indigenous to Palestine before Zionism happened (Palestinian Jews, if you will) responded to Zionism. Tom 129.93.17.229 ( talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the Zionist movement and not about Palestine. The references to the Jewish history in the area are to establish the background to the formation of the zionist movement and the Jewoish connection to the area. Try the history of Palestine for more info about non-jewish history. also the article is too long as it is.
The term indigenous is problematic when used about Jews. How many generations do you have to live somehwere to be indigenous? You might say Jews are inherently non-indigenous, except possibly in Israel. The term Palestinian-Jews was used by the British to describe all Jews who were citizens of Palestine under the mandate, including immigrants.
Most of the material on Jews in Israel/Palestine before 1900 is in Hebrew. On the whole the Jews of Jaffa were ethnically mixed and pro-zionist, while the Jews of Jerusalem (over 50% of Jerusalem's populaiton by 1860, depending on your sources) were mostly (desperately poor) Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox who lived off charity from Europe. There were also communities in Safed and Hebron. There was immigration from the Yemen and Bukhara (Uzbekistan) in the 19th c.
I guess the subject is worth an entry of its own but its not really my period (I specialize in the Mandate). Telaviv1 ( talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed most of the biltmore stuff. It only needs a paragraph. There's a link to the text so people can always read it for themselves. Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Telaviv1, I think you focus too much on the text of the program. Of course Flapan must have been aware of the text, so he has taken this into account. Actually the text talks about the Arabs, and doesn't mention a claim of all of Palestine. However I think Flapan considers the proceedings of the conference, which were different. If Flapan interprets part of the real text as just paying lip service than that is the result of his historical research. If you disagree than that's your interpretation, i.e. WP:OR. -- JaapBoBo ( talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this from the lead:
Please, instead of engaging further in edit warring, let's work here on talk to find a sourced, reliable version that we can all agree upon. The article will be ok without this (or the Chomsky) paragraph for the time being. That paragraph is problematic because of the large number of unsourced assumptions. By using the term "Holy Land" it suggests that the only Islamic/Arab/Palestinian claims to the land are based on conflicting religious notions with the Jews. Then there is the assumptiont hat there is deep roots of antisemitism in Europe. While there clearly is a history of antisemitism in parts of Europe, this blanket statement is simply not accurate, and clearly unsourced. There is no source that there is "Widespread reverence" for old testament prophecies, outside of early 20th Brittish pressure references in the WWI section.
I also dispute that it is improper (POV) to cite Noam Chomsky. While the sentence may need some qualification, it is fine to get the opinion of someone who represents a POV. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following:
What we need to do is present both sides of the conflict. We cannot state that the only reason people oppose Zionism is because they are anti-semitic. We can state that some people say that, as long as we attribute those claims to a source, and we make it clear that is just one of many views, as opposed to The Truth. What do others think? Is it a bad idea to try to include multiple POVs (including Chomsky's) in the lead? Is it a bad idea to call for sources for bold, controversial claims? I think not. - Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Your statement is better. How about this: ["[anti-zionism|Opposition to Zionism]] has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing national claims and political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[chomsky ref] Some of the opposition to Zionism is related to anti-semitism. [9]"
competing national claims covers the islamic-arab-palestinian angle. I think it is unfair to relegate antisemitism, it deserves prominence but I don't mind compromising on that issue as long as it is preoperly ackowledged as a factor.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of data here. Is there anything we can do about this lengthy discussion? Please delete all unecessary data(like this current post you are reading). Article unsigned purposefully, due to space already consumed by this lengthy discussion.
![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
There is an important dimension to the holocaust that is generally ignored with regard to Zionism. This is the fact that Zionist leaders during World War 2 refused to entertain propositions presented by both the Nazis and the Allies, regarding the deportation of European Jews to various countries around the world. A common attitude held by Zionists at the time was that the mass prosecution of Jews would result in the creation of a Jewish state after WW2. To quote Greenbaum: "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe". I'd like to see these element of Zionism added to Wiki... -- Zimmer79 on 23 September 2007.
Listen, I'm at work now and this requires a lengthy response. To be honest I'm not sure its worth my time, however:
1.Wikipedia seeks to work on academic standards. The Rabbis you are quoting are not acamedicians and mostly believe that the earth was created 5700+ years ago. They are not a relaiable source. 2.The issue of how the Jewish Agnecy leadership (that is the Zionist leaders in Palestine) responded to the holocaust is best addressed by Tom Segev, 7th million. He feels their repsonse was inadequate. Whatever individuals said BEFORE the war, and they may have said these things, does not provide proof of any alliance. These are unfortunate indivudal statements and were made before the Nazi extermination program. At best they provide evidence that not enough was done, not of malice. A statement to the effect that the leadership was criticezied for not doing enough could be inserted into the page. 3. Zionist groups led the Warsaw ghetto uprising and were at the forefront of Jewish resistance both in gettos and in the forests. 4. the story about the gestapo I have never heard and don't believe.There is no way the Spanish would have agreed to it. 5. The murder of most of Europes Jews significantly weakened the worlds Jewish communities and made a state less likely. there was no way of knowing if there would be sympathy after the war. As it was the British damn near created an Arab state in Palestine. 6. The Zionists were warning about the importance of anti-semitism and providing Jews with tools to confront it. It is reasonable to claim that they underestimated what Hitler was capable of and did not repsond fast enough. The orthodox Jews who you are quoting are probably bitter because of that. 6. just because it says somehting somewhere online doesn't mean its true. Just because they say they are jewish doesnt't mean they are. Just because they are Jewish doesn't mean they speak the truth. 7.Whatever your intention, the opinoins you are expressing are, in my opinion, in effect anti-semitic. I assume you are misguided rather then malicious, so I will try to explain why I think this. a. the vast majority of the world's jews are today Zionist and in over reacting to these stories you are implying that they are culpible in the Holocaust. b. Your assumption of Zionist consipriacies is a manifestation of classic Jewish-consiparzcy theories such as the Protocosl of Zion. The Zionist movement fucntions as a democratic sysstem with elected representatives and a wide range of opinions and not as a conspiratorial manipulative body. the leaderhsip of the Jewish Agency and of the Zionist movement were elected. C. claiming that a significant body of Jews would deliberatley cause their own people to be murdered ina gruesome fashion is deeply offensive. d. I should add that my mother and gradnmother were murdered whille my uncle and aunt who were zionist were saved because of their efforts to reach Palestine. My fahter was saved because a pro-Zionist member of parliament in England asked the Foreign secretary to give him a visa. 8. whatver their failing the zionists basically fight for the Jews. they may make mistakes but these are honest mistakes. Their basic interest is not in doubt. I hope this helps and ask that you not be offended, my aim is to educate not to insult. Telaviv1 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose adding the above information if there is no further interest in discussing it. [Unsigned: Zimmer79 [1] ]
"The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70,". - This is a total lie - you can't have a desire to return if you left voluntarily (after profitably selling your property to Palestinians) and there is nothing to prevent you from returning (except that the money is better in Rome or Florida or NYC). Fourtildas 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
oh yes, nothing to stop you except the hordes of angry arabs. Nope, nothing a all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 ( talk) 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
If your mother's mother's mother was "Jewish" then you are "Jewish". Even if you never heard of "Jews" you are "Jewish" according to WP and fundie Judaism and fundiXianity. And Zionism is Jewish supremacy - ask any Nazi - they will recognize the similarity. I've been thinking of writing an article on ethnic/racial/religious/nationalist/supremacist movements, but these articles seem to get deleted by people who are uncomfortable with the obvious comparisons.
BrandonYusufToropov keeps trying to introduce, without discussion, a lengthy quote into the Anti-Zionism section:
In the modern period, certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, some vehemently so. Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book ‘’A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism,’’ that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:
BYT is well aware of how controversial any additions to this article are, and particularly, given the history of his lengthy and sustained disruption here in the past, how controversial his additions in particular are bound to be. More specifically, as has been explained to him numerous times in the past, the Anti-Zionism section is merely a summary of the lengthy Anti-Zionism article; as such, it should not contain quotes from any individuals, much less one-sided quotes like that. Please keep in mind the section should be a brief summary of the other article; the quote does not add any specific knowledge not already summarized in that section. BYT, it's quite disappointing that you tried to slip this in without any discussion, and then continued to revert it; if you would like to insert it, please explain why, and then get consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In don't see this particular quote mentioned there; where is it? I also note that the discussion you linked to was from August 2006, whereas you first slipped that quote into the article in January 2007. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The absurdly long sub-section was cut down to a reasonable size on December 26. Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is lengthy and one-sided, and certainly not appropriate for a summary section, as detailed above. The quote can be found in the Anti-Zionism article, where it belongs. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
BYT, you're repeating months-old arguments, and please review straw man. Do you have any other response to my points above? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I've explained the reasons over and over; usually when I do that, you just start a new section, pretending that you haven't read or seen or understood the reasons. I'll repeat them one last time for you:
As for your other ideas, WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus, and you would undoubtedly benefit from your "break" advice far more than I would. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
... see link here. [5] BYT 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
(Rfc comment) I don't see any need for a lengthy 4-line quote in the anti-Zionism summary. There is a whole page for that material. The anti-Zionism section needs to be a general summary of the other article. Adding a quote from one person tips the balance, invites further unneccessary additions and is against the preferred article guidelines
which state "..those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the sub-topic covered in that section". So no, I don't believe this article should carry the quote.--
Zleitzen (
Talk)
13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In summary
Hope that helps. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mackan79, the content you are trying to add here may belong to anti-Zionism or some other articles related to the conflict. Please reread the title of this article. Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
To explain my last revert further, I'm not sure that another 6.5k of text in a 71k article is appropriate for what is essentially a summary. Also, Mackan's version raises concerns of POV and undue weight. GabrielF 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried again, with basic explanation in the edit summary. I appreciate the thought that we shouldn't get into details about criticism here, but the existence of Arab/Muslim criticism seems pretty huge. As to the other parts, I removed some details, but think it's appropriate in a section on Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism to at least give post-Zionism its own paragraph. I hope we can work with this; I'd like to make a few more changes, but thought I'd put that up for comment. Mackan79 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor as recently added a large number of {{ fact}} (almost every sentence). That tag is not a "weapon" to assert a POV. An {{ unsourced}} tag at the top of the article, and endeavoring to find sources (there are many, by the way...) is the preferred approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why people are continually reverting any mention of Arab/Muslim opposition to Zionism. An argument is being made that material in this section must first appear on the Anti-Zionism or Post-Zionism page, per WP:POVFORK. There are simply two problems: 1.) WP:POVFORK doesn't say that, but also 2.) This material is discussed on Anti-Zionism at great length.
For reference, I had reduced the material on Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism to four sentences:
This section is being reduced to two sentences:
Is there a reason we are not mentioning the opposition of Arabs and/or Muslims? Ironically, in the extended "International Support for Zionism" section above, we state that King Faisal I of Iraq supported Zionism. Mackan79 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that it's what you want to see happen. I hardly see how it's clear that it is what must happen. Unless, of course, you own this article. BYT 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the obsession to talk about disputes and antisemitism, eh sorry, anti zionism (same thing) in this article all the time. Clearly this article is only about Zionism. Unless you're well informed with Zionism, this article is probably not for you (speaking generally). This article should not be a source for disputes. Amoruso 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Re Humus' concern, I changed the phrase to "some of the most," which is supported by that source and many others. One other: Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. Routledge, pg. 98. "Indeed, the fact that Arab anti-Zionism has invariably reflected a hatred well beyond the 'normal' level of hostility to be expected of a prolonged and bitter conflict would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to Zionist activitiy, it is rather a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the viscisitudes of the Arab-Isarael conflict." Disregarding his conclusion, he seems to make the background point pretty clearly. If another phrasing is preferred, however, I remain open. Mackan79 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
See Anti-Zionism#Types_of_anti-Zionism
See also Anti-zionism#Arab_anti-Zionism
See also Anti-Zionism#Muslim_anti-Zionism.
Incidentally, I agree (if this was a concern) that the dual reference to racism wasn't necessary, but I continue to think that some reference to Arab and Muslim opposition is necessary if not to whitewash the subject. I'll try something again later; suggestions welcomed. Mackan79 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Why, if I may ask, are you holding up the hoops here, as though for a trained dog to jump through? Is there a policy point I'm missing here? If so, could you please cite it, as opposed to issuing orders? Once again, who gave you the deed of ownership on this article, please? BYT 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you just deleted sourced text providing readers with an understanding of Arab and Palestinian responses to Zionism. Would you like to explain why you did this, or was it simply a whim that you don't feel like illuminating? BYT 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And precisely which point would I be "disrupting" WP to make? That Arab opposition to Zionism exists, and that mention of same is germane to this article? The republic shudders, yes. Now, to the heart of it: is the act of disagreeing with you somehow to be considered an assault now on the entire encyclopedia? Please do clarify precisely what you mean here, Jay. BYT 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." [10] I hardly see how this principle is relevant when I am not even attempting to ascribe any position to you, but instead asking you, as the admin you are, for clarification on your implication, above, that I have somehow violated WP:POINT. Once again: What "point" do you believe me to be "disrupting" WP to make with this edit? [11] BYT 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section Zionism#Opposition_or_ambivalence, I added two {{fact}} templates. Can someone please get references. I'll give ya'll at least two weeks.-- Urthogie 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Citing only what proponents consider Zionism to be -- "diaspora nationalism" -- seems to violate WP:NPOV. BYT 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Note that "diaspora nationalism" is not from a POV source. It's from a book on "nations and nationalism." [12] There is therefore no NPOV issue, you're making this up. Even if this was a Zionist source (which it isn't), I'd still disagree with your interpreation of NPOV, by the way. But that's beside the point. This source is a book on nationalism in general, not a Zionist book.-- Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again -- can we have a (civil) discussion about the balance of views presented in the opening graph?
It may be helpful for me to share a close analysis of section in question:
Described as a "diaspora nationalism,[3] <passive voice does not say who's doing the "describing">
... its <Zionism's> proponents ... <apparent referent "proponents" provides a clue, of dubious grammatical quality, to reader that the answer to the question "who's doing the describing" here is or could be this collective noun "its proponents" -- in any event, "its" must refer either to that collective noun or to "Zionism," in which case WP is guilty of failing to say, in the text of the article, precisely who describes Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism" -- or, for that matter, who describes it as something else.>
... regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4] <we are now definitely making a political statement from the point of view, and using the language of, "its proponents", and excluding the language of "its opponents," a courtesy we do not extend to, say, Irish nationalism, Note that Irish nationalism does not pretend to know what I.N. actually "is," or offer a single quote from a single volume to convey how it is "described," but the article rather points out that it is "contrasted" with the position of the Unionists, a concession to reality that appears to me worth modeling here.> BYT 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Here. [13].
There's actually quite a lot to choose from in this particular part of the ocean. But I cite this quote against my better judgment, because (if I may) you are changing the subject (check the opening of this discussion). Specifically, you are ignoring my larger point, now repeatedly put to you, that "diaspora nationalism" is one of many possible, citable, ways to describe Zionism, and that there is no valid reason to pick it over something that a contemporary opponent of Zionism might come up with, other than the fact that it's presently popular in Israel. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Let's take this from a different angle. Is it your opinion that the reader should not be told, in the text of the article itself, precisely who "describes" Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism"? A yes or no will do. Thanks. BYT 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So your position is yes, we should avoid mentioning who holds this view in the opening graph.
With respect, that's irresponsible, because Adam Heribert, in Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians, (RoutledgeCavendish) [14] holds that "extreme" Zionism is ethnic nationalism, another of the four types identified by Gellner.
Arnold Toynbee (to bring out the big guy) also holds that Zionism is ethnic nationalism. "... it is not ethnic nationalism per se that is bad, but Jewish ethnic nationalism, which should be given up and exchanged for another one." Arnold Toynbee on Judaism and Zionism: A Critique, Oskar K. Rabinowicz - 1974 (W.H. Allen).
There are dozens more like this, I believe. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
And this brings us (back) to my point. Why are we using your formulation, rather than Toynbee's? Because you say it's unique to Zionism? BYT 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay. We can put the change under whatever category you want. I suggest we rewrite the sentence in question so that it reads:
Zionism's aim was and is the self-determination of the Jewish people; it has today become a form of ethnic nationalism. BYT 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? You don't even offer a draft of the passage under dispute, and you call that trying to work collaboratively? "Compromise" means you get precisely the terminology you want, only in more detail. Give me a break. This article really is a perfect metaphor for the mess in the Mideast. You get to say what Zionism "is," from your chosen sources, and in your words. Do you actually want an improvement in the process here? I think not. Fine. Back to battling edits. BYT 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Institute of Historical Review of Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle"
New York Review of books on "The Fateful Triangle"
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on "The Fateful Triangle"
"The Fateful Triangle" referenced in Publishers Weekly
Chomsky interview on Zionism -- ZNET
Thought and Action interview with Chomsky on Middle East and political issues
Chomsky interviewed at Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
-- BYT 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
How about:
opposition to Zionism has come from a variety of areas, ranging from religious to nationalist to political dissent of the ideology as either immoral or impractical.
How would you modify that?-- Urthogie 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections <haredi ref here> to competing claims of nationalism <Palestinian critic ref here> to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical <Chomsky Reader ref here>
To be honest I don't think the reference is even necessary, as it's not a disputable sentence. Mind if I remove it, per Wikipedia:References?-- Urthogie 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:CITE has nothing about being allowed to restore unnecessary references. The question here is if its necessary. It's clearly not.-- Urthogie 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why am I pointing out that it's your opinion? Because you're treating it as a fact. What's "clearly unnecessary" to you is irrelevant. Your sticking the words "clearly" or "obviously" in front of your opinion doesn't turn it into objective reality. The objective reality here is twofold: 1) we agreed to it, and 2) there is not a whisper of authority in WP:CITE that authorizes, or even suggests, the removal of the cite. Peace, BYT 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
“With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )
And other mainstream cites, including:
A.N. Wilson: The Decline of Britain in the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 104
If there's persuasive evidence this is a fake quote, please supply it and discuss it here, rather than simply removing cited material. BYT 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
a: "Promote" is a red herring, I think, Jay -- we're talking about "opinions" of leading Zionists. That's what the passage in question is about.
Here's your quote: "Although he did not declare it openly, his conversation with fellow delegate Aaran Aaronsohn shows that he regarded the expulsion of the Arabs as a prerequisite (see Masalha 1992: 12-13). Weizmann described the native population as the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path. (see Flapa 1979: 56, and Ingrams 1972:31-32)' (Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry By Michael P. Prior; Routledge, 1999, page 192.) By what possible calculus does a description of Weizmann's views on this issue constitute
original research? Again, I encourage you to read the actual text of what you're citing.
b: Humus, your simply declaring that everything I've cited is "not a reliable source" seems inappropriate and counterproductive to me.
c: If the quote is fake, we shouldn't use it. Let me do some digging. BYT 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, and try not to tell me what I'm promoting. I'll show you the same courtesy, okay?
By the way, the speed with which something you disagree with becomes "narrow" and "polemic" makes my head spin. Something tells me the problem with those books is that you disagree with them. And let's face it, when you disagree with them, the standards shift around here.
("What's the REAL source for Beowulf? Huh? Did you look at the manuscript? Or are you just looking at a copy? Hmmmmmmmm?")
Now, here's the part where we build some trust and actually start working on the article together, Jay, just like we're freaking supposed to.
FYI, I did some research on Wilson and found he had been involved in a literary hoax that involved preying on his weakness for using unsubstantiated quotes in nonfiction works. That's got my spider-sense tingling.
Maybe he fell for something here, too, in which case I'll withdraw the edit. Something tells me Chomsky wouldn't use something like this and cite "Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140" unless he was sure of his stuff. Oh, wait, I forgot, Chomsky is the antichrist.
Howzabout you let me try to figure out if someone other than ardent Zionists has objected to this, okay? You guys may well be right. If you are, problem solved. If you're not, you can go back to tag-teaming me if that makes you feel better, but personally I hope you'll eventually start thinking about ways to pursue "truth even unto its innermost parts" with me on this woefully unbalanced article, to use Louis Brandeis's phrase. (A plug for my alma mater, sorry.) BYT 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That "straw man" thing is getting a little old -- why don't you wait until I actually ascribe a position to someone before accusing me of doing so inaccurately?
Back to our top story tonight ...
More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann once told to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value." Y. Heller, Bamavak Lemedinah: Hamediniyut Hatziyonit Bashanim 1936-48 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-48 (Jerusalem, 1984), p.140. [17]
Not a whisper I can find from any source that this is a falsified quote -- to the contrary, it shows up again and again, obviously translated from the Hebrew into more than one version. BYT 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. Thanks for the reminder on that. Here's what it says. "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known .... should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." Not a word about it having to be an original source, by the way, but I will cite that below nonetheless, under "Source the first."
If I may summarize:
Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)
Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).
Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [18] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [19] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).
Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.
Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.
Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.
Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomering'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Chomsky often doesn't use primary sources for his quotes. I've even emailed him about this other fake quote he used and he blamed it on a secondary source (Flapan).-- Urthogie 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you intially claimed that I was inserting a false quote. [21] Is that still what you're saying, or isn't it? If so, on what do you base your claim? BYT 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jokes aside, do you have any evidence to back up this claim? [22] If you don't, it's okay to say, "No, I don't." BYT 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
These references are all extremely removed and partisan reproductions of the quote, and the entire thing really smacks of mistranslation/noncontext. I recommend that the original be provided if we don't want it viewed through the lens of extreme POV sourcing. Tewfik Talk 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
BYT, you keep citing "Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)". Have you actually read that source? I believe it is in Hebrew. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, if this dubious material is accurate, it appears to be more suited to the Anti-Zionism article; the claims made in it are brought up almost solely by anti-Zionists, in polemic works.
Jayjg
(talk)
17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that WikiProject Palestine appears to be getting off its feet. However, I am not sure this article belongs in WikiProject Palestine. While Zionism undoubtedly had a massive effect on the lives of Palestinians. It is a Jewish (Israeli) ideology not a Palestinian one. I feel that including Zionism as part WP: Palestine is the equivalent of including the articles about arab nationalism or Fatah in WP: Israel. Perhaps this discussion should be continued on another page so that all issues over jurisdiction can be ironed out. Oneworld25 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.)
Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"?
I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot.
I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far. BYT 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
BYT, please refer back to the discussion above. As has been explained many times, there are issues with the claims and sources, and you can't keep starting new sections to discuss material that has previously been discussed. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So what do you guys need to see from me? BYT 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jayjg, what do you need to see from me on this? We should resolve this by working collaboratively. BYT 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Finkelstein: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).
Masalha: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. [24] (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England. [25] He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992); 'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996'; editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).
Chomsky: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.
Wilson: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.
This "straw man" business -- it's an ongoing theme of yours. Let us clarify. When you wrote this:
... what exactly were you getting at, if it wasn't that I needed to have read it in Hebrew? BYT 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear.
Back up, please. Whether you personally are dubious about a published source is irrelevant. Finkelstein published it, whether you wish he had done so or not. When your personal decree about whether something is or is not dubious is what determines what goes into this article, we are all in a great deal of trouble.
Now. You said that it was a straw man argument that I had invented for you, this business about my having to read the quote in the original Hebrew. Above, you are saying that only the "primary source," Heller's book, in Hebrew, is "what [I] must cite." Which is it?
When you accuse me of setting up a straw man for you, Jay -- which you do quite regularly -- you are obliged to back that up. It's a lot like accusing me of lying. I resent that.
You have been applying this standard to me, by asking me whether I'd read the Hebrew -- while you were not at the same time applying that "Have you read the original language" standard to, say, the English translations of Jabotinsky's work that appear in this article. How, specifically if you please, is my pointing this out a straw man? BYT 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: You implied you had read the original, when you cited it directly on several occasions, both in the article and on this Talk: page. I challenged that claim more than once, and you eventually admitted that you hadn't read it at all.
I've got an idea. Why don't you a) stick to what I say, rather than what you believe me to imply, and b) abandon the notion that you are somehow empowered to challenge people about what they have and have not read. It's rude and it does not foster good communication on talk pages.
Re: That deals with your straw man argument; please desist from making them in the future.
Not in the least. A straw man argument, for what feels like the fortieth time, is when I maintain that you hold a position that you in fact do not hold, and argue against that imaginary position. Even if I had claimed to read Hebrew, or Mandarin, or Sumerian, I would still not have imparted any position to you. I would like to ask you again, please, to identify ...
Re: you invented a straw man argument that I was insisting on an "original language standard" for quotes... -- I missed the part where I maintained that this was in fact your position.
So far, I've given the English translation of Jabotinsky, of which you presumably approve, as an example that this "one-language" standard isn't what you're currently doing.
Are you quite sure I didn't ask you whether this was your position? Are you quite sure I didn't do so to clarify whether you were being entirely consistent in your evaluation of quotes that make it into this article?
Perhaps you could quote the passage that's confusing you. BYT 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
All very entertaining. "Any such quote" referred to the slight variations on Weizmann's "kushim" quote, as I believe you know. No version of it seems to satisfy you except one that is incomprehensible to or, even better, concealed altogether from, the English-speaking reader. My question was (and is), were you planning to run the whole article that way? If that's a straw man, I'll buy you a cigar.
To the point. If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.) BYT 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite surprised to see this (it's not like you at all), but you failed to answer a direct question. Maybe you missed it:
If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.) BYT 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is probably as good as we'll get without quite a bit more research.
This is a translation from the Hebrew of Arthur Ruppin's speech as reported by Joseph Heller.
Dr Weizmann once told me how he received the Balfour Declaration. And when I asked him, 'And what did you think then in reality on the Arab question?' he replied, 'The English told us that [there are] some hundred of thousands [of] blacks there, and this has no importance.' This shows me that at that time our leaders didn't have a clue regarding the Arab question, and even much later they relegated this question to the margins.
This is translated into English from Heller, Yosef. Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 (The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948), Jerusalem, 1984, p.140, quoting the protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, May 20, 1936.
Ruppin's speech was made in German, and the original is in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem. I am going to try to get it, but it may take some time. Weizmann may have spoken to him in Hebrew, English, or German; we don't know.
Joseph Heller's reporting of the speech in his 1984 book was in Hebrew. I don't know who first translated it into Hebrew. The English above is Heller's translation of the Hebrew, plus some copyediting tweaks (punctuation fixes, or text added in square brackets). This is as faithful a rendering as we can hope to find without reading the original German text.
As to whether we should include it, I think we should. This is an important part of early Zionist and Israeli history. Ruppin and Weizmann were both pivotal, as was the British government, and this quote sheds some light on all three. If we use it, we can leave out the other secondary sources (AN Wilson etc): Heller is the secondary source they all quote, and we now have a translation of the text directly from him. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Humus that it may make sense to prune Jabotinsky back a bit, but otherwise am very satisfied with the (massive) amounts of work you've done on this. BYT 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Jewish nationalism currently redirects to Zionism. Shouldn't there be a seperate page on Jewish nationalism which briefly introduces the different sorts of Jewish nationalism, of which Zionism has been the most significant but not the only one? (For example, Territorialism, Bundism, Simon Dubnow's Folkism, Jewish autonomism are all also forms of Jewish nationalism. BobFromBrockley 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why not put a link at the top of Zionism to other forms of Jewish nationalism? Telaviv1 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I just had a quick look at this article. Does the article says that at the beginning of the movement, the majority of Rabbis rejected the idea but it was gradually accepted for various reasons (which the article should explain)? It might be already there but I couldn't find it. -- Aminz 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the sentance "This has led to a loss of support for Zionism among the political left, especially in Europe" link to a page about anti-semitism? they arent one and the same thing. Fennessy 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section "New Jewish mentality" in the sentence: "One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov..."
As far as I know the word "ideologue" is generally used as a pejorative.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ideologue 1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Why is that word used in this sentence? 216.87.87.19 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the article page: Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs, many of whom view .... That sounds a bit bias. Critics are made to look like a sort of ignorant vox pop. I would think it would soun better if first where mentioned the usual critics. Scolars etc. Then mention that critism has a large popular support in arab countries ( btw are all Palestinians Arabs? ) Something like:
Opposition to Zionism comes from various sources. Academics like Chomski, X, and Y are opposing Zionism on various grounds. There is also Jewish opposition from groups like A and B. A opposes on religious grounds, B opposes on filosophical grounds. Political opposition comes primairily from nations surrounding Israel. This is opposition has a large popular support.
I feel this sounds more balanced. But considering the accuracy of the debate I feel I do not know enough details to modify the front page.
Aixroot 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's simply not true there are neo-nazi groups worldwide that are in opposition to zionism and they only recruit white members also many non nazi groups despise political zionism ( 82.47.164.103 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))
How much information should this article (which should be about Zionism) give to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? This has been the subject of something close to a revert war, instead of being discussed here. Personally, I think roughly this amount of information is appropriate:
In 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Russian Far East but the effort failed to meet expectations and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population.
Whereas this much seems too much, when the topic is Zionism:
n 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast, a project now over 70 years old. Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, also the Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, said "one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions." It is estimated that at least 3,000 Jews live today in the city. The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. [29] The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia estimates the number of Jews in Russia at about 1 million, or 0.7 percent of the country's 143 million population. Sheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan -- just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population. [30] Concerning the Jewish community of the oblast, Govenor Nikolai Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [31]
If the short version does not strike the right tone, perhaps an alternative could be given, but surely not of more than one or two sentences. BobFromBrockley 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
In 1934, the Soviet Union established the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. [32] Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan, its capital. [33] Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [34] The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. [35]
or as I would suggest, a more contemporary statement such as below.
The Jewish Autonomous Oblast continues to be an autonomous oblast of the Russian state. [36] The Chief Rabbi of Birobidzhan, Mordechai Scheiner, says there are 4,000 Jews in the capital city. [37] Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." [38] The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004 on the 70th anniversary of the regions founding in 1934. [39]
Culturalrevival 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on many of the issues here, because I am not highly knowledgeable, but I did get the page protected so maybe I should be the one to try and open discussion. Let's try and keep it calm and reasoned. Thus far, I have seen the following objections to the current (protected) version:
And the following defenses:
That last one was me. Just to elaborate; I think it's safe to say that Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, etc etc were not empty ghost towns before European Jews showed up, and a quick read of Jezreel Valley reveals that its settlement was accomplished through the eviction of some 8,000 fellahin. Well, hope that gets the ball rolling. Eleland 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not familar with the disputes that led to protection (but not surprised that they were bitter), anyway please remember that Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews were no less Zionist then Ashkenazi Jews and were, from the start a significant part of Zionist migration.
More importantly, I think the Antisemitism template should be inserted into the article at a suitable point, as the Zionist political movement was very much a response to Antisemitism.
The land in Jerzereel was purchased legally and efforts were made to help Fellahin evicted. I think this point was discussed in the Peel report. Telaviv1 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not intending to take sides in this dispute, but I did want to suggest that attribution carries no implication that the sources involved are unreliable so long as it is equally applied to all sides. It's a common approach in Wikipedia to address disputed accounts. That is, it's reasonable to require adding words like "According to [new historian(s)]..." before what new historians say, but if this is done, per WP:NPOV it would also be appropriate to require adding words like "According to [conventional historians]..." when reporting what conventional historians say. I agree that per WP:NPOV, so long as the sources involved are appropriate for inclusion in the first place, the article cannot explicitly or implicitly appear to endorse one account as true and should report both accounts in a similarly sympathetic tone, although it can indicate which is the majority and which the minority account. Best, -- Shirahadasha 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
I am removing the sentence "Formally organized in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, the movement was then composed mainly of Russian Jews with leadership provided by Austrian and German Jews.[2] Vienna was the original centre of Zionism.[2] " Not only is it not true, it is also not supported by the reference it provides. The Zionist movemet was based in Switzerland ("In Basel I created the Jewish state" - Herzl). Telaviv1 10:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as Muslim Zionism, any more than Buddhist Zionism; certainly some individuals support Israel, but there is no movement comparable to Christian Zionism. Maybe supporters of Israel in Islamic communities could be discussed in some article about moral supporters of Israel, but it's totally out-of-place here.-- Pharos 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is grossly undue weight. Muslim Zionism deserves about half a sentence. Currently, the section is about 40% the size of the "anti- and post-" section. Does anyone think for a second that Muslims supporting Zionism constitute, in the history of Zionism, anything like 40% as significant a factor as anti- and post- Zionism? I know we have whole articles on Anti- and Post- Zionism but individual articles are required to be balanced in themselves. < eleland/ talk edits> 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Since this discussion seems to have ended a week ago with (what seems to be) an agreement, I removed the "unbalanced" flag. Emmanuelm 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that this page is doing two things at once, on the one hand its providing a summary of Zionism as an ideology and, on the other a history of Zionism. I think it might be helpful to create a seperate history of Zionism (nto to be confused with the history of Israel) and then one could remove most of the history stuff. It would make this page more digestible (and shorter). What do you think? Telaviv1 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed this new section, as it seemed to me repetitive of material elsewhere, rather non-neutral, in need of a lot of punctuation/grammar clean-up, and out of sequence in the article. But it contains some referenced material, including a chunky quote, so maybe bits of it could be used. Here it is:
Aim and ideological justification Zionism sought to establish a state that the Jews could claim fully as their own. Its founder, Theodor Herzl formulated an answer against anti-semitism, based on the ideas of 19th century German nationalism. According to this nationalism people owed their primary loyalty to their nation, i.e. their ethnic group. Unlike other nations the Jewish nation did not have a state but was dispersed in their Diaspora. There they almost inevitably became victims of anti-Semitism. Herzls answer was the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jewish nation. In that way the Jews could become a people like all other peoples and anti-semitism would cease to exist. [2] [3] This aim of the type of Zionism started by Herzl, Political Zionism, was adopted by all other main types of Zionism. Labor Zionisms main aim was the establishment of a socialist state for the Jews. Cultural Zionisms main goal was the establishment of a new spiritual center for the Jewish nation, which not neccesarily required the establishment of a Jewish state, but did require the establishment of a Jewish majority. [4] According to Hannah Arendt in 1946 Herzls image of the Jewish nation being surrounded by enimies was shared by the Zionist movement and the Jewish masses. [5]
The establishment of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state in Palestine was fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They would either have to move or become a minority in their own country. Nonetheless mainstream Zionism never doubted its historical right to establish a Jewish majority on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. Zionism justified this with two 'facts': the bond of the Jewish nation with Palestine, as derived from its history, was unique, while the Arabs of Palestine were part of the Arab nation and therefore had no special bond with Palestine. Therefore the Jews had a preemptive right to Palestine. [6] For example Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings influenced deeply the labor leaders, wrote in 1921 :
'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country ? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' [7]
According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'.
BobFromBrockley 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'.'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible... It all came from us; it was created among us... And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.' [8]
I replaced the section describing Zionist justifications for their claim on the land of Israel. The section gives pov's of Finkelstein and Hellberg. For NPOV other views may be added (if you can find them in a reliable source). -- 129.125.35.249 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Is "New Jewish mentality" the right title for this section [40]? How about "Cultural Zionism" or "Zionist culture"? BobFromBrockley 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing to justify this claim "the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel.". The peaks of immigration to Palestine were 1925 34,386, 1933 37,337, 1934 45,267, 1935 66,472, 1939 31,195 (eg this site). The post-war figures seem to be these: 1945 1,036, 1946 21,710, 1947 25,503 (though these are by ship, maybe a few more arrived overland). PR talk 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
very interesting so today you use the holocaust to justify your stealing even though you were stealing land prior to the fictional event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.51.252 ( talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
what I haven't seen addressed yet is, the distinction between: zionism = a homeland for the Jewish people, versus the new definition of "Zionism equals racism," that Zionism means the homeland must remain distinctly Jewish, and so citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion. Can that be expounded on in the article? thx Alextheblade 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Zionist writers basically look to create a liberl-democratic state in which minorities have typical rights for such a state. Try reading alneuland by Herzl to get a picture. There was no consitition for a state perpared in advance so the issue was never precisely worked out but your statement "citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion" is not based on fact. I think the information you want is in anti-zionism. Zionism = racism is not a definition. Racism is a totally different phenomena. I added some new section headings to make the obectives and strcture of the zionist movement more obvious and easier to find by people such as yourself. Telaviv1 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
because the history takes up so much of this page at this point, I am giong to move much of the content to History of Zionism per WP:SUMMARY. In the mean time, it would be helpful if someone can create a summary for this article. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I am currently rewriting the article and probably responsible for it getting too long.
There is still a lot fo stuff that needs to be added, but also a lot of things that can be removed. I have reached the 1945-1948 period and will put most of that into a seperate article relating to the Zionist conflict with Britain. A lot of the post 1948 seciton is, in my opionion, irrelevant but I haven't got down there yet. In response to this comment I took most of the sections on Socialist and Cultural Zionism and moved them to the relative articles.
there may be other bits which can be moved into different articles, for example the bits about opposition to Zionism cold be moved to anti-Zionism except that the anti-Zionism entry is a total mess. Telaviv1 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Telaviv1, please don't remove reliable and sourced material. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give all pov's if there is more than one. So please leave this 'According to Flapan .... . According to Porath ....'. I'm not reverting your Porath text either. -- JaapBoBo 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Porath is the undisputed authority for the early history of Palesitnian Nationalism. Its a two volume book. The Flapan work you refer to (I have read it) is not about Palestinian Naitonalism and is being quoted out of context. Telaviv1 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you quote someone - anyone - who says Porath is mistaken? You simply don't know what your talking about.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say enough about non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine before the twentieth century. It points out that there were Jews living in Palestine both before and after the Jewish rebellions against Rome, but it doesn't give us a good idea of just WHO those others were. Also, I'd like to see some discussion of how those Jews who were indigenous to Palestine before Zionism happened (Palestinian Jews, if you will) responded to Zionism. Tom 129.93.17.229 ( talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The article is about the Zionist movement and not about Palestine. The references to the Jewish history in the area are to establish the background to the formation of the zionist movement and the Jewoish connection to the area. Try the history of Palestine for more info about non-jewish history. also the article is too long as it is.
The term indigenous is problematic when used about Jews. How many generations do you have to live somehwere to be indigenous? You might say Jews are inherently non-indigenous, except possibly in Israel. The term Palestinian-Jews was used by the British to describe all Jews who were citizens of Palestine under the mandate, including immigrants.
Most of the material on Jews in Israel/Palestine before 1900 is in Hebrew. On the whole the Jews of Jaffa were ethnically mixed and pro-zionist, while the Jews of Jerusalem (over 50% of Jerusalem's populaiton by 1860, depending on your sources) were mostly (desperately poor) Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox who lived off charity from Europe. There were also communities in Safed and Hebron. There was immigration from the Yemen and Bukhara (Uzbekistan) in the 19th c.
I guess the subject is worth an entry of its own but its not really my period (I specialize in the Mandate). Telaviv1 ( talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed most of the biltmore stuff. It only needs a paragraph. There's a link to the text so people can always read it for themselves. Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Telaviv1, I think you focus too much on the text of the program. Of course Flapan must have been aware of the text, so he has taken this into account. Actually the text talks about the Arabs, and doesn't mention a claim of all of Palestine. However I think Flapan considers the proceedings of the conference, which were different. If Flapan interprets part of the real text as just paying lip service than that is the result of his historical research. If you disagree than that's your interpretation, i.e. WP:OR. -- JaapBoBo ( talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this from the lead:
Please, instead of engaging further in edit warring, let's work here on talk to find a sourced, reliable version that we can all agree upon. The article will be ok without this (or the Chomsky) paragraph for the time being. That paragraph is problematic because of the large number of unsourced assumptions. By using the term "Holy Land" it suggests that the only Islamic/Arab/Palestinian claims to the land are based on conflicting religious notions with the Jews. Then there is the assumptiont hat there is deep roots of antisemitism in Europe. While there clearly is a history of antisemitism in parts of Europe, this blanket statement is simply not accurate, and clearly unsourced. There is no source that there is "Widespread reverence" for old testament prophecies, outside of early 20th Brittish pressure references in the WWI section.
I also dispute that it is improper (POV) to cite Noam Chomsky. While the sentence may need some qualification, it is fine to get the opinion of someone who represents a POV. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following:
What we need to do is present both sides of the conflict. We cannot state that the only reason people oppose Zionism is because they are anti-semitic. We can state that some people say that, as long as we attribute those claims to a source, and we make it clear that is just one of many views, as opposed to The Truth. What do others think? Is it a bad idea to try to include multiple POVs (including Chomsky's) in the lead? Is it a bad idea to call for sources for bold, controversial claims? I think not. - Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Your statement is better. How about this: ["[anti-zionism|Opposition to Zionism]] has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing national claims and political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[chomsky ref] Some of the opposition to Zionism is related to anti-semitism. [9]"
competing national claims covers the islamic-arab-palestinian angle. I think it is unfair to relegate antisemitism, it deserves prominence but I don't mind compromising on that issue as long as it is preoperly ackowledged as a factor.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of data here. Is there anything we can do about this lengthy discussion? Please delete all unecessary data(like this current post you are reading). Article unsigned purposefully, due to space already consumed by this lengthy discussion.