![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I think Anti-Zionism is only one of the form of the criticisms to Zionism. And it is a wide subject. There is also Post-Zionism and Non-Zionism (whereas not described in the article). In this section is also described the "allegations of racism against Zionism", which is not an consensual anti-zionism position... So I suggest that the section is titled : "Opposition to Zionism". Ceedjee ( talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see these links: [1] [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ( talk) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this. I know he's covered in Anti-Zionism. Problem is, WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize all "major Points of View" that show up in Anti-Zionism in this article, Zionism, and I believe Mahatma Gandhi's views on the topic qualify as a major Point of View, esp. given that they were controversial at the time and attracted global interest and concern from leading Zionists. BYT ( talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Would that language work for you here at Zionism, Ceedjee ? BYT ( talk) 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay -- would Ceedjee's proposal -- "Mahatma Gandhi, too, opposed the Zionist enterprise" -- work for you? Would you, for instance, replace it if someone else took it out? I'd like to get your feedback on this before we proceed. BYT ( talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent questions -- I'm filing them for now in the Great Not-Yet-Addressed Questions folder, and eventually we can get to every question everyone has posed here during the present dispute. I may have a couple of questions myself that have not yet made it to the top of your list ... let me doublecheck on that, though.
Hey, did you happen to see the movie Enchanted? My girls fell in love with that film. Did you notice how they cast Idina Menzel in a non-singing role? This was mystifying to me, because Enchanted was a great new Disney musical (hasn't it been a while since we've been able to say those words with a straight face?), and because of Menzel's extraordinary work on the Broadway musical Wicked, which is now immortalized in a classic cast album. One of the great vocal performances in the history of the American musical theatre, in my view. I mention this in reference to Zionism because it seems important now to establish that anyone who wants to argue that the choice to cast Menzel in a role that did not allow her to sing had something to do with her views on Zionism, pro or con, would be hard-pressed to prove the point with a citation from a reliable source. I've scoured everything at my disposal, and have found nothing that supports such a claim. No one has made it yet, of course, but just in case it comes up, I feel it's a good idea to be prepared. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion of other matters, I remain, yr humble obdt BYT ( talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay -- thanks for the good note, above -- there may not be hard and fast rules, but there are hard and fast standards, and one of them is that we should be constantly trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm still not sure how omitting reference to the Gandhi/Buber controversy [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (for instance) accomplishes that.
I'm also not entirely sure that we are applying notability standards in a consistent way here, and I'm a little mystified by our inability to directly address the question of whether Palazzi is "notable" in the sense that you are saying Gandhi is NOT "notable". They are both under discussion for the same article, after all, and certain standards are set out by WP:PEOPLE that are meant to apply this article. I think I must have posed my question to you in a confusing way, and if I did, I apologize. Perhaps the best thing for us to do at this point is to look directly at the guideline:
Where I need help is here: Are you saying that Palazzi is notable, under the "less stringent" reference above, and, if so, why isn't Gandhi also notable under the same "less stringent" reasoning? I don't see anything above, or anywhere in WP:PEOPLE about the person having had to publish on the topic in question. BYT ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yusuf would like to move [20]. I think it makes more sense at the other place. Could you explain why ? Ceedjee ( talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay -- works for me. BYT ( talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not all jews live in israel yet all are in favor of israel..as not all italian americans live in italy but are in favor of italy .zionism is the in favor of a jewish state.
++It seems correct to most cristians that its correct natural normal to have 26 cristian countries but just 1 jewish country, In a fair world today there would be more jewish countries as THERE ARE more cristian or catholic or protestant or muslem countries. To say jews are greedy or want everything is opposite REALITY jews want ONE country only ONE while cristians already have 26 and muslems have 11.The cristiand got THEIRS by conquering entering and converting by force. jews have no superpowers nor want more than a fair shake. with jews ALWAYS in israel ,the european jews reentered international agreement after WW2 They never try to convert anybody. 26 to O N E . whos the greedy person here???
raquel samper comunidad judia murcia http://comjudiamurcia.googlepages.com/home jewish center murcia spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunidad judia murcia ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism and the state of Israel, Noam Chomsky being just one example. Look at how the USA treated blacks in the 1940s and 1950s, look at how South Africa treated blacks until the 1980s, the look at how Israel treats Palestinians NOW. If you can't see the similarities and how wrong all three are, then I'm afraid you're not looking very hard. But whatever, you'll just say I'm antisemetic and close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. 82.15.27.109 ( talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Is mediation still required? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following text to her for further discussion:
The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 55% of the world's population, rejects Zionism. [22] [23] [24]
There are a number of issues with this material:
Let's discuss this issue further here. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to Abdelkader Amlou in "Muslims & Arabs supporting zionism". I Googled his name and all I found were blogs, many written by him. The discourse was very blog-like, not academic. I could not find a single secondary source. I looked in Amazon.fr and found no book by this poet. Therefore, despite my declared sympathy for this guy's opinions, I cannot justify his presence in this article. See WP:SOURCE for more details. PS: he is Moroccan and writes in French; for the record, I was born in Morocco and French is my mother tongue. Emmanuelm ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This text appears to me to violate WP:UNDUE:
Muslims & Christian Arabs supporting Zionism Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship and Canadian Imam Khaleel Mohammed, find support for Zionism in the Qur'an. [1] [2] Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Bengali journalist Salah Choudhury and Pakistani journalist Tashbih Sayyed. [3]
The article currently emphasizes (as above) the positions of individual Muslims and Arabs who support Zionism. These are fringe viewpoints, at best, and if we feature a section on individuals in these groups who support the movement, it is incumbent upon us to offer a similar level of detail and attention to the (far more numerous) individual Muslims and Arabs who oppose Zionism. Simplest option, I think, is to delete the section. BYT ( talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
BYT, you argue that this group is too "fringy" to be mentioned. I disagree. As I wrote earlier, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in
WP:NPOV as such: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I easily found six public figures, including five published authors; it ought to be enough. I reverted your deletion.
Emmanuelm (
talk)
19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
I will write again what I said before. The support of Zionism is Arab and Muslim world is extremally little. That is why I think it is not undue:weight to point out the "little minority" who support this. The Arab and Muslim majority point of view is developed in the article about antizionism.
Ceedjee (
talk)
09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
We are summarizing the PRO view at a level of granular detail, and with a focus on fringe viewpoints, that is not in balance with our responsibility to summarize more mainstream contemporary and historic CON views (as they appear, for instance, at Anti-Zionism). BYT ( talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Palestine have good place in Middle east...so Zionists seems so clever!!!.A lot of problems help to make Palestine convenient to be the home of israel.One of the most important problem is the poverty and the need for money.The second standing problem is the incoherence which make it easy to go into the land as a new part.The problem which make it so easy to use military tool that weakness of the sovereignty of the government of Palestine.(Volks For Volks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.106.205 ( talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The material for this new section was taken from the bio article on Ben Hecht. Because of its length and detail, it did not seem appropriate in that article in its complete form. It was therefore shortened with a link added to this section for more details.
Should any editors decide to either rename this section, or otherwise remove it, please make any corrections to the link at the Ben Hecht article also. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The following were in the "see also" section in the Ben Hecht article. I'll leave them here if anyone wants to add them to this article
Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed. While Ben Hecht is interesting we can't start having forty lines and a picture for every prominent (more or less) American Zionist. Wikipedia isn't big enough. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If the Bergson group belongs in here then perhaps we shold restore the History of Zionism to this article?
Nearly everything in this article is already in History of Zionism and that is better written.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to participating in Wikipeida. But this article... it's just beyond. Totally.
I mean: Zionism had two major effects. 1: The creation of Israel. 2: The creation of the Palestinian diaspora.
Today we KNOW a lot about what happened in 48, and how the expulsion was in accordance with the wish for a pure Jewish community, with as few arabs as possible. We KNOW that Zionist leaders dreamed about transfer of the Palestinians. That was an integral part of Zionism as an ideology.
It's not bias. It's not politics. It's history. It's facts.
I see that there have been stuff about this is in the past, and that it's now edited out of some reason. It's time for a reality check. An encyclopedia should represent facts, not distort them. But this article is just that: Distortion. 89.139.84.195 ( talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) o.e.
As it happens I'm reading the iron wall and have Benny Morriss's latest book on order. I don't consider Pappe to be reliable, I think Stalinists are as bad as Neo-Nazis. I havn't read the Israeli archives but I've read the British ones and I've read the Peel Report which is a great intro to the conflict. I read/own Segev's book and it says nothing of what you describe actually its mostly about the 1917 - 1929 period and only devotes a single chapter to 1939 -1948. Beware of Palestinians quoting Zionists out of context, a lot do. Their own record is hardly impressive. Don't believe everything you hear even if the source is left-wing. I have a lot of expereince of this stuff and there's a lot of half-truths flying around. Finalyly, achi, allow me to say that I too respect your opinions. I suggest you learn about Jewish history in Europe - perhaps try reading about the pogroms in poland 1945-1948 (Jan Gross) or the Jewish escape from Eruope (Brichah).
Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Telaviv1,
I'm very happy to hear that you're reading Shlaim and that Morris is on the way! I'm sorry if I assumed things about your level of reading that were not correct.
Concerning Segev: Yap, he doesn't say much about 1948. But what he shows is how the Zionist leaders, for example Weizmann, had political goals that they didn't pursue in public. For example: They publicly accepted the dogy "national home" formulation, but were explicit in private that what they wanted was a fully fledged state. This is just to show that your argument concerning what Zionist leaders were saying in public is off the mark. I haven't read the Peel Report. On the other hand I've spent quite a lot of time in the Israeli state archives reading original documents in Hebrew and English. And I'll be glad to learn more about Jewish history in Europe.
Some final words about "history": Of course history can never be 100% accurate. Every historical timeline will to some extent be a "research theory", as EmmanuelM says. BUT: It is still the case that some things either happened or did not happen. Either there was a holocaust, or there wasn't. Either Napolean tried to conquer Russia, or he didn't. The same thing applies to Zionism. On some issues there are still legitimate debates - we're just not sure what the evidence tells us. (or we don't have sufficient evidence). But when it comes to the concept of transfer, then there's just no doubt - we KNOW that Zionist leaders, especially since the 30s and onwards - thought that it would be a good thing. Then there is the separate issue of what happened in 1948, if there were formal orders for expulsion and so on.
And EmmanuelP - I might very well enter new sections into the article later on! Just have to do it properly, so it will take some time. kol tov, 193.217.19.236 ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) o.e.
A link to the above has just been added to this article. If you follow the link you will find an article that seems to violate NOR and NPOV. Perhaps people who watch this page are better informed - could you look at this and comment on its talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Much of this article discusses Zionism as it was practised before the second world war. In particular the "types of zionism" and the issues relating to language and exile. They should refer to the movement as it is now.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, a Zionist may be a Jewish nationalist, but not necessarily. Jewish nationalism is certainly not the source of Zionism. The source of Zionism is in Jewish beliefs and traditions that connect the Jewish religion and people with the land of Israel. Zionism would continue even with every trace of nationalism removed from the equation. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, there can be no doubt that Zionism is rooted in religious tradition. That tradition was present in the thoughts, and acts, of even the most socialist inclined Zionist leaders:
Today, more than ever, the "religious" tend to relegate Judaism to observing dietary laws and preserving the Sabbath. This is considered religious reform. I prefer the Fifteenth Psalm, lovely are the psalms of Israel. The Shulchan Aruch is a product of our nation's life in the Exile. It was produced in the Exile, in conditions of Exile. A nation in the process of fulfilling its every task, physically and spiritually . . . must compose a "New Shulchan"--and our nation's intellectuals are required, in my opinion, to fulfill their responsibility in this. --(David Ben-Gurion, letter to the writer Eliezer Steinman, 12 June 1962) [25]
Perhaps, if it were not there, todays problems would be easier to solve. But religious belief is tightly interwoven with Zionist politics. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
An obscure quote from a letter doesn't seem to me to be strong enough evidence but I agree that zionism has its origins in religious ideals. I think that saying that "the concept of Jewish nationhood arose 3000 years ago" is problematic as many theorists (though not all) regard nationalism as a modern phenomenon (dating from the French revolution roughly) and Zionism is above all a nationalist movement with all that implies (ie the desire to have a sovereign state, a flag, an anthem etc. which all theorists agree is what a nationalist movement desires).
TBy definition anyone who is a member of the Zionist movement is a Jewish-nationalist supporting a Jewish state in one form or another. I think Jews who think Jews should live in Israel are not Zionist if they oppose Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is their thinking is not a product of a nationalist philosophy but purely religious. I accept that the boundaries between religion and nationalism are a little blurry here but Zionism is absolutely 100% a nationalist movement. That is what its founders were creating (and Herzl was completely secular). Ben-Gurion was aware of his orgins in religion but he always described Zionism as the the national movement of the Jewish people and his aim was to create a sovereign state. Telaviv1 ( talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PR, what you're saying is incorrect. The first Zionists are widely considered to be the hovevei zion and the biluim who were all orthodox to some degree. In addition secularism does not mean rejection of religion. Secular Zionists may still have been moderately religious so religius factors played a part. The socialist zionists were more opposed to religion but they did not arrive until later. As far as I can recall Jacob de-haan was Dutch and a zionist who changed sides becoming an orthodx jew in Palestine. He also published homosexual poetry. The cause of his murder and its implications are hardly as clear as you suggest.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilele the Zionist mvoement was largely secular in its objectives I am not sure if it was secular in its origins.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and someone else reverted it. Zionism had religious roots to be sure, and grew as a result Antisemitism, but it was secular Mr.Herzl, who is credited with its initial political form. There is also the nationalism, another secular movement. Certainly in America, its great growth prior to Balfour must be credited to Brandeis, although I admit, one couldn't state that using Wikipedia alone and his name is yet to occur on the article page. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 05:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think is depends what you mean by "origins". The 19th century origins were secular but the foundation on which those were built was obviously religious.
Telaviv1 (
talk)
08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps its time to remove this ambiguous statement. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should say that the founders were secular, rather than "secular in its origins". Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The meaning of 'origins' is a valid point, and religious points are by far the most ancient and Judaic. On the other hand, there were non-Judaic groups, which developed similar concepts, based on their own reading of other, newer, versions of the same RS, and for different reasons. This does not necessarily mean that they were Zionists, because the RS'd terms for them are different, and there are RSs that indicate these have been retroactively accepted and subsumed as being Zionists. I will readily admit that the roots of Zionism are religious, but it was definitely not the religious-based Zionists that introduced Zionism to the wider world; they were a small minority, especially in the early days. It was absolutely true the secular crowd brought the movement to the fore. That said, the post-1967 land acquisition and the post-1977 Likud political alliances are certainly the most direct causes of what the right-wing Zionists think and consider Zionism to be today. Please be careful how neutrally this is stated. How about something like; Although the roots of Zionism emanate from religious tradition, political Zionism grew and has been dominated by secular Jewry, until recently. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to say "mainly founded by secular Jews" and linked to "secular Jewish culture". I think that is sufficient. The boundaries between the religious and the secular are not simple, espcially in the Middle-East. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand there is difference between political and religious Zionism. Political Zionism is secular in its origins, and has its roots in rise of nationalism in 19th century in Europe, and establishment of many free nation states at that time. Religious Zionism, on the other hand, has its roots in Judaism and Jewish religious traditions.
So, in late 19th century, political Zionist would argue that Greeks, Bulgarians,Italians, Serbians and other people created their own independent states, so to solve the problem of antisemitism Jews must also have their own independent state and "to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state". Religious Zionist,on the other hand, would argue that Land of Israel is promised to Jews by God, and they have religious duty, mitsva, to settle in it. Igorb2008 ( talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
To balance things up a bit, I would like to see a link to:
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html
Particularly interesting is this quote: "Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.188 ( talk) 10:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Which land is "today Palestine?"
Telaviv1 (
talk)
07:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! ( Ssd175 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Plan Dalet Eggball ( talk) 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a Palestine. It's the place at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean where the People who call themselves Palestinian have lived for thousands of years, as recent DNA profiling has shown. They have been there much longer than the Zionists because they never left. They weren't keeping the place warm for Zionists for when they decided to wander back. It's thier country. It wasn't an empty land when the Zionists arrived. The Zionists knew that they couldn't play the victim if they were perceived to be doing what they were doing, namely stealing other peoples land, so they lied. Do you see how that works? Eggball ( talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not blind, and unlike many here I have visited Palestine seeing both the Zionist and Arab sides of Hebron and other disputed territories. I have also visited perfectly happy Arab neighbourhoods inside Israel and talked to Arab Israeli citizens. Granting citizenship to Arabs sounds nothing like ethnic cleansing to me. It is offensive in the extreme to compare the IDF's over zealous defensive tactics with the clearly genocidal acts of Nazi Germany. The question that must be asked is this; If the West Bank (Palestine) was still under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan as it was before 1967, would we still be crying foul about the lack of a Palestinian state? Is this pro Palestine or anti Israel? I am not Jewish by the way because I know if I do not declare that I will be accused of Zionist propagandising. Fyfman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyfman ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur (' 82.75.250.252 ( talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)',,)
The introduction of the article cite only proponents definition of Zionism. I think to be neutral we have to tell the reader the other's POV on Zionism exists (and from very important organizations and thinkers). This is needed because the "introduction" have to provide and overview of the topic, the reader do not have to read the full content of the article. We all know that there are controversies around Zionism and this is important to note also. I tried to add the United Nation view on Zionism which considers it "a racist movement" (someone has undone my edit; I hope for structures reasons and not for bias: he/she is User:Jaakobou). I hope he will answer why? Bestofmed ( talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're out of date. the UN general assembly retracted the resolution several years ago. The resolution is mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the introductions of the Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Capitalism articles. These movements all have "controversies" around them, yet all the articles have "only the proponents definition", none are defined by their opponents. I also looked at the Palestinian nationalism article; not only is there nothing in the introduction about how its opponents view it, but nothing at all in the entire article. David Sher ( talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)
I didn't even like to leave the cites that were there, as the quote from one of the books, which one would hope was the most appropriate to citing the assertion, "the label "Zionist" is in some cases also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism", failed to do so. Hopefully someone can find those books and determine whether they actually cite the material. I believe that the phrase itself is correct, but of course what we need is verifiability. The irony of WP, in cases such as this, is that those most capable of verifiability (in this case, alleged anti-semites who read the sources that use Zionist as a euphemism) are the least likely to employ it in the service of a case such as this.
I will continue rewording the large quotations that do not verify the material. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
the intro has been irritating me for months so follwoing your comments I removed almost 5000 bytes worth of unnecessary referencing from the intro.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggest changing the title of 'Non-Jewish Zionism' to the above, as most of the groups discussed are not Zionist as such. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(Summary: Rmv 'Evangelical'; All Christians supporting Zionism were not Evangelicals, nor is D.Lloyd George empirically observed to have been an Evangelical. Rmv discredited cite)
As the below cite shows, the
previous cite was in error.
Original text removed:
W. E. B. Du Bois was an ardent supporter of Zionism, (summary: Rmv WE du Bois; see Talk.)
As the below cite shows, du Bois was nothing like ardent in support of even Jewish resistance to Nazism, let alone Zionism. He was not opposed to either, but he is most certainly not notable as a supporter. The sentence, "
W. E. B. Du Bois spoke about against Nazi persecution of Jews" would be verifiable, but not notable in this context.
Google Books search for quote: W.E.B. Du Bois by David L. Lewis.
I will continue finding cites for, or refuting the inclusion of, the other non-Zionists included. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Loyd George was a nonconformist. http://www.jstor.org/pss/565044 his parents were baptists. I understand that this a type of evangelical. check your facts before you question what is written.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary?
1) The definition of zionism by wiki is what any jew would say and nothing like most people who use the term. It is mostly used as a term for jewish supremacy.
2)The defintion given for "the 13th tribe" a book by arthur koestler, a jew, who explains how jews are not biblical israelites goes way out of its way to make claims of the book being false which is no more than common propaganda in jewish and zionist circles.
I know of 2 more equal points that show that wiki may be jewish and perhaps several more that I will find. Ive only been noticing this a documenting jewish bias definitions in wiki on a per chance and coincidental basis for a month.
passage that actulaly reis not written in anti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.119.242 ( talk) 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And stating that WiKi is with "Jewish supremacy agenda" and writing it with no facts behind that statement, isn't that a bit Anti-Jewish agenda ?
"WiKi must be jewish" - can you hear yourself? It this the kind of talk allowed in an Open-liberal-world round Encyclopedia ?
Do your homework, read the article, it's surrounding articles and some books, then, you'll have the permission of "jewishing" an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.111.251 ( talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take note: Every time an antisemitic comment appaears in the discussions casusalobserver says "I don't like your tone but I agree with your sentiment" apparently he believes we have a jewish supremacist agenda. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see a mention of Yehoshua Hankin in the article. Any thoughts/suggestions on where it would be best to add a mention about him? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)<a
I think mention of Shas does not belong in Religious Zionism section. It is a religious party and also can be described as Zionist, but although religious, they are not related to Religious Zionist stream within Zionist movement, more to general or revisionist stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did a quick search on this and got contradictory information. The Member of Knesset most associated with zionist legislation is a Shas member http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1258 but the editor of their paper regards Herzl as an evil doer (probably because of his secularism, though it may reflect the editor's ignorance) http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-1780848,00.html.
So there is an issue for discussion here, but personally I think the comment should stay as it accurately describes the situation. Shas are not Zionist but profess a Zionist value system - more then many so-called Zionist parties. They have their own agenda and do not fit into standard frameworks.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think they are somewhat Zionists, but the question is whether they support Religious Zionism specifically . The fact that they are religious, does not mean automatically that they are supporters of Religious Zionism as opposed to general Zionism. I don't think Shas believes that it is Jewish religious duty to return to Land of Israel, as Religious Zionists believe. Igorb2008 ( talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. Do you think we should create an entry on Ultra-orthodox Zionism ("Hardal")or simply Orthodox Zionism?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should create an entry on Zionism among Ultra-orthodox community. The statement about Shas in the article is true and must remain, but it does not belong in Religious Zionism section. Igorb2008 ( talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Expansion, sourcing, and NPOV needed. Criticism of Zionism is multi-faceted and has changed in character and content over time, as Zionism has changed. It began before the 1920s, of course, and Zionism's first critics need to have their viewpoints stated. Criticism of Zionism changed drastically and fundamentally after a specific place, Palestine, was decided on and serious and concrete efforts at establishing a Jewish/Zionist state there began. There are numerous unsourced statements. There is an unsourced accusation of association with anti-semitism without rebuttal. Haberstr ( talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that Zionism is an expression of Judaism. Religious Zionism is relatively minor part of Zionist movement historically, while mainstream Zionism is secular national movement, unrelated to religion. Many early Labor Zionists were Marxists for example, and considered any religion " opium for the people". Igorb2008 ( talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here so excuse me if i seem ignorant of your neutrality policies regarding articles that involve israel or zionism. But, does anybody else feel it is a little bit odd for an encyclopedia article to have a big section for other supporters of zionism including christian and muslim supporters and a microscopic section with dsputed neutrality for criticism to zionism with no mention at all of muslim and arab opponents? Am i allowed to expand the criticism section just a little bit and mention other referenced criticisms. I am afraid that my edits might cause the section to become more disputed and eventually deleted completely. I apologize again if this seems very naive but i'm lost in all those wikipedia policies and i really can't find the policy regarding editing articles related to zionism. Thank you in advance for your help.--
196.205.225.151 (
talk)
01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No! You're not ignorant at all...you are noticing what I noticed too: a whitewash of the topic and virtual blackout of any significant or relevant criticism of Zionism. You ask "am I allowed to expand the criticsm section?" quote is quite telling for the way you asked this question. "What!? You're being critical of Israel? You must be an anti-semite! But I'm Jewish! Oh--then you must be a self-hating Jew! :-D Ha ha, no hard feelings, I mean no ill will, I'm just kvetching. Oy vey! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 ( talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I came to this wiki entry trying to find out more about what Zionism is, especially because from reading numerous articles in the mainstream media that Zionism is the extremist or militant end of the spectrum of Jewish or Israeli political parties. Yet when I read the entry, it all but "whitewashes" what Zionism is. Obviously there are many criticisms of Zionism (typically along the lines of the extremism, or fanaticism of militant Zionism). None of this is even mentioned in the article, which makes me think this is just another wiki site which is dominated by POV interest groups who tell only one side of the story. To improve this article there should be more attention to criticism of Zionism, and arguments made along these lines. If this was done I would give this entry more respect, but as it stands I think this is a biased and one-sided wiki entry. I might also add this is a very common failing in the basic framework of Wikipedia and how it functions, e.g. a committed POV group can slant/corrupt/or otherwise 'spin' an entry and override an expert's more informed and more impartial opinion thereof. Bottom line: don't trust wiki, read it with guarded prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 ( talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Doubtless this article is subject to milling due to various factions wishing to express their opinions. Am removing the NPOV tag from February so that process can begin a new and these factions can show some leadership in moving to address:
{{Multiple issues|article=y|refimprove=May 2009|POV=May 2009|expand=May 2009}}
Lycurgus ( talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Tel aviv has reverted my sourced edit to an unsourced one including a link to antisemitism in a section that has nothing to do with antisemitism. Please explain. untwirl( talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Anti-zionism is linked to anti-semitism. If you don't understand that then you probably should not be editing on this page. I suggest you explain what you are trying to do and then we work out a way of expressing that is acceptable to both of us. Sources were provided. Your source is not one which is an expert in the field and is a weasal attempt to suggest that the Zionism is racism decision was not removed for just reasons. The USA clearly did not propose the motion simply to keep ISrael happy: if that were the case Bush would not have given the speech himself. I provided plenty of sources to show the motion was popular, passed by general consent and did not originate in an Israeli demand. Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism (and the chairman of the UN at the time was a former Nazi officer, possibly a war criminal, who may have participated in the extermination of the Jews of Thessalonika).
It appears as if you are trying to unduly highlight the resolution without giving due credence to the fact that the UN has accepted it was unjustified. Telaviv1 ( talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism -is this true of the majority of "Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates." 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 09:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Benjil, I thank you for your support but in my expereince the best way in wikipedia is to seek formulations that are acceptable to both sides. I beleive this is possible and aht the synthesis creates effective ideas and a path to understanding. I'm not happy with the current phraseology nor with some of the above comments but prefer to move on and find ways of expressing my views which are acceptable to everyone.
Incidentally you are not the first person to try and rescue my edits and this has recently been used by prejudiced (antisemitic?) wikipedians to attack me.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a key part of Zionist ideology and I intend to create a section expanding (and explaining) how Zionists understand this issue. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The article currently presents a distorted and inaccurate account of the origins of this forgery. I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Origins and the current text of that article. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to Labor Zionists and Socialist Zionists interchangeably. Historically, Socialist Zionism was a very different strain of thought, led by Ber Borochov, which started from a Marxist perspective but argued that the Jewish population represented an "inverted pyramid" of economic roles. From that, it was concluded that Jews must separate themselves from emerging socialist societies in Europe and develop their own economy and national entity elsewhere. The ong-term impact of Socialist Zionism may be too limited to warrant a separate section, but ti does the reader a disservice to seem to mention it and negate it at the same time.
On the other hand, Labor Zionism, led in the early days by A.D. Gordon, was only socialist in a broader, mostly non-Marxist sense. It could be viewed as putting the same program into effect, but for quite different reasons. Their point of view was that working the land (more than the proletarian industrial work highlighted Marxists) was necessary for the personal development of Jews, who had been isolated from the land for most of their history in Europe. And of course, Labor Zionism was the at least ostensibly dominant political viewpoint among Zionists in Eretz Israel from the early 20th Century until at least the the 1970s. Dvd Avins ( talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this passage from the article:
My reason is fairly straightforward: Protocols of the elders of Zion is clearly anti-Semitic, but it is not "anti-Zionist" in the sense that the term is normally used. It has unquestionably been used in several "anti-Zionist" campaigns since the time of its publication, but the book itself is directed against an imaginary "Zionism" rather than the actual Zionist movement.
To describe the book as involving an overlap of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is original research and, by my understanding of the terminology involved, factually inaccurate as well. It would be entirely appropriate for us to describe when and how Protocols has been used by groups claiming to be "anti-Zionist", but the aforementioned passage is not suitable to the project.
Respectful discussion is welcome. CJCurrie ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with CJCurrie. Zero talk 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"It has been used in anti-Zionist campaigns" but is not anti-zionist? I added examples of groups who have used the protocosl as you suggested (one from the 30's and one from the 80's) and references showing the authors were anti-zionist as well as anti-semitic.
You removed the material because it contradicts your POV or as you put it "is not anti-zionist in the sense the term is normally used". The comment that followed yours illustrates why this needs to be included.
BTW the person who thinks "it has not been proved..." also thinks Zionists deliberately misuse antisemitism (See his comments above). So tell me what do you think of his comment?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What i get from Cohn (I read it some time ago) is that for those who believe in the protocols there is no meaningful distinction between a Zionist and a Jew, since we are all part of te same conspiracy. They do not specifically target zionism but only began to have the title "elders of zion" after the formation of zionism. He does not trace their history after WWII, but they are said to be widely published in the islamic world and there have been TV series based on them (see antisemitism in the arab world). Mr anon incidentally does a lot of editing and if you check you will see that he shares a lot of your thinking. You cannot simply pretend that he has nothing to do with you just as you cannot pretend the protocols are not relevant to anti-zionism. Among WESTERN anti-zionists it might be argued that protocol believers are firstly anti-jewish and only incidentally anti-zionist (though they do use the Palestinian issue for jsutification and to find support). In the middle-east and north africa it might be said to be the reverse, people are first anti-zionist and only then anti-Jewish and the second flows out of the first but these people do exist and they are part of anti-zionism. Migration is, I think, increaiisngly diminishing the importance of these kinds of distinctions. It is also questionable whether one should make a distinction between people who beleive the prtocols to be true.
I guess the solution to the problem is to create a seperate section and put the protocols in there. They certainly need a place somewhere. I may turn it into a summary and move the main part into the History of Zionism. Talk to me before you start reverting and we can reach a "respectful" (as you put it) agreement.
Ah I see your version of respect is a one way street, should I call you Sir?.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 06:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Xotn. this is not a propaganda war but an effort to educate. Saying I am engaged in conspiratorial behaviour is offensive (I get this a lot). Open your mind and work with me on this, if we can agree then we can create something which promotes peace and understanding (I assume you want this). fighting anti-semitism is a legitimate cause and should not be a problem for you. I expanded the section because people like yourself kept saying it wasn;t relevant so I had to prove it was. It was initially much shorter. Ironically, proving it was resulted in my finding interesting new material. The forgery was created a long time ago but continues to be influential and many people believe it to be true. I am willing to reduce the section in size if that helps.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Protocols and resolutions against Zionism belong to Anti-Zionism article, but not here, since it have nothing to do with opposition to Zionism i.e. opposition to Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. What should stay here is Jewish religious opposition to national homeland before Messiah and opposition from those who believe that Jews should assimilate in their host countries. What should be added is conflict between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, with Jews and Arabs sometimes see each other as usurpers or not native to the land. Igorb2008 ( talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"It was not created by the Tsarist Secret Police - that is NOT to say that it is anything but a work of fiction! 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)"
"It has not been proved that Tzarist secret police arranged the publication of the book.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)"
Ummm first off ufo's have not been proved to be real yet they have there own wiki...so what does somethings credibility have to do with anything....the fact that it was written and played an important part of some history on earth is the only basis it needs to be mentioned. This site wikipedia isn't about changing history...its about preserving history so that people will know and better understand there past. To manipulate history would in essence be like me saying the holocaust never existed. It did an i'm not on a campaign to bash the holocaust with my ignorance stick. So please don't bash other history just because it upsets the stomach. Perhaps it may prove to be useful to the present and future. To completely disregard it is to live in a false reality....come back to earth my friend.
"::::And Zionism existed long before the founding of Israel. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"
This is clearly a false statement because the word an concept of zionism was created only shortly before the formation of the state of israel that is today. Even in a biblical context no mention of zionism is EVER found in the torah. Though the word "land of zion is", it should not be confused with/or as Judaism. Judaism is a religion that places nothing before god. The creation/maintenance of the state of israel runs contrary to the religion. I want you to find me your proofs that "zionism existed long before..." reference the torah please and only because it is the first book given to moses and should be the first source you turn to... thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya4peace ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This section previously opened with the statement, "Ideological opposition to Zionism later combined with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism." This statement lacks any sources, it seems to conflate a number of separate political movements, and its location at the opening of the section seems to condemn all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Due to the nonfactual and biased nature of the sentence, I have removed it completely. Ca.w.hampton ( talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any connection with Philhellenism. They appear to be on a similar concept, and in similar eras, applying on similar peoples (e.g. the British of the time). -- 94.70.87.157 ( talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have edited this section to hopefully end the edit war, making it more succint but ensuring its neutrality (I believe). There is a Haredim and Zionism article where more detail should go (properly cited of course). I think "many" is correct, as per above, that "tiny" is a POV word versus "smaller", but more than a sentence or two on Chabad is too much here. Any material on their "extremism" needs to go to their article, properly cited. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to describe Zionism as nationalist - have done so in first para of lede, in line with http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657475/Zionism 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 04:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
despite what Muslims are taught, Islam's holy book, the Koran, supports the right of Israel to exist and for Jews to live there.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
![]() | 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I think Anti-Zionism is only one of the form of the criticisms to Zionism. And it is a wide subject. There is also Post-Zionism and Non-Zionism (whereas not described in the article). In this section is also described the "allegations of racism against Zionism", which is not an consensual anti-zionism position... So I suggest that the section is titled : "Opposition to Zionism". Ceedjee ( talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see these links: [1] [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] ( talk) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this. I know he's covered in Anti-Zionism. Problem is, WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize all "major Points of View" that show up in Anti-Zionism in this article, Zionism, and I believe Mahatma Gandhi's views on the topic qualify as a major Point of View, esp. given that they were controversial at the time and attracted global interest and concern from leading Zionists. BYT ( talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Would that language work for you here at Zionism, Ceedjee ? BYT ( talk) 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Jay -- would Ceedjee's proposal -- "Mahatma Gandhi, too, opposed the Zionist enterprise" -- work for you? Would you, for instance, replace it if someone else took it out? I'd like to get your feedback on this before we proceed. BYT ( talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent questions -- I'm filing them for now in the Great Not-Yet-Addressed Questions folder, and eventually we can get to every question everyone has posed here during the present dispute. I may have a couple of questions myself that have not yet made it to the top of your list ... let me doublecheck on that, though.
Hey, did you happen to see the movie Enchanted? My girls fell in love with that film. Did you notice how they cast Idina Menzel in a non-singing role? This was mystifying to me, because Enchanted was a great new Disney musical (hasn't it been a while since we've been able to say those words with a straight face?), and because of Menzel's extraordinary work on the Broadway musical Wicked, which is now immortalized in a classic cast album. One of the great vocal performances in the history of the American musical theatre, in my view. I mention this in reference to Zionism because it seems important now to establish that anyone who wants to argue that the choice to cast Menzel in a role that did not allow her to sing had something to do with her views on Zionism, pro or con, would be hard-pressed to prove the point with a citation from a reliable source. I've scoured everything at my disposal, and have found nothing that supports such a claim. No one has made it yet, of course, but just in case it comes up, I feel it's a good idea to be prepared. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion of other matters, I remain, yr humble obdt BYT ( talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jay -- thanks for the good note, above -- there may not be hard and fast rules, but there are hard and fast standards, and one of them is that we should be constantly trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm still not sure how omitting reference to the Gandhi/Buber controversy [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (for instance) accomplishes that.
I'm also not entirely sure that we are applying notability standards in a consistent way here, and I'm a little mystified by our inability to directly address the question of whether Palazzi is "notable" in the sense that you are saying Gandhi is NOT "notable". They are both under discussion for the same article, after all, and certain standards are set out by WP:PEOPLE that are meant to apply this article. I think I must have posed my question to you in a confusing way, and if I did, I apologize. Perhaps the best thing for us to do at this point is to look directly at the guideline:
Where I need help is here: Are you saying that Palazzi is notable, under the "less stringent" reference above, and, if so, why isn't Gandhi also notable under the same "less stringent" reasoning? I don't see anything above, or anywhere in WP:PEOPLE about the person having had to publish on the topic in question. BYT ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yusuf would like to move [20]. I think it makes more sense at the other place. Could you explain why ? Ceedjee ( talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay -- works for me. BYT ( talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not all jews live in israel yet all are in favor of israel..as not all italian americans live in italy but are in favor of italy .zionism is the in favor of a jewish state.
++It seems correct to most cristians that its correct natural normal to have 26 cristian countries but just 1 jewish country, In a fair world today there would be more jewish countries as THERE ARE more cristian or catholic or protestant or muslem countries. To say jews are greedy or want everything is opposite REALITY jews want ONE country only ONE while cristians already have 26 and muslems have 11.The cristiand got THEIRS by conquering entering and converting by force. jews have no superpowers nor want more than a fair shake. with jews ALWAYS in israel ,the european jews reentered international agreement after WW2 They never try to convert anybody. 26 to O N E . whos the greedy person here???
raquel samper comunidad judia murcia http://comjudiamurcia.googlepages.com/home jewish center murcia spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunidad judia murcia ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism and the state of Israel, Noam Chomsky being just one example. Look at how the USA treated blacks in the 1940s and 1950s, look at how South Africa treated blacks until the 1980s, the look at how Israel treats Palestinians NOW. If you can't see the similarities and how wrong all three are, then I'm afraid you're not looking very hard. But whatever, you'll just say I'm antisemetic and close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. 82.15.27.109 ( talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Is mediation still required? Geoff Plourde ( talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following text to her for further discussion:
The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 55% of the world's population, rejects Zionism. [22] [23] [24]
There are a number of issues with this material:
Let's discuss this issue further here. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the reference to Abdelkader Amlou in "Muslims & Arabs supporting zionism". I Googled his name and all I found were blogs, many written by him. The discourse was very blog-like, not academic. I could not find a single secondary source. I looked in Amazon.fr and found no book by this poet. Therefore, despite my declared sympathy for this guy's opinions, I cannot justify his presence in this article. See WP:SOURCE for more details. PS: he is Moroccan and writes in French; for the record, I was born in Morocco and French is my mother tongue. Emmanuelm ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This text appears to me to violate WP:UNDUE:
Muslims & Christian Arabs supporting Zionism Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship and Canadian Imam Khaleel Mohammed, find support for Zionism in the Qur'an. [1] [2] Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Bengali journalist Salah Choudhury and Pakistani journalist Tashbih Sayyed. [3]
The article currently emphasizes (as above) the positions of individual Muslims and Arabs who support Zionism. These are fringe viewpoints, at best, and if we feature a section on individuals in these groups who support the movement, it is incumbent upon us to offer a similar level of detail and attention to the (far more numerous) individual Muslims and Arabs who oppose Zionism. Simplest option, I think, is to delete the section. BYT ( talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
BYT, you argue that this group is too "fringy" to be mentioned. I disagree. As I wrote earlier, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in
WP:NPOV as such: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I easily found six public figures, including five published authors; it ought to be enough. I reverted your deletion.
Emmanuelm (
talk)
19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
I will write again what I said before. The support of Zionism is Arab and Muslim world is extremally little. That is why I think it is not undue:weight to point out the "little minority" who support this. The Arab and Muslim majority point of view is developed in the article about antizionism.
Ceedjee (
talk)
09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
We are summarizing the PRO view at a level of granular detail, and with a focus on fringe viewpoints, that is not in balance with our responsibility to summarize more mainstream contemporary and historic CON views (as they appear, for instance, at Anti-Zionism). BYT ( talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Palestine have good place in Middle east...so Zionists seems so clever!!!.A lot of problems help to make Palestine convenient to be the home of israel.One of the most important problem is the poverty and the need for money.The second standing problem is the incoherence which make it easy to go into the land as a new part.The problem which make it so easy to use military tool that weakness of the sovereignty of the government of Palestine.(Volks For Volks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.106.205 ( talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The material for this new section was taken from the bio article on Ben Hecht. Because of its length and detail, it did not seem appropriate in that article in its complete form. It was therefore shortened with a link added to this section for more details.
Should any editors decide to either rename this section, or otherwise remove it, please make any corrections to the link at the Ben Hecht article also. Thanks. Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The following were in the "see also" section in the Ben Hecht article. I'll leave them here if anyone wants to add them to this article
Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section should be removed. While Ben Hecht is interesting we can't start having forty lines and a picture for every prominent (more or less) American Zionist. Wikipedia isn't big enough. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
If the Bergson group belongs in here then perhaps we shold restore the History of Zionism to this article?
Nearly everything in this article is already in History of Zionism and that is better written.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm new to participating in Wikipeida. But this article... it's just beyond. Totally.
I mean: Zionism had two major effects. 1: The creation of Israel. 2: The creation of the Palestinian diaspora.
Today we KNOW a lot about what happened in 48, and how the expulsion was in accordance with the wish for a pure Jewish community, with as few arabs as possible. We KNOW that Zionist leaders dreamed about transfer of the Palestinians. That was an integral part of Zionism as an ideology.
It's not bias. It's not politics. It's history. It's facts.
I see that there have been stuff about this is in the past, and that it's now edited out of some reason. It's time for a reality check. An encyclopedia should represent facts, not distort them. But this article is just that: Distortion. 89.139.84.195 ( talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) o.e.
As it happens I'm reading the iron wall and have Benny Morriss's latest book on order. I don't consider Pappe to be reliable, I think Stalinists are as bad as Neo-Nazis. I havn't read the Israeli archives but I've read the British ones and I've read the Peel Report which is a great intro to the conflict. I read/own Segev's book and it says nothing of what you describe actually its mostly about the 1917 - 1929 period and only devotes a single chapter to 1939 -1948. Beware of Palestinians quoting Zionists out of context, a lot do. Their own record is hardly impressive. Don't believe everything you hear even if the source is left-wing. I have a lot of expereince of this stuff and there's a lot of half-truths flying around. Finalyly, achi, allow me to say that I too respect your opinions. I suggest you learn about Jewish history in Europe - perhaps try reading about the pogroms in poland 1945-1948 (Jan Gross) or the Jewish escape from Eruope (Brichah).
Telaviv1 ( talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Telaviv1,
I'm very happy to hear that you're reading Shlaim and that Morris is on the way! I'm sorry if I assumed things about your level of reading that were not correct.
Concerning Segev: Yap, he doesn't say much about 1948. But what he shows is how the Zionist leaders, for example Weizmann, had political goals that they didn't pursue in public. For example: They publicly accepted the dogy "national home" formulation, but were explicit in private that what they wanted was a fully fledged state. This is just to show that your argument concerning what Zionist leaders were saying in public is off the mark. I haven't read the Peel Report. On the other hand I've spent quite a lot of time in the Israeli state archives reading original documents in Hebrew and English. And I'll be glad to learn more about Jewish history in Europe.
Some final words about "history": Of course history can never be 100% accurate. Every historical timeline will to some extent be a "research theory", as EmmanuelM says. BUT: It is still the case that some things either happened or did not happen. Either there was a holocaust, or there wasn't. Either Napolean tried to conquer Russia, or he didn't. The same thing applies to Zionism. On some issues there are still legitimate debates - we're just not sure what the evidence tells us. (or we don't have sufficient evidence). But when it comes to the concept of transfer, then there's just no doubt - we KNOW that Zionist leaders, especially since the 30s and onwards - thought that it would be a good thing. Then there is the separate issue of what happened in 1948, if there were formal orders for expulsion and so on.
And EmmanuelP - I might very well enter new sections into the article later on! Just have to do it properly, so it will take some time. kol tov, 193.217.19.236 ( talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) o.e.
A link to the above has just been added to this article. If you follow the link you will find an article that seems to violate NOR and NPOV. Perhaps people who watch this page are better informed - could you look at this and comment on its talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Much of this article discusses Zionism as it was practised before the second world war. In particular the "types of zionism" and the issues relating to language and exile. They should refer to the movement as it is now.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, a Zionist may be a Jewish nationalist, but not necessarily. Jewish nationalism is certainly not the source of Zionism. The source of Zionism is in Jewish beliefs and traditions that connect the Jewish religion and people with the land of Israel. Zionism would continue even with every trace of nationalism removed from the equation. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
CJCurrie, there can be no doubt that Zionism is rooted in religious tradition. That tradition was present in the thoughts, and acts, of even the most socialist inclined Zionist leaders:
Today, more than ever, the "religious" tend to relegate Judaism to observing dietary laws and preserving the Sabbath. This is considered religious reform. I prefer the Fifteenth Psalm, lovely are the psalms of Israel. The Shulchan Aruch is a product of our nation's life in the Exile. It was produced in the Exile, in conditions of Exile. A nation in the process of fulfilling its every task, physically and spiritually . . . must compose a "New Shulchan"--and our nation's intellectuals are required, in my opinion, to fulfill their responsibility in this. --(David Ben-Gurion, letter to the writer Eliezer Steinman, 12 June 1962) [25]
Perhaps, if it were not there, todays problems would be easier to solve. But religious belief is tightly interwoven with Zionist politics. Malcolm Schosha ( talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
An obscure quote from a letter doesn't seem to me to be strong enough evidence but I agree that zionism has its origins in religious ideals. I think that saying that "the concept of Jewish nationhood arose 3000 years ago" is problematic as many theorists (though not all) regard nationalism as a modern phenomenon (dating from the French revolution roughly) and Zionism is above all a nationalist movement with all that implies (ie the desire to have a sovereign state, a flag, an anthem etc. which all theorists agree is what a nationalist movement desires).
TBy definition anyone who is a member of the Zionist movement is a Jewish-nationalist supporting a Jewish state in one form or another. I think Jews who think Jews should live in Israel are not Zionist if they oppose Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is their thinking is not a product of a nationalist philosophy but purely religious. I accept that the boundaries between religion and nationalism are a little blurry here but Zionism is absolutely 100% a nationalist movement. That is what its founders were creating (and Herzl was completely secular). Ben-Gurion was aware of his orgins in religion but he always described Zionism as the the national movement of the Jewish people and his aim was to create a sovereign state. Telaviv1 ( talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
PR, what you're saying is incorrect. The first Zionists are widely considered to be the hovevei zion and the biluim who were all orthodox to some degree. In addition secularism does not mean rejection of religion. Secular Zionists may still have been moderately religious so religius factors played a part. The socialist zionists were more opposed to religion but they did not arrive until later. As far as I can recall Jacob de-haan was Dutch and a zionist who changed sides becoming an orthodx jew in Palestine. He also published homosexual poetry. The cause of his murder and its implications are hardly as clear as you suggest.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilele the Zionist mvoement was largely secular in its objectives I am not sure if it was secular in its origins.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and someone else reverted it. Zionism had religious roots to be sure, and grew as a result Antisemitism, but it was secular Mr.Herzl, who is credited with its initial political form. There is also the nationalism, another secular movement. Certainly in America, its great growth prior to Balfour must be credited to Brandeis, although I admit, one couldn't state that using Wikipedia alone and his name is yet to occur on the article page. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 05:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think is depends what you mean by "origins". The 19th century origins were secular but the foundation on which those were built was obviously religious.
Telaviv1 (
talk)
08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps its time to remove this ambiguous statement. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should say that the founders were secular, rather than "secular in its origins". Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The meaning of 'origins' is a valid point, and religious points are by far the most ancient and Judaic. On the other hand, there were non-Judaic groups, which developed similar concepts, based on their own reading of other, newer, versions of the same RS, and for different reasons. This does not necessarily mean that they were Zionists, because the RS'd terms for them are different, and there are RSs that indicate these have been retroactively accepted and subsumed as being Zionists. I will readily admit that the roots of Zionism are religious, but it was definitely not the religious-based Zionists that introduced Zionism to the wider world; they were a small minority, especially in the early days. It was absolutely true the secular crowd brought the movement to the fore. That said, the post-1967 land acquisition and the post-1977 Likud political alliances are certainly the most direct causes of what the right-wing Zionists think and consider Zionism to be today. Please be careful how neutrally this is stated. How about something like; Although the roots of Zionism emanate from religious tradition, political Zionism grew and has been dominated by secular Jewry, until recently. CasualObserver'48 ( talk) 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I changed it to say "mainly founded by secular Jews" and linked to "secular Jewish culture". I think that is sufficient. The boundaries between the religious and the secular are not simple, espcially in the Middle-East. Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand there is difference between political and religious Zionism. Political Zionism is secular in its origins, and has its roots in rise of nationalism in 19th century in Europe, and establishment of many free nation states at that time. Religious Zionism, on the other hand, has its roots in Judaism and Jewish religious traditions.
So, in late 19th century, political Zionist would argue that Greeks, Bulgarians,Italians, Serbians and other people created their own independent states, so to solve the problem of antisemitism Jews must also have their own independent state and "to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state". Religious Zionist,on the other hand, would argue that Land of Israel is promised to Jews by God, and they have religious duty, mitsva, to settle in it. Igorb2008 ( talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
To balance things up a bit, I would like to see a link to:
http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html
Particularly interesting is this quote: "Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.188 ( talk) 10:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Which land is "today Palestine?"
Telaviv1 (
talk)
07:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! ( Ssd175 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))
Plan Dalet Eggball ( talk) 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a Palestine. It's the place at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean where the People who call themselves Palestinian have lived for thousands of years, as recent DNA profiling has shown. They have been there much longer than the Zionists because they never left. They weren't keeping the place warm for Zionists for when they decided to wander back. It's thier country. It wasn't an empty land when the Zionists arrived. The Zionists knew that they couldn't play the victim if they were perceived to be doing what they were doing, namely stealing other peoples land, so they lied. Do you see how that works? Eggball ( talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not blind, and unlike many here I have visited Palestine seeing both the Zionist and Arab sides of Hebron and other disputed territories. I have also visited perfectly happy Arab neighbourhoods inside Israel and talked to Arab Israeli citizens. Granting citizenship to Arabs sounds nothing like ethnic cleansing to me. It is offensive in the extreme to compare the IDF's over zealous defensive tactics with the clearly genocidal acts of Nazi Germany. The question that must be asked is this; If the West Bank (Palestine) was still under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan as it was before 1967, would we still be crying foul about the lack of a Palestinian state? Is this pro Palestine or anti Israel? I am not Jewish by the way because I know if I do not declare that I will be accused of Zionist propagandising. Fyfman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyfman ( talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur (' 82.75.250.252 ( talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)',,)
The introduction of the article cite only proponents definition of Zionism. I think to be neutral we have to tell the reader the other's POV on Zionism exists (and from very important organizations and thinkers). This is needed because the "introduction" have to provide and overview of the topic, the reader do not have to read the full content of the article. We all know that there are controversies around Zionism and this is important to note also. I tried to add the United Nation view on Zionism which considers it "a racist movement" (someone has undone my edit; I hope for structures reasons and not for bias: he/she is User:Jaakobou). I hope he will answer why? Bestofmed ( talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're out of date. the UN general assembly retracted the resolution several years ago. The resolution is mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 ( talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the introductions of the Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Capitalism articles. These movements all have "controversies" around them, yet all the articles have "only the proponents definition", none are defined by their opponents. I also looked at the Palestinian nationalism article; not only is there nothing in the introduction about how its opponents view it, but nothing at all in the entire article. David Sher ( talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)
I didn't even like to leave the cites that were there, as the quote from one of the books, which one would hope was the most appropriate to citing the assertion, "the label "Zionist" is in some cases also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism", failed to do so. Hopefully someone can find those books and determine whether they actually cite the material. I believe that the phrase itself is correct, but of course what we need is verifiability. The irony of WP, in cases such as this, is that those most capable of verifiability (in this case, alleged anti-semites who read the sources that use Zionist as a euphemism) are the least likely to employ it in the service of a case such as this.
I will continue rewording the large quotations that do not verify the material. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
the intro has been irritating me for months so follwoing your comments I removed almost 5000 bytes worth of unnecessary referencing from the intro.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Suggest changing the title of 'Non-Jewish Zionism' to the above, as most of the groups discussed are not Zionist as such. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(Summary: Rmv 'Evangelical'; All Christians supporting Zionism were not Evangelicals, nor is D.Lloyd George empirically observed to have been an Evangelical. Rmv discredited cite)
As the below cite shows, the
previous cite was in error.
Original text removed:
W. E. B. Du Bois was an ardent supporter of Zionism, (summary: Rmv WE du Bois; see Talk.)
As the below cite shows, du Bois was nothing like ardent in support of even Jewish resistance to Nazism, let alone Zionism. He was not opposed to either, but he is most certainly not notable as a supporter. The sentence, "
W. E. B. Du Bois spoke about against Nazi persecution of Jews" would be verifiable, but not notable in this context.
Google Books search for quote: W.E.B. Du Bois by David L. Lewis.
I will continue finding cites for, or refuting the inclusion of, the other non-Zionists included. Anarchangel ( talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Loyd George was a nonconformist. http://www.jstor.org/pss/565044 his parents were baptists. I understand that this a type of evangelical. check your facts before you question what is written.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary?
1) The definition of zionism by wiki is what any jew would say and nothing like most people who use the term. It is mostly used as a term for jewish supremacy.
2)The defintion given for "the 13th tribe" a book by arthur koestler, a jew, who explains how jews are not biblical israelites goes way out of its way to make claims of the book being false which is no more than common propaganda in jewish and zionist circles.
I know of 2 more equal points that show that wiki may be jewish and perhaps several more that I will find. Ive only been noticing this a documenting jewish bias definitions in wiki on a per chance and coincidental basis for a month.
passage that actulaly reis not written in anti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.119.242 ( talk) 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And stating that WiKi is with "Jewish supremacy agenda" and writing it with no facts behind that statement, isn't that a bit Anti-Jewish agenda ?
"WiKi must be jewish" - can you hear yourself? It this the kind of talk allowed in an Open-liberal-world round Encyclopedia ?
Do your homework, read the article, it's surrounding articles and some books, then, you'll have the permission of "jewishing" an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.111.251 ( talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take note: Every time an antisemitic comment appaears in the discussions casusalobserver says "I don't like your tone but I agree with your sentiment" apparently he believes we have a jewish supremacist agenda. Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't see a mention of Yehoshua Hankin in the article. Any thoughts/suggestions on where it would be best to add a mention about him? Jaakobou Chalk Talk 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)<a
I think mention of Shas does not belong in Religious Zionism section. It is a religious party and also can be described as Zionist, but although religious, they are not related to Religious Zionist stream within Zionist movement, more to general or revisionist stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I did a quick search on this and got contradictory information. The Member of Knesset most associated with zionist legislation is a Shas member http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1258 but the editor of their paper regards Herzl as an evil doer (probably because of his secularism, though it may reflect the editor's ignorance) http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-1780848,00.html.
So there is an issue for discussion here, but personally I think the comment should stay as it accurately describes the situation. Shas are not Zionist but profess a Zionist value system - more then many so-called Zionist parties. They have their own agenda and do not fit into standard frameworks.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I also think they are somewhat Zionists, but the question is whether they support Religious Zionism specifically . The fact that they are religious, does not mean automatically that they are supporters of Religious Zionism as opposed to general Zionism. I don't think Shas believes that it is Jewish religious duty to return to Land of Israel, as Religious Zionists believe. Igorb2008 ( talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. Do you think we should create an entry on Ultra-orthodox Zionism ("Hardal")or simply Orthodox Zionism?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should create an entry on Zionism among Ultra-orthodox community. The statement about Shas in the article is true and must remain, but it does not belong in Religious Zionism section. Igorb2008 ( talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Expansion, sourcing, and NPOV needed. Criticism of Zionism is multi-faceted and has changed in character and content over time, as Zionism has changed. It began before the 1920s, of course, and Zionism's first critics need to have their viewpoints stated. Criticism of Zionism changed drastically and fundamentally after a specific place, Palestine, was decided on and serious and concrete efforts at establishing a Jewish/Zionist state there began. There are numerous unsourced statements. There is an unsourced accusation of association with anti-semitism without rebuttal. Haberstr ( talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that Zionism is an expression of Judaism. Religious Zionism is relatively minor part of Zionist movement historically, while mainstream Zionism is secular national movement, unrelated to religion. Many early Labor Zionists were Marxists for example, and considered any religion " opium for the people". Igorb2008 ( talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm new here so excuse me if i seem ignorant of your neutrality policies regarding articles that involve israel or zionism. But, does anybody else feel it is a little bit odd for an encyclopedia article to have a big section for other supporters of zionism including christian and muslim supporters and a microscopic section with dsputed neutrality for criticism to zionism with no mention at all of muslim and arab opponents? Am i allowed to expand the criticism section just a little bit and mention other referenced criticisms. I am afraid that my edits might cause the section to become more disputed and eventually deleted completely. I apologize again if this seems very naive but i'm lost in all those wikipedia policies and i really can't find the policy regarding editing articles related to zionism. Thank you in advance for your help.--
196.205.225.151 (
talk)
01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No! You're not ignorant at all...you are noticing what I noticed too: a whitewash of the topic and virtual blackout of any significant or relevant criticism of Zionism. You ask "am I allowed to expand the criticsm section?" quote is quite telling for the way you asked this question. "What!? You're being critical of Israel? You must be an anti-semite! But I'm Jewish! Oh--then you must be a self-hating Jew! :-D Ha ha, no hard feelings, I mean no ill will, I'm just kvetching. Oy vey! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 ( talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I came to this wiki entry trying to find out more about what Zionism is, especially because from reading numerous articles in the mainstream media that Zionism is the extremist or militant end of the spectrum of Jewish or Israeli political parties. Yet when I read the entry, it all but "whitewashes" what Zionism is. Obviously there are many criticisms of Zionism (typically along the lines of the extremism, or fanaticism of militant Zionism). None of this is even mentioned in the article, which makes me think this is just another wiki site which is dominated by POV interest groups who tell only one side of the story. To improve this article there should be more attention to criticism of Zionism, and arguments made along these lines. If this was done I would give this entry more respect, but as it stands I think this is a biased and one-sided wiki entry. I might also add this is a very common failing in the basic framework of Wikipedia and how it functions, e.g. a committed POV group can slant/corrupt/or otherwise 'spin' an entry and override an expert's more informed and more impartial opinion thereof. Bottom line: don't trust wiki, read it with guarded prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 ( talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Doubtless this article is subject to milling due to various factions wishing to express their opinions. Am removing the NPOV tag from February so that process can begin a new and these factions can show some leadership in moving to address:
{{Multiple issues|article=y|refimprove=May 2009|POV=May 2009|expand=May 2009}}
Lycurgus ( talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Tel aviv has reverted my sourced edit to an unsourced one including a link to antisemitism in a section that has nothing to do with antisemitism. Please explain. untwirl( talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Anti-zionism is linked to anti-semitism. If you don't understand that then you probably should not be editing on this page. I suggest you explain what you are trying to do and then we work out a way of expressing that is acceptable to both of us. Sources were provided. Your source is not one which is an expert in the field and is a weasal attempt to suggest that the Zionism is racism decision was not removed for just reasons. The USA clearly did not propose the motion simply to keep ISrael happy: if that were the case Bush would not have given the speech himself. I provided plenty of sources to show the motion was popular, passed by general consent and did not originate in an Israeli demand. Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism (and the chairman of the UN at the time was a former Nazi officer, possibly a war criminal, who may have participated in the extermination of the Jews of Thessalonika).
It appears as if you are trying to unduly highlight the resolution without giving due credence to the fact that the UN has accepted it was unjustified. Telaviv1 ( talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism -is this true of the majority of "Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates." 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 09:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Benjil, I thank you for your support but in my expereince the best way in wikipedia is to seek formulations that are acceptable to both sides. I beleive this is possible and aht the synthesis creates effective ideas and a path to understanding. I'm not happy with the current phraseology nor with some of the above comments but prefer to move on and find ways of expressing my views which are acceptable to everyone.
Incidentally you are not the first person to try and rescue my edits and this has recently been used by prejudiced (antisemitic?) wikipedians to attack me.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a key part of Zionist ideology and I intend to create a section expanding (and explaining) how Zionists understand this issue. Telaviv1 ( talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The article currently presents a distorted and inaccurate account of the origins of this forgery. I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Origins and the current text of that article. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The article refers to Labor Zionists and Socialist Zionists interchangeably. Historically, Socialist Zionism was a very different strain of thought, led by Ber Borochov, which started from a Marxist perspective but argued that the Jewish population represented an "inverted pyramid" of economic roles. From that, it was concluded that Jews must separate themselves from emerging socialist societies in Europe and develop their own economy and national entity elsewhere. The ong-term impact of Socialist Zionism may be too limited to warrant a separate section, but ti does the reader a disservice to seem to mention it and negate it at the same time.
On the other hand, Labor Zionism, led in the early days by A.D. Gordon, was only socialist in a broader, mostly non-Marxist sense. It could be viewed as putting the same program into effect, but for quite different reasons. Their point of view was that working the land (more than the proletarian industrial work highlighted Marxists) was necessary for the personal development of Jews, who had been isolated from the land for most of their history in Europe. And of course, Labor Zionism was the at least ostensibly dominant political viewpoint among Zionists in Eretz Israel from the early 20th Century until at least the the 1970s. Dvd Avins ( talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this passage from the article:
My reason is fairly straightforward: Protocols of the elders of Zion is clearly anti-Semitic, but it is not "anti-Zionist" in the sense that the term is normally used. It has unquestionably been used in several "anti-Zionist" campaigns since the time of its publication, but the book itself is directed against an imaginary "Zionism" rather than the actual Zionist movement.
To describe the book as involving an overlap of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is original research and, by my understanding of the terminology involved, factually inaccurate as well. It would be entirely appropriate for us to describe when and how Protocols has been used by groups claiming to be "anti-Zionist", but the aforementioned passage is not suitable to the project.
Respectful discussion is welcome. CJCurrie ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with CJCurrie. Zero talk 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
"It has been used in anti-Zionist campaigns" but is not anti-zionist? I added examples of groups who have used the protocosl as you suggested (one from the 30's and one from the 80's) and references showing the authors were anti-zionist as well as anti-semitic.
You removed the material because it contradicts your POV or as you put it "is not anti-zionist in the sense the term is normally used". The comment that followed yours illustrates why this needs to be included.
BTW the person who thinks "it has not been proved..." also thinks Zionists deliberately misuse antisemitism (See his comments above). So tell me what do you think of his comment?
Telaviv1 ( talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
What i get from Cohn (I read it some time ago) is that for those who believe in the protocols there is no meaningful distinction between a Zionist and a Jew, since we are all part of te same conspiracy. They do not specifically target zionism but only began to have the title "elders of zion" after the formation of zionism. He does not trace their history after WWII, but they are said to be widely published in the islamic world and there have been TV series based on them (see antisemitism in the arab world). Mr anon incidentally does a lot of editing and if you check you will see that he shares a lot of your thinking. You cannot simply pretend that he has nothing to do with you just as you cannot pretend the protocols are not relevant to anti-zionism. Among WESTERN anti-zionists it might be argued that protocol believers are firstly anti-jewish and only incidentally anti-zionist (though they do use the Palestinian issue for jsutification and to find support). In the middle-east and north africa it might be said to be the reverse, people are first anti-zionist and only then anti-Jewish and the second flows out of the first but these people do exist and they are part of anti-zionism. Migration is, I think, increaiisngly diminishing the importance of these kinds of distinctions. It is also questionable whether one should make a distinction between people who beleive the prtocols to be true.
I guess the solution to the problem is to create a seperate section and put the protocols in there. They certainly need a place somewhere. I may turn it into a summary and move the main part into the History of Zionism. Talk to me before you start reverting and we can reach a "respectful" (as you put it) agreement.
Ah I see your version of respect is a one way street, should I call you Sir?.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 06:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Xotn. this is not a propaganda war but an effort to educate. Saying I am engaged in conspiratorial behaviour is offensive (I get this a lot). Open your mind and work with me on this, if we can agree then we can create something which promotes peace and understanding (I assume you want this). fighting anti-semitism is a legitimate cause and should not be a problem for you. I expanded the section because people like yourself kept saying it wasn;t relevant so I had to prove it was. It was initially much shorter. Ironically, proving it was resulted in my finding interesting new material. The forgery was created a long time ago but continues to be influential and many people believe it to be true. I am willing to reduce the section in size if that helps.
Telaviv1 ( talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that Protocols and resolutions against Zionism belong to Anti-Zionism article, but not here, since it have nothing to do with opposition to Zionism i.e. opposition to Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. What should stay here is Jewish religious opposition to national homeland before Messiah and opposition from those who believe that Jews should assimilate in their host countries. What should be added is conflict between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, with Jews and Arabs sometimes see each other as usurpers or not native to the land. Igorb2008 ( talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"It was not created by the Tsarist Secret Police - that is NOT to say that it is anything but a work of fiction! 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)"
"It has not been proved that Tzarist secret police arranged the publication of the book.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)"
Ummm first off ufo's have not been proved to be real yet they have there own wiki...so what does somethings credibility have to do with anything....the fact that it was written and played an important part of some history on earth is the only basis it needs to be mentioned. This site wikipedia isn't about changing history...its about preserving history so that people will know and better understand there past. To manipulate history would in essence be like me saying the holocaust never existed. It did an i'm not on a campaign to bash the holocaust with my ignorance stick. So please don't bash other history just because it upsets the stomach. Perhaps it may prove to be useful to the present and future. To completely disregard it is to live in a false reality....come back to earth my friend.
"::::And Zionism existed long before the founding of Israel. -- Nsaum75 ( talk) 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"
This is clearly a false statement because the word an concept of zionism was created only shortly before the formation of the state of israel that is today. Even in a biblical context no mention of zionism is EVER found in the torah. Though the word "land of zion is", it should not be confused with/or as Judaism. Judaism is a religion that places nothing before god. The creation/maintenance of the state of israel runs contrary to the religion. I want you to find me your proofs that "zionism existed long before..." reference the torah please and only because it is the first book given to moses and should be the first source you turn to... thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya4peace ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This section previously opened with the statement, "Ideological opposition to Zionism later combined with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism." This statement lacks any sources, it seems to conflate a number of separate political movements, and its location at the opening of the section seems to condemn all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Due to the nonfactual and biased nature of the sentence, I have removed it completely. Ca.w.hampton ( talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if there's any connection with Philhellenism. They appear to be on a similar concept, and in similar eras, applying on similar peoples (e.g. the British of the time). -- 94.70.87.157 ( talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I have edited this section to hopefully end the edit war, making it more succint but ensuring its neutrality (I believe). There is a Haredim and Zionism article where more detail should go (properly cited of course). I think "many" is correct, as per above, that "tiny" is a POV word versus "smaller", but more than a sentence or two on Chabad is too much here. Any material on their "extremism" needs to go to their article, properly cited. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to describe Zionism as nationalist - have done so in first para of lede, in line with http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657475/Zionism 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 04:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
despite what Muslims are taught, Islam's holy book, the Koran, supports the right of Israel to exist and for Jews to live there.
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)