![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I changed the order of the definitions. Since nobody denies that Zionism is a political movement seeking to bring back the Jews to Eretz Israel, and since that fact doesn't exclude the other definitions, I placed that - neutral and indisputable - definition first. Within that sentence, I replaced the old non-neutral references with the scholarly ones that Jayjg was kind enough to provide, and I changed the wording to reflect their content (see talk page section "The Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel?". I put the Gellner description next, because it is also relatively uncontroverisal (few Zionists would deny that Zionism is a nationalist movement), and because it is a description by a neutral scholar. I placed the "national liberation movement" bit last, because it is the only one that is subject to POV disputes. I also indicated that that is the way its proponents describe it, because that seems to be the case, and because all the links provided as references are to Zionist sources.
I hope nobody feels that these changes are POV or otherwise unreasonable. -- Anonymous44 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that recently there has been some sort of right wing support of Israel. I don't know if this is documented, but the left wing support topic in the article doesn't appear to have any references either.
The addition of the article about "Left wing support of Zionism" and it's claims that support fell out of favor only because of the move away from socialism without an article discussing present right wing support for Zionism is completely POV and needs to be balanced.
Since no one has offered to put up a counterbalance to the clearly POV statements in this particular section of the article I have removed all POV statements from the section on "left wing support of Zionism".
Actually, no, I didn't misunderstand WP:PNOV, it appears that you have however. Citing that "left wing" support of Zionism, and the current lack thereof, is directly related to the Socialist aspects of the early Zionists is a clearly politically slanted, and therefore heavily POV, statement. Please stop adding back in this biased paragraph unless you are willing to document any sort of reference material to support it. As it stands, the paragraph is not backed up by any facts or reference material and is clearly POV. I am going to once again remove the POV sections of that particular paragraph until there is some documentation supporting the claims in the section.
the article or block you for his actions to be considered abuse. Right now, you're just intimidated by the fact that he's an admin. Well, get over it. "Vandalism" is deliberate and blatant damaging of Wikipedia, POV pushing is, well, POV pushing. -- Chodorkovskiy ( talk) 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If this article were written about Hawkish Zionist ideologies vs. Dove everyone else then the concern of bias may have been warranted. This is not the case. User:Taylor Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.0.218 ( talk • contribs)
It's sad to see that nothing has been done to try to provide a POV-free version of this article. I'd try for a revision, but seeing as there are a handful of people who are, apparently, intent on keeping a politically-slanted viewpoint on this particular topic (sadly enough some of these people are Wikipedia moderators) I am going to withdraw myself from the discussion. Law82 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I go about getting an article protected from vandals or unregistered users? -- יהושועEric 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources.
Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie. I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :
Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.) Now, watch this:
Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total number is well over 100,000. Now, I am sure most of you will bring this website as a source for showing that Satmar really isn't relevant for this article.
Okay, now that we have established the size of Jewish movements opposing Zionism, let's work on the sources. For starters, look at the Wikipedia articles on Satmar and on its greatest leader ever, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum.
As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh? I quote:
We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination."
Next we get to Belz.
Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* -- Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue being solved with the creation of the article on Haredi anti-Zionism, which I had prepared a while ago already. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could explain me what were these "jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" that existed up to the 2nd century, because I am not aware of them. As far as I know, in 63 BCE the Romans conquered the jewish kingdom and from them on what you basically had was a puppet kingdom that had to ally with Rome. -- 213.190.195.101 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And how did you manage to keep that information hidden from so many people, one would like to ask? "Control of Israel"? That country only exists since 1948. What was there before can hardly be compared to the modern notion of a state. What people are doing there in that specific sentence of "Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states up to the 2nd century CE" is original reasearch which as far as I know is not allowed in Wikipedia. -- 213.190.195.101 11:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there wasn´t any independent Jewish kingdom till the 2nd century. It´s clear what people are trying to do wit that: they´re trying to portray these kingdoms as some sort of predecessor do modern Israel. I don´t take as reference articles from Wikipedia such as those which are biased in a way to fit modern political events and agendas. -- 213.190.195.101 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. I am on a campaign to rid this article of Citation Needed tags. Does anybody have a source for this sentence? "Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism."
I tried to find one on the 'Net but my knowledge of the subject is not broad or deep enough. Lacking a source, I propose to delete this sentence in a week or so.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think if you go here: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Noam_Chomsky and read about halfway down, Chomsky is quoted as to saying something very similar on CSPAN TV interview.
I am doing a copy of my Discussion with User:Daniel575:
Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1 - ==Zionism = Racism== Please do not make similar changes to the article Zionism again. I have reverted your edit. From someone purporting to be a professor of history, I would expect a slightly higher level of editing. Also, please do not again make such controversial changes with the 'minor edit' button. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2 - == About Racism and Discrimination ==
Dear Daniel:
You are right. As my own language is Spanish I always edit all my editions in English as "minor edit". In this particular case it should be a "major edit". I am sorry.
In this article Category:Discrimination may be better than Category:Racism. I also agree with you.
The issue in question is confusing, since both concepts have similarities. You can see as examples:
Zionism and racism – Discrimination
Zionism and racism - UN resolutions
Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Desmond Tutu - Views on Israel, Jews, and Judaism
List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel
And Jimmy Carter's book: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid".
Actually Religious Zionism seems to be quite controversial in the Modern World as Marxist Atheism and Islamic or Christian fundamentalism are.
So allow me, my dear friend, to salute together with you the heroes of Humanist tolerance as: Count Folke Bernadotte and General Yitzhak Rabin.
Best regards. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not all Jews are Israelis (and vice-versa) and not all Jews mindlessly agree with the government of Israel's every action. To imply that all Jews must agree with your political views is as racist as the sort of anti-semitism some are condemning in this article. I've edited out some of the 'citation needed' statements, and hope they will only be returned with a citation, and with less blatently political phrasing. - Kyle543 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wonderful. Someone reentered the statements within seconds. Well, I wont get into an editing war about this, but none the less, you, the re-editor, should consider adding citations or refrasing the statements, for the sake of your own integrity and honesty, if not Wikipedia's. Kyle543 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just checking here. Other editors have a problem with this passage, and you decline to discuss their concerns, preferring instead to revert the text under dispute. Correct? BYT 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. FYI, I'm not an anti-Semite. You are aware that WP is based on collaborative editing, especially with regard to controversial text, right? Just want to be clear I'm getting a conscious announcement from you here that you do in fact refuse to discuss your edits on this page. Please confirm. BYT 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Read it [ here]. BYT 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
BYT, what's the issue here. Do you deny that anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" as a cover for "Jew"? Or is it the sources? The placement in the article? Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that some anti-semites use anti-zionist as a cover, but this information is very loaded and doesn't deserve to be part of the articles introduction. Stick to concrete facts in the intro please and put the polemic later on in the article, it's current location lends it too much authority. manchester_me 03:09, 9 November 2006 (GMT)
Your kind of bigotry, pure hatred, is much worse. Your kind should be expelled from Eretz Yisroel rather than that any Arab should be expelled. How dare you say such things! Be ashamed of yourself! The Zionist presence in Eretz Yisroel is a disgrace and has no legitimacy and the Zionist state will, at some point, be dismantled. May it happen soon in our days, peacefully and without any harm to any living thing. Your type of Zionism is the type that the greatest rabbis have cursed, have condemned. To all Arabs / Muslims reading this, please be aware that the above Zionist hate speech does NOT represent Jews or Judaism. I and hundreds of thousands of other Jews, including the vast majority of Haredi ('ultra-Orthodox') Jews very strongly condemn Zionism. The above writer has been infected with the deadly disease called 'Zionism'. I and tens of thousands of others pray every day for the Zionist state to be abolished. Don't expect me to approve of your words, Lance. Zionism = Racism. Zionism = Oppression. Zionism = Fascism. Well, in any case, I do not think anyone now still dares to consider me 'POV' on this subject, in either direction. I am the most neutral person you will find. Dear Arabs, trust me, I am *not* going to protect or defend Zionism. I am completely neutral, NPOV. Personally I hate Zionism. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What I am suggesting (and have placed in the article) is this:
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. [1] However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals [2], a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" [3]
Comments? BYT 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
How is it the original research? There is a citation supporting the sentence that BYT put. Nannu-ctg 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
BYT is trying to refute the claim that antisemites use the word "Zionist" as a cover for Jew. -- By no means! Antisemites use this tactic all the time. But this article is not Anti-Semitism. BYT 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So far, what we seem to have gotten on the table is ...
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. [4] However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals [5], a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" [6]
Have I summarized this correctly, or are there other voices/issues to take into account?
BYT
11:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism.
[7] Criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come both from non-Jews
[8] and from Jewish groups and individuals
[9], with a diversity that leads contemporary anti-Zionists to argue that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Only a minority of contemporary Jews openly oppose Israel's status as a nation-state, while opposition to "Zionism" as a political pejorative is strong in both Israel and the United States. This is perhaps because such attacks are easily perceived as attacks upon Judaism itself. According to a researcher at the
Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the
Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)"
[10]'
A total lie. It is not just 'Zionists' who say this. Many people say this. Was Martin Luther King a Zionist? Absolute and total disagree. Adding something like this will result in all possible pov and disputed tags being added to the article. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand how people can justify deleting the passage. It is obviously relevant, reliably sourced, and not even particularly controversial in mainstream discourse. It may be an unpleasent fact but do people really dispute that anti-semitic people sometimes use anti-Zionist rhetoric to avoid the controversy of anti-Jewish rhetoric? For the most part people's arguments here seem to be centered around the statement that "Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism" this is true but in this case it is also a red herring as the passage does not say anything about the two being one and the same.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Passages can be well-sourced and unencyclopedic; passages can be well-sourced and irrelevant; passages can be well-sourced and contain overbroad generalizations. Moshe, I'd like to ask you: why, specifically do you think this text should be in, of all places, the introduction? BYT 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is deteriorating. One editor refuses to discuss issues with another because he's a Muslim; someone is called a "Muslim troll"; Zionism is disgusting, a disgrace and a disease; and another editor and his "kind" ought to be expelled from Eretz Yisroel for disagreeing?
This page is for discussion of the article, and the article should only contain the views of reliable published sources, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Personal views aren't needed, and refusing to discuss issues because of someone's religion/ethnicity is a serious violation of Wikipedia's ethos, so please, no more. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a recognized Hindu fundamentalist organization, responsible for several pogroms against Muslims in India and, incidentally, the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. That it is portrayed in the Zionism article without any note of its deeply problematic ideology is deceptive.
Humus, why did you delete this cited material [1] about RSS? If the KKK were to issue a press release opposing Zionism, would a reader who had never heard of the KKK be entitled to some information about its history and motives? BYT 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I got that -- that much was in your edit summary -- problem is that I didn't put the RSS thing in there, someone else did. But neglected to give any context about their status as a quasi-fascist nationalist group. So to my way of thinking we can either delete the reference to them, which is probably cleaner, or we can tell people what kind of group it is.
Just saying, "This political party in India supports Zionism" is a little like saying, "David Duke, an American politician, says X." If you've never heard of David Duke, you've got a right to know what he stands for. What are your thoughts on all this, please? BYT 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The article defines Zionism as "a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." I think that this should be edited to read "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people." If you look at the writings of many of the early Zionist thinkers, such as Herzl, most were not set on the idea of placing it within the British mandate of Palestine initially, but instead simply wanted to establish a Jewish state, and they defined that as Zionism. It was not until later in their writings, after they had defined themselves as Zionists, that they eliminated the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Argentina or Uganda and embraced the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. Any thoughts?
Wrong. Herzel himself only saw Uganda as a temporary solution. Zionism is from biblical references and from the very name ZION you can understand what place it refers to. Amoruso 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. "Of course, Eretz Israel was the obvious and desirable choice". It says right in the article itself that Uganda was temporary solution and was also objected. Zionism is from the very first exodus where it says that the Jews cried over the rivers of the Babel and cried for Jerusalem and said that if they'll forget Jerusalem they'll forget their right hands. This is a basis for Judaism. The idea of the coming of the Mesiah and the establishment of the third temple etc - it's all zionism. The modern Zionism movevent advocated the modern creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. if that didn't work... then other proposals were briefly suggested. But they called it Zionism for a reason. Zion = Israel & Jerusalem. Amoruso 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite true. It's also true that this article's very first words read: This article is about Zionism as a movement, not the History of Israel. The material you are fighting to include here may well belong in that article, though I can't speak for the editors there. BYT 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in EretzIsrael secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism. [4] Amoruso 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all it's bullshit. If you read Herzel himself you would see these are lies. Secondly, this article is about Zionism (movement like you said) and not Herzel. Zionist movement official statement was in Basel, Herzel was just a person without that. He wasn't a dictator so his opinion even if it was that, which it isn't, is not pertinent. Amoruso 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What your source does say is this :
SHUSTER: Herzl understood that his political goal needed an organization. So in 1897 he gathered about 250 followers at the first Zionist Congress. It opened in Basel, Switzerland on August 29, 1897, and launched the World Zionist Organization. The goal, expressed in a formally adopted program, would be the creation of a home in Palestine for the Jewish people. Amoruso 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, what Herzel intended before 1897 is irrelevant. The first zionist congress is exactly that - the FIRST - there wasn't any "modern Zionism movement" before that, that's a fact so "You seem to think "early" means no earlier than 1897; I see no reason to think that" is just factually wrong. Amoruso 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?
Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.
Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.
Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.
This initial consideration of Argentina by HERZEL ONLY as an option is irrelevant to the fact that zionism movement is about Israel, zionist movement that yes started in 1897 based on the historical zionism for Israel for 2000 years. Amoruso 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, what you claimed is of course not true but exactly the opposite : " Moses Hess's 1862 work Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine as a means of settling the national question."
At any case, alternate proposals such as Argentina belong in their section possibly but not in the lead of course. Amoruso 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is getting too long and I find myself repeating myself. I also lost interest. Others can reply instead of me. I stand behind the basic fact that Zionism is about Israel and Jerusalem. This is simply a basic definition of the term. You seem not to understand the idea of temporary or "what can we do it will never work" solutions as compared to the objective and the goal. Like it says in your link "Pinsker was willing to settle for a Jewish homeland in a country other than Palestine" - well many did that was the rift - but because it was an alternative proposal. Pinsker was a Zionist for wanting to create the state in ISRAEL - that's the primary concern. I think you fail to see this point in the matter. you also now think that any person who's called a Zionist is part of the Zionist movement contradicting your early remark that this article is about Zionist as the movement and not about other uses of the term. King David himself was a Zionist, this is not related to the matter. This article is about Zionism as the modern political movement that started in 1897. Others might explain this to you more eloquently any why "others, hungering for an empty land which Jews could call their own, seriously pursued the bizarre "Uganda plan" strange that you think this quote proves your point. Cheers. Amoruso 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC
I also think the scope of the article should be expanded past 1897, since most of the writings that shaped modern Zionism were written before the first Zionist Congress was convened. 67.190.108.208 0:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments stange to say the least. Nobody commented on this discussion they chose to ignore it for now, perhaps because they see how ignorant it is. Zionism in its definition is related to Israel and Jerusalem because that's what ZION means. Look it up. As for the Zionist movement, these were your words above - this talk about Zionism as a MOVEMENT - are you saying the movement existed before 1897 ? Obviously this a load of you know what. Any editor who worked on the article will tell you that. Amoruso 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is your contradiction right here :
[9] The article talks about Zionism as a movement, not about the history of Israel etc. Zionism as a movement:
Theodore Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. Prior to the Congress, Zionist activities had been initiated by several different groups such as Hovevei Zion (lovers of Zion) with no central direction or political program. The Basle Congress was the foundation of a mass Zionist movement. At the conclusion, the congress adopted the resolutions below. Herzl wrote in his diary, "At Basle, I founded the Jewish state.. If not in five years, then certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.” The resolution says Palestine and Palestine only. So even when you're factually wrong about zionism in general and the intentions of zionists, it's simply not the article's content in your words. Amoruso 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
People who are arguing that we should remove the reference to the land of Israel seem to be doing so based on a misunderstanding. Even if Herzl did think that Uganda would be a suitable homeland (which he actually didn't) he was not the only early zionist leader, in fact he wasn't even the most influential among the Zionists themselves, he was only the most visible in gentile society, for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice. Notice that every single early Jewish settler (pre-Herzl) emigrated to Israel and not Africa. The idea that zionists were open to other locations is just a bit of revisionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Herzl - why by no means was the only founder of Zionism - started his thought process by observing that no matter how assimilated and integrated Jews were in Europe, they were still subject to discrimination at best and persecution at worst (and I doubt he'd change his mind if he saw the way things are now). He was a systematic thinker, and it's fair to say that Zionism as a movement (as opposed to the thinking of a journalist stationed in Paris) crystalized when Eretz Israel became the goal. We should certainly note that Herzl considered other places, but it would be historically false to describe Zionism as anything but an Eretz Israel-bound movement. -- Leifern 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Re; "for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice" -- I hardly see how it was obvious to, say, Pinsker. On the topic of whom, I was challenged here to identify a Zionist thinker who rejected Israel as the primary objective. In response, I cited and discussed Pinsker in some detail on this page. Here's the quote people were swearing didn't and couldn't (or perhaps we could all be honest for a moment and simply say "shouldn't") exist:
Translation: I tracked down what people dared me to track down. Then the goalposts shifted and reality was redefined. Again. (Hard to believe such a thing is possible on this page, I know.) Anyway, apparently in this wikidimension Zionism has always meant Israel, Zionism always will mean Israel, war is peace, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. On the theory that historicity actually matters in an encyclopedia, though, I'm filing an RFC. BYT 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
With respect, the article has a duty to summarize responsibly what happened in the nineteenth century (i.e., after "Zionists" like King David) and before 1897. Otherwise, it's not really about contemporary Zionism, but a carefully selected retroactive strain thereof. I can't say the notion of Federalism in the US is identical with that of Manifest Destiny, can I? BYT 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
seems to me that Zionism in this context is the establishment of a Jewish National Home State in the historical Jewish Zion, i.e. The Holy Land, i.e. Jerusalem, i.e. Mt. Zion, etc. Establishment of a Jewish National Home State in another vicinity would be better served under the title of Jewish Nationalism or some such, in particular since it never got past hypothetical status. Similarly, Zion in The Matrix, Zion of the Rastafarians, Zion of the references in Christian liturgy, Zion of the Mormon worldview, and The New Jerusalem of the Christian liturgy are only indirectly relevant. { http://www.liberationgraphics.com/ppp/monograph_definitions_of_zionism.html] Gzuckier 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I copied the content of Proposals for a Jewish state here because it seemed most appropriate here and that article has been nominated for deletion.
Subsequently, User:Amoruso deleted the above material from this article on the grounds that some of it was false and the true part was mentioned in other articles. I think this is the right place for this material.
Rather than edit war over this, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors of this article.
Please comment here. If you wish to participate in the AFD discussion for Proposals for a Jewish state, you can do so here.
-- Richard 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it belongs here, though inaccurate material certainly shouldn't be included.
BYT
14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Dispute concerning whether early Zionists regarded Israel alone as the geographical homeland to be created for the Jewish people, or whether Israel was one of many possible homelands. [11]
Thanks for the note, Slim. We are left with the question, then, of whether contemporary Zionism existed before 1897, and how its geographical goal should be described. How do you think we should address this issue in the article? BYT 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on my argument, and not on me. If he was a Zionist, and indeed an important early one, then his view that Palestine was not the objective of the movement needs to be taken into account in the introduction. Claiming that all Zionists a) came into existence in 1897 and b) supported the geographical goal of Palestine is simply false. BYT 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This "did he/could he possibly/did he want to define Zionism" business is a red herring. You keep bringing it up, but it is no part of the edit or the RFC. Start another discussion about definitions if you want. What I want to establish is a clear answer to this question: "Did early (pre-1897) Zionists hold unanimously to the view that the homeland should be in Palestine?"
If the answer is "yes," the first sentence of the intro is OK as it stands.
If the answer is "no," the intro needs to be changed.
If the answer is "sources murky, shake 8 ball again later," the intro needs to be changed. The way it reads now, it suggests that ALL Zionists argue, and have always argued, that Palestine was the only goal. Historically, this is simply untrue. BYT 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
IronDuke, can you please explain your description of this as "original research"? Is it your view, for instance, that all Jews support Zionism, and that the burden of proof lies with those disputing that view? BYT 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Help me clarify -- I think the graph above makes it quite clear what the majority position now is, yes?
And once again ... I missed this part: it was "original research" because ... ? BYT 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So it needs more work. No problem there. And on the original research -- how am I to improve if you won't tell me where the problem is? Can you please be a little more specific? BYT 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
btw, Encarta : movement to unite the Jewish people of the Diaspora (exile) and settle them in Palestine [25] Zionism, modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine history channel modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine. The Columbia Encyclopedia infoplease an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel webster You're simply confusing Zionism as a movement and the fact that a person can identify himself as Zionist and certainly seek other alternatives - Zionists can hold many views but ZIONISM not. I hope that clarifies it. Amoruso 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If I may jump in here: The paragraph proposed by BYT is original research because it attempts to draw a conclusion from the facts that is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources. There is no doubt that different members of the Jewish communities of Europe had different ideas about where they might establish a colony, a temporary refuge, a "national homeland", the national homeland, or a state, or several of the above, or other types of places for Jews to settle and/or govern themselves. But these were not all necessarily "Zionist" ideas. In some cases, which have been discussed, they were "Plan B" in case what is now Israel did not work out. To say that Zionism "embraced a variety of opinions on where that homeland might be established" puts a spin on those facts that is not supported by existing research. That is why it is original research. (And even if there were sources to support it, it would be a fringe theory that does not belong in the intro.) 6SJ7 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the clarification. So it is original research. My apologies. I was incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to actually discuss the edit and explain in detail why you objected to it, 6SJ7. You're right. BYT 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The danger of editing an article one knows little about is that you can make errors from ignorance. On the other hand, by being bold, I am learning more about this subject. Sometimes, the involvement of a relative ingenue can help by clarifying what should and should not be clarified. Hopefully, this edit will meet with approval from those who know more than I do.
I got involved here from the AFD debate on the Proposals for a Jewish state article. My opinion on that article has changed towards the negative for reasons that I will explain in greater detail under that topic.
However, I do think there is value in giving more prominent mention to the alternative proposals. Without having read the entire long discussion about the "Definition of Zionism" above, i am going to speculate that the issue comes down to this:
One side wants to argue that Zionism is and always was about a Jewish homeland in Palestine and sees any suggestion that Zionism was originally open to the possibility of other locations as "revisionist" and possibly POV-pushing (e.g. suggesting that Zionism only settled on Palestine for pragmatic reasons rather than idealistic principle).
The other side notes the other proposals and tries to report on them in this article purportedly in the name of historical accuracy.
When I got involved in this debate, I started on "the other side" and tried to insert information from the Proposals for a Jewish state article. However, Amoruso has helped me understand that much of that article was either unsourced or blurred the distinction between a settlement/colony and a proposed Jewish state. At the moment, the only solid proposals that I know of are Ararat and East Africa (Uganda).
However, in researching this, I discovered that the British proposal of a Jewish state in East Africa was very divisive, caused a walkout by the Russian delegation and led to the formation of the Jewish Territorialist Organization as documented in the Alternative Proposals section of this argument. Obviously, this incident supports the argument that the Zionist movement saw itself as committed to a homeland in Palestine. However, it also suggests that there was not a uniformity of sentiment on the topic throughout the movement's history and that it took a critical decision such as Herzl's proposal of the East Africa project to make clear how central the focus on Palestine was. In essence, the outcome of that debate seems to have been "We Zionists are focused on Palestine. If you want a Jewish state outside Palestine, you don't belong here." The ITO seems to have accepted that message and left.
All of the above is behind my one line addition to the intro paragraph.
-- Richard 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We have lately reinforced the principle [26] that putting a "spin" on facts that is not supported by external research constitutes WP:OR. There is no such external research that I've seen to describe these entities as "self-governing states."
If you feel the text should go back in, please provide, and discuss here, responsible references from reputable sources, so we can all reach consensus before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss cites in support of the notion that they were self-governing states before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In the section concerning the rise of Nazis its pretty clear there has been an act of vandalism, someone should restore it. jordan 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In the terminology section there is clear vandalism in the first sentence. 66.58.243.235 12:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
... for using the passive voice in the intro to avoid identifying which specific definition for Zionism we're quoting there?
(Other than, you know, the fact that I was the one who suggested that we make this specific?)
WP:CITE guides us as follows: When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on the first mention.
We're ignoring that guidance in this article because ...? BYT 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What silent thing was I doing? Huh? Diffs, please. If I changed anything other than the Webster thing, it was inadvertent. As for "causing disruptions" by citing WP guidelines and suggesting that editors follow them ... whatever. BYT 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth noting that dictionary.com shows definitions for Zionism from four different sources and all of them mention that Zionism aimed at creating a Jewish state in Palestine or Israel. If we stated that Webster's dictionary defined it that way we would be misleading the readers by implying that other dictionaries define it differently which is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
All that nonsense at the bottom of the terminology section is clearly propaganda, Zionism is well accepted to mean support for a Jewish state in Israel, that simply is what it means today to most people who say it, the assertion that "the label "Zionist" is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for anti-Semitism." is purely an attempt to label people against Zionism as anti-Semitic, I'm going to delete this AGAIN, I just think it's way to subjective an assertion to be part of an encyclopedia article, the term Zionism is in common usage to mean the movement to form the state of Israel, Anti-Semitism means anti-Semitism, that qoute about anti-zionism in russian or whatever belongs elsewhere, maybe in the russian wikipedia, POST A COMMENT HERE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT Arch NME 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I fear that I am getting into the habit of butting in, for which I apologize. However, the phrase "authoritative historian" seems to me a contradiction in terms: a historian's "authority," it seems to me, is exactly equivalent to his ability to make clear that his portrayal agrees with facts and reasoning. To assert that a particular historian's portrayal of something is "authoritative" and therefore that the facts and reason must agree with it is backward.
The inclusion of the long quote from Mr. Laqueur in the introduction of this article gives not only the impression, but ironically also the appearance, of a chicken choking on a large ice cube. Who has stuffed this choking hazard down the poor bird's throat?
And now, by way of rescue, it has been proposed that a balancing ice cube be inflicted upon the bird. I don't know, maybe it is true that between the two chunks there would be an air passage.
But for myself, this much chunkiness says very clearly, "What a poorly written article! I will not bother to read further!" And I have not read further, by the way.
Anyway, many of the people supporting the first block of ice now oppose the second. It almost seems that they keep two weights in a bag, a greater one and a lesser one. And when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism's foes, out comes the lesser weight, and if it meets this weight, in must go the change. But when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism rather than to its foes, then out comes the greater weight, and unless it exceeds this weight, the change must stay out.
And I write this because I think these people probably believe sincerely that they are protecting something with their actions. But I think the truth of the matter, if you pay attention, is that they are on the contrary desecrating it.
Netscott, I reverted your edit, because that's not quite what's being said. What is meant is that some anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" to mean "Jew." It's true that some of those may be what are called "new anti-Semites," but the classical kind do it too. That's a separate point from the one being made. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim: I see what you mean, but it seemed appropriate to provide a quote that balanced the one that was already there. Perhaps it would be best if we removed both of them. (But keeping both would work for me, too.) BYT 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so Laquer is talking about "post" antisemitism.... hello? As if that wasn't a contested concept. What does it have to do with terminology? That paragraph is there to soapbox the idea of new antisemitism pure and simple. ( → Netscott) 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Danile575 unilaterally created an article about the Haredi position on Zionism, and removed all of that material from this page. I disagreed with that move, and I still think it was a bad idea. My sense was that folks on this page were happy to be rid of him and did not protest. He has been banned from Wikipedia due to his abusing editing and comments. I think the time is right to revisit this issue in a more civil manner. Since the article Haredim and Zionism covers a topic that is integrally linked to the history of the Zionist ideology (at least as much as many of the other sections of this article), I think it belongs in the Zionism article, and not as its own separate article. Any objections?-- Meshulam 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Laqueur describes how the label "Zionism" was/is used as a euphemism instead of "Jew" - surely relevant here and not "off topic". BYT, stop disrupting WP and don't remove relevant quotes. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is on at least an aspect of the topic of Zionism, and in my opinion his avocation of political activism has made him an expert of a sort on Zionism: how many people can recite specifics of the history of Zionism as well as Noam Chomsky? We might disagree with his assertions that all these specifics fit neatly into his more direct political interest in colonialism/hegemony, but there are not very many people in the world who can, right off the cuff, give as informed an exposition on the history of Zionism as can Noam Chomsky. Noting also that he considered himself a Zionist activist in his youth, at just about the time that Zionism was blossoming, and the dismissal above of his opinions seems not to fit the facts.
It is my opinion, by the way, that any comments from Noam Chomsky belong only very marginally, if at all, in a general article on Zionism. But my reasons for believing this do not depend upon dismissing him as an expert on Zionism, which to me is not a sentiment grounded in fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.207.83 ( talk • contribs).
Jay:
No, one certainly wouldn't quote Robert Spencer in Islam -- but it seems to me that it would be completely appropriate to quote him as one of multiple quoted points of view in Islamism, which is, like Zionism, a political philosophy. (Behold -- a quick check of that article confirms that he is in fact mentioned in the text of that article, and his views are summarized responsibly there.) If you feel he should be part of a group of quotes there, we could certainly have that discussion.
Back to this discussion: Chomsky's real problem is -- let's be frank --that you personally disagree with him. It seems to me that the primary criterion (at least for the purposes of this page) of "expertise" on the topic of Zionism is agreeing with its tenets, as you appear to do.
Is there another WP article on a political philosophy where all the academic voices quoted are required to support the movement? BYT 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. Progress here. You're actually responding. Let's continue to be frank, then. Grant that our politics are not compatible. (There's a shocker.) Have you noticed that your quoted expert always seems to stay in this article, and mine always seems to vanish? Is there, on the great green earth, any sufficiently qualified skeptic of Zionism whom you would deign to place next to Laqueur? BYT 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So -- the Soviets didn't really mean "anti-Zionist" ... we know as an objective fact that they really meant "anti-Jew." And Chomsky didn't really mean "anti-Semitism" ... we know as an objective fact that he really meant "'new' anti-Semitism." And Alice cradles the flamingo in her arms and attempts to use its extended neck to strike at a croquet ball.
Speaking of surrealistic transitions, I'd like to throw one back your way, return the conversation to its mooring-point of a few dozen syllables ago, and ask Jay, once again, if any academic skeptical of Zionism is sufficiently qualified to be quoted in this article. He's fallen prey to one of his habitual bouts of mystic silence in the presence of a direct question. BYT 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I changed the order of the definitions. Since nobody denies that Zionism is a political movement seeking to bring back the Jews to Eretz Israel, and since that fact doesn't exclude the other definitions, I placed that - neutral and indisputable - definition first. Within that sentence, I replaced the old non-neutral references with the scholarly ones that Jayjg was kind enough to provide, and I changed the wording to reflect their content (see talk page section "The Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel?". I put the Gellner description next, because it is also relatively uncontroverisal (few Zionists would deny that Zionism is a nationalist movement), and because it is a description by a neutral scholar. I placed the "national liberation movement" bit last, because it is the only one that is subject to POV disputes. I also indicated that that is the way its proponents describe it, because that seems to be the case, and because all the links provided as references are to Zionist sources.
I hope nobody feels that these changes are POV or otherwise unreasonable. -- Anonymous44 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that recently there has been some sort of right wing support of Israel. I don't know if this is documented, but the left wing support topic in the article doesn't appear to have any references either.
The addition of the article about "Left wing support of Zionism" and it's claims that support fell out of favor only because of the move away from socialism without an article discussing present right wing support for Zionism is completely POV and needs to be balanced.
Since no one has offered to put up a counterbalance to the clearly POV statements in this particular section of the article I have removed all POV statements from the section on "left wing support of Zionism".
Actually, no, I didn't misunderstand WP:PNOV, it appears that you have however. Citing that "left wing" support of Zionism, and the current lack thereof, is directly related to the Socialist aspects of the early Zionists is a clearly politically slanted, and therefore heavily POV, statement. Please stop adding back in this biased paragraph unless you are willing to document any sort of reference material to support it. As it stands, the paragraph is not backed up by any facts or reference material and is clearly POV. I am going to once again remove the POV sections of that particular paragraph until there is some documentation supporting the claims in the section.
the article or block you for his actions to be considered abuse. Right now, you're just intimidated by the fact that he's an admin. Well, get over it. "Vandalism" is deliberate and blatant damaging of Wikipedia, POV pushing is, well, POV pushing. -- Chodorkovskiy ( talk) 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If this article were written about Hawkish Zionist ideologies vs. Dove everyone else then the concern of bias may have been warranted. This is not the case. User:Taylor Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.0.218 ( talk • contribs)
It's sad to see that nothing has been done to try to provide a POV-free version of this article. I'd try for a revision, but seeing as there are a handful of people who are, apparently, intent on keeping a politically-slanted viewpoint on this particular topic (sadly enough some of these people are Wikipedia moderators) I am going to withdraw myself from the discussion. Law82 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I go about getting an article protected from vandals or unregistered users? -- יהושועEric 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources.
Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie. I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :
Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.) Now, watch this:
Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total number is well over 100,000. Now, I am sure most of you will bring this website as a source for showing that Satmar really isn't relevant for this article.
Okay, now that we have established the size of Jewish movements opposing Zionism, let's work on the sources. For starters, look at the Wikipedia articles on Satmar and on its greatest leader ever, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum.
As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh? I quote:
We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination."
Next we get to Belz.
Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* -- Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Issue being solved with the creation of the article on Haredi anti-Zionism, which I had prepared a while ago already. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone could explain me what were these "jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" that existed up to the 2nd century, because I am not aware of them. As far as I know, in 63 BCE the Romans conquered the jewish kingdom and from them on what you basically had was a puppet kingdom that had to ally with Rome. -- 213.190.195.101 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And how did you manage to keep that information hidden from so many people, one would like to ask? "Control of Israel"? That country only exists since 1948. What was there before can hardly be compared to the modern notion of a state. What people are doing there in that specific sentence of "Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states up to the 2nd century CE" is original reasearch which as far as I know is not allowed in Wikipedia. -- 213.190.195.101 11:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there wasn´t any independent Jewish kingdom till the 2nd century. It´s clear what people are trying to do wit that: they´re trying to portray these kingdoms as some sort of predecessor do modern Israel. I don´t take as reference articles from Wikipedia such as those which are biased in a way to fit modern political events and agendas. -- 213.190.195.101 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. I am on a campaign to rid this article of Citation Needed tags. Does anybody have a source for this sentence? "Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism."
I tried to find one on the 'Net but my knowledge of the subject is not broad or deep enough. Lacking a source, I propose to delete this sentence in a week or so.
Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think if you go here: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Noam_Chomsky and read about halfway down, Chomsky is quoted as to saying something very similar on CSPAN TV interview.
I am doing a copy of my Discussion with User:Daniel575:
Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
1 - ==Zionism = Racism== Please do not make similar changes to the article Zionism again. I have reverted your edit. From someone purporting to be a professor of history, I would expect a slightly higher level of editing. Also, please do not again make such controversial changes with the 'minor edit' button. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
2 - == About Racism and Discrimination ==
Dear Daniel:
You are right. As my own language is Spanish I always edit all my editions in English as "minor edit". In this particular case it should be a "major edit". I am sorry.
In this article Category:Discrimination may be better than Category:Racism. I also agree with you.
The issue in question is confusing, since both concepts have similarities. You can see as examples:
Zionism and racism – Discrimination
Zionism and racism - UN resolutions
Allegations of Israeli apartheid
Desmond Tutu - Views on Israel, Jews, and Judaism
List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel
And Jimmy Carter's book: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid".
Actually Religious Zionism seems to be quite controversial in the Modern World as Marxist Atheism and Islamic or Christian fundamentalism are.
So allow me, my dear friend, to salute together with you the heroes of Humanist tolerance as: Count Folke Bernadotte and General Yitzhak Rabin.
Best regards. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Not all Jews are Israelis (and vice-versa) and not all Jews mindlessly agree with the government of Israel's every action. To imply that all Jews must agree with your political views is as racist as the sort of anti-semitism some are condemning in this article. I've edited out some of the 'citation needed' statements, and hope they will only be returned with a citation, and with less blatently political phrasing. - Kyle543 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh wonderful. Someone reentered the statements within seconds. Well, I wont get into an editing war about this, but none the less, you, the re-editor, should consider adding citations or refrasing the statements, for the sake of your own integrity and honesty, if not Wikipedia's. Kyle543 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just checking here. Other editors have a problem with this passage, and you decline to discuss their concerns, preferring instead to revert the text under dispute. Correct? BYT 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. FYI, I'm not an anti-Semite. You are aware that WP is based on collaborative editing, especially with regard to controversial text, right? Just want to be clear I'm getting a conscious announcement from you here that you do in fact refuse to discuss your edits on this page. Please confirm. BYT 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Read it [ here]. BYT 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
BYT, what's the issue here. Do you deny that anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" as a cover for "Jew"? Or is it the sources? The placement in the article? Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that some anti-semites use anti-zionist as a cover, but this information is very loaded and doesn't deserve to be part of the articles introduction. Stick to concrete facts in the intro please and put the polemic later on in the article, it's current location lends it too much authority. manchester_me 03:09, 9 November 2006 (GMT)
Your kind of bigotry, pure hatred, is much worse. Your kind should be expelled from Eretz Yisroel rather than that any Arab should be expelled. How dare you say such things! Be ashamed of yourself! The Zionist presence in Eretz Yisroel is a disgrace and has no legitimacy and the Zionist state will, at some point, be dismantled. May it happen soon in our days, peacefully and without any harm to any living thing. Your type of Zionism is the type that the greatest rabbis have cursed, have condemned. To all Arabs / Muslims reading this, please be aware that the above Zionist hate speech does NOT represent Jews or Judaism. I and hundreds of thousands of other Jews, including the vast majority of Haredi ('ultra-Orthodox') Jews very strongly condemn Zionism. The above writer has been infected with the deadly disease called 'Zionism'. I and tens of thousands of others pray every day for the Zionist state to be abolished. Don't expect me to approve of your words, Lance. Zionism = Racism. Zionism = Oppression. Zionism = Fascism. Well, in any case, I do not think anyone now still dares to consider me 'POV' on this subject, in either direction. I am the most neutral person you will find. Dear Arabs, trust me, I am *not* going to protect or defend Zionism. I am completely neutral, NPOV. Personally I hate Zionism. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What I am suggesting (and have placed in the article) is this:
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. [1] However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals [2], a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" [3]
Comments? BYT 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
How is it the original research? There is a citation supporting the sentence that BYT put. Nannu-ctg 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
BYT is trying to refute the claim that antisemites use the word "Zionist" as a cover for Jew. -- By no means! Antisemites use this tactic all the time. But this article is not Anti-Semitism. BYT 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So far, what we seem to have gotten on the table is ...
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. [4] However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals [5], a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" [6]
Have I summarized this correctly, or are there other voices/issues to take into account?
BYT
11:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism.
[7] Criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come both from non-Jews
[8] and from Jewish groups and individuals
[9], with a diversity that leads contemporary anti-Zionists to argue that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Only a minority of contemporary Jews openly oppose Israel's status as a nation-state, while opposition to "Zionism" as a political pejorative is strong in both Israel and the United States. This is perhaps because such attacks are easily perceived as attacks upon Judaism itself. According to a researcher at the
Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the
Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)"
[10]'
A total lie. It is not just 'Zionists' who say this. Many people say this. Was Martin Luther King a Zionist? Absolute and total disagree. Adding something like this will result in all possible pov and disputed tags being added to the article. -- Daniel575 | (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I really don't understand how people can justify deleting the passage. It is obviously relevant, reliably sourced, and not even particularly controversial in mainstream discourse. It may be an unpleasent fact but do people really dispute that anti-semitic people sometimes use anti-Zionist rhetoric to avoid the controversy of anti-Jewish rhetoric? For the most part people's arguments here seem to be centered around the statement that "Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism" this is true but in this case it is also a red herring as the passage does not say anything about the two being one and the same.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Passages can be well-sourced and unencyclopedic; passages can be well-sourced and irrelevant; passages can be well-sourced and contain overbroad generalizations. Moshe, I'd like to ask you: why, specifically do you think this text should be in, of all places, the introduction? BYT 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The tone of this discussion is deteriorating. One editor refuses to discuss issues with another because he's a Muslim; someone is called a "Muslim troll"; Zionism is disgusting, a disgrace and a disease; and another editor and his "kind" ought to be expelled from Eretz Yisroel for disagreeing?
This page is for discussion of the article, and the article should only contain the views of reliable published sources, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Personal views aren't needed, and refusing to discuss issues because of someone's religion/ethnicity is a serious violation of Wikipedia's ethos, so please, no more. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a recognized Hindu fundamentalist organization, responsible for several pogroms against Muslims in India and, incidentally, the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. That it is portrayed in the Zionism article without any note of its deeply problematic ideology is deceptive.
Humus, why did you delete this cited material [1] about RSS? If the KKK were to issue a press release opposing Zionism, would a reader who had never heard of the KKK be entitled to some information about its history and motives? BYT 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I got that -- that much was in your edit summary -- problem is that I didn't put the RSS thing in there, someone else did. But neglected to give any context about their status as a quasi-fascist nationalist group. So to my way of thinking we can either delete the reference to them, which is probably cleaner, or we can tell people what kind of group it is.
Just saying, "This political party in India supports Zionism" is a little like saying, "David Duke, an American politician, says X." If you've never heard of David Duke, you've got a right to know what he stands for. What are your thoughts on all this, please? BYT 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The article defines Zionism as "a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." I think that this should be edited to read "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people." If you look at the writings of many of the early Zionist thinkers, such as Herzl, most were not set on the idea of placing it within the British mandate of Palestine initially, but instead simply wanted to establish a Jewish state, and they defined that as Zionism. It was not until later in their writings, after they had defined themselves as Zionists, that they eliminated the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Argentina or Uganda and embraced the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. Any thoughts?
Wrong. Herzel himself only saw Uganda as a temporary solution. Zionism is from biblical references and from the very name ZION you can understand what place it refers to. Amoruso 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. "Of course, Eretz Israel was the obvious and desirable choice". It says right in the article itself that Uganda was temporary solution and was also objected. Zionism is from the very first exodus where it says that the Jews cried over the rivers of the Babel and cried for Jerusalem and said that if they'll forget Jerusalem they'll forget their right hands. This is a basis for Judaism. The idea of the coming of the Mesiah and the establishment of the third temple etc - it's all zionism. The modern Zionism movevent advocated the modern creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. if that didn't work... then other proposals were briefly suggested. But they called it Zionism for a reason. Zion = Israel & Jerusalem. Amoruso 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite true. It's also true that this article's very first words read: This article is about Zionism as a movement, not the History of Israel. The material you are fighting to include here may well belong in that article, though I can't speak for the editors there. BYT 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in EretzIsrael secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.
2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.
3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism. [4] Amoruso 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, first of all it's bullshit. If you read Herzel himself you would see these are lies. Secondly, this article is about Zionism (movement like you said) and not Herzel. Zionist movement official statement was in Basel, Herzel was just a person without that. He wasn't a dictator so his opinion even if it was that, which it isn't, is not pertinent. Amoruso 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
What your source does say is this :
SHUSTER: Herzl understood that his political goal needed an organization. So in 1897 he gathered about 250 followers at the first Zionist Congress. It opened in Basel, Switzerland on August 29, 1897, and launched the World Zionist Organization. The goal, expressed in a formally adopted program, would be the creation of a home in Palestine for the Jewish people. Amoruso 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, what Herzel intended before 1897 is irrelevant. The first zionist congress is exactly that - the FIRST - there wasn't any "modern Zionism movement" before that, that's a fact so "You seem to think "early" means no earlier than 1897; I see no reason to think that" is just factually wrong. Amoruso 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?
Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.
Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.
Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.
This initial consideration of Argentina by HERZEL ONLY as an option is irrelevant to the fact that zionism movement is about Israel, zionist movement that yes started in 1897 based on the historical zionism for Israel for 2000 years. Amoruso 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact, what you claimed is of course not true but exactly the opposite : " Moses Hess's 1862 work Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine as a means of settling the national question."
At any case, alternate proposals such as Argentina belong in their section possibly but not in the lead of course. Amoruso 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This is getting too long and I find myself repeating myself. I also lost interest. Others can reply instead of me. I stand behind the basic fact that Zionism is about Israel and Jerusalem. This is simply a basic definition of the term. You seem not to understand the idea of temporary or "what can we do it will never work" solutions as compared to the objective and the goal. Like it says in your link "Pinsker was willing to settle for a Jewish homeland in a country other than Palestine" - well many did that was the rift - but because it was an alternative proposal. Pinsker was a Zionist for wanting to create the state in ISRAEL - that's the primary concern. I think you fail to see this point in the matter. you also now think that any person who's called a Zionist is part of the Zionist movement contradicting your early remark that this article is about Zionist as the movement and not about other uses of the term. King David himself was a Zionist, this is not related to the matter. This article is about Zionism as the modern political movement that started in 1897. Others might explain this to you more eloquently any why "others, hungering for an empty land which Jews could call their own, seriously pursued the bizarre "Uganda plan" strange that you think this quote proves your point. Cheers. Amoruso 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC
I also think the scope of the article should be expanded past 1897, since most of the writings that shaped modern Zionism were written before the first Zionist Congress was convened. 67.190.108.208 0:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I find your comments stange to say the least. Nobody commented on this discussion they chose to ignore it for now, perhaps because they see how ignorant it is. Zionism in its definition is related to Israel and Jerusalem because that's what ZION means. Look it up. As for the Zionist movement, these were your words above - this talk about Zionism as a MOVEMENT - are you saying the movement existed before 1897 ? Obviously this a load of you know what. Any editor who worked on the article will tell you that. Amoruso 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is your contradiction right here :
[9] The article talks about Zionism as a movement, not about the history of Israel etc. Zionism as a movement:
Theodore Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. Prior to the Congress, Zionist activities had been initiated by several different groups such as Hovevei Zion (lovers of Zion) with no central direction or political program. The Basle Congress was the foundation of a mass Zionist movement. At the conclusion, the congress adopted the resolutions below. Herzl wrote in his diary, "At Basle, I founded the Jewish state.. If not in five years, then certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.” The resolution says Palestine and Palestine only. So even when you're factually wrong about zionism in general and the intentions of zionists, it's simply not the article's content in your words. Amoruso 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
People who are arguing that we should remove the reference to the land of Israel seem to be doing so based on a misunderstanding. Even if Herzl did think that Uganda would be a suitable homeland (which he actually didn't) he was not the only early zionist leader, in fact he wasn't even the most influential among the Zionists themselves, he was only the most visible in gentile society, for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice. Notice that every single early Jewish settler (pre-Herzl) emigrated to Israel and not Africa. The idea that zionists were open to other locations is just a bit of revisionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Herzl - why by no means was the only founder of Zionism - started his thought process by observing that no matter how assimilated and integrated Jews were in Europe, they were still subject to discrimination at best and persecution at worst (and I doubt he'd change his mind if he saw the way things are now). He was a systematic thinker, and it's fair to say that Zionism as a movement (as opposed to the thinking of a journalist stationed in Paris) crystalized when Eretz Israel became the goal. We should certainly note that Herzl considered other places, but it would be historically false to describe Zionism as anything but an Eretz Israel-bound movement. -- Leifern 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Re; "for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice" -- I hardly see how it was obvious to, say, Pinsker. On the topic of whom, I was challenged here to identify a Zionist thinker who rejected Israel as the primary objective. In response, I cited and discussed Pinsker in some detail on this page. Here's the quote people were swearing didn't and couldn't (or perhaps we could all be honest for a moment and simply say "shouldn't") exist:
Translation: I tracked down what people dared me to track down. Then the goalposts shifted and reality was redefined. Again. (Hard to believe such a thing is possible on this page, I know.) Anyway, apparently in this wikidimension Zionism has always meant Israel, Zionism always will mean Israel, war is peace, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. On the theory that historicity actually matters in an encyclopedia, though, I'm filing an RFC. BYT 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
With respect, the article has a duty to summarize responsibly what happened in the nineteenth century (i.e., after "Zionists" like King David) and before 1897. Otherwise, it's not really about contemporary Zionism, but a carefully selected retroactive strain thereof. I can't say the notion of Federalism in the US is identical with that of Manifest Destiny, can I? BYT 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
seems to me that Zionism in this context is the establishment of a Jewish National Home State in the historical Jewish Zion, i.e. The Holy Land, i.e. Jerusalem, i.e. Mt. Zion, etc. Establishment of a Jewish National Home State in another vicinity would be better served under the title of Jewish Nationalism or some such, in particular since it never got past hypothetical status. Similarly, Zion in The Matrix, Zion of the Rastafarians, Zion of the references in Christian liturgy, Zion of the Mormon worldview, and The New Jerusalem of the Christian liturgy are only indirectly relevant. { http://www.liberationgraphics.com/ppp/monograph_definitions_of_zionism.html] Gzuckier 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I copied the content of Proposals for a Jewish state here because it seemed most appropriate here and that article has been nominated for deletion.
Subsequently, User:Amoruso deleted the above material from this article on the grounds that some of it was false and the true part was mentioned in other articles. I think this is the right place for this material.
Rather than edit war over this, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors of this article.
Please comment here. If you wish to participate in the AFD discussion for Proposals for a Jewish state, you can do so here.
-- Richard 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it belongs here, though inaccurate material certainly shouldn't be included.
BYT
14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Dispute concerning whether early Zionists regarded Israel alone as the geographical homeland to be created for the Jewish people, or whether Israel was one of many possible homelands. [11]
Thanks for the note, Slim. We are left with the question, then, of whether contemporary Zionism existed before 1897, and how its geographical goal should be described. How do you think we should address this issue in the article? BYT 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Please focus on my argument, and not on me. If he was a Zionist, and indeed an important early one, then his view that Palestine was not the objective of the movement needs to be taken into account in the introduction. Claiming that all Zionists a) came into existence in 1897 and b) supported the geographical goal of Palestine is simply false. BYT 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This "did he/could he possibly/did he want to define Zionism" business is a red herring. You keep bringing it up, but it is no part of the edit or the RFC. Start another discussion about definitions if you want. What I want to establish is a clear answer to this question: "Did early (pre-1897) Zionists hold unanimously to the view that the homeland should be in Palestine?"
If the answer is "yes," the first sentence of the intro is OK as it stands.
If the answer is "no," the intro needs to be changed.
If the answer is "sources murky, shake 8 ball again later," the intro needs to be changed. The way it reads now, it suggests that ALL Zionists argue, and have always argued, that Palestine was the only goal. Historically, this is simply untrue. BYT 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
IronDuke, can you please explain your description of this as "original research"? Is it your view, for instance, that all Jews support Zionism, and that the burden of proof lies with those disputing that view? BYT 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Help me clarify -- I think the graph above makes it quite clear what the majority position now is, yes?
And once again ... I missed this part: it was "original research" because ... ? BYT 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So it needs more work. No problem there. And on the original research -- how am I to improve if you won't tell me where the problem is? Can you please be a little more specific? BYT 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
btw, Encarta : movement to unite the Jewish people of the Diaspora (exile) and settle them in Palestine [25] Zionism, modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine history channel modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine. The Columbia Encyclopedia infoplease an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel webster You're simply confusing Zionism as a movement and the fact that a person can identify himself as Zionist and certainly seek other alternatives - Zionists can hold many views but ZIONISM not. I hope that clarifies it. Amoruso 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If I may jump in here: The paragraph proposed by BYT is original research because it attempts to draw a conclusion from the facts that is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources. There is no doubt that different members of the Jewish communities of Europe had different ideas about where they might establish a colony, a temporary refuge, a "national homeland", the national homeland, or a state, or several of the above, or other types of places for Jews to settle and/or govern themselves. But these were not all necessarily "Zionist" ideas. In some cases, which have been discussed, they were "Plan B" in case what is now Israel did not work out. To say that Zionism "embraced a variety of opinions on where that homeland might be established" puts a spin on those facts that is not supported by existing research. That is why it is original research. (And even if there were sources to support it, it would be a fringe theory that does not belong in the intro.) 6SJ7 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the clarification. So it is original research. My apologies. I was incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to actually discuss the edit and explain in detail why you objected to it, 6SJ7. You're right. BYT 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The danger of editing an article one knows little about is that you can make errors from ignorance. On the other hand, by being bold, I am learning more about this subject. Sometimes, the involvement of a relative ingenue can help by clarifying what should and should not be clarified. Hopefully, this edit will meet with approval from those who know more than I do.
I got involved here from the AFD debate on the Proposals for a Jewish state article. My opinion on that article has changed towards the negative for reasons that I will explain in greater detail under that topic.
However, I do think there is value in giving more prominent mention to the alternative proposals. Without having read the entire long discussion about the "Definition of Zionism" above, i am going to speculate that the issue comes down to this:
One side wants to argue that Zionism is and always was about a Jewish homeland in Palestine and sees any suggestion that Zionism was originally open to the possibility of other locations as "revisionist" and possibly POV-pushing (e.g. suggesting that Zionism only settled on Palestine for pragmatic reasons rather than idealistic principle).
The other side notes the other proposals and tries to report on them in this article purportedly in the name of historical accuracy.
When I got involved in this debate, I started on "the other side" and tried to insert information from the Proposals for a Jewish state article. However, Amoruso has helped me understand that much of that article was either unsourced or blurred the distinction between a settlement/colony and a proposed Jewish state. At the moment, the only solid proposals that I know of are Ararat and East Africa (Uganda).
However, in researching this, I discovered that the British proposal of a Jewish state in East Africa was very divisive, caused a walkout by the Russian delegation and led to the formation of the Jewish Territorialist Organization as documented in the Alternative Proposals section of this argument. Obviously, this incident supports the argument that the Zionist movement saw itself as committed to a homeland in Palestine. However, it also suggests that there was not a uniformity of sentiment on the topic throughout the movement's history and that it took a critical decision such as Herzl's proposal of the East Africa project to make clear how central the focus on Palestine was. In essence, the outcome of that debate seems to have been "We Zionists are focused on Palestine. If you want a Jewish state outside Palestine, you don't belong here." The ITO seems to have accepted that message and left.
All of the above is behind my one line addition to the intro paragraph.
-- Richard 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We have lately reinforced the principle [26] that putting a "spin" on facts that is not supported by external research constitutes WP:OR. There is no such external research that I've seen to describe these entities as "self-governing states."
If you feel the text should go back in, please provide, and discuss here, responsible references from reputable sources, so we can all reach consensus before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Please discuss cites in support of the notion that they were self-governing states before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
In the section concerning the rise of Nazis its pretty clear there has been an act of vandalism, someone should restore it. jordan 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In the terminology section there is clear vandalism in the first sentence. 66.58.243.235 12:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
... for using the passive voice in the intro to avoid identifying which specific definition for Zionism we're quoting there?
(Other than, you know, the fact that I was the one who suggested that we make this specific?)
WP:CITE guides us as follows: When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on the first mention.
We're ignoring that guidance in this article because ...? BYT 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What silent thing was I doing? Huh? Diffs, please. If I changed anything other than the Webster thing, it was inadvertent. As for "causing disruptions" by citing WP guidelines and suggesting that editors follow them ... whatever. BYT 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth noting that dictionary.com shows definitions for Zionism from four different sources and all of them mention that Zionism aimed at creating a Jewish state in Palestine or Israel. If we stated that Webster's dictionary defined it that way we would be misleading the readers by implying that other dictionaries define it differently which is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
All that nonsense at the bottom of the terminology section is clearly propaganda, Zionism is well accepted to mean support for a Jewish state in Israel, that simply is what it means today to most people who say it, the assertion that "the label "Zionist" is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for anti-Semitism." is purely an attempt to label people against Zionism as anti-Semitic, I'm going to delete this AGAIN, I just think it's way to subjective an assertion to be part of an encyclopedia article, the term Zionism is in common usage to mean the movement to form the state of Israel, Anti-Semitism means anti-Semitism, that qoute about anti-zionism in russian or whatever belongs elsewhere, maybe in the russian wikipedia, POST A COMMENT HERE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT Arch NME 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I fear that I am getting into the habit of butting in, for which I apologize. However, the phrase "authoritative historian" seems to me a contradiction in terms: a historian's "authority," it seems to me, is exactly equivalent to his ability to make clear that his portrayal agrees with facts and reasoning. To assert that a particular historian's portrayal of something is "authoritative" and therefore that the facts and reason must agree with it is backward.
The inclusion of the long quote from Mr. Laqueur in the introduction of this article gives not only the impression, but ironically also the appearance, of a chicken choking on a large ice cube. Who has stuffed this choking hazard down the poor bird's throat?
And now, by way of rescue, it has been proposed that a balancing ice cube be inflicted upon the bird. I don't know, maybe it is true that between the two chunks there would be an air passage.
But for myself, this much chunkiness says very clearly, "What a poorly written article! I will not bother to read further!" And I have not read further, by the way.
Anyway, many of the people supporting the first block of ice now oppose the second. It almost seems that they keep two weights in a bag, a greater one and a lesser one. And when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism's foes, out comes the lesser weight, and if it meets this weight, in must go the change. But when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism rather than to its foes, then out comes the greater weight, and unless it exceeds this weight, the change must stay out.
And I write this because I think these people probably believe sincerely that they are protecting something with their actions. But I think the truth of the matter, if you pay attention, is that they are on the contrary desecrating it.
Netscott, I reverted your edit, because that's not quite what's being said. What is meant is that some anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" to mean "Jew." It's true that some of those may be what are called "new anti-Semites," but the classical kind do it too. That's a separate point from the one being made. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Slim: I see what you mean, but it seemed appropriate to provide a quote that balanced the one that was already there. Perhaps it would be best if we removed both of them. (But keeping both would work for me, too.) BYT 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so Laquer is talking about "post" antisemitism.... hello? As if that wasn't a contested concept. What does it have to do with terminology? That paragraph is there to soapbox the idea of new antisemitism pure and simple. ( → Netscott) 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Danile575 unilaterally created an article about the Haredi position on Zionism, and removed all of that material from this page. I disagreed with that move, and I still think it was a bad idea. My sense was that folks on this page were happy to be rid of him and did not protest. He has been banned from Wikipedia due to his abusing editing and comments. I think the time is right to revisit this issue in a more civil manner. Since the article Haredim and Zionism covers a topic that is integrally linked to the history of the Zionist ideology (at least as much as many of the other sections of this article), I think it belongs in the Zionism article, and not as its own separate article. Any objections?-- Meshulam 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Laqueur describes how the label "Zionism" was/is used as a euphemism instead of "Jew" - surely relevant here and not "off topic". BYT, stop disrupting WP and don't remove relevant quotes. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in, but Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is on at least an aspect of the topic of Zionism, and in my opinion his avocation of political activism has made him an expert of a sort on Zionism: how many people can recite specifics of the history of Zionism as well as Noam Chomsky? We might disagree with his assertions that all these specifics fit neatly into his more direct political interest in colonialism/hegemony, but there are not very many people in the world who can, right off the cuff, give as informed an exposition on the history of Zionism as can Noam Chomsky. Noting also that he considered himself a Zionist activist in his youth, at just about the time that Zionism was blossoming, and the dismissal above of his opinions seems not to fit the facts.
It is my opinion, by the way, that any comments from Noam Chomsky belong only very marginally, if at all, in a general article on Zionism. But my reasons for believing this do not depend upon dismissing him as an expert on Zionism, which to me is not a sentiment grounded in fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.207.83 ( talk • contribs).
Jay:
No, one certainly wouldn't quote Robert Spencer in Islam -- but it seems to me that it would be completely appropriate to quote him as one of multiple quoted points of view in Islamism, which is, like Zionism, a political philosophy. (Behold -- a quick check of that article confirms that he is in fact mentioned in the text of that article, and his views are summarized responsibly there.) If you feel he should be part of a group of quotes there, we could certainly have that discussion.
Back to this discussion: Chomsky's real problem is -- let's be frank --that you personally disagree with him. It seems to me that the primary criterion (at least for the purposes of this page) of "expertise" on the topic of Zionism is agreeing with its tenets, as you appear to do.
Is there another WP article on a political philosophy where all the academic voices quoted are required to support the movement? BYT 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. Progress here. You're actually responding. Let's continue to be frank, then. Grant that our politics are not compatible. (There's a shocker.) Have you noticed that your quoted expert always seems to stay in this article, and mine always seems to vanish? Is there, on the great green earth, any sufficiently qualified skeptic of Zionism whom you would deign to place next to Laqueur? BYT 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
So -- the Soviets didn't really mean "anti-Zionist" ... we know as an objective fact that they really meant "anti-Jew." And Chomsky didn't really mean "anti-Semitism" ... we know as an objective fact that he really meant "'new' anti-Semitism." And Alice cradles the flamingo in her arms and attempts to use its extended neck to strike at a croquet ball.
Speaking of surrealistic transitions, I'd like to throw one back your way, return the conversation to its mooring-point of a few dozen syllables ago, and ask Jay, once again, if any academic skeptical of Zionism is sufficiently qualified to be quoted in this article. He's fallen prey to one of his habitual bouts of mystic silence in the presence of a direct question. BYT 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)