Jump to content

Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 14

Support for living dangerously

I could easily support this bold edit and agree that it would take work. Not the least of which is some apparent confusion between refs used in the lede and in the ‘Contemporary Jewish discussions’ section, to wit:

The relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism is disputed. Some commentators argue that all or most contemporary anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Others disagree with this interpretation.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

And

In recent years, several commentators have argued that contemporary manifestations of anti-Zionism are often used as a cover for antisemitism, and that a "new antisemitism" rooted in anti-Zionism has emerged.[14][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Are these refs saying two things? If so, it is considerably less dangerous.

A second bit of work, IMO, would be needed to remove ‘Jewish’ from ‘Contemporary discussions’ and include some Western non-Jewish povs. The article seems unduly Judeo-centric for NPOV. This includes much in the ‘Jewish opposition to Zionism’ section, which as currently stated, has no relevance to anti-Zionism, but much to do with Zionism. The same general thought seems valid for other sections. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


I removed it because I foresaw problems: some forms of anti-zionism are widely regarded as antisemitic (I agree with this), so one would have to distinguish between different types of anti-Zionism to make it effective and it would probably be too controversial. Also I am busy now and don't have the time to devote to the subject. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which forms of anti-Zionism are "widely regarded as antisemitic"? There is at least one form of Zionism that is antisemitic, along with some/many examples of practitioners which I've listed here. But, at least in developed nations, I can think of almost nothing that would justify your claim. PRtalk 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I actually quite like TA's edit. Whilst I was surfing for information on my friends and yours the JIDF, I did come across some distintly unpleasant anti-Semitic material, for example in reader comments on an Aljazeera page that copied a Haaretz (I think) article on Israeli fascism. Just as I don't think that the fight against anti-Semitism should not involve keeping quiet about some of the unpleasant groups that use this fight as a banner to attract recruits to the less savoury aspects of their movement, I also don't think that words should be minced about their being a nasty anti-Semitic whiff among a lot of the groups that present as anti-Zionist. I've previously amended one of TA's edits thus [1]. We need to identify WP:RSs which distinguish between branches of AZ infested by AS and those not so infested and, in so doing, try and finds ones that aren't using the issue to advance their own views on Israel/Palestine Our own personal views and our own personal analyses are not material we can insert.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too, and we are here. You make an interesting point.
The ‘infested’ certainly describes a common pov concerning the congruence that may occur between aZ and aS. My choice is just congruence, as in: We need to identify which RSs recognize congruence between AZ and AS (several existing non-partisan ones do, e.g.EUMC), and which don’t. These are two distinctly different words and concepts with their own distinct histories; but one birthed the other, again, congruence. The history of a mother is inherited in a child. How should a child wave that now-national flag?
We also need to identify those areas/sources not so congruent, and try to find ones that aren't using one issue to advance the other, and which are. Israel/Palestine is one of those, not yet discussed; EJJP is a prime example and a litmus test of sorts. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


I woke up in the middle of the night with a definition in my head... Should I seek treatment? I think if we find a formula that both Zionists and anti-Zionists can live with we will have made a small contribution to world peace.

At some point I am going to clean up the references in the lead because I think they make it hard to edit.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view what you say in your edit amounts to saying that, since cobalt blue is a particular type of blue, it is not actually blue. I understand that you are trying to accommodate the protests of some antisemitic schmucks, and that is nice of you, but is it really worth the effort? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Now is not the best for me, but I should awake fresh after some time to think. You made one edit, I don't particularly like because it writes my pov out of the article; namely pre-and post-'67 defining line, but I will think on it. I will dangerously continue support for you, feeling that there is plenty of common ground among editors willing to accept, if not agree with NPOV. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


Can you please let us know who these "antisemitic schmucks" are, Malcolm? I have only seen protests by bona-fide good faith editors. RolandR (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that the author of this edit [2] fits Malcolm's description but I don't think that is who he had in mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That's certainly unacceptably offensive. But in what way is it antisemitic? RolandR (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The selection of the Nazi insult when arguing mainly with Jews. Elsewhere I've commented on the use of "pig" as an insult when arguing with Moslem Arabs.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, it's offensive, but I don't see how it is necessarily antisemitic. The epithet "Nazi" is commonly used in Israeli political argument; mainly by the right against the left. Would you argue that the vandal(s) regularly describing me as a Nazi are also antisemitic?RolandR (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
@Peter - please tell us more about this. I'm seeing a lot of Israelis called Nazis in Israel - and it seems to be home to many of them. Eight were convicted last week - from a smallish age-cohort in a modest sized town, Petah Tikva. The secrecy (delays?) surrounding their arrest gives little confidence that Israel is actually fighting the menace - in fact these 32 articles claim that serious antisemitic violence has been simply swept under the carpet for years now. PRtalk 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If you tell him about it, make sure it is someplace other than this article's talk page. This is not an e-forum discussion group. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(Pace Malcolm) The star of David, in a variety of colours, has been a symbol of Judaism and of the Jewish people since medieval times. Israel has adopted the symbol, but before Israel existed Jews over the centuries were forced to wear the symbol of the hexagram by a number of regimes, most notoriously the Nazis. People are still alive who lived under the threat of the Nazis and will rightly see graffiti such as I described as equating Jews in general with Nazis. There are plenty of anti-Zionists who are also antisemitic. There are also plenty of people who are critical of both antisemites and of Zionists. Wikipedia has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Check the link I gave you above, where you'll see the defaced inside of an Israeli synagogue. This descration wasn't carried out by antisemitic natives (who are extremely anti-Zionist, but have never done such a thing that I know of), it was carried out by members of a gang who've taken up Israeli citizenship under the "Right of Return". This on top of all the other examples where there is no link between the anti-Zionist and the antisemitic. Where are these "plenty of anti-Zionists who are also antisemitic"? PRtalk 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware of the Russian Israelis who have recently been jailed for such acts. But the graffiti I described was in South London. The graffiti is intended to equate Jews/Israel/Zionism with Naziism and therefore is not the product of neo-Nazi anti-Semites. British law defines the discriminatory elements of various crimes as being defined by how the victim perceives it, and most Jews will perceive this as anti-Semitic. And thayt graffiti is an example of the plenty of people I was mentioning. Wikipedia policy is not that this article should reflect your, my or Malcolm's analysis, it is that it reflects mainstream analyses published in reliable sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
NPA notice number one, Malcolm, and everyone keeps track, one way or another. (Edit conflict, or I'd be ahead of Roland) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One might say that these are two separate concepts with plenty of overlap.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

deleting reliably sourced and relevant material

Just to let you know [3] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a mystery why this content dispute was taken to ANI. The clip in question is not reliably sourced and could well be false. While Joschka Fischer (once hard-line left "The last rock'n'roller of German politics"), now once a minister because his Green party holds held the balance of power) has swung from being sharply critical of Israel to being very supportive of it, there is no indication anywhere (other than the non-RS Wiesenthal Centre) that Fischer believes "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism." or that he ever said it. Part of the clip (if we trust the translation) we've seen from him seemingly denies this attitude: "To be clear: one's attitude towards the U.S. and towards Israel, as far as I am concerned, is always the acid test. You can use it to detect attitudes and emotions in domestic German politics that are not anti-Semitic so much as they are anti-Western and nationalist, cloaked in the garb of both the left and the right." Earlier he says: "I have personal experience of how anti-Zionism defaulted to anti-Semitism" but nothing to indicate he thinks that others have taken this path.
In addition Fischer is not a "former terrorist" - and this had been agreed earlier. I request that other editors cease interfering with the proper content of TalkPages. PRtalk 18:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to "trust" my translation. If the translation were inaccurate it would already have been shot down by one of the many thousands of German-speaking Wikipedia editors. Also, when Fischer speaks of "personal experience of how anti-Zionism defaulted to anti-Semitism" he is speaking not of himself. I have pointed this out to you, that you ignore this does not reflect well on you. Fischer is referring to the formative event of the 1969 PLO conference in Algiers that he attended, where a call for the destruction of Israel was made. Also, the Entebbe plane hijacking in 1976 in which a German terrorist participated in singling out Jewish hostages. He is emphatically indicating that he "thinks that others have taken this path". This can easily be verified from English-language sources alone, simply by keying a few search terms into Google.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I see that you've just been warned for personal attacks, so you removed the warning, and have proceeded to attack me here, and at your own TalkPage ("comments by PR on the ANI thread were clear evidence of bad faith"). Perhaps the block you're facing will encourage you to mend your ways. PRtalk 20:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
PalestineRemembered, he did not "attack" you, he disagreed with you. You may think the two are the same, but they are not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

#Contemporary Jewish discussions about a-Z and a-S

I have left the following sentence in the article, for the time being, to avoid conflict, in light if recent edits. It says:

Advocates of this concept argue that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel and Zionism is demonization, and has led to an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse. <ref name=Taguieff>Taguieff, Pierre-André. ''Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe''. Ivan R. Dee, 2004.</ref>

This seems to be quite a long, compound sentence to emerge so cleanly without some degree of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; we should discuss it. Does anyone have a copy of the book?

It seems to be at least two complete sentences, and if so, I’d have some questions. First, I like to know who the advocates are. This is an important consideration, because I can see religious and secular differences, with different axes to grind. I’d certainly like to know whom I am reading. Second, is the demonization unconditional, or is it qualified, as in the EUMC ref and (former) Freidman ref. There should be a period after ‘demonization,’ if it is, and an ‘if’ or ‘unless’ if the ref is qualified.

The second proper sentence, ‘[This] has led…’ is where I see some OR; I’d like to see what the specific ref says, likely quoted. The presence of ‘and an increased acceptance...’ only complicates things further, unless the author has conducted some specific surveys, or some thing.

I believe this should be discussed openly, because that is about the only way that I can see it surviving intact. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If it bothers you, why not check the source? If there is something wrong with the way the source is cited, then there is something to complain about. If it is cited correctly, it meets the standard of WP:verify. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat of a less-than-open response, I assume you don’t have the book either. OK, so what does a good wikieditor do if that happens; is there some form of help? I dunno.
I did look for the book though, and found this[4]. This appears to be a reliable, but likely pov’d source. This review synopsis, or synthesis, of the book seems to report much of the book’s implied content; it requires three ‘page downs’ on my screen. The current article, however, has apparently synthesized some of the book’s content in one (be it long) sentence. This does not necessarily constitute a SYNTH violation; because the agendas of the two may be the same with no misrepresentation intended or implied.
In any case, I can find no use of the word ‘demonization’, and this bothers me regarding SYNTH, and it might be rather obvious OR. It is the prime accusation, and must be RS’d adequately. The synopsis does however include several points that are not in this article and should likely be included. Maybe you would feel so inclined to save this sentence, or better yet, improve it to standards of consensus. Better yet, why not look how this ref is used in new anti-Semitism; it contains much less SYNTH than the current.
At this point, I feel that deletion may be best, since the review doesn’t match well with the existing sentence, but that would leave the article with no ‘advocates’, which seems unusual, somehow. But, that would be better than OR and SYNTH. I am tiring of the flippant replies and lack of collaboration. Deletion is a button away, with an edit summary ref here.
I should also note that the ref is also Euro-centric, as I’ve previously noted at #History and context. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I suspect the person with the original source is User:SlimVirgin. She is a careful editor, who sticks closely to what the sources say. You should probably approach her with your questions, before considering deleting the material based on your lack of access to the source and suspicions. Jayjg (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
CasualObserver asked me to comment here, but I'm not quite clear what the question is. If "demonization" is the issue, there is, for example, "By presenting 'Zionism' as the incarnation of absolute evil, an anti-Jewish vision of the world reconstituted itself in the second half of the twentieth century. Like the old "anti-Semitism," in the strong sense of the term, it is characterized by an absolute hatred of Jews as representatives of a single, intrinsically negative entity or exemplars of an evil force ..." (Taguieff, p. 4). In other words, demonization. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it pretty much does indicate it. I also asked, ‘Second, is the demonization unconditional, or is it qualified, as in the EUMC ref’. That ref says “criticism of Israel, similar to that leveled against any other country, cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” My thought was, ‘There should be a period after ‘demonization,’ if it is [unconditional], and an ‘if’ or ‘unless’ if the ref is qualified.’ Could you answer that one? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead and WP:NPOV

I can appreciate that people have been hashing this out, but the current treatment in the lead does not work well. It states:

Anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism, however some forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitic and there are similarities between the two which can lead to confusion. In some cases anti-Zionism has been used to justify anti-semitism. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Opposition to Israeli government policy and to Israeli control of the West-Bank is neither anti-Zionist nor anti-Semitic, although it can stem from anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist opinions. [10]

The problem here is the entire approach, to talk as if there is agreement on these points when clearly the entirety of this is a disputed topic. Statements like "...there are similarities between the two which can lead to confusion" are both condescending and highly contested, not the kind of statement that can go in the WP:Lead. The same could be said for nearly all of these statements.

In fact, WP:NPOV is directly on point:

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

I said this above, but I think people are getting so caught up in resolving this debate as to overlook some of the basics. I'm going to return to a version I think was better for now, despite smaller problems that I think still exist. Mackan79 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I ended up fleshing this out in a little more detail, but in a way that I think may actually be ok.[5] Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as determining what goes where (is/isnt), you might want to look at this[6], and what spurred it. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated before opposition to ISraeli policies is not anti-zionism.

So what is anti-Zionism?

I suggest: Opposition to Jewish self-determination, to the state of Israel as a "state of the Jews" or to the continued presence of Jews in Palestine.

I would add that opposition to the creation of a Jewish state in 1920 is very different in significance to what it means in 2008. The meaning and implicaitons of anti-zionism have changed over time. (as noted by chomsky).

I'm not deleting mackan's changes yet, I'll wait to see what people say here.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's wrong. I am an anti-Zionist, but certainly do not object to "the continued presence of Jews in Palestine"; nor, in principle, to "Jewish self-determination", though I think that the phrase is a bit nebulous and self-referential. Rather, I would argue that anti-Zionism means opposition to the ideology, policies and practices of the World Zionist Organization, and in particular to their imposition in Palestine. In concrete terms, this means ideologically a rejection of the Zionist interpretation/rewriting of Jewish history and to the misconceived Zionist response to European Jew-hatred; and, in political terms, opposition to the continued existence of the state of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people" and to the structural discrimination against Palestinians and other non-Jews in the state, and support for the Palestinian right to return. From my detailed knowledge of anti-Zionist politics, and acquaintance with many anti-Zionistr activists, I believe that this basic position, possibly expressed in slightly different terms, is widely shared. Of course, I'm not demanding that other Wikipedia editors agree with this; nor does the article have to present this as a correct and just position. But at least it should accurately reflect how anti-Zionists themselves define theirr position. RolandR (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant one of those items needs to fit, not all of them together: you seem to fit the middle one. I guess opposition to the israeli occupation needs to be in that list though I don't think it alone makes you an anti-zionist as many zionists oppose it, perhaps on that one its a matter of degree of opposition.

I agree that how anti-zionists define themselves is of importance. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, your original phrasing was a bit unclear, and implied that all of these were characteristic of anti-Zionists. On the 1967 occupation, the issue is subtle. Although of course anti-Zionists oppose continued Israeli military rule (even by proxy) and closure of these territories, I think that most would, like me, see this as a continuation of Israeli policies since 1948. In fact, a focus on opposition to the 1967 occupation alone is probably more characteristic of Zionist moderates than of anti-Zionists. RolandR (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that all of these views are disputed, and fairly clearly so. What's often discussed is the question of exactly "where" criticism of Israel crosses a line into antisemitism. The Klug piece is a good example of someone who broadly defines anti-Zionism, as he cites criticism of Israel's actions in the occupied territories as one legitimate type, and goes on to argue that even where such criticism is unreasonable this still does not necessarily make it antisemitic. It's suggesting that any of these questions are resolved, in my view, that is the mistake; we should simply be discussing the views that exist, rather than somehow melding them to come up with an overarching truth. Mackan79 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Finding a viable definition acceptable to both zionists and anti-zionists is a challenge and would make the articel worthwhile and educational. Its very easy to say "we can't agree and its all very complicated" but it doesn't really help someone trying to learn about the subject. I think your sentence used a lot of words to say very litle. By finding a definition we can help a reader understand the issues and make this a good article.

Telaviv1 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but if you mean to define when anti-Zionism is and is not antisemitic, I find it hard to imagine what agreement we could reach. In the piece I quote above for instance, Brian Klug raises Alan Dershowitz' argument that when criticism of Israel goes from "fair to foul" then it becomes antisemitic, and goes on to disagree with Dershowitz on this point. In any case, I attempted to introduce several important points either directly or implicitly: 1.) that the legitimacy of anti-Zionism is questioned but also defended, 2.) that anti-Zionism can be considered antisemitic but that this is also debated, 3.) that anti-Zionism may be defined in different ways, 4.) that the perceived legitimacy or connection to antisemitism may depend on the type of anti-Zionism, 5.) that anti-Zionism which is closer to opposing the existence of Israel outright is more likely to be considered illegitimate, 6.) that many other views on these issues exist. I am sure more information could be included, but I think this is more than was there before, even if only by listing different views rather than stating certain ones as fact. Mackan79 (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional information wanted

I just made an edit[[7]] in [opposition to Zionism], since it contradicted with the section [Religious Opposition]. As far as I know there are several Orthodox Jewish religions opposing Zionism. But I'm not sure on the Conservative and Reform parts in "with full support from Conservative, and Reform movements." Any thoughts on this?

Now I think of it, "with full support" could be toned down to usual or general. 213.93.145.19 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


I don't understand the question. Are you asking if they support or oppose Zionism? and if you don;t know anything about them why are you making the edit in the first place? "with full support" for what?

Today the conservative and reform movements could generally be described as Zionist though what exactly you understand by that is another question.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that "However, Zionism does have the support of the overwhelming majority of the Jewish religious community, *with full support* from (Orthodox,) Conservative, and Reform movements." is not true. Full support implies every that orthodox, conservative and/or reform movements support Zionism. The Satmar and Edah HaChareidis for example, which are both orthodox and conservative according to their articles are anti-Zionistic, thus invalidating the quoted statement, save for the Reform part.

But your "Today the conservative and reform movements could generally be described as Zionist" pretty much answers my question :) I'll tone down "full support" to "supported in general" and put Orthodox back.213.93.145.19 (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You are quite wrong about the Satmar Chassidim. They are, for instance, absolutely opposed to Israel making any territorial compromise with Palestinians that would involve Jerusalem, Hebron, or any other land they consider Jewish land that was given to Jews by God. Their, so called, anti-Zionism is really mostly an objection to the secular nature to the Sochnut, and the state of Israel [8]. (Many Zionists consider Satmar opposition largely based on a need to hide their failed policies that lead to the deaths of many of so many their followers, who might have been saved if they had listened to the Zionists.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification! 213.93.145.19 (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism category

The Category:Antisemitism is for articles which discuss the topic of antisemitism in some way. It is not a claim that the subject is equated with antisemitism. As is obvious, this article does that, and therefore the category belongs. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree it's at least arguably appropriate with the caveat at the top of the category. I'm not sure it's obvious, as a clearer category would seem better. The situation may be analogous to Category:Socialism; I see it includes Social democracy but not Liberalism. However, Category:Communism does not include Socialism, though it includes possibly more directly related subtopics such as Real socialism. I'm not sure the category here is without problem, but I suppose I can see it going either way. Mackan79 (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
An 'Alleged Antisemitism' Category is needed, otherwise many articles may be included. Who makes the allegation and for what reason? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
First of all, all antisemitism is "alleged antisemitism". And second of all, the category does not allege antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Edit Conflict...I reverted, because I feel staying with the long-existing consensus (checked history) should prevail. Obviously, we will have discussion on this. Let me get this straight; please elucidate on 'in some way.' I very much appreciate that the words weren't 'in any way.' Basically, I dispute the cat-tag, because, I take it as an assessment of guilt, by a particular POV; kabam, you are caught, guilty by association, you dirty anti-Semite. That just doesn't seem quite wiki-right. Therefore the category does not belong, for now. In which way, Jay. Cordially, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
What "longstanding consensus are you referring to"? The category refers to subjects which discuss antisemitism. This article discusses it at length, it has a whole section devoted to it. The category itself is clear it's not claiming the subjects of the articles are antisemitic - it's not Category:Antisemitic ideologies. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Where is your elucidation on 'in some way.' Please, I asked and expect an answer.
The long standing history, since you ask is from July '07, until the recent change in November. The whole thing looks something this:
I looked at the beginning, 6 Sept 02here, edit sum says ‘this was 48% of the "anti-Semitism" article’No Cats here[9], but is is listed in ‘Related Articles’; I concede that and wouldn’t argue it, anyway. Cats do appear here. It has two, one, {{Israel and Zionism}} no longer exists. Before the end of 2004, the articlestands here, with the AntiSemitism tag, but still no refs. By end June ’05 the article[10] still has the Cat tag. Still there at the end of 2005.
By 11 June 06 [11] the Anti-Semite tag is gone and the Racism Category is also removed. Requirement for refs has started, at some point.
Around 11 Nov, 06 [12], the cat is disputed again. Antisemitism Cat there at end of year 2006 [13], end March ‘07[14], and April[15], May[16], June[17]. Somewhere in this time a new Antisemitism Template has been added. Just noticed that.
Antisemitism cat is gone by end July ‘07[18], But August[19], Sept[20], October[21], November[22] The no-cat, yes template consensus continues to the end of 2007.
The situation continues through end of March ‘08[23], but the Svedish version has been added, maybe they won their battle. Still absent at end June, ‘08[24], July[25], Aug[26], Sept[27], October[28], when there is a discrimination template added from somewhere, holy cow.
Nov '08[29] finishes up with the Antisemitism cat again and just the Zionism template. It is the same now. Now we have to deal with it, again. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Did you notice the lengthy section Anti-Zionism#Contemporary discussions about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, which discusses the relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism? That would be an indication that the article discusses antisemitism "in some way". To claim that the article does not discuss antisemitism, or that the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is not an extremely important topic in antisemitism, is perverse at best. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Perverse at best? Come on Jayjg, even if I knew what perverseness was better than, that's a personal attack. Mackan79 (talk) 07:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(Back dent) I did and I understand. It's related, I won't argue. However, the article has been duly tagged with the antisem template; I believe that the template establishes that relationship to an extent that sufficiently qualifies it. That was the previous consensus.

The Antisemitic Category is a whole different kettle of fish, in my mind, that the template. Maybe you know the wiki-hierarchy in classifications; I believe admins were/are supposed to. I don't, but I consider that a category probably includes a higher degree of affinity, a closer relationship, a tighter limit on 'in some way,' as you put it. This article is anti-Zionism it is not the New anti-Semitism article, which discusses this exact point and attempts to directly relate the two. I feel that the addition of the antisem category for the anti-Zionism article establishes a much closer affinity than anti-Zionism deserves and where NPOV should be. I also feel that the antisem template is appropriate for that relationship, with a consensus that had prevailed for some time, until recently. Feel free to comment, or other editors; I'll take a look tomorrow. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It has been two days and no reply. Does that mean no objection? consensus? CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and Nationalism

If Zionism is a form of nationalism, then anti-Zionism would be a form of anti-nationalism. The rationale for anti-Zionism would persumably be no different from any other form of anti-nationalism. If anti-Zionism in fact differs from nationalism, in what way is it different?

Taking a look at the lede I see it is quite obtuse:

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the international Jewish political movement that established a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”), and continues to support the state of Israel.[1] Opposition to Zionism has changed over time and has taken on a spectrum of religious, ethical, political or military forms. Some include, opposition to the creation of a Jewish state prior to the appearance of the messiah, objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority, differing democratic values and differing dimensions[2] or rejection of Israel's right to exist in any form.

If you are going to include "the spectrum of religious, ethical, political or military forms" (which is unclear at best) the rest of your article should clarify those "forms", which it doesn't as it stands. Instead it characterises anti-Zionism by various groups: ie Arab, Muslim, Soviet, Jewish, Western etc anti-Zionism. I propose rewriting the first paragraph to say something more like this:

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the international Jewish political movement that established a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”) and today includes continues as support for the Jewish state of Israel. Arguments for anti-Zionism have changed over time and cover a wide spectrum of rationale. Some of the arguments may include anti-nationalistic elements, objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority, and opposition to Israel's values and/or borders [2], while others reject Israel's right to exist in any form.

Any thoughts? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Zionism is not nationalism, it's a view that the Jews should have their own country...you might call that nationalism but it's not the nationalism that fascism advocates.--Patton123 16:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In what way is it different then? // Liftarn (talk)

Not clear on your answer. What exactly is the "nationalism that fascism advocates" and how is it relevant to his article? What "fascism" are we talking about? Are you suggesting that Zionism is the same as "fascism"? Please clarify. Tundrabuggy (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is a point to this discussion, it is lost to me. This talk page is for improving the article, and this is not is not an anti-Zionism e-forum discussion group. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Malcolm, I put up a tentative version for the first paragraph which I consider an improvement over what is written. It also includes a mention of anti-nationalism, which one of the editors here claimed was his rationale for being an anti-Zionist. Again, I would appreciate any thoughts on the paragraph as I have rewritten it. Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence as written is equally bad, imho:

The legitimacy of anti-Zionist views has been disputed into the present day, along with the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Some commentators argue that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel or its policies, particularly in the occupied territories.[3] Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents an opposition even to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic. A range of other views regarding the various forms of anti-Zionism is discussed and debated.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

What is a "legitimate" view and what is required to legitimize it? It is however definitely an open question as to how much the "anti-Zionist" view is motivated by, or motivates, inherent racism. One can be a critic of Israel and/or its policies without being an anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism is defacto opposition to Israel's existence since Zionism is described the movement to establish self determination in 'Eretz Yisra'el' ie the state of Israel. Zionism is support for the Jewish homeland and Jewish self-determination. Anti-Zionism is a position on Zionism. That position by definition is in opposition to Israel's existence. Whether that opposition is based on anti-nationalism, territorial designs, religious animosity, or racism, only the holder of the view can really know. As for the last sentence in that paragraph, it is not for wikipedians to discuss and debate a wide range of views, merely to represent them. Still looking forward to some discussion to my rewrite of the first paragraph. Is silence acquiescence? Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a re-write of my re-write:
Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, the international Jewish political movement that established a homeland for the Jewish People in the Palestinian Mandate area (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”) and today continues as support for the Jewish state of Israel. Arguments for anti-Zionism have changed over time and cover a wide spectrum of rationale. Some of the arguments may include anti-nationalistic elements, objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority, opposition to Israel's values and/or borders [2], and rejection of Israel's right to exist in any form. Many commentators believe that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic, while others believe that the charge of anti-Semitism is used as a tool to silence "legitimate criticism" of Israel and its policies. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The anti-nationalism argument seems irrelevant, because anyone opposed on that ground to the Israel, would logically have to be opposed to the existence all nations and nationalities equally -- i.e. an anarchist. There is no reason to mention opposition to Zionist nationalism in particular, if the basis of the opposition is opposition to the existence any and every nation in general. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Efforts on this are appreciated. You might also look here for the anti-definition and some additional perspective, while you are at it. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, internationalists or anti-nationalists are ofcourse against any souch artificial construct. Those who oppose nationalism ofcourse also oppose zionism on that ground. The opposition to zionism then ofcourse may be more vocal due to historic and recent events. // Liftarn (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
That is not acceptable. There are even Jews who are antisemitic, and certainly other, non-Jewish Semites, can likewise be antisemitic -- a term that is (by accepted usage) applied only to Jews. (Sorry if some other semitic groups, who resent that the term is not applied to them also, suffer from antisemitism envy.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

clunky citations

A few huge rows of citations, and not enough in many places. Please ration the verifications of statements to one, two or three citations. Remember that other citations can always be placed in "See also" and "External links". Tony (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

and/or ethnic nationalism

Per the suggestion of Liftarn (talk · contribs), I've moved the following phrase to Talk:

and/or ethnic nationalism<ref>[http://www.swans.com/library/art12/mneu02.html Ethnic Nationalism Versus Common Sense], by [[Michael Neumann]]</ref><ref>''Ethnic Nationalism and State Power: The Rise of Irish Nationalism, Afrikaner Nationalism and Zionism'' by Mark Suzman, ISBN 0-333-73373-8</ref>

Liftarn has repeatedly inserted this, or similar variations, into the lede. To begin with, the article lede should only summarize material discussed in the article, not introduce new material. In addition, the first citation is of a book review on a website of unclear reliablility, whose specific connection to the topic of this article is not clear: it only mentions "anti-Zionism" (or in this case "anti-Zionist") in relation to "orthodox Jews", which the author surely is not, and does not connect it to "ethnic nationalism". The connection of the second source is even less clear, since the citation is incomplete - we have no page number, to see what Liftarn is referring to. Liftarn, can you provide proper sourcing for this, in the body of the article? In particular, we want sources that discuss anti-Zionism, and the relationship of it to ethnic nationalism. Jayjg (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not check the sources? Michael Neumann is a professor of moral and political philosophy at Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada and you can check his credentials at http://www.trentu.ca/academic/philosophy/neumann.htm As for the other source, the title is "Ethnic Nationalism and State Power: The Rise of Irish Nationalism, Afrikaner Nationalism and Zionism". If it's in the title I don't think page numbers are really usefull. // Liftarn (talk)
If you want a specific quote, just pic one. Like "opponents of Zionism have never worried about Jews going to Jerusalem, next year or any other year, nor does anyone worry about Jews remembering Jerusalem. The worry is about the imposition of Jewish -- secular Jewish -- ethnic sovereignty in Palestine.". Is is OK to assume that "opponents of Zionism" is the same thing as anti-zionists? // Liftarn (talk)
Hmm.. Sounds like he is another anti-zionist conspiracy theorist. Not a very nice one either:

We should almost never take antisemitism seriously, and maybe we should have some fun with it. I think it is particularly unimportant to the Israel-Palestine conflict, except perhaps as a diversion from the real issues.

and, stating that Israel's goal is the extinction of the Palestinian people

True, Israel has enough PR-savvy to eliminate them with an American rather than a Hitlerian level of violence. This is a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.

and

"If an effective strategy means that some truths about the Jews don't come to light, I don't care. If an effective strategy [of helping the Palestinians] means encouraging reasonable anti-Semitism, or reasonable hostility to Jews, I also don't care. If it means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism, or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care." [30]

Why do you think material from this problematic source should be in the lead? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I did read the sources. Neumann is iffy as a source to begin with, and his "response" to a review of his book was published on an iffy website. More importantly, he doesn't actually discuss anti-Zionism and ethnic nationalism in his response. As for Mark Suzman, a journalist for a financial newspaper isn't the first place I'd look for a discussion of anti-Zionism and ethnic nationalism. I have no problem with "opponents of Zionism" being the equivalent of anti-Zionists. I'm not quite as keen on equating ethnic sovereignty with ethnic nationalism. Do you have any sources that actually discuss anti-Zionism as a movement or belief system, and note its views of ethnic nationalism in this regard? If so, please work them into the body of the text, and then we'll see what, if anything, should be summarized in the lede. Oh, and page numbers are always "useful" - in the case of book citations, mandatory, in fact. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Your personal dislike is hardly relevant. What matters is that we have two reliable sources saying that zionism is a form of ethnic nationalism and some anti-zionists oppose it on that ground. I think a professor of political philosophy would be reliable enough. As for being in a financial newspaper it's still a newspaper that is a reliable source. // Liftarn (talk)
Even if a source is notable, it does not necessarily follow that the source is also reliable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
No, but in this case they are both. It's somewhat of a moot point anyway since it's about views and opinions, not hard facts as such. // Liftarn (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I haven't brought up my personal likes or dislikes, so I fail to see why you do. Focus on article edits, not other editors. Reliable sources are reliable in their areas of expertise; a nuclear physicist isn't a reliable historian and vice versa. Neumann doesn't make the argument you attribute to him, and he doesn't make his arguments in a reliable source. Suzman is a reporter on financial matters, not even a reporter on politics, much less an academic studying the topic. The lede should summarize what's in the article, not introduce new topics. Address those points. Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the exact question here, but I see the first sentence under Anti-Zionism#Religious_opposition states: "In the early history of Zionism many traditional religious Jews opposed ideas of nationalism (Jewish or otherwise) which they regarded as a secular ideology and because of an inherent suspicion of change." It seems to me this is a fairly common discussion, as is the counter charge that anti-Zionists are selective in their anti-nationalism. Mackan79 (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see some reliable sources discussing this; are you aware of any? Jayjg (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

With a little reviewing, sure. Chaim Gans discusses it in Israel and the Palestinian Refugees, pg. 261.

“It should be recalled, however, that an anti-Zionist stance deriving from the rejection of nationalism grounded in socialism, cosmopolitan liberalism, or neutralist liberalism must, for consistency, reject also the establishment of a state that would realize the Palestinian right to self-determination in Palestine. It can only support the establishment of a culturally neutral state in Palestine where Jews and Arabs coexist. Yet I am skeptical as to the defensibility of the various theses upon which this rejection of nationalism rests.”

Ronald Beiner has some extended discussion in Liberalism, Nationalism, Citizensip on pg 111:

“In pursuing my critique of nationalism as an alternative to liberalism, let me focus on what I see as the decisive problem […]. To simplify the argument, let us limit ourselves to discussion of Zionist nationalism, though the same analysis could be applied to any state conceived in nationalist categories. […] What qualifies Zionism as a classic form of nationalism is not that it involves a celebration of Israeli nationality or Israeli citizenship, but rather, that it provides an ideology that specifies the properly nationalist ‘’content’’ of this citizenship, namely Jewish national belonging….”

Beiner continues on the next page:

“Similar issues are debated in a very lively exchange between Michael Walzer and James Rule. Rule argues for the unmitigated anti-nationalist position that Israel’s self-conception as an officially Zionist state is morally intolerable. In response, Walzer writes: "There can’t be a political community of any sort that doesn’t favor some particular people....” This is beyond dispute, but it doesn’t address the crucial issue here, which is whether it is morally proper for the state to favour one tribe over another ‘’within’’ the boundaries of a shared civic life.”

Relevant to our sentence under the Religious Opposition section, Sharman Kadish states in Bolsheviks and British Jews, pg. 171-172:

“Thus when the British government solicited the views of leading British Jews on the issue of Zionism during 1917, Lucien Wolf was at the forefront of the anti-nationalist lobby. He poured scorn on the ‘propaganda card’ case for Zionism. On the contrary, ‘The Revolution’, he declared, ‘ …has relieved the Allied Governments of any absolute necessity to deal with the Zionist question at all.’ On this point, Claude Montefiore, Anglo-Jewry’s most intellectual exponent of Liberal Judaism and anti-nationalism, was Wolf’s staunchest ally. In an interview with Lord Milner, also during May 1917, he stated quite categorically that ‘It has obviously been represented to His Majesty’s Government that the Russian Jews are all enthusiastic Zionists. I said that I did not believe that this was by any means the case.’”

Speaking again to the criticism, Benjamin Balint discusses Tony Judt's "selective anti-nationalism" on pg. 171 of The Jewish Divide over Israel. I believe Einstein was also said to be conflicted about this. (“Much as he had made a principled compromise in accepting Zionist nationalism in the face of his bedrock faith in internationalism, so Einstein, ever the pragmatist, accepted in the name of solidarity the political agenda of the World Zionist Organization though his sympathies lay elsewhere.”)[31] There is plenty more, certainly, but perhaps there is enough there to go from. Mackan79 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start, thanks. Maybe it's just me, but Gans and Balint seem to address the issue more directly, particularly than Beiner. Jayjg (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Beiner is clear on the point that opposition to Zionism falls in the general class of opposition to nationalism, and interesting for that reason. I'm sure they could be used in one way or another, but then it was more Liftarn who wanted to make the point, so I'm not sure if I'll be writing a section. Mackan79 (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Einstein was idealistic on the subject of internationalism, but as is often the case, the ideal proved not to work in the material world [32]. Another who seems to have had a similar anti-nationalist idealism was Constantin Brunner [33]. After 1933, his beautiful hopes for a better world were reduced to ruins. The historical reasons for how things came to be the way they now are is for the most part ignored in our current New Left anti-Zionism, which prefers a simple and easy idealism to real world historical difficulties [34][35]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

article ugly

I did some fixing. There is some content stuff that needs to be fixed, most on section headers (which are mostly non-existent), and the strucutre itself, but I am not sure I want to edit here as there is a wider debate I don't have time for and seems to be going its way. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What Happened to Anti-Israel?

Why does Anti-Israel redirect to "Anti-Zionist"?

Anti-Israel deserves its own article because it is not the same as "Anti-Zionist". The article says that "Anti-Zionist" is opposition to a Jewish movement called Zionism. If that is true, then "Anti-Zionism" cannot be the same as Anti-Israel. Israel is not merely a Jewish movement. People support Israel for all kinds of reasons, including science, justice, capitalism, human resources, etc. Many of these people would not consider themselves religious "Zionists" but they are still under attack by a very real "Anti-Israel" movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.244.178 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Split this article

The trouble with this article is that it does not understand that both Zionism and anti-Zionism became museum pieces on May 17, 1948. People who call themselves Zionists or anti-Zionists are delusional, they think they are living in a past more than 60 years ago.

Everything called "anti-Zionism" that refers to events after the date on which the state of Israel was established should be transferred into a new article anti-Israelism.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion. The fact is that many people do indeed refer to themselves as anti-Zionists, and the task of Wikipedia is not to convince them that they are wrong, or misnamed, but to document this using reliable and verifiable sources 0-- which are numerous. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This looks rather like an off-the-wall suggestion that will waste the time of good faith editors. Before we discuss it lets discuss the elephant in the room - why is this article dominated by smears of its proponents as antisemitic, when its matching partner, the Zionism article, doesn't mention the antisemitism of many of its most important supporters? PRtalk 09:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


I have been wondering PR, why you thought the Wisenthal centre are not a reliable source. Is it because you believe the Holocaust has been exaggered or is a lie?

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That (Telaviv1's speculation) smells like a smear to me. Aminorex (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

the comment relates to an earlier discussion with which you are unfamiliar. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The earlier discussion relates to a discussion I attempted to get started on the RS status of the SWC, which I indicated to be poor. Norman Finkelstein calls them "a gang of heartless and immoral crooks, whose hallmark is that they will do anything for a dollar. As I point out in the book, the guy who runs their headquarters in Los Angeles, runs it as a family business, and in the mid 1990's they were collectively raking in $525 000 a year." There is nothing new about attempts to smear sources as Holocaust Deniers instead of attempting to operate the policies of the project. PRtalk 16:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Format, etc.

Per my comment to Telaviv1 here, I've redone the change that placed the history/overview first, and discussion of contemporary debates second. This seems much more conventional, easy to navigate, and reader-friendly among other things. I also removed the section on governmental reports, since the material wasn't prepared in an encyclopedic style and seemed to add only a great deal of repetition to the preceding section. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism paragraph 2 of lead

The argument that anti-Zionism may, at times or all the time, be anti-semitic is contentious, POV, and inappropriate for the lead of this encyclopedia article. Perhaps a sentence would be appropriate, but not a paragraph.Haberstr (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the paragraph does a pretty good job of laying out the range of viewpoints. However wrongly, many do equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism. Dlabtot (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

the article provides plenty of evidence that antizionism is or leads to antisemitism. hence it belongs in the lead. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It deserves a sentence or clause and not a paragraph. A much better use of that paragraph would be to make it one that tells the reader the general organization of the article that will follow, including noting that there will be a discussion of the disputed anti-semitism relationship.Haberstr (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Antisemetism and Anti-Zionism

In the introduction it is suggested that those who deny Israel's right to exist are antisemetic, while those who deny the policies of Israel are simply anti-Zionist. Personally, I do not consider myself anti-Semetic, but do consider myself against Israel's existance. Perhaps the introduction could be made less ambiguous? --86.168.120.171 (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Anti- zionist do not support Zionism (the existance of the State of Israel within the Arab territory of Palestine). Thus, anti- zionism does not just mean beeing against the policy of the state of Israel, but beeing opposed to the State itself (for reasons like human rights and international law, the racialist idea that this country, where formerly Arabs have lived in, is "their god given country" Anti zionism = against the state of Israel (itself) - against the political movement///Anti Judaism/ semitism = beeing against every Jewish men or women, even if they are anti- zionist jews. Greez, --Englishazadipedia (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If to use your definition then Nazis were also not anti-Semites. Se Madagascar Plan , for example. They also said that there was German or European land, and Jews should not be there, but were fine with Jews living in Madagascar. Also i don't think that supporting destruction of any state or nation is pro-human rights or pro-international law. However I agree that not all people who against Israel's existence are anti-Semitic, but most are. Gaddafi from Libya, says that there should be one state for both people, and not Israel or Palestine, he is not anti-Semitic. But if somebody say that all people, like French, Germans, Palestinians and other should have their state, but only Jews not, than he is anti-Semitic. And those who say Jews should not live in "Arab land" are of course also anti-Semitic, and racist just as those who says Arabs should not live on "Jewish land".

Anti-Zionism is not a political party or a country. This article should only assume that anti-Zionism is anti-Zionism... Funny how every Zionist ultimately resorts to: "But, but... the Nazis!!". Mortician103 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

==

Israel is a member of the UN and tis creation was supported by both League of Nations and the UN. If you oppose its existence then you are against international law. nor can opposing its existence have any support from human rights, since a. this places you in opposition to the the human rights of most israelis, b. human rights have nothing in them requiring that israel cease to exist. European antisemities used the same arguments you are using, claiming that Jews had no natural right to live in Europe since they were a middle eastern people. you have just reversed the locality while reaching the same conclusion: eg that the Jews in quesiton have no right to exist.

saying you aren't atnsemitic if you only hate Israelis is like saying you arent a racist if you only hate Africans. 

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionism in abstract vs Zionism as colonial project in Palestine

The article very much needs, at the very start, to recognize that anti-Zionism regarding the first is fundamentally different from anti-Zionism regarding the second.Haberstr (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Along these same lines, a comparison between Neo-Zionism and Post-Zionism might be helpful in defining these. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism and Anti-Israelism

I think some people can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Israel. There are a number of political parties in Israel who have either dissenting views to official state ideology, or who are flatly anti-Zionist. To the contrary, the American Jewish community does not allow this kind of dissent because the US community is strongly fragmented among liberal and conservative lines. Hence, there is one particular ideology out there which conflates anti-Americanism with anti-Zionism (see for example Zionist Occupation Government and criticism of The New York Times) ADM (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vatican anti-Zionism

The Vatican did formally oppose Zionism at the beginning of the 20th century and this should probably noted somewhere in the article. For instance, Cardinal Merry del Val reportedly explained Pope Pius's policy of non possumus to Theodore Herzl and his emerging Zionist movement, saying that as long as the Jews deny the divinity of Christ, the Church certainly could not make a declaration in their favor. [1] The Vatican was also critical of the British Mandate in Palestine [36], it maintained friendly relations with the anti-Zionist Arab world during difficult periods and it did not establish diplomatic relations with Israel until 1993 because of alternate positions on the status of Jerusalem. ADM (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

About section: Aliyah and Zionism in Jewish thought

This section seems disjointed. The first paragraph doesn’t say that aliyah is a major tenet of Zionism, especially in the early post-state days, prior the newer concept of an ‘aliyah light.’ It does however, give a short history of aliyah in the Middle Ages, which seems excessive, predates Zionism by a bit, and is too off topic here. How about cutting the list to three, your choice, and using ‘followers’ etc only once. There also seems to be a problem with ‘and Zionists trace their roots to the founding of Judaism.’ I had always thought it was widely RS’d to the Herzl era. As currently written, there seems to be excessive pov retro-activity and OR; it would to better to finish early religious aliyah, before we bring in political Zionism.

The second paragraph basically says the same thing another way; it too should be noted before Zionism. Likely all could be worked into the preceding paragraph; the diaspora lasted longer before the Middle ages than since. Also, since this is all generally pro-Zionist thought, it seems to be a bit heavy for the anti- page, maybe we should stop at ‘next year in Jerusalem’ too.

The third ‘graph brings in Zionism, and notes its relationship to aliyah in reverse. It notes that there are two general types opposed, but does not note why. I thought the article was to include the ‘why’. Maybe the diaspora should be included here also, since it still constitutes a majority of Jews. There have also been some changes within Zionism in the period, which caused temporary or permanent opposition. Yet it finishes with ‘support of the overwhelming majority’ with references that really don’t say that.

The fourth ‘graph is a stand alone sentence; it should be included above. I also note that non-Jews are excluded by the phrasing. I believe they have RS’d povs, which should be noted. The last ‘graph is definitely post-Herzl; the depth of detailed links seems quite off-topic, from a non-Jewish, non-Zionist perspective. All in all, the way it now reads, it seems an incomplete version of ‘Aliyah and Judaism in Zionist thought’, which seems a possibly better foundation on which to build the following subsections. I suggest the name change. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been here almost a month, with no comments. I make the comment to keep the section active, in light of other happenings and in an effort to delay it being BOT'd to archive. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing unsourced/falsely sourced/unverifiable info

Since that tag's been up there for two years, it's time someone did. Plus a few other tweaks to make more NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did enough for today. But this article sure has a lot of unsourced opinion posing as fact that needs sourcing or cutting. And needs a lot more balancing sourced facts about anti-Zionist criticisms, individuals, groups worldwide. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I do not agree with all your edits, I certainly believe that your edit summaries describing each individual edit within this block[37] provide considerably more justification for them than the next edit[38], which deletes all with a simple ‘rv’. A slower editing cycle might also help; I certainly agree that the article needs considerable improving and tend to agree with many edits. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I was on a little too much coffee and sometimes will speed through a new article that is very messy in an excess of enthusiasm.
However, I think 90% of my edits will hold and will quickly bring them to proper forum now that I see that someone with a strong COI who has lived in Israel for a long time and has been frequently sanctioned for accusing other editors of antisemitism has seen fit to mass revert them.
Re; long text in footnotes, I wasn't really going too much by POV, though I assumed there was some. In general we don't include long quotes that easily are accessible from a linked article. A very short summary of why the person might want to go there seems acceptable. If the info is that important, it should be later in the relevant part of the article.
Also, I really didn't look at the overall structure of the article, but it certainly seems like History of antizionism is not best way to present the various ideas because a) the history before and after creation of Israel are different among all groups and b) the behaviors of Israel have ratched up antizionism among groups over the years and that's what needs to be reflected, in cause and effect style where WP:RS show there are such. But working on other stuff for a couple days so will control self for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I decided to revert the whole thing, not because I think it is perfect, but a) because there was no explanation for the revert and b) because I did largely do it in sections which can be dealt with one issue at a time, cooperatively. I'll control myself on edits to remaining material I haven't touched yet, for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In an article that has been as disputed as this one, it would be normal to
  1. discuss such major changes before making them, not after making them; or
  2. make the changes one at a time, allowing time for discussion before going on tho the next.
Which one of these two options do you prefer? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent>That obviously is a more cooperative attitude. By the way, I didn't notice the big archives, just a few talk sections and given a two year old Citations tag on top of page I just assumed no one was paying attention. Then I got busy. :-)

  • But where there are clear violations of policy or obvious editorial glitches, like unsourced and possibly WP:OR/otherwise dubious material that gets replaced by WP:RS sourced material, or deleting redundant material, no one has to ask permission. And that is the

first thing that has to be done. Since I did a bunch of sections, why don't I see what clearly does not fit that and see how much of it is cleanly reverted then I'll opine further. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Details/explanations on changes made

Please quote and respond below; do NOT break up material or I'll move comments down. Thanks.
1. this article is called “Anti-Zionism” not “Anti-zionism is antisemtisim” or “Replies to every points anti-Zionists ever made” so it should reflect that fact or it’s POV.
2. again one doesn’t need permission to replace longtime unsourced WP:OR material with sourced material. If it needs more references, put a Fact tag on it and give a person 24 hours to find it.
3. Changes made and discussion

  • 09:41, April 19, 2009 (edit) (undo) simple fact tag
  • Lead: Removed long argumentative quotes in references arguing Zionism good or antiZionism is bad; almost all can be read in the linked document; some could be moved down to relevant sections; obviously extreme POV pushing; if any of them say anything neutral also belong in relevant part of text
    • 10:33, April 19, 2009
    • 10:35, April 19, 2009
    • 10:45, April 19, 2009
  • Reverted back all edits on Aliyah and Zionism in Jewish thought because I got confused on a few things and should go to talk to clarify those first.
  • Western/Arab/Muslim/Russian sections: replacement of what I wrote with actual sourced info is proper; reverting back to unsourced WP:OR is not
    • 11:18, April 19, 2009 removed unsourced wp:or; noted various [citation needed]-BLPs need ref or removable; simplify unsourced material to least controversial statements; removed unnecessary pro-Zionist argumentation - if it's important, put it where it belongs or discuss at talk; better summary of issue that needs more details
    • 11:19, April 19, Removed simple WP:OR/opinion
    • 11:22, April 19, 2009 Noted section needs expanding and fact tag; will work on
    • 11:30, April 19, 2009 Removed unnecessary old stuff; pared down to probably true, NOT wp:undue stuff needs [citation needed]; Russian language sourced dubious-if important find English)
  • International Section: replacement of what I wrote with actual sourced info is proper; reverting back to unsourced WP:OR is not
    • 12:03, April 19, 2009 and 12:31, April 19, 2009 : included new ref'd info; moving one quote arguing it’s antisemitism to relevant section (leave it there); pared some of stuff needs paring
    • 12:04, April 19, 2009 moved MLKing quote to antisemitism section
    • 12:31, April 19, 2009 Tutu and HQ Wells quotes; ref'd info on hostilties; removed unsourced, redundant, overly detailed and/or WP:OR material)
    • 12:44, April 19, 2009 spell, wikilnk, clarify; more ref'd info; [citation needed])
    • 14:03, April 19, 2009 clarify, correct and add footnotes; other clear causes of hostilities towards Zionism; ref for connection)

There are lot's more changes I see needed, addition and subtraction wise, but that's the story for now.
CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:SOAP. Do not use this talk page as a soapbox for your personal views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What soap, it was removed. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
For starters, I have reverted your removal of the longish blockquote in the lede, simply because it starts out by saying, “Reflecting the traditional divisions within the Zionist movement...” and then covers events and how they are seen by two major opposing views within Zionism, from the 1967 war to Rabin’s assignation. This is not POV; it is a basic statement that notes various issues and stands directly related to the subject of anti-Zionism. The removal of material prior to “as the first Intifada made disturbingly visible…” essentially guts the fuller historical context. I should note that its insertion was mine, and I have a longer historical horizon than just what is in news now. I also moved the fact-tagged appendage at the end to a position more chronologically correct higher in the paragraph.
Concerning section, Aliyah and Zionism in Jewish thought, I guess you might have seen my previous comments here. Many of your other edits are Wiki-righteous and point to the article’s generally POV’d framing of ‘Zionism is good and anti-Zionism is bad’.
This brings up another problem I see in the lede sentence, which I believe must be discussed and included. It is the prepositional phrase, which says “and continues to support the state of Israel. The problem is that there are several ideologies within Zionism which support Israel with much different concepts of what Israel is/should be; as the Del Sarto quote points out, some of these are supporting the State of Israel, while others support the concept of Eretz Israel as defining the State. These differing basic concepts, in and of themselves, cause considerable anti-Zionism. If this is ref’d in the beginning, then it would be much easier to define and discuss our subject. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Missed your comments on Aliyah but did figure out I needed to study article more to figure out what needed changing there.
The lead is just too complicated and tries to cover in footnotes issues that should be explored in the body. There is no real discussion of various intelligent anti-Zionist viewpoints and I did see at least one in one footnote. Remember, the debate is NOT just within the Jewish community but between the Jewish community and a lot of gentiles who have a variety of critiques. And that needs to be reflected in the article. The overall structure of the article is a big problem causing some of the lead problems, so that's what I'm addressing right now and will post here soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Structure

Thoughts? 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this structure. I think that the antisemitism, conpsiracy theories and facist anti-zionism needs to be integrated into the overall article rather then housed as seperate sections. You place different debates as if they are of equal importance when really some are minor or the views of tiny minorities.

The sections on Arab and islamic anti-zionism need to stress that this has usually been antisemitic and frequently led to expulsion and persectuion of Jewish communities. The soviet section should also mention the perseucition of Soviet JEws under the guise of anti-zionism (for example bans on teaching hebrew, circumcision etc). The Colonialism issue could be put under the arab section.

In the west, there need to be mention of far-right anti-zionism and the alliance of the far-right and far-left and their alliance with islamic and arab nationalism. For example David Duke of the KKK whose speech was breadcast live on syrian TV and who met with ahmadinajad, the palestinian mufti's role in the SS, the nazi funding of the PFLP and of german far left terror gorups (see Francois Genoud).

there is a problem of confusion over jewish responses to zionism in which non-zionists like augdat israel are describved as being anti-zionist and readers are mislead as to the relative strength of jewish anti-zionism. This error needs to be corrected.

There needs to be mention of the british war against zionism 1939-1949 and its impact on the british jewish community (the pogroms of 1947 for example) and the contemporary situation of jews in the uk.

The atnisemitism displayed at the Durban conference and at its successor in switzerland needs to be mentioned. The role of christian-European NGOs and the Catholic church in anti-zionism should also be mentioned. I have to go now.

Telaviv1 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Augdat Israel, it is a mistake to think of them as anti-Zionist in the sense use by WP's anti-Zionist editors. Their objection is to secular Zionism and the secular Israeli state. As can be seen here [39][40][41] "they tend to favor perpetuation of the occupation and vote with the right against peace moves or negotiations". Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that throughout antiZionist movements, tendencies, commentary there is both truly and clearly anti-Jewish bigotry and legitimate criticism of specific behaviors without any evidence of bigotry, except by those who consider any criticism of Zionism antisemitic, which obviously is a big problem which should be identified early on. (Perhaps the antisemitism/conspiracy debate section belongs on top of article as part of intro.) Similarly some people (including professors) identify in a socio-political fashion clear patterns of organized lobbying and pressure group behavior which can be identified in any special interest groups without being accused of bigotry. Others engage in wild conspiracy theories based on only the most adhoc "evidence"
In either case, a clear differentiation of the two is necessary.
The question is, do you do it in each subsection based on geographical/political views or do you do it in separate subsections, allowing the geographical/political ones to only identify the NON-antisemitic/antiJewish views and activities. As long as it is one way or the other, I don't care. But it's absurdly redundant and POV to do it in both the geographical/political views AND separate sections on antisemitism and conspiracy theories.
In short as edit summary says: antisemitism/conspiracy should either being in geo/political sections OR own sections NOT both. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I don't think they should be in seperate sections but should be worked into the main body of the article. However given the conflict this article generates it was easier to put them in as sperate sections then to work them in. My long term aim is to work in the az conspiracy theories into the main body. the problem has been that editors of this article frequently refuse to accept any suggestion that anizionism and antisemitism may (sometimes) be the same thing.

Please understand that to keep all sides happy on this article will require a great deal of sensitivity and patience as well as a willingness to deal with ideas that are challenging

Telaviv1 (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I hsould also state clearly that I regard antisemitic antizionism as both more common then zionists who define all criticism as antiseimtism and I also think that antisemitism is a much greater crime then misguided accusations and I do not beleive that the two are in any way equiavalents. In my opinion there are more antisemites on this planet then there are jews both zionist and non-zionist and including children. Many antisemities are genocidal while that is not true of those who are over sensitive.

Telaviv1 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv wrote "editors of this article frequently refuse to accept any suggestion that anizionism and antisemitism may (sometimes) be the same thing"
In fact, I do not recall ever meeting an antisemite who was not anti-Zionist, and I doubt that any exist. If so, we could argue that
  1. some antisemites are anti-Zionists
  2. no antisemites are Zionists
  3. therefore, all antisemites are anti-Zionists
If the premisses and conclusion are correct, logically, as Telaviv wrote, "antizionism and antisemitism may (sometimes) be the same thing", in fact they must sometimes be the same thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course there are pro-Zionist antisemites. For instance, the British National Party, whose website was described by the Board of Deputies as "now one of the most Zionist on the web - it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel"[42]. And what about John Hagee? Lord Balfour himself, who gave his name to the Balfour Declaration, was an antisemite who introduced legislation to prevent Jews fleeing pogroms from entering Britain. And even Adolf Eichmann told Time Magazine in 1961 that he was a "fanarical Zionist". I could produce scores more such examples; sorry Malcolm, the facts simply do not bear you out here. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Very funny. I assume that it was the ashes of Jews that Eichmann wanted to make aliyah. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> Actually this isn't an issue that needs a lot of debate because if the issue of allegations of antisemitism is properly integrated in description of groups, it may not need separate sections and if not it will be obvious it isn't. Remember it's not our job to decide what is or isn't antisemetic, or what percentage of angry and/or cool-calm-collected anti_Zionists also hate Jews as Jews. It's only our job to reflect what WP:RS sources say in a balanced way.
My main issue is gaining consensus that there are a range of current views among nonJews that need exploration. Also this might provide a place to explain what the heck is meant by "differing dimensions" which even reading the footnote did not make clear - or does that now belong in the current Jewish debate section as longer discussion?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Carol, your alternative structure has at least generated some discussion. Conspiracy theories at each end of this debate, to me, are equivalent and similar fringe, since neither show any acceptance of the other. I do not believe accepting either as a given reference point should be included as the basis of article structure; that these exist and are included in the lede is a given, but I believe policy points toward NPOV middle ground for structure. I see this discussion tending to step around this middle ground, with some editors arguing from the limited perspective that a-Z is not a-S and others from the similarly limited perspective that a-Z is a-S; that latter stance has a defined term, is highly contentious, and is described elsewhere. Neither is the way the world works, and it should not be so in the Wiki-world.
Time passes, shit happens and things change, or not, in different places. Relevant happenings should be included in their specific historic context chronologically. For example, ‘Arab and islamic anti-zionism need to stress that this has usually been antisemitic and frequently led to expulsion and persectuion of Jewish communities.’ While this statement is generally true somewhat, it occurred generally in a former specific historic context; its occurrence also was tied specifically to certain Zionist events; it should not be included as if the same thing occurs now. Soviet happenings also occurred, but the Soviets are gone now also, theoretically at least. Another possible example is Agudat Israel; is it now what it was, as a movement, in the early 20th century. My point is that events should be described historically and Zionism has changed also, as noted in the second ref.
Another major point, I mention again, is that the current lede definition of Zionism is totally inadequate to provide the basis of describing what Anti-Zionism is. A generic, fluffy definition of Zionism can not be the basis to define what the anti- is. I will again point to a [much older version of this article], to provide some evidence of what I mean; it also provides data not included currently. Obviously, things have changed. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that general statements that A-Z is A-S should be minimal and only from the most WP:RS sources and that specific incidents in historical context are what is necessary.
I also agree that it needs a historical context to show how anti-Zionism increases with various Israeli actions; as a peace activist I've seen it jump 10,000 fold since 1982, and much of that since 2001 and rise of neocons and Iraq war, attacks on West Bank, Lebanon and Gaza. So perhaps a historical sectioning with developments after each action is an option.
Also I agree the lead should define antiZionist as antiZionists see it, perhaps with only one or two sentences devoted to now anti-anti-Zionists see it.
In general I tend to be bold. Tell people what I'm going to do and hearing no objection do it and deal with the screaming - which in most articles except this topic there isn't much. However, I wandered in here under the influence of caffeine and haven't decided if it's something I want to put a that much energy into. However, I will remain supportive of steps in right direction and throw in a few things. Or I could drink too much coffee again one morning :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess we have consensus, based on the lack of comments; it must indicate agreement with what we have discussed as specifics requiring Wiki-improvements. Enjoy your coffee, have several cups. I drink my own home-grown and open-fire roasted; it will certainly wake one up. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You're a temptor! One new years resolution was to cut wikipedia to one hour a day. But with so many tasty tempting articles out there... sigh. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

I heard a argument by Anti-Zionists, according to which, Jews are only a religious community, and not a nationality, and therefore the right of Self-determination does not apply to Jews. The question are, is rejection of Jewish right of self determination is one of definitions of Anti-Zionism, or it is a minority view in Anti-Zionist circles?
Also, it is stated in the lead section, that some argue that anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israeli policies, particularly in the occupied territories. The question are, if somebody only criticize Israeli policies, without rejecting Israel's right to exist, can he be described as Anti-Zionist? The way I understand it, somebody can be Zionist, support Israel's right to exist as Jewish homeland, while criticizing Israeli policies, including on the occupied territories, on the same grounds as Anti-Zionists do.
Also it is stated that objection to the idea of a state based on maintenance of a Jewish majority is an Anti-Zionism. But again, from what I understand, somebody can be Zionist or Post-Zionist, view Israel as Jewish homeland, while still believe that Israel should not be Jewish nation state, but Multinational state, empathizing multiethnic Israeli identity, as opposed to Jewish identity. Igorb2008 (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The stuff about anti-Zionism having to do with criticism of Israeli policies, including policy on the occupied territories, is nonsense. I have been criticizing Israeli policies all my adult life, including many points having to do with occupied territories, and no one has ever called me anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has to do with the delegitimizing of Israel's existence, and its eventual destruction. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
re: the Right to self-determination, the problem is that it is applied to people living on land held consecutively for generations, not land mostly acquired in the last 20 or 30 years through purchase (even if it did allegedly belong to ancestors 1900 years before), or worse land confiscated through military force.
re: "opposition to Israeli policies, particularly in the occupied territories" There may be some who don't have a problem with Zionism being actualized within some territories (justly acquired through purchase only or 1948 UN borders or post-1948 war borders) but reject it as a philosophy that wants to expand outside those territories. The problem is the article lacks a clear delineation of which group/tendencies hold which views. Including the last view Igor describes, which I don't quite understand, but the point is find a secondary source that describes a group/tendency with such views. And of course if you already question Zionist philosophy as being expansionist or colonial, etc. any criticism of policy is within that view.
As for Malcolm's claim anti-Zionism is "delegitimizing of Israel's existence, and its eventual destruction," I'm sure that examples of that not being true could be found if there was more info about groups/tendencies. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
My point is, Zionism is an ideology that supports Jewish homeland in Palestine, then Anti-Zionism,by definition, is an ideology that opposes Jewish homeland there. And if somebody criticizing Israeli policy, viewing it as expansionist or colonial, etc, but accept Jewish homeland in some borders, then how can he be described as Anti-Zionist, even though his views do not conflict with Zionism, and Zionists can have the same views? As for last view I described, mainly Post-Zionism views, it is basically a view, arguing that Israel should not be nation state for Jews, like Greece for Greeks or Turkey for Turks, but to be more like US or Canada, emphasizing common, multiethnic identity. Proponents of this view reject comparisons to Anti-Zionists. Igorb2008 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Carol, thanks for the BS.
  1. Before independence the "Zionists" (ie Jews) paid for every square inch of land they held.
  2. There was never a time in the last five thousand years when Jews did not live in the land of Israel.
  3. The land was partitioned by UN vote, and is recognized as a legally existing state.
  4. Every non-Jew who lived in the boundaries of the new state of Israel, Islamic, Christian, Druze, etc who stayed in their own homes and on their own land, is now an Israeli citizen.
  5. Israel was attacked by surrounding countries the moment it was created.
  6. Much of the land captured, following attacks from surrounding countries on Israel, has been returned, although according to recognized international laws of war, it had a right to keep captured land.
  7. The history of the so-called Palestinian people is a fantasy.
  8. I have frequently criticized Israeli policy (including occasional suggestions to get rid of Jerusalem, which I regard as worthless, and a magnet for religious nuts), and no one has ever called me anti-Zionist saying that because they know I support Israel as a state even if I don't like many things done by its government.
Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> To Igorb: all that matters is what sources say, and if there is Post-Zionism that's relevant too; we should only be debating edits and sources and other wikipedia policies here, not general or personal views
To Malcolm Schosha:

  1. It is WP:Uncivil to call other editor's comments BS (obviously short for an expletive). You have already expressed your bias on this topic today at your talk page: ...latent low level antisemitism cropping up in left of center political groups (they do a pretty good job of hiding the reality of that, even from themselves, by renaming it anti-Zionism)...
  2. Almost everything else you write is WP:SOAPBOX of your defenses of Zionism/Israel which are not appropriate:
    • Note, I did not deny Jews have lived there
    • A certain percentage of anti-Zionists obviously don't recognize the UN partition; this article is about such people
    • "Israeli citizenship"; "Israel attacked"; "Much of the land captured etc..."; "The history" etc: these are all points of contention with various anti-Zionists some of which this article should describe
    • If you are NOT an anti-Zionist then you can criticize all you want and not be called one; and if someone mistakenly called you one I am sure you'd correct them asap. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, it says "general discussion" at the top of the thread, but if you had not taken up talk page space again with your soapboxing (BS), you would not have had to listen to my reply. Capiche? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't start the thread; just didn't give the proper reply quick enough. Next time. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think my point about criticism of Israel not constituting anti-Zionism needs some recognition, because it is presented in some articles that anti-Zionism is nothing worse than criticism of the Israeli government. That seems pretty funny because that definition would make every Zionist I know an anti-Zionist. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Carolmooordec, I don`t debate general or personal views,or streams within Zionism, but it was stated here that Anti-Zionism definition should be rewritten, and I propose to discuss how should it be edited, according to sources and wikipedia policies , of cource. Igorb2008 (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, another summary post of ‘General discussion’, above. First, to Igorb, it may be easier to provide your ref, especially if accessible; then editors may see for themselves what you have only written about. I estimate that the source may be reliable, based on some specifics, which are already included in the article. Further, if the sources’ wordsmithing clarifies the existing prose, it would be very helpful. That is not to say that what the ref says, or who/what authored it, would be acceptable to enough editors for consensus, as the first reply indicates. I note again, that without a change to the lede definition of what Zionism is, there is no way to discuss what anti-Zionism is, based on the RSs. ‘Zionism’ for this article must be defined in the context of what anti-Zionism says. This lede must go. In fact, you note in your second post that Zionism is an ideology; that is easily RS’d, please provide one. That easily starts to go beyond the limited BS currently there. You will note the perfectly legitimate, less-than-polite, but absolutely civil use of the word pertaining to content, as opposed to comments or editors.

Carol, thanks for the comments, I somewhat agree. I also note the importance of ‘Zionism’ as actually several widely differing ideologies; some are quite clearly laid out by the DelSarto quote, though there is another informative one here also. These refer directly to what is only a current distinction of what anti-Zionism is, and it avoids the slippery slope to another page. It is however, historically limited; that is not what anti-Zionism has been or was at previous times and under differing circumstances of shit happening. I would say that certain specific points of view are typically professed overly forcefully; this is a historic trait of ideologies over time and of importance for this page. It is quite easily ref’d, and an early American one is “loud diplomacy”.

Malcolm, it is best if I start and end with your last post; I am unclear. I completely agree that your “point about criticism of Israel not constituting anti-Zionism needs some recognition”, but I believe that view is recognized in the article. I guess that I missed what your point was. I equate that statement to ‘criticism of America not constituting anti-Americanism”, but note the US doesn’t have a similar ideological equivalent for Zionism, that I can think of. I share your humor, but totally disagree with your statement “anti-Zionism is nothing worse than criticism of the Israeli government”. This is based, again, on the equated statement of ‘anti-Americanism is nothing worse than criticism of the American government’, which absolutely is incorrect. You seem to be directly equating criticism of a country with criticism of its widely varying ideology. Although these widely varying ideologies exist, criticizing them is not synonymous with criticizing the whole country, maybe just a certain government, or a certain policy, or a specific strain within that overall ideology. I find little humor if, as you say. “that definition would make every Zionist I know an anti-Zionist.” That seems to me to be putting one specific ideology before or above the country itself, but it also points to the necessity of better defining what Zionism is.

I will make some simple edits to the Zionism definition, so we may improve the anti-Zionism article. Regards to all, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is some examples to definition of Anti-Zionism, as opposed to simply criticism of Israeli policies:
http://www.ccj.org.uk/Zionism%20Anti%20Zionism.pdf
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_anti-Zionism_mean&src=ansTT
Zionism is an ideology that states that certain country should exist, like many other similar ideologies supporting other nation states, such us belief that independent Polish or Greek or French or Palestinian states should exist. And being "anti-" such ideologies is exactly synonymous with criticizing the whole country existence, as opposed to criticizing certain government, or a certain policy, or a specific strain within that overall ideology. If the lead section will define Anti-Zionism as opposition to certain Israeli policy, or governments, and not as opposition to existence of Jewish homeland in Palestine, then category "Zionist Anti-Zionism" can be very easily created in the article, witch in my opinion will be quite ridiculous.
CasualObserver'48, you wrote that ‘Zionism’ for this article must be defined in the context of what anti-Zionism says. What definition of Zionism then, you propose to the article? The problem with that, in my opinion, is that what anti-Zionism says Zionists believe is often different from what Zionists actually believe. So, for example, some anti-Zionists may define Zionism as racist ideology, promoting Jewish Supremacism, while there is no Zionist group, that I know of, that actually believe in some racial superiority theory.Igorb2008 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The CCJ ref looks possibly promising; I haven't finished reading it or scoping their reliability. Please excuse my minor edit of your post, it is generally forbidden. The one from answers.com, I feel, is one that they decided not to answer and just took the bait, hook, line and sinker. I question whether it would be accepted as reliable, but thay certainly have included that one. Other editors might like, I am quite sure. I will stay away from your last paragraph. For me, it tends toward the fringy, and again you provide no specific ref that says such. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

CasualObserver, you are quite mistaken about Zionism being an "ideology". Zionism is a national movement of the Jewish people [43] (a movement that would not have succeeded if it had not been for WW2). There are a number of different ideologies that have been applied to Zionism that are so much in conflict that the different groups can often hardly communicate in civil terms. For example, socialist Zionism and and Orthodox religious Zionism are in conflict about virtually everything but support for the general goal of a Jewish nation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better to say that Zionism includes many widely different ideologies. That certainly seems to fit with your [there] "are so much in conflict that the different groups can often hardly communicate in civil terms." What I do not understand, therefore, is why you favor that generic fluff, which limits our ability to write a good article and helps to put those opposed all in the same boat, and equivalently somehow to be opposed to a single ship of State. That seems inconsistently pov'd. I reverted back to the new (very old version) in the intro; it seems to have some expressed support. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I however think that CasualObserver`s last edits were quite good. I think that this version ( http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/AntiZionism_def_descrip.html) for example, gives a good definition of Anti-Zionism. I also think that "defining anti-Zionism" paragraph from there should be restored to the article.Igorb2008 (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I see a problem with thirdworldtraveler.com as a source. It is incestuous and likley credited back to that old Wikipedia version. What is interesting is thirdworldtraveler.com has not changed; maybe that don't agree with the BS that has been here for a while. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
It is important the lead make clear that the goal of anti-Zionism is to end the existence of Israel. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, please provide one or several if you can, but please include some that don't come from pov's opponents. That would be a neutral-appearing non-Zionist one, and I doubt such a reliable neutral source would, even venture a guess as to what their goals might be. I will give you mine, it would be peace, but an editor is not an RS. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is no requirement that sources be neutral, only WP:reliable and WP:verify. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course, the neutral is only in presentation. I however tend to find Zionist sources unreliable in talking about anti-Zionism. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There are standards for deciding if a source is WP:reliable, and CasualObserver liking it is not one of those standards. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry missed Igbor was talking about lead and sectioned to show that from relevant comment on. My only comment is that whatever is in lead needs sourcing from first sentence on. Thus will put up some tags. So maybe people should back away from editing or discussing until more and better sources are found :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Usually what is in the lead does not need any sourcing, as long as statements are supported in the body of the article. In disputed articles the biggest fight is usually over the lead, so some sourcing is normally included. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that the lead paragraph should be as CasualObserver`s last edits, plus this section from previous version:
The defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948. Opposition to the policies of the current Israeli government, or advocacy of an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories, is not necessarily synonymous with anti-Zionism. Many Israelis also hold these views, as do many Jewish and other supporters of Israel outside Israel.
It is important to clarify that the main idea of anti-Zionism is opposition to the existence to the existence of Israel. It is also important to mention that criticizing of Israeli policies is not by itself Anti-Zionism. Also Zionism does not include many different ideologies, it simply does not define what type of rule or what type of policies should Jewish state have, just us other national movements advocating their free states. Over the history, Zionists suggested that Israel should be monarchy, communist state, liberal democratic state, socialist state or theocratic state. All this come from difference of universal ideologies among Zionists, not from Zionism itself. If Zionism does not define type of rule or policies, criticizing policies or regime cant be Anti-Zionism. If somebody for example criticizing theocratic-like policies of Israel , then he criticizing theocracy and not Zionism, and other Zionists may also criticize these policies.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with Igorb's definition above. If anything, the defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is opposition to the continued existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. There is a strong body of opinion in favour of redefining Israel as "the state of its citizens", rather than its current self-definition as "the state of thew Jewish people". This is certainly an anti-Zionist position, but it is explicitly not against the existence of Israel, unless one argues that Israel only exists insofar as it remains a Jewish state.
I also disagree with the approach that treats Zionism simply as an ideology. Of course it is an ideology (or possibly several related ideologies); but it is also an organised political movement, with its own structures and bodies (World Zionist Organisation, Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund and others), and with a real impact on the policies and practices of the state of Israel. Although theree is an ideological campaign against Zionism, I would argue that for most anti-Zionists this is secondary to their opposition to the actual practices resulting from this ideology. RolandR (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
But there is also Zionist and Post-Zionist groups who advocate redefining Israel as "the state of its citizens", and it is not the same as anti-Zionism. As for opposition to practices of of Zionists structures and bodies, as well as opposition to policies of the state of Israel, in my opinion, it is also not Anti-Zionism, as all are debated and criticized among Zionists also. The only practice that derives directly from Zionism is Jewish homeland in Palestine. Israel as "the state of its citizens" concept does not oppose Jewish homeland in Palestine, it only opposes Israel as Jewish nation-state.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have reliable sources, there is no reason not to include that in the article, but not to change the first paragraph of the lead for that.

Do you see now, Igorb2008, you thought you were having a rational discussion, and two editors have forced their version into the lead; made possible because you are too nice to revert their POV edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, I will wait and let Igorb speak for himself. I hope he addresses only content. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that an opposition to existence of a state, is very notable concept and should be mentioned in the lead. I also think that when defining "Anti-Zionism", especially since Anti-Zionism indeed cannot be seen as a single phenomenon, it is very important to mention the distinction between Anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli policies.And as part of definition of Anti-Zionism, it also should be in the lead.But as some,like RolandR disagree with the this definition, the paragraph reinserted can be changed something like this:
"The defining characteristics of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948 or opposition to existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state. Opposition to the policies of the current Israeli government, advocacy of an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories,or advocacy of redefining Israel as "the state of its citizens" as opposed to "the state of the Jewish people" is not necessarily synonymous with anti-Zionism. Many Israelis also hold these views, as do many Jewish and other supporters of Israel outside Israel."Igorb2008 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for "jumping in" but I've just noticed a first paragraph that says something like "it's very complex and there's many angles on it" which just makes an article unapproachable. First paragraph should be a basic descriptive and following paragraphs could explain that there's actually many versions and a long history to anti-Zionism.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

ahem. after sympathizing with and offering your services to one blocked edit warrior, you now "jump in" here, not to help find consensus, but to revert again? please try to offer a new version instead of perpetuating the same war. untwirl(talk) 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ad hominems aside, when I see two versions with one of them clearly better, there's a chance that I will revert. That said, I added a comment here to show that I'm interested in discussion so that we can get a version that's acceptable to everybody. I'm interested in why you'd feel that the page should be started with a "it's so complex and you really can't put a finger on it" type first paragraph.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 08:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
i'm not saying the version you reverted from is necesarrily the best one. my point is that you shouldn't continue an edit war after one user was blocked for it. can you help come up with a compromise version? untwirl(talk) 13:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that just happened. please read and discuss.CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
i prefer your version to the two that followed. i dont believe its necessary in the lead to describe whether opposition to the jewish state is synonymous with anti-zionism. one small change, tho - instead of "Therefore, anti-Zionism is opposition to these objectives, and people, organizations or governments that oppose these objectives can in some sense be described as anti-Zionist" i would have ". . . governments that oppose these objectives are sometimes described as anti-Zionist." untwirl(talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we are still working on your first comment, as my next post may indicate. I do agree with your second comment; passive voice may make it more neutral, but possibly less certain. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Good morning, I see these net changes overnight[44], and am satisfied that the first para seems stable; I should have seen it sooner and hope it persists. Within the intro section, it seems to have been a matter of properly framing our subject, versus defining the roots from which they sprouted. I noted the latter repeatedly, note there are still other’s add-ons, and have some potentially missing particulars of my own. There are also helpful edit summaries intermediately between, which I would like to explore, both to note some improvements and to enlighten myself on aspects that I am not ethnically disposed to understand immediately.

First, after reading the ‘About us’ page from the two ref’d sources, I note the former tends to be more telling, and the latter tends to be more asking. The former reinforces my view of its American neocon roots, and the latter improves my view of the WZO. (How does hagshama translate/ what does it mean? Thanks for the refs, excuse the soapiness.) Second, I am not sure if the current link to Jewish State is worded optimally for non-Jewish comprehension; would a link to this section be more informative? Seemingly, this question was unanswered by Zionism alone, it predates the state, and it remains unanswered. Is there an easy way to mention this? It is the second time to be linked. Since that question predates current policy/occupation questions, it should be mentioned first, not last. Rather than the current ‘opposition to defining Israel as a Jewish state’, would alternatives ‘opposition to Zionism’s traditional definition of a Jewish state,’ or ‘opposition to how Israel is defined as a Jewish state’ be any better? Except for some minor chronological and grammatical edits, I will await replies.

Two quickies, following the minor edit. Other than possibly the word 'cannot', I see no valid reason to keep the fact tag on the first paragraph, regardless of its provenance. Also, I believe 'necessarily' might precede 'synonymous'; I suggest this only in light of the a-Z = a-S sources at the end of the intro. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Catholicism, France and Zionism: 1895-1904
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive_10&oldid=1248776238"