Talk:Zionism/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Zionism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Grammar in lede, don't know how to fix.

The second paragraph ends, "...largely as a response by Ashkenazi Jews to antisemitism and the Russia." What is this trying to say? I'm assuming it's not "antisemitism in Russia" given, you know, the Holocaust and all. Can someone more knowledgeable in the matter fix it? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is antisemitism in Russia. As many as hundred of thousands of Jews were killed in pogroms between 1800 and 1917. If you want to edit this page you should know that. Unfortunately the Holocaust has overshadowed this subject on Wikipedia and there are no comprehensive articles.

see Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire and Menahem Mendel Beilis

Also History_of_Zionism#Pre-Zionist_Initiatives_1799.E2.80.931897

See what Leon Trotsky had to say about the status of Jews in Romania: [1]

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"If you want to edit this page you should know that." Easy Tiger. I was merely pointing out an incomplete sentence in the lede. See WP:BITE. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I fixed it. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for that. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability of demographics table

The following demographics table appears in the History section, yet its reference source is a dead link and I could not verify the data.

Population of Palestine by religions
year	Muslims	Jews	Christians	Others
1922	486,177	83,790	71,464	7,617
1931	493,147	174,606	88,907	10,101
1941	906,551	474,102	125,413	12,881
1946	1,076,783	608,225	145,063	15,488

A new veiryable citation is needed, and it would greatly help if 19th century data could also be included. John Hyams (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

1947 UNSCOP report, p 29. But don't stop there: the rest is great reading. Start with the table on p. 31 for a good laugh. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslims supporting Zionism

Someone erased from this paragraph the names of prominent Arab Muslim proponents of Zionism, hiding them in a separate page. Non-Arabs and Arab Christians, however, remained. This decision reeked of racism. I corrected it. Emmanuelm (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversies related to Israel and Zionism

This section lists controversies related to Israel and Zionism that may be added to the article's section on "Opposition to and criticism of Zionism".

Policies and politics

Critics

Violence and conflict

Extremists

Palestinians

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.7.202.2 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Zionism as Self-Determination

The lead states: "Its proponents regard its aim as self-determination for the Jewish people." The sources cited do not support this statement. Instead, the sources regard the aim of Zionism as self-determination. Needless to say, they do not speak as the representatives of Zionism, nor is their opinion held by all Zionists (at least no evidence of this has been provided). As it stands, the statement is a subtle example of synthesis WP:OR. Unless further evidence is provided , the statement should be changed to "Some proponents" or removed. Agha Nader (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The sources are published by proponents of Zionism. It would be better to use third-party sources for the statement, which probably do exist. However, using the sources without attribution would very likely result in a violation of WP:NPOV. Cs32en Talk to me 02:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

here are the cites: Jeffrey S. Gurock, American Zionism: mission and politics (1998) p 289; Moshe Davis, Zionism in transition (1980) p 56; "Zionism: Changed perceptions of," in Glenda Abramson, ed. Encyclopedia of modern Jewish culture (2005) vol 2 p Page 991. Rjensen (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked one of the sources you cited, Gurock; "It was sustained, however, as a result of the activity of the Zionist in this country; they propagated the idea of Jewish national self-determination as a fundamental element in political Zionism" (p 289). Are the rest of the sources like this one? Gurock asserts (I think correctly) that Zionists propagated the idea of Zionism as self-determination. Gurock doesn't say whether they regarded, or believed, Zionism was a form of self-determination, because he has no way of knowing if they believed what they propagated. Gurock simply says that the American Zionists publicized Zionism as a form of self-determination. We should not go further than the sources go, and assert that the Zionists regarded Zionism as self-determination. Given the source you cite, perhaps the sentence should be changed to "Some Zionists have propagated the aims of Zionism as self-determination for the Jewish people." I only say "some", because the source speaks only to American Zionists. If the other sources you cited make this claim for other Zionists, then the sentence should be changed, perhaps to "most". Agha Nader (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this discussion serious ? Zionism is by definition the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. There is nothing to prove, that's the only reason Zionism exists. Benjil (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When a group propagates the idea of Jewish national self-determination as a fundamental element in political Zionism they are saying that it is really important. When the source is referring to the movement it is against Wiki policy to rewrite the source as falsely stating that only "some" people in the movement propagated the idea. Where does Agha Nader get the strange notion that the historian Gurock "has no way of knowing"--that is OR on the part of an editor and is not allowed. To keep up the discussion Agha Nader must reveal the sources he is relying upon, or the objects are dismissed as quibbling. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstood the points in my post. First, in the citation you provided, Gurock speaks only to American Zionists. It would be "against Wiki policy" (as you say) to expand Gurock's point and apply it to all the proponents of Zionism, as the article currently does. Second, I would like to invite you to read WP:OR, so that you can reconsider your statement "that is OR on the part of an editor and is not allowed." The argument I was making is that Gurock only asserts that American Zionists propagated the idea that Zionism is a form of self-determination, he never asserts that they believed it, or regarded Zionism as self-determination. When I said he "has no way of knowing", I was merely illustrating the point that Gurock can't possibly be asserting what you claimed he was asserting. That is, he has no way of knowing what American Zionists actually believed (he surely doesn't claim to in the citation you provided), he can only speak to what they propagated (and this he does when writes "they propagated the idea of Jewish national self-determination as a fundamental element in political Zionism"). Finally, Benjil, this discussion is serious; while you may think you know the definition of Zionism, it appears that you are unclear about the definition of self-determination (it is not equivalent with a "national liberation movement"). The source Rjensen cited, Gurock, seems quite reliable, and you should consider why he used the word "propagate" in this context. Agha Nader (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Gurock on p. 299 covers the European Zionists who also demanded self determination. Wiki policy is to accept what the RS say and not try to rephrase or rewrite their statements--when a historian says a group stated and emphasized and insisted that XYZ was "fundamental" the historian will tell us if they did not really mean it. That's what scholars do, and what editors are not allowed to do. Rjensen (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, the inference your reading of the source requires is "what editors are not allowed to do" (as you say). My reading of the source is the simplest and most accurate: use the terms the source uses, and add none of your inferences to it. Gurock says they 'propagated the idea' he does not say they 'believed the idea'. Please provide the quote for your claim that on p. 299 he argues that European Zionists propagated the idea (I could not find it). Cheers. Agha Nader (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agha Nader proposed to rewrite the RS; he said (above) ", perhaps the sentence should be changed to "Some Zionists have propagated the aims of Zionism as self-determination for the Jewish people." That's tampering with the sources. Gurock on p. 299 says the European Zionists called for "self-determination and sovereignty". The problem is that Agha Nader has invented the notion that not all Zionists wanted self-determination. He made that up from OR and has no RS whatever to support his unusual claim. When you change a statement from "Group ABC wanted XYZ" to "Some members of ABC wanted XYZ" you are telling the reader that you have evidence that some members of ABC did NOT want XYZ. There is no such evidence that Agha Nader has reported to us. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Friedman is pretty clear: "there existed among the [Zionist] parties a common denominator: the claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for the national self-determination of the Jews." Isaiah Friedman in Israel Studies v3 #1 (1998) p 251. Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We probably should state that the "Zionist movement laid claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for the national self-determination of the Jews", with present tense instead of past tense, if an appropriate source can be found. Based on the source (Gurock) saying that American Zionists propagated propagated the idea that Zionism is a form of self-determination, the statement that "American Zionists believed in Zionism as a form of self-determination" would OR, the statement "Some Zionists propagated Zionism as ...", implying that others would not do so, would be OR, and the statement that "Zionists believed in Zionism ..." would be OR, too, of course. Cs32en Talk to me 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yemini views about anti-Zionism and antisemitism

I added the following text:

Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini maintains that anti-Zionism is "politically correct antisemitism" and argues that the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is demonized, the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for Self-determination is denied from Israel, the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world.

and was reverted in claims that is unsourced and some policy of "coat-tracking" which I not understand. So first, here is a souce: [2] and the specific quote: עמדת המוצא שלי היא שהאנטי-ציונות, בחלקה הגדול, היא אנטישמיות פוליטיקלי-קורקט." which translates: "My position is that anti-Zionism, is mostly, a politically correct antisemitism". Now, Yemini is considered an impacting and senior journalist in Israel, and many of his articles are translated and distributed worldwide. So I think this section and opinion has a place in the section about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and it is pretty common among Israeli people. MathKnight 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is this Zion?

The location of the "Zion" of "Zionism" is incredibly important to note in the lead sentence since the entire point was to have the homeland in Palestine www.merriam-webster.com. This might be obvious to us but not to the casual reader. --Hutcher (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess I've inadvertently started an edit war WP:EW. Zionism is a movement not a time period - a movement to establish a jewish homeland ... where? I added a note to MW who apparently also "doesn't make sense" [3].

I understand now why this article is tagged as biased. We all have biases here but we need to be mature enough to be honest in these articles --Hutcher (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Zionism is racism

I would like to add to the lead that Zionism is a form of racism. This is well sourced, for example in UN General Assembly resolution 3379. Since this is a pretty bold change, I thought I'd get some opinions here before making this change, specifically on the sourcing of that to 3379. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Zionism is NOT racism, the UN resolution has been overturned, but even if it wasn't, it was illegal to be Jewish in Germany once, does that mean Jews should not exist? What I mean is that law and ethics are not the same thing, this is ridiculous. Zionism is nothing but self-determination. And if you think a nation's right to self-determination is racism, then Palestinian nationalism is racism too. So to claim Zionism is morally inferior to Palestinian ideology is intellectual bankruptcy, especially since no tenet of Zionist ideology advocates the extermination or the expulsion of natives. Palestinian nationalism, however, is filled with anti-jewish imagery, just go to their schools, watch their TV, etcetera. Most of their leaders agendas is to make temporary peace so they can eventually achieve the extermination or expulsion of the jews. So arguably, palestinian nationalism is at least on the level of Zionism, but probably worse. Bootsielon (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not confuse "self-determination" with extreme nationalism. Also, how did you infer that the OP believes Zionism to be "morally inferior" to Palestinian ideology? I know this subject is sensitive and prone to controversy, but we have to remember that Wikipedia should be neutral. HupHollandHup, could you elaborate a little? SweetNightmares (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Does anyone else think allegations of racism is disproportionately represented in the article? It is a very fringe movement, and has been rejected by the European Union, United States, United Nations, etc. The content remains in Israel and the apartheid analogy or Racism in Israel. Many critics of the apartheid analogy place the accusations as antisemitic, consistent with the European Union definition of antisemitism.

In my view, there should be more shortened summaries or excerpts of the relevant articles, such as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. This would shorten the section and, in a more structured way than individual links, inform the reader about where to obtain further information. Cs32en Talk to me 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the racism issue is a controversy relating to Zionism so it should be covered, but I agree that the presentation could be made much denser. For example the reactions of Bush and the Israeli UN ambassador to Resolution 3379 could be removed. Also the paragraph describing how Jews are an ethnoreligious group doesn't really add to that section and could be removed to make things more compact. --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is controversial, but not mainstream. Some say antisemitic, as the European Union does. It shouldn't have a such a strong presence in the article. I would personally would remove it all together and link under the "see also." Zionism = racism activists are a very, very vocal minority. Zionism has nothing to do with Arabs. Any scholar on Jewish history will tell you this. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a rather extensively discussed topic, with many significant sources, such as the United Nations general assembly. If the material seems offensive, the best solution is to include balancing information that puts the controversy in context. The alternative articles mentioned do not include as much detail as this article, so replacing the section with a "see also" link is not an improvement. Even removing individual sentences from the article would make it harder for readers to find information (or is that the goal?). If the section is too large, relative to other sections in this article, some text could be moved into footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander in that if the UN was long of the opinion that Zionism is a form of racism, then it's indeed a mainstream view that should be covered here. It could be covered with less text as I wrote above, though. --Dailycare (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism

The two have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with eachother. Zionism is a Politcal Ideology, Semitism is, in this sense the Jewish people themselves, or more accurately, their languages. You DO NOT have to be Jewish to hold Zionist beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.0.120 (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do some reading. You will discover that anti-Semitism is not about languages. The section is well-sourced. Section restored. Hertz1888 (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep it, but I think there should be a little more clarification. Not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, but it`s probably safe to say that most anti-Semitics are also anti-Zionist. Maybe we could include a small paragraph about Israel`s human rights record WRT Palestinians as a way to illustrate this? SweetNightmares (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Small paragraph? Shouldn't the focus be on non anti-Semitic anti-Zionism? It should be the anti-Semitic version that is the small paragraph. Ummonk (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz article

It will not come as any surprise to regular Wikipedia editors that articles involving Israel are often online battlefields, but this Haaretz article says that some people in Israel try to tweak articles so that they become more friendly towards Israel. Says the article: "The idea is not to make Wikipedia rightist but for it to include our point of view." Ok, but WP:NPOV still applies to all articles.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I find this highly believable. The evidence is overwhelming, and any impartial person should easily be able to see it just by reading wikipedia.

To prove I'm not prejudiced, I'm going to voice my opinion that Palestinian extremists would do the same to if they had the same access to computers. I'm just saying that the palestianian extremists have their counterparts, and they are heavily zionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.159.122 (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually they have. Palestinians battle "Zionist Editing" on Wikipedia Yserbius (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

your comment as if palestinians dont have as much access to computers or the internet is degrading. I think you should take it back. Aonana (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

racism by proxy

I am deeply concerned and resentful as a researcher that one is immediately and completely labelled as racist and anti-semitic for even researching the legitimacy of the so called holocaust. I have been sent hate mail for questing the terminology 'holocaust' and suggesting that this was in fact attempted genocide. Howe are we to take seriously a country that refuses to provide proof fatal of war crimes. Anyone wanting to site this evidence are again labelled as anti-sematic. There is something deeply wrong with this mentality although I guess that if you are of the opinion that everything you do is right, legal and ordained by god almighty it makes it much easier to justify acts of open terrorism against your neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal9ooo (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG and Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is well established through reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course the Arabs has a long history of attacking and prosecuting Jews.And now they can attack a Jewish state —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.21.82 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tried to improve "Crticism of ..." section

The "Criticism of Zionism" section had a couple of tags on it, so I tried to clean it up a bit. I treated the section as a summary (WP:Summary style) of the Anti-Zionism article, and tried to capture a few key themes from that article. More work is needed. --Noleander (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an improvement. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? The prior version (1) had tags; (2) did not summarize Anti-Zionism; (3) was rather confusing; (4) the section named "racism" had no discussion of racism (but the following section did); (5) contained no mention of one of the larger criticisms (land confiscation and related violence); and (6) it contained quite a bit of material equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, which is okay material, but is a criticism of the criticism, so is secondary, and should follow the primary discussion of the criticisms themselves. What changes (to the original) would you suggest to remedy the tags that were there? --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

AS you might imagine this section is extremely hard to generate agreement over. I don't edit znti-Zionism because it would take all my time if it did, I let anti-zionists dtermine what the want it to say, which I think is fair. For the same reason I don't edit the Palestine page. I figure its up to the Palestinians to decide what should be on it.

That doesn't mean this is a propaganda piece. The current version has been relatively stable for some time. The antiZionism is not intended to be a summary of the anti-Zionism article which is confused and confusing, but more to address the internaitonal decisions taken regarding Zionism. Just as criticism of Israel is not necassarily anti-semitic it is not necessarily anti-Zionist. IF it were all Israelis would be anti-Zionists...

I'm not sure what you mean by racism. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are, in my opinion, a racist text and were used to justify the Holocaust. The Nazis were racists. So is David Duke but you say the section isn't discussing racism. Anti-Zionists may easily become anti-semities if they don't have the tools to make the distinction and that is where I consider Wikipedia important.

This section is not a "criticism of a criticism" it is a historical statement of fact. If you read the anti-Zionism article, you get the impression anti-zionism has nothing to do with anti-semitism, but it does and that is why people constantly argue over it. The Soviet combination of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism was a big deal to the over one million Jews who lived there (most of whom eventually left for Israel). Another million Jews left the Arab world (mostly to israel)- over 95% of Arab Jews in fact. It is clear that in the Arab world anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism coexist happily. Of course most Jews are and were Zionist but reading the anti-Zionism aticle you get the impression that hardly anyone is or was zionist. BTW if 80% of Jews are Zionists and you hate Zionists, does that make you an anti-Semite?

Land confiscation is the biggest criticism of Zionism? since when? not in the anti-zionism article. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Your statement "I don't edit anti-Zionism because it would take all my time if it did, I let anti-zionists dtermine what the want it to say, which I think is fair. For the same reason I don't edit the Palestine page. I figure its up to the Palestinians to decide what should be on it." is very troubling: we don't limit content based on which editors are proposing content, instead we rely on sources. Your statement "If you read the anti-Zionism article, you get the impression anti-zionism has nothing to do with anti-semitism" is incorrect, in fact there is a very large section in that article anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Some of the significant criticisms of Zionism, according to the sources, are (1) that it has resulted in unfair land confiscation, (2) that it has resulted in expulsion of peoples, (3) that it is racist in nature, and (4) that it is (or was) contrary to Jewish religious guidance. Are you suggesting that those are not criticisms of Zionism? --Noleander (talk) 14:06, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no comment after several days, I'll proceed with making those improvements. If you have any questions or comments, please discuss here on the Talk page first. All the material clearly falls within the scope of the "opposition to Zionism" section; and all of the material has a (very) large number of reliable sources. I'll keep the "Anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism" subsection in, although it appears to be of subsidiary importance. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Criticism of Zionism" section has a POV tag, dating from March 2009. The section has been thoroughly re-written since then, so the issues associated with the tag may have been remedied. If anyone wants to keep the tag (for this section, not the POV tag at the top of the article) could you please describe specific shortcomings of that section here, so other editors can work to resolve them? --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't spend every day here. Unlike you I seek to avoid conflict and edit warring, I view Wikipedia as a tool for mutual understanding. Your text is clearly designed to forment conflict, I notice you also edit "criticism of Judaism" which explains the use of antisemitic allegations on this page. I think your "editing" comes from a place of hate. These issues are sensitive and require a delicate approach.

The material you entered is not a summary of the anti-Zionism page, as you alleged earlier. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Telaviv1: Why did you delete the material in the "Criticism of Zionism" section that described criticisms related to "confiscation of land", "expulsions of peoples", and "violence against palestinians"? The sources (there were many for each of those criticisms) clearly identify those topics as criticisms of Zionism. Do you have sources that suggest they are not criticisms of Zionism? If so, could you provide the sources? If you do have such sources, they could be included for neutrality and balance, but they would not be cause to eliminate the primary "opposition to Zionism" material. --Noleander (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And why did you delete the sentence "Some critics of Zionism describe it as racist or discriminatory", and its footnote? Do you think it is not a criticism of Zionism? Or do you think it is unrelated to Zionism? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Telavivi1: I listed some of the (many) sources on these oppositions to Zionism (see below in the section "Lead section"). Based on them, I restored the material to the "Opposition/criticism of Zionism" section. Would you like more sources than those listed below? Or do you think they are not reliable? Or do you think the material misrepresents what the sources are saying? --Noleander (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of various sentences

In general, unless the text is obviously problematic (POV, OR, NLP, etc.) the procedure is to ask for a source and not to summarily delete. I do not have access to Bar Zohar's book, for example, but the reviewsmake it amply clear that the author makes a connection between the Nazis and the Arab boycott of Israel. The proper procedure if you are uncertain is to ask for the page and/or full reference, not to delete something that not only is not one of the auto-removes, but seems more likely than not. -- Avi (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi: why did you delete the material on "chosen people" aspect of criticism of Zionism?

"Some criticisms of Zionism specifically identify Judaism's notion of "chosen people" as the source of racism in Zionism. References: Korey, William, Russian antisemitism, Pamyat, and the demonology of Zionism, Psychology Press, 1995, pp 33-34; *Beker, Avi, Chosen: the history of an idea, the anatomy of an obsession, Macmillan, 2008, pp 139 *Shimoni, Gideon, Community and conscience: the Jews in apartheid South Africa, UPNE, 2003, p 167"

It is an important element of anti-Zionist arguments. --Noleander (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That may have been accidental as I was editing whilst you were, and we edit conflicted with each other. If you're worried about 1RR, I'll put it back as that would be a self-revert for me. -- Avi (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Telaviv1: could you provide the quotes from the source Bitter Scent: The case of L'Oreal, Nazis, and the Arab Boycott which relates that material to "opposition to Zionism? --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is Michael Bar-Zohar not a goood source? IronDuke 15:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is not so much the sourcing from Michael Bar-Zohar, but the implication from the wording that there was Post hoc ergo propter hoc and a lack of explanation of the Nazi backgrounds in this edit.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused now. You wrote, the edit summary of your reversion, "rv, lack of reliable sourcing." But you say now the source is reliable? And I don't know what you mean about post hoc in this context. IronDuke 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand on what the sourcing says? The wording in the reverted edit is too condensed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If it's too condensed, I think your expanding it might well be a capital idea. As you think of how to do that, could you self-revert? Removing sourced material from a notable author because you think more could be said is not, I think, best practice. IronDuke 20:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you expand it? I don't have immediate access to the source material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to at present. Can you please self-revert until you do get access? IronDuke 21:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My concern was the same as the one in this edit. There is a somewhat clumsy link made between Nazis and Arabs, and the phrasing needs to be clearer to explain the significance of the link between the two boycotts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The link seems quite clear to me. IronDuke 00:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for quotes from that L'Oreal source several days ago, and none have been provided. I am skeptical that that source has anything to do with "opposition to Zionism" (the section that it is in). Whoever wants to insert that material: could you please provide a quote that shows how it relates to "opposition to Zionism"? --Noleander (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I put the source section in the article as requested. The whole book is about how the owners of L'Oreal were well connected former Nazi collaborators - one of their associates in this role was Francois Mitterand. When they realized the Nazis had lost they made a quick about face but L'Oreal took over Jewish homes and businesses and is owners published newspaper articles in support of the Nazis and against the Jews. They later collaborated with the Arab Oil boycott, using a seiinor employee who had been an officer in the Waffen SS. To get off the boycott they bought the firm Helena Rubinstein and erased all memory of its existence(remember Helena Rubinstein?), sacked all JEws from their board and paid a bribe to the Syrian official in charge of the boycott (which was run from Damascus). This resulted in a court case during which their past (and present) activites were exposed. They resorted to having people go round France to round up old copies of pro=German newspapers in an attempt to hid their past shenanigans. Their ties to Mitterand helped them avoid major trouble but they were severly embaraassed and fined by the French authroties for their boycott actions.

Ironically the heir to the family fortune has married a Jewish man and converted to Judaism. Françoise Bettencourt Meyers Her mother, Liliane Bettencourt, is the third richest woman in the world.

See the obiturary of Andre Bettencourt in the Daily telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1570119/Andre-Bettencourt.html Bettencourt was the son-in-law of far right L'Oreal founder Eugène Schueller. L'Oreal paid a 1.4 million dollar fine for the boycott of Israel: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/1524/l-oreal-fined-1-4-million-for-following-arab-boycott/

The Jew Bettencourt removed from the board was Jean Frydman

There are plenty of Nazi-Arab connections and have been over the years, its not surprising really since the Arab world is a big place and they have a common enemy.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Removed the POV tag Yserbius (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to equate all opposition to Zionism with antisemitism, which is incorrect. Antisemitism is rooted in racism, but the belief that Israel is stolen land is not inherently racist, indeed it's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, one that is shared by much of the world (outside the US, of course, whose media have a clear bias in favour of Israel on all matters). Accusing all people with this viewpoint of racism, as this article seems to do, not only stifles debate but encourages more extreme viewpoints from people who feel like their viewpoint is not being heard - particularly worrying considering this article is on Wikipedia for schools. Is it possible to rectify this article, particularly the "opposition to Zionism" section, to give a fairer account of all different points of view? --94.171.77.82 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed, as of now. The only comparison is that Anti-Semites tend to be anti-Zionists, and many anti-Semites hide behind anti-Zionism. Yserbius (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is, the original people of those lands (Canaanites) are all dead. The Jewish people had those lands from that point on until Rome kicked them out. Todays "Palestinians" are all from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. If they do not like Israel being there, maybe they should go home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.70.66 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this point. Since there are many Orthodox Jews who are 100% against Zionism, the bias that Anti-zionism equates to Anti-semitism is obviously a flawed argument. Munta (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On a theoretical level, anti-zionism is not the same as antisemitism. But in practice, yes it is. The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism. Regarding Jewish anti-zionism, it is a separate issue. But contrary to what you say, there are not "many" anti-zionist Orthodox Jews. Most religious Jews are Zionists. Today, only the Ashkenazi haredim are not officially Zionists but most of them are, or, at least, let's say they are not anti-zionists. The crazy anti-zionist religious Jews that we can see sometimes on TV are a fringe group, universally hated. Benjil (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism." Not really. To argue that the pre-inhabitants' right to self-determination trumps the Jewish right to self-determination is not Jew-hating.Jacob Vardy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

The statement that "of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination" is false. Judaism is a religion, and most religions do not have a home-state. (Vatican city may be an exception, but even here they do not give a 'right of return' to catholics worldwide.) Some argue that Jewishness is ethnic, not religious; but again, ethnic groups do not have a right to a state - except in Israel. (Agreed, white imperialism made some such claims e.g. in South Africa or South America, but that is now discounted.)::::Aa42john (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the right of self-determination of the Palestinians is not being anti-zionist. Of course there is the issue of who are the "pre-inhabitants" as Jews have lived there for thousands of years and Arabs were the invaders and have 21 countries already. And furthermore, the right of Jews to have one country trumps the right of Arabs to have a 22nd state. Benjil (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow this Articles Neutrality beyond compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.168.10 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The first line of this article read "Viva ISRAEL! Viva ZIONISM! Long Live ISRAEL!". I have removed it due to it's lack of neutrality. SpencerCollins (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Very poor example of how the article was "written". That was short-term vandalism, now it's gone. Next problem. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Benjil writes On a theoretical level, anti-zionism is not the same as antisemitism. But in practice, yes it is. The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism. That is a fallacious extension. Even stipulating that Zionism is a policy of self-determination for Jews (itself an argued point), it is not the only such policy, merely the most publicized. To deny one of a set is not to deny the entire set. There is also some concern about logical consistency between "Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism" and "Zionism is not racist".Phaedral (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Zionism is the movement of self-determination of the Jewish people and *nothing* else. This is not an argued point this is the definition of Zionism and there is no "other set". Benjil (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We disagree only on the aptness of using the definite article rather than the indefinite. Zionism is undoubtedly the best known and most successful doctrine supporting Jewish self-determination, but that does not mean this one -ism owns the entire realm of discourse, nor is this one -ism universally supported even by all Jews.Phaedral (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, absolutely the majority of Jew haters also hate Israel (using simple terminology). But the obvious abandonment of good and fair logic to report the truth is evident when there is no acceptance that people could love Jews and hate Israel, and even vice versa -- though harder to parse. The totally off the wall argument is about 1 Jewish state vs. 22 Arab states. A red herring. In Asia there are peoples living in boats for hundreds of years after losing their lands both in Thailand and the Philippines. There are Gypsies. The article seems to predispose the readers to believe that having a homeland is necessary for survival of a people. Ergo, compromised. 203.87.178.26 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the historical persecution\extermination of Jews a Jewish homeland being necessary for their survival might be a justifiable argument. What is probably more acceptable though is an argument that a homeland is necessary for a racial\ethnic etc groups self determination. Unlike Aborgines, Maori, American Indians, Ainu etc Jews are scattered across many lands and cannot negotiate with just one government for their needs. There's also an element of historical justice involved in that it is about the return of the Jews to the land the Romans, the European imperial power of the day, removed them from. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the main thought of the anti-zionists to be "No state for Israel, and 23 arab ones". Furthermore 203.87 has an excellent point, the article definitely supports zionism. The criticism section is seriously lacking in actual content that is not "those who hate Israel are racist". If the expansion of Israel into the Gaza strip has been criticized by the United Nations, do you really believe that the representatives of the United Nations are all antisemites? The section needs to be expanded and covered without systemic bias. Acebulf (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The criticism section seems to be the only thing here with a POV. Yserbius (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the sections title is "Alleged" Racism and that's just one example. It is too obvious that in certain sections only a one sided partisan view has been stated. The oppositions and criticisms have not been well documented. Rather the emphasis has been on portraying a positive image of the movement only. I dispute the neutrality of the article. It will take me a while to complete my search for correct citations to add to the page. I Invite well sourced editors to correct the issues here. Facts are your friends (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The anti-zionism section presents primarily the Zionist POV. It uses straw man attacks and the [|association fallacy] to attack anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic. Over the next few days, I will look through the article on anti-Zionism and summarize that in this section to make the section NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummonk (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the problematic portions, (i.e. opposition to Zionism) have been cleaned up. If it's alright with everyone, I'll be removing the neutrality tag in a few days. Yserbius (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Undue article expansion not in accordance with summary style

We have an entire articles on opposition to Zionism as a whole and each of the component parts, as the plethora of see-alsos show. The article itself should have very little in each section, if not having a small section on the existence of opposition, with links to the appropriate daughter/related articles. This article is being turned into a bloated copy of all of the sub-articles, which goes against summary style. I think that the subsections need severe paring, and all the good information should be placed in the subarticles. -- Avi (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Zionism is one of the key elements in the discussion about Zionism itself. I bet, that there are(see upper section for sources) more opposition to Zionism in the world than those who support it, the anti-Zionism insentives are quite common also among some parts of Jewish Diaspora. This fact is intrinsic and the information about this shall be in the lead section. Right now, IMHO, the lead section seems to praise Zionism and disregards strong opposition to that ideology.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 09:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the lede, I'm talking about the ballooning growth of the interior sections, each of which has specific articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, well, that is good idea.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Jim Fitzgerald—there are links to articles on the subject of "opposition to Zionism." They are obviously to be thought of as separate articles, to be covering separate perspectives. In my opinion brief mention of "opposition..." is all that is called for in the article on the topic itself—which is this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some sections in this article could be pared down a bit. I would recommend starting with "History" section and "Ultra-Orthodox" section: they have good sub-articles already, and yet are rather large in this article. Within the "Opposition" section: the "Antisemitism" section could be made smaller. The "Allegations of racism" should not be reduced until the Anti-Zionism article is improved in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the length of discussion about anti-Zionism in the article shall reflect the amount of discussion about Zionism that exist in scholarly world.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

I am unhappy with lead section. The information presented in it is one-sided and stick around "liberation movement". However, the Zionism is also perceived by many sources as a racist, discriminatory, heretic and even a nazi-like ideology. Why those views of Zionism are not in the lead section? It seems that the section lacks counterbalance, to address this I have made the following edits and I presume that it shall stay in the section.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From 1975 to 1991 Zionism was officially determined by the United Nations to constitute "a form of racism and racial discrimination". Within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict the Zionism is viewed by many scholars,^[1]^[2] world countries^[3]^[4] and Jewish orthodox religious groups as a system that fosters apartheid^[5] and racism.^[6]^[7]^[8]

The sources you're using there are mostly op-eds and self published sources and thus not acceptable per WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, can we see a quote from the Stefan Goranov source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD significant controversies should be covered in the lead. The current lead does mention this, but perhaps rather curtly and this might be expanded a bit? --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that describe the criticism that Zionism is racist or discriminatory:

Zionism, imperialism, and race, Abdul Wahhab Kayyali, ʻAbd al-Wahhāb Kayyālī (Eds), Croom Helm, 1979
Gerson, Allan, "The United Nations and Racism: the Case of Zionism and Racism", in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987, Volume 17; Volume 1987, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory (Eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988, p 68
Hadawi, Sami, Bitter harvest: a modern history of Palestine, Interlink Books, 1991, p 183
Beker, Avi, Chosen: the history of an idea, the anatomy of an obsession, Macmillan, 2008, p 131, 139, 151
Dinstein, Yoram, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987, Volume 17; Volume 1987, p 31, 136ge
Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab attitudes to Israel, pp 247-8
Korey, William, Russian antisemitism, Pamyat, and the demonology of Zionism, Psychology Press, 1995, pp 33-34
Beker, Avi, Chosen: the history of an idea, the anatomy of an obsession, Macmillan, 2008, pp 139
Shimoni, Gideon, Community and conscience: the Jews in apartheid South Africa, UPNE, 2003, p 167

If those are not sufficient, there are scores of others. Regarding the objections to Zionism because it is responsible for land confiscation and expulsions of peoples, some sources include:

Salaita, Steven George (2006). The Holy Land in transit: colonialism and the quest for Canaan. Syracuse University Press. p. 54. ISBN 081563109X.
Hirst, David (2003). The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East. Nation Books. pp. 418–419. ISBN 1560254831.
Chomsky, Noam (1996). World orders, old and new. Columbia University Press. p. 264:. ISBN 0231101570.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
"FrontPage magazine interview with Christopher Hitchens". December 11, 2003. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadlink= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Masalha, Nur (2000). Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion. Pluto Press. p. 93. ISBN 0745316158.
"Essay by James M. Martin from "Atheist Nexus"".
Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. pp. 176–177. ISBN 0822310236.
Chomsky, Noam (1999). Fateful triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (2nd Ed, revised). South End Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 0896086011.
Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78.
Yishai, Yael (1987). Land or peace: whither Israel?. Hoover Press. pp. 112–125. ISBN 0817985212.
Rubenberg, Cheryl (2003). The Palestinians: in search of a just peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 162. ISBN 1588262251.
Geaves, Ron (2004). Islam and the West post 9/11. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 31. ISBN 0754650057.
Kassim, Anis F. (2000). The Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 1998-1999, Volume 10. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 9. ISBN 9041113045.
Raphael Israeli, Palestinians Between Israel and Jordan', Prager, 1991, pages 158-159, 171, 182.

I don't think the lead needs to dwell on these objections to Zionism, but certainly the lead should have a paragraph summarizing the important criticisms of Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks talk for the sources. I agree with you that the lead section needs to develop a bit more about ooposition to teh Zionism, and I beleive that he pro-Zionism info has to be reduced and placed in other relevant sections-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 09:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to changing the lead section, for the following reason: this is an article about a historical as well as current phenomenon, thus the lead section must give an overview of how it evolved over time. Zionism was initially and for many decades viewed as a national liberation and self-determination movement. Its criticisms from the pro-Palestinian side were mostly developed after 1967. So it is proper to mention them at a later point. The lead section does mention in the middle the Jewish alternatives to Zionism that flourished in the early 20th century. --

Winnie_ru (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC) I added a sentence complicating Zionists' claim to have the right to occupy Israel, saying that it is controversial due to the fact that many other Empires have previously occupied the same land, and their claim that it is their ancestors' land could easily be said by many other races of people. However, this section was deleted, and I am unhappy about this because I felt like that paragraph of the lead section had a biased tone, claiming that Israel is the land of the Zionists' ancestors, and not bringing up this very common and reasonable counterargument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.66.90 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The WP:LEAD has some Manual of Style issues as it currently has eight paragraphs instead of the recommended maximum of four. Some editing is desirable here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Names

Isreal (formerly Palestine) is also known as "The Holy Land" or "The Levant". Romania is also incorrectly spelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.127.183 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, "Rumania" fixed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Redesign countries on world map

There was another one who tried to redesign the countries of the world map, in the same period. Most of our fathers know what the result was. Piles of dead people. What was the benefit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.102 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Population Chart and "dead link" found

The chart of populations only for the years 1922 to 1945 can be found at: (Ref 27) "Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1". United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3
But, the populations for year 1950 must have come from another source that I can't find. I would like to see populations added to the chart for the years around 1882, 1890, 1900 and 1914. I think this is important to show the popularity and growth from the beginning of the movement. 99.64.0.82 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the chart in question does not show Zionists but Jews and I wonder how accurate figures are for earlier periods. Six months ago there was a far more important chart here showing global membership of the movement and how it grew. That is the chart that should be here.Telaviv1 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Another dead link

There is a very simple error that I would like fixed on the Zionism Page:

Footnote No. 1 has a dead external link to: Neuberger, Binyamin. Introduction Zionism - an Introduction, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 20, 2001. Retrieved August 17, 2006.

The address is currently set as: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Zionism%20-%20an%20

But it is missing the final several characters: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Zionism%20-%20an%20Introduction

I hope this suggestion helps.

Vandeburgt (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but the footnote appears to contain several separate sources. Someone with more history at this page may want to take a look. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Amusing

The sheer NPoVness of this article is honestly astounding. This is what passes for "neutral" in Wikipedia's book? Why, one must ask, has so much dialogue and protective action been taken to safeguard this article against forces that might be brashly critical of its terrible falsehoods?

The answer, of course, is that Wikipedia is home to a huge contingent of Israelis and American Jews (both of whom are wealthier and have greater computer access than the Arabs, and both of whom are far more racially vociferous than WASPs) who watch this article like guards at a manor full of silverware. The long, fawning quality of the introduction, which uses suck-up tactics like listing the different 'kinds' of Zionism and their meanings to different Jews, is exactly the product of that disingenuous brand of info-peddling that seeks to slip in one's favored point-of-view into the factual zeitgeist. In plainer language, look at the article on Manifest Destiny: one quickly reads about the "superior" attitudes the Anglos held as they brutally pushed westward (the painting of choice was no accident), with "Anglos" or "English" always being wrapped in quote marks.

I would hope most people don't come to Wikipedia to learn about controversial political matters, but it appears our Jewish friends are spending a great deal of time and money (Megaphone, Israeli toadie moderators, etc.) expounding to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Heard most of this before. I am not Jewish and do not get paid to edit this or any other Wikipedia article. Please assume good faith, which is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to be replying under the impression I was personally addressing you? What does you being or not being Jewish have to do with anything I said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there something that you think that the article should say? If so, please put in an edit request. Most Wikipedians are trying their best and are not being paid to add material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that's the case, just as most Wikipedia moderators aren't Jewish. But I wouldn't even know where to begin with an article like this... "It is based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel...", "the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security...", the gratuitous inclusion of outline material like, "Strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace...", "Preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education, and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values", "Zionism is dedicated to fighting antisemitism..." (Zionism is a person now? Where does he live?), etc. I'll state outright that I think this kind of fawning meticulousness is an effect of an excessively deferential attitude towards the Jewish community on Wikipedia. My evidence is, again, that the article on Manifest Destiny, where the colonizers were white Christians, is so wildly dissimilar in its tone that they might as well not be discussing the same phenomenon (which they are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Equating Zionism and manifest destiny is a false premise. Imperialist expansion across a continent is different than re-establishing a home in a small corner of the globe where a group's ancestors previously existed peacefully.--68.50.74.190 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with this guy even though he could have been more constructive from the start instead of coming in with ignorant accusations about a site that is COMPLETELY ran by the users. Seriously, where are you getting this money BS from? Why does money matter if any person, rich or poor, can change anything on the site? Anyways it is messed up to make Zionism seem like a noble thing but portray other groups like the KKK as evil. Not saying I am a supporter of either of these causes, just that both are equally racist and ignorant. You can't say a group of white people with extreme ideas is any better than a group of Jewish people with extreme ideas. We can point out that the Nazis wanted a master race but we can't point out that Zionists believe they are a master race or at least gods chosen people?but the real point here is if you can find a site that confirms it, you can add it to the article.Nobody else will ask before they change your stuff back so no point in asking to change it before you do. 64.119.57.59 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Equating Zionism and manfest destiny, is, for the same reason as all the other quotes from the article in this discussion, allowable - as they are the stated beliefs of members of the Zionist movement - and as such may be (and should be) included in full, providing that they are all stated in the context of 'it is the view/belief/mandate of the zionist movement/followers that....'. In much the same way that it the may include that: '*Person of importance* X stated that 'Opponents of the Zionist movement are often stigmatised as anti-semetic' or that '*person of importance* Y stated that the Zionist movement is a racist conspiracy.

A better argument against bias in this article would be that one side has been given an overly prominent position within the article - in that the Overview reads like a Pro-israel pamphlet 77.101.91.203 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that was missed and SHOULD be in here is what the Talmud says that brings the idea that Zionism is racist. The Talmud is an anthology of rabbinic doctrines and traditions. There are two versions, the Babalyonian and the Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmud is used as a guide for interpreting the Torah and even said to hold HIGHER authority than the Torah itself(Which I do believe is true). What's amusing is how its commentary has more wieght than the primary source thus drastically altering Jewish religious ideology. In consequence, we have racism and supremacism.

"The Talmud forms the religious training for Rabbis, observant and reformed Jews. Upon close examination is it clear that the Talmud not only supports racism and hatred, but is the source of hatred directed towards non-Jews" (http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=17&topic=595).

All over the internet you will find this sort of material. The Talmud is indeed supremacist hate speech. In the book of Sanhedrin for example, the term Goy and Goyim arise many times, it is a word reserved for gentiles who are not Jewish. As you all can imagine, it's about how Jews are better than everyone else, how they can commit heinous crimes without pursecution, and how they should exploit all other races because to them, we're all but cattle. Nice. Sounds completely contradictory to the Torah, no? Well it holds more authority than the Torah. Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah002 (User talk:Blah002) 20:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap. Religious Jew here. You know nothing at all. Have you even read the Talmud? I have, and I found nothing like you say. The Torah's always foremost as it is considered to be the word of G-d. The Talmud is commentary, a record of rabbis arguing over meaning. It is valuable, but it is not the basis of Judaism. I am honestly disgusted by the ignorance of the editor above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.75.119 (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Shamir, Hitler, etcetc

Shamir wasn't in charge, that was Avraham Stern, and the organization was Lehi. Those two articles tell the story and provide sources. Whether it belongs here is another matter. Zero^talk 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree not relevant to a general article on Zionism.

ADDENDUM: Also the sense of the statement about Shamir was just completely distorted: It sounded like Shamir offered to help fighting the British not in the Middle East, but to attack them on the British Isles. The only thing Stern (not Shamir) offered was " to aid German conquest in the Middle East in return for recognition of a Jewish state open to unlimited immigration." (as stated in the WP-article on Lehi) Mdphddr (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds better and has some substance. I think we should be careful with such nonsense like the BLP violation the article contained before about Shamir. Such unusual statements should be proved before they become part of the article. With a serious source and not with biased pamphlets. It was not clever to suggest just to add a "citation needed" mark for this statement as done by user Dailycare. Mdphddr (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The citation needed-tag is used to highlight unsourced statements. Other editors will then provide the source or, failing that, the statement will be removed. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "indigenous" in criticism

The word "indigenous" was removed in this edit that likewise requested a citation for something that was already cited to several sources. Yesterday I reinserted the line, only to have it once again removed with a demand for an online neutral source. Forgetting for a second that this demand has no basis in Wikipedia policy (sources need not be either online or neutral), below are several sources for the word "indigenous".

Masalha, Nur (2007), The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, vol. 1, Zed Books
p. 16: Despite the distinct features and its nationalist ideology ('return' to the land of the Bible) political Zionism followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land.
Thomas, Baylis (2011), The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, Lexington Books
p. 4: The Zionist colonization of Palestine, like that of North America by Europeans, is primarily that of the settler type involving displacement of the indigenous (native) population and replacement with the colonist's own settler population.
Prior, Michael (1999), Zionism and the state of Israel: a moral inquiry, Psycology Press
p. 240: Israel is essentially a state for the Jews, dramatically demonstrated by the Zionist expulsion of the majority of the indigenous Arab population and the leveling of their villages to ensure they could not return.
From the beginning the Zionist leadership realised that Palestine had a sizeable indigenous population ... Despite his public protestations to the contrary, Herzl envisaged expelling the Arab population, and this obvious goal was subscribed by all significant Zionist leaders ... Most alarmingly from a moral perspective, the injustice to the indigenous population is passed over in most Western discourse.

Absent an actual policy-based reason for keeping the word out I will be restoring it. nableezy - 16:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be rephrase to reflect neutrality and sources within the article. The edit currently "assumes" Zionism is responsible for "promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians." Rather, edit should say, x, y, and z claim Zionism etc. And the edits you cite refer to Israel's creation, not Zionism as an ideology. Keep the rhetoric to a minimum. Wikifan^{Be nice} 21:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, each of the sources is about Zionism and the obvious result of that ideology on the natives. The sentence is about what Zionism has been criticized for, and it has been criticized for each of those things. And do you know what the word "rhetoric" means? Would you like me to be less persuasive? nableezy - 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What policy supports this edit? Yeah, each of your chosen sources says this - but plenty of other sources describe Zionism in a totally different manner.

Just because a source is published does not make it a certified truth. Let me re-paste the edit:

"Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians."

The sources you listed don't say "Zionism" has been "characterized as "colonialism" (horrible phrasing anyways), but the "The Zionist colonization of Palestine." Zionism is an ideology, acts implemented by Zionists are totally separate. Editors can't make that synthesis.
I don't know who this Prior guy is, but these sorts of sources aren't great for the article - especially when they conflict with other books. So rephrase the edit to reflect Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Perhaps add a counter, considering many Zionists described themselves as anti-colonialists. The Zionist militants eventually fought the British Colonial Empire. It looks like such a one-sided, packed edit I can totally understand the removal. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Which policy? NPOV, which requires that all notable POVs be included. I think you are missing the point, the line is specifically about what those people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. You are pretending that there is synthesis when there is none, the cited sources back every single word of the sentence. As far as it not being "certified truth", I am not required to prove anything as the Truth. The requirement is cited to verifiable reliable sources, and that requirement is met. There are a large number of sources for that section, all of them verifiable and reliable. nableezy - 00:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the cited sources don't back "every single word." Zionist does not = Zionism. Zionism is an ideology. Get it? I stand by my original edit. And who says your sources are reliable anyways? Just more commentary from academics? If you want this in the article, it must be framed in a neutral manner. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources for the sentence are as follows:

Shafir, Gershon, Being Israeli: the dynamics of multiple citizenship, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp 37-38
Bareli, Avi, "Forgetting Europe: Perspectives on the Debate about Zionism and Colonialism", in Israeli historical revisionism: from left to right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp 99-116
Pappé Ilan, A history of modern Palestine: one land, two peoples, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp 72-121
Prior, Michael, The Bible and colonialism: a moral critique, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1997, pp 106-215
Shafir, Gershon, "Zionism and Colonialism", in The Israel / Palestinian Question, by Ilan Pappe, Psychology Press, 1999, pp 72-85
Lustick, Ian, For the Land and the Lord …
Zuriek, Elia, The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism, Routledge & K. Paul, 1979
Penslar, Derek J., "Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism", in Israeli historical revisionism: from left to right, Psychology Press, 2003, pp 85-98
Pappe, Ilan, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld, 2007
Masalha, Nur (2007), The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel, vol. 1, Zed Books, p. 16
Thomas, Baylis (2011), The Dark Side of Zionism: Israel's Quest for Security Through Dominance, Lexington Books, p. 4
Prior, Michael (1999), Zionism and the state of Israel: a moral inquiry, Psycology Press, p. 240

If you would like to challenge any of these be my guest. They are all on their face reliable sources as written by experts in the field and published by high quality presses. nableezy - 00:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by your collection of sources. I'm saying the paragraphs you pasted above do not support the original edit. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"the original edit", for which the sources at the beginning of this section were brought, was the addition of a single word, that being "indigenous". I dont actually care what you are impressed with, the sources above are reliable and back the entire paragraph. nableezy - 01:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm referring to the entire paragraph, not the one word. And a whole list of sources isn't helpful without specific citations. As it stands the edit is not verifiable. Zionists does not = Zionism. Pure SYNTH for editors to make such an assumption. Suspect to accept the "expertise" of some authors over others. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, all of these sources are verifiable. They all have page numbers. You can go to nearly any library and find these books. These are "specific citations". You are talking without any knowledge of what the sources say, so forgive me if I give your contention that it is synthesis the attention it deserves. And, again, this is specifically attributed as what critics say about Zionism being colonialism. nableezy - 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying all those sources verify this sentence:

"Zionism has been characterized as colonialism, and Zionism has been criticized for promoting unfair confiscation of land, involving expulsion of indigenous peoples, and causing violence towards Palestinians.

The sources you posted above, the available sources, say Zionist - not Zionism. "Zionism has been criticized FOR promoting unfair confiscation of land (is this a fact?), "involving expulsion of indigenous peoples" (is zionism responsible for this?) and "causing violence towards palestinians."

The entire sentence is simply stupid, especially the last bit. Zionism is an ideology, substituting the alleged actions of "Zionists" for Zionism is pure synthesis. We can't say "Zionism is colonialism." We can say, "X, y and z say Zionism is colonialism." But the sources you posted don't even say that. It's all rhetoric anyways. Zionism is anti-colonialism, page 91.

Zionists competed directly against the local Arab population for the same land, and many Arabs, not only in Palestine, but also throughout the Arab world, soon equated Zionism with colonialism and employed many anti-semitic stereotypes that their European counterparts had used..."

Articles shouldn't be turned into talking points. Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan, do you realize that what you cited as saying "Zionism is anti-colonialism" is taken from a chapter titled Is Zionism a colonial movement? which includes on its first page the following:

in the past fifteen years there has risen a cohort of Israeli academics who, following the lead of Arab and western scholorship on the modern Middle East, have made linkages between Zionism and colonialism central to their scholarly endeavors

and further includes on the page that you cite in your mistaken belief that it backs your position the following:

This chapter will contend that the Zionist project was historically and conceptually situated between colonial, anti-colonial, and post-colonial sidcourse and practice. Colonian and anti-colonial elements co-existed in the Zionist project from its inception until the creatuib if the state in 1948.

It is this authors view that Zionism possessed strains of colonialsm and anti-colonialism. But you still dont seem to get the simple point here. The paragraph is about what people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. What dont you understand about that? The article does not say that Zionism is colonialism, it says that people have criticized it as colonialism for such and such reason. Are you seriously arguing that this view, backed by numerous reliable sources, should not be included because you think it is "rhetoric". And all the sources are available. Go to a library. You know, one of those places built from brick, has a lot of books inside. nableezy - 07:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anti-colonial and colonialism is part of early Zionist history. But "colonialism" was not a buzzword then as it today. The British Mandate was a "colony" - mandate was just a more formal term.

"The paragraph is about what people who criticize Zionism as colonialism say. What dont you understand about that?

Incorrect. The paragraph dubiously links Zionism (ideology) with the alleged behaviors or activities involving "Zionist." No one doubts loads of scholars and published academics who gone on record saying Israel is one big colonial project, etc - but other sources provide a more balanced POV. The edit you support is not supported by the references you linked above. Right now, there is no consensus for the edit. Most of this "criticisms" belong in "criticisms of the Israeli government" - not here.

The refs I posted above conflict with your refs, so who matters most?

Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"The refs I posted above conflict with your refs" This snippet reflects a misunderstanding. Do we have sources that say that Zionism has been criticised for removing indigenous populations? Yes, we have. Therefore that's a sourced statement and I don't see a problem with having it in the appropriate section. Obviously, it's the critics who are making this point and they consider the Palestinians to be indigenous. Early Zionists, by the way, also considered the Palestinians to be indigenous to Palestine and we have quotes from ben Gurion et al to this effect. --Dailycare (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the edit??? That material has been in the article for literally months. A user removed the word indigenous, I restored it, another claimed that the sourcing for that word was not sufficient, so I added more sources. What are you going on about? Of course others say it is not colonialism, and that is reflected in the article. However, that specific section is about what the objectors say. It does not say that Zionism is colonialism, it says that certain people have said it is colonialism. Do you really not understand this simple point? nableezy - 16:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an edit remains in the article unchallenged does not mean it is a protected edit. Edits can be sneaked in at any time. And what am I going about? I've been more than explicit. The sources you posted above are talking about the alleged actions of Zionists. This article is Zionism, an ideology. Commentary on acts by Zionists don't belong here. Editors cannot synthesis material from sources. Am I making sense? Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that an edit remains unchallenged means it has consensus. And you are clearly pulling your "argument" from some uncomfortable location, as the very first quote I provided above says political Zionism followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land. And there are a number of other sources listed in the article for the paragraph. There is no synthesis, the sources support the wording, and it is clearly relevant. Have you read any of the sources listed? Any of them at all? Did you even read the source you brought above? Because if you had you would have seen that the author says that Zionism had similarities with European colonialism. This is why you need to read what you are linking to before actually linking to it. Just googling anti-colonialism+zionism will not be much help to you, as you so helpfully demonstrated above. nableezy - 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I waded through all the above discussion, poor me. Really, Wikifan, your case is so weak. The sentence is a report of what critics of Zionism say. The fact is that (with few exceptions) such critics do not distinguish between Zionism and the actions of Zionists. The sources given don't mention this distinction (did I miss one?) and it is OR for you to force it onto them. It seems to me that you are trying to exclude mention of a claim that is in fact one of the claims most commonly heard. Zero^talk 23:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the sentence is a report of what critics of "Zionists" say. How do you know critics do not distinguish between Zionism and the actions of Zionists? It is synthesis for us to assume that. Zionism is an ideology, a political movement - criticisms of actions by Zionists (regurgitated criticisms mind you, and poorly phrased as well) don't belong here. Take a peak at other ethnic nationalist articles: Arab nationalism, Iranian nationalism, etc. Many thousands of people have been killed in attacks by nationalists, land was confiscated in various wars, but the ideology is separate from the behaviors of the followers. The sources Nableezy posted above, the ones' I have access to, don't support the sentence you guys are lobbying for. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit, read Nableezy's comment. Is this the the book you pulled a quote from? Are these the sorts of balanced sources editors look for to support such one-sided biased views? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If the sources were referring to actions of certain Zionists or groups of Zionists, you would have a point. But when they generalize and make claims about the actions or desires of "the Zionists", your point is too weak. The distinction between "Zionism" and "the wishes of the Zionists" is too little for a criticism section. (Btw, I didn't figure out what this has to do with the presence or absence of the word "indigenous".) Zero^talk 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources explicit refer to the actions of Zionists, not "Zionism." Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination. A land triple the size of Israel was confiscated during revolutions in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, etc - in post-WWII Middle East. But we don't describe Arab or Iranian nationalism as that even though sources exist supporting the events that occurred during the conflicts. Is this a comprehension issue or something? Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand you perfectly well, which is why I called your argument "weak" rather than "wrong". You say Zionism is simply Jewish self-determination, but the 1897 Zionist Congress was more specific: "Zionism seeks to secure for the Jewish People a publicly recognized, legally secured Heimstätte in Palestine." So it is not just a principle but a desire for a particular outcome. If someone describes that hoped-for outcome as undesirable for some reason, then that is a criticism of Zionism. It doesn't make any difference if the criticism is expressed in the words "The Zionists seek to..." rather than "Zionism seeks to..." (two phrases I selected from the same paragraph of a famous essay of Louis Brandeis). Some of the offered sources don't quite fit that pattern, since they criticize specific past events rather than intentions. In that case your argument is better, since there is indeed a difference between an ideology and specific actions performed in the name of that ideology. But I don't think your argument prevails here either, except perhaps in the choice of wording, since I don't know why a criticism of an action by someone who sees it as "Zionism in practice" should be excluded even if that person considers the action contrary to "Zionism in theory". Zero^talk 11:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Zionism does not = Zionist. Every action by the state of Israel can't possibly be described as Zionist in nature unless an RS explicitly says that. Even then, editors must careful when choosing sources. The "criticisms" above have nothing to do with Zionism, but Zionists - and the criticisms are very one-sided, lifted from incredibly radical sources and are basic talking points. Capitalism does not = Capitalist. Communist does not = Communism, etc. Wikifan^{Be nice} 20:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you completely lost it? Here on this talk page you are alone in arguing that the sources are synthesized and that they do not discuss Zionism. They do, and in fact one of those sources is quoted to you. You further admit that you have not even looked at the sources cited, and yet even though you admit to never looking at the sources you claim that you know they are synthesized and that they are not discussing Zionism. So, in sum, you havent looked at any of the sources, but feel perfectly willing to completely remove them on the basis that you know what they say. Keep it up, see what ends up happening. nableezy - 00:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have looked at the original sources you posted. Trying to find the other the sources you included in the ref, but because nothing is quoted (rather it is a wall of books), it obviously makes it harder to confirm what is being said especially since many of the pages are omitted on google books. But the paragraphs above do not support the edit. Zionism does not = Zionist. It is synthesis. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And are you aware of the 1rr rule? 1 revert, 2 revert. Certainly you must considering your presence at AE. Neither edits were vandalism. Wikifan^{Be nice} 01:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I had not noticed somebody made an edit between my two, but Ive restored the tag to accommodate your newly found sensitivities. One more time; the sources I listed at the beginning of this section were specific for the inclusion of the word "indigenous" as related to the portion of the sentence that reads involving expulsion of indigenous peoples. Given that this section is called removal of "indigenous" in criticism I find it hard to believe that you still dont understand why this section was opened and why I posted those sources. The entire section is not cited to those sources alone. It is cited to a collection of sources that you admit you have not even attempted to look for. And even one of those sources says that Zionism, not actions of Zionists but Zionism, followed the general trajectory of colonialist projects in Africa, Asia, and Latin America: European colonising of another people's land while seeking to remove or subjugate the indigenous inhabitant of the land. You want to keep pretending that the sources dont discuss Zionism themselves you can try to do that. But when one of the quoted sources clearly does, and when you admit you have not even seen the other sources, and when you yourself quote from a source in the mistaken belief that it backs your position when it actually says that Zionism has similarities with European colonialism, you do yourself no favors. One more time: the sources at the top of this section were not meant as being citations for the entire section, they were meant to source the clause expulsion of indigenous peoples. nableezy - 01:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

^ "Zionism is a Theory of Ethnic Cleansing Racism" by Na’eem Jeenah.
^ Stefan Goranov, "Racism: A Basic Principle of Zionism" in ZIONISM AND RACISM.] Proceedings of an International Symposium. THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. New Brunswick. North American, 1979. 262p.
^ ["MEXICO: The Zionism is Racism Issue"] by Hector Carreon. 'La Voz de Aztlan'.
^ "Israel, Racism and Zionism" by Chandra Muzaffar. The Korea Times.
^ "Zionism, Israel, Racism/Apartheid" by Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, Upper Iowa University.
^ "It's time to rethink Zionism" by Daphna Baram. The Guardians.
^ "Zionism as a Racist Ideology Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide" by Kathleen and Bill Christison.]
^ "Zionism is Racism, Get it Right" by Sarah Waheed, MediaMonitors.

[1] "Zionism is a Theory of Ethnic Cleansing Racism" by Na’eem Jeenah.

[2] Stefan Goranov, "Racism: A Basic Principle of Zionism" in ZIONISM AND RACISM.] Proceedings of an International Symposium. THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. New Brunswick. North American, 1979. 262p.

[3] ["MEXICO: The Zionism is Racism Issue"] by Hector Carreon. 'La Voz de Aztlan'.

[4] "Israel, Racism and Zionism" by Chandra Muzaffar. The Korea Times.

[5] "Zionism, Israel, Racism/Apartheid" by Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq, Associate Professor of Economics and Finance, Upper Iowa University.

[6] "It's time to rethink Zionism" by Daphna Baram. The Guardians.

[7] "Zionism as a Racist Ideology Reviving an Old Theme to Prevent Palestinian Ethnicide" by Kathleen and Bill Christison.]

[8] "Zionism is Racism, Get it Right" by Sarah Waheed, MediaMonitors.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]