Talk:Zionism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Zionism as Ethnocentrism

it certainly meets the definition, per the wiki article on same and should be included in links This is a perfect example of an extreme biased article that shows only the fabricated good side of zionism. The deliberate suffering in form of blatant murderes inflicted on the local muslim population by the zionists are totally concealed.

The Persian Empror and The Jewish state

Hello to the editor. I am new to wiki. So that is why may be I am not sure how I can contribute correctly. I added a fact about a discourse between the emperor of Iran and Rothschild and his suggestion for establishment of a Jewish state. I cited the reference and you can find tons of evidence for this discussion everywhere in the internet and from the historians. But unfortunately it was deleted from the page. I was wondering why? May be I should have put it in another format? Persia was an important player at that time. And as a mater of fact it had the biggest population of Jewish people living there in the Middle East before Israel was established. Your article only mentions thing related to Europe but there is a bigger world than Europe! And more players.

New pictures to add to the Anti-Zionism section

To the editor:

Adding a picture, will enhance and give a better view of the vital Anti-Zionism section in this article. Here are URL's:

http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/capt1.jpg http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/jewsburnisraeliflag.jpg http://www.nulitedesign.com/z_105/jaz_full.jpg

Please include one of the above. Thank You.

Disputed

The article says that In 1947 Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine, and on 29 November the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state (with Jerusalem becoming an international enclave). Civil conflict between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine erupted immediately. There was no civil war it was invasion of European Jews taking over Palestinian homeland. The Spanish Civil War and American Civil War was classical civil war when a nation fight with itself. Nearly all Arab and Muslim states were still under colonial rule and could vote in United Nations. Siddiqui 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Your POV. Unless a good reason for the tag is provided, it is gone. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR and WP:V. Your personal opinion about a factual sentence is not enough to claim an article is totally disputed. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the disputer is right to some extent.This was not a civil war. Rather it was an invasion of Jewish gangs, which you mentioned their names already, to Palestine. Why doesn't the essay mention anything about the massacares of Sebra and Shatila, when Ariel Sharon himself led the Israeli gangs to attack the innocent, unarmed Palestanin men, women and children in these palces. Also the essay call it the Isreali-Arab war. Where were the Arabs. Egypt was under the British Colony and so were many other Arab countries. Egypt sent some sample forces to Palestine in 1948 armed by second-hand, non-working arms that killed the Egyptian soliders not the Israeli.

Again the essay does not mention that Israel was the first side to start the 1967 war (the six-day war)and attaecked Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon and later Syria.

Also the essay call the PLO as a terrorist movement. How can we call people who are fighting to retain their stolen houses and land as terrorists. Why do not we call them self-defenders or fighters for independence like the French resistance in WWII! What is the difference? Germany occupied France and the Frenh formed forces to fight them! And the Jews occupied Palestine and the Palestanians formed forces to fight them. Be honest in telling the truth.

If this is the case, so why the international society does not condemn Israeli attacks on civilian Palestinians? Why they insist only on strongly condemning Palestinian attacks on Isreal? Isn't that strange? we all refuse killing civillians and innocent people whether palestinians or Israelians. But Palestaninans have the right to defend their freedom inside Israel, if they are so weak to attack the israeli army on the borders. Most of Palestinian attacks are targetted to Israeli soliders, but the problem is that Israeli army is mingeled with civilians inside the cities.It is like what the Americans were doing in Afghanstan. To target the Taliban agents, they had to kill alot of innocent Muslims living inside their cities.

The Zionist history says that Zionist gangs were formed from the beginning of Jewish immegration to Palestine. At the beginning, the Jewish settlement was protected by the British Occupation in Palestine. Then after the withdrawal of British troops, zionist gangs took the burden of protecting the new Jewish communities and of expanding and obtaining new lands. Consequently, The Arabs of Palestine formed some forces to prevent them and protect Arab communities and lands from bieng stolen by these gangs. And you can go back to the history of the first Palestinian organization to see how far was it from the beginning of the Zionist gangs like Stern and Hagana.

I didn't say that Israel started the 1948 war. I said Israel started the 1967 war.

Moreover, don't you know that the 1948 war was a retaliation to the Dier Yassin Massacre in 1947 where the three great organizations warriors of Zionism attacked the small, peacefull village of Dier Yassin. Also all people all over the world know the circumstances of this massacre and who to be blamed, Israelis or Palestanians? Motga5 13:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding, right?

• don't you know that the 1948 war was a retaliation to the Dier Yassin Massacre in 1947 - what on earth are you talking about? The arabs started the war in 1947 the day after the UN resolution which accepted the partition plan. The May 1948 invasion of Arab armies was a "retaliation" to the declaration of Israel, and had nothing to do with Deir Yassin. And the "small, peaceful village" was repeatedly hosting Iraqi soldiers who used it as a base to attack Jewish convoys to Jerusalem.
• The Arabs of Palestine formed some forces to prevent them and protect Arab communities - you mean like "protecting" the Arab population of Hebron from the terrible, violent Jews who lived there peacefully for hundreds of years? Good job.
• we all refuse killing civillians and innocent people - does "we" include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, or PLO? I don't think they would agreee with you.

-Sangil 18:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"There was no civil war"

The article doesn't say "civil war" it says "civil conflict". Chia pet 17:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite your sarcastic way of editing, I will answer you. How do you say that 1948 war was a retaliation to the UN decision and has nothing to do with Dier Yassin Massacre. Do you know that Dier Yassin Massacre took place on 11 April 1948, one month before the 1948 war. While the UN decision of partition was on 1947. So how did you reach this conclusion that the war had nothing to do with Dier Yassin?

You say that Dier Yassin was a hostile village hosting Iraqi soliders who attack israeli settlements. Read this and tell me what you know: "Goldshmidt, raised in that suburb, had been sworn by his father to avenge armed attacks emanating from Deir Yassin against Givat Shaul during Arab-Jewish-British strife of the 1920s and 1930s. But during the 1948 conflict, Deir Yassin was studiously honoring a Haganah-sponsored agreement to refrain from hostilities with neighboring Jewish areas in exchange for protection from Jewish attack. One Lehi member, David Siton, protested that hitting a nonhostile village might endanger western Jerusalem. A Lehi reconnaissance appears to have confirmed the village's nonhostility. And although Irgun district commander Mordechai Raanan insisted Deir Yassin was part of an Arab logistical route to Kastel, he had to concede after another reconnaissance that the town appeared docile.(10)". for more and true account of the massacre read: [1]. Yes, maybe the jewish people have lived peacefully in Palestine before the issue of Israel, like they did in other Arab countries. But don't you ask yourself, Why is all this happenening now, i mean since the establishment of Israel and the Jews are all the time with conflict with neighbouring Arabs, Mulsims and Christians? Yes, they were peaceful, but then after the immergence of the idea of Israeli state in Palestine, Jews started their attacks, their conspirecies, their operations and their policies to banish the Arabs and built their settlements in their homes and Lands in Palestine. So it is so normal that the Arabs in Palstine, who are under aggressive attacks to steal their land and homes, rise to defend themselves and thier lands like any free man will do. Imagine you are sitting in your home peacefully with your family, and suddenly some intruder break in and tell you "hey get out of here, that's the house of my grand grandfather! you have two choices; sell it for me or I will burn this house on you!?" What will you do then? Motga5 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, fighting had already borken about before Deir Yassin, second of all you are commiting a logical fallacy, you are suggesting that because event x came after event Y, Event Y automatically cause event X.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. But if things went as you say and the war began before Dier Yassin, how do you expect me to belive that the Zionest forces will leave the Arab forces and focus its attention on a small beaceful village like Dier Yassin, where they spent a whole night attacking this village? Isn't it a little strange for any forces to leave the real fighting and go to attack a small village in that time?

Secondly, I didn't say that Dier Yassin was the ONLY cause for 1948 war. That's will be silly of course. I said it was a retaliation to it. That's mean that it was the last leave on the bush. And it was the trigger that moved the intention for fighting the Zionest Gangs in Palestine. And I have another question for you. Why do you insist that 1948 war was not a result for Dier Yassin Massacre? Is that because Israel feels guilty for this Massacre? Is that because Israel couldn't deny this masscre as it did for all other aggressive attacks the Jewish forces have done on Palestinians? Answer me please. Motga5 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is other than to debate the Arab-Israel conflict. However, unfortunately, Motga5 started this debate, and a some of Motga5's points are neither opinion nor fact, but untruths. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre was carried out by Christian Lebanese militants. Ariel Sharon did not lead it, however, he was in a position to prevent it and did not do so. The blockade of the port of Eilat was an act of war on the part of Egypt, so no, Israel did not "start" the Six Day War. I strongly recommend that any further discussion of Israel's alleged wrongdoings be moved elsewhere. These discussions frequently generate more heat than light, and if continue here, it will likely swamp out the essential discussion on the Wikipedia article on Zionism. Anomalocaris 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you didn't read the dispute carefully. firstly I didn't started the debate. I took part in it after two or three comments by other people, Arabs and Israelis favors. Secondly, my opinions are based on historical facts, not nontruths like you say. Sabra and Shatiela was committed by Christian militants, but who bushed them to do so, who gave them the way to do so. Can you deny that Ariel Sharon was surrounding the camp with his army and opened the way to the Christian militants to committ this massacre. Can you deny that he, Ariel Sharon, was looking at the massacre with satan eyes from atop a high building that overlooks the camps and he was happy to see the Lebanese people slaughtered by his Christian militants followers.

Thirdly, yes Egypt blokced the islaes in the Red Sea, but who on earth believe that this was the cause of the war? Who on earth believe that this formidable military plan was a reaction to Naser's decision of blocking the isles. Sir, this was an Israeli plan, put many years ago to overcome the only strong threat to Israel in the region these days.

I think you only know, or pretend to know the surface and didn't read history carefully. Everyone in the world now knows what was hidden under the false news and misleading news. Read history again sir. 196.204.25.218 14:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The wonderful UN, as one of its first notable deeds, started an aggressive war that is still ongoing. No wonder they can't seem to help anywhere.

Judaism template

Given that the 'Jew' Judaism template has a link to this article, surely the template belongs in the article? Zionism is undeniably connected to Judaism; yes, even secular Zionism. Nomist 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It didn't look too good, so I moved the Template:Jews and Judaism sidebar into the section Zionism#Jewish reaction to Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Israel template go under the heading "Zionism and Israel" further down (as done with the Judaism template)... there is probaly enough content to start a Zionism template if people wished? Oboler 13:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Israel had the capability to initiate an attack on 4 different countries... (look up the definition in Wikipedia and dispute that stance) but if it had then why did the Arab nations give up so easily during the six day war? Do you think that a war involving FIVE countries would last a mere 6 days? ESPECIALLY if all but one of the nations were on the same side... no.

Self defenders? That's cool... defend your land and faith. Thats cool. Initiating attacks on other countries because of your _________ (fill in the blank) [unresolved conflict regarding your faith] or [unresolved conflicts regarding your role in the world] even better... but your independence?! Like the French? I'm laughing at this point because how the hell are Islamic fundamentalists fighting for their "freedom" or their "independence"? Do you honestly think that they are attacking America or Israel for their own independence as a people? Are those two countries going to grant them that?! That's absolutely grand, by all means. The "Palenstines" are a diverse people of many faiths. they are not only Muslims as many would like to believe. You tell the truth. Dear Allah/God/Whatever.

The difference is faith. Faith in your afterlife or your people's future. France had faith in their nationality. Muslims have faith in what they hope will happen to them after this life. Big difference. Afterlife faith is selfish comparably to the future of this world without you.

Anti-zionism

there is no such thing as anti-zionism it is a made up word, and should have no place in wikipedia which is an encyclopedia all elements that cite factual sources on the concept of zionism - whether they are supportive or not supportive should be under the category of zionism

I really do not understand your point or how it even makes sense. Anti-Zionism is a term that is recognized by mainstream scholars and is used to denote a few specific types of opposition to Zionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

this is NOT evidence anti semitism. The fist one is evidence of blood libel, which has been applied to jews, chrisitians ,etc alike see blood libel. The second one is evidence of a group acting treasonous against Iraq, It has NOTHING to do with being Jewish, as to the Israeli-Arab war, this is to do with zionism, and the colonisation of palestine by european jews Talk 11:04 17 May.

Once again I do not see the relavance, or really how anything you just wrote makes sense.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Zalani 05:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Unfortunately, since the exposure of the State of Israel's apartheid policies in Western media, and especially with the establishment of the Apartheid Wall ([2]) that has been pronounced illegal by the International Court of Justice ([3]), world view has come to regard the Zionist policies of Israel as expansionist and racist. Zalani 05:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The amount of hatred towards Israel was out of proportion long before that. See Arab-Israeli conflict facts, figures, and statistics for comparison. As for "racism", even the UN revoked this false charge. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Direct (i.e. legally sanctioned) discrimination against Israeli Arabs exists. This is no secret. I merely provide (cited) examples to explain why "some consider" such practices racist.Trachys 05:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

ummm yes there is

He's right you know. Just look at Kappo. 87.242.143.17 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Saladin, you can't use a website like jewsagainstzionism.com as a source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Saladin1970, earlier you have replaced external links in the article, now you have removed my comment. Stop this vandalism now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

slimVirgin, jewsagainstzionism is a legitimate source, but that aside the page directed to quotes from the Talmud, and give references to scholars - so stop your vandalism, and pushing your zionist agenda.

humus sapiens - the post has been reverted because between you and slim, you have both been vandalising the site by removing legitimate section, with legitimate references. Please refrain from vandalising the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1970 (talk • contribs)

I assumed good faith and thought you did this by mistake, but you acknowledge that you've done this intentionally. Vandalilzing talk pages, sockpuppetry and misquoting sources is not how WP works. Goodbye. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's a reliable source about one group's opinion?

Arabs removed by force?

Is there any source for the latter part of the following statement: In 1937, Ben-Gurion and almost all of his party leadership supported a British proposal to create a small Jewish state from which the Arabs had been removed by force. This statement appears in Zionism#Zionism_and_the_Arab_Muslims_and_Arab_Christians. The Peel Commission Report (1937) makes no mention, and even explicitly mentions the inclusion of Galilean Arabs in the prospective Jewish state. Tewfik^Talk 23:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish leadership as a whole did not support the Peel commission proposal. Some were for it, many others against it.

here is one link supporting this claim, there are many others.

-Sangil 22:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few facts about NK, and about the non discriminatory nature of Israel.Incorrect 03:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed by force - well that seems to be what happened. I bet there must have been something done to make it happen - maybe magic.

I don't see any evidence that it happened. Israel officially invited Arabs to stay in their declaration of independence. And many Arabs did. Approxoimately 20% of the entire Israeli population are Arab-Israeli citizens. Did ANY Arabs flee the war zone created by invading Arab armies and at the urging of Arab leaders? Absolutely. But, this does not prove they were forced out. And when Israel invited 100,000 refugees to come to Israel as a good faith gesture to start peace talks, they were rejected by Arab leaders who refused to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and felt even allowing refugees into Israel with Israeli permission would be acknowledgement.

Even if Israel invites all of the misplaced people back to get what they originaly had, Israel is still guilty of taking a land that is not her's, and does not make the whole problem of erasing a nation and a culture that existed there for more than 1000 years OK, if someone steals your stuff and then gives you a bit of it back he will still be guilty of stealing wouldn't he, that does not make israel a saint.

Zionism Template?

Since Zionism is such a varied and significant family of ideologies, I propose a Zionism template along the lines of templates such as Socialism and Liberalism, which feature in the Politics series of Political ideologies. What do people think? Nomist 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Amibidhrohi 17:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I suggested this on May 14th 2006 under the Judaism template discussion (see above). Ah well. Oboler 01:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There was a people of Palestine before Israel was created

Zalani 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)I support this because there were massacres that followed, the most notrious of which is Deir Yassin. Please either refer to the following web site: http://www.deiryassin.org/. More important as a neutral resource is the published book of Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora, ([4]) which has a rich reportoir of photographs and documents (of historical and anthropological value) that attest to the existance of an Arab Palestinian people and culture (Muslim, Christian and Jewish) before the establishment of the state of Israel.Zalani 05:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, from the western perspective, that Palestinians lived in Palestine before the Israelis ethnically cleansed them is irrelevant, and so that bit of reality gets dismissed. The Palestinians are darker skinned, and most of them don't speak english; hence they don't get alot of Western sympathy in any real sense. Not even on anglo-Wikipedia. It's racist, it's wrong, but it's true. And by the way, what scientific evidence is there to prove the Jews lived in Israel for 3200 years? Amibidhrohi 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

you are very ignorant, dark-skinned?! yasser arafat is dark-skineed?! his wife, suha is dark-skineed?! just shut it,troll.

Lies. Half of Israel are Mizrahi Jews. Both of you, stop soapboxing and trolling. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what is that you want. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 21:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Zionism is a farce, created by non-religious Jews to leave Europe for Uganda, however, when that failed they went to Palestine instead. Then claiming "religious lineage" to the land they were banished and exiled from by God according to Rabbinic teachings.

I suggest you read Cultural Zionism and Religous Zionism, forms of Zionism. Also, Chaim Weizmann's Synthetic Zionism (the mainstream Zionism after Herzl's death) had Cultural Zionism elements in it (it was a mixture of Political, Activist and Cultural Zionism). Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 12:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Or for that matter I suggest you read any neutral source that discusses Zionism at any length, or anthing describing Judaism at any length, and by neutral I don't mean the official history of Saudi Arabia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 14:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

anyone with a strong feeling one way or the other should not be contributing to this article due to the intensity of the subject matter. Most of this discussion is in no way relevant to an encyclopedia entry.

Theocracy

Would it be safe to say Zionism is a theocratic theory since it promotes state rule for people of a certain religion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.235.125 (talk • contribs)

Umm, no, because it doesn't support "State rule for a people of a particular religion", also Zionism is not religious in nature.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Relevence of laundry list

This reading from the Jewish Encyclopedia had been added to the article:

"The extent to which the Zionist idea has spread among the Jewish people may be seen not only in the number of Jews affiliated with the Zionist organization and congress, but also in the fact that there is hardly a nook or corner of the Jewish world in which Zionistic societies are not to be found. Even where no such organizations exist expressions of approval and adhesion have come from bodies of Jews who have lived practically cut off from all connection with the course of Jewish life. Notable were communications, together with subscriptions for the fund, from a band of descendants of Portuguese Jews in Manecoré in Amazonas, Brazil (March 12, 1901), from Jews settled in Chile, and from the Jadid al-Islam in Khorasan (1901); while societies exist in Tshita (Siberia, on the Manchurian border), Tashkent, Bokhara, Rangoon (Burma), Nagasaki, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and among the American soldiers in the Philippines. The Shanghai Zionist Association was founded in 1903; the Dr. Herzl East Africa Zionist Association in Nairobi (East-African Protectorate) in 1904. In Australia there are four Zionist federations: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and West Australia. Queensland has its own federation with its center in Brisbane, and New Zealand has several societies. Even among the Russian Jews settled by the Jewish Colonization Association in Argentina, there is a federation comprising four societies. A Zionist congress was held there May 16, 1904, comprising delegates of 1,150 shekel-paying members. In every country of Europe, in the United States, along the North-African coast, and in Palestine similar societies are to be found. At the St. Louis Exposition, 1904, the Zionist flag (blue and white stripes, with a "Magen Dawid" in the center) floated from one of the buildings together with those of other nationalities."

I had trimmed it to just "there is hardly a nook or corner of the Jewish world in which Zionistic societies are not to be found," which I think summarizes effectively the entire passage. Why do the two other editors feel it is important to include a gazeteer in the article? I think it adds nothing beyond length and tangentially interesting facts such as that there were Jewish communities in various remote areas near the beginning of the last century.

Template placement

Where should {{Political ideologies}} go? Is there a way to put templates on the left side of an article?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Still POV

Sorry, but article reads POV to me. I support the idea of having a template, because this is a family of ideologies. Also, this article is not the place to go into the ancient history of Judaism in the Levant, except to describe as accurately and neutrally as possible what Zionists believe. I would change introductory sentence to saying that Zionists believe there should be a Jewish homeland in "the Levant" rather than either "the Land of Israel" or "Palestine". "The Levant" is neutral. But is this in fact accurate, or have there been varieties of Zionism that did not think that a Jewish land had to be specifically in Palestine? Following a shortened introduction, the history of Zionism should be started from when it actually started as a movement - 19th century? Not go into ancient history which is not relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

Hello Itsmejudith,

I believe that the relevance is in that while Zionism is a political movement, it developed out of a much older religious-cultural ideal. And while I acknowledge that at first glance the first two paragraphs seem too lengthy, there is a direct connection between their information and (1) the lack of a political movement in the pre-Zionist ideal and (2) the pragmatics surrounding a Jewish presence in the land sought by the movement. That said, if you could present a more specific critique, it might be easier to accomodate. To answer your other query, various phases discussed places like Argentina or Uganda as alternatives to Palestine - they are dealt with in detail in the main article. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Hence"

Could someone explain why "hence" is in this sentence (which does not seem to follow logically to me "It is however, important to note that the Zionist movement predates the Holocaust by some ninety years, hence the aftermath of the Holocaust did not lead to the creation of the State of Israel." The desire predates, but how does this imply that the fulfilment was not as a result of...

Regarding the first item on the "Further Reading" list

I Just wanted to inform that the first item - ""Confessions of an Arab Zionist" seems to be a prank, since the author's name "Kalb Ibn Kalb" means "a dog son of a dog" in Arabic... a rather unusual name for a person. I would be really glad if someone fix this please.

UN Resolution

"Resolution 3379 states that 'Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.'" Ought we not to mention this? Smitty Mcgee 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not "UN", it's UN General Assembly. BTW, are you aware of the UN General Assembly Resolution 4686 which revoked the 3379? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How about mentioning both? Certainly seems somewhat relevant. Ronabop 05:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Both are already mentioned. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context maybe it is also relevant to mention that in at least some countries (like Sweden) the word 'Zionism' is an extremely negative term, in the same category as Nazist, Fascist, and 'nigger' in the US. Perhaps this is a reflection of the time when Zionism was a major terrorist organisation (or at least affiliated with one), and a sentiment reflected in the UN resolution (the GA is of course above, not below, the Security council in prestige, since no country has a veto in it). It could be relevant information for people dealing with other cultures.--Ulf Erlingsson

Jerusalem Program

The [Jerusalem Program] is the Zionist definition of Zionism. Its absense from this article is a major oversight, akin to, but more serious than, an article about the U.S. Declaration of Independence without mentioning John Locke. The Jerusalem Program is important, among other reasons, because it is emphatically the right of Zionists to say what Zionism is; because it lays out the aims and foundations of Zionism; and because it shows the pluralism of Zionism: Zionism is not just political; it has cultural, spiritual, and moral dimensions also. Anomalocaris 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

About the GA nomination

I most certainly do not want to get dragged into some sort of flame war and so I will (cowardly) leave to someone else the task of failing this for good article status. However, I think that it will and should fail because

1. the article is not that stable (even when disregarding the inevitable vandalism). There are continuous disputes on the talk page about POV issues, about acceptable external links and so on.
2. the article seems to me lacking a serious section on critics of zionism. I don't think the Anti-zionism section has due weight, especially since it's focused on the jewish critics of zionism. There are 3 miserable lines about the opinion that zionism is inherently racist (which one has to agree is widespread regardless of anyone's take on the matter) followed by 15 lines debunking the argument.

Pascal.Tesson 04:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Zionism/Archive 8 has failed, for the following reason:

Since no one seems to volunteer, I will fail the nomination for GA myself. The article is unstable and has NPOV concerns as explained above. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiritual Zionism

I came to the Zionism article in the hope of finding some mention of spirtual Zionism. By spiritual Zionism, I mean an interpretation of Zion as a spirtual realm, not a physical place in Israel/Palestine or anywhere else. I was taught (ages ago in a religion class at university) that there was also this kind of Zionism, I think. Does this kind of Zionism exist and if so is there an article about it? I have had a look around and see that

Ani-Zionism does not seem to mention objections to Zionism in terms of objection to the formation of a concrete rather than spiritual entity.

"Religious Zionism" is concrete Zionism on religous grounds

Satmar and Neturei Karta are (in part or whole) against the formation of a concrete state by the actions of humans because they believe that the Messiah or God should be instrumental in its creation.

Autonomous Zionism, now "dissappeard," comes closest perhaps but it seems to emphasise political, and in that sense concrete, entities: self governing Jewish communities in the diaspora.

This is not what I mean. I am looking for the Jewish faction (if such exist) who believe in the creation of a spiritual realm of Zion. Or are these people Christians :-)! It seems to me that the Christians are into a spiritual interpretation of Zion but you would think that there are also some Jews that while rejecting Jesus, also go for a spiritual interpretation of Zion. Please feel free to delete this when you post directions to a Spiritual Zionism. Or is it only a Christian (I was brought up as one) that be so absurd as to suggest that Zion and Zionism might be interpretted spiritually?

"Spiritual Zionism" might be similar to Religious Zionism. Many of the ideas of religious Zionism are similar to Christian views. Masterhomer 21:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Masterhomer, but the Religious Zionism article starts with "Religious Zionists are a faction within the Zionist movement which justify Zionist efforts to build a Jewish state in the land of Israel on the basis of Judaism." I.e. refers to the creation of a concrete state. I am thiking of something along the lines of

• Luke 17:20-21 and the "kingdom" "within"
• Pure Land Buddhism and its "pure land" which is also the state of enlightenment.

Is there a Zionism which sees "Zion" as a spiritual state? --Timtak 07:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Come to think of it, perhaps this "talk" should be in the Anti-Zionism page if anywhere, since Zionism is almost universally taken to be concrete and this Spiritual interpretation is "Anti" the standard interpertation. --Timtak 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Arab World

Meccaism: The princibale of spreading Arab culture and Islam throughout the world. Meccaist followers of Meccaism

Even though it's found at Anti-Zionism ...

... I believe the (recently removed) link spotlighting Orthodox dissent and opposition to Zionism belongs here.

If it should only be in one article, I believe it should be featured in this one, as this article has the most visibility, and the dissent is eminently relevant to the subject. Thoughts? BYT 18:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On top of the fact that anti-Zionist links go in the Anti-Zionism page, it's not a reliable source - in fact, it's an extreme minority opinion. There's no indication that Lubavitch runs it, by the way; that's certainly false. The fact that you have no idea who runs it tells you something. It's not a "denomination", it's a Post Office Box. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it probably doesn't belong on the Anti-Zionism page for those reasons as well. I'll leave it there for now, if only to pacify the people who insist it must exist somewhere, but if the policy violations continue, I'll have to start removing it from there also. By the way, BYT, do you think Arabs for Israel should be linked from this page? How about from the Arabs page? Also, I've found a fascinating site on Islam, Free-Minds. These true Muslims seem to feel that the vast majority of Muslims today are incorrect in their beliefs. It looks quite professional to me, certainly much more so than the "Jews against Zionism" site. Should I add it as an external link to the Islam article, or would you prefer to? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me we're omitting an important minority voice here, on this page, Jay. No one's saying we should be presenting it as the mainstream view, and if you say they're not Lubavitchers I'll take your word for it, but pretending they don't exist seems disingenuous. Inasmuch as similarly outnumbered minority viewpoints show up in many comparable articles -- [[5]], for instance, which is referenced in Catholocism -- I really don't see the point of airbrushing this out. Not sure what the fact that the link shows up in Anti-Zionism has to do with anything.

As links, yes, I personally would have no problem including those sites you mention. We are not establishing any kind of litmus test for orthodoxy here, but rather offering insights as to what the range of opinion is. (Joe McCarthy was not a reliable source; someone running a Joe McCarthy fan club is probably not a reliable source, yet such a link would be appropriate as an external link at Joseph McCarthy.) Anyway, if you want to add those sites as external links here and at Islam, I certainly won't try to stop you.

Do you think it's worthwhile, in this article, to reflect the diversity of opinion on this issue among contemporary Jews? BYT 16:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, aside from the fact that anti-Zionism is dealt with at Anti-Zionism, it's an extreme minority opinion from a non-reliable source. It's a Post Office Box, not a denomination. Exactly who runs that website? What is the denomination's name? Who are their leaders? Can you name any of that? Please re-read the policies on this. This article already the full range of views among contemporary Jews, including anti-Zionism, and directs people to the lengthy article on the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So in my McCarthy example, you don't believe a contemporary Joe McCarthy fan club would be worth including as an external link at Joseph McCarthy? On the theory that the person who promotes such a fan club is not a reliable source?

Jay, I'm confused here. We're not citing anyone as a source. We're illustrating the range of opinion that exists on a contentious issue. So why do we keep coming back to how reliable these people are? Is David Duke a reliable source? Why do we link to his web site at the end of the article about him? Is the Communist League a reliable source? If not, what are they doing at the end of the article on Communism? BYT 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a personal website, Brandon. We don't link to personal websites unless it's the site of the subject of the article. If there was Wikipedia article about Jewsagainstzionism then we could provide a link to their site. This is not an article about Jewsagainstzionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay -- thank you for this. The "reliability" of the source, then, seems like a non-issue with regard to relvant external links included at the end of the article.

Also off the table, I think, is the issue of whether something doesn't belong here by virtue of its being featured as a link at Anti-Zionism. A link could be equally relevant in both places. If some decree came down that a link had to land in one and only one place, and I have yet to see such a decree, there's certainly no logical reason to segregate the link in such a way as to suggest that a movement or philosophy is more widely accepted than it actually is.

We have no obligation to ensure that only links uncritical of Zionism show up as references at the end of this article. But that, to a neutral observer of the article as it is currently formulated, sure looks like the play here.

Let's note that [this] shows up as a link at the end of Socialism. Many other situations like that.

We agree on these points, yes? It's simply a matter of this particular site representing, despite all appearances to the contrary, the viewpoint of a single individual. And that's our problem here. It's a personal website.BYT 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If a website is non-encyclopedic, then it doesn't belong in external links. As well, since a lengthy article specifically about anti-Zionism has been created, and that article is summarized and linked to from here, then anti-Zionist links belong in the Anti-Zionism article, not here. In addition, the website is a personal website, and it likely shouldn't be referenced even in the anti-Zionism article. All 3 factors are relevant, and any one of them is good enough reason to exclude the link. Those are points I can agree on. In addition, I don't know what the Ludwig von Mises Institute has to do with this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help a little? On Jews not Zionists also in general see this discussion on minority views[6] I hope that's of use. Perhaps I shoud start another topic on this, but I personally think the link to ZionismOnTheWeb.org does belong here as many of the key Zionists sites that are linked to here do NOT provide any information on Zionism... what they do is support ZionismOnTheWeb and refer people there. Oboler 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, I can clarify. The article in question opposes socialism. It nevertheless appears as a link in the article Socialism. There is a parallel: we currently have no articles or websites opposing Zionism offered as links at the end of the article Zionism. That seems unbalanced to me, whether or not the article Anti-Zionism exists. That's what the article I referenced has to do with this article. I disagree with the contention that no links opposing Zionism belong here, and I cite this Socialism example to show you exactly why I disagree with that contention. BYT 22:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even call it a minority opinion, because that implies that it is actualy somewhat of a movement. For all we know it could be some odd gentile who decided to start a website. Even if you were advocating mentioning something like Neuterai Karta (which of course we shouldn't) you would have to concede that they are also a tiny fringe movement which is ridiculed by every other Jewish organization in the world (even other anti-Zionist Jews).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT, your issues have been answered. There are many good reasons this link should not be added, including, but not limited to, the fact that it is a personal website. Please don't add it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

After so many explicit and direct appeals to you for help, Jay, this response is so disingenuous as to be disruptive. Once again, I would like to ask you (although perhaps I shouldn't expect an answer): Is there a [policy] that states this link may not be placed here, and must instead be placed at Anti-Zionism? BYT 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So -- any link that opposes Zionism is a fringe link?

Is that the argument? A collection of historical quotes from rabbis of generations past, holding forth on the phenomenon of Zionism, a political movement, is not relevant to this article? Pretty shady reasoning here, friends. Break it down for me, please. BYT 15:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT, your issues have been answered. There are many good reasons this link should not be added, including, but not limited to, the fact that it is a personal website. I'll repeat the previous comment: If a website is non-encyclopedic, then it doesn't belong in external links. As well, since a lengthy article specifically about anti-Zionism has been created, and that article is summarized and linked to from here, then anti-Zionist links belong in the Anti-Zionism article, not here. In addition, the website is a personal website, and it likely shouldn't be referenced even in the anti-Zionism article. All 3 factors are relevant, and any one of them is good enough reason to exclude the link. Please don't add it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. There are a lot of issues to discuss here, but Topic A, I think, is your suggestion that I've added the same link twice to this article. Is that what you meant to say?

Here is the first diff: [7]

Here is the second diff: [8]

They are different sites. A casual reader of this talk page might conclude, from your remarks, that I was plugging in the same site repeatedly. You don't mean to suggest that, I hope, because that's not what I did. Can you clarify what you meant when you said "please don't add it again"? What, specifically, did you mean the word "it" refer to?

That's Topic A. I'll get to B and onwards after we've sorted this out. BYT 13:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In what way do the sites differ? The one you added is the personal website of "Rabbi Mordecai W. Weberman" - he apparently gives his home address as a contact point. How do you know the "quotes" are accurate, and given in context? And it still doesn't deal with the other issues; Anti-Zionism is well-summarized here, and linked to in the Anti-Zionism article. That is where the anti-Zionist links are found. There should be no overlap in the links on the articles - if there is, feel free to remove it. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You're changing the subject. What I asked was, is any site that offers this perspective on Zionism as a political philosophy, by definition, a "fringe" site? That seems to be what you're trying to enforce here.

Also, and while we're on the subject, I'd appreciate it if you stopped repeating this business about Anti-Zionism covering the subject of anti-Zionism. I know that.

I also know that there is no WP policy stating that discussion of opposing views to a political philiosophy must be covered in an article called Anti-Whatever. And, as we've seen, there is the practical example of Socialism, which features end-of-article links to sites hostile to socialism.

Once again: Are you trying to enforce some standard whereby any resource is considered to be connected to a "fringe" group if it opposes Zionism? BYT 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're changing the subject, and erecting strawman arguments; I haven't said or implied that "any site that offers this perspective on Zionism as a political philosophy, by definition, a "fringe" site". If anything, you've been making that argument, by bringing up various personal websites as exemplars. There are three good reasons for not including the links you've attempted to insert, and you've not refuted any of them. There is no policy that "Anti-whatever" is covered in an Anti article, but in this case it is, as there are two lengthy articles on the subjects, one on Zionism, and one on Anti-Zionism. If there were an Anti-Socialism article, then anti-Socialist links would belong there. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're changing the subject, and erecting strawman arguments; I haven't said or implied that "any site that offers this perspective on Zionism as a political philosophy, by definition, a "fringe" site".

No, indeed you haven't. Quite to the contrary, you've been ignoring the question I posed. (See headline.) Come to think of it, you're ignoring it right now. Can I assume the answer is "No"? It sounds like that's the point you're trying to make, but there's a troubling lack of specificity. BYT 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, you've been making that argument, by bringing up various personal websites as exemplars. There are three good reasons for not including the links you've attempted to insert, and you've not refuted any of them.

Check and double check. And since you've got a good deal more experience on this topic, and with this article, than I have, I've twice yielded to your suggestion that they not be included, and have not attempted to re-insert links you didn't like. What's the problem?

There is no policy that "Anti-whatever" is covered in an Anti article, but in this case it is, as there are two lengthy articles on the subjects, one on Zionism, and one on Anti-Zionism.

You're talking about what "is" the case; I'm asking what policy expects of us. Is it your position, please, that there exists a WP policy forbidding links critical of a certain political philosophy (say, "X"), when the article Anti-X exists? If so, can you please point me toward that policy? BYT 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If there were an Anti-Socialism article, then anti-Socialist links would belong there. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And would, by policy, have to be included there, and have to be excluded from Socialism? Not asking about your personal preference, please, but about the rules. Please clarify. Many thanks, BYT 15:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, please stop wikilawyering, and please don't make false claims in your edit summaries (e.g. "per talk page"). This article is about Zionism, the other article is about Anti-Zionism. The links appropriate to each go in their respective pages. I note that the latest link you've added isn't even about Zionism at all, but rather a link to an organization which is against "Israeli Occupation", and which happens, in passing, to state that Zionism is not the same thing as Judaism, a position held by most Jewish groups, even if they are Zionist. Your addition of irrelevant links is increasingly disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see how asking for clarification on policy is disruptive. You're saying you don't want to give me that clarification, right? BYT 16:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying don't put words in my mouth, and don't misquote me. The continual addition of dubious links is disruptive, as is claiming that you had cleared them "per talk page". There are now four good reasons not to add the links you've added, including the fact that the latest was not on the topic. You have yet to refute any of them. Please feel free to come up with a new argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandon your entire argument seems to be centered around continually asking a question that is completely irrelevant. Nobody every said nor implied that any anti-zionist website is inherantly a fringe site, the websites you have provided are personal websites, if I started a website right now about an accusation that the American government is manufacturing cyborgs that are slowly replacing the entire global population (I swear I have documentable proof that this is happening) would that be an acceptable link on the United States of America article? How about the cyborg article? These kinds of websites can be made so easily and they have no credibility and thus are unacceptable on any kind of encyclopedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Back up, please. I perceive an imbalance in this article: Lots of Jews think (and thought) Zionism was (and is) a lousy idea, and the links section, as currently constituted, does not reflect that reality. I'm asking you for help on how to fix this.

Now, before you remind me of it again (and please don't) I do know the Anti-Zionism article exists, but I disagree with you on the notion that every link critical of Zionism should go there, and be omitted from this article.

Since we have that disagreement, I am asking for help from you in determining a) whether there is some WP policy that would keep me from posting those links here, and if so, what it is; and b) if there is no such policy, what the criteria for including such a link should, in your view, be.

If the mere fact of a group's opposing Zionism means it can't be mentioned or referenced here, I would submit that that's an unfair criteria.

So far, I've gotten a lot of good information from you on what such a link SHOULDN'T look like (shouldn't be a personal website, should deal directly and only with the topic of Zionism, should use citations if it features quotes from historical figures). That's KIND of, but not quite, b) but I should say outright that what you've given me about what you're NOT looking for is, I think, getting us closer to the mark.

However, I still don't know anything about a). I promise not to put words in your mouth, but if you actually say something about a), we might have a better dialogue. BYT 17:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The guideline, WP:External links, says we should not add links to "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research." That seems to sum up the links you want to add, and one of them was not about Zionism anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While U of Calgary is perhaps reliable in this matter, it doesn't change that this belongs in Anti-Zionism. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 17:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In that ...? BYT 17:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In that this article is about Zionism, and already has a Zionism#Anti-Zionism_and_post-Zionism section which links to the main article, so there's certainly balance. Thanks for the link though, I've added it to Anti-Zionism where, of course, it belongs. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

After creating so many direct and explicitly worded appeals to you for help on a question to which there is presumably a clear answer, Jay, I begin to wonder when a disingenuous response, like the one above, crosses the line into irresponsible behavior on the part of an admin. Once again-- I would like to know if there is a [policy] that instructs us to move a link like this away from Zionism and into Anti-Zionism. If there is, can you please point me towards it? It's really not that difficult a question. BYT 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop erecting strawman arguments. External links relevant to the topic belong in the article; this is an article about Zionism, not Anti-Zionism. As a simple example, one would not put links about Capitalism in the Communism article. Indeed, the Communism article contains no "anti" links; instead, those links are all found in the Criticism of communism article. As well, one does not find any "anti" links in the Islam article that I can see; for example, Answering Islam. The few and paltry ones that exist are all in the Criticism of Islam article. Go figure. Go add that link to the Islam article, and once you're successful, come back and we'll talk some more about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jay, I'm asking you a question about WP guidelines, one you resolutely refuse to answer. For it to be a strawman argument, or indeed any kind of argument, I would have to make an assertion for debate. This, what we're doing right now, would be a different animal entirely, namely a discussion. I'm trying to get your help on improving this page, and trying to find out whether there are WP policies supporting the line you've drawn here.

Re: below. I'm absolutely blown away by the eerie coincidence that my latest proposed link falls short of your standards for inclusion here. Just for the record, are you going to be checking every other university link to be sure that it doesn't connect to an individual professor's homepage? And (to be clear) are you saying that this professor is not a credible source?

Thanks, too, for your examples. Are you now planning to go clean up Marxism and make sure they eliminate the final section of links there? Some of them are critical of Marxism. You're saying that's against the (continuously unspecified but nevertheless binding) rules, right? BYT 23:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The website is titled Eliezer Segal's Home Page! And it's no coincidence, you consistently prefer personal websites. Answering Islam. Put it in Islam. After it has stuck there for a few days, come back and we'll talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Biased

The last sentence of the introduction is very wierd. It defines Zionism as to whitewash anti-semitism, but then gives the example of anti-zionist. This example inappropriately gives sympathy to zionism without really addressing the "whitewash anti-semitism" part.

Overall, I think that the entire article did not address the reasons why non-Jews would be anti-zionism, which is actually the interest of reading the article for non-Jews.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.251.118 (talk • contribs)

Okay, the link that hit all the marks was just reverted

Reliable source, not a personal website, about only Zionism.

What's the reasoning, please? If it's because you feel this link "belongs" at Anti-Zionism and only there, please show me the policy that says that's the way we have to go here. BYT 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It was about Anti-Zionism, not Zionism. See above. BTW, it was also a personal website - in this case, Eliezer Segal's personal website. The fact that he works at a University is interesting, and makes him somewhat more reliable in general, but it's still clear that it's his website, no-one else's. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fringe" because, and only because, speaker opposed Zionism?

I placed a quote in the article that ...

• Was not sourced from a personal web site, but from a mainstream periodical.

• Was historically relevant to the period under discussion.

• Was clearly relevant to the section topic.

• Was accurately attributed to the founder of a notable sect.

• Was referenced properly within the article.

It has been instantly reverted -- twice -- with the explanation that it represents a "fringe" viewpoint.

Any explanation here as to why we should not openly admit now that such material is unacceptable because any and every such citation is regarded by editors here as "fringe" by virtue of its opposition to Zionism? Is that the policy we're following, or am I missing something? BYT 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You inserted a whole series of crappy links, yet again, along with that insertion. With your disruptive and patently disingenuous editing and strawman arguments here you've used up all your good faith, Brandon. Until you insert Answering Islam as an external link in Islam, and make it stick with the tenacity you've displayed here, I'm afraid your edits will be viewed as disruptive POV-pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have (quite patiently, I think) followed your every suggestion, Jay, and abandoned every single link to which you objected. If the goal is to improve the quality of the article, you've got to give me a little bit of credit for trying here. Each and every editing problem you've identified, I've dutifully addressed. I'm very sorry if the early edits I made on this site weren't up to your standards, but at least I don't push the same mistake over and over again. (Addendum -- those "crappy links" to which you objected were added in error. If there is no consensus to include them, they shouldn't be in, and I apologize for the mistake of not seeing them.)

My question stands. Exactly what was wrong with the quote I inserted? BYT 15:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone here, but if I were to guess, I would hazard that, as a result of your disruptive, POV, and tendentious editing, and disingenuous commenting and strawman arguments, you have lost the good faith of the editors here, Brandon. What you describe as "patient", others would, at this point, probably describe as "trolling". I suggest you retire to articles on which you have more expertise for a while, so that the bad feelings engendered by your previous actions here can subside. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is, by definition, geared toward provoking a reaction ... and not toward improving the article.

I want to address a major omission in this piece: the visceral nature of much historic and contemporary Jewish opposition to Zionism. That's why I am focusing, repeatedly, on the question of exactly what you and other editors here need to see from me in order for us to address this issue. So far, it's been like nailing Jell-o to a wall.

Is there any particular reason you don't want to tell me what was wrong with the quote I inserted this morning? BYT 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Trolling is, by definition, geared toward provoking a reaction ... and not toward improving the article. Exactly. That's why I'm going to try to refrain from reacting any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You honestly think I enjoy this? Talk about disingenous. We have here an article on a political philosophy that, for some reason, is immune to the level of intellectual scrutiny accorded to, say, Marxism. If someone else would carry this bucket, I'd be more than happy to find another one to carry around. In the meantime ... talk pages are for discussing article content, right? And I made an edit this morning, right? And you didn't like it, right? Is it fair for me ask why? BYT 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is bad enough when someone attempts to set up their entire argument based on annoying rhetorical questions, but it is even worse when those questions have no bearing or actual relevance to what is actually going on.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I made the edit. You reverted it. That's what's "actually going on."

I'm asking you to tell me, specifically, why you reverted it. (Other than saying, as you did in your edit summary, that we've already discussed it, which seems untrue to me.)

You didn't see this quote before today; you reverted it today. What was your reasoning?BYT 17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT, you are promoting the views of a fringe sect. Their radical views get popularized at WP way out of proportion, thereby skewing the overall picture. Whether you do this intentionally or for the lack of knowledge, please stop. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And here's where I need some help, Humus. Which fringe sect, specifically? Does it have a name, or any identifying characteristics other than that of holding politically unpopular views? As it stands, "fringe" seems to be a catch-all term for "anyone whoever has disagreed with, or now disagrees with, the central tenets of Zionism." It's like saying anyone in Texas who didn't vote Republican in 2004 is a "fringe sect." BYT 18:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are as confused as you pretend to be, follow Jayjg's suggestion at the top of this page. Enough of that innuendo. From WP:AGF: "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it's good faith to systematically sanitize an article about a political philosophy so as to ensure that no meaningful representation of those who dissent from it can appear in the text. We don't do that with Marxism. We don't do that with Libertarianism (do check out some of the body blows to that system of thought that appear in that article). We don't do that with Liberation theology. I am at an utter loss as to why we should airbrush Zionism. BYT 21:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism is a national liberation movement. There is a whole another article dedicated to Anti-Zionism. Show me an example of anti- article for other national liberation movements. But that is not enough: some feel an urge to turn Zionism into a clone of Anti-Zionism. Are you telling us that this urge of yours is strictly encyclopedic? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice how Brandon continues to studiously avoid the examples of Communism and Islam, each of which has its own Criticism of communism and Criticism of Islam articles, in which all "anti" links and discussion are determinedly kept. That's the kind of thing that made editors here realize he is not using Talk: in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What I'm studiously avoiding is the diversionary tactic of accepting an invitation to go work on other articles (seemingly, any other articles) in some Quixotic attempt to obtain later, quasi-papal dispensation from you to work on this one. Not the purpose of our project.

For the record, Islam today produces nothing close to a coherent, unifying political philosophy; it is a faith system, and we, its followers, are manifestly incoherent and ununified. The better comparison would not be with articles like Islam or Judaism or Hinduism, but rather with Islamism, an article which, lo and behold, reads for long passages very much as though it were a prosecutor's brief against the philosophy in question. That's okay, though, yes?

Communism (the article) is a strange bird because it's 80-90% backward-looking; the states and movements it describes are mostly defunct. Not a great analogue with contemporary Zionism. Again, I ask you to consider the intriguing comparisons to be made between this article and the (to my mind) more vigorous and balanced assessments appearing at Marxism, Liberation theology, and Libertarianism ... but sometimes one feels as though one is raising points that will simply never, ever be addressed directly, for Reasons People Choose Not to Specify. Speaking of which, there are several overdue questions to you, Jay, about what, specifically, you don't like about this edit. I'm not sure I would lecture too long or too eagerly about people studiously avoiding uncomfortable subjects on this page. BYT 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Halachic discussion

The halachic discussion is incomplete in that it does not mention the important distinction between individual and communal aliyah. All modern halachic authorities I know of (including Rav Moshe Feinstein in Iggrot Moshe) agree that there is an individual requirement and there is a communal prohibition of aliyah. So the article's discussion is completely misrepresentative of the currently accepted halacha when it discusses whether it is among the 613 mitzvot. The debate within halacha is whether the communal prohibition mentioned in the Talmud was nullified or it is Aggadic as opposed to halachic, which are the positions of religious Zionists. 75.3.193.243 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We still don't have consensus...

.. on this edit. If people oppose it, please share on what grounds the opposition rests. BYT 13:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Reread the section above, and don't try to turn the article Zionism into a clone of Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Humus, the only tangible thing I get from rereading the section above is that people would rather I weren't working on this article. That's interesting, but it does not constitute meaningful feedback on the actual edit I'm proposing. Such feedback has been awfully hard to come by.

The paragraph I'm proposing we strengthen with a cited quote was already about historical opposition to Zionism. If we hold that reference to such opposition "belongs" in Anti-Zionism, then what we're saying is that the original paragraph itself (which was here long before I showed up) should be moved to Anti-Zionism, and that this article must not describe or make reference to dissenting voices on the question of whether or not Zionism is or was a good idea.

That's Stalinist editing, it's not the idea behind Wikipedia, and I don't think it's what you mean to suggest.

Assuming that the original paragraph on opposition to Zionism is still considered relevant to this article, and assuming that that original paragraph is not suddenly unacceptable because of the possibility of its being a "clone" of some other article, I'd like to get some specific feedback on my suggestion to improve that paragraph by adding this quote to it as a supporting example. Do people favor this addition or oppose it? Why? BYT 02:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Expressions such as "Stalinist editing" are personal attacks; desist immediately. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it again - I said it is not what Humus is suggesting.

Everything except discussion of the proposed edit is taking place here, friends. BYT 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can read quite clearly. You're not a total ass. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Deafening silence on quote about Satmar Chasidim founder's opinion of Zionism

• Not asking about people's opinions of me or my communication style.

• Not asking about what appears, or should appear, in other articles.

• Not asking about any article other than this one.

Asking, rather, about this edit on Zionism.

Do people support it? If so, why?

Do people oppose it? If so why? BYT 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think starting a new section every day means the previous discussions never happened? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think posing disembodied questions from on high is the same as addressing the issue under discussion? Once somebody has actually jumped through all the hoops, you develop a strange aversion to simple declarative sentences. BYT 12:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• When did Teitelbaum actually say that? I'm not doubting the source; I'm just trying to put it into a timeframe. Is this a post- or a pre-Holocaust position? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

He published it in 1958, in VaYoel Moshe. By the way, about 20% of Satmar Hassidim live in Israel, in Jerusalem and B'nei Brak. Teitelbaum himself lived in Israel for a year, in 1947, before emigrating to the States. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case, the addition doesn't really belong there; that paragraph is entirely about the pre-holocaust positions. It might fit somewhere. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tenets of Zionism

What's our source for the new "Tenets" section? These seem to be specific assertions, yet the text also notes that they are bitterly disputed, so we should have references for them. -Will Beback 20:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It looked like uncited original research to me, so I removed it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the tenets, and added the definition of Zionism in the opening sentence as a nationalist movement. Since they appear to be contested, and may be gone by the time you read this, they are:

• there is a national group, usually referred to in English as the 'Jewish people', which is comparable with other nations, such as the Polish or Swedish nations.
• it is entitled to a sovereign state, simply because it is a distinct nation, and also because this state is necessary to guarantee its own existence, and to provide a territory where its culture can flourish.
• the national group has a national homeland, which Zionists refer to as the Land of Israel, corresponding to a historic area of settlement of the national group. (There is no consensus on its exact boundaries among Zionists, let alone their opponents).
• the sovereign state should be located on this territory.
• the state should be a nation-state, specifically for the national group, and reflecting its character. In other words, it should be a Jewish state, intended primarily (or solely) for Jews.
• the claim of the national group on the territory overrides all other territorial claims of any other entity, or any other national group.

These are disputed propositions, but it is not in dispute that Zionism makes these claims. With one exception the opening paragraph is not 'sourced' either, and it also says Zionism seeks a Jewish national homeland. This article downplays the origin of Zionism as a 19th century European nationalist movement, and that needs to be corrected.Paul111 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is from the Zionist website zionismontheweb.org [9]:

"If you believe that the Jews are a people, and support the right of the Jews to a national home, and you are willing to stand up for that right when it is challenged, then you can call yourself a Zionist"

The website also says, inter alia, that Zionism is the 'national revival movement', that it 'holds that the Jews are a people' and 'therefore have the right to self-determination', in their 'historical homeland'.

All of these are common assertions of Zionism, and the sourced definition as as national liberation movment implies it is a a nationalist movement (one is a subset of the other).Paul111 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If they're "common assertions of Zionism", then it should be easy enough to find reliable sources for them. I'll remove it till you can find them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No need for that: the article already has 1968 Jerusalem program - perhaps it needs to be more prominent. Meanwhile, I provided a source for it. Of course, there are many different flavors of Z. but AFAIK this is the official one from WZO. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but "tenet" is as tendentios word as "dogma". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And in what sense was the carefully cited quote about the Satmar Chasidim founder's opinion of Zionism "original research"?

[Jay], You're not making edits without discussing them, I hope. BYT 21:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, I hope you're not making edits with deceptive edit summaries - that's just another proof of tendentious editing. There is no indication that a quote from that particular person is notable, and it certainly doesn't belong in that section. It's a detail better suited for the anti-Zionism article. In any event, you've already used up the good faith on this page, and you're latest deceptive edit summary cements that, Brandon. You need to go edit other articles for a while, so that people can learn to trust you again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed to see you make these kinds of accusations, Jay. It's not what I had come to expect of an admin of your caliber.

My edit summary was completely above board: It did in fact include a major style edit, and it also provided a citation for a paragraph that had no citation -- the very same paragraph I've been talking about at length, and trying to get your input on, for the last few days.

I now know, and need no further reminding, that you don't like people working on this article who disagree with you. There comes a point where that is not my problem. I'm now going to ask you to stop suggesting that I work elsewhere.

As for tendentious editing... it's an interesting charge for you to make. BYT 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You can request whatever you like. It would be helpful if you actually read the content of the section you were trying to insert information into, rather than desperately shoving it in wherever you thought it would be most prominent. The section you were putting it in was about Jewish attitudes to Zionism before the founding of Israel; why you would shove a quotation from 1958 into a paragraph talking about the 1930s, unless you hadn't actually read what the paragraph and section was about? I've clarified the subject of the section, just for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a significant step forward, inasmuch as it constitutes direct commentary on the edit I was proposing. (It sounded for a while there as though you were saying it constituted original research, which was mystifying.) This, anyway, is precisely the feedback I have been asking you (or any other editor) for. I am sorry I got the date wrong. A properly cited 1930s-era quote would be more appropriate for this section, and the 1958 quote should go elsewhere, yes? BYT 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, because the section doesn't need quotes, nor does the article need the 1958 quote, nor does it need you editing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BYT, stop your innuendos. Intentionally or not, this article is being turned into a clone of Anti-Zionism as the efforts to add anti-Zionist quotes and arguments here continue. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I hardly see how, with the revert troops standing guard. What anti-Zionist element, specifically, are you suggesting has actually shown up in the text since I started work here? BYT 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as this article is incessantly attacked, it should be guarded. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Move along, BYT - your constant attempts to insert irrelevant POV here are tiresome, and your "no good faith edits" clock was just reset. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Double Standard?

There seems to be a slight double standard when describing the Middle East conflict.

In the article Zionism, the PLO is desribed as using terrorism as a means of political 'struggle'. Surely the PLO's form of political struggle is the same as those used by extremists in the former Zionist movement, as described in the Zionist political violence article?

As such, shouldn't either the 'Zionist political violence' be more obviously classified as terrorism, or the Palestinian 'terrorism' described in this article and on wikipdia be edited to 'political violence'.

That would remove any unintended, slight bias - as it is obvious that the two terms dont have equivalent neutrality.

--Snellios 21:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a Palestinian political violence article, just like there's a Zionist political violence article. The article is not called "Palestinian terrorism". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Lovely :) So do you don't oppose a slight edit to change the 'terrorism' to 'political violence' in this article, just for the sake of consistency?

Why have you removed the neutrality dispute tag before this discussion is over? --Snellios 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

One doesn't tag an entire article as having NPOV problems over one word buried deep in the body. As for the word change, please note that why the individual articles are titled "political violence", individual items within them are often tagged as "terrorism"; for example, the King David Hotel bombing is on a List of terrorist incidents. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the one word buried deep in the body of the article could be quite significant. Word choice makes a difference, especially on this topic. If we say the PLO engaged in terrorism, and we don't say the Zionists did so, that's a neutrality problem. BYT 02:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Snellios, I appreciate how carefully you worded the question. The PLO was/is the Palestinian maintream organization, at least before 1990s terrorism was its principal means of struggle. OTOH, in the former Zionist movement terrorism was used only by extremists and only for a short time. I highlighted what I consider keywords here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A national liberation movement?

The term is not accurate for early Zionism. It implies something like the FRETILIN, which is already in the national homeland and conducting military operations against the percieved imperial power. Although that comparison is accurate for the Mandate-period armed groups, it would apply that early Zionists were fighting a war against the Ottoman Empire or intended to fight one. Its use after 1948, for the State of Israel, is non-standard since states are not considered liberation movements. The post-1948 claims on territory are properly described as irredentism.Paul111 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've provided 8 additional citations for this fact; please stop removing well-cited facts, even if you disagree with them, and let's let Zionists speak for themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the description as a 'national liberation movement' improves the intro paragraph. It has connotations of armed struggle, and will remind readers of the fact that some Zionists use force to secure their goals - that is a prominent feature of Zionism. The perspective of this article should not be the Zionist perspective, although it should include the Zionist perspective. More on that per specific issue. Paul111 12:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul111, it appears that 9 sources were unacceptable for you until you reframed the definition to malign the subject. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Zionism a movement toward the liberation of a nation? What nation is seeking liberation from what subjucation? Some people's view of history would agree, but I don't think this is a demonstrable claim. "Zionism is a national liberation movement": I do not believe this is a fact-based claim. Moreover, what sort of liberty is being asserted?

Huh.

Zionism is a national liberation movement.

It doesn't matter if the term "national liberation movement" is sourced; it's still biased, and many would disagree with that label. I can give you dozens of sources accusing zionism of being "racist" or "racialist," but that doesn't really mean shit.

Certain individuals and groups have seized on the term "Zionism" and have misused...

English is governed only by its speaker, so there is no authority to declare which uses of a word are "incorrect." (Just consult Humpty Dumpty from Alice :) POV..

..used it to justify attacks on Israel.

uh.. what? Do you mean "attacks on jews?"

In some cases, the label "Zionist" is also used improperly

Guess.

as a euphemism for Jews in general by those wishing to whitewash anti-Semitism (as in the Polish anti-Zionist campaign and Zionology).

"Whitewash" is POV. JayW 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's let Zionists define what Zionism is, ok? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what you can't do. You can't let Bill Clinton define Bill Clinton, or George Bush define George Bush, or Hitler define Hitler, or Lenin define Lenin, or Al Qaeda define Al Qaeda, or the US define the US. When I am trying to qualify this stance, words like "absurd" and "unspeakable" come to my mind, but they are just too mild. I hardly dare mention the word (N)POV when commenting on it, because the Wikipedian concept and the stance in question seem to belong to two different realities. --Anonymous44 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Paul111's "principles"

Paul111, your "principles" section appears to be an original research summary of one specific article, though not really properly sourced. The article doesn't need one specific summary of this complex movement, nor does it need the specific one you have chosen. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul111, it seems that you are trying to prove some WP:POINT. The official principles are covered further in the article, search for "Jerusalem program". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul111, you must realise that quoting the same source seven times doesn't make its position more mainstream. And think about it, if the only way for you to make the case is with a 7 times quoted source, maybe something is wrong with the position. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 20:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Multiple sources were asked for. Since the essay was already used (by the same people who objected to the unsourced section), as a definitive source for Zionist principles, I used it too. The source is the World Zionist Organisation, which is at least for Zionist self-definition a reliable source. The tenets or principles or characteristics do not need a separate section, they can all go in the intro paragraph, so if I have time, I will insert them there one by one. The Jerusalem Programme is not a sufficient description of Zionism, as seen from nationalism theory. Paul111 11:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a specific need to re-write Zionism into your own view of nationalism. However, Zionism is quite adequately described in the existing article. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism is not accurately or adequately described in the existing version, because it lacks any theoretical or comparative perspective, and because is written largely as a history of the Zionist movement, which is not the same thing as an article on Zionism.Paul111 14:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Are Jews a nation?

A central claim of all nationalist movements, is that they speak for a nation. Although the intro paragraph says Zionism is a nation, it speaks of the Jewish people in this context. Implied is that the Jewish people is the same thing as the Jewish nation, but the intro is neither explicit or unambiguous. The intro should clarify the issue, so to begin with a source is needed for the claims that the Jewish people is a nation. That can be a Zionist source, since nationhood is a claim of Zionism. The correct theoretical position seems to be this: "the late 19th century Zionist movement claimed that the Jewish people were a nation, a description which was not until then in general use".Paul111 12:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Where does the doubt whether "Jewish people is the same thing as the Jewish nation" come from? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

From the use of two separate terms.Paul111 13:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They are synonyms. Please explain the difference. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of Zionism was to assert that the group long known as Jews were in fact a nation - comparable to other nations, and entitled to the same status. The simplest thing is to say that in the intro, which will eliminate the confusion.Paul111 10:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Jews are comparable to other nations: they are very special :P

On a serious note, I'd like to see the same kind of inquisition (pun intended) for any other people/nations. What makes the Hashemites a nation? Are the Saudis a nation? Or the Palestinians? How about the Germans? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article does not need to either prove or disprove that Jews are a nation. It has to say that that is a central claim of Zionism, and one which distinguishes it both from previous Jewish movements, and from the competing Jewish movements and opinions which rejected that idea of a separate nation-state for Jews. I added that to the intro.Paul111 10:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The notion of Am Yisrael, the "Nation of Israel", is an ancient Jewish concept that predates Zionism by millenia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No term which is millennia old can be accurately translated by the English word nation, or its equivalent in other European languages, since they date back to the Middle Ages, see Nation. It is a common claim of nationalist movements that their own nation is very old, Iranian nationalism appropriated empires dating back 5000 years as examples of the 'Iranian nation'. The article should not take sides on such issues, but instead note that the nationhood claim is central to Zionism. Herzl: "Wir sind ein Volk, ein Volk".Paul111 10:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Paull111, this is not about Iranian nationalism. How do you propose to communicate an ancient Jewish concept Am Yisrael? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism is a diaspora nationalism

The fact that Zionism advocates migration to Israel is so central, and so distinctive, that it deserves mention in the introduction. The formation of the State of Israel was dependent on that migration, even with natural growth the 1850 Jewish population in Ottoman Palestine would never have achieved a sovereign state. Further on in the article, the demographics should be mentioned. Around 1890, 98% to 99% of Jews lived outside Ottoman Palestine. The article should also indicate where Jews lived: in eastern Europe. That is also relevant for the historical background of early Zionism, as an eastern European (and largely German-speaking) movement.Paul111 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Trachys

Moving this to talk: examples of such discrimination include citizenship rights, which are designed to privilege Jews, and the recognition provided for quasi-governmental Jewish organizations such as the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organisation, from which Arabs are excluded. - 1) Every country has certain preferences for immigration (note how the "citizenship rights" above is cleverly pipelinked to Law of Return, i.e. this is not about citizens but about immigration) and just as any other country, the State of Israel decides these matters according to its laws. 2) non-governmental (and not "quasi-governmental") organizations such as the Jewish Agency for Israel or World Zionist Organisation are as relevant to Arabs as the Arab League to Jews. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The issues, as I see them, are as follows: First, argument that Zionism is inherently racist is limited to 67 words. Argument in response to this charge totals 293 words. In the interest of balance, the addition of examples of discrimination seems to me justified. Second, this is the section on Anti-Zionism. Charges of discrimination based on racism are not invented by anti-Israel fantasists but are grounded on actual, codified forms of discrimination. Third, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organisation are "quasi-governmental" if one uses the following criteria: both were recognized by acts of government; both received government mandates and funding; these mandates include economic development (JAE) and the facilitation of (Jewish) immigration (WZO). I would suggest that given the importance of these organizations in shaping the state of Israel, the exclusion of non-Jews is discriminatory.

Humus sapiens states: "just as any other country, the State of Israel decides these matters according to its laws." That is exactly the point: the laws pertaining to these "matters" are discriminatory, and are attacked as such by anti-Zionists. I do not doubt that laws of this nature in effect in other countries are similarly attacked by those who do not think decisions regarding immigration/citizenship rights or economic development should be based on "ethnicity."

As an editor, I'm attempting to contribute to this particular body of knowledge/understanding with disinterest and impartiality. I ask that you take the time to edit my contributions rather than simply click to revert.Trachys 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, you are confusing citizen with immigrant. What laws pertaining to citizens are discriminatory?

Good word counting skills, but I disagree with your understanding of balance. Speaking of which: Have you stopped beating your wife?.

Regarding WZO and JAFI, both these non-governmental organizations predate 1948 and work for the benefit of the Jewish community. They are not state institutions. Who criticises them other than you, User:Trachys? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please provide some reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism caused Zionism?

I asked for sources for the assertion that Zionism began "largely" as a response to anti-semitism. Anti-semitism existed long before the emergence of Zionism, and it can not, in itself, explain the origin of modern Zionism. Here the lack of comparative perspective is evident, since there were other Jewish responses to anti-semitism, roughly: emancipation, assimilation and religious withdrawal. The intro does not point out what made Zionism different, namely that it asserted that Jews were a nation, and consequently entitled to a separate state.

A citation is also needed for the claim that Zionism is a response to antisemitism "in many parts of the Muslim world". This is an anachronism, it projects the current concerns onto 19th century Zionists. The position of Jews in the "Muslim world" was not a major issue in Europe at that time. The term "Muslim world" itself is an anachronism in this context. So the source should not simply say that there was anti-semitism in the 'Muslim world', but that it was a major factor in the emergence of Zionism. I don't think there is a reliable source for that assertion, discounting pseudo-history of the "Hitler-was-a-Muslim" type.Paul111 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism existed long before the emergence of Zionism" - true, but the emancipation transformed religious hatred into racial. The article mentions the Dreyfus Affair and pogroms in the Eastern Europe, among other factors.

For the Muslim world, see Damascus Affair as an example. I don't think the expression "Muslim world" is an anachronism, perhaps you meant a neologism? I am fine with replacing it with "the Ottoman Empire" or the "Sick Man of Europe" [10] [11]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even blatantly anti-Zionist sources admit it was a response to anti-Semitism, e.g. [12] [13] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The intro text said that Zionism was "largely" a response to anti-semitism, and I asked for a source for that. The two articles you quote don't say that, and both of them emphasise that Zionism sought a Jewish state. I have now added an explicit point that it was not an 'anti-antisemitism movement'.Paul111 10:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The two rabidly anti-Zionist sources I brought state that it was, in effect, only a response to anti-Semitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's another rabidly anti-Zionist source that admits Zionism was a response to anti-Semitism: [14] I've also added four more rational sources in the actual body of the text, and removed your original research. You can't use a primary source to prove a novel historical narrative. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing implies that Zionism consists of a response to anti-semitism. It also implies that there is a unique causal relationship: IF there is antisemitism, THEN Jews will EITHER not respond, OR become Zionists. Noted already: anti-semitism predates Zionism, and can not be the explanatory factor for its emergence, when it did emerge. It also does not explain why this response became the dominant response, i.e, it ignores the historical context.Paul111 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It implies no such thing; rather, it notes historical fact. Anti-Semitism in Europe engendered a number of Jewish responses, one of which was Zionism (the other main ones were Socialism, assimilation, and emigration). The fact that Zionism was a response to anti-Semitism does not imply that it was (or is) the only response to anti-Semitism. The fact that it was a reaction to anti-Semitism is clear from its inception; Herzl composed Der Judenstaat in response to the Dreyfus Affair. As for the historical context, the opening paragraph does indeed give that, explaining why it became popular. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

'National sovereignty' at time of Jewish Revolt

I asked for a citation for 'national sovereignty' as an aspiration of the Jewish Revolt and of Jews in the succeeding centuries. This is another anachronism, the concept 'national sovereignty' is at most early-modern.Paul111 11:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The First Jewish-Roman War aimed to achieve political and religious independence from Rome. See also Bar Kokhba's revolt#"The Era of the redemption of Israel". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Now changed to "political and religious independence from Rome". The rest of the section has more anachronisms, and vague terms like 'humanbased', which need to be clarified.Paul111 10:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "national sovereignty". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an anachronism for the time of the Jewish Revolt. I think there are some sources for Jewish proto-nationalism at that time, but then the term proto-national should be used.Paul111 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, the Jews had to wait for the British, French, Germans and Spanish to appear on the historical scene to strive for their own national sovereignty. Let me remind you what Weizmann said to Balfour: "We had Jerusalem when London was a swamp." [15]. And again, WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism as a "national liberation movement"

I've changed the description of Zionism as a "national liberation movement" from being stated as a fact to being attributed to Zionists, for two reasons. Firstly, all the citations are partisan opinions rather than factual sources. Secondly, it is fundamentally a matter of opinion and not of fact. Moopiefoof 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

All sources are "partisan sources" in these matters; no-one has "the facts", but Zionists at least know what their movement is about. And just about every description in this article is "fundamentally a matter of opinion". Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability, not fact, and 9 sources for a claim is good enough here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The other descriptions of Zionism describe objective characteristics of the movement; "national liberation movement", on the other hand, is a politically-loaded term. Citing opinion pieces does not make it a fact; you could support any claim on the basis that it's somebody's opinion. Furthermore, the page the phrase "national liberation movement" links to describes conflicts fought by indigenous peoples against imperial powers, which certainly does not characterise the foundation of Israel. Moopiefoof 00:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What on earth makes you think you can distinguish between "objective characteristics" and "politically-loaded terms"? Everything stated about Zionism is an "opinion piece". And the Jewish Zionists did indeed see themselves as an indigenous people fighting imperial powers; your opinion that it was not is just that, your opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant. The fact remains that it's just that, an opinion. Are you really trying to say that there's absolutely no distinction to be drawn between opinions and facts? Why can't we attribute opinions to the people who hold them? Moopiefoof 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Moopiefoof, the term "national liberation movement" is descriptive. You (or others) may not like that they wanted to liberate what they did, or that they saw it as liberating, or saw themselves as nationalists, or whatever it is you object to; in the same way, many people regard the animal liberation movement as wrong-headed, or wicked, or absurd, and believe that animals don't need "liberating," but that phrase is nevertheless an accurate description of what motivates the movement, and what it seeks to achieve. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who was the 'national liberation movement' fighting against, at first? The Ottoman Empire? That is the historical issue. As for the implications, the term probably has a net negative image, since many people will think: "ah, national liberation movement, IRA, ETA, terrorism".Paul111 10:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They were fighting for liberation (and the Jews had a lot of liberation to accomplish), not necessarily against. The rest is in your head. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The standard usage of 'national liberation movement' implies that there is an opponent, usually the colonial power. For movements which sought to improve the position of Jews in non-Jewish societies, emancipation is a better word.Paul111 09:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism didn't seek to improve the position of Jews in non-Jewish societies, which it considered to be a goal doomed to failure (Herzl himself stated "In Paris... Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism."); rather, it sought to liberate them from oppression by removing them from those societies, returning them to their national home. Thus "national liberation movement" makes perfect sense. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That migration is typical of diaspora nationalism in the strict sense. However it is still not what most people understand under national liberation movement. I said before that the term is applicable to the Irgun but it is stretching the usage to include the early Zionists, holding meetings in Switserland, as a 'national liberation movement'.Paul111 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Zionism is indeed unique in many ways; regardless, our little debate here is not particularly relevant to article content. I found 9 good sources for the claim, and I could find 9 more, but I'm not going to. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust a setback for Zionism?

The Holocaust accelerated migration to Israel, and established the Zionist option as the only realistic option in the eyes of many European Jews. Without the accelerated immigration, it is unlikely that the British Mandate would have accepted a Jewish state as early as 1948.Paul111 10:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is surely hard to imagine Zionism without Jews. During the Holocaust, the British severely limited Jewish immigration: see White Paper of 1939. Let's not guess what "would have" happened. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the eliminantion of all Jews would have meant the end of Zionism, but that did not happen. The British opposed Jewish immigration but finally gave in on that issue, partly because of the volume of immigration, which was a direct result of the Holocaust and the post-war displacements.Paul111 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The British gave in because, after World War II, they were tired of fighting, and the increased levels of violence from both sides made their position untenable. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideology

Zionism is not an ideology in the most-used sense of the word, i.e.,

1. a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture

   a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture

or "an organized collection of ideas." It is rather a political movement based on the perceived needs of a specific group. The referenced article does not seek to prove anything different but uses rather the term "ideology" in the sense of a conceptual framework. --Leifern 15:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Zion-ism is strictly speaking the ideology of the Zionist movement. The suffix -ism indicates that the original use was for the ideology, but since it is common in English to extend -ism to cover movements, Zionism can be applied to the movement. Zionism certainly is 'a systematic body of concepts', and would fit most other definitions of ideology too.Paul111 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Judaism also an ideology? Etymologism is a shaky ground. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons that have been given not to include in this article any verbatim example of contemporary (post-1917) Jewish opposition to Zionism

A rough, but perhaps instructive, chronology.

I offered evidence of this phenomenon, and proposed that it be included in this article, and heard [I am paraphrasing throughout]...

• "Sorry -- all examples of opposition to this political movement belong in a separate article." (I strongly disagreed with this. The objection then became...)
• "Sorry, the person being quoted is not notable." (I fixed that and heard...)
• "Sorry, the source you are appealing to is a personal website." (I fixed that and heard)...
• "Sorry, the group being referenced is not notable." (I fixed that and heard...)
• "Sorry, the viewpoint being expressed is a 'fringe' viewpoint." (I asked for a definition of "fringe" and got none, so I assumed it had something to do with notability. I refocused on that and heard...)
• "Sorry, the quote is not properly cited." (I fixed that and heard ...)
• "Sorry, the quote is not placed in the proper spot for the section's chronology. (I fixed that and heard...)
• "Sorry, the quote is original research. (I asked how this was possible, given the reference I had cited, and got no answer, so I assumed it had something to do with the placement in the article.)
• "Sorry, the quote is POV." (I asked for an explanation of this, and got none. The objection became:)
• "Sorry, the quote is about Haredi Judaism, and that's not what the section covers."[16] (I don't really see how the quote is about Haredi Judaism, inasmuch as it does not mention Haredi Judaism. If George Bush says something, does that mean his every utterance is irrelevant to any topic except "The Republican Party"? Roughly simultaneously, I was reminded that ...)
• "Sorry - you, BrandonYusufToropov, are the one making this edit, which by definition means the edit is unacceptable. Please move on." [17] [18] This seems to me to be a (very) thinly veiled pronouncement that Muslims are not welcome to edit this article. I find this to be an egregious abuse of privilege on the part of an admin -- Jay -- and find it hard to think of any course of action other than filing an an RFC over this. Why is it so important to eliminate any quoted reference to this part of the historical record, please? BYT 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This sorry list of your egregiously bad edits should give you pause, Brandon. The section covered Zionism and Israel, not what some American haredi rebbe leading some small Chassidic sect had to say about Zionism in 1958. Your obsession with inserting some sort of anti-Zionist material in this article, regardless of the source, verifiability, or relevance, is noted, and policy is the reason why absurd edits like yours must be removed from the article. As for your ridiculous accusations, the issue has nothing to do with your religion, and everything to do with your bad-faith and policy-violating edits. As has been explained many times, you have used up your good faith here Brandon, because of your edits, your disregard for policy, and your abuse of the Talk: pages. You insult Muslims by implying that your bad behavior here is characteristic of all Muslims. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarify for me, if you would, why the fact that the person I'm quoting is a Haredi Jew means that the quote does not belong in the section in question, but rather in the article about Haredi Judaism. That's what you said today, as near as I can make out. And are you aware that at least two other editors have shown support for including this quote somewhere in this article? Could you talk about that, please? BYT 19:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't made that argument, or anything like it, and if other editors want to comment here, then they will; you can't speak for them. See what I mean about your abusing the Talk: pages? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. I'm still mystified by what you meant, and I'm asking you explicitly for clarification.

Today, you have said a) that the quote is POV, and b) that it doesn't fit in the section because the section is not about Haredi thought (which you wikilinked in your edit summary). I need some help here, Jay.

a) If you think the quote is presented in such a way as not to reflect a neutral point of view, which is what you said today, that usually means that there's a problem with somebody presenting a quote, not as representative of a certain viewpoint (one among many), but as an objective fact. I really don't see how what you reverted today qualifies. Can you explain that to me?

b) If you're saying the fact that the guy I'm quoting is a Haredi Jew means that his comments about Zionism don't belong in an article entitled Zionism, well, I'm afraid I don't follow that either. If you don't mean the quote belongs at Haredi Judaism, what do you mean?

As far as I can tell, talk pages are still used for, among other things, explaining one's edits. I've gone out of my way, and will continue to go out of my way, to explain my edits on this subject. I'm asking you to explain yours here.BYT 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"The section covered Zionism and Israel, not what some American haredi rebbe leading some small Chassidic sect had to say about Zionism in 1958." Sound familiar? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all too familiar -- but not, alas, instructive.

I wish you'd stop being cagey and use simple declarative sentences to tell me a) what, exactly was POV about my edit, since you claimed it was POV, and b) what the quote's being about "Haredi thought" has to do with anything. If it's irrelevant, I'd like to know why you brought it up. He's talking about Zionism, not Haredi Judaism, and he's the founder of a notable sect. BYT 20:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's an "undue weight" issue. Post-Holocaust, the post-Holocaust anti-Zionist views of a small number of Haredim are a minuscule minority viewpoint. They bear mention in the Anti-Zionism article, certainly. They might bear a phrase in the Anti-Zionism section. But they don't bear a mention in the Zionism and Israel section, especially not where it was put. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV#Undue weight. BYT, you've lost my good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that and the fact that its placement in the article was essentially random; it has nothing whatsoever to do with the section it was placed in. By the way, don't tell Brandon that he's lost your good faith; he interprets that to be "a (very) thinly veiled pronouncement that Muslims are not welcome to edit this article". Bizarre, I know, but apparently that's the way his mind works. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that as progress, since you're not now actively trying to intimidate me out of participating in the development of this article because you disagree with me [19] [20], which is totally inappropriate for an admin.

Fine, there's an undue weight issue. That's not the same thing as its being POV, and it isn't going to violate any law for us to say that right out loud.

So -- this quote doesn't work in that section. It would throw that section out of balance. We could talk about these things first before reverting the article if we were truly interested in developing "good faith." I must have made half a dozen requests for clear feedback about my work on this page over the past week or two.

Now. Speaking of imbalance, there is a contemporary phenomenon of Jewish people opposing Zionism, and much of that opposition is and has been quite visceral. For some reason, though, we've omitted any direct evidence of that viscerality in this article, which is strange, since Zionism is an important modern political movement.

Since we're not trying to write a pro-Zionist article (are we?), can we have a dialogue here, please, about how best to address this issue? BYT 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Find a reliable source that asserts that modern-day religious Jewish anti-Zionism is anything other than trivial. Certainly, some people are visceral about it, but extreme minority positions often are viscerally expressed. "Undue weight" is only relevant if you are claiming that the addition of (what your opponents consider) an extreme minority position is necessary for NPOV, as your ultimate sentence there seems to suggest. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- this is very helpful, and I do very much appreciate the feedback.

Now, the $64,000 question. Is what jpgordon is suggesting here in line with other editors' expectations of what should happen next? If what he's just outlined does not make sense to you, or if you feel that it is somehow incomplete, could I ask people to tell me now, and not to come up with some brand-new reason to reject something that hits the marks laid out here? Other than, you know, me being the person who does the work? BYT 21:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And let's be careful; we don't want to next bog down into the interpretation of my use of the word "trivial". It is interesting that there is modern-day religious Jewish anti-Zionism, and we mention it in the second paragraph of the "Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism", which will lead people to Anti-Zionism if they more interested in this phenomenon. That section shouldn't be expanded, I don't think, since it's supposed to be mostly a summary of the "leaf" article referred to; and if your quote belongs anywhere, it's in the "leaf" article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the qualifier. What I'm saying here is that simply acknowledging the existence of this (historical and contemporary) phenomenon, as we do now, is not enough to result in an article that's in balance. It's severely out of balance now, because you could read it and learn little or nothing of the depth of feeling on this issue.

If I "find a reliable source that asserts that modern-day religious Jewish anti-Zionism is anything other than trivial," I'm doing so because I want to cite that source in the article. I don't know what form that citation is going to take, because I haven't done the research yet. Fair? BYT 22:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• By "out of balance" do you mean it's not NPOV? Why does the depth of feeling of an extreme minority viewpoint need more than an offhand mention? Perhaps the adjective "strongly" in the anti-Zionism section could be made stronger? "Virulently?" Probably too POV. Can you think of a better way than "strongly" for us to characterize the Haredi opposition to Zionism? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Rabidly"? :-P Jayjg ^(talk) 22:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe the sentence could read, "Certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain strongly anti-Zionist, some *and here's where we stick in some adjective meaning something like virulently but less loaded* so *and here's where we can stick in a reference to a modern-day (not 1950's) anti-Zionist sects' website.*" --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The perspective I'm trying to make sure we include will be concise, but I know for a fact it is going to take more than an edit on a single word. The main thing I'm after here right now is a dialogue, and some consistent (not consistently changed) feedback on this talk page that a) takes place before someone reverts text and b) acknowledges when I've duly addressed an issue someone has raised. That way the process of discussion won't resemble a moving target. Why don't I do the work and show it to you and we can all see what we think, okay? BYT 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are zionism and anti-zionism phenomenally distinct topics in the sense that socialism and communism, or capitalism and corporatism, are? Are there two WP articles because they are actually separate or because a simple 'Criticism' subsection in the Zionism article became too long and warranted a separate article?

I don't understand why criticism of Zionism cannot be included on both articles. Jay's stance seems either very (editorially) pedantic or very deceptive. Hide&Reason 07:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Zionism is summarized in this article, and discussed at length in the Anti-Zionism article. Please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, sorry, I was referring to external links coverage. You'll see that on Anti-zionism there are external links that criticise opposition to zionism (ie. about two thirds of the coverage). On Zionism there are practically no external links that criticise support of zionism. When the reader gets to the bottom of both articles, one of them is going to offer him a few anti-zionist links and then three times as many polemics on how opposition/criticism of zionism is stupid and evil and anti-semitic; and the other is going to offer him Jewish and Zionist news outlets, encyclopaedias, cultural learning centres, etc.

There's quite a disparity in the negative/affirmative coverage between both articles and it all affects NPOV. If the anti-zionist links featured on Anti-zionism are suitable inclusions to the project, why can't we aim for a better balance of coverage and transfer some to Zionism? Hide&Reason 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of the length of material on both topics, these articles have been split into two. This article covers Zionism, and another article covers Anti-Zionism; to an extent, Anti-Zionism is a movement in its own right, and not just a reaction to Zionism. The Anti-Zionism article is summarized here, and a link is provided to it. The links in this article are all about Zionism. The links in the other article are all about Anti-Zionism; that is, either supporting Anti-Zionism, or opposing Anti-Zionism. There is no overlap in any of the links (or shouldn't be); that is, there are no "Zionism" links in the anti-Zionism article, nor are there any links opposing Anti-Zionism in this article. You might also want to look at Islam and Criticism of Islam, and Communism and Criticism of communism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

With all respect, Jay, I don't think you've answered the question. He asked why we couldn't aim for a better balance of coverage by transferring some of the links to Zionism.

You're talking about what has been done in the past ("these articles have been split in two"), which is interesting and relevant, but not all that germane to an attempt to add balance to the present article today.

Is there some policy that prevents us from using a broader range of links to address the "disparity in the negative/affirmative coverage" Hide&Reason has raised, or is it simply the preference of individual editors that we not do so? BYT 19:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Jay. If you decide you want to discuss any of this, let me know. BYT 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been discussing this (and will continue to discuss it) with all editors who are editing this article and Talk: page in good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, you appear to define "good faith" as "willing to accept as factual the edit summaries of any revert of your work -- without question or challenge."

Let me be clearer about what I mean. If an editor on this page (let's say, for example, you) dismisses something another editor (me, say) has done as "POV" or "OR", after I've been working for weeks to find neutral sources and carefully identify the viewpoints expressed specifically AS viewpoints, then yes, I'm going to ask you exactly how you reached your conclusion. This is the nature of collaborative editing.

If you then decide that the questions I pose are not worth answering, as in the present exchange, or if you try to order me off the premises, [21] [22], I'm going to continue to pose the questions, and perhaps get someone else involved in the conversation, until the relevant questions are addressed. If you consider posing and reposing such unanswered questions about work I've done to be "bad faith," we should consider perhaps that "good faith" goes both ways, Jay -- zapping edits and then refusing to explain your reasoning for doing so isn't a great way to build trust either. If you actually explain what you're doing and why, in detail, we should be all right. BYT 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism did not 'culminate' in 1948

The word wrongly implies that Zionism ceased to function with the establishment of the State of Israel. The intro should note its continued role, but also distinguish between its status inside and outside Israel.Paul111 10:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perspective for the article and the introduction

Although the exact text can be debated, the intro should give what is missing in this article, a theoretical and comparative perspective (nationalism theory especially). It should include these points:

• Zionism is first and foremost a nationalist movement and ideology
• it is a political movement for those goals
• its innovation was to assert that Jews are a nation, with a national homeland, and to make claims on that basis
• it claims territory, claims self-government, and claims a state
• it claims a nation-state, that is, in this case, a Jewish state (exclusivity of territorial claim)
• it claims a very long historical continuity for the Jewish nation
• from the start it advocated mass migration, making it an unusual form of nationalism.

The need for a neutral perspective (insofar as that is possible) overrides the preference of users who want to see this article present Zionism from the Zionist prespective. Paul111 09:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think your POV and original research is a more "neutral perspective" than the cited information already provided in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The neutral-point-of-view policy, which indeed has a debatable premise that such a thing is possible, is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. It does not mean that every edit is disqualified, because it is somebody's point of view, although it is often misused to mean "I don't agree with that so I am going to delete it". Much of the 'cited information' in the present version consists of political argument by Zionists, which does show what they think, but not necessarily any more than that. Hopefully the peer review will encourage others to edit this article, and improve its theoretical and historical perspective.Paul111 17:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you keep inserting stuff that is your own point of view, and attributing it to others. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and feel it is appropriate to request a peer review to address these issues. While we're at it, we can ask for discussion of how we should convey the depth of feeling of historical and contemporary Jewish opposition to Zionism. I'm not at all sure why the peer review request was removed from the top of the article page. Can somebody fill me in?BYT 14:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The template has been moved to Talk, see history. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. I saw that it had been moved to Talk, by looking at the history. That's why I wrote what I did. What I am wondering is whether it is supposed to be there by policy, or whether it is OK to put on the article page. Please advise. 20:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Here's an idea, BYT. Why don't you go to the Template:Peerreview page and see which Categories it's in. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the template because I have always seen it on the talk page and never on the main page and assumed that it was put on the main page by mistake. As Jayjg pointed out the template is in Category: Article talk header templates, and it belongs there. In general, I think that as much as possible should be off the main page. Cleanup tags are on the main page because the also indicate to the reader that the page has problem. Think about how it looks to a new-commer to wikipedia who just want to read an article to be told that the article is undergoing a peer review. The main page is for wikipedia readers; the talk page is for wikipedia editors. Jon513 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone

I just wanted to let editors here know ahead of time that I'm going to be making what I feel to be an important edit here on the Zionism page, an edit that takes into account all of the specific requests for improvement that I've received over the past week or two.

If you disagree with that edit, I'd really appreciate if you discussed, with me and other editors, the grounds for your disagreement on the talk page before reverting my work. That way we can get some back and forth going on the talk page about these important issues and help build a more balanced article. I hope we can begin to bring about more examples of collaborative editing among people with differing viewpoints here. BYT 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought: why don't you post The Edit you are planning to make on the talk page first? That way, there will not be a need for reverting your work when you integrate it into the article.--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 12:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good note. BYT 12:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

intro NPOV problems

Is it just me or does anyone else have problems with this introduction? Specifically the references that it uses to state as a fact particularly contentious POV's. Not suprisingly, these references are from blatently partisan and non-scholarly sources: (The World Zionist Organization? The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs?). In the very least these should be worded as "according to..." not stated as if they were neutral, undisputed facts. The intro which stands out as more political statement than a nuetral encylopedia article entry:

"Zionism is a national liberation movement,[1] as well as a nationalist[2] and political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago[3] and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE."

Before I make changes I just wanted to see what others thought, and express that I am a bit surprised to run into this kind of wording here. Can someone fix address this or fix it themselves?Giovanni33 06:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The references are very ... amusing. I like especially the reference to a "course in Jewish history", beginning in a quite objective, non-partisan, scholarly manner with the sentence "God gave Abraham and his family the Land of Israel as a laboratory where his descendants are supposed to create the nation that's the model for the world." --194.145.161.227 10:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad others agree. Yes, biblical references and the such that are used here are fine as its indicative of and the basis for a particular POV (the zionist/ethnic nationalist perspective)--this should be stated, ofcourse, however, it must be clear that this is a POV. Its should not be presented as if its neutral and accepted fact/perspective by all sides. It certainly is not. Thus, the NPOV problems with the text here. I would also like to see in this article the other POV's related what Zionism is, specifically the POV that it is a form of rascism, in common with other ethnic based nationalist ideologies. I added some links to the Extrnal Link section that does a good job as providing the other POV. The section, I noticed was filled by links presenting a pro-POV. My links provide a little ballance there. I'm holding back from making changes to the intro until we see what kind of consensus we have here regarding these issues I raise, so as to avoid a possible edit war. Giovanni33 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The article you are looking for is Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No, all articles must adhere to NPOV guidelines. My objection stem from that. An articles on Zionism must present all POV's, not only the pro-pov. The articles on anti-Zionsism, should address all the anti-pov's, as well as their own critics.Giovanni33 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This article describes Zionism, not Anti-Zionism. Don't try to turn one into a clone of another. And even then, your sources are not WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A description of Zionism involves different perspectives about what it is. Do you think there is only one POV regarding the ideology? Note that the Anti-Zionism articles has many links about its critics. Why do you not allow links that are critics of Zionism here? The external links section should present different POV's--including the anti-zionist pov. Reliable sources does not pertain to the external links section, what matters here is that it presents a promient POV and expresses and represents the best that we can find. If you can find a better source that makes this POV/argument then by all means let me know. I think these sources do the best job.Giovanni33 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What part of "Don't try to turn one into a clone of another" you don't get? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no cloning going on here. All articles on all subjects must have links about the subjects from all major POV's. This is a very simple concept. If there is some redunancy found among other articles this is fine. They are not clones and many subjects have some overlap. This does not give one an excuse to suppress all contrary major POV from an article to push the pro-pov only. That violates NPOV.Giovanni33 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right, "no cloning", just rewrite the article Zionism to be more like the article Anti-Zionism. And to impose your idea of what it should be, and to circumvent 3RR, you decided to call on other "experts": [23] [24] [25] [26]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a re-write is correct, in accordance with NPOV---if that means to make it more like Anti-Zionism, then so be it. Its not the content so much as the NPOV language that I'm interested in, and a balance of external links. From what I can see that Anti-Zionism article has a good balance of different POV. This should should to. In this regard it should be more like that article. Saying its cloning is just sophistry. As far as imposing my idea---what are you doing? Imposing your idea, right? The only difference is that my idea that I'm "imposing" is the idea of NPOV, which is not ONE pov but many different POV's. Do you have a problem with that idea? If so I suggest you reexamine the policies and guidelines. Lastly, as far as "experts" that is your word, not mine. I only seek to have other editors who have already been active on this article involved to help to bring a resolution to this edit conflict. Is that bad? 3RR is a limit on one person; to ask for comments from other legitimate members of the community does not count toward the 3RR rule. But you already know that. Maybe lets stick to the merits of the argument instead of bringing up these diversionary non-issues.Giovanni33 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's focus. Years ago, article Anti-Zionism was spawned out of Zionism, and today our brave hero, Giovanni33, finally appeared to stick it to the Zionists and demand to reintegrate them back. Did you miss Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism? Certain WP editors try to turn every single WP article into Anti-Zionism and don't know where to stop. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your're out of focus. That is not the issue--it's a straw-man fallacy. This issue is not the history of what spawned what, and nor is the issue some kind of reintegration of two articles. As I said, this is not about turning this article into Anti-Zionism. Drop the strawman logic. Lets focus on the real issue that you keep evading: THIS ARTICLE and NPOV. Specifically the need for it to refelct no one particular POV. It is about the subject of Zionism. In order for it to have a neutral POV, it must use the appropriate language to properly attribute the POV's it does gives, i.e. "according to...", as well as have a balance POV concerning the subject, esp. in the external links section. This is the standard which every article must adhere to. So far you have failed to make an argument related to these issues. Again, the article on Zionism must have not only the pro-zionist POV, it should also have the other POV's as to what Zionism is. The external links section should have some links which are the best examples of different POV, as well. Do you deny any of this? Its very basic stuff and it's not optional. Giovanni33 07:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Attributing views and NPOV are very good. But Kevin MacDonald, Gandhi or Tim Wise do not belong here. You still don't get that this article is Zionism, while anti-Zionism is another article. There is a long section here Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism and there is another, Zionism#Opposition or ambivalence - much longer than Zionism#Support (in Zionism#Jewish attitudes to Zionism before the founding of Israel). How does that reflect one particular POV? Your idea - to have either two competing articles on the same subject or to merge these two into one - needs a consensus. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This aricle does not nor can it be soley based on one POV, so that is why your argument for the external links section excluding the other POV (that is critical of Zionism) is not valid, nor does it stand up to reason. Infact, by your very argument, it logically follows that the external links should likewise be balanced with the different POV's indicative of the article itself. The three links I gave did that. So, what is your objection to their inclusion? I do not think these two separate articles should be one in the same. But one does overlap to some degree, which you yourself acknowelege with the above. What this article touches on in some sections, the other article goes into depth and lenghth. This is the relationship between the two. To say that I'm trying to make one a clone of the other simply because I argue for different POV's to exist in the external links section is not logical.Giovanni33 00:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we all know that NPOV is one of the three basic policies of Wikipedia, and considerations of "system" are of secondary importance. Second, you pointed out yourself that the article "Zionism" includes a section on opposition to Zionism, so why shouldn't there be links concerning opposition to Zionism? This doesn't make sense.

Third and last, all this is just pathetic. There are much more urgent problems with the article, and I can't believe you're opposing already these first mild edits by Giovanni. Even the first sentence of the article stating that Zionism is a national liberation movement is only referenced with absurdly partisan sources, and yet presented as fact, as if there were no other significant POVs. So is the claim that the Jewish people originated in Israel (supported e.g. by means of a reference to the ridiculously partisan source that I quoted in the beginning of this section as if it were an objective historical one). I haven't even cared to read any further, but already this is a total disgrace to Wikipedia and must be corrected. --Anonymous44 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: You still don't get that this article is Zionism, while anti-Zionism is another article. -- we get that, we just don't understand why it means that no links offering a perspective critical of Zionism can be featured here. Is there a policy backing up this division you're trying to establish here?BYT 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

MacDonald and Tim Wise are IMO fringe fighters: if their criticism is worth being mentioned and expanded on at all, anti-Zionism is the place for it - that's what it's made for. --tickle me 15:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim that their views need to be expanded on or mentioned per se in this article, however links to their POV's, should be included in the external links section, since those are prominent POV's, which is touched on in the article itself if not at lenght, which is more apropos in the anti-zionist article.Giovanni33 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's my problem with that -- "fringe" on this page ends up decoding as "skeptical of or opposed to Zionism." So: We only feature mainstream links. Mainstream opinion by definition supports Zionism. Therefore anyone who opposes Zionism is a fringe fighter. Pardon me if I dissent. That's not NPOV. BYT 15:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There seem to be a small number of editors who are extremely dedicated to ensuring that this article retains a pro-Zionist perspective. I have previously attempted to make the intro more even-handed, but I, like most people, don't have the time to engage in the endless arguments that result.

The claim that this article should be pro-Zionist, and that other points of view should be relegated to the anti-zionism article, is like saying that the entry on Al Qaeda should describe it as an "Islamic liberation movement", and references to terrorism should be relegated to a separate page. Moopiefoof 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent the points raised here. It has not been claimed that this article should be "pro-Zionist"; rather, since there are two articles, one on Zionism, and one on anti-Zionism, that each one should describe those movements, and not duplicate the other. Each individual article is already lengthy, and so they cannot be combined, and there's no point in re-hashing anti-Zionism material in this article, when it already has an anti-Zionism article explicitly for that. Anti-Zionism is summarized here, and linked to, so it's certainly not being hidden. This is a common practice in these types of articles in Wikipedia; see, for example, Communism and Criticisms of communism, Marxism and Criticisms of Marxism, Capitalism and Criticisms of capitalism, Islam and Criticism of Islam, etc. And by the way, MacDonald and Wise are fringe sources by any measure. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is no duplication going on. This is a staw-man raised that deflects the real issue: that the external links section should represent different POV's, such as Wise represents. Just as this article allows for a summary of anti-zionism (as well as different POV's on the subject), it therefore follows that an external link to such a POV, by those who articulate it best, is apropos. In the Christianity article, for example, as with all the articles you mention above, the external links sections also contain links that present a critical view to the main article's subject. This article should not be any different in this respect. It should be consistent with all the other articles you mention above as examples. They serve as examples to my point. So where is the argument that expresses a disagreement about this issue? I have yet to see it. Giovanni33 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect; the Communism article contains no links critical of Communism, the Islam article contains no links critical of Islam, the Capitalism article contains no links critical of Captalism. I'm not sure where you get the Christianity article from, because I didn't mention it. In most articles, which document both the subject and criticism of the subject, supportive and critical links both belong. However, in articles like this, where the large amount of information on both the movement and "anti-movement" necessitates a split, then each article deals with its own topic. Please stop using the phrase strawman unless it's actually relevant, which, in this case, it is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong - The Marxism article does contain a significant number of links critical of Marxism. The Macedonian language article contains several links critical of the notion of a Macedonian language, even though there is a separate article Political views on the Macedonian language where these same views are presented in detail. The links in Capitalism are not critical, but they aren't pro-Capitalist either, while in our case, we have a blatant violation of NPOV. And in any case, comparaison n'est pas raison. --Anonymous44 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, I'm right. Did my previous comment mention the Marxism article? No. As for Political views on the Macedonian language, that's not the same thing as Criticisms of the Macedonian language, and in any event Macedonian is a language, not an ideology. The links in Capitalism are not anti-Capitalist, and the reasons for separating the two topics (Zionism and anti-Zionism) have already been given at length. For other examples, see Libertarianism (a featured article with no anti-Libertarian links!) and Criticism of libertarianism. The lengthy article on Anti-Zionism ensures we have NPOV - a whole detailed article devoted to criticising Zionism surely satisfies NPOV requirements. If the two articles weren't so long, we could incorporate one into the other, but they're too long for that - Anti-Zionism is itself 47K, much longer than the recommended article size - so they've been separated this way to maintain coherence and avoid overlap. If you want both articles cover the exact same topic (as you seem to be insisting), then you should propose a merger. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your next-to-the last comment did mention Marxism as an example. As for Macedonian language, I don't see why different rules should exist for criticism and political views (i.e. why criticism should be wholly excluded from the external links of the main article, while political views - which happen to include criticism - shouldn't); and I assure you that Macedonism (including the idea that a Macedonian nation and a Macedonian language exist) as well as anti-Macedonism (based on the denial of their existence) are indeed major nationalist ideologies on the Balkan. Capitalism does not contain anti-capitalism links, but it does not contain pro-capitalism links either, while Zionism contains Zionist links and not neutral ones. Another clear example is abortion, which contains both pro-abortion and anti-abortion external links, despite the existence of separate articles pro-life and pro-choice. As a whole, the encyclopedic treatment of a subject from a neutral POV (i.e. with a representation of all significant views) and the encyclopedic treatment of a certain movement or position in a separate article aren't mutually exclusive. It's obvious that NPOV applies to the "External links" section as much as to the rest of the article. And there is no excuse for not maintaining a NPOV in an article. It is (I'm quoting) "non-negotiable" and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". Splitting articles is no excuse: each separate article must adhere to NPOV, not just groups of articles that balance each other; otherwise, the result is known as POV forks. --Anonymous44 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, one could just use it as a source for basic facts, dates and the like. But I agree - the current situation probably won't be harmful for the readers; it will be harmful only for Wikipedia, for its reputation, for its principles and, consequently, for the future of the Wikipedia project as a whole. Without the NPOV, NOR and V policies, we are just another nerdy amateur site. --Anonymous44 15:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Further to my previous comments, Humus sapiens might like to consider that the current state of the article creates the impression that Wikipedia has been hijacked by Zionists, which obviously reflects badly on both Wikipedia and Zionists. If he really wishes to advance his Zionist agenda, he might be better off going along with the policy of NPOV. Moopiefoof 18:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

For now I'll ignore this ad hom, but see WP:NPA. On the subject, see Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism in this article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not an ad-hom. It's clear from your user page and edit history that you are a zionist, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The fact remains that your attempt to skew the article simply plays into the hands of bigots. Moopiefoof 08:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my previous comment, it wasn't an attempt to prove that I'm right; it was an attempt, if you are acting in bad faith, to convince you to stop doing so. And frankly, assuming you are an intelligent adult, I can see no other explanation for your actions. Moopiefoof 08:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

When you make personal comments about an editor, rather than his or her arguments, it is 'by definition ad hominem, regardless of whether or not you intended the statements as an insult. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the wood for the trees. As I have made clear, I was arguing that he is undermining his own cause, not that he is incorrect. References to his motivations are obviously relevant in such a context, and describing them as an ad-hominem fallacy is absurd. Moopiefoof 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Moopie, you're a new user and I think you should be given some slack. Your earlier removals of sourced relevant material [27] [28] [29] under the disguise of "NPOV" are duly noted. BTW, none was reverted by me. Glad you liked my userpage, though. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my edits and don't want any "slack". I did not remove any material: since the sources were partisan rather than scholarly, I edited the article to attribute them as such. I think it's obvious to any objective observer that my edit was an improvement. Moopiefoof 20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I could see, your accusation is unfounded. He didn't delete sourced material, he changed its order and made the wording more NPOV (Zionism is described by its proponents as a national liberation movement).--Anonymous44 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The accusation further demonstrates Humus' willingness to twist facts in order to discredit views that differ from his own. Moopiefoof 21:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, then take resposibility for your own words. What facts did I twist? The fact that some think that the Jews don't deserve a national liberation movement? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that I removed material. I did not. Hence, you twisted the fact that what I actually did was to change how certain material was presented. And don't try to draw me into an argument about who deserves what. This isn't about that; it's about the fact that we can't take sides. Moopiefoof 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected: I didn't notice that you moved it further away and predated with "described by its proponents as". As I said, it wasn't I who reverted you. So are you introducing the same clause for every NLM or only here? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I didn't remove anything had already been pointed out by both myself and Anonymous44 before your previous post, but I'll assume you made an honest oversight. What does NLM stand for? Moopiefoof 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, national liberation movement. I'll respond shortly. Moopiefoof 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to an article other than Zionism that actually describes its subject as a national liberation movement? None of the candidates I've looked at does; the use of the term in this article appears to be an anomaly. Moopiefoof 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty of verifiable reliable sources to support this claim. If User:Moopiefoof considers it an anomaly, fine with me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you say it doesn't make it so. It has already been explained why the sources given aren't sufficient to state that view as fact. Your attempt to start that argument from the beginning here appears to be nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from your inability to support your earlier implication that the term "national liberation movement" is standard on Wikipedia, and from my demonstration that it appears to be anomalous. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your last sentence. Moopiefoof 00:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Concerning the "fringe sources" argument - we can always replace them with Noam Chomsky and Hannah Arendt (in "Eichmann in Jerusalem"). But even the current ones exemplify a certain type of (liberal) criticism of Zionism, and they don't need to be notable per se. And I don't see how Dan Michman, Arthur Hertzberg and all the other sources mentioned are more notable than Wise and McDonald. --Anonymous44 11:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky's expertise is in linguistics. Constant polemicizing about and demonizing of Israel doesn't make you an expert on Zionism. MacDonald is a descredited self-appointed evolutionary psychologist. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is an influential political thinker. The issue here is notability (not being a "fringe-fighter), and he is notable. Whether he is an expert or not has nothing to do with the matter. --Anonymous44 15:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How did Chomsky influenced Zionism? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

? --Anonymous44 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky is a notorious political gadfly and polemicist; he is notable when it comes to linguistics, but he is not notable when it comes to Zionism, since he has no particular expertise in the area, and his writings regarding Israel are not scholarly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep confusing the use of something as a scholarly RS for a fact and the use of something as a source exemplifying a certain notable POV on a political topic. In the case of the statement "The Jewish nation originated in the land of Israel", you believe that POV sources are sufficient to prove a fact that actually needs scholarly sources. The case of the External links is not about expertise, because I am not quoting Chomsky to prove any facts other than his opinion. Chomsky is an example of modern leftist opposition to Israel and Zionism. Gandhi isn't an expert on Zionism either, he is simply a notable person who has been opposed to it. Similarly, Martin Luther King was not an expert on Anti-Zionism, and yet he is quoted in the introductory sentences of Anti-Zionism. --Anonymous44 10:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep confusing the fact that someone is a scholar or RS in one field with him being a RS in another. I'm not sure either King or Gandhi should be quoted; both look like POV-pushing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

For the emptieth - and last - time: this is not about expertise at all. Both mentioning and providing links to notable POVs on controversial political and social issues is standard Wikipedian practice. --Anonymous44 18:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The claim itself should be stated because it expresses a prominent POV, but for the same reason it should be stated using proper NPOV language, i.e. the fact that it is a claim that is made as part of a POV. The sources indicating this POV are naturally partisan sources which underscores the nature of the claims as a point of view. Thus, it must say, "according to xxx, they assert it as a national liberation movement." "However, other say, xxxx" Or simply state that such a claim is disputed, or stated a view from a scholarly source that is neutral in nature. We must not use partisan sources to express a contentious POV and state it as if it were an established fact accepted by all. That is what this articles does, which is a form of POV pushing.

It would be different if there was an academic consensus on the nature of Zionism as a national liberation movement. But this is not the case. National liberation movements are conflicts by indigenous groups against an imperial power for self-determination, i.e. to remove that power's influence, in particular during the decolonization period. Isreal is a state that is described as a settler-colonialist state itself. Its not fighting an occupation, it is the occupier! It was set up by British Imperialism, infact. So, its certainly a novel spin on the use of the word "national liberation" in this context. Its clear it does further a point of view of the progressive nature, instead of reactionary nature, of the State of Isreal, and the nationalist ideology that supports it. This is ofcourse a POV. To state it as a fact is the problem. About the external links, only being one-side, is another problem of bias. If we look at the Anti-Zionism article, why is it that the majority of external links there are critcal of anti-zionism? Why are not only anti-zionism links allowed, as the case is being made here? I think the solution is not to consider pro or anti per se, but to have links that express all the major POV's about an issue, anti or pro within the external links section in porportion to the coverage it gets in the article itself.Giovanni33 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You are using WP talk page as a soapbox: "Isreal is a state that is described as a settler-colonialist state itself." - this only shows your extreme POV and does not deserve a serious response. First you denied Jewish history, now you seem to deny that Jews, of all nations, deserve a right to have national liberation movement.

Regarding imperialism, here is a partial list of empires that Zionism, largely a socialist/labor movement, fought against: Ottoman Empire and attempts to restore it as the Caliphate, Nazi Reich, British Empire, Russian Empire/Soviet Empire. Oh, and you forgot to mention that Zionism is a form of racism. Need sources? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

He stated a point of view other than your own, demonstrating that yours is a point of view and not a fact. Whether or not he holds that point of view, and whether or not you deem it to be "extreme" (you clearly regard any view other than yours as extreme), is irrelevant: Wikipedia can't take sides. Your second sentence is polemic that has already been addressed, and that you appear to have given up seriously defending. Regarding your third sentence, imperialist entities frequently come into conflict with each other; the sentence therefore makes no valid point. The claim that zionism is racism is already mentioned in the article, properly attributed as a POV. It is clear that you have run out of serious arguments in defence of the current version of the article, and have resorted to desperate polemicizing. Moopiefoof 10:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The presence of extensive sections on anti-Zionism here proves you wrong. What Bilu had to do with Imperialism? But hey, what do I know, my opponent decided that I "have given up" and "have resorted to desperate polemicizing." ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proves me wrong on what? Stop trying to start arguments about which POV is correct. That's completely irrelevant, whether or not you think you can prove you're right. The fact that you're trying to start such arguments further demonstrates that you have, indeed, resorted to desperate polecimicizing. Moopiefoof 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish nation originated in the land of Israel?

That sounds dubious (and the references there don't say it either). If we believe the more historically plausible parts of the Bible, then it seems that the Jewish people invaded "the land of Israel" (or rather, the land of the Canaanite, as it was known then), ousting the previous inhabitants - ergo, the Jewish people had already originated somewhere else. If, on the other hand, we are to believe every word of the Bible, including the story about Joseph and his ancestors, then of course it's possible to say that a "nation" (consisting of Abraham's family and the following couple of generations) originated in Palestine, but it is even more consistent to claim that it originated in Ur, where Abraham is supposed to have come from.--194.145.161.227 10:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith here. I do not take the above as a troll. Infact I share his observations here, in particular the claim as its made without using careful language to indicate its a POV, not an objective fact. The bible is a fictional work of mythology to many, and it used by different groups and forms the basis for POV's, in this case Zionists (or a faction therein), who use it to form a belief that land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and therefore the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable. Hence, Zion as symbol of the Holy Land and the nationalist (zionist) goal of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies. This POV should be made clear as a POV, but not one that is shared by everyone. Its a relgiously based nationalism, with claims to historical ties, but based in religious texts. The way this article deals with this subject is a major problem as it violates the standards of NPOV.Giovanni33 00:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"Lets assume good faith here" and if three millenia of Jewish history (see History of ancient Israel and Judah) stands in our way, well too bad. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. What you do now is set up a false dilemma fallacy. History has many sides, stories, and interpretations. This underscores my point, esp. when dealing with ancient history and texts which are not reliable, such as the bible, which tells of events centuries after they supposedly happened, along with all that means (retelling, stories, myth, and propaganda). So, naturally, there has always been great disagreement about how much weight to give such texts, and different views are tied to how one views historiography, ie. giving archaeological evidence primary consideration, and only considering Biblical accounts of value if the archaeological evidence corroborates them. Given how little we have, it’s easy to arrive at very hasty conclusions. You seem to think ancient history is as clear as stone? hehe In anycase, its not our job to say what we think but report in a neutral manner, using neutral language that attributes from neutral sources the various positions as they are reflected within the academic community. I suggest you drop the sarcasm, and lets deal with making the article conform to these NPOV gridlines, yes? I am still waiting for a rationale that justifies your suppression of my links. So far your arguments re not cloning this article with anit-zionism have been refuted. Can you provided a better argument or do you concede?Giovanni33 05:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that both of you have missed my point. I do not even care to contradict the Bible (of course parts of it are legend according to secular scholars; those who deny that and believe that every word of it is literally true are known to the rest of humanity as religious fundamentalists). But what I proved was that the current wording contradicts even the Bible, even as it remains our main source for Jeiwsh history. The Bible itself says clearly that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans", and describes in detail how the Jews coming from Egypt conquered Palestine (Canaan) and ousted the original inhabitants (with God's support, I concede that). I can quote the relevant part, in Tiberian Hebrew if necessary. It's strange that my statements should come as a surprise (or even trolling) to Humus Sapiens. They ought to be self-evident for anybody who has read the relevant parts of the Tanakh/Old Testament.--Anonymous44 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if someone provides a neutral, scholarly historical source that says that the Jewish nation originated in Palestine, then the statement should be included, and then I'd take the trouble to find one that says the opposite and include it too, and then we'd have NPOV. For the time being, the statement that the Jewish nation originated in Israel is both dubious and unsourced and should be deleted. Not to mention the fact that many historians would argue that even the word "nation" is anachronistic for pre-XVII/XVIII/XIX-th century history.--Anonymous44 11:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"...from Zion, where King David fashioned the first Jewish nation". To Rule Jerusalem, Roger Friedland and Richard Hecht, p. 27. The book was designated "Best Book of the Year in Nonfiction" by the Los Angeles Times . As for "Jewish nation" being an anachronism, Josephus wrote of the Jewish nation in the 1st century. You might also want to look at S.G.F Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots, Irving Zeitlin's Jesus and the Judaism of His Time, and in particular at Doron Mendels' The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism - here's an Amazon link. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Friedland and Hecht - OK, that justifies the inclusion of the statement as an opinion attributed to these two authors; if you find several others, then I guess it would be reasonable to state it as a fact - until I find a scholarly source stating the obvious fact that the Jewish people existed before King David. As for Josephus and the Latin term "natio", it can't be equated with "nation" as used by modern theorists of nationalism (see the article nationalism, where some of them are mentioned). I stated clearly that some historians use the term in this way, while others obviously still feel that it is perfectly suitable for any time and any place. However, using the term in the second way means that we automatically take a stance in this controversy, and we aren't supposed to do that. --Anonymous44 15:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if sufficient references can be given to state this as fact, the intro should make some reference to the people who inhabited the region from the 3rd to the 20th century. Also, historical Palestine is referred to by several names; should the article exclusively refer to it as "the land of Israel"? Moopiefoof 21:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source: "By the late Second Temple times, when widely held Messianic beliefs were so politically powerful in their implications and repercussions, and when the significance of political authority, territorial sovereignty, and religous belief for the fat of the Jews as a people was so widely and vehemently contested, it seems clear that Jewish nationhood was a social and cultural reality". "Jewish Identity and the Paradox of Nationalism" by Aviel Roshwald (Georgetown University), from Nationalism, Zionism and Ethnic Mobilization of the Jews in 1900 and Beyond (Michael Berkowitz ed.), p. 15. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, this makes sense, and I guess the book would make an interesting read. These quotes make me realize that if we use the term "a nation" to describe something more (whatever that is) than "a people" or "an ethnic group", and yet don't restrict it to nations in Modernity, then it's perfectly reasonable to claim that the Jewish nation only originated when its statehood developed in Palestine (I'll see if I can find a source that clealry speaks of a pre-Exodus "nation" rather than "people" or "ethnic group", but I doubt that I'm going to be successful). However, there still is a very troublesome problem with dates - when did the Jewish nation originate in Palestine? Note that the phrase to be sourced currently reads "in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated over 3,200 years ago" (dating the origin to the invasion of Canaan after "the Exodus" about 1200 BC), and while your first source "nearly" confirmed that date by saying that "King David had fashioned the Jewish nation" (he is supposed to have ruled in 1005-965 BC), now the second source you're quoting speaks of the "late Second Temple times", i.e. at or shortly before "Jesus' time", about 2,000 years ago. Obviously, that's quite a difference, so either the mention of an explicit date should be excluded, or the several proposed dates should be included. --Anonymous44 18:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I still think that the word "nation" can be misleading, because it is often used as a synonym of "people" in English - even though your sources obviously use it in a different sense. Many readers (such as me) would interpret the current sentence as claiming that Palestine is the place of origin of the Hebrew people/ethnicity, whereas your sources obviously mean things like statehood, unity, cultural stability etc.. Hence I think that "nation" should be replaced with "nationhood": something like

"in the Land of Israel, where the ancient Israelites settled about 1200 BC and where Jewish nationhood can be said to have evolved somewhere between 1200 BC and late Second Temple times (different timeframes have been proposed by different scholars)...

However, it's clear that this whole issue of "nationhood" is very vague, and what people actually mean is almost fully expressed in the next dependent clause, "and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE." Hence, IMO, another option would be to skip the "nationhood" thing and just write "in the Land of Israel, where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states arose for the first time and existed up to the 2nd century CE".

--Anonymous44 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"based on claims that the Jewish nation originated..." is not going to work:

1. Zionism is a variety of movements, and certainly not all of it is based on this one particular claim.
2. The verb "claim" has somewhat negative connotations. AFAIK, this "claim" is beyond a reasonable doubt, see WP:V. Let's try to rework this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

I've protected the page due to the ongoing content dispute. Please work this out via talk, rather than edit warring. FeloniousMonk 14:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt talk will acheive anything, since certain users simply do not accept that any point of view other than their own should be acknoweldeged by the article. Is there some other mechanism for resolving disputes? Moopiefoof 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But I'm not the one who is going to start these procedures. I'm too tired for this. --Anonymous44 15:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to continue the various steps of dispute resoluton for this article. In the meanwhile, while this article is protected,I'd request that the NPOV dispute tag be placed on it. Thanks.Giovanni33 20:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do. This is absurd. Moopiefoof 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been pondering an RfC or some other administrative appeal to address the frankly embarrassing level of bias on this page for some time. Felonious, please note that talk doesn't seem to be producing any kind of consensus on core issues. Any thoughts on how we should proceed on dispute resolution? BYT 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I note that it has been 64 hours since anybody has made any serious attempt to defend the current version of the article, and that several cogent arguments have been put forward as to why the current version is unacceptable, that nobody has even attempted to refute. Can we take this as a de-facto consensus? Moopiefoof 15:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL! What filtering software do you use? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't. There hasn't been any edit in the last 72 hours that put forward any substantial argument as to why the current version of the article is NPOV, as opposed to either attacking the characters of those who think it isn't or simply arguing for the zionist POV. Moopiefoof 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Can we take this as a de-facto consensus?": not refuting the same arguments more than once doesn't equal tacit consent. You have been talked to here, though not by me. --tickle me 23:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why no-one bothers to respond to BYT any more (see below). He thinks that continually repeating the exact same arguments in new sections will somehow make them seem better or fresher. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the question as to whether the page should describe zionism as a national liberation movement, the arguments that have been put forward in favour are (a) that reliable sources have been given and (b) the implication that the term is standard for Wikipedia articles on nationalist movements. (a) has been refuted with the observation that all the sources are partisan and non-scholarly, and therefore not sufficient for stating the view as fact. No evidence has been given for (b), and I have shown that it appears to be false. No counter-argument has been given in response to either of these refutations.

In the case of the question as to whether it can be stated as fact that the Jewish nation originated in Israel/Palestine, Humus Sapiens' first response was simply to link to a definition of trolling, and his second response was simply to blithely claim that the assertion is true. Jayjg was able to find one scholarly source for the claim, and Anonymous44 accepted that if several such sources were cited that would constitute a prima facie case for stating the claim as fact; Jayjg has not provided any argument as to why one source is sufficient.

Is this a fair summary of the controversy (I realise I haven't mentioned the dispute about external links, which I haven't followed closely)? If so, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about not refuting the same arguments more than once. Moopiefoof 21:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've provided several sources, including a whole book about the subject. Regarding claim (b), I'm not sure who was making that claim (I certainly wasn't). Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So you did; I overlooked that. I'm not personally disputing the claim about where the "Jewish nation" originated. I interpreted Humus Sapiens as implying (b) with "So are you introducing the same clause for every NLM or only here?" above. If he didn't mean to imply that, perhaps he could clarify? Moopiefoof 21:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a special "standard for Wikipedia articles on nationalist movements", other than our regular policies and guidelines. AFAIK, Reliable & verifiable sources have been provided. For some reason this and other pages related to Jews attract a huge number of trolls, soapboxers and POV warriors, each demanding individual attention. That comment seemed like one of them to me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about an official standard, but your question appeared to imply that there are other nationalist movements that Wikipedia describes as "national liberation movements"; otherwise, the question would make no sense. The sources that have been provided are partisan and non-scholarly. If you think they are sufficient for stating as fact that zionism is a national liberation movement, then you are simply unable or unwilling to understand or accept proper standards of scholarship. Your insistence that anybody who wants to acknowledge opinions other than yours is a "troll, soapboxer or POV warrior" does not alter that fact. Moopiefoof 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To be specific: two of the sources are from the World Zionist Organization. Two are from the Israeli government. One is from the World Union for Progressive Judaism. One is an opinion piece from a debate in a newspaper on the subject of whether "Zionism is the real enemy of the Jews". One is from someone's personal homepage. One is from Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America. One is Raanan Gissin, an aide to Ariel Sharon (quoted in the Jewish Telegraph), incorrectly attributed by the WP article to the author of the report in which he is quoted. You simply cannot claim that these are suitable sources for stating as fact a particular view of Zionism. Moopiefoof 01:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Moopie, you don't know what my POV is, so please stop making assumptions and childish insults. I am not saying that the article is perfect, but the attempts to turn it into a copy Anti-Zionism under the disguise of NPOV won't work. What "facts" are you looking for? You didn't seem to have a problem with facts when Giovanni33 here denied Jewish history.

On national liberation movement. Previously, (see above) another editor disputed this very point and then agreed that "On second thoughts, the description as a 'national liberation movement' improves the intro paragraph. It has connotations of armed struggle, and will remind readers of the fact that some Zionists use force to secure their goals - that is a prominent feature of Zionism." Now, who do you expect to certify Zionism as a NLM? One ref should be enough; we are talking about 9. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if you say that article is not perfect then we are making some progress, at least. But again make a strawman argument when you say we are trying to make this a copy of Anti-Zionism. That is not true. The two articles have some overlap but give different space to different issues. What they do have in common is what they have in common with all articles on Wikipedia, and it is only in that way that the article should be mimicked. One such manner is in the external links section. Note that Anti-Zionism has links that give different POV's including pro-Zionist POV's (the majority in fact!). Yet, this article on a general topic of Zionism does not have one POV that is critical in nature. That is wrong.

I did not deny "Jewish History," in any way. I simply pointed out there are different views and interpretations within history, different degrees of reliablity and weight given to certain texts concerning it, in particular religious texts. This is simply a fact that no one but a dogmatist would deny. History, esp. ancient history is not about absolute truths.

Lastly, the POV that Zionism is a National Liberation Movement is a particular POV and should be stated as such. The references that are provided are fine as means to articular this POV, but clearly they are all partisan, non-neutral, sources that advocate the particular POV. To be specific, as it was pointed about by Moopiefoof (a point you ignored), they are: two of the sources are from the World Zionist Organization. Two are from the Israeli government. One is from the World Union for Progressive Judaism. One is an opinion piece from a debate in a newspaper. One is from someone's personal homepage. One is from Hadassah, a Zionist Organization. And one is from an aide to Ariel Sharon (quoted in the Jewish Telegraph). These sources make sense and clearly point to the fact that you are denying: that this is a particular POV. The fact is that this POV is disputed by other POV's, and therefore must be stated as a point of view attributed to such sources--not stated as an undisputed fact. If you wish to do so, you must show consensus on the question from academic, neutral references. The links that are cited to support that pov are hardly of that sort and certainly do not qualify. Why are you so opposed to using NPOV language to correctly point out that these are POV's? Are you so attached to the POV that you see it as the only absolute truth, a fact, which must be accepted by eveyrone else, and that all over contrary POV should not even be granted a voice as a POV?Giovanni33 07:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edsum

What's "fragrant antisemitism"? Tomer^talk 21:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure he meant "flagrant antisemitism", though I find the phrase evocative: antisemitism stinks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's your POV. Some find it attractive. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the pages linked to was anti-semitic, however, any more than the claim that Africa's problems are partly due to corruption among African governments is racist. Moopiefoof 08:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I did mean flagrant, but I was pretty amused when I saw how the edit summary came out. GabrielF 23:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Imagine how Homer Simpson might have responded to this one. GabrielF 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are speaking about the founders of Zionism, I'd agree they did make many anti-Semitic statements. Otherwise, its a serious charge and I hope you are not engaging in that rather ridiculously false notion that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism.Giovanni33

"the founders of Zionism, I'd agree they did make many anti-Semitic statements." -- what?? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that they did? Its an interesting question but I can go and pull out some sources to quote them. I bet that most reasonable people who look at what they actually said would probably say such remarks are decidely anti-Semitic.Giovanni33 07:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Proof please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if this surprises you it only shows your lack of being familiar with the different POV/arguments surrounding the nature of Zionism. Infact, this very point is made in the article by Tim Wise, which you would know about and not ask me for proof, if you had bothered to read it in its entirety. So, I'll quote from that the relevent sections. Then if you wish you can check the veracity of these statments to their original sources, yourself, which you will find many more such statements as well as actions that are decidedly anti-semitic in nature. To quote:

"...Zionism has led to the oppression of Semitic peoples--namely the mostly Semitic Palestinians--and is also rooted in a deep antipathy even for Jews. Though Zionism proclaims itself a movement of a strong and proud people, in fact it is an ideology that has been brimming with self-hatred from the beginning. Indeed, early Zionists believed, as a key premise of the movement, that Jews were responsible for the oppression we had faced over the years, and that such oppression was inevitable and impossible to overcome, thus, the need for our own country.

Having never read the words of Theodore Herzl--the founder of modern Zionism--or other Zionist leaders, most will find this claim hard to believe. But before attacking me, perhaps they should ask who it was that said anti-Semitism, "is an understandable reaction to Jewish defects," or that, "each country can only absorb a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany has already too many Jews."

While one might be inclined to attribute either or both statements to Adolph Hitler, as they are surely worthy of his venomous pen, they are actually comments made by Herzl and Chaim Weizmann, eventual president of Israel, and--at the time he made the second statement--head of the World Zionist Organization. So in the pantheon of self-hating Jews, it appears criticism, for Zionists, should perhaps begin at home.

That most Jews have never examined the founding principles of this ideology to which they cleave is unfortunate. For if they were to do so, they might be shocked at how anti-Jewish Zionism really is. Time and again, Zionists have even collaborated with open Jew-haters for the sake of political power.

Consider Herzl: a man who believed Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, and thus, only by fleeing for Palestine could we be safe. In The Jewish State, he wrote:

"Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic...its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards. When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat. When we rise, there also rises our terrible power of the purse."He went on to say, "The Jews are carrying the seeds of anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it into America." Were a non-Jew to suggest that Jews were to blame for anti-Semitism, our community would be rightly outraged. But the same words from the father of Zionism pass without comment.

Worse still, early in Hitler’s reign the Zionist Federation of Germany wrote the new Chancellor, noting their willingness to "adapt our community to these new structures" (namely, the Nuremberg Laws that limited Jewish freedom), as they "give the Jewish minority...its own cultural life, its own national life."

Far from resisting Nazi genocide, some Zionists collaborated with it. When the British devised a plan to allow thousands of German Jewish children to enter the U.K. and be saved from the Holocaust, David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first Prime Minister balked, explaining:

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to (Israel) then I would opt for the second alternative."Later, Israeli Zionists would again make alliances with anti-Jewish extremists. In the 1970’s, Israel hosted South African Prime Minister John Vorster, and cultivated economic and military ties with the apartheid state, even though Vorster had been locked up as a Nazi collaborator during World War II. And Israel supplied military aid to the Galtieri regime in Argentina, even while the Generals were known to harbor ex-Nazis in the country, and had targeted Argentine Jews for torture and death."

He makes the related point of its ties with racism, as well (which is another promient POV, and thus makes this link esp. worthy):

"Indeed, the argument that Zionism is racism finds some support in statements of Zionists themselves, many of whom have long concurred with the Hitlerian doctrine that Judaism is a racial identity as much as a religious and cultural one. In 1934, German Zionist Joachim Prinz, who would later head the American Jewish Congress, noted:

"We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind."

Years later, David Ben-Gurion acknowledged that Israeli leader Menachem Begin could be branded racist, but that doing so would require one to "put on trial the entire Zionist movement, which is founded on the principle of a purely Jewish entity in Palestine." He goes on to explain this perspective quite well.

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2001-09/05wise.htm

First of all, all of these semantic arguments about the meaning of the word anti-semitism are either incredibly uninformed and ridiculous, or just amusing. This whole idea about arabs not being able to be anti-semites because they are a semitic people, or that antipathy towards palestinians is anti-semitism is completely nonsensical, Jews didn't invent the word "anti-semitism" it was thrust upon us and became a part of the English Language whose explicit meaning is "discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.". If you break the parts of the word down, then yes technically it is a misnomer, but who cares, GET OVER IT! Anyways, words do not usually equal the sum of its parts.

Second of all, Giovanni's supposed quotes of Herzl and Weizmann do not mean a thing, when one reads a single paragraph taken from an entire speech one can expect it to be out of context enough to miss the real point, but Giovanni has actually taken a couple fragments of a sentence out of two lifetimes of rhetoric, essays, articles, etc. and is now trying to argue that those few words show that Zionism in fact hates Jews, I don't know if I should laugh out loud or feel sorry for the guy if he actually believes it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to your own persective that it "does not mean a thing." I disagree. It means what it means. From reading of these founders own views and thoughts about Jews, I find them rather anti-semitic. The assumptions and lines of arguments are hightly insulting and degratading to the Jewish people, in my opinion. You imply that these quotes are somehow taken out of context and do not mean they they appear to me? Well then that is an argument you have failed to make. Care to back up your claim and offer support for it, as I have? Otherwise, the evidence I produced, and its argument, stand as a prefectly valid pov. And for those who are interested, this view is not original. For instance this site also echos this view, http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm on Zionism and anti-Semitism, in particular the section with shows ANTI-SEMITISM BY POLITICAL ZIONISM. there you will find even more "pearls" from the founders of Zionism such as Theodor Herzl, who sought to intensify hatred of the Jewish people by both word and deed. This view is in line with the pov that the greatest enemy of the Jewish people, the worse thing to have happened them is the state of Israel, and that Zionism an ideology is a doctrine that is anti-semitic, or at best promotes it. http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/zionismpromotes.cfmGiovanni33 07:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, it would be hard to discredit you anymore than you did it yourself. Please stop inundating this page with evidence of your ignorance on the subject. At this point, your activism here may be safely qualified as trolling. Next time, do some _serious_ reading and use WP:RS. Oh, and tell Mr. Wise to use RS as well, otherwise with his impeccable "logic", lesbians would be inhabitants of the Island of Lesbos. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing substantive in your response, which ironically, discredits yourself, not me. Your view amounts to saying any pov which you do not agree with is not from a "reliable source." Funny. But, your calling those who do not agree with your POV as "trolls" and "trolling" is not funny, its a violation of "no personal attack" as well as violating "assume good faith," so I reprimand you for these violations of WP principals in pursuit of your quest, your own activism, that in effect is also violating the most important policy of all: our cherished NPOV policy. My "activism" is confined advocating for its implementaition, which is gives a voice to all major views that this article deals with. Perhaps if you would address the actual arguments instead of resorting to ad-hominin fallacies and rhetorical sarcasm, you'd prove yourself a much more serious editor than your conduct has thus far. Otherwise, I take it as indicative of the weakness and failure of your possition. Also, it would be great that next time you make a claim, i.e. "your ignorant" etc. that you actually back up your claim with some kind of support. Otherwise they remain simply empty and false declarations.Giovanni33 09:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is always somewhat funny when trolls yap on and on about assuming good faith. There is a difference between good faith and being blind and stupid. You have made it all too clear that you are only here to advance your personal pov which as it is, is highly eccentric and idiosyncratic. So please, I don't care if you want to waste your own time, its just wasting everyone else's that gets irritating.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, he has made it manifestly clear that he is here to amend the article so that it no longer advances anybody's personal pov. If you cannot see this then you are, in your own words, "blind and stupid". Blithely asserting that other people are guilty of the exact faults which, in fact, you are guilty of, does not magically make you right. Moopiefoof 17:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous attempts to provide links that offer insights on contemporary and historic opposition to Zionism as a political philosophy

Not at issue is:

• Whether you feel such links belong elsewhere in WP.
• Whether you feel people who oppose Zionism or are skeptical about it are, by definition, members of "fringe groups."
• Or whether other articles that have nothing to do with Zionism feature links that oppose a given political philosophy.

We're talking about this political philosophy, and we're talking about rectifying an imbalance in the links that appear in this article.

There is a distressing lack of links exemplifying contemporary and historic opposition to the political philosophy of Zionism in this article. Rather than getting sidetracked about the possible shortcomings of any particular link under discussion, I want to ask one more time, before I file an RFC about this, what editors think we can do to rectify this (rather embarrassing) imbalance in the links. {BYT 12:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the case has been made that there are some NPOV problems with this article, and that these concerns have not been addressed adequately by those who defend such a state. Their arguments have been shown not to stand up, and they have not continued an argument to address these issues. They seem to think that their initial arguments are good enough, and that the response I and others have given, which in fact refutes their line of reasoning, need not be further responded to. The tactic now seems to be to lock the article in this version, and even refuse to allow a dispute tag as I have requested while its locked. This is not tenable. I support the first step in seeking a Rfc.Giovanni33 20:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, Zionism isn't a political philosophy. And this is not about the number of links - I would take one solid, well-reasoned link over six that are iffy any day. If you're looking for good links that oppose Zionism as a "political philosophy," you'll obviously come up short, since you're begging the question. --Leifern 20:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a political outlook, in particular a nationalist ideology that has different political and reglious perspectives under its umbrella. The links in quesiton have already been provided and so we did not come up short. They are excellent links on the ideology and practice of Zionism from a critical but promiment POV, in particular the progressive POV articulated by Wise that I offered. This is a solid, well-reasoned link and much needed here given the complete lack of balance currently in the external links section. This is just one issue. The other issues with regard to the wording of the introduction have already been explained.Giovanni33 20:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)]]

Zionism is not an ideology, either. You are obviously thorougly misled. The problem appears not to be with "balance," but with your insistence of incorporating a fringe theory in this article. --Leifern 21:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Below you concede its an ideology, so I think we can drop this non-issue, yes? Lets focus on the NPOV problems of the article that were rasied instead. :)Giovanni33 07:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to defend the current version, you're going to have to do better than quibbling about his choice of terminology and asserting that any view other than the one espoused by the article is a fringe theory. Moopiefoof 21:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not defending any version. But if you are going to characterize a political movement as a "philosophy" or an "ideology," you have to be prepared to at least substantiate such an assertion. --Leifern 22:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How people are actually using the word:

Does Lieberman subscribe, as a matter of personal political philosophy, to the ADL's definition of Zionism? [| Counterpunch article, "Lieberman's conflict of interest"]

LOL! Were you able to read that without bursting into laughter? It has to be a strawman article, don't you think? No-one could actually believe that stuff. The Natural History Museum in Jerusalem is now a "Zionist affiliated group"? I'd love to see William Hughes (Baltimore attorney), interrogate Lieberman: "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist... er, Zionist? The future security of our nation is at stake!" Thanks for the non-emotional, well-reasoned paper from that paragon of scholarly, unbiased analysis, CounterPunch. :-D Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the relevance to the matter at hand of whether zionism is or isn't a political philosophy or ideology? Moopiefoof 22:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

BYT wrote: "There is a distressing lack of links exemplifying contemporary and historic opposition to the political philosophy of Zionism in this article," followed up by Giovanni33, who wrote: "It is a political outlook, in particular a nationalist ideology that has different political and reglious perspectives under its umbrella." --Leifern 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue at stake, however, is whether the article should provide links exemplifying opposition to zionism, not whether zionism is a political philosophy or ideology. Moopiefoof 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and my statements are accurate and I am able to substanciate the assertions. But Moopiefoof, also has a valid point in that this is not quite relevant to the problems of this article. But since you raise it, let me offer your own links that you support on this article from mainstream sympathetic sites, to support my claim. First, as a political outlook, this is hard to dispute, for would any disagree that Zionism entails the support for the state of Israel? This is indeed a political possition, and outlook. I quote from http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm, which clearly states Zionism is indeed an ideology:

• An ideology - Zionist ideology holds that.... The term "Zionism" was apparently coined in 1891 by...to describe the new ideology,
• A political movement - The Zionist movement was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897, incorporating the ideas of early thinker...

"Zionism" is not a monolithic ideological movement....Zionist ideas evolved over time and were influenced by...socialism, nationalism and colonialism, and assumed different "flavors" depending on the country of origin of the thinkers and prevalent contemporary intellectual currents. Accordingly, no single person, publication, quote or pronouncement should be taken as embodying "official" Zionist ideology."

Or take another site, which is also listed on the article, http://www.biu.ac.il/Spokesman/Tolerance/michman.htmhttp://www.biu.ac.il/Spokesman/Tolerance/michman.htm, entitled "A Historical Look at Religious Zionism by Prof. Dan Michman, Department of Jewish History:

"The continuation of this ideological and behavioral line, after World War One, was found in the "Hapoel Hamizrachi" (Mizrachi Labor Federation), founded in 1922, which, according to the historian Yosef Shalmon, stood for:

"An entity of Klal-Yisrael (the entirety of the Jewish people) which was defined as "Jewishness" (distinct from Judaism as a religion)... The modern aspect of the ideals of Hapoel-Hamizrachi are expressed in the view of Jewish tradition -- including the commandments -- as a component of national identity and its cultural content. Thus developed a philosophy which recognized three fundamental elements in Jewishness: religion, nationality and social justice". The traditional aspect of the Hapoel-Hamizrachi ideology was the demand to preserve Jewish tradition in the day to day life of the national community. The ideologists of Hapoel-Hamizrachi included the non-traditional elements of Jewish nationalism in this concept of "Jewishness", attempting to find..."

The link I gave entiled "Reflections on Zionism by a dissident Jew, by Tim Wise, http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2001-09/05wise.htm is not "fringe" but a legitimate and prominent POV that relfect a leftist, progressive take on this nationalist ideology and political outlook (however diverse it is). Its a view that is shared by other Jewish scholars such as Noam Chomsky. This is a pov that should be allowed a voice here, in the form of at least one link. To supporess it seems unjustified and a case of not liking the POV, hence POV pushing in one direction only. That is not allowed. The other NPOV problems with the wording in the introduction also still stand as real problems that must be addressed.Giovanni33 23:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I have no problems discussing whether Zionism is an ideology, but the assertion can not be accepted as a premise, since it is disputed. The examples you cite do not prove that Zionism is an ideology but rather use the term as a throw-away phrase. If you look at WP's own definition of a political ideology, it is "In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical, set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explain how society should work, and offer some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order." Zionism is not a political ideology by any stretch of these. It would be more correct to say that it is an idea (that Jews can only escape persecution by having a national homeland), but it is most certainly not a political ideology by any reasonable standard. If you are going to make this assertion, you must therefore phrase it as an issue and explain what the issue is. I would concede that nationalism is an ideology, but then this must also be made explicit so that it is clear to the reader that Zionism - at best - is an ideology the same way all national movements are, including all European countries. --Leifern 02:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then we do not disagree, since all I said, which you quote above, is that Zionism is "a nationalist ideology that has different political and reglious perspectives under its umbrella"--if you condede that nationalism is an ideology. Keep in mind that an ideology is simply a particular organized collection of ideas that often ofer some kind of comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things as in common sense. This could simply be an attitude about some important political or economic question, say private property, or yes nationalist ambitions or better a program articulated for some common goal of an ethic or religous group founded on certain assumptions regarding a geogrphical area. I'm glad that you now agree that Zionism is a particular political outlook based on a nationalist ideology even if this is not one that is politically monothlitic by any means, as the scholarly reference about points out. Still it's political, religious, and cultural, to varying degrees depending on which varient. The major point is that there are different critquies about its nature, its political role (the underlying similarities and dominant role as can be seen from its founding spokesperson (the ideologues), and that therefore each should be stated and given a voice, as well as attributed according to the POV it represents---instead of stating one particular POV as if it were an undisputed fact to be accepted by all. Also, with the external links, the POV expressed by progressives like Tim Wise, should be allowed some voice, if even in a single link, for it sheds some important illumination on Zionism from this particular perspective. I find it improves the article to have this link included and that is my goal.Giovanni33 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Also, with the external links, the POV expressed by progressives like Tim Wise, should be allowed some voice,... -- I wholeheartedly agree. What do other editors think? Let's discuss this issue directly. BYT 12:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I left Gandhi for now, but Tim Wise is non-notable and zmag is not a RS. MacDonald also does not belong here. See above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with your reorganizatio of the intro. In the spirit of compromise I might be willing to leave out MacDonald's critique, however your wrong about Tim Wise not being notable. He is, but more importantly his POV/persective is a notable one, and his articulation of this POV is the best I could find. It dose a fine job as presenting this POV. For external links that is what matters, more so than who wrote them. But Tim Wise is notable. See his site for details http://www.timwise.org/ And he is notable enough for his own article here on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wise To get him to speak, he charges $5000 for speaking fees. Similarly for ZMag, which is an excellent source for the left/progressive POV. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_MagazineGiovanni33 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A has a bad habit of removing links he doesn't like and then failing to come to talk to explain his actions. He was repudiated on Christianity article for doing this repeatedly. So, I hope you do not repeat your mistake here. Your claim in the edit summary is that you are removing the links because they are "tendentious." This only means they are, and I quote the dictionary definition, "Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan." Well guess what? That is the whole purpose of the exernal links section, or at least one of its reasons. Therefore that is not a basis to remove them. I note you also removed the Ghandi link that was left there by the other side of the edit conflit, as a conciliatory move to reduce the conflict here whose resolution has seen some progress. By removing both links, esp. without any involvement on talk, you are only instigating a widening the edit conflict.Giovanni33 04:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The only bad habit here is Gio's habit of using the external links as a quasi-acceptable form of POV pushing, which he adopted after being repeatedly blocked for pushing his POVs in the article text. Frankly he should have been permanently blocked back in January for his behavior at the Christianity article. And no, I personally wasn't repudiated -- which he knows perfectly well. The regular editors there have long been much to tolerant of his repeated tendentious editing. A.J.A. 05:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You fail to understand the purpose of extrnal links. Its not "quasi-acceptable" it is in fact fully acceptable. And, its not POV pushing, because I advocate for a blance of views in the external link section. Do I need to quote relevant policy on this matter? When I say you were repudiated I mean all the other edtors on both sides of the fence came out to say I was right and you were wrong. That is repudiation in my book. As for the real issue, you have failed to provide an argument for your editing here. And, that is the whole point.Giovanni33 05:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Your claims above are factually inaccurate ([30] -- and that an editor I've had frequent conflicts with). The case against inclusion has been made by others, and I see no gain in restating it, since all evidence suggests you are are immune to persuasion by reason. In any case, the notion that we judge links by tallying up which "side" they're on without regard for quality or arrangements like the division between this article and Anti-Zionism is misguided, any policy you might quote notwithstanding. A.J.A. 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My claims are not factually inaccurate: [31] The example you gave shows you fail to even understand the issue. That is a pity. The issue for which you were clearly wrong and rightly repudiated was not the question if the links you removed were good or bad. The issue was is that you removed long-standing links without bothering to use the talk pages to try to seek consensus, but instead persisted in edit warring. This is despite being asked many times for you to first get some kind of consensus for your removal the links. This is where you ran afoul of common editing protocol and this was the basis for your repudiation by others, who restored the links, even if on principal alone. It also makes you-- not me--a bad editor. Your other false claim here against me that: "all the evidence suggests you are immune to persuasion by reason." What evidence? In fact, your claims against me seem to reflect your own condition. Your edit warring despite and failure (or inability, or willingness) to rationalize your actions with logical argument suggests one who is immune to persuasion by reason. That is my evidence.

As for the real issue on this article, you imply that there is a problem with the quality of the links and that is why you removed them. That is at least a start but you will need to do much better than that. What about their quality that is lacking? Do they make contra factual claims? If so, prove it. Otherwise, your claim stands unclear, unsupported, unreasoned, and therefore should be rejected.

Perhaps if you for once tried to actually use reason and persuasion, you will be able to straighten out your confusing a rejection of lack your lack of using persuasion, with an immunity to it by others. The two are very different. What we have here is my rejection of your lack of even trying to use reason or persuation first and foremost. If you think I'm immune from persuasion then you must first try to use persuasion! So, I am waiting for that... but not holding my breath based on your past patterns. I doubt I'll be surprised but I assume good faith that others can learn from their mistakes.Giovanni33 06:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been reported. A.J.A. 06:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If I did violate the 3RR then why not say so and ask me to self-revert first? If I did volate it was accidental. The point in reporting is to seek a block, however blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive. Seeking punishment and blocks is a poor substitute for the required persuasion you claim I'm immune to.Giovanni33 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As explained many times above, the links already exist in the Anti-Zionism article; let's avoid the cloning process please. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed more of these links - this really isn't the place for them, which has been discussed Ad nauseam above. Tewfik^Talk 18:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got an even better idea. Let's take some of the links representing this viewpoint out of Anti-Zionism and put them here so as to give some balance to the article. Or, alternatively, let's do an RFC and get the input of a wider audience. BYT 18:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An RFC - and the other stages of Dispute Resolution - is what we need, as I already mentioned. We must attract the attention of the rest of Wikipedia, where people are, hopefully, less partial about the particular issue and hence capable of seeing the obvious requirements of Wikipedia's policies. But (I'm repeating myself again) I really don't feel like being the one who starts and conducts the process. I don't have that much time for that, and I don't feel like spending it in that way either. --Anonymous44 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to break this logjam and avoid duplication, and following the example of The Holocaust and Holocaust (resources), I've created a sub-article for both the Zionism and Anti-Zionism articles which contains all the pro and anti-links, and various other resources. You can find it at Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources). Jayjg ^(talk) 18:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Great. Exactly the pretext I needed to leave this depressing discussion :). But if you run the segregation-overrides-NPOV principle on other articles, I'm afraid further conflicts are inevitable (hopefully without my participation, I've had enough for a year ahead). --Anonymous44 11:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Insurance companies exhaust policyholders into walking away from legitimate claims. The career editors of this article exhaust attempts to restore NPOV to the links section in much the same way. BYT 12:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of anti-Zionist links along with the Zionist links now, so if the claim of NPOV issues ever had any validity, it certainly doesn't any more. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)