Talk:Anti-Zionism

An utterly ridiculous statement, on so many levels. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed. Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Louis Farrakhan, etc. are "far left"? Are anti-Zionist liberals, conservatives, and libertarians "far left"? Yeah right. The article also claims that the "far left" (which is never defined) is marginal and isolated within American society. Yet the author contradicts zirself in the same sentence with the claim that the "far left" is highly influential in academia and media. This article is a joke. It needs severe editing, but I'm sure the hyper-POV author responsible for the garbage will simply reinstate it.

Since Zionism entails a state based upon "racial"/ethnic discrimination and displacement of native peoples, one can be anti-Zionist by virtue of consistently applied anti-racism. Is all consistent anti-racism in America on the "far left"?

-Platypussy

Zionism does not entail a state based upon "racial"/ethnic discrimination and displacement of native peoples, therefore one cannot be anti-Zionist by virtue of consistently applied anti-racism. Jayjg 15:37, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course Zionism entails those things. Zionism calls for a specifically *Jewish* state, which necessitates at minimum a *Jewish* majority. In order to keep that majority, there must be systematic discrimination against non-Jews. So with Israel, once you strip away the facile rhetoric about "democracy," what you have is another racist European colonial state. A Jew from Brooklyn is given the "right to return," even if he (or his ancestors) has never set foot in Palestine. By contrast, an Arab whose family was driven out of Palestine by Jewish settlers enjoys no corresponding "right." This is racial/ethnic discrimination, and one need not be a "far leftist" to realize it. --Platypussy

Your conclusions are false; a Jewish majority doesn't necessitate systematic discrimination against non-Jews, the majority of Israeli Jews are non-European, Jews do not have a "right of return" but rather a "Law of return" (similar to many other countries), and Jews are not "race" so racism is inapplicable. Jayjg 20:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A perpetual Jewish majority *must* necessitate systematic discrimination against non-Jews, especially in the area of immigration policy. In order to keep a Jewish majority, Israel *must* show discriminatory preference for Jewish immigrants over Arab immigrants (and even native Palestinians in exile). Were there a "law of return" allowing "whites" but not anyone else to instantly immigrate to America, would that not be racist? Of course it would. Replace "white" with the more specific "Jew" and you have Israel's racist policy. While there is scientifically no "Jewish race," the same is true for the "white race." Yet "Jewish racism" exists just as surely as the broader, ideologically related "white racism." --Platypussy

Nearly half of the Jews in Israel are not white. They come from Arab countries, India, and Africa. Where do they figure in the racist master plan of the jews? it is discriminatory to falsely attribute a certain skin color to a certain faith or ideology, because it deprives people with other hues from joining it if they wish. And Judaism is not only hereditary, but can also be joined by complete Gentiles with black and green stripes--UnlessImWrong

Platypussy is quite correct. The "Law of Return" is about as clear-cut a case of ethnic discrimination as one could ask for, especially considering that Jews whose ancestors hadn't been there for 2000 years are allowed by it to "return" while non-Jews who were born there are not. However, that is irrelevant to the narrower point, which is that Platypussy is also right about the ridiculousness of "American anti-Zionism is confined to the far left". Pat Buchanan, if nothing else, should illustrate the folly of that statement. - Mustafaa 22:27, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Platypussy made far-reaching claims and hand-waving arguments about "Jewish majorities necessitating systematic discrimination", not a narrow argument about the Law of Return. Is the claim of a "Right of Return" by Palestinians (the vast majority of whom have never lived in Israel) also a case of "ethnic discrimination"? Jayjg 00:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and as retorts go, "Jews are not "race" so racism is inapplicable" is awfully reminiscent of "Arabs can't be anti-Semitic, because Arabs are Semites". The problem can't be swept under the carpet just by picking holes in definitions. - Mustafaa 22:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The entire argument was full of holes, that was just one of many. Jayjg 00:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to American anti-Zionism not on the far left. On www.antiwar.com, for example, you'll see varied American commentators including liberals, libertarians, conservatives, anarcho-capitalists, etc. who are anti-Zionists. The Green Party of America is a "soft left" (i.e. for a kinder, gentler capitalism), not "far left," party, yet it's replete with anti-Zionists. Like I said, the claim that American anti-Zionism is limited to the "far left" is so stupid that I can barely believe I read it. So far as the "Jews are not a 'race' so racism is inapplicable" nonsense, by that logic I guess "racism" is *never* applicable. The Nazis and Klan can breathe a sign of relief. After all, most scientists hold that the traditional concept of "race" is not valid. That includes the "white race." By Jayjg's logic, David Duke is not a racist.--Platypussy

Anti-Zionism is the denial that Israel has a right to exist, and that the Jewish people have a right to an independent nation in Israel, and is therefore not fundamentally different from anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism is just another way for anti-Semites to critize Jews, while hiding under the pretext that they are not anti-Semetic. It is not a coincedence that most anit-Zionists critize Israel for ficticious violations of human rights, while deliberatley ignoring countries like Saudi Arabia, who violate almost all human rights laws know to man, and Darfur, where non-Arabs are currently being ethnicaly cleansed. --Stu

Extremists; Anti-Semitism

Two points:

Is it really an extreme view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism? Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the view, I'd thought it to be rather common.
Wouldn't the section entitled "Extremists" be more appropriately labeled "Anti-Semitism" or "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" or something similar, since that's what it's really about?

--Wclark 04:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Well thats not what its about. Its about extremists on the zionist side who call all opponenets anti-semites (quite an extreme and offensive opinion, I might ad, however common in some communities), and anti-semite extremists on the other side, who (at least in the non-muslim, non-arab world) largely actually prefer zionism (anything that sends jews out of their nation is usually seen as a good thing by these guys), but object to it because they object to all things jewish, and because they have a growing affection for muslim extremists, who please them w intense, violent anti-semitism. Those last would be yet another group of extremists this section is about. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 04:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most anti-Zionists are in fact anti-Semites, so Wclark is correct. It is not extreme for someone to view anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Most Jews I know view anti-Zionism as anti-Zionism. (The views of the early anti-Zionist Reform and Orthodox movements are so far from what most people today call anti-Zionism that they don't usually enter into the equation.) RK

Qualify that statement! Show that it is greater than 50% before you say most. 68.232.110.205

This is Adam's remark on his most recent edit: "since most Israelis think that anti-Zionism is just another word for anti-Semitism, it cannot be classed as an "extremist" view - this is always a subjective term anyway." When I essentially suggested something similar, ie that many Israeli politicians and right-wing groups have promoted such views, I started being labelled an "anti-Semite" by RK and was harassed at various points for "anti-Semitic views" or making "straw man attacks on Jews." Can the non-Zionophobes (Zionophobes being Adam's euphemism for people who lean towards disapproval of Israeli actions in disputed territory) get their act together and decide who or what is an extremist, and who or what is an anti-Semite for expressing commonly acknowledged views, before making arbitrary judgements on article contents and contributors? -- Simonides 05:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you understand, the label is based on who is being labeled, not on what their saying at that particular juncture. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google search results for:

"anti-zionism" "anti-semitism" — 20,000
"anti-zionism" -"anti-semitism" — 10,100

Looks like it's actually the majority view, to me. --Wclark 05:09, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Are you really that dense or are you just pretending? That "anti-zionism" + "anti-semitism" scored so high does not prove what you say it does. Far from it. A page with the sentence "Anti-Zionism is NOT anti-Semitism" would fit in that category! Your "survey" proves nothing other than your own cluelessness. As a supporter of the racist ideology of Zionism, are you consistent enough to also support Zionism for Germans (National Socialism) and Zionism for Whites (White Nationalism)? It should be easy, considering the well-documented collaboration between Nazis and Zionists, and Israel's staunch support for apartheid South Africa. --Platypussy

Thats the worst excuse for a survey I've ever seen. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, this is the worst excuse for a survey you've ever seen:

My neighbor thinks anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Anyway, what do you expect for a couple minutes? It's just a first-approximation, and it's so overwhelmingly in support of the "non-extremist" interpretation of the view that I don't see much need to look into it further (although I'm probably going to do so anyway). --Wclark 05:15, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Very silly, but you made me smile :) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 05:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is a very silly argument. The view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism is a completely mainstream view among Israeli Jews, probably the majority view, and is also common among Jews outside Israel. Most of the Jews I know, even those who dislike Sharon and think Israel should withdraw from all the territories, hold this view. It therefore cannot be classed as "extremist." The word "extremist" is in any case a very subjective term and should only be used when there is clear agreement that a person or opinion is "extreme". That is not the case here. Adam 05:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. RK

It's difficult to think of a way that the word "extremist" would be used that would be NPOV. As for anti-Zionism (at least some forms of it) being anti-Semitism, I think it is held by the majority of Jews worldwide, not just in Israel. And, as we have recently seen, it also appears to be a position of the Catholic Church. Even if one could come to an agreement about the meaning of the word "extremist", I don't see how it would apply in this case. Jayjg 16:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make edits on this topic until we've discussed it more first.

I didn't mean to incite an edit war, and I'm sorry. I should probably explain why I picked out this section in particular. I think that many people hold the opinion that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, and that they'll be looking for this POV to be represented in the article (and will consider it biased if they don't find it). Therefore, I think the comparison should be visibly made near the beginning of the article, with appropriate links to distract them and hopefully get them off the page and looking elsewhere (probably at the Anti-Semitism article). I made a similar point recently regarding the Zionism article and how it should visibly mention the controversy surrounding Zionism (and provide a link to Anti-Zionism to draw off the attention of people who'd otherwise complain about that article). (Thanks to Adam, by the way, for coming up with a very good new intro that accomplishes this goal.)

That said, I think these sentences still need work:

Many Jews (and some non-Jews) argue that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews as Jews. While the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life in all countries since 1948, it is widely seen as reprehensible that Jews should see attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with Jew, leading to a further blurring of the distinction.

I find "reprehensible" too harsh a word, and I think that point could be made more effectively if the (overly long) sentence were restructured and rephrased. There are two distinct points being made, regarding anti-Semitism:

Some people consider anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitic because any attack on Israel is anti-Semitism.
Some people consider anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitic because "Zionist" is sometimes used as a synonym for "Jew".

I think this distinction should be made as clear as possible, since only the first point could really be considered reprehensible. Also, I think perhaps the information on anti-Semitism should be in its own section, with "Anti-Semitism" displayed prominently in the title, so that it will catch the eye of those looking for such comparisons and draw their attention to that section (and away from the rest of the article).

I'd suggest we come up with some proposals for changes here on the talk page, come to some sort of agreement, and then make the agreed-upon changes to the article itself. --Wclark 05:41, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I don't think your points are correct. As I see it, the two main issues are really as follows:

Some people consider certain kinds of attack on Israel/Zionism to be anti-Semitic because they are uniquely applied to Israel, and because they mirror similar anti-Semitic attacks historically made on Jews.
Some people consider attacks on Israel/Zionism to be anti-Semitic because anti-Semites are now often masking their anti-Jewish efforts as (or chanelling their anti-Jewish efforts towards) anti-Zionism, which they perceive as more socially acceptable.

This becomes even more confusing because of a third point, that some anti-Semites (and, to be frank, some Islamists as well) use the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangably. Jayjg 17:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about:

While the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life in all countries since 1948, the view that any attacks on Israel are inherently anti-Semitic has been widely criticized.

..or is that even more confusing? --Wclark 05:58, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Thats the best so far. Crimmeny, you guys have so much POV I could practically cut it w a butter knife. Jews are not most people, most Jews are not Zionists, and your average person is pretty well pissed off at Israel. Anyhow that last sentance should be added to the article. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 06:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's actually terrible, because no Zionists or Israel supporters have said that any attacks on Israel are inherently anti-Semitic. In fact, as I've shown in earlier Talk: pages, this is a Strawman argument, and one which is never used by Zionists (and in, fact, which has been specifically and clearly repudiated by many Zionists). As for your other statments, Sam, they show a profound misunderstanding of Jews and the arguments being made here. Most Jews are in fact Zionists. Regarding your claim that "your average person is pretty well pissed of at Israel", this may reflect your own POV, but has nothing to do with the issue of whether some forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. Jayjg 17:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While it may not be a widespread position, it's certainly one that some supporters of Israel have taken. For example, from The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040202&c=2&s=klug):

Rabbi Sacks himself draws this parallel in an article in the Guardian: "At times [anti-Semitism] has been directed against Jews as individuals. Today it is directed against Jews as a sovereign people." In the same vein, Dershowitz argues that Israel has become "the Jew among Nations."

I can find more quotes if you like, or if you disagree that the above is an accurate representation of the view being debated. --Wclark 17:39, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood what both people are saying. In fact, Dershowitz has specifically said "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies." And Sacks has said "I see three distinct positions: legitimate criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition." (it's in this article). Clearly they view the idea that Jews do not have a right to their own state as anti-Semitic; but unless you define anti-Zionism as "the belief that Jews should not have a state of their own" (and this article certainly doesn't), then they are not saying all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. And they clearly do not think any attack on Israel is anti-Semitism (they make this point explicitly). Jayjg 18:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Jayjg, is your problem more with the term "inherently" than the rest? Even among those who seem to profess the view that attacks on Israel are anti-Semitism, the underlying argument isn't that such attacks are inherently anti-Semitic, but rather that they happen to be anti-Semitic. There's a fine line there, and as the article on The Nation points out, it's not entirely clear where everyone stands on the issue. (It's a really good article, by the way, I'd suggest reading it in its entirety, since it addresses this issue pretty directly.) --Wclark 17:59, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

No, my issue is with the idea that Zionists believe any or all attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, which is what your summary clearly states, and which no Zionists actually believe. Jayjg 18:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some anti-Zionists are themselves Jews, e.g. some kinds of Hasidim, and also, Palestinian/Arab critics are Semitic themselves. In fact, some have called anti-Arab fervor in the US, the "new anti-Semitism". It's perfectly accurate since the Arabs have always been native speakers of a Semitic language... which is not true of non-traditional/westernised Jews outside Israel.

I haven't been involved in this article elsewhere, but honestly, this is just muddying the waters. For various reasons, anti-semitic has come to mean "anti-jewish". You are correct in that this is not the precise definition you would expect it to have given the root words. Nevertheless, that's the definition it has come to possess. Saying that people who hold prejudiced anti-arab views are "anti-semitic" is nonsensical. It's like saying anybody who is "wanton and profligate" is "nice", because that's what Shakespeare used "nice" to mean [1] (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nice).

Frankly, things would be more sensible and less confusing if people just used "anti-jewish" instead of "anti-semitic", since that's what everybody always means, but sensibility has never gotten in the way of the oddities of languages. If it did, we'd all be speaking Esperanto. In the meantime, it's much better to just use and take words for what they are commonly understood to mean than to confuse things by trying to redefine them. This especially applies when said attempts at redefinition are deliberate attempts to misdirect the debate, as is often the case. modargo 22:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those who are said to be deserving of no consideration

Anyone who can write that "most Jews are not Zionists" is clearly either totally ignorant or malicious, and in either case disqualifies himself from serious consideration in this discussion. Adam 06:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that you have long ago disqualified yourself from serious consideration by being a boor. That said, I find your whimsical rants rather droll, and don't have much hope for the quality of this, or any israeli/palistinian conflict articles on the wiki. I think we'd be better off waiting for it to sort itself out than expecting to solve anything here, other than which group of internet nerds cares more about biasing the article on the subject. So far you seem to winning that last, three cheers. I would like to see a quality article on this subject, but I admit I have no intention of getting my blood pressure up over it. Cheers, Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 06:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These attacks on Adam's behaviour and knowledge are way out of line. He knows far more about the subject than you, and he has shown considerable tolerance. His recent edits have been excellent. RK

Well that settles it, our learned elder and bastion of neutrality has spoken. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 16:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new but Adam is 100% right with his point. The claim that "most Jews aren't Zionists" usually goes along with the claims that "Jews aren't a race, ergo you can't be racist against Jews" and other politically motivated and racist attacks on Jews. It is part of a set of outright lies that is peddled in "information packs" along with extracts from the protocols. I have a collection of such material that I have personally collected. Any Jew will be able to tell you that of those of Jews he/she knows all or very nearly all are Zionists. I personally know of 1 (and only 1) anti-zionist Jew in my aquantance. I know 4 Zionist Christians and 2 Zionist Muslims. You may as well say all Muslims are Zionists as say all Jews are anti-Zionists. (Sorry for the rant, but that was one fo the most POV statements I've ever seen AND factually inaccurate to the point of being a known lie.)--Oboler 03:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

deserved scoldings for naughty editors

It doesn't accomplish anything to declare each other "ignorant", "malicious", a "boor" (or even "whimsical"). Nor does it accomplish anything to assert that one person knows more than another, or to make sarcastic comments. (There, I think I've covered everybody now.) Think to yourself before you post something (even to this talk page) "What do I hope to accomplish by posting this, and is this the most effective way to do that?" Please? --Wclark 17:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I agree, and compliment you for maintaining the high ground. Rudeness never accomplished anything intellectually honest. Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new)] 17:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade, unless you intended to include yourself in the "naughty editors" category, that section title isn't very nice (and some people don't even consider self-deprication a good excuse for namecalling anyway). Sarcastically calling other editors "our learned elders" can be just as bad as more direct insults, in that it's still likely to upset the other parties involved. I didn't necessarily mean to scold anybody, I was just trying to remind everyone here that we're all very capable of behaving very civilly, when we want to (and that doing so often gets better results). --Wclark 18:07, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

"View of the Catholic Church"

I am not sure why 209.etc (aka Lance6Wins) continues to insert this material; the statement is not nearly as important as he makes it out to be, and the quotation he gives is different to that in the official declaration. First, the declaration was not a solemn doctrine or an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e. not a required article of Catholic belief), but a statement by the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (see Christian-Jewish reconciliation), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce dogma. What the committee said is just its considered opinion, and the article already says that both Jews and non-Jews (the committee includes both) equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; so why does this instance deserve highlighting? Second, the exact wording (as published on the Vatican's website (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20040708_declaration-buenos-aires_en.html)), in context, is this (emphasis mine):

As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate - the ground-breaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected anti-Semitism - we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship with the Jewish People. These past forty years of our fraternal dialogue stand in stark contrast to almost two millennia of a "teaching of contempt" and all its painful consequences. We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism.

HTH. —No-One Jones 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Propagandistic

I find this formulation propagandistic: "Palestinian leadership formally recognised Israel as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, although that recognition has been rendered inoperative in practice since the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000." This is some editor's POV masquerading as scholarly analysis. Also, I think it is propagandistic to say that "Other Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Syria may still desire the destruction of Israel but no longer say so openly," since the Saudis put forward a rather reasonable peace proposal that involved recognition of Israel, but the proposal was never taken up. I think that was in 2002. --C Colden 12:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first statement is not "propagandistic." Since 2000 the Palestinians have reverted to the position that a settlement must include the Right of Return, which amounts to a repudiation of the 1993 recognition of Israel, since the "return" of 5 to 8 million Palestinians would effectively destroy Israel. The second statement may or may not be true, and it may be that the Saudis would be prepared to recognise Israel under certain circumstances, but it is not "propagandistic." It would be better of your disagreements with other editors were not framed in such an abusive tone. Adam 12:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first statement is at the least POV: the return of some proportion of the Palestinian refugees (it being extremely unlikely that all 4 million, not 5-8 as you suggest, would return) would not destroy Israel. The second is clearly speculation. - Mustafaa 08:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Palestinian refugee groups themselves claim that there are over 8 million Palestinian refugees. One can't have it both ways, claim that there are 8 million refugees when one wants to garner more sympathy, then claim there are only 4 million when one wants to claim that their immigration to Israel would not destroy it. Jayjg 15:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Impossible; there are only 10 million Palestinians (8 million a couple of years ago.) UNRWA, not "Palestinian refugee groups", says there are 4,082,300 Palestinians registered as refugees with it. - Mustafaa

But would only "refugee" Palestinians have a "right of return", or would all Palestinians have that right? Jayjg 15:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Only refugees, of course (where that term, following the UNRWA def'n, includes their direct descendants); has anyone suggested otherwise? - Mustafaa 16:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with this muddy issue by editing the page, but the recent edit by 195.70.48.242 seems highly POV and should be heavily modified or deleted altogether. Livajo 17:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by 195.70.48.242. They didn't add any relevant information, and they were very POV. 128.253.203.31 17:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Defining anti-Zionism

Is there any sort of accepted definition of anti-Zionism? The one in the article here borders dangerously on original research since it:

defines terms - "anti-Zionism"

introduces original ideas - that anti-Zionism constitues anti-Semitism

it is a neologism - its a simple inversion of the idea "Zionism"

"Anti-Zionism" is a widely-used term and in no wise a neologism; just look at the Google results (of which this article is the first). The idea that anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism, whatever one might think of it, is certainly not original; again, see the Google results. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually prefer dictionary.com since it searches dozens of books full of definitions, there is no definition for anti-Zionism there. There is, however, a definition for anti-semitism, which doesn't mention zionism at all. --Uncle Bungle 01:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The term "anti-Zionism" alone is used in more than 23,000 web-sites according to Google, so it's not a neologism. And it has been defined many times, and the idea that anti-Zionism is (or can at times be a mask for) anti-Semitism is also not a new idea, but one espoused by dozens of writers for decades. Jayjg 03:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This section should be little more than a definition from a "legitimate source" of anti-Zionism post 1948 and some accurate way of describing jewish resistance to the idea in prior to and after the Holocaust.

Statements like "Many Jews (and some non-Jews) argue that some forms of anti-Zionism are also forms of anti-Semitism." need to be rigorously backed up by some serious authorities in the field, such a linguists and anthropologists. A columnist for some publication simply wont suffice.

[2] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html) [3] (http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/features/campaigns/antizionism.shtml) [4] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Anti-Semitism_&_Anti-Zionism.html), [5] (http://har2.huji.ac.il:83/ALEPH/eng/SAS/BAS/BAS/FIND?FIND-TYPE=FREE&VALUE=anti-zionism). It's a common view, whatever one thinks of it. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your links. If I may counter #1 with [6] (http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4040&n=1), because anyone can get published these days. Does Emanuele Ottolenghi have any credientals to speak on the issue? Your second point point accurately defines anti-Semitism and Zionism, goes on to infer a definition for anti-Zionism, and declares the two connected. Lets try: "according to the World Union of Jewish Students, anti-Zionism can be defined as anti-Semitism", people need to know where these statements are comming from. Number three says right on the front page "Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel." and "...though the two concepts are not always identical.". As for number four, another search engine? Again this needs to be backed with some statistics. A number is a fact, many == maybe--Uncle Bungle 01:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Second, some Jews are anti-Zionists. Jewish anti-Zionism exists mainly among socialist or radical Jewish intellectuals outside Israel. There is also a minority among Orthodox Jews, both inside and outside Israel, who reject Zionism as contrary to the will of God." Thats totally unbacked. Someone needs to dig up some statistics on these remarks, or at the very least a poll carried out by an organization which specializes in that field. Again, some author for a news paper or organization news letter does not cut it.

See Neturei Karta for starters. See [7] (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/Orthodoxy/Naturei.html) for a bit more on this. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia article Jews there are 13 million Jews in the world. According to the links you provided, these Neturei Karta number about 5000. 5000/13000000*100 = 0.038% That leaves 99.962% of the global Jewish populations attitude undefined. Therefore it is unfair to say that Jews opressed to Zionism represent a minority, when you have accounted only for a very slim fraction. If you could say, for example, that 70% of Jews around the world support Zionism in one way or another, AND back it with proof, you could then say a minority of Jews oppose Zionism. Until then its all just POV. --Uncle Bungle 01:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does any have numbers on number of Jews who were anti-Zionist before being tragically killed defending their homes and businesses from Hitlers regime?

"Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Yeah, this is unbacked too. Has there been a scientific study done on this, if so, it should be cited here. What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". Again, a column in some publication is not sufficent. --Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) Throughout this document I have stated to the effect "a quote from some columnist does not suffice". Let me be clear that if the source article sites some reasonable research with published findings, then the article obviously qualifies. ----

Interesting points. Unfortunately, such unbacked statements about what "everyone knows is true" are all too common in articles related to this conflict. - Mustafaa 23:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Mustafaa. Not to be rude: I do not want this talk page section to become an us vs them. Lets have constructive work on this section. Some serious charges against the content have been brought forth and need to be answered. Personal attacks do not help work towards that goal. --Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sure no one here plans on making any personal attacks... we can hope! But seriously, any ideas on where to find some polls? I've let some of these vague statements stand so far because I can't think of any easy way of verifying or disproving them. I disagree on the introduction though - many Wikipedia articles begin, by necessity, with a definition, and merely quoting someone else's rather than hashing one out here on Talk introduces layers of POV in itself, insofar as very few sources will be accepted as neutral definers. - Mustafaa 23:52, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has this article ever been brought before the Arbiration committee? The more I read it the more it looks totally like original research. --Uncle Bungle 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The arbitration committee doesn't decide matters of article content. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. --Uncle Bungle 01:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are all sorts of links presented here, and in earlier Talk:, showing that anti-Semites use the term interchangeably with Jew; what other evidence is needed? Jayjg 03:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement "Many Jews (and some non-Jews)" is ambiguous. From No_original_research: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts.. Cite a reference text please, ideally in the article. Still haven't dealt with any sort of source to indicate how many Jews are pro-Zion and how many are anti-Zion, haven't cited a text or article which details a specific instance in which a known anti-Semite was outed for using Zionism as a means for attacking Jews. --Uncle Bungle 03:23, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia is that NPOV is worked out amongst a bunch of editors, then 5 months later a new bunch of editors come along who haven't read any of the previous discussions and want to hash it all out again, and the original editors are gone. Here is and earlier comment of mine: Regarding Zionist as a code word for Jew, here's one simple example: Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal (http://aztlan.net/beware_paypal.htm) Here's a page that uses the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, and resurrects all the old anti-Semitic libels: Kosher Kerry Cons Christian America (http://joevialls.altermedia.info/kosher.html) Here's a page that says that Kosher symbols have no religious significance, but just support Zionist "murders" [8] (http://www.koshertaxscam.com/info.html) Here's a Muslim site which admits quite candidly that "Jews" and "Zionists" are used interchangeably [9] (http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4850)and another Muslim site doing the same [10] (http://www.jamiat.org.za/jewunited.html) and another writer using them interchangeably [11] (http://www.paksearch.com/globe/2001/July/inevitable.html)and here again As a muslim,we believe in that Jesus is alive and was not killed by The Jews(zionists) (http://www.voidspace.org.uk/babak/your-messages.html). And the many sites referring to the "Zionist Occupied Government" or ZOG (here are some examples: [12] (http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/ZOA/Z_jktlp.html) [13] (http://www.awkkkk.org/jews.htm) and the "anti-Zionist" actions of the Polish government in 1968 etc. All you need is a few minutes and a search engine to find hundreds of pages and sites using the words interchangeably. Jayjg 03:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=4850 says: "The terms Jews, Israelis and Zionists are not the same in meaning, though people often use them loosely for the same group of people." - Mustafaa 21:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Although the author says they are different, he also acknowledges that people use them interchangeably. Jayjg 21:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is not a question of neutrality, but one of originality. See the arguments at the top of this entry.

It's not original, as the term anti-Zionism is regularly used, and has been defined by many people. Jayjg 03:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked above, and answered; each of your points was incorrect. Jayjg 03:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Each awnser debunked. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. Many, most, some, few == maybe. Numbers and specific sources are facts, so cite them, in the article, so the readers don't have to wade through four archives of talk pages. --Uncle Bungle 03:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No answers were debunked. What point exactly are you trying to make? Jayjg 04:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wanted, among other things, some names of "many jews (and some non jews)" who supported the theory that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism . It should be noted that some of these people are, too, political activists (Martin Luther King). I also question their abilities to make the claim beyond their personal feelings, since it requires detailed analysis of the definitions and uses of the terms. There are so many of them, I'll drop the point, since there is a link now in the article readers can easily examine the source and draw their own conclusions.

"Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew," Does anyone have documented instances of this? --Uncle Bungle 04:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Click on some of the links provided above. Some are quite explicit about it. Jayjg 05:03, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After clicking the links I am going to reiterate a previous statement: What is not a scientific study is digging up some anti-Semetic hate rant and saying "look look that anti-Semite blamed zionists". To argue "some anti-semites" demands a list, ideally by someone with the authority in the field (ie a Psychologist). Judging by the content, it looks as though the author was using the term Zionist interchangably with the term Facist, but thats purely my POV. Again, be very careful whom you cite on this since someone could just as easily take a list of controversial sites (as you just did) and point and say "see see anti-Ziomism == anti-Semitism". --Uncle Bungle 13:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some definitions of anti-Zionism

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism". Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in a speech at Harvard University shortly before his assassination in 1968, from "The Socialism of Fools" The Left, the Jews and Israel by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.

The older type of anti-Semitism, based on outright racial prejudice, is unfashionable today, and the modern anti-Zionist, whether by calculation or because he is a product of his times, tends to avoid it. He has therefore invented a neo-anti-Semitism, the logical inconsistencies of which are to some extent masked by ambiguity. Jacques Givet, "The Anti-Zionist Complex"

Today the boundary between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is often indistinct. It is clear, too, that the anti-Semitism proclaimed by a good many Arab governments is a veil designed to hide the negligence and corruption of the governing classes, and to divert attention from poverty and unemployment by focusing it on an external foe. G. Chaliand, The Palestinian Resistance, Penguin, London, 1972

Zionism, even as a code word, is the litmus test with respect to anti-Semitism throughout the world, even in America. The facile rhetorical linkage of Zionism with imperialism and racism is little more than an admission that Jews are uniquely not entitled to be like everyone else and live as citizens as part of a majority in a nation, for better or for worse. Zionism, as mirrored in the State of Israel, has proven the point that Jews are in fact just human. Israel has displayed a full range of human achievement and weakness and of decency and its absence common to all nations. Comparatively speaking, one can make the case that Israel has behaved better, given its circumstances. The anti-Zionist, like the anti-Semite a century ago, does not allow the Jew the privilege of normalcy. Leon Botstein, The New Republic, September 8, 1997

Looking back now over nearly 50 years, I have to say - regretfully - that I believe history has proved me right. The establishment of the State of Israel has merely provided a more "politically correct" name "Anti-Zionism" in place of "Anti-Semitism." If anything,the virulence has increased. Derek Prince, Canadian Friends of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem

In short, "anti-Israeli" sentiment at the UN is often a surrogate for two other predilections: anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. John R. Bolton, Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute, July 14, 1999

During the 1970's, an especially blatant and vulgar brand of anti-Semitism became a unifying global ideology of the totalitarian Left. Couched in the language of opposition to Zionism, this anti-Semitism became the preferred vehicle of the Soviet Union and its clients in international forums for political assaults against democratic nations - most obviously Israel, but ultimately all the West, and especially the United States. Ambassador/Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination. Abba Eban, New York Times, November 3, 1975

Our disappointment is not in Zionism, but in anti-Zionism, the adjustment that anti-Semitism made when the Jews moved into modern statehood. Ruth R. Wisse, The New Republic, September 8, 1997

Thank you. Please pick one of these and place it in the body of the text of the article. Now we don't have to say "Many jews" we can say "According to: insert name", or, alternatively: "According to a host of (human rights?) activists, Anti-Zionism == Anti-Semitism" or something to that effect. This is only acceptable if a website listing these individuals, their statements, and sources is provided. Judging by the body of this text, I imagine there is such a site. --Uncle Bungle 03:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why pick one at all? Dozens of people have written about the same thing, there's no one preferred person. We don't have to find a single "definer" of commonly used terms. Jayjg 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At he very least please include a link to the above url backing that statement. It is only fair to the readers, who are going to wonder "who has made this statement"

I don't understand your question. Jayjg 04:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ogf

Making the case for Chomsky

Im going to pull this to remove clutter in a few days.

According to the wikipedia article lingustics:

Contextual and independent -- Contextual linguistics is concerned with how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived.

Since Chomsky is a professor in the field of linguistics, he is certainly qualified to comment on the word anti-zionsim and its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived. --Uncle Bungle 03:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky hasn't been a linguist for years, he's a political activist. And as Chomsky is an anti-Israel activist his views on this matter are hardly neutral. And as he has defined himself as a "Zionist", though his definition differs from almost all other Zionists, he is responsible for trying to create the confusion and meaningless that he claim exists for the term. Jayjg 03:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is currently a professor in linguistics at MIT. As everybody he has political views, but he does not lose his own competence for that.Orzetto 14:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone doesn't forget how to be a linguist, therefore he still is. Whatever your POV on the man, he still holds his office at MIT and he is certainly qualified to speak on the issue. --Uncle Bungle 03:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If Chomsky had published that statement (it's not a definition by any means) in, say, the Cambridge Journal of Linguistics, rather than a political magazine like ZMag, this argument might hold some water. Since he didn't, it's rather disingenuous to quote this as the opinion of a professional linguist, rather than that of a political activist. Chomsky is both; if we were quoting his published opinions on generative grammar, it would be appropriate to quote his opinions as a linguist; here it is more appropriate to quote him as a political activist. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is akin to arguing that if a Judge says that abortion is wrong, they are not speaking as a judge, but as an anti-abortionist. You're right, Chomsky is both, and that should be reflected. When the traffic settles I'll include a link to political activist. You can not deny, however, that any statement made by the man is that of a linguist, since, he is exactly that.

You're right of course, its not a definition, but it is an opinion from a qualified individual. I am yet to find a dictionary which defines anti-Zionism, by the way. So far lots of "anti-Zionism is opposition to zionism", but that is a neoglism defined (in its article) as the act of inventing a word or phrase.. --Uncle Bungle 03:51, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If a judge writes from the bench that abortion is wrong, then his opinion is that of a judge. If he writes in National Right to Life News that abortion is wrong, then his opinion is that of an anti-abortion activist. And the earliest reference I could find to "anti-Zionism" in the OED is from 1962, so it's hardly a neologism. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the comment is published, if an expert in a certain field makes a statement, it has to have been made in their capacity in that field. Furthermore, the comment was part of the response to the question: "You sometimes say in talks and interviews that you used to be called a 'Zionist', and now you're called an anti-Zionist'..." and thus deals with Zionism and anti-Zionism, not Israel, Palestine or any other related issue. Since the man is established in the field, he is certainly qualified to comment on the usage of the terms. --Uncle Bungle 04:05, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is a difference in a comment made in one's professional capacity, and a polotical opinion. As Mirv has clearly pointed out, Chomsky was making a political comment in a political magazine, not a professional comment in a professional journal. Jayjg 04:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If an experienced auto mechanic wrote in "Canadian Autoworkers Workers Monthly - protecting canadian jobs" (fake publication for example) that "Japaneese cars have inferior engines", the argument that he was not speaking in his capacity as an auto mechanic would be written off as ridicilous. Again, the publication is irrelevent because of the mans qualifications. When he makes a statement, it is inherently in his professional capacity. You don't suddenly turn off your abilities and make some far-fetched remark, and then turn them back on walking out the door. While he may not have been speaking for the Linguistics Department at MIT, he was certainly speaking as Noam Chomsky, Lingustics Professor --Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky appears to turn off his mental abilities and make all sorts of far-fetched remarks; a book was recently written about it. Regardless, Chomsky was making a policy recommendation, not a linguistic analysis. Jayjg 04:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nearly everything the man says is a lingustic analysis of some sort (how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived). He has a PhD in the field.

"chomsky appears to turn off his mental abilities" is totally POV. If you have a source on that, I would like to see it. For someone to make a remark like that, they should probably be a qualified psychiatric physician. --Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nearly everything Chomsky says these days is propaganda masquerading as political analysis, and not particularly good or honest political analysis at that. As for my comments, this is the Talk: page, POV is allowed here. Please remember to sign your posts. Jayjg 05:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know POV is allowed here, I simply said I wanted to see a source on your statements. "propaganda masquerading as political analysis" back that with something soldid, and I mean MORE solid than a PhD, a chair as a professor at a major university, over a dozen books, etc. Another article in the Guardian will not do the job.

--Uncle Bungle 13:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The most devastating articles in the Anti-Chomsky Reader are not those that expose the ideological prejudices, factual misrepresentations, and distorted logic of his political writings but the two at the end of the book that tear up his reputation as one of the towering intellects of our time. Two essays about linguistics reveal Chomsky’s output in that field to be not the work of a rare, great mind but the product of a very familiar kind of academic hack. His reputation turns out not to have been earned by any significant contribution to human understanding but to be the product of a combination of self-promotion, abuse of detractors, and the fudging of his findings." [14] (http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/sept04/keith.htm) Jayjg 15:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Academic credentials for Keith Windschuttle? --Uncle Bungle 16:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What's the difference? He is quoting significant linguists who criticize Chomsky's linquistics. Jayjg 16:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of saving space on the talk page I propose changing the body of this section to read:

While Chomsky is an established and well respected expert in the field of linuistics, some prominent authors are sharply critical of his work. And follow up with some links. Is this acceptable?

He's respected by nonlinguists. "Much of the lavish praise heaped on his work is, we believe, driven by uncritical acceptance (often by nonlinguists) of claims and promises made during the early years of his academic activity; the claims have by now largely proved to be wrong or without real content, and the promises have gone unfulfilled." Jayjg 16:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And by linguists. Chomsky is best described as controversial (I personally like his politics far better than his linguistics, although both suffer from an inability to engage the other side), but his views continue to overwhelmingly dominate the field of syntax (not to mention computational linguistics.) Ever since Syntactic Structures, Chomsky has been the man to rebel against, and transformational grammar the theory to challenge. Making yourself into the orthodoxy of the field is no mean achievement. If you want evidence - he's apparently the most cited living person between 1980 and 1992...[15] (http://virus.lucifer.com/virus/2936.html) - Mustafaa 21:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A vision for the future of this article.

I have two very different propsals for the future of this article, which should put an end to the NPOV dispute. I like to think of it as a roadmap to peace.

The first is to totally disband the page, moving the content to the appropriate realated articles. For example, anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism could be covered as a section in anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be covered as a subsection of that article. Historic opposition to Zionism (especially pre-Holocaust) could be covered in the main Zionism article. This article could then be used as a disambiguation page. I think it is a good idea because it would let readers consider the concept of anti-Zionism in the larger context of the related articles.

I favour the first solution but expect massive opposition to it, and as such have a second proposal. It can be broken down as follows:

massive footnoting: back every statement that is attributed to "some, many, few, most, etc" with some sort of reliable example of the demographic. The list of people who consider anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism is an excellent example of this
removal of unsubstantiated claims: anything that could not be backed up with someone elses research should then be removed, under the terms of original research.
balancing of points of view: once we have established sources for the many points of view we can work towards including oppoising points of view, so long as they are also appropriately backed.

During the first phase of this process it would be best to not add any new information or points of view. Take what we have and document it. During the second phase, resorting to edit wars is likely. I propose that before anything is removed, the idea be discussed in the talk page. Finally, the third phase is also likely to incur angry talk pages and edit wars. It is important to remember that even if you disagree with a point of view, so long as it comes from a reliable source it deserves inclusion.

I think this is a good idea because as long as the statement is nonspecific enough to fit withing the context of its supporting material, it can ultimately be left up to the reader to decide if the statement is specific enough and the source reliable enough for their intellectual needs. This should hopefully put an end to neutrality and factuality disputes, since a source for the point will be included inline.

I would appriciate any comments on these proposals, or alternatives. Constructive work is almost impossible with endless editwars, so lets prove it, all of it, and go from there.

--Uncle Bungle 16:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article isn't about anti-Semitism, it's about anti-Zionism; you're just focussed on its anti-Semitic manifestations. As for the suggestions, claims should be referenced, counter-views provided, and any controversial edits should be brought to Talk: first for discussion. That is standard Wikipedia practice. Jayjg 17:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When did I say this article was about anti semitism? --Uncle Bungle 19:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You didn't, but you seemed focussed on anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. Jayjg 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamic/Islamist response to Anti-Zionism

A new section was created by user:Menj called "Islamic response to Zionism", but it went on to discuss what I would call an Islamist response, not an Islamic one. I moved a paragraph about the "Islamist narrative" out of "Arab anti-Zionism" and put it instead in the new "Islamic response" category, but there should be some discussion about what is an Islamic response and what is an Islamist one. I'm also not sure this could be called "anti-Zionism" when there's reference to it being a "disease" (making it sound to me like anti-Semitism). I'm also unsure about Menj inserting the photograph of a book cover, when the book was written by someone calling for the destruction of Israel. Does that look like a Wikipedia endorsement? I'm hesitant to delete this section because I'm not familiar with the book or the author. If he's regarded as a legitimate Islamic scholar then his views shouldn't be deleted. But is he? Slim 03:26, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Answering my own question, it seems the author (Faruqi) was a serious scholar, but I still haven't found any reference to him using the word "disease." I've written to Menj to ask him to find an actual quote. Slim 09:50, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Types of anti zionism - says who?

Who has identified these "types of anti-Zionists"? --Uncle Bungle 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your question, please? Is your issue that you don't think these kinds of anti-Zionists exist? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The question is straightforward. As a reader, I want to see an essay, or something to that effect, by a person who is qualified to speak on the issue (poli sci for example) that clearly identifies these to be the two "main groups" of anti-Zionists and outlines their goals, as this section of the article does. --Uncle Bungle 20:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So you don't think anti-Zionists should be classified this way? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

Please provide. --Uncle Bungle 20:59, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not getting your point here. What is the issue you have with the contents? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The issue is that the opening statements which form the cornerstone of the section are not backed by any sort of reference text. --Uncle Bungle 22:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you're not saying the contents are false, but merely that you'd like a reference for this specific categorization into different types? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding is correct. I think it is important, from a readers standpoint. --Uncle Bungle 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From what I can find, the paragraph was created by User:Adam Carr in mid-November 2003, and inserted into the article in December 2003, as part of a complete re-write. Without sources for these statements, it does appear to be original research. I've re-written the section to remove the "typology", leaving the simple facts, and removed some other related POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking at the last two statements of the section. Both begin "Other anti-Zionists" which is bad for flow. I was wondering about sources for these comments, the reason being that I think the two statements could be combined as one. It has been my experience that those who consider the circumstances surrounding the creation of Israel illegitimate, would settle for a unified state. Either way, right now it reads quite badly, and I'm open to suggestions. --Uncle Bungle 16:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify what I think the text means. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism as a form of Anti-Racism

This article is missing a viewpoint that I have heard expressed many times, and I was wondering whether anyone else noticed the discrepancy.

The viewpoint I am referring to, which is definitely anti-zionist, is that the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish (racewise) state is a racist ideology. For balance, if an English politician ever said that England was a country for those with English blood first and foremost, that politician would be eviscerated by the press. The politician's statement implies that people who are racially English are more valid citizens than immigrants to England of other races. Without a doubt, this policy is racist in the simplest sense-- it discriminates based on race. I have heard many similar criticisms of what is perceived as Israeli racist policy:

many palestinians born in what is now israel are not israeli, but someone who is racially jewish however far removed from Israel is entitled to citizenship of Israel.
although 2 million out of 7 million israelis are arabs, none are allowed in the military.
emigration to Israel is much easier for those who have converted to Judaism (not racist, but unfair religious discrimination)-- imagine if Christians had an easier time becoming American.

In fairness to me, these aren't my arguments. I would like to name-drop some authors, but my attribution is bound to be wrong. Regardless, I strongly feel that these arguments belong in this article, and would begin to fill a glaring hole. Ultimately these arguments charge that Anti-Zionism is part of being anti-racist, which is something I have heard many times, but cannot find (anymore) on wikipedia.

I'm sure that someone is bound to be offended, so I say peace to you now, brother or sister... :)

MisterSheik 07:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answering your points:

Many other countries have similar preferential immigration policies.
Jews are not a race (as your point that people can convert and become a Jew proves); Jews come from many races.
There are 1.2 million Arab Israelis, and they can indeed join the military; they are simply not forced to do so. Some do join.
These points are covered in Zionism and racism and Arab-Israeli conflict (see for example Arab-Israeli conflict#State based on ethnicity).
See comments in next section.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answering yours :)

Those should be mentioned in the section
The nature of Israel's "Right of Return" law discriminates based on heridity i.e. it treats jews as a race. My point about conversion to the religion of Judaism had to do its effect on the facilitation of immigration to Israel. I was making two separate points, and I guess I wasn't clear that one is race discrimination and the other religious.
ok
I think that this point is clearly a criticism of Zionism, and while it may be a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I feel that it is better placed in this article

Cheers :) MisterSheik 20:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Answering your points:

I believe they are mentioned in the relevant articles.
Your two points are contradictory; you claim Israel is discriminatory based on race, then you claim that it doesn't discriminate based on race, but on something else entirely.
It's best not to have duplicated content in many articles, then you just get divergence and contradictions.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did some more article-reading, and I found the content on "Zionism and racism". So now I agree with you that we shouldn't duplicate content. However, I still think that this should more prominently linked to in this article, rather than just a vague link at the bottom of this page. Perhaps a section with a "main article" link.

Regarding "my two points". I think they're complimentary-- Two forms of (possibly) unfair discrimination: Religious and racist. Not contradictory at all. :)

Cheers MisterSheik 01:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Jews are racist because they give priviliges only to the Jewish "race", and they are discriminatory because they let anyone join the Jewish "race" and get those same privileges. Now, what's wrong with that argument? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must be miscommunicating :)

Israel only offers the so-called "right of return" to people who are, in their eyes, racially jewish, which means part of ancient or modern jewish colony, etc. etc. This right of return is not, for example, offerred to Arab Palestinians regardless of whether they marry an Israeli or convert to Judaism or do anything else differently. This "right of return" is not granted regardless of race. Clearly, it is a racist policy.

From my understanding, it is much easier to immigrate to Israel if you practice Judaism. This is religious discrimination. Here I am talking about the immigration policy.

MisterSheik 18:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earlier you complained that someone who converts to Judaism can also immigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, regardless of the "race" they are from.

:) no I didn't!

Now you are complaining that the Law of Return only applies to people who are "racially Jewish". These are diametrically opposed complaints. BTW, have you ever noticed the racial basis of the definition "Palestinian" in the P.A. charter? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the utopia that exists in my head, race is really only useful for things like description of people by sight, etc. Culture, I think, makes a much better group identifier in most of the cases for which we use race.

With this in mind, my interest in anti-zionism shouldn't be taken to be anger over the israeli-palestine conflict. Even if this conflict was non-existant, I would still believe that having a country that exists for a particular race of people is a denial of the universal truth that we are all equal souls. This denial is what I feel is implied by Zionism and that is what I find offensive about it.

How do you reconcile that view with the fact that Israel is by far the most multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious country in the region? While the surrounding countries have been and are rapidly ridding themselves of their non-Arab, non-Muslim citizens, in Israel the Arab, Christian, Muslim, and all other minorities are growing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

America is also multi-cultural and multi-religious, but that does not imply that it is a bastion of non-discrimination; surely, there is still inequity. Just as there is inequity (in my eyes) in the ideology of some fanatical Muslims that seek to convert some middle-eastern countries into Muslim states. Nevertheless, all of this inequity can be methodically exposed within doctrine-- and this is my point... as above :)

All countries have inequities, as a result of basic human nature.

I don't believe that basic human nature ensures the existence of inequity. I have more faith in mankind :) Just as one man (or woman) can act justly for a second, he can do so for an hour, for a day, forever-- and as it can be one person, it can be two... it can be all of us. Just as it is human nature to be evil, it is also human nature to find the divine, to find peace and justice, and that second impetus will eventually drown the first.

When you say "Nevertheless, all of this inequity can be methodically exposed within doctrine", are you referring to the doctrine of Islam? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am collectively referring to all unfair doctrines-- including fanatical Islam and Zionism.

Assuming your thesis is correct, it doesn't seem to be "fanatical Islam" that has produced the result in various Muslim countries, but rather "plain 'ol Islam". And it appears that Zionism is producing a reversal of inequity in the region. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:) This hasn't been my experience... MisterSheik 04:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about observable phenomena based on your paradigm, rather than experience. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

References to Ethiopian Jews

I would like to know, the people who removed my references to the Ethiopian Jews, are they disputing the facts or their mentioning in this article? since the accusation of Zionism as racist gets a fair mention here, it is imperative to mention some totally neutral facts in relation to it- that the Jews are not only white, there are also black Jews and Oriental Jews who are closer racially to the Palestinians than to Europeans. Any opposing view has to explain itself. If Zionism is racism, which race is it, and which races does it oppose? the accusers seldom mention this. Are the jews a race? are the palestinians a race? Jews from Ethiopia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/524662.stm) I mean I would understand it if such an accuser believed that there are only white (Aryan...;) Jews, then such an accusation is at least not logically problematic. But to agree that peoples from the same race can be racist against each other, how can that be? if you are so sure of yourself, aren't you supposed to be only too eager to explain? User:Unlessimwrong

The argument is not made in this article that Zionism is racism, so the counter-argument does not belong either. The relevant information is in Zionism and racism, where you have already inserted this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Conceptual and other errors in this article

This article includes a number of logical and factual errors: A. "The defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948."

The state of Israel came into being in 1948. The Zionist movement did not formally contemplate a state until the Biltmore declaration of 1942. Anti-Zionism had existed in one or another form since the 19th century and certainly since 1902. Anti-Zionism before 1948 could not possibly have been against the existence of the state of Israel, because the state of Israel didn't exist and nobody was thinking of making such a state before 1942. Anti-Zionists believe at least one of the following two propositions:

1- The Jews are not a people. 2- If the Jews are a people, they should not establish their own national home (not necessarily a state) until the Messiah comes (ultraorthodox Jewish anti-Zionism).

Anti-Zionist opposition to the existence of the state of Israel stems from the above two propositions, or from anti-Semitism, or from Arab self-interest.

B.- "Before the 1930s the majority of the world's Jews who were in a position to express an opinion could loosely be considered anti-Zionist, in the sense that they did not actively support the Zionist project for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine or elsewhere. Nevertheless, the use of the expression "anti-Zionism" to describe their attitudes needs to be heavily qualified."

Actually, the statement is rubbish. Most Jews were not Zionists in the 1920s, but they were not "anti-Zionists." The Jewish Agency formed in 1929 included both Zionist and non-Zionist organizations.

C.- " But Reform Jews did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine and reconstitute a Jewish nation within its borders. Rather, they rejected the view that they themselves had an obligation to do so."

The above is misleading. The Reform Jewish movement explicitly rejected the idea that the Jews were a people. In the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885 they stated: " We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of wany of the laws concerning the Jewish State."

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs002/pittplat.html Ami Isseroff, www.mideastweb.org

In regards to point (C) I don't see the contradiction. The early Reform Jews denied that Jews were a people, and they rejected the call for them to move en masse back to the land of Israel. But they never denied the right of Jews to move to the land of Israel if they so wished. In fact, they soon recanted their position that Jews were not a people. As a movement, early Reform Judaism was not anti-Zionist in the same sense that the other Anti-Zionist groups in this article were. The point of this section is to note that the term "Anti-Zionism" is so loosely defined that it covers many totally distinct groups. RK 16:58, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Reform Judaism had its roots in the German enlightenment/assimiliationist movement, and it has a complex history that extends well before the Pittsburgh declaration and well before ZIonism. An excellent book on the subject is "The Pity of it all" by Amos Elon, Henry Holt, 2002 (or in Hebrew "German Requiem" 2004). They did not object to Zionism per se, because Zionism per se did not really exist - only the sense of Jewish national identification, which was an issue for German Jews.

Your statement "As a movement, early Reform Judaism was not anti-Zionist in the same sense that the other Anti-Zionist groups in this article were." is misleading and besides the point, because no two groups were ever "Anti-Zionist" in "the same sense." Your point "The point of this section is to note that the term "Anti-Zionism" is so loosely defined that it covers many totally distinct groups" indicates the problem with the definition of anti-Zionism in this article, which apparently includes also non-Zionists, Jews who were sympathetic but didn't want to move to Palestine immediately etc. It is a bad definition, and therefore it is a bad article. The assimilationists in Germany did not lose their objection to Jewish peoplehood or to Zionism as far as I know. I believe Walther Rathenau defended the 'non-people' issue very strongly with the backing of most of the enlightened Jewish community. He insisted that he is a German and that the Jews are part of the German Volk. Eventually he committed suicide after the Nazis came to power I believe, but that doesn't prevent others from taking up the same ideas today. In the USA, the Reform Movement gradually became non-assimilitionist and non-anti-Zionist as well, but that happened mostly after WW I.

You wrote: "But they never denied the right of Jews to move to the land of Israel if they so wished."

As far as I know, NO anti-Zionist movement _ever_ denied the right of (Individual) Jewish people to move to the land of Israel. Arab anti-Zionists object to mass immigration because they fear it will displace them, but most Palestinian anti-Zionists tell us they were quite happy with the situation as it was in the 19th century. Jews could come to the land then and some did.

Many of the Neturei Karteh live in Israel. Anti-Zionists of every stripe are quite happy with the idea that there will be a Jewish minority living in Israel under Arab rule, as long as those Jews do not try to set up a state or national home in any sense. In other words, as long as Palestine or the Vilayet of Al-Quds or whatever it might be called is no different from the USA or Britain or Germany or Iraq with regard to national rights of Jews.

Anti-Zionism of the Jewish-Marxist and the Jewish-assimilationist varieties objects to Zionism because it objects to the idea that the Jews are a people. Individuals of the "Mosaic faith" can live wherever they want, including Palestine, but cannot claim separate nationhood. In particular, German and British assimilationists were very upset by the idea that Jewish peoplehood would cause them to be suspected of dual loyalty. They objected to Zionism long before there was a state and long before the state was an official aim of the Zionist movement.

Anti-Zionism of the Jewish ultra-orthodox kind has to allow that the Jews are a people - "am Yisrael" - the people of Israel. However, they believe that this "chosen" people must not do anything practical regarding Jewish national rights, because these will be asserted by the Messiah, who will strike down the evil gentiles and initiate the rule of God's Chosen People. It is amusing to see that doctrinaire leftists and pro-Palestinians champion these medieval racist ideas with the same enthusiasm that right-wing Zionist Jewish fanatics welcome the support of Evangelical Christians.

Of course, the different groups that often quote each other and may link to each other on the Web each may have very different reasons for opposing Zionism, ranging from idealist anti-nationalism to Palestinian land claims to racism of different types, and with all stops in between. However, they all agree that there must not be a national home for the Jews. This was characteristic of these groups BEFORE there was a state of Israel and also when having a state was not a goal of ZIonism. Therefore, opposition to the existence of the State of Israel is a characteristic of anti-Zionism, but not the defining characteristic. [Ami I.]

About the pics - NPoV

I think the choice of illustration for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" doesn't respect the NPoV. These two images are linked to an antisemitic wing of anti-Zionism. The anti-Zionism in arab countries gathers an important number of points of view, so I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab anti-Zionism only by arab antisemitic propaganda. --Marcoo 13:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The images seem fairly typical; do you have examples of Arab or Soviet anti-Zionism that don't include anti-Semitic stereotypes? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

First, sorry for my english.

I answer your question : Of course, for example Azmi Bishara, a politic leader coming from the arab minority in Israel, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore he is anti-Zionist (he asks for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin). I don't think that Bishara is anti-semitic. Many people like him share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries.

--Marcoo 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

As I explain above, I proposed to remove the two illustrations for the parts "Arab anti-Zionism" and "Soviet anti-Zionism" because I think it's not neutral to illustrate the Arab and Soviet anti-Zionism only by anti-Semitic propaganda.--Marcoo 13:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you still haven't explained why these pictures do not represent a significant strain of anti-Zionist thought, and you've been invited to include others you think represent other views. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about the opposite, did you explain why these pictures would represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought ? I travelled in many arab countries, lot of people are Anti-Zionist but only few of them are Anti-Semitic. So I think it's not neutral at all to illustrate arab Anti-Zionism by Anti-Semitic pictures. There is a significant strain in Zionism with extremist militants, is it a reason to illustrate Zionism with a pic about extremist zionists ? --Marcoo 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you define "anti-Semitic"? Would thinking that Jews are involved in a secret conspiracy to control the world count? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do I defined Anti-Semitic ? It's the racism against the Jews. About the pictures, there is no evidence that they represent the main aspect of anti-Zionist thought, so I think it is not relevant and neutral to let them.--Marcoo 20:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's no evidence they're unrepresentative either. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So if you recognize we cannot be sure, I propose to remove this pics because they are a way to take position (suggesting that they represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought), not NPoV. --Marcoo 22:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly against the removal of the pictures. Curiously, the spider cartoon was moved here from anti-Semitism article because it was Anti-Zionist not Anti-Semitic (so went the argument). As to what represents the mainstream A-Z "thought": we can discuss this at length later, for now let's agree to disagree. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But you didn't say why you are "strongly against the removal of the pictures". --Marcoo 00:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you misunderstood the principle of WP:NPOV. If images must be removed merely "because they are a way to take position", we'd have to clean up Propaganda and many other articles. Human history is full of uncomfortable events, and a serious encyclopedia must cover them in neutral encyclopedic way, not hide or embellish them. If we remove some vital evidence relevant to a particular circumstance, the next editor will come along and insist that there is no evidence, therefore the text is all wrong. As a matter of fact, this happens everyday.
"Many people ... share this point of view, for many years" - but does it matter in a totalitarian society? The Soviet Union, many Arab countries, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc. were totalitarian societies. Their populations' humanistic views (if any - this still requires proof) didn't matter much.
What does "represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought" in your opinion? It would help if you bring some evidence to support your statements. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"What does "represent the main aspect of Anti-Zionism thought" in your opinion" : -> I have no answer for that. This question is complex because of the meaning of "main". "main" in the american perception ? "main" in the arab-israeli conflict ? That's why I think it's is very difficult to be relevant to illustrate "Arab Anti-Zionism".

Could you answer just two questions :

Is this picture Anti-Semitic for you ? --Marcoo 12:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Let's not try to whitewash or rewrite history. A serious encyclopedia has to reflect mainstream historical context. These pictures are very typical for mass media in both cases: the USSR and Israel's Arab neighbors. If you want to see much more hateful and gruesome images on the same topic from both, I'll be happy to satisfy your curiosity. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"These pictures are very typical for mass media in both cases: the USSR and Israel's Arab neighbors." -> I notice that it is only your point of view, that I don't share. Did you live a long time in an Arab country, or do you imagine it is like this because you read it somewhere ? You have the right to have this view, but not to try to include a partial interpretation in the article. --Marcoo 22:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

# Please do not make it personal.

# Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. To support mine, I can provide tons of factual evidence: govt-sponsored organizations and intitatives, official press releases and interviews, govt-controlled mass media, school textbooks, cartoons, videos, etc. Consider these pictures as a tiny sample. Now, how are you going to support yours? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do it means, for example, that I can illustrate the part "Zionist initiatives" in the article Zionism with a picture of Kach propaganda ?

There is another solution : to separate Arab Anti-Zionism into two parts "Anti-Semitic Arab Anti-Zionism" and "Non Anti-Semitic". --Marcoo 12:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that would be even more controversial, and it certainly smacks of original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- I don't see any logical link (other than "you too"), but if we talk about Kach, let's keep in mind that the Zionists outlawed it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The logical link is that is a "proof by contradiction". If it is relevant to illustrate Arab Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitic pics only because AntiSemitic Arab Anti-Zionism exists, so it will be relevant to illustrate the "Zionist initiatives" with the bad aspects of Zionism, and only the bad Zionist initiatives. Will you agree ?

The second point is : is it the mainstream historical context or not ? For you it is, but it is just your PoV.

Proof please. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be to you to prove it is a fact and not a PoV.. --Marcoo 08:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question : "Is this picture Anti-Semitic for you ?"--Marcoo 22:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop this silly inquisition, my personal opinion does not matter here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:13, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Such Anti-Zionist caricatures are typically considered Anti-Semitic partly because they use Anti-Semitic motifs, not necessarily because they slander Jews in general (although this distinction is slim and not necessarily intended by the publisher). In other words, while borrowing motifs from traditional Anti-Semitism (and perhaps doing so intentionally out of genuine Anti-Semitism), these caricatures are usually (at least at the superficial level) aimed at Zionists, not Jews in general. The Soviet caricature in the article demonstrates this, where the spider has "Zionism" written on its back, not "Jews". The Arabic caricature, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be making this distinction. Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, and the editors of this article are correct in illustrating it. I propose:

Replace the Arabic caricature with one that is clearly Anti-Zionist - the one in the article makes no distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists Jews. I'm sure you can come up with an alternative out of the plethora of Arabic Anti-Zionist caricatures.
The caricatures illustrate the Anti-Semitic motifs used in Anti-Zionist propaganda, not that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitic. Make it clear in the captions.

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstood - I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs.--Doron 07:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"I am not claiming that these caricatures are not Anti-Semitic, I am claiming that they merely illustrate the use of Anti-Semitic motifs." -> I agree with that point.

The point I disagree is "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda". I think you're talking about the propaganda you've heard of. I lived in Arab countries and from my view point the Anti-Semitic motifs are a very rare aspect of Anti-Zionist propaganda, even in pictures or cartoons. And it alos depend of the arab country you are (more in Egypt for example). In palestinian territories or in Israel, the Arab use of Anti-Semitic motifs is almost inexistent. --Marcoo 08:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, your claim is that Anti-Semitic motifs are rare in Arabic Anti-Zionist propaganda. My understanding was that it was quite common, especially in past decades, and this understanding appears to be prevalent. I don't live in an Arab country, and I may be brainwashed, so why don't you help us by providing examples of Anti-Zionist propaganda that are not Anti-Semitic? Surely there should be plenty of examples if your claim is true.--Doron 11:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I alreeady answered this question above, but I do it again. For example a large part of the Arab Anti-Zionist mouvement in Israel, with for exemple the leader Azmi Bishara, is against the idea of a Jewish State, therefore they're anti-Zionist (they ask for a State of Israel not defined with criteria of origin), and for more than 99 % they don't used any Anti-Semitic motifs for their propaganda. Many Arab people like them share this point of view, for many years, in the Soviet and in others countries. In the US, many Arab intellectuals are or were sometimes anti-Zionist, like Edward Said, but they're not Anti-Semitic. In Jordan, in palestinian cities, in Lebanon, in North Africa, many politic leaders have expressed Anti-Zionist positions, but never used Anti-Semitic motifs.

"Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a typical example of PoV. That's why these pictures should be removed to respect a NPoV.

--Marcoo 21:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please reread WP:NPOV because you still seem to misunderstand it. In regards to the USSR, start with History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union, Anti-Zionist committee of the Soviet public and Zionology. The Soviet cartoon is very typical and is far from the worst.

Here are just a few links concerning Arab anti-Zionism: [16] (http://www.pmw.org.il), [17] (http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm), [18] (http://memri.org/cartoons), [19] (http://www.memritv.org), [20] (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP32101), [21] (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=SP22501), [22] (http://pnews.org/art/10art/ROOT.shtml). Are you still going to insist that "more than 99 % they don't used any Anti-Semitic motifs for their propaganda"? Note, Said lived in the USA and Bishara lives in Israel. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Note, Said lived in the USA and Bishara lives in Israel." And ? Bishara is not part of Arab Anti-Zionism ? It doesn't count ?

"The Soviet cartoon is very typical and is far from the worst." -> The fact "it's far from the worst" is true, it's a fact, you or I can prove it, a fact on which there is no serious dispute. Ok. But about if it's typical or not, it can only be a point of view. When you say that something is typical of something or not, it's always a appreciation. I re-read the WP:NPOV : "By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." . I think for our subject there is an Anglo-American focus here. Because most of Arab Anti-Zionist propaganda you can heard of in the US is about Anti-Semitic motifs, you make the conclusion that it's a typical aspect.

"Here are just a few links concerning Arab anti-Zionism:" -> So what ? You can show me as many PoVs you want, they're still PoV.

--Marcoo 12:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that Anti-Semitic motifs are much less common in Anti-Zionist rhetorics in Israel and the West, so Bishara and Said are poor examples. Marcoo, there is an overwhelming amount of Arabic propaganda with Anti-Semitic motifs (a fact) and volumes have been written about this. So if you dispute this generalization, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide a quote from a serious work on the subject that refutes the statement we are making.--Doron 14:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"the burden of proof is on you." -> If I wanted to write in the article that Anti-Semitic motifs are not typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, of course the burden of proof should have been on me. But here you affirm that Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda, which is for me just a PoV, and it's a reason for you to let the pictures, so it's obvious that the burden of proof is on you. --Marcoo 14:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems typical enough:[23] (http://www.memri.org/cartoons/) Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice selection. On Wikipedia, "seems" is not enough to be considered as a fact. --Marcoo 00:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer to Guy Montag : I don't think it's a good idea to look for an alternative picture, because there probalby will be another long dicussion about what is typical or not of Arab Anti-Zionism. So I propose to only remove the actual pic because it suggests that "Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda" is a fact, whereas it is just a PoV. --Marcoo 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The links above contain hundreds if not thousands of factual images representing what they pose as "anti-Zionism". Consider this factual material as "the burden of proof". If you don't like the images presented, Wikipedia is not the right place to protest. The addresses of newspapers and governments that publish them on a regular basis are easy to find, I suggest you write them your thoughts. I may even consider joining you. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 02:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The links above contain hundreds if not thousands of factual images representing what they pose as "anti-Zionism"." -> A proof of what ? How do you know if the pictures you can see on these sites are representative or not of Anti-Zionism in these countries ? And what Anti-Zionism ? Why I don't see Edward Said's Anti-Zionism on these pages, for example ? Because they made a selection. Here it's impossible to proove if it's representative or not, because the degree of representativity is always subjective. --Marcoo 16:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So far the evidence does not support your claims. If you are able to present a good alternative image or text, let's see it. Otherwise, why waste time? Our goal is not to whitewash, propagandize or take sides, but to reflect facts. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"So far the evidence does not support your claims." Does your web site prove that Anti-Semitic motifs are typical of Anti-Zionist propaganda ? No, because this site makes a selection. --Marcoo 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What "my" website? You were presented with many links and many more are easy to find. I challenge you to show proof of your (empty so far) claims. Until then, don't waste your and others' time. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"but to reflect facts." You take a PoV as a fact. --Marcoo 14:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You still don't get it. The fact that the images were published in newspapers and shown in TV broadcasts is not my (or someone else's) POV. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, but the point that they are typical of Arab Anti-Zionism is a (your) POV. It's not because they were published in newspapers and shown in TV broadcasts that they are typical of Arab Anti-Zionism in general. --Marcoo 09:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you to prove me wrong. Until then, good bye. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The policy on Wikipedia is clear (see [24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV)): By "fact," we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute. So what you say is a PoV.--Marcoo 08:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anything can be disputed. If you claim it is POV, you have to show that there is serious dispute.--Doron 11:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mid-East Truth"

What's the deal with this external link? http://www.mideasttruth.com/ Mid-East Truth It has been removed and re-added repeatedly. Is it anti-zionist or anti-anti-zionist? It appears to be anti-anti. If it is relevant why shouldn't it be included? Thanks, -Willmcw 19:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be anti-anti-Zionist, and it mostly contains various newspaper articles on the subject of the mid-East peace process etc. from generally respected sources. The anon who doesn't like it insists it is a hate site. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a hate site - it has a whole load of very distatefull anti muslim jokes. As such it has not place here. Unless you want to start citing the KKK as a respected Anit-Zionist site because they occasionally quote from the NY Times. see: http://www.mideasttruth.com/profiling.html

Your claim that it is a hate site, based on one tasteless article out of hundreds of articles posted there, is at best a stretch; the articles on that site are from generally reputable sources. As well, your suggesting that it is equivalent with the KKK is ludicrous. In addition, adding rampant POV to link descriptions is entirely inappropriate. However, the real issue with the site is that it is far too generous; if someone wants to find the actual "Anti-Zionism" related articles on the site and link to them, that would be more appropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I claim that it is a hate site. It advioocates special treatment of members of a racial group purely on the grounds of membership of that group. If we took that "tasteless article" and substituted "jew" for "muslim" throughout you and the JDL would have a fit - and I'd be none too happy either - it would be wrong. Or are you saying that it would be acceptable to advocate giving all jews a hard time because of the actions of some of them?

It's one article in bad taste; the website contains hundreds of other quite reputable articles from reputable sources. Please do not use hyperbole in this way, or words lose all their meaning. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By all measures, even that article is not tastless. Hate sites usually have low standards, and if this is as "offensive" as the site gets ( in my perticular view it actually has a valid point that it is putting forward through satire) than there is no reason to remove it. There is nothing racist about that article. Islam is not a race and it is not demonizing Islam.

Guy Montag 00:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Anti-Zionism"