Talk:Zionism

Polemic nature

The article has reverted to being a polemic justifying Zionism rather than a description of what zionism is. The first section in particular talking about arab invasion is just a toilet. There isn't even at attempt at NPOV - or even relevance to the topic.

Zionism as a "controversial" political movement

I've added the following qualifications, which I think strike a fair compromise between some of the competing POV regarding this article:

"sometimes controversial political movement"

Zionism is more controversial than most political movements, so labelling it as such is accurate and informative. However, recognizing that the term "controversial" itself can be treated pejoratively, I qualified it as "sometimes controversial"

"the location commonly believed to be the site of the ancient Kingdom of Israel"

There is some dispute as to the historical accuracy in this case. Rather than get into that in any detail, I thought this was a suitable way of qualifying the claim while still emphasizing the most common POV.

There is no dispute among serious historians and archeologists regarding the historical accuracy of this "claim"; those who promote this view have agendas which do not coincide with historical accuracy. Jayjg 17:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find any major issues I could address, other than the "Zionism == Racism" argument. I really think that deserves at least a mention here, since it is such a widespread view -- but I'm not sure how to do that. I don't think mention on Anti-Zionism is sufficient, since I'd like to understand more of the Zionist reaction and defense as well.

--Wclark 15:43, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

I agree, the accusation of racism deserves at least one paragraph of discussion since it has such a large popularity. Both sides of the arguments can be discussed: the view that the Jews represent the evil white colonialists and an apartheid regime, on one hand (the law of return etc), and factual information on the other: that half of Israel's Jewry comes from Oriental and/or black races, and that these people are much racially closer to the Palestinians to Europeans, this is a totally different reality than the situation in South Africa was, where the base of the conflict was indeed racial. Here it is not, it is a Cultural conflict. A culture is not the same as the biological race of a person, unless you agree that a person can switch races at will, merely by switching cultures, religions and/or marriage. A ridiculous notion, in my view. A person has a right to select their cultural identity. However racial identity has nothing to do with his or her beliefs, and cannot be chosen. I'm a Jewish Israeli, and I'm confused, which race am I, and which race am I supposed to hate? please help me to properly represent your reality. Its tough being a proper racist without knowing these things, I mean you can't leave us to be ostracized by racists and anti-racists alike.

--User:unlessimwrong

The issue is mentioned here, and discussed in the appropriate article anti-Zionism; a link is provided. Jayjg 17:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE ONGOING EDIT WAR Please stop reverting articles, and discuss here instead. I'd thought my most recent changes were a suitable compromise between competing POV, but apparently you disagree -- yet you did not read my comments here. Please make an attempt to discuss the issue, rather than revert without thinking. --Wclark 16:33, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

"yet you did not read my comments here". I didn't know you had access to tracking tools to see what I'm reading on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because I disagree with your premise that "Zionism is more controversial than most political movements" -- you are right that all political movements are controversial, that's almost inherent (if not completely inherent) in being political. So until you think that editing the democracy article by putting in the very first line before anything else that "Democracry is a sometimes controversial form of government" is a good idea, please don't riddle the introduction of Zionism with this POV. Saying that "Zionism is a political movement" is not POV already and all the manners in which Zionism is controversial are discussed thoroughly in this article.

P.S. What does "sometimes" mean in terms of being controversial? When has Zionism not been controversial? Jewbacca 16:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

How about you get agreement on any changes you want to make first, then (if they're agreed to) put them in. That makes more sense to me. Jayjg 17:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My point is that Zionism is probably best known (among non-Jews in particular) for the controversy surrounding it, than for any other characteristic. The controversy – much of which centers around the argument that Zionism is a form of racism – isn't even mentioned in the article. Perhaps a better way to bring it up would be to have a section that brings together various opposition points (including those of some orthodox jews et al. which could be moved from their current locations). It just strikes me as particularly odd that a subject that most people probably first encounter in the context of controversy doesn't make any mention of that. I realize that "controversial" can be used as a slight, which is why I attempted to qualify it -- but surely there is some way of mentioning this that isn't pejorative? --Wclark 16:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times before, all political movements are "controversial" or "sometimes controversial", thus the phrase adds nothing to the description of the movement. And adding this qualifier to this article alone, and not to the descriptions of all other political movements, is not NPOV. Jayjg 17:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not all political movements are known primarily for the controversy surrounding them. I'd argue that most people who have heard the term "Zionism" heard it in the context of the "Zionism is racism" argument (or simply in the context of general non-specific dispute). Many people know nothing else about Zionism other than the controversy. Your objection seems to be that labelling Zionism "controversial" is an attempt to subtly discredit it, and I agree wholeheartedly that it can be taken that way -- but the fact remains that the controversy needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article, and pretty prominently, since for many people it's the most important aspect. How would you suggest accomplishing this, if not through something akin to my original suggestion? --Wclark 17:29, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Hmm, what are Communism and Fascism and Capitalism known for, non-controversy? And have you taken a poll to see how "most" people think of Zionism? No, you haven't, and in any event it wouldn't be relevant. My objection to labelling Zionism "controversial" is that it is meaningless, irrelevant, POV, and does not follow Wikipedia standard. The controversy is indeed mentioned "somewhere" in the article, in the exact same general area that controversies about other topics are mentioned. You know, "most" people have a view of "Jew" as controversial as well, perhaps as Zionist Arab killers, secret world dominators, big nosed bankers, Christ killers, communists, etc. Should that view be mentioned "pretty prominently" in the Jew article, since that's what "most" people think of when they think of Jews? Jayjg 19:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

De-indenting because it's getting too deep.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have taken such polls (though not anything approaching a representative sample, since they were conducted on a University campus years ago) – but as you point out (and I agree) that's not relevant. The point is that a significant number of people only know about the controversy surrounding Zionism, and practically nothing of the other details. The article as it stands does an excellent job of explaining those other details – but it mentions the controversy only briefly and in a disorganized manner. I apologize for missing this reference to the "Zionism is Racism" argument:

In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said 
that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991.
This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism.

However, it's nowhere near the other mentions of opposing views (in particular, those of orthodox Jews) and in general the opposing positions aren't clearly represented. I want to state that I do not support those opposing views. I simply think they should be clearly presented to the reader, since they represent the only thing many people know about Zionism, and if they are hard to find in the text then it gives the impression of bias. I think they should perhaps be organized into a common section, or else a reference and link to Anti-Zionism should be made closer to the beginning of the article. Do you have other suggestions? --Wclark 20:58, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Maybe the same type of phrasing could be used to describe Zionism as is used here (from Right of return):

The Palestinian Arab right of return is a hotly disputed topic in Middle East politics

Is "hotly disputed topic" preferable to "controversial"? --Wclark 21:46, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

No. The only relevant, necessary and NPOV thing to say about Zionism in the opening sentence is that it is a political movement. Saying that it is "controversial" or "hotly disputed" political movement is (a) tautological, because all political movements by definition are controversial and hotly disputed, and (b) POV, because it seeks to place Zionism in a category seperate from all other political movements, namely "hotly disputed ones." What this really means is "movements with which the majority of right-thinking Wikipedians have no sympathy." The opening sentence should be left as it is. Adam 10:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's not what "controversy" officially means (whatever that means!), and it's certainly not what I meant by it. However, it seems to be a common misunderstanding so I'll concede the point (see Controversy and the discussion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Controversy for more on the popular misconceptions about this term). However, if the term is going to be invariably taken in a pejorative manner, then it should really be removed from all articles on the Wikipedia. I'm going to raise a discussion on the Village pump about this, to see what others think about it in general. --Wclark 16:19, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. User:Zero0000 12:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with Adam; highlighting the "controversy" is un-Wiki for all sorts of reasons, most of them relating to POV. And the point of an encyclopedia article is not to reflect the ignorance or prejudice of "most readers", but to educate them on the facts about the subject. Jayjg 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that isn't what I agreed to. The question was whether it is right to call Zionism "controversial" in the introductory sentence. I agree with Adam's argument that it is not right, and I think even putting it in the opening paragraph is doubtful. That doesn't prevent controversies from being aired elsewhere in the article (although one would assume that anti-Zionism is where most of such material would go). --Zero 15:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying all along as well. The controversy is aired elsewhere in the article, and a link provided to anti-Zionism where the main discussion takes place. Jayjg 16:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the controversies should be aired in the article at all – I was suggesting they be more clearly mentioned (and that perhaps a link to Anti-Zionism should be more prominently placed near the open). The fact of the matter is that Zionism is a more controversial political movement than most (in the sense that there is more controversy surrounding it than most, regardless of whether this controversy is justified in any way). The vast majority of college students at Rutgers University in the early 1990's were only aware that there was some sort of heated dispute regarding Zionism and knew practically nothing else about the topic (based on a poll I helped conduct for a research paper), and I'd argue that the same is most likely true for the majority of non-Jews in general. If a topic is widely known to be hotly disputed, yet this dispute is barely mentioned in the article, that's going to come across as white-washing. That's my motivation here (to avoid the appearance of bias in the article) and surely there must be some way of achieving that goal without using any offensive terms or without giving undue importance to opposing views. Can anyone here suggest something that might work? --Wclark 16:29, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Zionism is not "a more controversial political movement than most", your tiny and unrepresentative straw poll notwithstanding. I'm sure if you asked the average American what they knew of Marxism, their responses would be equally poorly informed. And as I said above, the purpose of an article is not to reflect the ignorance of the reader, but to enlighten the reader. Injecting bias to avoid the appearance of bias is self defeating. What is currently there works just fine. Jayjg 16:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Zionism is more controversial than most other political movements. Simply do a search for "controversial+zionism" and you'll find plenty of agreement on that point, from all across the political spectrum. Your complaint seems to be with the term "controversial", and you need to realize it's not always pejorative (and wasn't originally meant as such, until the media started abusing it). Would "divisive" better suit your tastes? "Frequently and emotionally debated"? Yes, Marxism, Feminism, and countless others fit into this category as well. For the most part topics like child labor are not (although in certain areas of the world they are no doubt still considered controversial topics). The purpose of an article is to provide information in as neutral a manner as possible -- PERIOD. The fact that Zionism is a "hot topic" in international discourse is important and warrants a mention. That's not bias. Now, would you please stop getting so hung up on terminology and help come up with a reasonable way of making this point? --Wclark 17:05, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Your arguments re: controversial have already been refuted; see Adam et al above. The "controversial" nature of the movement has already been recognized in this page, and discussed at length in the anti-Zionism. I understand you see a need to make it more prominent; however, as I said earlier, introducing bias to avoid the appearance of bias is self defeating. Jayjg 17:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

De-indented again because it got too deep

*sigh*

Nobody refuted anything above. Adam's (implied) definition of "political movement" is wrong, as is his interpretation of what "controversial" means. I agreed that people misunderstand that term to be purely pejorative, so it's not a point worth pursuing. The fact remains that Zionism is a topic about which a great many people frequently enter into emotional debate, and that this happens more when discussing Zionism than with most (not all) other political topics. I can't understand why you won't acknowledge this blatantly obvious point. It doesn't reflect poorly on Zionism in any way, shape, or form, and is not a biased viewpoint – in fact, the same exact point applies to Anti-Zionism so it couldn't possibly reflect poorly upon Zionism. Would you consider it biased to say that abortion is a highly divisive issue? I simply consider it a neutral fact. It doesn't say anything about which side in the debate is right, only that the debate itself tends to get rather intense (and moreso than with other topics). I agree that adding bias to counter another bias is a bad idea, but that's not what I'm suggesting here. --Wclark 18:19, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you work on beefing up the In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991. This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. sentence in some way to reflect the current controversy that is going on, and present it here. Jayjg 18:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that sentence, I was just looking it over again. I don't think it necessarily needs to be "beefed up" since it already says enough (and provides a link where the interested reader can find out more). It's more that I think it should be moved from its current location, since it's hard to find (and I wouldn't have expected it at the tail end of a section that outlines the history of Israel). Since I don't see where else it could really go (and upon further review of the article, I no longer think that moving the information on opposing views from orthodox Jews makes sense) but since I really do think the link to Anti-Zionism needs to be more prominantly placed than at the end of an inappropriate section, how about this: Dropping the mention of the UN resolution (which really belongs entirely in Anti-Zionism, I think) and placing some other mention and link to Anti-Zionism closer to the opening of the article? That way we don't necessarily have to mention the (controversial) controversy directly, but can accomplish the same effect by directing readers to the Anti-Zionism page if what they're really looking for is information on the debate. --Wclark 18:57, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I'm game, but what specifically do you think should be done? Jayjg 19:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about something like this (second sentence added):

Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. This characterization of Zionism is questioned by some (but not all) anti-Zionists, although few competing definitions have any widespread acceptance in the international community. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there.

I don't like the phrasing, but I can't figure out how to improve it without introducing too much bias one way or the other. I'd drop the original sentence (mentioning the UN resolution) entirely, since I don't think it really belongs in the section on the history of Israel anyway. --Wclark 19:58, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The first section is for explaining what it is, not what talking about various controversies related to it. You can put more wording in about the controversy, and move it to a "better" place in the article, but it certainly does not belong in the first section. Jayjg 20:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Zionist response to Zionism is arguably one of the best-known aspects, and therefore warrants a mention early in the article. I've posted some research to back up this claim at User:Wclark/Zionism (in the interest of saving space here). --Wclark 03:18, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Early in the article? Perhaps. In the first paragraph? Absolutely not. Jayjg 03:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you'd like how early in the article I'm thinking (as in, the first section following the opening, in a section entitled "anti-Zionism" or something similar). I really think the controversy surrounding Zionism needs to be made clear almost immediately, and making mention of anti-Zionism (with a link) is probably the most NPOV way of doing so (since terms like "controversial" "disputed" etc. are so problematic). I'm not going to compromise on this if the only thing you have to say in response is "absoultely not." I spent a good amount of time compiling some research to back up my position, and if you expect me to accept your argument that mentioning anti-Zionism in the opening portion of the article is either unnecessary (or even detrimental) then I expect you to do the same. --Wclark 03:42, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

That Zionism is controversial was never in question. Nor is the fact that there is a propaganda war going on against Israel and Zionism on the Internet (and elsewhere), and that this propaganda war is far more visible and well known than most. The point is that this is an article about Zionism, not about anti-Zionism, which has a whole big article devoted to it. The Wikipedia standard is to mention related topics, and then link to them in other articles. This article has done so. Jayjg 05:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest that new paragraphs be installed in the introductory section as follows:

Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there.

Since the establishment of Israel, and particularly since the Six Day War of 1967, which placed Israel in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the objectives and methods of the Zionist movement and its major achievement, the State of Israel, have come under increasing criticism. The Arab world opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset, but during the course of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 1967, the legitimacy of Israel, and thus of Zionism, has been increasingly questioned in the wider world. Since the failure of the Oslo Accords and the launching of the second intifada in 2001, attacks on Zionism in media, intellectual and political circles, particularly in Europe, have reached new levels of intensity.

This article is intended to be a survey of the history and objectives of the Zionist movement, not a history of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The history of the various forms of opposition to Zionism is discussed at the article anti-Zionism.

Adam 04:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 05:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not sure whether that third paragraph is something you're suggesting go into the article, or whether it's your own commentary. I agree with the sentiment, but I find it somewhat jarring when articles go all meta on themselves. Also, I think that second paragraph might be a bit of overkill. I think it would be fine to chop it after the first sentence, and follow up with something that mentions and links to Anti-Zionism. However, if you think the added detail is useful, I'm not opposed to it. --Wclark 05:44, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

I'm confused as well; Adam, were you proposing that new intro, or opposing it? Jayjg 07:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am proposing all three paragraphs as a new intro section. I don't see anything wrong with an article commenting on itself as the 3rd para does. If the 2nd para is thought to be too detailed, it can be edited back. But I think we need to acknowledge that this article will be endlessly attacked unless it gives the reader an immediate link to anti-Zionism to show that the topic as a whole is being treated in a balanced way across two articles.

I'll accept the third paragraph, since I completely acknowledge it's just my personal preference for articles not to refer to themselves. I wish I'd been able to express your last point as clearly as you just did, since that's basically why I've been so hung up on seeing some mention of the opposing views/controversy (I tend to think there are a lot of people who would be expecting some mention of anti-Zionism, and who would likely consider the article biased otherwise). I'll leave it to Jayjg (and any other concerned parties) to trim your proposed second paragraph. --Wclark 08:08, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

I think it is fine. I added a comma. --Zero 13:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the second paragraph is at all necessary, but if Zero and Adam like it, I won't object. Jayjg 16:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is not "necessary" for the integrity of this article, which is why I resisted the idea previously, but I have been persuaded that it is "necessary" if the article is ever to achieve stability. And if it is necessary I would rather do it myself than allow various Zionophobes to do it for me.

at most only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide

"at most only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide"; where do these numbers come from? Jayjg 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I've qualified it somewhat, until somebody can track down a more concrete source for the figure. --Wclark 16:48, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Ideological vs political movement

Definition of ideology:

The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

Definition of political:

Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

To me, it appears that a more precise description of Zionism is as an ideological movement than a political movement; "political" is too narrow.

Style 10:57, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I agree, Zionism is about ideology as well. --Bk0 22:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where did that definition of ideology come from? Crude Marxism for Beginners? Adam 08:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. But don't bother to state your case or argue the point, just revert... -- style 14:36, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Adam, why do you think "political" is more accurate than "ideological"? Jayjg 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't "nationalist" be more precise and accurate than either? —No-One Jones 18:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is totally disputed

From errors of comission (such as calling Israel's ethnical cleansing a "civil war") to errors of omission (such as omitting the pogroms of non-Jews and occupation of Palestine), this is largely a piece of propaganda minimizing negative acts and consequences of Zionism. HistoryBuffEr 00:01, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I agree. Simply segregating cricism of Zionism in the anti-zionism article and using that as a rationale to let this article be blatent pro-Israel propaganda is not acceptable and reflects negatively, I think, on Wikipedia. Bk0 04:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of this called a "civil war" by either side until this article, regardless of whether your opinion calls it "ethnic cleansing" or not. Hundreds of thousands of troops from neighboring Arab countries were involved in the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli war, which is hardly just "Civil war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine." AriP 21:52, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True. Here are some examples

I quote from the main article as of 26/Oct/2004: "(...) and to encourage Jews to settle there as they see it as their God given perogative."

Not at all. Zionism is not a monolithic body of ideas. What is called "right wing" supports this position. What is called "the peace camp" does not. Both are Zionists. (Yes, you could say that the first group is the majority nowadays.)

The popular world opinion opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset (...)

POV Central. Actually, the United Nations voted in 1947 for partition.

Zionism doesn't change meaning depending on the speaker

Some extremists apparently wish to define "Zionism" by who is using the word: " 'Zionist' is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew." This was also a common practice in the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland, before their collapse in 1991. See Zionist Occupied Government for an example of the current use of the term Zionist in this way. " So what does this mean? If a Zionist uses the word, it is legitimate. If a critic of Zionism uses it, it is a euphemism and an anti-Semitic attack? This is ridiculous. Where do Tikkun's or Noam Chomsky's critiques of Zionism fall in this scheme, legitimate or euphemistic? Who decides? This POV application needs to be deleted.--Alberuni 04:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It correct. There are people who equate Zionists with all Jews.--Josiah 06:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People use the word in different ways, as sometimes happens with English words. One of the ways anti-Semites use it is as a euphemism for Jew. This causes some confusion, as the article relates. Jayjg 06:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, as usual.Where do Tikkun's or Noam Chomsky's critiques of Zionism fall in this scheme, legitimate or euphemistic? Who decides? This POV application needs to be deleted. This is another POV attempt to discredit legitimate criticism of Zionism as illegitimate anti-Semitism. It is a POV description that should be NPOVed in the article.--Alberuni 19:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the difference where they fall? The question is not relevant. The fact that some people use the term that way doesn't mean that others do not. The article is also very clear that this is a minority usage by anti-Semites, and not the majority usage. Jayjg 21:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's completely subjective and POV. Not encyclopedia material.--Alberuni 03:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now come on. It is of course true that pro-Zionist groups often falsely accuse anti-Zionist groups of being anti-Semitic (a point, come to think of it, that might be worth covering in the article); it is equally true, though, that when some white supremacist talks about the "Zionist Occupied Government", he doesn't mean "Zionist" though he says "Zionist". - Mustafaa 03:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, we can't assume we know who is a white supremacist. Second, we can't claim to know what a white supremacist is thinking when he talks about ZOG. He may well be talking about Jews and Zionists interchangeably or he may have legitimate criticisms about Zionist influence in the US government. Third, it is a logical fallacy to judge the merits of an issue based on the speaker rather than the issue. Fourth, this is an encyclopedia. What are we going to say? "Zionism is the political ideology that Jews are a distinct race that deserves a homeland in Palestine unless the word is used by people who are Arab or white supremacists or Russian or Iranian in which case it is an anti-Semitic euphemism for 'Jew'". This gives the Zionists a tool to label anyone who criticizes them, "an anti-Semite". And it is a tool they frequently use to bludgeon legitimate critics. --Alberuni 03:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The motivations of people who use "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably are not what is central here; the fact that they do so is enough to point out the issue. Jayjg 16:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about discussing the Zionists who use Zionism and Judaism interchangeably? As in those who claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism? --Alberuni 16:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting and provocative topics. Jayjg 17:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Featured article status

I have requested that this article's featured status be removed because of it being the centre of frequent edit wars and having its factual accuracy and neutral point of view disputed. Vacuum | t c w 02:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Land Purchase

How come the article fails to mention the purchase of land from arabs mainly with Rothschild's help? Am I missing something? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 14:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Madagascar

Is it true that Madagascar was briefly considered as a Jewish homeland? And how could anyone come up with such a dumb idea? Mjklin 21:51, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

Before Hitler decided on his 'Final solution', he considered other ways of dealing with the 'Jewish problem' by exiling them to some remote land. First he considered Siberia, but fearing the harsh climate would turn the Jews into 'Supermen', he later considered mild Madagascar.--Pharos 11:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction...

Wikipedia is amazing. In the last month a new article has been written on the Madagascar Plan.--Pharos 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and Zionsim

The undertones of this article are not just outrageous, but inflamatory at times. Most Christians believe (those who practice and accept an orthodox [not Eastern Orthodoxy but rather a plain meaning in this context] interpretation of the Bible) that Israel should exist as a matter of biblical prophecy in numerous Old Testament books (Isaiah, Daniel) as well as the New Testament.

But it is the following that is disturbing in this article: "Christian Zionists also believe that most Jews will be killed and will "burn" in Hell..." As a matter of fact, the Bible states that all non-believers will burn in a lake of fire, not hell (gehenna or hades). Hell is distinct, and since this is an encyclopedia, it behooves the author(s) to write with accuracy.

It is appalling that the article insinuates that Christian "Zionists" support Israel with the hope of inheriting it someday, which is preposterous. The Bible explicity states in the final book of Revelation (sometimes known as the Apocolypse) that God will rule the Earth from Jerusalem, and that all "believers" of any origin will dwell both there and in all of the Earth and Heaven.

_____ Given the innacurate and clearly biased nature of the section entitled non-Jewish zionism, I have proposed the following replacement. I have posted it in the past, only to have it deleted, presumably under the auspice of it being vandalism. Nothing could be further from the truth; I am simply trying to repair tghe article of its original bias. An encyclopedic entry should not have to use the word 'burn' in quotes to show a colloquial. In addition to having a tone of bitterness and self-pity, the article misses the point entirely of non-Jewish zionism in Christians. Please note that the last section is the only one that I have edited.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Non-Jewish Zionism

The question of whether a non-Jew can be a Zionist is a largely semantic one, akin to the question of whether a man can be a feminist. The websites of major Zionist organisations make it clear these are entirely Jewish organisations. The website of the American Zionist Organization (http://www.azm.org/), for example says: "The American Zionist Movement is a coalition of organizations and individuals devoted to the unity of the Jewish people and eternally connected to our homeland, Israel." (emphasis added)

There are nevertheless many non-Jews who support the State of Israel, and some of these may choose to define themselves as Zionists.

Non-Jewish support for Zionism takes three forms:

The traditional support from the political left for the Jews as an oppressed people and for Israel as a semi-socialist state. Since the 1970s the first of these has been almost entirely lost as the left has shifted its sympathy to the Palestinians, while the second has been lost since the Israeli Labor Party lost its hold on power in 1977. In the United States, Israel continues to find support from most political liberals, but outside the U.S. this has largely evaporated. However, some of the strongest critics of Zionism in the US include prominent progressives like Ralph Nader.
Support from some political conservatives, mainly in the United States and to a lesser extent in other countries such as the United Kingdom. Much of this is really support for Israel as a pro-Western state rather than support for Zionism per se, and is also strongly motivated by domestic politics, particularly in the U.S. However, some of the strongest critics of Zionism have also been political conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
"Christian Zionism", a movement among evangelical Christians in the United States which sees the return of the Jews to the Holy Land as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionists believe that the second coming of Jesus can only happen after the re-establishement of the nation of Israel. They also hold that apocolyptic events will cause great numbers of Jews to convert to Christianity and see Jerusalem as the center of Jesus's rule on earth; thus their ultimate goals differ greatly from those of Jewish Zionists. Lobbying by Christian groups in the United States on behalf of Israel has influenced U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Resolution for the Editing Wars

Why not create specific sections of this article to deal with pro-zionist arguements and anti-zionist arguements? -Isaiah R, 15 December

That all you are saying, believing and fighting for are plain false. Muslim will dwell all the Earth, even Qudus, that you call jerusalem! But we will not distroy the world, we will just keep it out of the problems.

Who wrote that post? It would be much appreciated if people identified themselves. Also, I belive it would be much more appropriate for the article on Islam, and what Muslims believe. -Isaiah R, 12/18/04

Zionism and Non-Jews

I have added quotes from two Pro-Zionist Jews, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich and Israel Cohen, that relate to the true concept of Zionism, and the role it has played in 20th century race relations. There may be some controversy surrounding this addition, as both quotes are, I should say, "sensitive" in nature. However, they exsist, and shall be included in this article as they shine light on the true nature of Zionism. Please check refs before debating /editing. Thank you.

FYI, this was written by User_talk:Molloy who attempts to insert false quotes here. I left a note on his/her talk page. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Humus sapiens claims falsification of these quotes, that is not the case. I have provided reputable citations for my quotes, one being a book: Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr, pages 105-106. and the other an addition to the Congressional Record (Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957). - Molloy

- Though this was an old comment, I couldn't help but notice William Guy Carr being referred to as reputable source. That's pretty funny. Carr was one of the mid-20th-centuries Illuminati conspiracy theorists. But his loony theories do seem to have spread into the neo-nazi and general anti-semitic spheres. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

My post has been vandalised once again, I have proven & verified my quotes and sources as accurate and true, and you still claim falsification?!? I am still waiting for a counter-arguement. Stop deleting my additions because it violates your personal Point of View. - Molloy

The supposed quotation from Israel Cohen is a product of Eustace Mullins's imagination. I found the full story on pp. 355–356 of the book Quotemanship: The Use and Abuse of Quotations for Polemical and Other Purposes, by Paul F. Boller Jr. In brief, a Mississippian Congressman found the quotation in a letter to the Washington Star and read it during a debate over a civil rights bill in 1957 in order to prove that the U.S. civil rights movement was a Communist plot. This accounts for its appearance in the Congressional Record, which has lent it an undeserved veneer of authenticity. What the racist websites that propagate the quotation don't tell you is:

That there was no Communist party in Britain in 1912
That no book entitled A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century can be found in the catalogues of the Library of Congress or the British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books
That there is no record of a Communist named Israel Cohen ever having lived in England
Finally, that on February 18, 1958, the Washington Star published an article entitled "Story of a Phony Quotation--A Futile Effort to Pin It Down--'A Racial Program for the 20th Century' Seems to Exist Only in Somebody's Imagination", which both apologized for carrying the quotation and named Mullins as the originator.

All of this was read into the Congressional Record on August 30, 1958, by Rep. Abraham Multer of New York. Look it up if you like.

Multer further noted that "Mullins has, apparently, a marked propensity for phony claims and counterfeit creations. Some of his counterfeits include a speech by a nonexistent Hungarian rabbi. . .", which I suspect accounts for the supposed quotation from Rabbi Rabinovich (whose existence, curiously, is attested only on many of the same racist websites that carry the forged Cohen quotation. . .). My suspicion is corroborated by http://www.alexanderbaron.150m.com/eustace_mullins_7.html, which names the Rabinovich quotation as one of Mullins' inventions. (I'll see if I can find a better source.)

Some of this could probably go in our article on Eustace Mullins, which would be the right place for the quotations as well. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check it out: A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century. As far as I can tell that's the only thorough debunking of the quotation now available on the interweb; it ought to make up for the unfortunate fact that Google crawled this article while the nonsense was still in it. Now to deal with the equally-spurious Rabinovich story. . . —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 14:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factual dispute

I see there is a "factual dispute" label, can anybody specify what are the disputed facts? MathKnight 20:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been there for four months. I've removed it, there don't appear to be any current disputes. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 20:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti Semitism versus Anti Zionism

I am a Semite

As a Semite and a Muslim, I do not consider myself Anti-Semite, however I'm a Anti-Zionist ! What is the reason that Anti-Semitism is linked to Arabs continously !?

Anti Semitic insertions

Could we please make sure that no more neo nazis post excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or imaginary speeches by non existant rabbis called Emmanuel Rabinovich or Israel Cohen? This is an embarrassment.

Thanks,

--Guy Montag

Insertions by neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are inevitable on pages relating to Jews and Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it also inevitable that one person asks that dubious sources don't find their way into an article, and that another follows up by replying about dubious people? Try and remember the two aren't even remotely the same. Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites have every right to make insertions to any article at all, and this is an entirely separate issue from "the protocols" and whatnot. Your error is amusing and telling Jayjg.

Um, what are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zionist posters

Do you know where I can find free (public domain or GNU) Zionist posters (to encourage Aliya and boost the moral of the Zionist settlers in Israel)? MathKnight 20:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zionism and Arabs

95% Arab population in 1880 is false. Ottomon census gives total Muslim population of 141 000 Jewish population at the same time is estimated at 40 000. In addition estimated 75% Muslim population was Ottoman, remaining 25% were a mix of Arab (mainly from Egypt), Circassian, Bushnaks and others. No evidence of Arab population going back further than the the early 19th century, let alone being there for 1000s of years! Kuratowski's Ghost 14:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful if the two parties disagreeing on the numbers here provide some sources for their information. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Won't help, one side will say Jewish historian Ernst Frankenstein who wrote in the 1940s and the other will say someone like Arab historian Edward Said and then both sides will claim the other side is discredited. :P Kuratowski's Ghost 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that in itself is useful information. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am curious, what does the Ottoman census referenced above, say about the Christian population of Palestine at the time? Dabbler 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good question, one that is often ignored. Earlier census 1878 gives under 44 000 Christians in Palestine including southern Lebenon. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dreyfuss & Herzl

The most recent edit goes into some detail about Herzl's feelings regarding the Dreyfuss affair. Is that really at all relevant for here (as opposed to either Herzl's or Dreyfuss' own articles)? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not. I've removed it. I'm not sure it's even relevant there, aside from the problems that it smack of original research, and is uncited. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is racism!

I thought that the whole article was Pro-Zionist Propaganda! I strongly doubt that the Jewish population is overwhelmingly Pro-Zionist. I think that it is more accurate to say that they are overwhelmingly Anti-Zionist! Zionism just has a strong presence in the Jewish community. I have a pretty good understanding that it is a very racist ideology that regard Jews as THE "people of god" and Palestineans having no rights! There are documented cases, according to two books, Zionist Relations Within Nazi Germany and Dossier on Palestine, that the Zionists during World War 2 negotiated with the Nazis! Not that they agreed with the Nazi about the extermination of the Jews but that the two used eachother to meet their own ends (the Zionists wanted to use the holocaust to justify forming the state of Israel). I strongly believe that these arguments should be used to present the other, missing side of the argument. This article is FAR from nuetral.≈ Template:Leon Trotsky

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that does not mean that anon trolls deserve a response. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see what anon is coming from, as a lot of wiki admins and editors are Jews (No offence intended) their point of view is obviously going to be very biased when it comes to articles such as Zionism, the ADL, Six Day War, Iraq, White Nationalists etc. A lot of this bias is reflected rather substantially in these articles as a result. - Molloy

If only more Wiki admins and editors were anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis; then Wikipedia could finally become a respected source of unbiased information on these topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What I think that really need to have are in this section is the Arab, Muslim and Palestinean on Zionism as well as the perspectives of Jews that are anti-Zionist. Besides most white racism is now is directed toward Arabs and Muslims and no longer Jews.

I thought the Stormfront putzim were putting together their own Nazipedia! Wonder what ever became of it... --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect they couldn't find any literate contributors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a defamatory statement to me. Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks does it not? - Molloy

Yeah, but Nazis are fair game here as well as everywhere else decent people congregate. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is in season right now, so please, keep the shotguns in the lockers. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't need shotguns. Words suffice. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, save your bullets for the palestinian kids. - Molloy

Now now Molloy, that was not needed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the OK Corral. Settle down, everyone. A damp handkerchief on the neck can help in these situations. -Willmcw 11:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

in case anyones interested, the Lehi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities) article discusses the attempted collaboration between nazi's and Zionists. oh, and Nazi's arn't fair game, any more than communists or satanists or Jews are. As soon as there becomes an "official POV" instead of a NPOV policy, I'll find another encyclopedia to read. Sam Spade 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

So are we done discussing this nonsense now?

Guy Montag 21:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

user:Molloy has it half right. The Zionist poster is propaganda. However it certainly belongs. And, to provide an illustration for the anti-Zionist section, it is NPOV to reproduce one of the many anti-Zionist cartoons and posters that have been created, which are also propaganda. However the cartoon that Molloy was adding depicts the supposed bias of the U.N. in the Middle East, or perhaps even regarding the Intifada in particular, rather than Zionism per se. If we can obtain a cartoon which directly and clearly pertains to Zionism (such as the many that have commented on the U.N. Assembly's "Zionism is racism" resolution) and which isn't in bad taste then I think we should include it. (Most political cartoons over the last half-century are copyrighted, so I don't know where we can get one). -Willmcw 07:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The problem (aside from the copyvio issue) is that it's not clear whether this picture is commenting on Zionism or on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To me, it clearly looks like the latter. If you can find the kind of cartoon you describe, then I'm all for including it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The poster is a call for Jews to immigrate to Israel and be Zionists, it is more like an advertise than propoganda. Put in proper historical context, it should stay. MathKnight 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Advertising's purpose is to sell a specific good or service. On the other hand, propaganda is:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.[1] (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2046&dekey=4220&gwp=8&curtab=2046_1)

Because the poster promotes a cause, it is propaganda. -Willmcw 05:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is there other posters we can use that shows less of a propoganda tone, but still encourages Jews to immigrate to Israel? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, if your refering to this photo:

, I seen it on the Net, twice. I see no copyright information, since the site does not provide it. I also seen it on a website just full of pictures. No copyright either. I know I debated this photo on my talk page at length, but based on that, and based on a email I saw, I think we cannot keep the picture due to the copyvio issues. Plus, if there were no copyvio issues with the photo, it would have been a little bit better suited at an article that discusses the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

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