Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Reinhart quote

Several days ago I removed the following quote, to general consensus:

According to Tanya Reinhardt, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University who said she was speaking as one who loves the country and its people, "Being against Israel is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have. ... The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."

The quote itself has been placed in the Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section, yet does not refer to either anti-Zionism or antisemitism. Rather, it is original research intended to refute other points made about anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Please make sure quotes are on relevant, on-topic, and not original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We are freely mixing the concepts of anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Zionism. Do we know they're the same? Any source linking them? --Abenyosef 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are we "freely mixing" them? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In citing Kaplan and Small, who never say "anti-Zionism" in their paper. --Abenyosef 12:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Reinhardt quote is extremely relevant (having put in there in the first place). Zionism as an ideology supports the estbliahment of a Jewish state in Palestine; i.e. Israel. Reinhardt directly challenges that notion by questioning whether or not Israel serves the needs of Jewish people. Additionally, there are a number of quotes throughout the article that seem to designed to drive home the idea that anti-Zionists are Jew-haters. Reinhardt, a Jewish Israeli, directly refutes these ideas in the quote provided. It is there for purposes of balance considering the overwhelmingly Zionist POV saturating this article. I think it should stay. Tiamut 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you reviewed original research, which forbids addition of material if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"? That is exactly what you are doing here. Reinhardt is not talking about the linkage between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, which is the subject of the section. Indeed, she's not even talking about anti-Zionism. If you wish to "balance" the "overwhelmingly Zionist POV saturating this article", you'll need to do it with sources discussing anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is not the right place for it (directly after a strong POV accusing anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism), where would you suggest? I noticed that the section on anti-Zionist Jews lacks a thorough discussion of secular Jewish opposition to Zionism. I am willing to write it and it should definitely include this quote. Will post my suggestion for that section here. Would appreciate any help in constructing it.Tiamut 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why must there be a place for it? Why not include more relevant material instead? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is a broad topic, which includes criticism of Israeli policies. Reinhardt's quote strikes me as obviously relevant. Would we otherwise have to stick to people who specifically say they're defending or attacking "anti-Zionism" by name? I don't think this is there to advance an opinion either, but to provide a balanced discussion of the topic. Mackan79 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of balance in the article, and on top of being a linguist, not an expert on Zionism or antisemitism, Reinhardt refers to criticizing Israel, which Zionists do every day, and not to anti-Zionism nor antisemitism. The claim that she is referring to anti-Zionism is pure OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your intellectual dishonesty knows no limits. Muir, a historian, is entitled to talk about statistics, but Reinhardt, a linguist, is not entitled to talk about Zionism?

Also, Reinhardt is to be excluded, because she talks about criticism of Israel, not anti-Zionism, but Kaplan and Small are to be included, although their survey is about attitudes toward Israel, not about anti-Zionism?

I support the inclusion of the Reinhardt quote. It's relevant and on-topic, given the general tone of the section in which the concepts of anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Zionism are freely mixed. It isn't true that Reinhardt has no consensus.--Abenyosef 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[Interjected] Please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Speaking of bad sources, why have Anindya Bhattacharyy of The Socialist Worker and Michael Rosen, and author of children's books, been quoted here? In what way are their opinions reliable or notable? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly Zionism and Anti-Zionism are topics which relate to Israel and criticism of Israel at a fundamental and primary level. The connection here is not original research any more than the inclusion of Bauer's statement in the immediately previous paragraph which does not use the word "Zionism" either. Both discuss being against Israel. If there is better material, I would be happy to substitute it, but I also think it should be kept until that time, as the response to the previous statement is otherwise lost. Mackan79 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added: we can't have three people in a row talking about why anti-Zionism is antisemitism without a response. Reinhardt's statement is directly on point to Bauer's, and thus fits appropriately there. There's much we could clean up, but it shouldn't be by simply deleting disfavored voices. Mackan79 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an opposing opinion would be appropriate here, but the Reinhardt quote isn't addressing the same issue as the paragraph its responding to. There are many better quotes out there. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss Natan Sharansky's criteria for when anti-Zionism constitutes anti-semitism and see if someone has responded to him. GabrielF 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think balance of some sort is needed, then get a better source. Most of the sources inserted recently have been terrible; unknowns writing for The Socialist Worker, authors of children books! Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan that there should be a response (which I though Roland's Klug passage was...), but the Reinhardt quote doesn't refer to anti-Zionism. Lets do better. Tewfik^Talk 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but why was the quote removed? The issue here, I'm pretty sure, is whether the material is relevant or not, not whether it addresses the exact point made by the previous author. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice don't address the exact same point either, but we also recognize that they're discussing the same issue. Alternatively, you could consider the claim that Democrats just want to raise taxes. If responding, someone had said "What Democrats acknowledge that Republicans don't is that the government has to pay for certain services like healthcare and education, and this actually costs money," would we say that wasn't relevant because it didn't address whether Democrats want to raise taxes? The problem, of course, is that you're suggesting the one side should entirely frame the debate in the other's terms, by arguing that anybody who fails to use their terms is not relevant. This clearly violates NPOV, while serving no apparent purpose. I'd ask, if you think that other material would better fit here, that you find that material, not simply keep deleting what we have, which creates a clear NPOV problem which everybody seems to acknowledge.Mackan79 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the WP:NOR policy? You can't do original research to make your arguments. If someone notable has made this argument in the context of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, that's fine, but you can't make the argument for them, no matter how good or valid an argument you think it is. Also, please respond regarding the various non-notables being quoted here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, until fairly recently, The Socialist Worker was specifically mentioned by WP:RS as a non-reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I just said I think you're misusing NOR to require that all material be framed in the terms used by one side. That's not enforcing NOR; that's simply enforcing a single POV. Indeed, it seems the only way you'd admit relevance to this section is if an opponent started their sentence "Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism because [quote till end of sentence]." But according to this standard, Bauer's statement doesn't qualify either. Where does he say he's talking about anti-Zionism? If you can explain why Bauer's statement is not OR but Reinhardt's is, I'll rethink. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to wikilawyer disfavored information out of the article. Regarding the other questions, I'll have to go back and check. Mackan79 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

But the Reinhardt quote isn't about abolishing Israel, it's about criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel isn't anti-Zionism either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, I think the two quotes could hardly even be more on point. Bauer says if you're against the existense of Malaysia, you're anti-Malay. Reinhart says that "Being against Israel is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." She says "A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel." I would call that directly related. In any case, who said wanting to abolish Israel is anti-Zionism? I'd suggest we need to take a little step back here. Bauer is presenting an argument, and Reinhart is addressing that argument. If two quotes should ever go together, I think it might be these two... Mackan79 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"who said wanting to abolish Israel is anti-Zionism?" If that's not anti-Zionism, it's hard to imagine what is. You're just playing games now. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha, well, what's your source? The connection from Reinhart is hardly less obvious, while you just got done saying obviousness isn't even the issue. I'm not playing games; I think both statements are relevant. I'm just not sure how you're saying one is and the other isn't. If you're wanting to exclude things as irrelevant, it seems you ought to be able to explain this.Mackan79 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to the existence of Israel is the very definition of Anti-Zionism. Criticism of Israel is something Zionists do every day; read the Israeli newspapers, or listen to the debates in the Knesset. Jayjg

If you're demanding sources for absolutely everything, you can't refuse to provide them yourself. I'd like to know what standard you're using. Are you saying that anti-Zionism refers only to the effort to destroy Israel? I think it's substantially broader. I'll offer another quote from Reinhart below. Mackan79 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

^(talk) 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to insist that if we're going to use only those materials specifically related to the purported link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, then neither Kaplan and Small nor Muir's review of their survey belong in this article. To use Jayjg's expression, none of K&S's questions are about abolishing Israel. They ask, rather, whether interviewees think that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Is anyone responding "yes" necessarily anti-Zionist? I don't think so. A person may support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country, yet believe the present Israeli government to be very wrong.

If Kaplan, Small, and Muir belong in the article, then Reinhart also belongs in it.--Abenyosef 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your argument about Reinhardt, please see Ignoratio_elenchi#Tu_quoque. I still haven't heard your argument for inserting the quotes from authors of childrens' books and unknowns writing in extremist unreliable sources. I'll give you a few more hours to come up with something. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting all of this material should be removed? Mackan79 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that claiming "but there's other original research in there too" is not a good argument for including material that is obvious original research, as the Reinhardt quote clearly is. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the non-notables, I'd be fine with substituting in better authors; just so we aren't leaving large gaps. If we're going to take on an issue, I think we need to make sure we can do it some justice with the best sources we have. Mackan79 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

One cannot add stuff from unreliable sources simply because there are "large gaps". Please use only material that can be properly attributed. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can show the sources violate policy, they should be removed. If it's borderline, though, I think we should look for better material rather than simply deleting it.Mackan79 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, if the material cannot be properly attributed, it should not be entered in the first place, and should be removed if entered. That's policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which material wasn't attributed? Could you add fact tags? Mackan79 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT insists that material must come from reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The material is properly attributed. You claim that "until fairly recently, The Socialist Worker was specifically mentioned by WP:RS as a non-reliable source." Well, that was until fairly recently. Now things have changed and the Worker is reliable, unless you have proof to the contrary.

Michael Rosen is as good a source about anti-Zionism as, say, Diana Muir is about statistics. He's a well-known poet and recently published [http://www.amazon.co.uk/You-Are-Arent-Poems-Michael/dp/0907123090 his first book for adults] on Jewish and socialist themes. He's a very good source for both Jewish and leftist non-antisemitic anti-Zionism. --Abenyosef 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because specific examples were removed from the guideline, it doesn't make extremist sources suddenly "reliable". Unknowns who publish in extremist sources are not reliable sources on this topic, nor are poets and authors of children's books. And I'm not going to argue more nonsense with you; use reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't bully me; it just doesn't work. Remember that the last time you claimed I was talking nonsense, you were forced to remove the King quote. I expect better behavior from and admin, especially when he's already been proven wrong once. --Abenyosef 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't "forced" to remove any quote at all, I explicitly replaced it with a better one; you should follow that example. And I'm not "bullying you", nor have I been "proven wrong once", I'm just telling you I won't be trolled. That starts now. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Reinhart, where I think she makes the point pretty clearly[1]:

Elmer: I want to talk to you about the political uses of anti-Semitism. Tel Aviv University has published a report entitled Anti-Semitism Worldwide wherein it claims: "The barriers between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have been lifted and the two merged." What are your thoughts on conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?

Reinhart: I haven't seen the specific report, but the claim is of course very widespread. Usually the source of this claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is Israeli propaganda, and its very well-oiled branches of the pro-Israel lobby across the world.

The supposition in this claim is that if you look at Israel's behaviour, it is essentially alright: it is a country defending itself, and it is doing what is necessary to defend itself - there isn't anything peculiar about it. Therefore there must be some hidden reason why people criticize Israel and object to Israel's acts in the Territories, and what could that reason be if not anti-Semitism? The reason that it is picked on is because it can work - given that there was, and is, anti-Semitism, given the horrible history of the Jewish people, people do have fears of anti-Semitism.

But I don't like the term anti-Zionism to define opposition to Israeli policies, because Zionism - the way it is perceived by most Israelis - is that Jews are entitled to a State of their own. It is the liberation and self-determination of the Jewish people motivated by the Holocaust and their fate in exile.

So would we say she's talking about the alleged connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism here? Indeed, she does say at the end that she likes to avoid the term anti-Zionism. So does that make it irrelevant? I actually think it lays out the complexity of the issue perfectly, and why we can't artificially require that people refer to the word "anti-Zionism" in order to be considered relevant to this debate. It violates WP's fundamental policy, WP:NPOV ("The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly").Mackan79 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten an answer yet as to why we should retain Kaplan and Small's survey, which doesn't even mention anti-Zionism, or Muir's review of it. The questions in K&S's survey are not related to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. --Abenyosef 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Reinhart per the above interview where she makes entirely clear what she's talking about (if this were necessary). Here are books she's written.[http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-2598192-4691917?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=tanya+reinhart] I also fixed the wikilink to her page Tanya Reinhart (no "d"). It's a common sentiment in response to Bauer's prevalent argument, and really needs to be there. If another source for the argument could also be found that would be good; I can't use the word "synthesis," but this whole section is kind of a jumble of views... Mackan79 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Perhaps when we have agreement on the balance of views to be represented in that section, we could begin reqriting for better flow between the opposing views. Tiamut 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to use a Reinhardt quote, you'd have to quote her commenting specifically on the topic, not quote her commenting on some other topic, claiming that it was relevant based on her comments in yet another place, or other things she's written. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reinhardt has been there for months without anyone objecting. There's no consensus for removing her and the claim that she doesn't belong in the section is simply an opinion of yours. In this section we're freely mixing the concepts of "anti-Israel sentiment" and "anti-Zionism," as I have conclusively proved, and in that context retaining Reinhart is fully justified. --Abenyosef 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay, what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. Relating to the Bauer quote, what you're saying is that we'd have to take the quote about destroying Israel, and then another souce (potentially a dictionary, although you haven't provided one), and then engage in original research to decide that the one was talking about the other. This is not what NORprohibits. As editors, we have to be able to look at different sources and make basic decisions about which topics are relevant, based on what those sources and other sources say. Please consider your own advice that we shouldn't play games with the policy. Mackan79 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mackan and Abenyosef. Many compromises have been offered and given to accomodate Jayjg's objections. The last formulation before he reverted was very balanced. Tiamut 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reinhart is a linguist, and you have a direct quote from her on the subject already: "I haven't seen the specific report, but the claim is of course very widespread. Usually the source of this claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is Israeli propaganda, and its very well-oiled branches of the pro-Israel lobby across the world." Why on earth would you insist on including a quote from Reinhart to begin with, and all the more so, why a that mentions neither anti-Zionism nor antisemitism? Why wouldn't you be fighting to include an actually relevant statement she has made? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Reinhart quote is a very appropriate other-side to Bauer's. Bauer's is an important theoretical point, that opposing a country means opposing its citizens, and even the members of that ethnic/religious group. This, of course, is the basis for many of the subsequent arguments that anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic. The quote from Reinhart, then, makes the direct response: no, opposing Israel can in fact be done in support for Jews in Israel and around the world. This is extremely apropos to the question. The other quote you mention is an attack on motives, which may also be relevant, but doesn't really address Bauer's statement. Basically, Bauer's is a theoretical argument, which I think deserves the theoretical response. Ideally Reinhart could be fleshed out with others so we didn't have to quote her so much (doing so might also clarify that Reinhart does not speak for all anti-Zionism) but I think the response as a starting point is actually pretty good. Mackan79 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, you think Reinhart's statement is a good counter-argument to Bauer's. The problem is, it's original research; that's why most original research is included, as a counter-argument to something else in an article. Please find a counter-argument to Bauer that is actually talking about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, ideally from a better source as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked why I thought this section was appropriate, and I told you. If you're going back to the OR argument, I again strongly disagree. As I noted, your standard would not allow the Bauer quote either, since that requires an evaluation of Bauer's statement to decide that it is in fact on topic. Moreover, the second quote you just suggested unequivocally establishes that this is not original synthesis, but well-established synthesis endorsed by the author herself. Did you look at Tanya Reinhart's WP page, incidentally? You seem to initially have had her name wrong. It appears she is well-published on the issue. The possibility that others could be more published is not a reason to remove her, unless you find such an individual to replace her. Mackan79 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't take two different quotes from the author made at separate times, to separate audiences, synthesize them, and then claim the first is about the same thing as the second. Quote her talking about antisemitism or anti-Zionism, please. Also, please stop quoting letters to the editor from poets/authors of childrens books. Let's take this article seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be taking the article or the discussion seriously when you continuously raise issues only to receive an answer and then ignore it as if it never happened. You're now saying that we can't put two sources together in a paragraph? We can't combine thoughts via use of reliable sources? Can you please clarify what you mean? How do we decide what Bauer is talking about if we can't look at other sources?

Personally, I would be willing to remove the Rosen quote, as I am not familiar with his notability, if the Reinhart quote is retained. Reinhart has written a number of books and articles on the subject, and is responding directly to the issue and to Bauer's argument. I'll try this compromise, pending opposition by others. Mackan79 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're now saying that we can't put two sources together in a paragraph? We can't combine thoughts via use of reliable sources? Material counts as original research if it "introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." WP:ATT#No_original_research. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that this material does not advance any position that I hold, and even so, you are taking this into complete absurdity. When you put the Bauer and the Reinhart quotes together, you get an issue, with two major sides represented. You get the "Opposing Israel is opposing Israelis" view, and then you get the "Opposing Israel is supporting Israelis" view. This is the discussion we're giving: does opposing Israel mean opposing Israelis? The thing is, if we can't present both sides of this argument, then we simply can't present the argument at all, since it then could never be NPOV.

What NOR is saying, one has to think, is that you can't synthesize material in a way that promotes one viewpoint over others. It cannot prohibit the inclusion of a particular viewpoint in a paragraph because doing so would allegedly synthesize and "promote" that viewpoint simply by including it. The question would necessarily be if you're promoting it in a non-NPOV manner, not simply promoting it to a state of equality with other positions. Otherwise, a paragraph on any contentious issue would be impossible, since you could never decide that two people were talking about the same thing, unless they used exactly the same words in exactly that sentence.

You must realize that one could cripple WP by taking the concept of "no original synthesis" to a logical extreme. In any instance, you could simply say "Your decision to include that is synthesis that promotes your view point." How does one disprove this? Perhaps if you can answer that, I'll see where you're coming from. Otherwise, you still haven't explained how Bauer is relevant by Reinhart isn't. Mackan79 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How and why does the following = Original research?

Conversely, some Jews and even Israelis reject this opinion. According to Tanya Reinhart, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University, opposition to Israel "is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." Reinhart elaborates, "The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."Yas121 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"opposition to Zionist ideology"

I've removed the recently inserted claim that anti-Zionism is "opposition to Zionist ideology" from the lead. This phrase, complete with red-link, is unsourced and meaningless. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it back unless there is consensus, but how do you figure it is meaningless? Red links do not denote meaning. Isn't it sensible and just common sense that Zionist ideology is the ideology of Zionism? Mind you, poorly phrased so it should go, but just some thoughts. Vassyana 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How does "opposition to Zionist ideology" differ from "opposition to Zionism"? What exactly is the "ideology of Zionism" that people would object to it independently of their objections to Zionism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the context it was in, it refers to a political opposition. This would be distinct from a refusal to recognize Israel and religious opposition. One does not have to do either to politically oppose Zionism and its accompanying ideology, no? Of course, that's just my take, feel free to use a grain of salt or two.Vassyana 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't religious opposition object "Zionist ideology", whatever that is? I'm just not getting what it means. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My dear fellow, it means simply what it says. One can have opposition to the Zionist idiology without having opposition to the Jewish state (Israel), just like you can object to Communism/Socialism/Fascism without objecting to the extience of xyz countries. The lead clearly seems to lable/mean/indicate that anti-zionism can only equal anti-Israel, which is total rubbish. Yas121 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the difference between opposition to Zionism and opposition to "Zionist ideology"? Is there a difference between opposition to Communism and opposition to "Communist ideology"? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That distinction would be appropriate if Communism were sometimes defined as "the right for a Communist state to exist". MeteorMaker 06:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

There is an unsourced claim in the Anti-Semitism section to the effect that "support and defense of Israel in a central focus to many Jews". I have placed a fact needed citation there. The information I have does not support that view. For example, this Ha'aretz writer states that: “The fact is that Israel has rarely been the focal concern of Jews in the diaspora, especially America's Jews.” [2]. The Jeruslaem Post reported that “…a recent AJC-sponsored survey, of young American Jewish adults, found that only about one third said caring about Israel was an important part of their Jewish identity” … “In a wider survey taken in 2000, supporting Israel was ranked 11th in a series of 15 significant values for American Jews.“ [3] and in “A survey two years ago by Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist at New York's Hebrew Union College, found that just 17% of American Jews called themselves Zionists.” … “In Mr Cohen's survey, only 57% of American Jews said that ‘caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish’, down from 73% in a similar survey in 1989.” [4] Could we come up with a better formulation that better represents the wide diversity of Diaspora opinion on Israel.? Tiamut 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-zionism and antisemitism section is a quotefarm

This section is completely quotes. I have tagged it with {{quotefarm}}.--Sefringle 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

These are notable opinions, so I don't think simply removing the quotes would benefit the article. Perhaps if the edit wars and excessive requests for citations stop, we could develop a narrative and maybe use some quotes as refs. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, I agree with you. Some materials are clearly redundant. If we have Laqueur claiming that singling out Israel for criticism is antisemitic, why do we need Friedman making the same claim? If we quote from Kaplan and Small's survey, complete with their conclusions, why do we need to quote from Diana Muir's review of the same survey, which clearly misrepresents it? The problem here is we have too many people with different axes to grind.

There are two clear viewpoints to be expressed: Some sources, especially Zionist, claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic; some other sources, especially leftwing and Jewish anti-Zionist, vehemently reject that claim. We have failed to clearly present and properly source these 2 positions.

Further complicating matters is the fact that it is unclear whether anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Israel sentiment as expressed in the belief that Israel intentionally targets civilians, for instance. We have no source arguing for that kind of connection.

If we want to work this out, we should commit ourselves to cooperate, rather than try to have our own viewpoint prevail.--Abenyosef 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is much eaiser to thnk of and is left out. Us Jews believe in The Torah. Counterfeit Jews are NAZIonists and do not believe in The Torah, instead The Talmud which is annihilation of all that is not us. That is the huge diffence between Us Jews and NAZIonists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.141.171 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit War??

Hi, have I stepped in the middle of some ongoing edit war here? Why is the following text repeatadly being Rev without any explanation. As far as I can see, it is relevant and well sourced...

"...Conversely, some Jews and even Israelis reject this opinion. According to Tanya Reinhart, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University, opposition to Israel "is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." Reinhart elaborates, "The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."

In a letter to the London daily The Guardian, Michael Rosen claimed that "it is false logic to argue that because some anti-Zionists are anti-semitic therefore anti-Zionism is anti-semitic," and that:

The anti-Zionists I know wish for solutions in the Middle East that encompass notions of secularism, multiculturalism and federalism. However, many Zionists do indeed call these ideas "suicide" and anti-semitism, because they demand something that very few nations demand in the world today: a nation state that must always rule in favour of one self-defined ethnic or religious or racial group. And that is precisely where that nice-sounding phrase "self-determination" turns into something else, isn't it?..."

Yas121 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a dispute about those sections, discussed at great length on the Talk: page. Please read the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Yas, the discussion is here Talk:Anti-Zionism#Reinhart quote, and appears to be ongoing. Best, Mackan79 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote farm

An editor recently added the quote farm tag. Are there any objections to limiting these quotes to their main points, through the use of paraphrase and limited quotes? —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds dicey, but I agree in principle. Mackan79 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am for synthesizin the section, but only once we settle the debate on which sources will be included (re:the reinhart/muir debate above). Tiamut 10:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of moving the large quotations into footnotes. This allows for a more smooth flow of text, but gives the reader both the pertinent quotation on the page (at the bottom) as well as access to the entire source via hyperlink. -- Avi 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not tottally completed the process, but as of now the section no longer looks like a linkfarm, so I have removed the tag. There actually is more quote content, for all positions, in the article, but it is now placed in footnotes. Further, the footnotes are better linked to the various articles, in that author names are now wikilinked where possible, editors, translators, and authors are properly represented, LCCN's, ISBN's, DOI's, ISSN's, and OCLS's are correct and link to the proper sources for ease in tracking down the relative books and/or journals, and citatinos now follow standard wikipedia format. -- Avi 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are still too many quotes. I have restored the tag.--Sefringle 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The majority of the text is prose; there are only a few quotes. -- Avi 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The Thomas Friedman and Yehuda Bauer quotes need to remain in the text, as one is actually a transcript of an audio file and the other cannot be accessed without pay. -- Avi 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article looks quite more readable indeed. I'm beginning to like this Avraham fellow. --Abenyosef 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan and Small study

http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/antisemitism/2005-06/kaplan.pdf Specifically states that this cannot be quoted without permission of the authors. Pending permission, I will comment out that entire section, but update the cites. Do we already have permission for this? -- Avi 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need permission? I would think not; everything, after all, is copyrighted. I'd guess it would be more of an issue of reliable sources/accurate attribution if we don't mention their disclaimer. In the U.S., though, I'd be pretty sure that a person can't publish something and then prevent others from fair-use citing it. Mackan79 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. The final draft was published in the JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION,and I found a pdf of that, so we don't need permission. Give me a few, and I'll have it up again without a problem. -- Avi 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Interestingl, the last of the threee blockquotes was changed slightly in the final, published, version. I updated the quote accordingly, and all major quotes are in the footnotes, for flow. -- Avi 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This citation, and Muir's are tremendously poor choices for this article. They rely on a correlative study to paint the anti-Israel position with the taint of antisemitism. The quotes also use nebulous qualitative measures like "near perfect" instead of stating the actual degree of correlation found in the study. It's important to remember that regardless of correlation, each position should be argued on the merits. As has been mentioend, the authors are not statisticians, and as such including their statistical conclusions seems a bit far afield to be included in an encyclopedia. This is especially true as the conclusions they draw do nothing to illuminate the discussion. I'm suggest that these quotes be clarified, edited to better reflect the meaning of the conclusions, or removed entirely. Aprock (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to go ahead and remove these statistical study quotes. Without quantitative information, they don't contribute any new information. The conclusion they reach is also dubious. The idea that the discussion of merits can be sidestepped because there is any level of correlation seems more akin to ad-homenim debate than something suitable for WP. Aprock (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs More Sources

I was going to put some fact tags on the article but there are too many instances and would thus be disruptive. Quite a few sentences have no citation, so I think an effort should be made to find sources for these statements. .V. _[Talk|Email] 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• no arguments there :) {{Unreferenced|section}} tags would be more appropriate as there are a few large sections entirely o r. tho last time i put them on, they were repeatedly removed.
• unrelated: should the "World anti-Zionism" section (all 2 sentences) go? it seems to (badly) replicated what's in the 'types' section, so even if it were expanded, would still be superfluous.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

removed stuff in wrong section

Most western anti-Zionists deny vehemently that they are anti-Semites or that anti-Zionism can be equated with antisemitism. Israelis and Zionists outside Israel often respond that a demand to destroy or abolish the state of Israel is intrinsically anti-Semitic, however. One problem in this conflict arises from the absence of an agreed definition of key terms such as "antisemitism" and "Zionism," and the fact that many western anti-Zionists either do not accept the concept of a right to national self-determination (for any nation, not just a Jewish nation) or do not accept that Israel represents its fulfillment. This debate is complicated by two further factors: the habit of genuine anti-Semites of using the term "Zionist" as a synonym and/or euphemism for "Jew," and the tendency for radical Islamist elements to use the rhetoric of traditional European antisemitism. These rhetorical cross-currents make it nearly impossible for Zionists and anti-Zionists to converse across the gulf of hostility and incomprehension which has grown up over the past decades.

The distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, recognised by a wide range of Jewish commentators. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, said in 2002: "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."However, in 2003 he said "Today's anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism."

In a major essay in The Nation in January 2004, historian Brian Klug took issue with the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism, arguing that this actually emptied the term "antisemitism" of any content. He concluded "when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance."

This was in the wrong section. Much of it is redundant with what is already in the Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism section already. I removed it. Please integrate parts of it into the appropriate section if you think it has valuable, non-redundant info to contribute.--Urthogie 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, please don't altogether remove sourced materials. If you think they're in the wrong section, bring them to the right sections. Editors are expected to improve articles, rather than indiscriminately axe them.--Abenyosef 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Arab anti-Zionism

This section is blantantly biased.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.148.95.2 (talk • contribs) 05:11, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? -- Avi 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The guy might be onto something. I believe teh section has to be rewritten in its entirety. What kind of a criticism article is that when you start sentences by saying "critics argue in a red herring that..."? Blatant POV! Gotta run out now, but I'll get back to you with more details. Lixy 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Middle East Refugees on both sides of conflict

I have decided to put this to open discussion instead of having a further edit war with [User:FayssalF]

I added the following statement to the discussion of Anti-Zionism, specifically with regards to position that Anti-Zionism stems from the 711,000 Palestinian refugees that resulted from the 1948 Arab-Israeli War:

"This position often ignores the approximately 900,000 Jewish Refugees from Arab speaking countrires."

FayssalF has deleted this passage twice on the grounds that it violates WP:OR.

I contend that it is not original research, and that it is well substantiated in the WP article to which I have added a link. Furthermore, the datum is relevent to the any discussion of the Middle Eastern refugee crisis-- including criticism of any of the actors.

Did I unknowingly violate WP:OR, or is something else at work here?IanThal 13:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF is wrong that the sentence is OR, but right that it doesn't belong where you placed it. The .9M exodus of Jews from Arab lands to Israel is an argument in equity for the legitimacy of Israel, but it is irrelevant to the typology of Anti-Zionisms which is the subject of the paragraph. The last sentence of the paragraph, "it is generally stated that this type of anti-Zionism is based in opposition to Israel and its recognition as a legitimate state", somewhat confuses the point -- perhaps it needs to be deleted or replaced; it definately should not be used to import an argument about the legitimacy of Israel into the paragraph. The point is that this first class of anti-Zionists oppose Zionism because it imposes an undue burden on Arabs. Period. Next paragraph. Andyvphil 14:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but isn't noting that the "undue burden on Arabs" argument on behalf of anti-Zionism requires that one ignore the facts that support the "argument in equity" important? Shouldn't we show where there are reasoned and factually substantiated criticisms of a given ideology? Or am I missing something regarding how we should be handling topics that have the potential to make blood boil here on WP?IanThal 23:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good synthesis Andy. In fact when i mentioned OR i was referring to Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I am not saying Ian was advancing a point in purpose but he just missed the common sense in that case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, the section is titled "Types of Anti-Zionism". The only material that belongs in the section is material that serves to make distinctions between types of anti-Zionism. Ian's proposed additions were off-point in that section.

Now, the material that Ian attempted to add is not the only material in the section that doesn't contribute to that purpose. In fact, I see nothing in the section that would not be better distributed to the appropriate "World Anti-Zionism" sub-section. Then, after the inevitable adverse impacts on the Arab population of the Zionist enterprise is noted in the "Arab Anti-Zionism" section as a causative factor it may be the place to mention the Jewish exodus from Arab countries to Israel...though it's not a simple matter of offsetting wrongs. The adverse effects on Jews in Arab lands is both an argument against beginning the Zionist enterprise and an argumemt for the legitimacy of the Israeli state as a homeland for Jews who have fled Arab states. Andyvphil 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please review these edits. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Anti-racism

To categorize anti-Zionism as anti-racism would be highly controversial and therefore violate WP:CAT: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Even the unreformed UN revoked its shameful UNGA R3379 equating Zionism with racism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. You can have a look at the Category:Antisemitism. Anti-Defamation League, Aliyah, etc are included there. This is what we have as a note at the top of the cat:

Note: This category indicates that the article in question discusses or refers to the topic of antisemitism. Adding this category to an article is in no way intended to imply that the subject of the article is antisemitic.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, please realize that you are talking about another category, specifically designed to include those topics. Now open Category:Anti-racism and see that it does not contain any other anti-nationalism. Of course, some do equate Zionism and Jews with all kinds of evil, but why would WP adopt this POV? As a matter of fact, since UNGA R3379 was revoked by UNGA R4686, the opposite position seems more rational: that anti-Zionism constitutes racism - and many reliable sources confirm this. Be careful what you wish for. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism certainly has a strong element of racism in it. Perhaps Category:Politics and race would be a better category... // Liftarn

No, it wouldn't be; it's just another racist notion you've inserted. Jews aren't a "race", and I'm shocked that you would promote this view promoted by Nazis. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it a bit offensive that you try to paint those who disagree with you as racists. Jews aren't a "race", but then neither is Germans so it's a moot point. Jews (and Germans) are on the other hand an ethnicity and zionism is a form of ethnic nationalism and thus a form of racism. It is true that anti-zionism may have various other causes (like antisionism for instance). // Liftarn

I find it a bit offensive that you would try to present such a straw man view of my arguments. Your attempts to conflate Jewish ethnicity with "race" is what the Nazis did. It is noted that you only attempt to add these "race" related categories (and indeed, to insert one-sided POV claims in general) to articles related to only one ethnic group, Jews. Please leave your personal POV out of it, and please stop inserting categories that clearly don't belong in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That is also was zionists do. In my opinion the only two races humans can be divided into is sapiens and neanderthalis and the latter is extinct. The rest is ethnicity or folk groups. Since zionism is based on Jewish ethnicity is is a form of ethnic nationalism and thus a form of racism as racism. The ise that anti-zionism is a form of anti-racism is no more alien that it is a form of antisemitism (and check if this article is in this category). So please keep your personal POV oit of it and stop calling people racists. // Liftarn

Zionists present Jews as a people, not a "race", and one which anyone can join. Please stop promoting racist views on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

People, race, ethnicity... Different words for the same concept. That was three counts of incivility. Please do not make personal attacks. // Liftarn

Perhaps you have difficulty distinguishing between the concepts, but that certainly doesn't make them the same thing. Please stop inventing civility violations where none exist, and please stop promoting the view that Jews are a "race", which is itself a racist concept. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that calling other editors racists would be considered uncivil, but if you say so... I guess that's why Humus so often call editors he disagrees with antisemites... // Liftarn

If you come across someone "calling other editors racists", please let me know. In the meantime, please stop adding obviously irrelevant categories, and please stop promoting the view that Jews are a "race". Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I did that a bit up, but a quick recap: "another racist notion you've inserted", "Your attempts /../ is what the Nazis did.", "Please stop promoting racist views" and so on. I don't promote the idea that any ethnic group is a "race" as I don't beleive in the concept of race. But I do beleive Jews are an ethnic group and that racism is based on assigning certain values to different ethnic groups. For instance discrimination of people with dark hair and darker skin (for instance from southern Europe) is still a form of racism. // Liftarn

Saying someone is promoting racist views is not the same as saying they are racist. "Race" and ethnicity are not the same thing: ethnicity is a complex mix of language, culture, familial relations, shared history, etc., whereas "race" is all about genetics. And, as I have pointed out before, anyone can become a Jew, but one cannot say the same about "race". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity are often used interchangably. All this Ein Volk, Ein Reich stuff is certainly racistic even if it's based on ethnicity. // Liftarn

Please stop trying to make Wikipedia articles conform to discredited racist views. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to excuse blantant racism. // Liftarn

You're not making sense any more. If you're so enamored with these discredited racist beliefs, then go add your categories to Palestinian nationalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to avoid ad hominem attacks. Ok, let's take an example. A sign on a pub says "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish". The first is an example of speciesism. The second I think we both agree is an example of racism. The third I say is racism (I asume it's Irish ethnicity that is refered, not Irish nationality), but you say that's not racism, correct? // Liftarn

I say that race and ethnicity are not the same thing, that the category is disputed at best, and that you are free to add it to the Palestinian nationalism article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Your line of thinking leads to some interesting results like that Nuremberg Laws is not racism since it's based on ethnicity... Nice strawman, but I'm not sure Palestinian nationalism is ethnic (i.e. racistic) nationalism or not. Pan-Arabic nationalism probably is. // Liftarn

What, now you're also denying the peoplehood of the Palestinians? P.S. Palestinians insist it is inherited, regardless of what country you were born in, or how many generations you have lived there. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, look at Category:Anti-racism instead of Category:Antisemitism. It doesn't have such a note, and even if it did it wouldn't address the concerns of the WP:CAT guideline that Humus points to. It is not "uncontroversial" that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Racism, so the guideline Humus points to says you should not assign this article to that category. I've recently quoted such a note myself in reverting a category deletion,[5] so I'm sympathetic to a degree, but that was before Humus introduced me to the guideline... Andyvphil 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, to explain my removal of the cat, the fact that undisputed racists like David Duke claim to be "anti Zionists" means that the cat is more than slightly problematic. Likewise, I'd expect putting it in the antisemitism category would raise the same issues. <<-armon->> 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the note is taken at face value, and is put in place at both Categories, there is no reason (other than the guideline!) not to tag this page with both Category:Anti-racism and Category:Racism. Andyvphil 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(Well, the antisemitism category does have the disclaimer, but I'd still expect it to be controversial). <<-armon->> 22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your opinions. Let me set this clear to all of us. I am personally not convinced at all by the "anti-zionism = anti-racism" formula/claim. But this me, and surely you're not convinced as well as you are trying to explain to me i am not on the right path. However, i've got some notes:

1. Humus, when saying specifically designed to include those topics you have to elaborate further so we can understand about the specificities and their raison(s) d'être. By directing me to another category you'd be only acting the same way i am.
2. I agree w/ the formulation of Andyvphil on the grounds that relying our categorizing madness on the UN is not a appropriate way to deal w/ the article especially in the lead section. However, and while waiting for Humus's elaboration on the specificities, the guideline if it has to be applied fairly (or not) it should be applied to all categories w/o exceptions especially categories which has much to do w/ WP:LIBEL. Let us not forget that the "libel" stuff is a policy and not a simple guideline.
3. I totally disagree w/ Armon action because of their misleading edit summary while removing tags. My reason is that the POV tag has appeared in yesterday's version, in first edit of May, April, March, etc.. And i've got other dates available. As for removing the tag of {unreferenced} i do agree. 48 refs is not bad for a controversial article. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Fayssal, looks like I was wrong, the tags didn't just come back with rv over the cat. I agree with you about the {unreferenced} tag but if you want restore the pov tag it's OK with me. I do feel however, that the pov tag tends to be used in a pointy manner on all sorts of controversial articles and they tend to become "permanent", so I'm not crazy about them. If there are outstanding pov issues, let's just fix them as best we can. <<-armon->> 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, WP:CAT#Guidelines item 8 states: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." This guideline clearly indicates that this category is inappropriate here. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And the inclusion of Category:Antisemitism is "self-evident and uncontroversial"? Don't think so. // Liftarn

Anti Zionism certianly isn't anti racism. There is a whole section on this article about how anti zionism has been refered to as antisemitism. There is no such case for anti-racism. Anti zionism is not anti- racism. It is the opposite.--Sefringle 07:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You are ofcourse entitled to your opinion, but lookin at what the sources say anti-zionism can be anti-racism as oposition to racism is anti-racism. // Liftarn

No, there have been allegations that zionism is racism, but there is no evidence that anti-zionism is anti-racism. Besides, adding that category is like saying anti-zionism is anti- racism, which is a very big POV--Sefringle 07:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is even less evidence that anti-zionism is antisemitism... // Liftarn

In your opinion. I think there is plenty of evidence that anti zionism is antisemitism.--Sefringle 22:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, whatever. In any event, this article discusses antisemitism at length. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some anti-Zionism is racist (e.g. David Duke); some anti-Zionism is anti-racist (e.g. Jews Against Zionism); some Zionism is racist (e.g. Meir Kahane); some Zionism is anti-racist (e.g Einstein). BobFromBrockley 11:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OK so propose an alternative. what you did is VERY POV

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Zionism&curid=81280&diff=133373392&oldid=133371806 - this edit refelct the POV that Israel is a religious state (which it is not) Zeq 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention. Whatever is the case, at the lead of the article Israel it says it is. With a diverse population currently exceeding seven million citizens of primarily Jewish background and religion, it is the world's only Jewish state.<ref>"Country Report—Israel (2006)". Freedom House. 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accessdtae= ignored (help)</ref><ref>"[http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_07x.pdf" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)[http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/st02_07x.pdf (130 KiB), Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, accessed October 2, 2006.</ref> My intention/reason was stated at my first revert. It is POV. Your edit implied that Anti-zionists are wrong and Zionists are right. So my alternative is to use the same wording used at Zionism article:

Anti-Zionism is a term used to describe opposition to Zionism, the movement supporting a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.

So either way we found ourselves linking Zionism to the Jewish cause. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I nknew what "jewish cause" is... anyhow the words above are fine. Zeq 12:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what he meant by "linking Zionism to the Jewish cause" either, but I think F's wording was better. Is there still a problem with this? see diff. I do think in an article about "anti-X" it makes sense to briefly define "X". <<-armon->> 12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF "linked Zionism to the Jewish cause" for the most obvious reason. Read both definitions of "Zionism" and "cause". Zeq, again you restored the "right to exist" POV. It was that which prompted my disagreement. "Right to exist" is a term, nothing else. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get what you mean. Can you explain what the problem with "(or Israel's right to exist)" is? I would think that all Anti-Zionists dispute Israel's right to exist somehow, so what's the problem?. The phrase is also clarified via the wikilink. <<-armon->> 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone who support a one state sollution would be an anti-zionist since that would mean no Jewish state, but a multi-ethnical state. // Liftarn

Israel is already a multi-ethnic state, just not a majority Arab state. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, correction. A state with equal rights regardless of ethnicity/religion. // Liftarn

Israel already is that as well. Well, except for the discrimination against Jews, I suppose, who are generally forced to do military or alternative service, whereas for Arabs its optional. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, except for the racistic implementation of jus sanguinis based on ethnicity, not citizenship. Denying people to return to their homes and so on... // Liftarn

You must be referring to the Palestinian charter, which explicitly enshrines jus sanguinis based on ethnicity, not citizenship; yet another reason for you to add those categories to Palestinian nationalism. And you can't really "return" to a home you never lived in. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian National Covenant does say that the "Palestinian identity" is "transmitted from fathers to children" (jus sanguinis), but it also explicitly says that "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians." so it's based on lineage, not ethnicity. Latvia have/had a simmilar citizenship law so that anybody (regardless of ethnicity) who lived in Latvia before 1940 and their descendants is/was entitled to automatic Latvian citizenchip. If it would instead say that citizenship was only permitted to those of Latvian ethnicity (regardless if they have a connection to the land) it would be racism. // Liftarn

"it's based on lineage, not ethnicity"? The covenant uses language designed to explicitly exclude almost all Jews, yet includes any Arab who moved to Palestine as late as 1946. Please avoid double-talk. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the difference between 1947 (Article 5) and May 14, 1948 (Article 6) so it's as most a five month difference you're refering to. Sorry, spreading false information doesn't help your argumentation. // Liftarn

Nonsense; the "beginning of the Zionist invastion" was 1917 at the latest, after the Balfour declaration. [6] Sorry, spreading false information doesn't help your argumentation. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion are considered Palestinians." That would be, specifically, those Jews who were one and all evicted from the West Bank (and Gaza, if there were any) when it became under Arab control in 1948? So I assume that any such Jews who are among the 'settlers', especially those who have moved back to their ancestral homes for thousands of years in Hebron and Nablus, are, as Palestinian citizens, not subject to the depradations of the current intifada? Because I'm not seeing that in the media. Gzuckier 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time you (plural, you know who you are) get familiar with the definition of Zionism, since you tend to swarm at the articles related to it. I mean from some reliable source, not umma.com or jewwatch. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That would indeed be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

definition of Zionism in head

Is it really necessary for us to define Zionism in the head of an article on Anti-Zionism? This is Wiki and all the reader needs to do is click on the Zionism link. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It probably is, since people seem incredibly ignorant of what Zionism is, and that includes many of the people who presume to edit Zionism related articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg - but definition needs to remain concise. BobFromBrockley 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And definition needs to be NPOV. And it needs to reflect the fact that Zionism is a political movement or ideology (e.g. a movement for a Jewish state/homeland) rather than a Jewish state/homeland as such (i.e. it is possible to be against the movement/ideology, without being against existence of a Jewish state/homeland as such). Also, I strongly prefer wording using "homeland" to wording using "state", as many pre-48 Zionists, e.g. Ahad Ha-am, were not for a Jewish state. I am also wary of using the word Palestine in the opener, as many pre-05 Zionists (including Herzl) saw Zionism as compatable with Jewish homeland elsewhere, plus obviously word invites edit wars over whether the land is called Palestine or not. BobFromBrockley 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Even more valuable would be a definition of "anti-zionism", if such a thing exists... --Uncle Bungle 10:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish National Home/State in Palestine - so we know what anti-Zionism is don't we? --Ian Pitchford 12:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Firstly, "anti" indicates diametric opposition to the term which follows it, so how can someone who is opposed to only a single aspect of the century long Zionist movement be considered "anti-Zionist". Simply stating that "Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish National Home/State in Palestine" glosses over a lot of things which occoured as a result of the movement. The whole title of the article leaves the idea that "anti-Zionists don't want a home for the Jews", which is rather glib. Secondly, without a specific definition of "anti-Zionism" as a unique phenomenon, how can editors determine which content is apropriate for inclusion. Though the term has been in use for a long time, simply putting anti- in front of a term is generally considered a neologism and carries all the associated problems. I would be much happier seeing it re-named "Opposition to Zionism", and have specific, verifiable claims and incidents documented with support and opposition. --Uncle Bungle 13:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. The outlooks, motivations, and rationales of anti-Zionists differ. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Uncle Bungle. It is not as if the editors have put the prefix anti- before the word Zionism; the term anti-Zionism is widely used. But it is widely used in a variety of ways, and to reduce this variety to one single definition that was too narrow would be a mistake. In fact, the purpose of the article must be to give an account of some of the different outlooks motivations, rationales, etc. BobFromBrockley 13:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we knew what anti-Zionism is because "Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish National Home/State in Palestine". Is it a variety, or opposition to that very narrow definition? I'm confused... now I remember why I walked away from this mess. Sorry to waste your time, all. --Uncle Bungle 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version (here) is more passable than the others. I also agree it's not just opposition to the Israel's creation, meaning we shouldn't define it too narrowly. I've been looking for useful material on this for some time without much luck; one bit is here (though probably not a RS):

Those who do not believe Jews have legitimate religious or political claims to the land and want Israel transformed into a secular state where Jews and Palestinians live together as equals constitute a second type of anti-Zionism. Advocates of this view — including a number of Western intellectuals — argue that a peaceful settlement would be in the best interest for both groups. Rather than seeking the destruction of Israel, most see the goal as reconciliation and would prefer a mutually agreed upon settlement.

Another passage:

Whether there was a valid distinction between antisemitism and so-called "anti-Zionism" was hotly debated in the community. As in other parts of the world, this was, of course, a distinction much touted by persons and groups hostile to Israel. Most South African Jews of liberal outlook recognized that in practice manifestations of putative anti-Zionism were either a mask for antsemitism or tended sooner or alter to coincide with antisemitism in all essentials. But some such Jews, because they harbored reservations about particular policies of the Israeli government (not least of all its record of military cooperation with South Africa), were inclined to allow the distinction to pass, as long as the so-called "anti-Zionism" did not explictly negate the very right of Israel to exist as a state for the fulfillment of the national needs and aspirations of the Jews." Shimoni, Gideon (2003). Community and Conscience: The Jews in Apartheid South Africa. UPNE, pg. 251. ISBN 1584653299

Ideally one could find more material to explain these other types of anti-Zionism, which could help clear up the definition. Mackan79 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish religious/haredi opposition

The two sub-sections on religious and haredi Jewish anti-Zionism seem to me articifically seperate and duplicating (e.g. both refer to Satmers/Teitelbaum). Shouldn't they be merged? BobFromBrockley 12:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They're pretty much the same thing. You're seeing the detritus of ancient edit wars. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Have consolidated them, leaving the maintenence templates. Could do with more work. BobFromBrockley 14:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag on lead

Discussion has gone quiet but I think there is an issue with the language of the second sentence

• Anti-Zionism takes many forms, from the refusal to recognize Israel's existence or Israel's right to exist to religious opposition to the idea of a Jewish state.

Specifically "the refusal to recognize... Israel's right to exist." Recognition of a state or government is something that other states or governments do and I have no problem with a sentences such as "Many Arab and Muslim states refuse to recognise the State of Israel." or "The United Kingdom refuses to recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus". I think when talking about a belief "refusing to recognize" has an implication of stubborness about it. I think something like: "Anti-Zionism takes many forms, ranging from a belief that a Jewish homeland should not have been proposed in a land where many non-Jews lived, through religious opposition among some Jews to the idea of a Jewish state being established in the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah, to some countries' refusal to recognize Israel formally or to establish diplomatic relations with her, boycotts of Israeli products and up to calls for the violent overthrow of Israel and the expulsion of most of her inhabitants."

gives a better idea of the range of beliefs covered by the idea without judgmental language. Peter Cohen (forgot to sign when I originally posted this)

Individuals and groups also refuse to recognize Israel's existence. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which ignores what I said was the key point. The language is loaded. "Anti-abortionists refuse to recognise women's right to choose" and "abortionists refuse to recognise the right of the unborn child to live" are both loaded descriptions expressing particular POVs about abortion. Similarly "refus[e] to recognise... Israel's right to exist" is a loaded description expressing a POV about Israel.--Peter cohen 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They refuse to recognize Israel's existence, which is not loaded, and is used by many sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're still refusing to address what I have twice highlighted as the key point. --Peter cohen 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why don't you suggest a wording that retains the obviously factual "refuse to recognize Israel's existence", but is more neutral regarding the right to exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your current wording looks fine to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I like Peter C's current wording. I don't like simply "non-recognition" as that is too passive - you can not bother to recognise something rather than actively choose not to recognise. New version is very clear. BobFromBrockley 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm obviously happy to live with the wording or I wouldn't have made that change, but I think what Iran or Hamas or whoever are "refusing to recognise" is not Israel's existence but it's legitimacy. Hence their use of terms such as "The Zionist entity". They wouldn't have bothered to create the term if they didn't recognise that Israel existed. But they use the term as a way to indicate that they do not see its existence as legitimate. In a similar way euphemisms and a splattering of quotation marks are used in [7] to indicate a refusal to recognise the legitimacy of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and its institutions.--Peter cohen 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But what's the practical difference between the two? They don't have diplomatic relations with the country, they can't even bring themselves to say its name. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There has already been one revert attempt by someone not taking part in the discussion. I think a total replacement of the sentence may be necessary which brings me back to my more extended list of examples which I have revised to:

"Anti-Zionism takes many forms, ranging from a belief that a Jewish homeland should not have been proposed in a land where many non-Jews lived, through religious opposition among some Jews to the idea of a Jewish state being established in the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah, to some countries' refusal to recognize Israel formally or to establish diplomatic relations with her and boycotts of Israeli products and sports teams, up to calls for the violent overthrow of Israel and the expulsion of most of her inhabitants and actions, such as wars and suicide bombings, carried out to advance those aim."

as an alternative option if small variations of the current sentence are not agreed on.--Peter cohen 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious Opposition

The Religious Opposition section is:

• Full of Original Research
• Unverified
• POV
• Terribly written.

I proposed for it to be deleted and replaced either with a link to the Haredim and Zionism article, or with a concise summary of that article. Admittedly, the article itself is also imperfect. But it has been subjected to greater scrutiny then the religious opposition section of this article. I renew that proposal now after having reread that section... it truly is terrible. --Meshulam 01:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete and total oppose. First you modify that article so that it is full of lies, making it seem as if half the Chareidi world is Zionist, and then you try to just throw away the section on Haredi anti-Zionism here - and when I object, you simply accuse me of being a sock-puppet. This is a disgusting method of operation and one for which you are well known. I am not going to allow that. The section on Haredi anti-Zionism in this article is completely factual, sourced, and very well-written. If you have any specific problems with it, let's discuss them here. --Rabbeinu 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are references for much of the article, but the first four paragraphs are unreferenced.--Peter cohen 09:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal Not all Heredi Jews oppose zionism. --Sefringle^Talk 22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And the article I have linked makes that point (though it could make it better). The article as it is makes it sound like Zionism and Haredi Judaism are irretrievably at odds with one another. And that's just an oversimplification bordering on outright absurdity. I suggest that we fix the problem by giving the article a more rounded treatment. (Also, the opinion of Rabbeinu, above, can be discounted. He was recently banned indefinitely for (again) breaking Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppets. --Meshulam 07:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume that the "concise summary" Meshulam proposed is the concise section there is now? I think it's a good summary, and the linked article is very thorough and balanced, so am happy with what's there, although I think that mention of some of the most prominent anti-zionist haredi groups would be worthwhile (e.g. Neturei Karta). However, I would be opposed to removing the section altogether, as this is an important dimension of anti-Zionism. BobFromBrockley 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yo-yo sentence in the lead.

"Anti-Zionists hold Zionism responsible for the exile and oppression of the Palestinan people." is disliked by some editors.

How about "Anti-Zionists accuse Zionists and Israel of exiling and oppressing the Palestinian people."?

No difference. (And please sign your posts.) Some anti-Zionists hold this position, but others don't. Just keep this sort of detail out of the lead. --Redaktor 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets keep the lead simple. I have removed all description both for and against zionism from the lead. Hope that keeps everyone happy. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored it. The intro should explain what this is about, since there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)