Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Missing form of Anti-Zionism

It seems that there's one type of anti-zionism missing - some people who are athiest and or anti-religious see a state created on a basis of religion as troublesome, due to the lack of separation of church and state. Some people view Israel as at a partial theocracy. This form of anti-zionism is surely a form which is in fact separate from anti-semitism, since people with these views mostly have no problem with Judaism in general. --Ozhiker 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are some people from all religions who are zionism supporters, and there are people from all religions who are anti-zionists (there doesn't seem to be many muslim zionism spporters though). I don't think there is a specific group(s) of atheists that would fall into its own type of anti-zionism that isn't already mentioned. This claim would need a source.--Sefringle^Talk 00:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That depends. One can use such an argument-- but ultimately that would be an argument against a specific constitutional arrangement within Israel, not an argument against an ethnic-Jewish state. The expectation would also be that the athiest in question be opposed to the establishment of a state religion in any nation-- Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, et cetera. If it meets these demands: i.e. only opposes certain legal privileges for a particular religion, and is advocated as a universal policy that does not single out a specific nation, then this atheism is not really anti-Zionist.IanThal 13:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok - perhaps my understanding of Anti-Zionism was not quite correct - So if a person is opposed to all states that are not completely secular, then they are not Anti-Zionist because of this?

A hypthetical sincere athiest who opposes a state establishment of religion would most likely have other governments that he or she finds far more egregious than Israel. Furthermore, an athiest might very well support a secular state for ethnic-Jews within the same geographical borders. In which case, the athiest would not be an anti-Zionist.IanThal 18:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If there actually exists such secularist anti-Zionism in a notable way - e.g. a movement or organisation or notable publication - then it could be included. However, I am not sure that there is such a thing in a notable actually existing form. BobFromBrockley 11:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur. I think that this "missing form" is largely hypothetical.IanThal 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great source

Source - http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=14207

About the author: Judea Pearl is a professor of computer science at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, named after his son.

full text: http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/anti-zionism-is-racism-by-judea-pearl.html Zeq 11:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish political anti-Zionism

This is the opening para of the section on Jewish political anti-Zionism:

The Zionist movement before the 1930s met with some ambivalence among the world's Jewish communities. While the religious connections with the Land of Israel were indisputable, many disassociated themselves with the socialist ideology that dominated early political Zionism. While the revisionist Zionist movement emerged as an alternative over time, the Holocaust solidified Zionism as a mainstream movement in world Jewry.

I find the first sentence dubious. Socialism did not dominate early political Zionism - none of the leaders of the Zionist movement were socialists until the 1930s or so. The second sentence seems both not quite right (as Revisionism emerged only when labour Zionism was becoming a serious force) and not really relevant to the topic of the article/section. What do people think? BobFromBrockley 14:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This entire article is flawed from the beginning, and should be deleted.

This entire article is screwed. First off it sets the groundwork for anti-zionism as the people that opposed the formulation of the Jewish state and then follows categorizes by people that oppose the occupation. "Anti-Zionist publications date back to at least the turn of the last century,[4] appearing increasingly through at least the mid-1940s in relation to events in the British Mandate of Palestine, when several Arab and Jewish organizations opposed the creation of a Jewish State in the area." "The term has regained wider currency in political debate since the 1970s, as part of the controversy over the Arab-Israeli conflict. Before the Six-Day War of 1967, opposition to the existence of Israel was largely confined to the Arab world, with notable exceptions including the Soviet Union and its allies. Since the 1970s, however, opposition to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has led to mounting criticism of Israel, which in turn has fueled the growth of anti-Zionism." This has already set the stage for classifying anti-zionism as anyone opposing Israel and its policies. I also believe "anti-zionism" hasn't been offered up in its full breadth, neither has zionism itself. There are many religious and political leaders in Israel that not only believe in the establishment of a Jewish state, but that Zionism itself asks Jews to reestablish Eretz Israel. Many Zionists believe that not only is Eretz Israel supposed to be restored but that after its reestablishment there will be a temple that will be built that will hearken the end of times. And they believe this ideology is inherent in Zionism. Some people believe that being given a country based on God's mandate is a form of Manifest Destiny, and Manifest Destiny has been rightfully demonized in the US's history. One of the biggest issues here are some of the sources such as Friedman or other supporters of Israel and/or Israeli citizens. That is like asking Bush to write how anti-neoconservatives hate America and someone citing it here. The true horror of the article is bringing anti-antisemitism to the table. It has no place in this article. I don't even believe this article should exist. It seems in regards to Israel there have been hundreds of articles showing up that are either border or are outright inappropriate for an encyclopedic text. This Zionist article is one in which within the scope of the article not all facets can be covered, and there are allusions to a latent racism and affiliates that against a political/religious movement. This material should be published in controversial works, and be open for debate, but the debate should not occur in this text. I think wikipedia writers are overstepping their bounds in trying to cover this topic. I also believe the number of articles revolving around Israel and Palestine has reached monumental proportions, and it is time to trim the fat. --Jason 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jason, I have been involved with this article off and on for years and have finally given up. The problem is, the term itself is an old neo-logism without an accepted definition. Like many politically charged articles on Wikipedia, it's content is made up from bits and pieces of text sourced to various pundits. The qualification for inclusion is generally a lengthy discussion in the talk page, which includes a large helping of WP:NPOV, and some counter point by an equally radical pundit of the opposing viewpoint. The sources section does not cite a single book or even article which discusses opposition to zionism as a unique phenomenon and attempts to address it scientifically. The only time I come back here now is when I forget how to properly format an NPOV tag. Best of luck to you. --Uncle Bungle 02:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I second Uncle Bungle's view, upholding some kind of scientific value on this page has proven almost impossible. At once it is about judaism, nationalism, antisemitism, and many other contradictory terms (by many standards), as well as the state-building projects occuring in the middle east. I have only monitored the developments and have decided against getting involved. --Raphael 12:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.218.71.245 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent cutting

Telaviv1's recent simplification process has been very good. However, there are a couple of paragraphs cut that I think add information that's worth keeping. What is wrong with:

Anti-Zionist publications date back to at least the turn of the last century, appearing increasingly through at least the mid-1940s in relation to events in the British Mandate of Palestine, when several Arab and Jewish organizations opposed the creation of a Jewish State in the area.

Other Jewish political movements which rejected Zionism in this period were the Folkists, led by Simon Dubnow, a liberal movement which advocated cultural autonomy for Jews in the diaspora rather than territorial sovereignty, and the Territorialists, a Jewish nationalist movement who broke with Zionism because they were willing to pursue Jewish nationhood anywhere, not just in Palestine.

BobFromBrockley 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I think those are important sentences. I think that there also needs to be a sentence that some contemporary secular Jews are described as anti-Zionists. Norman Finkelstein is categorised as such on wiki. Does anyone know if he ahs accepted the lable himself. I believe that Chomsky has actually described himself as a Zionist.

I have also cut a recent addition by Telaviv1, as it wasa unreferenced and smacks of WP:SYN.--Peter cohen 13:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

With that endorsement, and no objections, I am going to re-insert those two sentences in appopriate places. I also think Peter was write to remove the unreferenced list. Things like that need to be presented as the opinions of authorities, and those authorities cited. BobFromBrockley 14:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Haredi section again

This passage has been added, removed by one editor and re-inserted by a third:

A point of view overlooked in this debate is that of the Sephardim. No significant Sephardi Rabbi had a theological problem with Zionism and many spiritual leaders supported it. The lack of religious opposition to Zionism from the non-Ashkenazi world has meant that some see religious anti-Zionism to be pyschological and social rather than theological.

Should it be there? I think it is too much detail for what should be a fairly short section in the article, which has a main article Haredim and Zionism, where this legitimately belongs. What do other people think? BobFromBrockley 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Re this edit, this obviously is not a neutral way to write the lead. I don't see where the source even says this, but that's hardly the issue; a neutral characterization of a viewpoint is not going to say it ranges from genocide to something else. That's not neutral. Mackan79 21:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the link about Ahmadinejad. There are genocidal freaks who call themselves "anti-Zionist" and not to mention this would be POV. This was a stable version until Mackan79 removed it under pretense of NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think "genocidal freaks" is a bit hyperbolic and the language Mackan removed is highly interpretative, and not a direct quote, of Ahmadinajad's positions. I'm surprised that inflammatory language has been in the lead for so long (haven't been following the article closely for months, but I don't think it wasn't there when I last edited it). In short, I support the changes Mackan79 introduced, finding them to better in line with NPOV than the version you reverted to. Tiamat 22:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I retained Humus Sapiens source and changed Mackan's version of the lead to reflect it as per Ahmadinajad's own words and not the interpretation of the group of lawyers who want to sue him for incitement to genocide. I hope the change meets with your approval. Tiamat 22:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens, I gather from your edit summary here that you didn't like the edit much. While I realize "Zionist regime" sounds POV, that's what Ahmadinajad says. Anti-Zionists use terms like this and this article is about them, so they are bound to come into play. Ahmadinajad calls for an end to the "Zionist regime" and not "Israel". Now, this could be said to be using euphemisms, but others might argue that the distinction is crucial. In one case, one is advocating the destruction of a nation (its people and state) whereas in the other one is calling for an end to a governmental regime predicated on a particular ideology, i.e. Zionism. This information comes from your source.

And if this explanation still doesn't convince you, I suggest we consider Mackan's version above as a more neutral way of encapsulating generally the same ideas. Tiamat 22:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This latest edit still doesn't cut it for me. You are giving representation to the POV of a small group of lawyers who believe his statements constitute calls for genocide instead of quoting him directly or quoting the newspaper's take on his statements. This is not NPOV. I think this issue should be raised in the body of the article, and not the intro. It requires a balancing of viewpoints that accounts for subtleties of the kind I touched on above. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV I would ask that you please remove "genocide" from the introduction. Tiamat 22:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the allegation of genocide is POV. The article referenced does not substantiate the allegations, it merely reports that they have been made. I have inserted text instead that armed struggle of various sorts has been used by some anti-Zionists. That should not be controversial. I have also added a comment on "right to exist" because, as per comments I've made before in this talk page, that concept is as much laden with POV as "right to life" "and a woman's right to choose" are in the abortion debate.--Peter cohen 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that edit to be a good one. The addition of "legitimacy" as qualifier to the "existence" phrase is important. Including "armed struggle" is also in line with the material covered in the article. Well done. Tiamat 23:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just worried that someone will regard your liking the edit as a red rag and grounds to revert my suggestion. Obviously Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial as an anti-Zionist tactic is documented. As for other things of similar rhetorical force, I can remember a long and boring discussion on CIX about whether anyone did call for the Jews to be driven into the sea, but I can't remember the conclusion.--Peter cohen 07:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be rather unfortunate if editors based their decisions to edits on who made it or who does or does not like it. I think the examples you raised as additional items to consider are better dealt with in the main body of the article. Not because I don't think they are important, but rather that how to characterize them is an issue of dispute that requires space not available in the introduction. However, if there is a formulation you have in mind that can capture this more extremist discourse without requiring lengthy contextualization, by all means put if forward. Tiamat 14:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that those last things I mentioned don't have much to do with the thread title. I suppose I was expressing puzzlement at how certain pro-Israeli editors were investing so much energy into a particularly tenuous addition to the article when there were other things that might have a better documented basis for inclusion. As for the general point, anything proposed for the lede should really be covered in the body of the article first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter cohen (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:LEAD, it doesn't make sense to put things in the intro that are not discussed in the article. Tiamat 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, discuss

There has been editing warring in regards to adding a category, Category:Discrimination. If you add a category, and it gets reverted, please come to the talk page and discuss a proposal to include the category in order to raise consensus. Adding controversial content after other users have objected is not productive, and you simply cannot force or bully content into articles. So please, discuss the merits of this category here on talk before adding it again.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to point out that Category:Anti-national sentiment (which is already used in this article) is a subcat of Category:Discrimination. For the most part, we don't add both the parent and the subcat to articles.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then there's also the edit war over Muslim anti-Zionism in which contributors on either side aren't even giving reasons for their edits, and those who do supply reasons ("rv to last stable version") are hardly supplying ones that convince under the Wiki definition of consensus.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I find alot of anti-Muslim bias in the section "Muslim anti-zionism"

Yes it is true there is alot of Muslim anti-zionism. but the reason for this is NOT what is given in this section previous to my editing. Muslims view Israel as a foreign entity in the heart of the Middle East. The reason Muslims hate Israel is the same as why blacks hated white apartheid regime. It has nothing to do with religion or Koran. It has alot more to do with politics.

The previous version was about Muslim anti-zionism, which was what israelis think the Muslim reason for Muslim anti-zionism is. However, I made the correction and wrote what mainstream Muslims think about their own anti-zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apple pie 20 20 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Who has a problem with the editing I made ?

Please discuss it.

I have a problem with this, and many other edits you've made, as I make clear on your talk page. I'm going to revert you now, and ask that you stop editing this article, as you are in violation of 3RR. When and if you come back to this article, please source all your claims, write them well, and make sure that you are not violating WP:NPOV. IronDuke 01:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and do also please read WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources. IronDuke 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I notice that quite a lot of what you tried adding in the section about viewing Israel as an imperialist entity is already mentioned in the previous section on Arab anti-Z. It appears that that section is meant more to deal with the national liberation perspective, whilst the Muslim section is meant to be about more specifically religious aspects. Maybe a sentence could point out that many Muslims support the national liberation perspective and referring to the more detailed discussion in the previous section might address your point?--Peter cohen (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Original research and the Nazi Waldheim

First, edit warring is never appropriate. If you make a bold edit and get reverted, you need to come to talk and reach consensus. It is never ok to re-insert new content that has been disputed in good faith by another editor. Next, the disputed content in this instance is (under the guidance of a former Nazi, Secretary General Kurt Waldheim). This is guilt by association, and it is original research. It is implying that Waldheim's former work with Nazi Germany is somehow related to the resolution, and it is also an unsourced attempt to smear Waldheim. This would be like adding the phrase "adulterer" before any mention of the name "Bill Clinton". While it may be true, it implies that Clinton's adultery has something to do with the topic at hand. Similarly, saying this implies that Nazism has something to do with the UN anti-Zionism resolution. It is a round about way of saying "A UN resolution was passed through the influence of the Nazi party". And if people actually think that, I think it would be fine to say "Source X states that the passing of resolution was in part due to Nazi party". But you see, to make that claim, it must be attributed to a source. The latest edit does this without saying it directly, and without supplying any source. It just makes guilt by association without attribution, which violates both wikipedia's original research policy and our verifiability policy. Please, I'm sure we can reach a compromise, but there is no reason to edit war. --Andrew c ^[talk] 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Waldheim was a war crimminal who hid his past. Your government banned him fom entering the country.

NYT article

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,488614,00.html

As I said, given that the Jews were effectively being called racists by this resolution, the Nazi association is very significant and needs to be mentioned. You might want to find a formula you can live with but the info needs to be out there.

I sggest something like, "the UN Secretary General during the passage of this resolution was Kurt Waldheim who subsequently turned out to have been involved in Nazi war crimes, however these is no evidence that he encouraged the decision"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913724-2,00.html

I like this: http://www.nwanews.com/story.php?paper=adg&section=Editorial&storyid=193511 Eichmann also said he was just a bureaucrat... Telaviv1 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dunno what "the Nazi association means" in this context. The next to last cite (Time, Nov. 24, 1975) says Waldheim deplored the resolution, so is it the opposition you are trying to taint with Naziism? Andyvphil (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A United Nations Secretary-General is the organization's chief executive officer. He is never personally responsible for the General Assembly's or the Security Council's resolutions as he can't influence them even if he may wish to do so. Anybody familiar with the history of the UN knows that. The members of the Security Council as well as the member states in the General Assembly vote on resulutions, and the majority of the votes defines the outcome. The UN Sec-Gen merely represents the organization.

Studying the article on Kurt Waldheim I understand that he was not a member of the Nazi party but of some student organization and a mounted corps. It remains to be discussed whether this is a sufficient basis for labelling him a Nazi. In the 1980s Waldheim was accused of being a war criminal. However, accusations do not constitute facts. An international commission of renowned historians - including historians from the States and Israel - examined Waldheim's war activities and came to the conclusion that he was not a war criminal and did not commit war crimes. Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal also joined this conclusion. I think we should leave it to that and not engage in presenting unfounded and even long confuted speculations or conspiracy theories as facts. --Catgut (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the link between the resolution and the fact Waldheim was secretary general at that time should be pointed out by a scholar (with references) to deserve to be underlined in this article. Ceedjee (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles state that Waldheim joined the Nazi party at 17 and that the unit he served in was involved in war crimes. According to the yad vashem website Walsheim knew about atrocities, was close to poeple who participated in them, and passively contributed to atrocities however performed none himself. Which is not unlike his position at the UN. See this letter from wiesenthal http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D8173CF93AA1575AC0A965958260

He also refused to wear a skull cap while visiting yad vashem. see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907836,00.html which is odd behaviour for an Austrian (the staff at Auschwitz were almost ientrely austrian as were hitler and eichmann). see also http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961050-1,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telaviv1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, why does the article give a breadown of the countries that SUPPORTed the resolution but not of thse that opposed it?

Many considered the resolution to be antisemitic yet there is no mention of that fact.

Telaviv1 08:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

Every point in this section states that Anti-Zionism is antisemitism/racism. Most thinking at the moment (outside Zionist thinking) seems to be contrary to this. That the UN as an organisation maintained that Zionism is a bad thing until the 1970s should suggest that there are two sides to the debate. This section is terribly one sided and it doesn't show Wikipedia well to keep it in its current state. --Oldak Quill 12:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the scholarly work on anti-Zionism and antisemitism (Kaplan & Small and Muir) that Aprock removed? It seems fine to me. Here it is. Can we discuss its inclusion? Here it is:

---

In 2006, Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small, both of Yale University, conducted a survey on the connection between radical anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism in Europe. The study was published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in August of the same year. The authors’ overall conclusion is that evidence of anti-Israeli sentiment can consistently predict the probability that an individual is antisemitic with a direct correlation between the extent of the anti-Israeli sentiment with the probable measure of antisemitism. They conclude that severe criticism of Israel does make it reasonable for the question to be raised of said criticism is actually masking an underlying anti-Semitism. However, Kaplan and Small are careful to avoid concluding that the correlation they find (i.e., that extreme anti-Zionists are also likely to be antisemites) is proof to the theory that anti-Zionism is itself antisemitic.

- - Historian Diana Muir reviewed the paper and concluded that the correlation shown between anti-Zionistic attitudes and antisemitism was almost perfect. Muir also supports the study's conclusion that only a small fraction of Europeans believe the anti-Zionistic and antisemitic rhetoric.

---

BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the above Kaplan and Small talk section for my comments. Aprock (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Anti-Zionism doesn't equal Anti-Semitism, but a lot of people use Anti-Zionism to hide their Anti-Semitism. (LB)

---

I think it's ironic that people are arguing if it's racist to believe that a race's stake to a land is unjust, when the religion of the race in question believes this race is the chosen people of God and all other races are of a lower caste. Yes, I know this will be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.222.54.100 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

the bnp in britain are zionists and theyre the most openly antisemitic party. go figure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.105.213.11 (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also true that in the 1920s and 1930s most antisemitic nationalist groups in Europe were pro-Zionist because they wanted their Jewish minorities to leave for Palestine. And not just nationalists; the Soviet Union was perceived as antisemitic but was also the first state to recognize Israel's independence. The interface / overlaps of antisemitism with anti-Zionism have changed often in the last century, and so one definition for 2008 can never tell the whole story.86.42.219.131 (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Dhimmi

I removed the unsourced addition that dhimmi are "second class", and I also removed a little more leading language. I know that there are some people that state dhimmi are "second class citizens" and I know some people say that they are not. Per NPOV, we shouldn't take sides. We either present both views or neither. I don't believe we should be getting into those arguments in this article, and we should leave that for the main article dhimmi. But we simply cannot present one side of an argument as The Truth without even a citation. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/09/do0901.xml http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/dhimmi/

And even in the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmitude the noun dhimmi, which denotes a second class, non-Muslim subject of a Muslim state.

In addition, the source you presented in your edit summary clearly failed reliable sourcing as a muslim proselytizing site. M1rth (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

By pointing to the link, I wasn't trying to add a reliable source to the article to claim that dhimmi were not second class citizens. I was just illustrating that there is a POV that is contrary to your unsourced claims. If there is a conflict between POVs, we cannot take sides on wikipedia. The sources you point to are problematatic. The doubletongued Dictionary cites 6 different sources, and only one of them uses "second-class citizen", and note that the main definition that they come up with does NOT use that phrase. The telegraph source is an opinion piece by a columnist who infamously has upset Muslims before. I'm not sure what part of WP:RS you are pointing to that says Muslim proselytizing sites are forbidden. I think we could have something like "many western commentators have considered dhimmi "second-class citizens" while many Muslims deny this claim". Show both POVs and qualify them. But what is unacceptable is to take sides, especially without a citation. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. I have no interest in dealing with someone like you who refuses to be civil, who revert wars, and who puts forth a source that he knows violates sourcing and then claims it wasn't a source later. I will report this to the admin noticeboard and I'm removing this page from my watch afterwards. M1rth (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: the link you posted to justify removing the term definitely fails http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Extremist_sources. M1rth (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off strong. I believe I have remained civil and within wikipedia guidelines and policies. I wasn't adding a source to the article because I wasn't adding content to the article. Pointing to the link in the edit summary was not the same thing as adding a source to the article. Pointing to the link just illustrated that what you wrote was not The Truth. You on the other hand adding content without a source, which violates WP:V/WP:ATT. But hey, it isn't that big of a deal. I'm sure we can still work things out. I only want this article to be within wikipedia policies, and I'm sure you feel the same way. I'd be glad for a third opinion on this matter, but I don't believe any part of this conflict calls for admin action and thus the noticeboard is not needed. Try WP:DR first. Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now asked for a third opinion on the matter following the dispute resolution page from help, as I do not find you civil and do not appreciate your backtracking about the obviously non-reliable extremist source you tried to throw at me. I know I'm new and I have not heard good things about wikipedia administrators, so since you are one, until someone else comes along, "you win." This page is now removed from my watchlist and if you feel you have anything else to say to me, you know where my talk page is. M1rth (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Third Opinion While it is hard for most Wikipedians who are not conversant with Muslim culture to opinionate about this issue, at face value I would tend to accept Andrew c's arguments. Contrary to M1rth's claims about civility, I find Andrew much more diplomatic and mature. His policies seem right on, and he has submitted evidence supporting his claims. Wikipedia's policy of neutrality is non-negotiable, and every effort should be made to make this article a NPOV one. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have removed the language again. Another perspective has come up at Talk:Dhimmi#Dhimmitude, and Talk:Dhimmitude#Second_class. The idea of a second class citizen is modern and shouldn't be retroactively applied to historical contexts (especially when the idea of a regular "citizen" didn't exist). Also, if anyone is considering reverting me, please at the very least add a reliable source to back up the claim instead of re-inserting unsourced content. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Anti-Zionism

Please excuse me if this has already been discussed (I can't find any mention in the archives), but why does this section refer to "some contemporary critics of Israel's policies" as being "of Jewish origin" rather than simply (and less equivocally) "Jewish"? The section is on Jewish Anti-Zionism, yet the phrase appears to dilute the "Jewishness" of the people refered to. With reference to the two people mentioned, Finkelstein and Chomsky, both are clearly Jewish according to both Rabbinical Jewish Law, Halakha, and the definition of a Jew in Israel's Law of Return. Finkelstein certainly refers to himself as a Jew, and though Chomsky tends to avoid discussing issues in personal terms, he has certainly never "renounced" his Jewishness. Phersu (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been introduced in this edit [[4]]. I would tend to agree that the implication that they are not Jewish is poisoning the well through the use of weasel words.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter; I've made an edit. Phersu (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why the emphasis is on Finkelstein and Chomsky - they are two individuals who represent only themselves, not Jewish political opposition to Zionism in general.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As there's authentic jews criticizing the zionist ideology, the zionist rhetoric "antizionism=antisemitism" is completely broken.

There was already "pro-jews" anti-zionists, but now, jews themselves try to get rid of facist ideologies.

The "antisemitism equal anti-zionism" part should be removed completely of the article. You can believe in both, but being zionist and being jew are two different things. Many jews live in other countries than Israel, and some don't think that this country is "the promised land of the jew people" and that the apartheid between jews and arab is a good thing. It's a shame that zionists try to confuse the debate by attacking the interlocutor instead of his ideas, or try to move the debate over the shoah, which "classic" anti-zionists recognize without arguing. Most of the people caught doing this kind of "rhetorical tricks" to avoid a true reflection upon their problems arnt.e WRONG, and know it very well 77.196.65.193 (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a need for some mention of post-war anti-zionism from Jews. Those two are notable enough to have their own articles in Wikipedia. Chomsky certainly has a substantial following on the libertarian left. Given that the argument of the subsection is that Zionism is the mainstream and anti-Zionism is fringe within contemporary Jewish communities, then the fact that notable Jewish anti-Zionists "represent only themselves" isn't surprising. A former work colleague of mine once mentioned that she took part in a ceremony in which she and other Jews renounced their "right of return" in favour of Palestinians. Does anyone know anything about who might have organised this? At a guess it was in the 1970s by a left-leaning group, almost certainly in the UK. This might provide more of the sort of thing you might want.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Important source

[5] Zeq (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This National Post article/op-ed (a Zionist writer on a Zionist subject) makes interesting reading. The most significant idea I could see was "The Left came up with the equation "Zionism=Racism." It was certainly simple-minded enough for the United Nations to adopt it in the mid-70s until repudiating it again, half-heartedly, in the early 90s - then acting as though it hadn’t repudiated it." I'm sure I've seen WP articles that mention and discuss this UN resolution and it's repeal, but not that the UN had been half-hearted about over-turning it, and was of one mind still believing it. PR^talk 08:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction pointed out

The article says: "Several groups are identified by the title "Jews Against Zionism", including the group more properly titled "True Torah Jews Against Zionism" and "Jews United Against Zionism", a subsection of the Haredi Jewish organization Neturei Karta.[13][14]" This is an error; True Torah Jews Against Zionism is not synonymous with Jews United Against Zionism and is not a subsection of Neturei Karta. It is a subsection of the Satmar chassidic group. It is well known that Satmar condemned Neturei Karta. See the Wikipedia article on Satmar. I suggest that the word group be made plural: "groups more properly titled as..." to indicate the separateness of the groups. Natsmith (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no objection from me, as I did not intend my wording to suggest they were the same group. By all means, go ahead. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and add that "s" myself. I can see how the lack of it might have been confusing. My intention was "including (the group more properly titled a) and (b)", but without the "s" it can just as easily be read the way you evidently saw it, "including the group more properly titled (a) and (b)." Thanks for pointing out that problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Inapropriate Use Of Israel

Given that the use of the Biblical term "Israel" to denote the modern Jewish State is rejected by most anti-zionists, would it not be best to give the appearance of balance by avoiding the use of it within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The State of Israel exists, even for anti-Zionists.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel means the Jewish people, and by extension their state. Zionists use it to describe the land that state occupies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Communist anti-zionism outside of europe

It should be noted that anti-zionist communist ideas were also held by jews outside of europe, in particular the iraqi communist party was notable for being an alternative to the zionist movement in attracting support. since the article is under semi-protection, i can't add that detail. well-known iraqi jews like Sami Michael (having a decidedly non-zionist slant) were iraqi communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I just noted the same in the article, before seeing your comment here. I added the basic point however citations are needed. Anyone?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Being "non-Zionist" (which seems to accurately describe Sami Michael) is different form being Anti-Zionist. Many communists were also Zionists or at least looked upon Zionism favourably even if the leadership did not approve of it.

Albert Memmi, a tunisian-arab-jewish-frenchman was also very radical and a zionist.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I don't think it says otherwise in the article (re: Zionist communists) does it? This is what's written: "Meanwhile, many Middle Eastern Jewish Communists, particularly in Iraq, felt that Zionism would not only obstruct a common struggle for equality via asserting the primacy of ethnic affiliation above class affiliation, but would lead to the establishment of a separatist state privileging Jews at the expense of their fellow Arabs in Palestine." About Michael, good point. Maybe this should be re-titled "Non-Zionism and Anti-Zionism" since there is a lot of overlap between the two? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The iraqi communist party, which happened to draw plenty of jewish support (second only to the zionist movement) was much against the idea of Zionism, even if it never supported staunch anti-zionism action. it was anti-zionist. Many Anti"Post"-Zionist academics in israel draw upon these traditions. Albert memmi was very different indeed, but then again he never was a communist, to my best of knowledge. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider classifying some eastern religious establishments as Anti-Zionist (e.g. Sasson Khdury). it all depends on where you draw the line between 'Non-Zionism' and 'Anti-Zionism'. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of mizrahi anti-zionism

The section i removed suffered from several 'terminal' issues:

First and foremost, it was badly sourced. 'forget baghdad' is not a reliable source and its selection of figures does not reflect the opinion of the wide public. it does not account to any acadamic measure. Moreover, the figures cited never declared themselves to be Anti-zionist. Perhaps 'non-zionist' is a better definition of their views - but they didn't even pick that self-definition, to my best of knowledge. Furthermore, Ballas' and Michael's issues with Zionism might be better attributed to a Communist world view and thus should be classified under communism (in the tradition of not taking a world view, Mizrahi communism is again discarded to the sidelines). Moreover, there were dubious statements included about the Arab-Jew dichotomy and insinuations of a ploy (e.g. "didn't buy into"). the issue is ofcourse very complex and probably best not discussed in this article. Furthermore there's the issue of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, it remains a very contentious issue as to how many people hold these beliefs or not. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am posting the removed paragraph here, as it seems to me that further discussion is required: "On the other hand, a range of figures who had opposed Zionism prior to WWII continued to hold such views after taking refuge in Israel. This is particularly the case among Mizrahi figures such as Sami Michael, Shimon Ballas and Samir Naqqash who, refusing to buy into the Jew-Arab dichotomy facilitated by the conflict between the Zionist state and the Palestinians, to this day refer to themselves as Arab Jews." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent insertion - Jason Kunin in ZNet

I've moved the following recent insertion here for further discussion:

Still, some Jews have fundamentally rejected Zionism because, they argue, it is inherently a racist ideology. (reference: "Any opposition to Israel rooted in Zionism can only seek to mitigate Israeli apartheid and racism, not end it, because apartheid and racism are what Zionism - and by extension, the Israeli state - are all about."

"A Genuine Peace Movement Cannot be Zionist". Kunin, Jason. ZNet. Jason Kunin is a Toronto-based Jewish activist and writer.)

Why on earth would we care what Jason Kunin has to say, and when did Z Net suddenly become a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Jason Kunin has been published in Counterpunch, with the note that he is "a member of the administration council of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians." The same article was apparently previously published as an Op-Ed in the Winnipeg Free Press, which is Winnipeg's main daily newspaper. Apparently, the Wiesenthal Center cares what he has to say enough to have responded to his Winnipeg Free Press article. Jason Kunin, I submit, is a reliable source on the opinions of Jews who are anti-Zionists, among whom he numbers. His prominence in this group is clear from the publication of his Op-Ed in the Winnipeg Free Press and from the Wiesenthal Center's choice to respond to it. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One op-ed? As for the "Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians", it's under 2 years old, and has under 200 members. Kunin certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies. And you seemed to have ignored entirely the point that Z Net is not a reliable source. Please find more compelling evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my evidence is sufficient. 71.191.137.214 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Jason Kunin is a reliable source only for his own point of view - and his point of view isn't significant enough to justify a "Some Jews have fundamentally rejected Zionism" claim. Having been published in Counterpunch isn't exactly an industry plaudit, in my opinion. If a comparison between Zionism and racism is one that "some Jews" make, then cite it to a better source. Avruch ^T 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reverted the insertion myself, I have to agree with Avruch's statement. He's not authoritative or notable enough to speak for any significant group or movement. AniMate 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty poignant article, though. Would you agree that, having been featured prominently in ZNet, Kunin warrants consideration as notable for representing viewpoints promoted there, if not as a representative of any Jewish group? Tegwarrior (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed the point already made twice in the section, Z Net is not, in any event, a reliable source, nor is being "featured prominently" in it a claim to notability. Extreme and notable are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a reliable source for the conclusions drawn, but it is a reliable (primary) source for what was actually said on it.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, and opinions based on them, can only be used in articles about the subject. The subject here is not Jason Kunin, it is Anti-Zionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. Also, Jayjg, you've been rather loose with your references to "Wikipedia's notability standards," which are for the purpose of deciding if people (or groups) should have articles on them. This is a different matter than determining whether something they have written can be referred to by an article on another topic. I think it is fair (with the matter of Kunin's op-ed in the Winnipeg paper, at least) to rely on the Winnipeg paper and Counterpunch's implicit acceptance that the piece is notable for this matter. Tegwarrior (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Being published in Counterpunch would not be an indication of any sort of notability. As for being published in an op-ed one newspaper in one small North American city, that's hardly a serious claim for notability either. Please review the comments above from me and from several others. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote elsewhere, about including an image of a poster in the article on "New Anti-Semitism," that "the image in question illustrates all the themes described in the article." No provenance (beyond that of the photographer) at all had been claimed for this poster, and yet you believe it was worthy of inclusion in the article. Can you clear up what seems to be a discrepancy in your position that a poster that illustrates a phenomenon should be includable without regard to whose viewpoint it illustrates, or whether it is a "notable" viewpoint, but that an essay that illustrates another phenomenon should not be includable in another article because the author is "not notable?" Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever weak analogy you're straining for isn't working. If you're concerned about images without a provenance, I suggest you take a look at Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia, those articles are rife with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if you assume good faith and behave civilly, before you ever write anything like your first sentence here you would make an effort at ensuring that you understand whatever it is that you are thinking of calling a "weak analogy" that "isn't working." What do you think? Tegwarrior (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading that sentence again, I suggest you reread the policies you linked to. AniMate 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think AniMate is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence, however, that either of you have any idea what you're talking about. It's very easy to call names; its something else to justify your name calling. Are you both involved with the Hasbara Project? Tegwarrior (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me, Animate, where you think I have been uncivil or have failed to assume good faith? Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lesse, how about this comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Clearly when you have something that you really think is a violation of civility or of the assumption of good faith (even if it's just left as bait for you) you can point specifically to it. But what does that suggest about the instances when you accuse someone of violating civility or failing to assume good faith, but you don't point to any specific thing as the basis for your accusation? Can you see how this might not enhance your credibility? Tegwarrior (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Considering that the article lead says that "Anti-Zionists can be either left-wing or right-wing, religious or secular, Jewish or Gentile. Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial." (my emphasis), then the Category:Anti-national sentiment is clearly inapt for the article. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what most of that has to do with whether or not the category is appropriate, though. Can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The part in italics is the core part. The notion that anti-zionism = anti-semitism is hotly contested, and using the category 'anti-national sentiments' is essentially to take sides in that debate. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, since the article discusses that issue, it should be included in the category. And, even if one argues that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, there is no question that anti-Zionism is anti-Israeli. Israeli is a nationality too. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Israeli state: "The state denies there is any such nationality as `Israeli'", Haaretz 28 December 2003. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good Roland. So you now accept what the State of Israel says as fact, and the basis for Wikipedia's categorizations? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Baba Sali

The section on orthodox opposition cites the (Moroccan born Jewish leader) Baba Sali as an opponent of Zionism:

"The Baba Sali, called Rabbi Teitelbaum's VaYoel Moshe the "treatise of our generation".[22]"

The reference just cites "Sefet Tehilas Yoel" with no details. I could find to evidence that a book with this title exists in either English or Hebrew, nor is there anything to suggest that Sali was an anti-Zionist: quite the opposite, he emigrated to Israel, though he was disappointed by the lack of devotion there and subsequently moved to France for a decade or so before returning again to Israel, where he died. If no one objects in the next few days I will delete this line.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Defining Zionism

The definition of Zionism used in this article is fundamentally flawed, and needs to be re-written to make it clear that Zionism is a fundamental tenet of the Jewish religion, and that religious opposition, such as Satmar opposition, is opposition to the secular Jewish state, not to the goal of return to Zion. Something like this [6] would be better. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Summary of Examples Provided

@Malcolm Schosha - the use of my UserName in this fashion could easily lead to a misundertanding of your relationship with minority ethnic groups. The point of your reply isn't clear either, bearing no relationship to the enquiry I've now made twice. Fortunately, others have attempted to offer what evidence they've got, and it all adds up to "not very much". Only one, non-Western, anti-Israel campaign can unambiguously be linked to antisemitism, and that was pre-existing:

Western individuals and movements	Antisemitic and Anti-Zionist?	Evidence
Convicted western antisemites/Holocaust Deniers	No, little interest in Israel.	Sample of two, David Irving and Ernst Zundel (according to their WP articles).
Orthodox Jews, Zionist	No, Zionist	Likely 100s of 1000s.
Orthodox Jews, anti-Zionist	No, presumably	Neturei Karta claim that "hundreds of thousands identify with the NK position". The NK are the one group of anti-Zionists we know can credibly be called "extreme" (attending Iran's Holocaust Conference, celebrating the death of Israeli soldiers). Unknown number of less extreme anti-Zionists.
Poland, 1930's	No, Zionist	General population and authorities supports concept and existence of Israel. Persecute Jews - though many of the latter hotly reject invitation to Palestine.
pro-Palestinian activists	Known to reject at least some antisemites	Reknowned for bitter denounciations of those considered antisemitic, including their own allies for not being rigorous enough. (More evidence needed).
Most German people and most Europeans	If we accept sources such as JCPA	Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs publishes "Being Leftist and Anti-Semitic in Germany". However, other articles/statements from this source make statements such as: "International law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity, or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services."[7]
US White Nationalists, 1990s and 2000s	Somewhat, maybe	A movement based on color-racism is also anti-semitic. Anti-Zionism plays some part in world-view - but is it linked to the antisemitism? Significant support in population for one spokesman/leader, but remains minority.
State Players	Communist, Middle East, African	Non-western, relevant to discussion? Perhaps need sub-section or another article.
Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad	??	(Await evidence)
Poland, 1967/68	Yes	Communist state, previously accused of antisemitism uses anti-Zionism (freshly adopted in consequence of Six-Day War?) directly in a campaign of antisemitism.

It would be interesting to examine what, if any, direct link there is between Zionism and Islamophobia. If Zionism has a worse record of incitement to religious hatred than does anti-Zionism (think Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali), then that's an even better reason not to disfigure this article the way that's been done. PR^talk 19:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, I have no idea what your point is. If you have something that is relevant to the article that is based on a WP:reliable source, there is no reason to hold it back from the article. Otherwise there is no reason to discuss it here. We are here to write an article according to WP guidelines, not to discuss you personal views on the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Socialist opposition

I have moved the whole subsection on "Socialist opposition" here to the talk page for discussion.

*Socialist opposition

::Some working class Jews in Europe and America supported socialist or communist political ideas. The largest Socialist Jewish organisation in Europe was the General Jewish Labor Union, also known as the Bund. The Bund called for Jewish national cultural autonomy within a socialist state. Most European Jewish socialists rejected this latter view and became Socialist Zionists.

::In 1917 the Bund had 30,000 members in Russia, compared to 300,000 Zionist members. A internal 1922 Bolshevik census found less then 1,000 Jewish party members.

::Some Middle Eastern Jewish Communists, following party doctrine, felt that Zionism would not only obstruct a common struggle for equality via asserting the primacy of ethnic affiliation above class affiliation, but would lead to the establishment of a separatist state privileging Jews at the expense of their fellow Arabs in Palestine..

There are, in my view, some problems with this material:

1. There is no explanation how Jewish Socialist opposition to Zionism differs from any other Socialist opposition to it. I suspect there is no real difference.
2. The first two paragraphs, (that I removed yesterday, but were reverted back into the article) do not say anything about Zionism at all. That is why I removed them.
3. The last paragraph is unsourced.

Above all, if the views of Jewish Socialists is identical with the general Socialist opposition, the subsection does not belong in the part of the article dealing with Jewish opposition to Zionism. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very sceptical about the membership figures quoted above. In the first place, the figure of 30,000 Bund members would appear to apply to 1903-4, when the party was illegal, rather than 1917. RolandR (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Bund was a specifically "Jewish" socialist organization and was anti-Zionist, so it is right that it be under Jewish opposition. The Bund called for Jewish autonomy (as the article stated) and that made it different from other socialist organizations (including the Russian communist party which was CREATED by the Bund).

The statistics show quite clearly that the Bund was less popular then Zionism so they are certainly relevant to Zionism. Until a couple of weeks ago this article claimed that Socialism was more opular then Zionism among Eastern European Jews and that view is commonly expressed so it was important to brings statistics that would show it to be inaccurate. If we don't leave it in someone will soon come along and restate the claim.

The stuff aobut middle eastern communists should in my view be deleted as it is unsourced and there is no way of gauging what "Jewish communists in the middle-east" believed. The movement was not democratic and opinions were dictated from above.

If you want to delete the whole article I have no objection. Anti-Zionism is not an ideology or a movement.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting, or renaming, doesn't seem to me an unreasonable option. Quite possibly this article should otherwise be much shorter than it is. The problem, to be honest, is how much of the material might otherwise be included in Zionism, or otherwise if there is a better offshoot article for controversy, and then a better place for a redirect. No one seems to have come up with a good solution yet. Mackan79 (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, as I said,

1. content relevant to the article
2. citing sources
3. placement of material in the correct place. (If the Bund and Communist Party had identical positions, it would not to be relevant as a Jewish viewpoint.)

Don't get discouraged, Telaviv1. At least you have not had to deal with tag-team reverts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

This section does need to be edited down to improve it; but CJCurrie's edit was too heavy handed, so I restored the previous version. I probably will not have time to do any work on it today (43rd anniversary). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone puts some more work into improving the section. Mackan79 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly belated esponse to Malcolm: I don't believe that my edits were heavy-handed, and I welcome discussion on any particular objections you may choose to raise. I've chosen to constructively engage with the recent changes you've made to this article (as regards the merger of two sections), and would request that you do the same for me. CJCurrie (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, if there is something you do not understand about the changes I made, just ask. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, could you please explain why you disagree with the changes I've made?

Regarding the "logical position" of the disputed section, I might note that (i) our article already references the discussions involving anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in the introduction (and therefore alerts the reader to this important point very early on), and (ii) if we're to keep a generally chronological approach to the article, it should be positioned somewhat further down. I would be interested in hearing your counter-argument, of course. CJCurrie (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, a "chronological approach to the article" is fine with me, but only after some explanation of the issues that are involved in the subject of anti-Zionism. That is the purpose of the Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section, and why it is located where it is. Without that discussion of the issues, the history is rather meaningless. If you concern is that the present form of that explanation is not sufficiently balanced, please explain and we should be able to resolve the issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we even mention antisemitism. Historical examples suggest that (in the West, anyway), the linkage is almost non-existent - unlike the substantial linkage between Zionism and antisemitism (Churchill, Mark Twain, many Christian Zionists etc etc). PR^talk 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in a previous edit (above) that if there is a WP:reliable source for your opinion, you should put it in the article. Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing your objections to material in the article that is supported by reliable sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed.

No, what I'm seeking is evidence from you linking Zionism to antisemitsm, I'm sure you can provide something at least as strong as the above this other linkage you tell us should be in the article. Otherwise, your RS is bound to look like a conspiracy theory. PR^talk 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if you have WP:reliable sources saying there is no link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, there is no reason to withhold that from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, please review references 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 in this article, which all discuss the link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time you explained policy to us - because contributors will be astonished you've removed the names of two very famous antisemites. Like my examples earlier, they're not anti-Zionists but Zionists.

Or is it policy that no Zionist, no matter what they're guilty of (up to and including convictions for holocaust denial) can be named and shamed and you don't need any policy to block such editors? PR^talk 08:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, and please stop soapboxing. Is there a specific change to the article you wish to propose? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are specific changes I wish to make to this article - I'd like it to be an NPOV discussion of the subject. That's impossible as long as the article is totally dominated by a factor that is provably fairly trivial. You cannot possibly justify 7 of the first 8 references to buttress this smear on one party to a highly significant debate - particularly not with their by-lines filling 1500 words in the reference list! The article on Zionism doesn't even mention the far larger number of Zionists who were (are?) antisemitic - making this imbalance even more obvious. How can you justify your position as an administrator, tasked to protect articles, while you allow and defend and impose this happening? PR^talk 11:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Malcolm's preferred edit

Malcolm's preferred edit begins with this paragraph:

In recent years there has been a controversy concerning the use of the term Anti-Zionism as a cover for a new manifestation of antisemitism, which has been named the New Antisemitism. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism; and whether it is an example of, cover for, or just happens to overlap with antisemitism, is debated. This concept, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, states that much of the criticism of Zionism by individuals and groups is in fact the kind of demonization of Jews that is typical of antisemitism. These verbal attacks, combined with the increase in actual physical attacks on Jews in Europe, are considered unpromising indicators of a real resurgence of antisemitism, even if disguised by other terms.

The problems with this paragraph are as follows:

• "New antisemitism" is a disputed concept. It is not appropriate for us to identify it as "a new manifestation of antisemitism", as doing so effectively favours one side in this dispute.
• The sentence which begins with the words "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism" adds nothing of value to the article. The complex and disputed relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is already covered in the introduction, and Malcolm's preferred wording revives Jayjg's contentious definition (which was met with considerable opposition from other editors).
• It is not entirely accurate to say that the concept of "new antisemitism" equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. A few authors make this claim, but most who have written about the concept of "new antisemitism" are somewhat more equivocal.
• "much of the criticism of Zionism by individuals and groups" can be better written as "much criticism of Zionism".
• While the basic thrust of the final sentence may be accurate, the sentence itself is (i) polemical, (ii) skewed, (iii) awkwardly written, and (iv) not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you are correct to say that the subject of New Antisemitism is disputed. That dispute is discussed in the New Antisemitism article. The problem is that, by removing the link to that article, you are taking the side of those who deny such a link exists, rather than allow readers to decide after reading the article. You appear to be doing all you can to hide the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Certainly it is true that the connection is not universally agreed upon, but it is supported by reliable sources and needs to be in the article. In other words, you seem to be trying to exclude from the article WP: reliable sourced content that you personally oppose -- which is a violation WP:NPOV. And, no matter how many users you get to support you, it will still violated WP:NPOV. But, if you think it will do any good, I would agree with initiating an RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the evidence that antisemitism is linked to Zionism, not to anti-Zionism. I'm aware you have sources that make this link, and hence needs mention - but it's currently overwhelming the article and making a mockery of NPOV. PR^talk 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if there is reliably sourced material you think would be helpful for NPOV, you should add that to the article. But, NB: I am here to edit the anti-Zionism article with the goal of an article that is informative on the subject based on WP:reliable sources. I have no interest at all in a debate about what you what you happen to consider the truth. Your opinions do not interest me because your opinions are not relevant to writing the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the lead suggesting either all anti-zionism is anti-semitic or none. There is a middle position that some or much of anti-zionism is antisemitic. This issue is very important and deserves careful treatment. I agree that Malcolm's edit is problematic but unless serious consideration is given to the relationship between anti-semitism and anti-zionism we shall continue to argue over it. I suggest removing the section you object to but raising the anti-semitism section to the top of the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Telaviv1, if you see something wrong with my edit, you are welcome to fix it. Otherwise, you will be living with CJCurrie's version of the article that hides all discussion of context at the bottom of a long article, that few people will ever read to the bottom. What CJCurrie is arguing for is an article that hides all the context needed to give meaning to the article. (It is as though the article about the American Revolution did not mention the issues that caused the Revolution until the last section of the article, which would be absurd.) I have no interest in preserving my edit, but I do think it important to the quality of the article not to allow CJCurrie to hide the issues, while using complaints about the details of my edits as an excuse. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My choice, if it is one or the other, is CJ’s, rather than M’s for many of the same reasons. I also must agree with TA1’s middle-ground preference; it is not all or nothing, either way. Both sides love their sweeping generalizations; NPOV should include both, explained.

For me, Freidman’s quote hits the nail on the head, simply and succinctly, with many of the other refs expounding on either side of his phrasing. That, along with the EUMC blurb should be moved to the top. They properly acknowledge the situation neutrally and set the tone.

To discuss the issue fairly, it should be noted that anti-Semitism in Europe was the driving force (with nationalism) behind the Zionist movement initially, as well as specifically, the impetus behind the timing and support of Israel’s founding. Anti-Semitism is a known, feared and sensitive subject, with a history to prove it. On the other side however, ample RSs (e.g. M&W) note the subject’s use as a rhetorical club wielded against opponents; this currently is not included in this section and should be, for balance.

I have some objections to specific examples, which are worded currently to imply support for one side, for example:

Some scholars believe that while Anti-Zionism may not be inherently antisemitic, it very often either becomes antisemitism or is used to hide antisemitism. Robert S. Wistrich argues that although several types of anti-Zionism are not intrinsically antisemitic,[51] much of contemporary radical anti-Zionism has become a form of antisemitism.[4]

This is better.

Some scholars believe that Anti-Zionism may not be inherently antisemitic,[51] but can either become antisemitism or be used to hide antisemitism. Robert S. Wistrich argues that some contemporary radical anti-Zionism, which compares Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, has become a form of antisemitism.[4]

I believe that is more neutral, explains a specific, valid example and better supports the ref. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• To Malcolm: I haven't removed the link to "new antisemitism". It's still there, just in a different (and less sensationalistic) spot. Since the entire argument of your previous post (from 14:24 yesterday) appears to be based on this factual error, I don't believe that I'm out of line in restoring my preferred version.
• To TelAviv and CasualObserver: I would support rewording the introductory remarks about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism to include a more nuanced middle position.
• Regarding the position of the disputed section: I've moved the "antisemitism" section near the bottom of the article because it's more appropriate there in terms of the article's general chronological flow. I'm willing to compromise on this point if everyone else believes it should be moved.
• To CasualObserver: I would not object to the choice of wording you've recommended, and I would welcome similar adjustments. CJCurrie (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I have explained a number of times why it is necessary to discuss the issues involved with Anti-Zionism at the beginning of the article, rather than at the end. Please make edits based on that order. To explaine once again: without presenting the discussion of the issues at the beginning, readers will have no way to understand the information in any of the other sections of the article. Discussion of the controversy over anti-Zionism needs to be first so readers will have a bases to understand information in all the other sections of the article. Please do not, again, remove that necessary discussion that I placed at the beginning. However, while leaving it where it is; I do invite other editors to make edits that will improve that first section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reason to put this "controversy" first - no other articles are written in this fashion. PR^talk 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As an example, the American Civil War article. It starts out by discussing the causes, because what occurred makes no sense without readers first understanding the causes of what occurred. Likewise in the Anti-Zionism article, there is no point in mentioning internal Jewish objections to Zionism, or Palestinian rioting against Jewish settlers, without explaining to readers the issues that caused the events. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. The article on the American Civil War concerns a very real controversy, which still reverberates 140 years later. But there is no mention of "controversy" or "dispute" or anything similar in the lead. Nor does the lead seek to smear the proponents of one side of the debate as this one does - despite the fact that one side was "beaten" and has never seriously threatened to come back. (This in addition to the most astounding UNDUE in this article, completely swamping the real meat of what "anti-Zionism" is about).

Observers of this discussion will not only be astounded at the feebleness of this example of an equivalent article - they'll note this comes on top of the complete failure to provide examples of antisemitic anti-Zionists in an earlier TalkPage section. May I add to my table of examples, or is there something wrong with the views of those keen Zionists, Churchill and Mark Twain? PR^talk 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in writing articles (and logical) to explain the issues involved in a conflict before describing the particulars of the conflict. I do not think that is difficult to understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support a larger explanation of the details of anti-Zionism if we're able, before going into the various types, even though I think the other approach is fine as well. However, I don't accept your view that if someone adds any part of such a section, others are then obligated to leave it and write the appropriate surrounding section in full. If you are intent to have a particular format of the article, explaining as you said the "issues involved in [the] conflict," then I suggest coming up with something that does this more effectively, to show that it can work. Mackan79 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think CJCurrie's points above are all well explained. Adding two, I see that with the last edit, the second paragraph of the "history" starts: "In recent years there has been a controversy concerning the use of the term Anti-Zionism as a cover for a new manifestation of antisemitism, which has been named the New Antisemitism." I see it then continues with discussion of this controversy, approximately twice the size of the previous paragraph on history. First, this is not a good chronology, to jump in the second paragraph to the issue of New antisemitism as if that is the currently the entire relevance of "anti-Zionism." Second, the sentence is indeed polemical and poorly written, in suggesting that the primary controversy is about the "use" of the term "as a cover," as opposed to over what extent a.) anti-Zionist views are an expression of antisemitism, and whether b.) claims to this effect go too far and stifle fair discussion of the conflict. This is not unlike an article saying that there is "controversy regarding the use of overt racism by the Republican party," as if the use is fully conceded, and the controversy is only about whether they should maintain this course. A look at the other version suggests that is has been much more carefully done. Mackan79 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, why is it that you have no hesitation to delete several paragraphs that are well sourced; but, instead of adding material where you say balance is lacking, you just complain? Where did I ever write that my edits can not be altered with good faith edits to create NPOV? The advantage of having a number of editors with different views on the subject of the article is that gives a possibility of a balance that editors who are in total agreement could not create -- assuming there is good faith. So if you want to edit for balance, please do. But, if you plane on another tag team effort to force your POV, it will not go well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please consider reading my comments more carefully. 1.) You did not respond to any of the points that I raised. 2.) I did not say the material lacked "balance" or anything like it. 3.) Your comments about "tag teaming" are bizarre when I did not even edit the article, but raised two points on the talk page. If you'll try to respond more specifically, I promise to do the same. (Also, please see that I left a second comment, as it's unclear whether you read it.[8])Mackan79 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These reverts were, as far as I know, the only edits you ever made to this article [9][10]. (I can list the other editors in your team revert effort also, if you do not recall.) There, too, you could have edited the disputed material, instead of just reverting.

As for replying to your comments, I did reply, and I will say it again for you: If you see problems with the edits that we are currently discussing, make improvements, ie so fix it. Stop complaining and do something positive for the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this article for over two years, Malcolm, whereas your first edit to the page appears to have been arriving to revert me on October 26. Should I not raise that you were then blocked for violating 3RR? It's just a little odd to me that you keep raising the issue of reverting.

In any case, I did not intend to complain, but was explaining why I find CJCurrie's version to be much more responsibly done than yours. I agree with his reasons, but also offered two more. I also listed some problems with your version if you want to work around them. Ordering me to improve your version, when I have explained why the other is better, doesn't seem to me a useful way to go about it. To be clear, I think CJCurrie's version is much better, for the reasons given above; however I'm holding off editing for now so you can respond. Of course you can also "fix" his version where you think it is wrong. Mackan79 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mackan79, you wrote: "Ordering me to improve your version, when I have explained..."

I do not recall "ordering" you to do anything. Just what are you referring to? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't your intention; I read some of your last two posts here as orders to improve your version, but I'm glad otherwise. Regardless, my point is that to me, CJCurrie's version is fine. I'm posting here to try to clarify any problems with it so we can work around them. Without that it's unclear to me what to improve, at least on this issue. Mackan79 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that, if you were not happy with my edit, show me what you would prefer by re-writing it. Sorry if you think that is an order. My understanding is that is how WP is suppose to work. Shows how little I understand. At this point, I would be happy to leave that section as it is for a while and go on to other problems in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To CJCurrie, I'm not seeing how the section as written can go at the outset of the article. Certainly there are multiple ways this could be done -- one I've mentioned is to expand the overview so that it covers this and more before going into the various types of anti-Zionism -- but the current format is clearly to describe anti-Zionism by going through the various types. There's also logic to that approach, since the types are so different. If that's the approach, however, then this kind of debates section really should go after. How can a section on anti-Zionism and antisemitism be considered meaningful to the reader who has not yet even learned about the different types? The section then has the major failings of a "controversy" section, by assembling all of this together in one section, when everything else is in one narrative. If sections are going to be moved around, I would think a basic structure should still be followed. Mackan79 (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. As I said in my edit, I only moved the section in a bid for a compromise (more specifically, in the hope that Malcolm might cease reverting to a version that no-one else has endorsed). I made this decision against my better judgement and, on reflection, I agree that following through with it would be a mistake. Moving the section closer to the top of the article serves no purpose other than to sensationalize the issue, and disrupts the current structure of the piece. CJCurrie (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Folkspartei

I have not seen anything to support that Folkspartei was anti-Zionist, as is claimed in the article[11]. The organization does seem to have been non-Zionist, but anti-Zionist and non-Zionist are obviously not the same thing. The article about Simon Dubnow (the organization's leader) says only that "Dubnow was ambivalent toward Zionism, and completely rejected assimilation."[12] Unless it is shown that Folkspartei really was anti-Zionist, I will remove that from the article in a few days. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these guys offered an alternative approach rather then an opposition. Perhaps they should be moved to the Zionism article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Liberal opposition

"Liberal opposition" [13] seems too general a term, and in fact it is not made clear if it was liberal anti-Zionism, or just liberal disinterest in Zionism. There were, certainly, some liberal intellectuals who disliked the Zionist Movement, but nothing that I know of what was active opposition and denunciations, such as come from the Satmar Chassidim (The Satmars, interestingly, all voted for John McCain because they fear Obama will support a land for peace deal, and they consider it forbidden to return "Jewish" land to non-Jews....clearly showing they have a conflicted approach to anti-Zionism.) In a few days I will remove the material under "Liberal opposition", unless something is done to justify its existence in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Imbalance in handling quotations in antisemitism section

The way that the section is currently presented needs addressing. Quotes by those who support the thesis that AZ is AS appear in the main text, those of critics are relegated to footnotes. Given that many readers might not follow the footnotes, there needs to be greater equity in handling the quotes in order to maintin NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the quote from Briain Klug which hopefully provides a better balance. I will see what else I can find.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouuld still appreciate the Said quote or one form the European anti-Zionist Jewish peace group elevated. BTW the stuff on the Webster's dictionary business shoulod probably be a subsection of this section, if it merits an inclusion at all.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Webster's Third New International Dictionary controversy section two or three times, but it got restored in reverts focused on other issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh! That sort of indiscriminate rollback is poor practice and so annoying. I'll go and remove it now as two people on opposite sides of the fence seem to agree it isn't important enough to merit inclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The dismemberment of Freidman's quote, one of the most neutral and succinct previously included, to substantiate only one side of the debate is disgusting. Good work, real nice. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedman neutral? You must be kidding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Freidman, by his notability, is a reliable source. The quote acknowledges both sides of the debate (i.e. neutral). What he says belongs in Wikipedia, not just the half with which you agree. WP:NPOV suggests that these quotes be included in their entirety, not be gutted to indicate some non-existent support for one side, as has been done. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is a WP:reliable source, otherwise I would have deleted the quote from him. However, I will not agree with your statement (above) that he is a neutral source.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't think that matters; I believe following wiki-policy on the use of WP:RSs does matter. Please review this policy. I have also edited my comment immediately above to better state my 'neutral' point. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedman is a fine source. CasualObserver, please do not jump to conclusions about the intention behind my edits as that is offensive. Your comments could be made in a less antagonistic way. I suggest you read the article. If you do, you will find that the original quote was misleading whereas the shorter version better reflects the content of the article and the intention of the author.

Incidentally after re-reading the article I wonder if we don't need to make a distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism.

Telaviv1 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, there seems to be some sort of peculiar communication problem here.

I wrote, above, that Freidman is a WP: reliable source. To me that means that the source is good for the article. However, reliable sources are not the same as neutral sources. Sources are never neutral, but by balancing sources we get (hopefully) a neutral article. My whole point to CasualObserver is that no source, including Freidman, is neutral. However, if you, and CasualObserver, want to call Freidman neutral, I will not spend more time explaining the difference between reliable and and neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

TA1, you are probably right that the comment could have been made in a less antagonistic way, but the considerable section edits in the last few days moved the section thrust too far away from NPOV. Edits, previously included only in the notes, needlessly included considerable bile, while completely dropping Freidman’s “vile.”

The symmetric construction of Freidman’s article[14], discussing both sides of the topic, with the subject quote (a two-sentence paragraph counter-pointed in the middle), strongly indicates his acknowledgment of both sides of the debate. So, I totally disagree with your assertion that using only half better reflects his intent. You should read the whole article. I feel strongly about this, and will WP:3O it shortly, if we can not agree on this.

I further believe that it (and the EUMC quote) should be moved to near the top of the section specifically because he includes both sides. To me, that is neutral, others may differ. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some significant changes to this section. I now believe it to be balanced, though I recognize that others may disagree. Discussion is welcome; blanket reverting is discouraged. CJCurrie (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresented the content of the Wistrich article and I corrected it. I think removal of the Friedman quote was ok as it is not really about anti-Zionism per-se and it serves a better purpose at the top of the article. In my experience those who complain most loudly about POV pushing are those with a well established POV. Its better to discuss the issues even if we disagree on fundamentals. European Jews fur a Just Peace or whatever they are called is not a significant organization, they just have a fancy name. If anything Engage http://www.engageonline.org.uk/about/ is more serious. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Telaviv1 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

EJJP is a significant enough organisation to merit an article in Wikipedia. Despite Telaviv1's disparaging comment in an edit summary, it has far more than five members. In fact, on its website, it lists eleven affiliated groups in ten European countries. Many of these group themselves have entries in Wikipedia, either in English or the language of their home countries. They have a combined membership of several hundred if not more, and attract widespread support for their various initiatives. I am not claiming it is "representative of Jewish public opinion" [15], but rather that it represents a significant tendency within Jewish opinion. No justification has been offered for removing the comments of EJJP, which are unarguably notable. This removal feels like censorship. I am restoring the comments; if you think they have no place in this article, please present a cogent case here, don't just revert. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my disparaging remarks. EJJP may represent a trend, though it is impossible to tell from the website how many members they have. A lot of organizations, but how many jews?. There is an old joke about two jews having three synagogues and I recall that the last two Jews in Kabul didn't talk (one has since died).

Anyway I suggest giving them a mention further down, in the anti-Zionist Jews section (are they anti-Zionist? they don't say so). I feel that the letter they wrote is not important enough in itself to be placed in the article unless they have some kind of official status.

EJJP and its constituent groups are not anti-Zionist, and would not accept such a description. Individual members may themselves be anti-Zionist. Their voew is important precisely because they are not anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally there is a House of Commons report similar to the EU report. Perhaps that should be mentioned too. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are using non-zionism as a criteria then the EU is a far more august non-zionist organization. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EJJP is a Jewish organisaiton and its comments on the issue of Israel and Zionism being essential to the concption fo Jewish peoplehood are relevant for that reason. The EU is not a Jewish organisation (though no doubt some conspiracist or other has claimed it is).--Peter cohen (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of that when I changed the section title but it seems worthy enough to keep. I have since explored the EJJP website and can find no evidence that such a letter was addressed to the EUMJP: what I found was a press release. I therefore suggest moving their statement to a separate line and removing the misleading and possibly untruthful sentence.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on Jonathan, that's a silly comment! It's clear, since this is on their own website, that this is indeed the view of EJJP. Why on earth should they lie about who it was sent to? As it happens, it is on the site not just as a press release, but also in .doc form, as a copy of the letter.[16] A copy of the letter was sent to Engage, who discuss it critically.[17]What more evidence do you require? RolandR (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

European Jews for a Just Peace

I have nominated European Jews for a Just Peace for deletion[18]. Since that supposed organization is used as a source in this article, interested users might want to comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Webster's section

Both Malcolm and I have tried removing this. It was mosy recently restored by an anon account who considered it important. I still think it isn't important enough to the topic of anti-Zionism to justify our coverage here. However, if there is no consensus, could we at least shove it in wiht the other stuff on AZ and antidemitism?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather it was deleted. Its an irrelevant sidetrack. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the west-bank

I suggest creating a sub-section discussing whether opposition to this is anti-Zionism. I believe that some think it is and some don't.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a peculiar position to take. But if you can find WP:RSs as opposed to fringe ones that argue that opposing the occupation of the territories is in itself anti-Zionist, then you'lll be within policy to go ahead.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionists of course oppose the occupation of the West Bank; but so do many people who would describe themselves as Zionists. To look no further than mainstream Israeli politics, Meretz is a Zionist party which opposes the occupation. Uri Avnery, who certainly opposes the occupation, has won a libel action against a critic who "accused" him of anti-Zionism. RolandR (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK if everyone agrees then perhaps a line to that effect would be a good idea. Telaviv1 (talk)

Addition to lead

Given the seriousness of the topic I am dismayed by the lack of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence was just added to close out the lead, after I had removed a less detailed sentence yesterday:

The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism—whether it is an example of,[2] cover for,[3] or overlaps with[4][5] antisemitism—is debated.[6][7][8]

The primary issue here gets back to the purpose of this article: is this an article to cover opposition to Zionism as variously understood, or is it an article solely on the concept of "anti-Zionism"? If these were distinguished, then possibly an article on "Anti-Zionism" should focus heavily on the controversy of the term. However, if it is simply a "criticism" article to match the article on Zionism, then this is less clear, as seen in the Zionism article itself which does not discuss criticism in its lead paragraphs. This gets to perhaps the underlying point, that it's difficult to see how Zionism should avoid any discussion of controversy, but then the article on Anti-Zionism, would immediately make central issue of a relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the lead. This should presumably find some balance.

Aside from that, this sentence suggests only three options that all concede a relationship; it doesn't note any who contest the relationship, or who challenge claims to that effect (see the lead of New antisemitism, for example). However, I think the first issue should probably be resolved first. Mackan79 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the sentence replaced this unsourced statement, which had been in the article for many months:

Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial.

The new sentence is more accurate and properly sourced. Now, regarding your first objection, the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is one of its most salient controversies; please review WP:LEAD. Regarding your second objection, please note that you will have a hard time finding reliable sources that say that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Rather, they all say things like Zipperstein: "Such prejudice against Israel is not antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist" or European Jews for a Just Peace: "This is not to deny that there are circumstances in which criticisms of the state of Israel might indeed be antisemitic. But the presumption should not be that they are. This requires demonstration on a case by case basis." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How odd. CJCurrie just deleted all the sources that say there is a link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while leaving all the sources that dispute it. Even more oddly, he claimed in his edit summary that I hadn't included any "anti" links, which is quite obviously false.[19] Even more oddly, he hasn't commented here on the Talk: page. Ah well, I'm sure he'll remedy all of that soon enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to restore the links to the end of the sentence, once the rather leading aside that you've added is removed. Your current wording makes it appear that the dispute only concerns how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are inherently linked, and leaves out the rather important point that some have questioned an inherent linkage.

Btw, you're currently in violation of the 3RR. CJCurrie (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sources indicate that there is no linkage? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed he said "inherent linkage," Jayjg; this is the same point you quote Zipperstein making above. However, if you think the article should state in the lead that people only debate how anti-Zionism relates with antisemitism, this would seem a rather extraordinary position to support, considering the debates over all aspects of this issue are so well known. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're being required to prove a negative - particularly when the linkage being made is very disputed indeed. eg Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". The main perpetrators of such "mute" anti-Semitism are alleged to be "radical anti-Zionists" ... is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded "objective" abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly.

Needless to say, "Beyond Chutzpah" alone is loaded with such examples - if I knew exactly what we're being asked for, I'm sure I can find it. It seems extraordinary that, when at least six out of the first seven references appear to imply antisemitism of anti-Zionists, that such a prominent anti-Zionist as Finkelstein, with a well regarded book (cited a respectable 17 times) specifically on the topic of mis-use of antisemitism gets such a small and misleading mention and his book isn't mentioned atall. What's going on here? And there is no mention of accusations of Holocaust Denial - I'm sure many sources would consider these accusations, almost invariably false, the very most prominent feature of any and every debate about anti-Zionism. Why don't we link to any article we have on it, or don't we have such an article? PR^talk 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to the last part, PR, I think it's better if you have material you'd like to add that you simply put together the material that you'd like to see. At least in my experience, that's much more time-efficient, and helps discussions stay on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the estimate made that there are 150,000 Orthodox anti-Zionists, and around a million "non-Zionist" Orthodox. (What %age this is of the Zionist Orthodox, I don't know). Unfortunately, I'm told that the source is "extremist" - and, even though I've been denied any evidence for this whatsoever, I cannot use it. (And there is a lot more I would like to add, all of it from sources unimpeachably knowledgeable and likely very reliable). PR^talk 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that discussion on this page? I'm just thinking it's perhaps better placed in another section than here, in order to keep each section on track. Mackan79 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This section concerns the insertion into the lead of a statement that hi-jacks the entire article with a narrative that attacks all anti-Zionists as antisemitic (as largely runs through the article).

The truth of this assertion is not simply debatable - it's almost certainly false. As can more-or-less be "proved" just by the highly credible information I'd like to insert from people who would appear to be gentle and knowledgeable. Except that .... the source has been smeared as being so extreme that it's a blocking offense to use them as a reference. No evidence provided or available on request. PR^talk 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing about why you're not allowed to use extremist, anonymous, personal websites as reliable sources. If you're unwilling to abide by WP:V then you need to find a project that doesn't have it as a policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps you'll explain another mystery - the book of "extremists who cannot be referenced in articles" appears not to include the Neturei Karta. And yet, six of those people stood with Ahmadinejad at his "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" - and I'm told that they celebrate the death of Israeli soldiers (cries of "extreme" anyone?) Why is that the apparently gentle people running the world-famous Jews Against Zionism web-site (claiming to be the "True Torah Jews") are more of a problem than the NK? PR^talk 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that people will avoid simple reverts over this. In reply to Jayjg, the problem of course isn't whether these views exist, but whether it is a neutral way to frame the issue. For example, I think it's fairly clear that covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is "overlap" is to rather widely miss their position. I think a shorter version is one option; otherwise we would need a larger discussion of the issue, but I'm not convinced that would improve the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think a WP article needs to frame an issue? "Framing" is, by its very nature, never neutral [20]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please note that I had removed the text, not replaced it; or can you say that the text you have replaced removes the framing?[21] You'll see several specific points on this above, relating to the manner in which your text states that people only discuss the manner in which anti-Zionism and antisemitism relate, as if the primary disputes over this issue don't exist or are not relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, my concern is that you have stated an intention to frame the discussion. I do not consider that statement of your intention to be a positive indicator. Please reconsider your editing goals. The intention of my own edit was to restore content which you removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A "positive indicator"? Malcolm, if you read WP:AGF, I think you'll see one important part is trying to make sense out of what people say rather than doing the opposite. I'm not sure how you looked at my comment and my edit and decided I was arguing for framing of any type, let alone the type you have in mind, but all the same, you've currently made two simple reverts to the page without any response to the issues raised here that I can see. If you think this material is appropriate, please do consider addressing those points. Mackan79 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, we are still at that strange impasse, where I accurately summarize the sources in the lede, and you complain that its not NPOV to do so, but fail to explain what would make it NPOV. Are there sources that insist there is never a relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Or, as seems to be the case, are there various sources that debate the relationship between the two, with some saying it is strong, others saying it is weak, but none saying it doesn't exist? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I find it frustrating that you come back to the page reverting, after violating 3RR last time, and without any intervening attempt to discuss the issue, especially as you continue to ask the same question that has already been addressed while claiming that it hasn't. As I said immediately above, one problem with your text is that "covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is 'overlap' is to rather widely miss their position." You quote Steven Zipperstein, for instance, but rather than relying on his main argument, you rely on his caveat beginning "[t]his is not to deny...." Writing an encyclopedia article isn't about going "Ah ha! So you admit..."; it's about accurately and fairly representing the coverage of an issue. The material you have included very clearly fails in this regard, which again is why I removed it as violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I hope you can respond more specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I'm failing to see your point. Every source I see says there is some sort of relationship, but the nature of the relationship is hotly debated. Zipperstein notes this relationship, even as he disputes the claims of others that is inherently a form of antisemitism. That's not a "Ah ha! So you admit..." point. I'm willing to work with you to flesh out the con view, but there's no reason to remove the pro view, which, after all, is a significant one, and one that should be mentioned, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wish I had a quarter for every time you didn't see my point, Jay. As far as expanding the discussion, I'm pretty sure that would only work if the entire lead were expanded to the three or four paragraph standard. I've tried in the past, but haven't found myself able, largely because the whole concept seems to be so poorly defined. In any case I know you see my point, since we've discussed this before. If we're looking for an analogy, please consider G-Dett's below, which I think illustrates the problem... about equally to the text proposed here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what information regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel is missing from the lead sentence I inserted? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, the sentence you're edit-warring into the article is a grammatical mess, and its summary of the sources is tendentious and inaccurate. I'll hold off copy-editing your work til you've come around to accepting a neutral approach to the matter at hand. Suffice to say that what you're adding is analogous (both in terms of stylistic solecisms and substantive distortions) to saying that The relationship between opposition to affirmative action and racism – whether it is an example of, cover for, or overlaps with racism — is debated. When we have something that isn't utter crap on the table, I'll be happy to proofread it.--G-Dett (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:STALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sentence is unacceptable because (a) it misrepresents the debate about an alleged relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and (b) it is ungrammatical.--G-Dett (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is useless. Suggest changing it to something along the following lines: "The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear. This has led to a trading of accusations between Zionists and anti-Zionists with some Zionists arguing that anti-Zionists are influenced by anti-semitism, and some anti-Zionists claiming that Zionists use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to stifle debate." Telaviv1 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A little wordy as such, but substantively an excellent summary, Telaviv1.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how you would make it less wordy? To me one issue is saying that it is "unclear," as the first comment on this point. This may be reasonable, but seems potentially to leave behind the reader who may not initially have considered a relationship (this is a general reference work, after all). Otherwise, the question is whether this does not get rather heavily into one aspect of the article, in what is otherwise a very short lead. I'd find this reasonable for a third or fourth paragraph, for instance, but that assumes a second or third that we don't currently have. This is also why I raised the point that this article has generally been treated as a general article on "opposition to Zionism," and not simply the issue of "anti-Zionism" as that term is used. Mackan79 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, might I prevail upon you to stop adding an ungrammatical, tendentious, and misleading sentence to the lead?

G-Dett, I do not need your advice on how to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, how about something neutral and succinct like Allegations of a necessary link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have generated ongoing controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Mackan, you raise an excellent point re "anti-Zionism" vs. "opposition to Zionism." The phrase "anti-Zionist" has become something of a catch-all, applied to a whole range of totally distinct positions, ranging from fundamental opposition to the idea of a Jewish state to activist opposition to state apologetics for the occupation. To take an obvious example: Noam Chomsky is not opposed to Zionism, but his political writings are generally described as "anti-Zionist." He is hardly alone in this regard. Another, perhaps even more striking example would be the work of Benny Morris. He is certainly not opposed to Zionism – far from it. And yet his work is often described as "anti-Zionist," not because of readerly incompetence but because his work dismantles certain state myths about the founding of Israel – and the term's range of meanings has come to include that. --G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that seems pretty similar to what CJCurrie reduced, and is fine with me. Actually, I would probably use "link" instead of "necessary connection"; I could see someone saying this would wrongly imply that a link is disputed, but in truth I don't think it would imply that or anything beyond what it should. I don't know if there could be other minor improvements. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you have now reverted three times without addressing any of the issues raised on this page. This is along with Jayjg who has now on subsequent occasions jumped immediately to exhausting all of his "three reverts" while also failing to engage the other editors on this talk page. I don't know your history with G-Dett, but that's known as WP:Revert waring, and is very unhelpful toward improving the page. Please consider a more collaborative approach on this page so that we can come up with something that addresses everyone's concerns. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, please restrict your comments to discussions of article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that the problem with your version is that you removed content. Also, I made changes with every edit trying to improve the disputed sentence. All you have done is revert multiple times to the same useless version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the content gives a choice of three positions all of which posit a link. To properly nuance the situation requires more than one sentence. Therefore the Lede should just draw people's attention to the issue and elave the reader to find the more detailed explanation in the body.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think something extra is needed, add it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, as several people have now explained, the material has been removed because it violates WP:NPOV and falsely suggests that the only discussion is about how anti-Zionism relates to antisemitism. I assume you understand that content needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies or it should be removed. As has also been discussed, the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead. You've now added it again with cosmetic changes that don't address these problems, and violating the three revert rule in the process, which as I recall would provide that your account be blocked. Please revert yourself, as it is impossible to collaborate with someone who edits in this way (I haven't followed the Israel-Palestine arbitration case enough to know whether it applies or you've been notified about it). Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what additional POVs regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel must be added to make the paragraph NPOV? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, hasn't Mackan made clear, in the very post you're "responding" to, that the problem here has not to do with what needs to be added ("the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead") but rather what needs to be altered in the misleading sentence to make it NPOV?--G-Dett (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I have addressed this now several times. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you're "re-edited" the misleading and ungrammatical sentence four times now. Here are your versions:

1. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if is an example of, cover for, overlaps with – has been much debated.
2. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if it is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism , or overlaps with antisemitism – has been much debated.
3. It remains a much debated issue if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.
4. It is a much debated, and still unresolved issue, if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.

My favorite here is #2, for the way it manages to repeat the word "antisemitism" four times. The tone gets looser and more colloquial as you go on (e.g. "or just overlaps antisemitism") and the writing asymptotically approaches grammatical correctness – but honestly, I do not see any substantive difference whatsoever between any of these iterations, and your tinkerings appear to be entirely unrelated to the objections that have been patiently elaborated on this talk page. May I ask what it is you're doing?--G-Dett (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, has anyone else noticed that Malcolm is in violation of the 3RR? I've informed him that he should self-revert, or risk being reported. CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to improve a disputed sentence. All you have done is revert every change back to the same meaningless sentence: "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated." Really? What is the nature of the debate? The version you keep reverting back to is meaningless without an explanation, and you keep removing the explanation. Then, to top it off, you accuse me of edit warring. Hutzpa. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the single word, 'debated' is sufficient weight in the lede. Just passing thru. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it frames the issue broadly and neutrally as any lead should. On a passing visit the versions above read as suggesting that the only debate is about to what extent every anti-Zionist position, or anti-Zionism as a whole, is rooted in or based on antisemitism. While of course you would indeed have your work cut out to find any reliable source that says anti-Zionism is never linked to antisemitism in individual cases, that's a very different point. --Nickhh (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite. If asked "Are there antisemitic anti-Zionists?" my answer would be "Yes, quite obviously." Similarly on "Do some anti-Zionists become anti-Semitic?", this is most obvious with Arab and Islamic anti-Zionism with all the Holocaust-denial etc., and "Do anti-Semites adopt anti-Zionism as a cover?" then, yes, a lot of Western right-wingers fall into that camp and the new AS theorists also see that wuth left-wingers. But the version being pushed talks about the -isms not the -ites and the -ists, and implying a choice where "overlap" of the -isms is the weakest possibility implies a necessary connection between the -isms.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm has now been blocked for 3rr violation. Do people want to use the 48-hour breather to try to find a more elegant version of Telaviv1's proposal? Or could Jay, who seems to agree with Malcolm on this, explain why this would not be satisfactory?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd stand by the current version, or some variation which simply acknowledges that there is a debate or dispute as to the nature of any linkage between the two, without going into any details. I know it's hyper-woolly, but I can't see how else you're going to get a neutral wording into the lead that isn't going to be incessantly fought over from every side. More specifically, I can see a couple of problems with TA's version - i) it says that the "difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear", when in principle and as a matter of simple definition of course it is very clear; and ii) as acknowledged it comes over as somewhat convoluted, with too much of a claim & counter-claim structure to it. The "he said, she said" stuff is better left to the body of the article in my view, with proper sourcing and attribution.--Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

so Nick, what is the difference between antisemitism and antizionism? Telaviv1 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That question is rhetorical, isn't it? But, for a start, anti-nationalists oppose Zionism. Zionism is just one manifestation of romantic 19th-century nationalism that, ignoring the Middle-East for now, has also led to the whole problem of Balkanisation that still goes on today, led to Alsace-Lorraine changing hands between different nationalisms several times, provided a non-religious rationale for German antisemitism that eventually led to the Holocaust (in which not just c6M Jews died but also other "inferior" races such as Slavs and Roma." And umpteen modern dictators use nationalism as a screen for their crimes.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question is so self-evident, that it can only have been posed rhetorically. "Antisemitism" is the word commonly used for racism directed at Jews. There are arguments that it is a misleading term, and I have reservations about its use; but the meaning is clear. "Anti-Zionism" is opposition to the practice and ideology of the Zionist movement, as embodied in the state of Israel. There are of course nuances and variations within these, but the basic difference is surely undeniable. There are countless anti-Zionists who are not antisemitic. I count myself among these, and know many hundreds more; we have articles in Wikipedia about many of them, including Uri Davis, Mike Marqusee, Michel Warschawski, Edward Said and lots more. There are indeed antisemites who are not anti-Zionists; I would count, for instance, Arthur Balfour and John Hagee among these.

And, unfortunately, there are also those who are both anti-Zionist and antisemitic -- people who have falsely generalised from their opposition to Israel's practices and Zionist ideology, to asctibe this to something in immanent in the genetics of Jews, or in what they see as an essential Jewish character. Prominent among these currently are Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir.

Surely this indicates that there is no more linkage between antisemitism and anti-Zionism than there is between either of these and left-handedness or vegetarianism? A correlation is not a cause or explanation. RolandR (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry TA I decided not to answer that myself even though the question was addressed to me. As for the lead now, I'm kind of OK with it, but I can see someone legitimately asking for balance now so that it follows on with ".. however some anti-Zionists believe that unfounded allegations of anti-semitism are used to suppress anti-Zionist arguments" or whatever. That's what I meant when saying that as soon as you start pushing in some detail, someone else is going to come in and ask for some form of counter-point, and then someone else will want a counter to that point. Etc etc. Hence why just a vague reference to the issue might be better. We'll see I guess. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roland--you are omitting the class that is probably the most significant in terms of making this such a contentious issue--those who are fundamentally anti-semitic who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views, in the same manner that many American racists--guided fundamentally by a hostility towards African Americans (or other persons of color) have used affirmative action, states rights, anti-immigration etc as a justification (even while there may be non-racists who hold to those views). It is this latching on to anti-Zionism by bonafide (and largely non-Jewish) antisemites that has taken what was once a debate within the Jewish community (Zionism vs a myriad of other Jewish world views) into the current raging mess that exists today. And of course it cuts both ways--the rabid anti-semites of Poland's late 1930's government adopted a pro-Zionist position based solely on their despising of Poland's Jews (as did any number of Jew haters and fascists throughout Europe, and a phenomenon not without it's American analogues). And this did not go undebated within Poland's lively Jewish political factional squabbles.

So the issue is not for us to decide if there is a causal, correlative or explanatory relationship between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, but how to present that relationship in a NPOV manner. Best of luck! :) Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are these fundamentally anti-semitic people who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views? I can think of about one (a Israeli) in the whole of the Western World. This is not a rhetorical question, I think we need to be told. PR^talk 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking about major pundits and analysts in the public arena, I agree with you that it's pretty hard to find ones that fit this description. On the other hand, antisemitic fringe figures like David Duke (and David Irving, if I'm not mistaken) certainly have latched on to anti-Zionism, and even pro-Palestinian talking points, though their resumés show no interest whatsoever in human rights or anti-colonialism more generally. And at the grassroots level, I think this is something pro-Palestinian activists encounter often enough – fringe cranks latching on to the cause for the wrong reasons. In Europe perhaps more than in America, but anyway.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A list of names (other than Duke et al, per G-Dett) would be a bit opening a can of worms, BLP and otherwise. Suffice it to say the phenomenon appears to exist, how prevalent is of course subject to debate. And the phenomenon of anti-semitic scapegoating of Jews for political purposes under the guise of "anti-Zionism" has a long pedigree, and is well documented in the case of the anti-semitic purges in Poland, in 1968, not to mention hints of it in the 1956 version. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the grassroots level as well as that of fringe commentators, but forgot to mention statesmen. I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to say that Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad, and others have latched on to anti-Zionism for reasons that have little to do with their strong support for human rights and self-determination. With groups like Hezbollah, with their weird mix of democratic populism and retrograde authoritarianism, I suppose things get more complicated. A can of worms, as Boodles says.--G-Dett (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Break

I don't so much disagree with the new sentence, as I wonder if it actually improves what is otherwise an extremely generalized lead paragraph. In order to be clearer now, we're still jumping over the whole point that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism, in order to address much more subtle issues regarding why that's the case (also therefore necessarily offering a very incomplete picture; no matter what position you take, the only reason isn't that anti-Zionists sometimes use antisemitic imagery). To me the important point in the lead is solely that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism; that's a big and important point. However, I'm skeptical that any attempt to capture the entire discussion in a sentence will actually be an improvement. Mackan79 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not a perfect sentence, but judging from the comments here I would say that people are more or less OK with it and we can move on to the next problem. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the sentence cumbersome, agree with Mackan than it's a bit deep in the weeds for the lede as it's currently written, and creates an UNDUE problem. For the life of me I can't figure out what was wrong with something simple and summative like "connections between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have been both alleged and disputed."--G-Dett (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that sentence is completely devoid of content. For those of us who consider that there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (even if it is occasional) it causes annoyance (and therefore sparks controversy). The current sentence provides a warning that anti-zionists need to be careful about the materials and arguments they use without offending the anti-Zionists who are sensitive about being called antisemites.

The problem was to find a sentence that was acceptable to both sides. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, proper consensus-building is not mere horse-trading between those who want the lead to include a succinct and neutral summary of a controversy and those who want the lead to "provide a warning" to one party in that controversy.

I agree with you that anti-Zionists would do well to be careful about their materials etc. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual of political etiquette.

The succinct and neutral summaries put forth by CJCurrie, Mackan, myself, and others have not been "devoid of content." They are less specific than what you've written, because it is in the nature of lede summaries to be less specific.

At any rate, what you've written is more specific only with regard to the Zionist complaints about anti-Zionists. It is still "devoid of content" regarding the anti-Zionist counterclaim, that complaints of antisemitism are often ill-founded and serve to stifle debate.

So you've got an NPOV problem. And yet if you flesh out the anti-Zionist position within the dispute, you'll have an UNDUE problem. This is one reason (not by any means the only) why Wikipedia leads stick to the sort of summary statements you wrongly describe as devoid of content.--G-Dett (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of complaining try and put the addition you want into text. This is not horse-trading, it is reaching a consensus (as you say). I tried to be succinct and to express the problem. I don't think trying to reduce antisemitism should be offensive to anti-zionists (unless they are anti-semites) or POV (except to anitsemites) but even if you do find it offensive it was a by-product of the sentence not its principal aim. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended by any of this; I'm just doing my (small) bit to help build an encyclopedia. What's required for that is a succinct and neutral lead. If you want to write a manual of political etiquette, I'd say go ahead and warn would-be anti-Zionists of the rhetorical and ideological pitfalls of AZ discourse. Nor do I want to "add" anything to what you wrote, for reasons I explained clearly in my post, which I think you should read again.--G-Dett (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current version fails to improve the simple statement, and on the problem of undue weight. This is the entire article on opposition to Zionism, and yet we now have the second of two paragraphs devoted completely to the claimed connection to antisemitism. In my view there are many issues that should be given much more space before doing this. By way of comparison, we don't discuss any of the reasons people would be "anti-Zionist," but simply note the categories in which they fall. Our explanation here now does provide such reasoning, although reasoning that is misleading for ignoring the criticism of the argument, but also for ignoring the probably more significant argument that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic by nature of what it is (a different idea from "systemic" antisemitism). I also agree with G-Dett that the previous sentence provides important content; some seem to be presuming that everyone already knows anti-Zionism can be connected with antisemitism, but I don't think it's an accurate or right presumption to make. In terms of alerting the reader, I can agree partially, but that's also the primary benefit of the shorter sentence, that it alerts the reader without trying to do more than it really can.

I will say the current version doesn't bother me that much, because it seems fair enough. In terms of accuracy and style, though, I think the previous version was better. Mackan79 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Malcolm has asked me to further explain my objection to his changes, I believe they are inaccurate in suggesting a consensus that anti-Zionism is "frequently a disguised form of antisemitism; but it is, nevertheless, not always antisemitism." First, the cited sources do not show a consensus on this point. Second, in fact both of these points are disputed, first whether anti-Zionism is frequently a disguised form of antisemitism, and second whether anti-Zionism is nevertheless sometimes not antisemitism. Third, saying that one is a "form" of the other, or that it "is" the other, seems to me a rather oversimplified and unclear way of discussing the issue, which removes rather than adds meaning to the last version. These are why I replaced the previous version, even though I do not totally agree with it for the reasons immediately above. Mackan79 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not strictly necessary to support statements in the introduction with sources, because the body of the article should expand upon, and support, everything in the introduction. I have to admit that may not yet the case for that particular change, so I will leave you preferred version of that sentence as is....for now. But the version you reverted to is not well written, and needs be made more intelligible. Please do something to improve it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here. I'm not sure I can improve it, since as I said I'm not fond of either approach. To me the shorter sentence was very much better, for not attempting to get into these issues, but simply noting that they're there (incidentally I believe this was the assessment of most people who have commented). My view of all of these other approaches so far also remains that they're overly familiar with and overly drawn in to this issue, jumping into the controversy and somewhat beating up on the reader. If you'd like to keep trying, though, I guess the question is more whether you can prove me wrong by coming up with a summary that works. Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To briefly explain my comment: one approach to an article is to jump on the most difficult or controversial issues, and another is to take things one step at a time. Saying that anti-Zionism includes "violent rejection of Israel's right to exist in any form," as we do, clearly denotes that it includes extremist positions. Having done that, the additional attempts to explain the anti-Zionism/antisemitism issue in the lead strike me as failing to help the article, so I removed them. Mackan79 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, the proper way to deal with sourced material which you consider unbalanced is to add more material that balances it. The improper way to deal with perceived imbalance in content is to delete sourced material. Please do not, again, resort to sledge hammer deletions, followed with the enforcement of your handiwork by tag team reverts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Malcolm. I didn't remove the statement because it was imbalanced; I simply returned it to its prior state where it acknowledged the debate on this issue.[22] I then removed it for the reason immediately above, that our attempts to summarize this issue in my opinion detract from the article. You've now replaced what I considered the "balanced" version that acknowledges the debate, though I still don't believe it helps the article. I'm not sure this involved anything hammer-like, but I'm pretty sure nobody backed me up, let alone that I "tagged" them... in fact the person I reverted, if anyone, was someone I've generally agreed with. I admit I didn't think my last edit would stick, though, but since I think it's the correct one I figured I may as well try. Mackan79 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, if you do not think that the sourced material was imbalanced, just what other rational reason was there for your reverts? My objection to your reverts is based on logical guidelines [23]: "If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting." That is a better approach. Otherwise, I might get the wrong impression that your actions were really an attempt at WP:OWN....God forbid! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see about four posts above, at 10:17, where I explained why I removed the material. The problem is that a.) it attempts to summarize too large an issue in a couple of sentences, and b.) massively expanding the lead to discuss this issue would not improve what we have. The many obvious problems with the versions that have been offered are in my view a symptom of these problems, not just small mistakes that can be fixed. You can disagree if you like; unless there's another proposal or others weigh in, the point seems to be moot. Mackan79 (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that improvement to the article is much more likely to come from balancing material for NPOV, than by deletions of sourced material. That is not exactly a revolutionary editing concept on WP, nor is it difficult to understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When I asked for actual examples of the antisemitic preaching anti-Zionism (above) the only western example I heard of is (one branch?) of the US white nationalists (and it's not clear they're opposed to Israel, only to their tax-money funding it). The archypal antisemitic, the Holocaust Deniers (at least, judging by their WP articles) don't appear to concern themselves with Israel. Under these circumstances, and given the AGF-damaging nature of alleging the connection, the obvious solution is to take it out completely. PR^talk 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, are you denying that the problem exists? If so you are in disagreement with U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Here is their report [24]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about PR; but, from what I have just read of it, I certainly do disagree with this tendentious report. It is base on a false equation of antisemitism with what they call "anti-Israelism". Of course, if you start from the premise that any criticism of Israeli policy not approved by the Zionist Organization of America -- whose director was one of the panellists that produced the report -- is ipso facto antisemitic, then you will certainly find the evidence you are looking for. I'm not impressed by the report, and will not allow it to intimidate me. RolandR (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, the source is a WP:reliable source, which your personal opinion is not. You could also, if it interests you, also check out this source www.thecst.org.uk/docs Incidents_Report_07.pdf (cant get it to form a hyperlink). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm; I know the CST and their report, and I disagree with that one too. I also know what is considered a reliable source, and I recognise that we are concerned here with verifiability rather than truth. As it happens, I am also aware of several reliable sources which challenge or contradict the CST report, the EU Parliament report, and the British Parliamentary report. So, if it becomes necessary or appropriate, I will introduce additional sources to provide an alternative view.

If you want to include a hyperlink, you need to include the entire url, including http, as in Incidents_Report_07.pdf, or A Commentary on the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, you wrote: "...if it becomes necessary or appropriate, I will introduce additional sources to provide an alternative view." I agree with that approach, which is much to be preferred over deleting sourced material. (Thanks for explaining my problem with the hyperlink. In a more perfect world someone with as little computer understanding as I have would not be allowed to edit WP.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs to make clear two things (1) many Zionists think that any opposition to Zionism is inherently and inescapably anti-Semitic; (2) others (whatever their individual opinions on Zionism may be) deny claim (1) -- they certainly agree that some, or even many, cases of anti-Zionism are justified by anti-Semitism, but at the same time argue that some are not or need not be. Let me give two examples: (1) Zionism is a form of nationalism, and there is a school of thought [to which I subscribe] that views all forms of nationalism as inherently racist and immoral. It is logical for adherents of this view to view both Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism as equally unpleasant, both being forms of nationalism, and thus reject them both. But, even though this view is anti-Zionist, I fail to see how it is anti-Semitic -- its very basis in rejecting racism/nationalism is to oppose anti-Semitism. (2) One can imagine that some anti-Semites might strongly favour Zionism. To those who hate Jews, the idea of sending them all away to live in a far away land must seem attractive. Obviously, this is not a Zionist position, since Zionism is by definition a Jewish movement -- so by definition an anti-Semite cannot be a Zionist. That said, even though an anti-Semite cannot be a Zionist, it seems clearly possible that they might be a pro-Zionist. Thus, based on the above reasoning, I think the current lead, to wit, "The relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism is disputed. Some commentators argue that all or most contemporary anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Others disagree with this interpretation.", while imperfect, is probably the best way of capturing the complexity of this debate in a short sentence. --SJK (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)