Talk:Neo-Zionism

This whole article is an April fool joke, right?

It's like a computer-generated pastiche of 'academic' discourse.

See also

What is the exact point in adding "Antisemitism in the Arab world", "New antisemitism" and "Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (book)" in the 'see also' section of this article where these themes are not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoygan!! (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I think there also need to be a Seculer Neo-Zionism artical. (IP)

Indeed. But we need references... Ceedjee (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoint

This article uses almost exclusively the writings and terms of post-Zionists. Zionist and objective sources should be used as well. The most obvious example of this problem is that "neo-Zionists" do not call themselves by that phrase. FC (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Kumah people call themselves "neo-Zionists". They call Likud neo-Zionist, but I don't see that Likud calls itself that. The Kumah web site seems to be the main proponent of the term. There are academic references, but Most of the article seems to come from this reference: [1]. The Kumah version of neo-Zionism seems to be associated with the settlements movement and the Greater Israel effort. Not sure what to make of this. --John Nagle (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"...it's not clear they're talking about the same thing" (same as what Uri and other Leftists define as "Neo-zionism"). I concur, because:

1. Uri & this article say "neo-zionism" began in 1974 or so. Kumah's leader (Yishai Fleisher) was too young or even unborn[2] for Uri to be talking about Yishai, alone. So: who IS Uri talking about? Does Uri (or his fellow Leftists who paroted him in later years) ever say? Or did Uri just MAKE UP such a movement as a Straw Man tactic? The onus probandi (burden of proof) is upon Uri in HIS "scholarly" writings, others CITED who contend such a movement EXISTED in the FORM AND BELIEFS (racial supremacism, etc as the article LIBELLOUSLY (under Israeli law) contends against Im Tirtzu (as the QUOTE of Im Tirtzu NEVER used nor advocated "neo-zionism," only "zionism". So it is LIBEL to list them under the "representation" section.), and Dana Eyal, who claimed "racists" exist (well DUH, they do in every nation...) but SHE never used the words "neo-zionism" as those she identified with racist beliefs -- so it is MORE WP:OR and libel (trying to associate HER views with a "neo-zionism" movement that SHE HERSELF never mentions as even EXISTING in HER worldview. She and Im Tirtzu both said "zionists" exist, not that "neo-zionists" even EXIST, so what are THOSE quotes still in this article for??? That's WP:OR and WP:coatracking those 2 sources into an article on a topic (NEOz'ism) that THEY NEVER EVEN SPOKE THE NAME OF nor AGREED even EXISTS within those snippets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). THAT IS WP:OR plus LIBEL, a FELONY in Israel if whomever wrote that goes through Israel to visit Palestine, and yes, HaMossad is Earth's #1 agency for tracking law-breakers & making sure Israel's enemies who are visiting their Palestinian friends who HAVE committed jailable offenses don't even get past Israel's airport.), and those who wrote this WP article in its current form (use ctrl+F to see "onus probandi" below, and use ctrl+F to see also "WP:RS" below for the SEVERAL MORE violations of WP policy in this article...).

2. Specifically "racism" or "anti-democratic" values the Leftist Uri claims that neo-zionists hold: Show us where Fleisher's Kumah is racist toward non-white Jews or others -- none of the QUOTES of Yushai in his page Yishai Fleischer indicate racism or wanting to suspend democracy; nobody else -- such as Wikipedians in Yishai Fleisher -- speak of "racism" in his past, so it does appear -- as you said -- he may be using "neo-zionism" as a different definition than Uri's/other Leftists'.

97.98.86.66 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

They are three acadmic sources from top level Israeli scholars : Anita Shapira, Baruch Kimmerling and Uri Ram for that article and they claim the same.

Neo-Zionist movement considers itself to be the only legitimate inheritant of Zionism. That is the reason why it doesn't call itself "Neo-Zionism". But in Israeli society there are currently 3 sociological groups that perceive Zionism differently.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ceedjee: All 3 academics are Leftists, smearing Rightwingers. That is a WP:NPOV violation as SEVERAL people noted in this Talk page. There are WP rules to follow other than citing Scholarly sources -- such as PRIMARY sources are needed in this article (search this page, using crtl+F then "primary source" for explanation of WHY that's needed). The article also has several more violations of WP rules, and LIBEL laws (which are JAILABLE offense if Israeli Mossad or Shin Bet tracks the IP of Wikipedia users ...and can be applied against EXECUTIVE EDITORS of WP and the Corporate assets of Wikipedia), "more violations of WP rules" as you'll see by searching (ctrl+F) for "WP:RS".

97.98.86.66 (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Zionazi

This link to see also has been recently added.
Neo-zionist is not pejorative. It is eg used by Anita Shapira and Baruch Kimmerling who are academic scholars.
The aim was to distinguish two new zionist movements : Post-Zionism and Neo-Zionism.
I think it should be removed and placed in the article Self hating Jew, rather. Ceedjee (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

CITATION NEEDED. So add Anita or Baruch using the term -- and not deriding it, and not deriding Uri's creation of this Straw man neologism.

But Anita is HERSELF Uri's fellow Leftist (just a different stripe of Leftism), so you're setting up a false argument that we readers should expect HER to DEFEND the Rightwing. "She is the founder of the Yitzhak Rabin Center (a Leftist politician & group) for Israel Studies."

See also most recently added "topic" on this page for several violations of WP:RS, WP:OR, etc which this article contains, especially against Im Tirtzu. (Did you know that libelling a GROUP is a felony in Israel, so if you ever try to enter Palestine via Israel, the editor who added that bit can be arrested if Im Tirtzu sues them, and wins in absentia?)

Why is this article locked?

97.98.86.66 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

comparison to post zionism

is this section really needed? trying to label "opposing" ideologies on an axis of issues was never successful , let alone the arbitrary notions of "messianic-fundamentalist" vs "utilitarian-pragmatic" , a lot of the rhetoric of organizations of either "side" (if you can call it that since post zionist ideology is small on numbers and the name neozionist is but a label anyway) would be based on either things , "peace" with the arabs is considered a messianic thing by many for one , iow just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's good.;

Shiftadot (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted this section entirely. I don't think it's relevant: any comparison should be between neo-Zionism and regular Zionism, not neo-Zionism vs. post-Zionism. Post-Zionism is in fact extremist on the opposite side of the spectrum, whereas by comparing the two like this, especially with the particular choice of identifying characteristics given, makes it appear that post-Zionism is the "normal" version of modern Zionism. On top of that, the source cited for this comparison, Baruch Kimmerling, is one of the most extreme of left-wing professors in Israel, someone who obviously self-identifies with the more extreme version of post-Zionism (for him and those like him, probably more accurately described as anti-Zionism). Hence he's hardly going to be objective about this, so citing his choice of identifying characteristics is highly problematic.

I should also add that, when discussing Zionism, it's extremely important to avoid giving off misleading impressions, as this comparison with post-Zionism does. So many Europeans (and many others) have an extremely distorted concept of Zionism that believes it a nasty and inherently racist ideology (essentially continuing the "Zionism = Racism" canard), and equally distorted views of Israeli views; "Zionist" is used as an epithet, much like "Apartheid" or "Racist". Benwing (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree.

What is written here is not pejorative or biaised. It is true that Kimmerling is a post-zionist but he is also a recknowned scholars and the compared items are properly introduced.

Nothing is written that could give credit to the canard "zionism = racism" ; on the contrary.

81.247.206.134 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Arutz 7

This source - http://www.jewishpress.com/tag/arutz-sheva/ - "We Need To Put The Spirit Back Into The People: An Interview with Arutz Sheva’s Yishai Fleisher - is repeatedly being inserted into the article as the basis for the claim that ' In the media, Arutz Sheva defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism.' , beyond teh obvious original research involved in making that interpretation (which is not explicitly made in the source), the problem is that in the source, the statements related to organizations opposing Post-zionism is referring to a different organization - Kumah, not to Arutz 7. Some reading comprehension would work better than edit warring. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Uri Ram usage

This article over the years got very detached from sources. What all the sources agree this that Neo-Zionism is a term coined by Uri Ram and almost exclusively used by left wing academics. Always in a negative light and as a designation for the other. In the vast majority of cases they even cite Uri Ram's ideas directly.

Please review the source material before making stupid changes.Jonney2000 (talk) 05:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is not a single source that states that "Neo-Zionism" is a term coined by Uri Ram. That your a OR.

who is a main opponent to new historians or sociologists such as Ram.

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

1: Anita Shapira rejects the usage of the term if your read the source she also rejects post Zionism (Which incidentally is probably why some other editor now tagged the page.)

2: Uri Ram does not say Jerusalem and the West Bank he says Jerusalem because he is talking about the messianic conquest of the temple mount.

3: Uri Ram did develop the term first used in a 1996 paper. I have found like 6 sources for this. But the one that used created is not a wiki reliable source so I will add the others when I have time.

4: Kahanism is enough of a separate ideology, and much better know, get a source if you want it in the article.

Jonney2000 (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

CLAIM: "The term is used in several other sources, among which Anita Shapira". to Pluto: FACT: You or other Leftists need to cite ANYONE who DID use the term before Uri did, and show Anita using the term WITHOUT a mocking tone to deride the fact Uri MADE UP a neologism to re-define his opponents as Uri's Straw man tactic. Logically, you are making:

1. an offence/violation of Logic, by expecting your debating opponent to "argue from the negative" or Prove a negative (prove the non-existence of something: i..e you are expecting them to undertake a LOGICIALLY IMPOSSIBLE task, whereas IF THERE IS ANYONE USING THE TERM BEFORE URI -- SHOW US. That is NOT an "impossible task".), so the Onus Probandi (burder of proof) is upon those who contend the term WAS used (those "arguing the positive exists" -- as you are doing now) and you must also show us a DATED source to show someone used the term BEFORE Uri used it -- in the SAME definition that Uri purports to exist -- for your claim (and your credibility as an editor) that the article even is ENCYCLOPEDIC (should exist),

2. See below for why this article violates SEVERAL TIMES the WP:RS, WP:OR, etc (ASIDE from your inability to CITE any rightwingers -- ANY of them -- defining THEMSELVES as a "neo-zionist" group).

...and (to anyone:) why is this article locked?

97.98.86.66 (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

TAG this article: WP:OR, WP:RS, lack of Primary Sources, and improper attribution of the sources (locked article)

1. The entire neologism "neo-zionist" and article about this made-up "movement" is very unbalanced POV -- because there are literally ZERO Jews noted in the article who define THEMSELVES as "neo-Zionist". It is a term created by Leftists (and the article does not properly clarify that ONLY Leftists are using this neologism, as I'll detail examples of below). These Leftist authors then call themselves "post-zionist" Leftists -- which is fine by Wikipedia's rules to do a "post-Zionism" article about them -- to demean The Right by contending part of today's Right are championing a completely FABRICATED enemy "movement," which is a Straw Man fallacy (VIOLATION...Sophistry) of Aristotle's 2,600-year old Logic. Where it VIOLATES WP POLICIES will be denoted in the next few e.g.'s; before I get to that: 1. The article should denote in the lede the fact of WHO made-up the term "neo-zionism" or use an = = Origins = = section or "Etymology" section as the 1st section (but no spaces between the "=" signs).

2. Notice that a book wasn't written asserting that such an ideology even EXISTS until 1993 -- 20 years after they SUPPOSEDLY originated in "1973". i.e. These "scholars" have resorted to REVISIONIST HISTORY: congrats, Orwell warned us about you. As a 2nd, and SEPARATE Logical Fallacy (not just "Revisionist History" -- however, e.g.: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO RELY SOLELY UPON SECONDARY SOURCES, AND YOU HAVE CITED ZERO PRIMARY SOURCES (i.e. sources in 1974-1977 when this movement ALLEGEDLY took its roots, calling themSELVES "neo-zionist," AND WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A COMBINATION OF PRIMARY SOURCES (with these secondary, 21st century authors) SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID REVISIONIST HISTORIANS SUCH AS THESE JOHNNY-COME-LATELY SHYSTERS CALLING THEMSELVES "post-zionists" and creating a Straw Man enemy they'd like to define as a 1970's "neo-zionist" movement, of which they -- and this article -- presented and named ZERO leaders & ZERO adherents. i.e. a Straw Man (scapegoating again reminiscent of 1930's Orwellian propagandists, which this article & the Leftist "post-zionist" scholars (but then again, what sort of "scholar" relies upon Logical Fallacies?) is the basis of this ENTIRE article, such as relying upon:

e.g. "Neo-Zionists consider "secular Zionism"..." is unencyclopedic, because you CANNOT CITE ANYONE (who) is calling HIMSELF a leader of any "neo-zionist" movement. What it DOES cite -- instead of ACTUAL rightwingers calling their own movement "neo-zionism" -- is a source of... URI RAM AGAIN, the Leftist. By WP:RS, it should read, "Uri Ram contends that those whom he defines as Neo-zionists consider "secular zionism" to be..." Who? NAME any individuals that lead any faction that calls ITSELF "neo-zionists" (who) consider secular zionism..." as being weak, etc?

e.g. "Neo-Zionism ideology was promoted by the banned Kach and Kahane Chai or the Jewish Defense League.[citation needed]" CITATION NEEDED says it all... and e.g. FIRST SENTENCE of the whole article: "...appeared in Israel following the Six-Day War in 1967 and the capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" also should be -- by WP:RS standards: "Neo-Zionism is a term created by Uri Ram which he alleges is an embodiment of right-wing, nationalistic and religious ideology..."

When you are losing a debate (and public opinion polls in the entire Western world, such as Pew's questions to Westerners RE: Israel...), all the greats -- Goebbels, the Strasserist brothers (far-left Nazis), Lenin, Stain, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot... (as ORWELL captured in his twin tomes, 1984 & Animal Farm after he was a member of BOTH Nazi&Commie org's -- and saw ZERO contradictions between the 2, like most of his era including G Bernard Shaw (another "liberal" ON FILM supporting Hitler and espousing eugenics, or Hillary Clinton's "hero" (directly quoting Hillary) Margaret Sanger, another who was 1920's "progressive liberal" who supported Hitler and eugenics -- but after Orwell realized he'd been brainwashed by them, he decided to write back-to-back books showing how the Strasserists (the ORIGINAL Nazis) and Marx were OF THE SAME IDEOLOGICAL ROOT) all advised to use neologisms (NEWSPEAK) to MAKE UP an ideology that nobody WP:noteworthy has even defined as his OWN ideology. Interesting to see Uri is recycling this same far-left 1920's tactic; will he next call his enemies "volksverrater" (a concept the far-left ORIGINALLY used, but then Strassserists borrowed) or perhaps use "Gleichschaltung" as most of today's far-left is doing in university & journalism? Create a Straw man that you can then easily knock down. George ORWELL, ARISTOTLE, PLATO, and many more greats (who withstood the test of time, unlike this "Uri Ram" ...who???) warned us about such pseudo-intellectuals.

3. WP:OR (last issue, finally...) When quoting Im Tirtzu, notice IM TIRTZU ITSELF has used the word "zionism," they NEVER spoke of nor called themSELVES "NEO-zionism" yet again. So now you -- not the authors you cited, just a Wikipedian himself, which is WP:OR -- are trying to set THEM (Im Tirtzu) up as your Straw Man, by WP:coatracking the issues of original zionism (which they DO espouse) into this NON-EXISTENT "neo-zionism" movement that is a FIGMENT CREATED IN URI'S MIND, THEN PARROTED BY HIS FELLOW IDEOLOGUES SEEKING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- your AUTHORS CITED are not even trying to set up Im Tirtzu as this Strawman Fallacy of Logic, but rather a Wikipedian editor using WP:synthesis, a form of WP:OR. One-sided arguments like this ENTIRE article violating WP:RS so that casual readers may not notice the SOURCING is ALL left-wingers -- even when the Wikipedians try to make it sound like rightwingers themselves (Im Tirtzu) are being cited FALSELY on "neo-zionism" and never claimed they THEMSELVES are "neo-zionist" nor even COMMENTED AT ALL on the "NEO-zionism" topic are why I left Wikipedia and no longer believe most of it serves intellectual discourse i.e. meeting standards of THE RULES OF LOGIC and EMPIRICAL SCIENCE (as EXACT scientists such as Gilbert et al, and Anderson et al, showed: 40% to 80% of papers in SOCIAL(ist) SCIENCES now in peer-reviewed (the "gold standard") journals NO LONGER EVEN MEET THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD -- and this is thanks to PhD's like Uri, Ilan Pappe, et al -- and every archaeology and "exact" science professor or even frosh high school teacher whom I know do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source because of articles so CONSISTENTLY disingenuous, and one-sidedly violative of WP's own rules & even of Aristotlean Logic itself, like this. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Libel laws

The QUOTE of Dana Eyal shows she claimed "racists" exist (well DUH, they do in every nation...) but SHE never used the words "neo-zionism" as those she identified with racist beliefs -- so it is MORE WP:OR and now libel trying to associate HER views with a "neo-zionism" movement that SHE HERSELF never mentions as even EXISTING in HER worldview. (libel in AT LEAST Israeli legal system; I didn't pass the bar in Western nations such as WP's corporate HQ, nor necessarily where the editors who added the libelresie, but I can guarantee HaMossad has ways of finding out, and penalizing those who support Nazi movements (PLO's founding family, Arafat's uncle Mufti Hussayni who CREATED the Palestinian Nationalist movement, were Nazi allies who never were systematically de-nazified after WW2 as their German allies were).)

She and Im Tirtzu both said "zionists" exist, not that "neo-zionists" even EXIST, so what are BOTH these quotes still in this article for??? That's WP:OR and WP:coatracking those 2 sources into an article on a topic (NEOz'ism) that THEY NEVER EVEN SPOKE THE NAME OF nor AGREED even EXISTS within those snippets. Im Tirtzu NEVER used nor advocated "neo-zionism," only "zionism". So it is LIBEL to list them under the "representation" section, unless you can show us a DIFFERENT quote where they do "Represent" themselves as being "neo-zionism" not the older more traditional "zionism." 97.98.86.66 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2022

Hello, I just wanted to make one small, but extremely important edit. Your article states that Neo-Zionism is a right wing ideology. This is not a right wing ideology, and is understood by Jews both in Israel and around the world much more often as an issue not about left or right wing politics. If anything, Neo-Zionism is a progressive cause. As many of us already know, Jews were some of the most oppressed and continuously targeted groups throughout history. Zionism was originally created as a solution for global systemic oppression against Jews, again making Zionism and therefore neo-Zionism technically a progressive cause, not very much related to right wing ideologies, that value conservation of already in place systems and don’t often center around social justice causes. Furthermore the word “Jew” is derived from the ancient nation of Judea, located in modern Israel, Palestine, parts of Egypt, and parts of Lebanon. The Arabic Palestinian people came to the land 1,500 years after the Roman Empire colonized the area, defeating the Judean Empire naming it Syria-Palestina. This makes both Jews and Palestinians indigenous communities to the nation, which therefore makes Zionism and Neo-Zionism technically an indigenous land-back movement. Under the British mandate of Palestine, pre-Israel, Jews were not allowed to speak Hebrew, bear arms in self defense, or even testify in court. Zionism, and Neo-Zionism is not a left or right wing issue, but if anything it falls under a center/moderate left or otherwise progressive idealogy. This mis-portrayal is a very serious issue because of the common and false antisemitic conspiracy that Jews are right wing oppressors who are white supremecist nationalists, along with an alarming increase of hate crimes against Jewish people in Neo/modern times, so the connotation that Neo-Zionism is a right wing ideology validates this conspiracy and therefore feeds very directly into the violence of the Jewish people and the Israeli citizens not otherwise associated with the government and conflict. 2600:6C50:7AF0:170:5158:6A25:B316:7419 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

"Israeli ultranationalism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Israeli ultranationalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 19 § Israeli ultranationalism until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)