Talk:Anti-Zionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Zionism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[1], 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)

[edit] 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.[2] 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.[3] 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.[4]

- - Historian Diana Muir reviewed the paper and concluded that the correlation shown between anti-Zionistic attitudes and antisemitism was almost perfect.[5] Muir also supports the study's conclusion that only a small fraction of Europeans believe the anti-Zionistic and antisemitic rhetoric.[5]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[1]]. 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)

[edit] Important source

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

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)