Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Missing form of Anti-Zionism 2 Great source 3 Jewish political anti-Zionism 4 This entire article is flawed from the beginning, and should be deleted. 5 Recent cutting 6 Haredi section again 7 Lead

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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,^[1] 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.^[2]

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)

[edit] 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. ^[3][4]

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)

[edit] 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)