Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:46, 28 October 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 21 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Reorganization largely by argument

I reorganized the article. Instead of by community (Jewish, non-Jewish, Christian, etc.), it is not organized by type of argument. I cut out any repeated argument (for example, many of the Christian arguments were echoed in the left wing world). --GHcool (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevancies

This edit is surely wrong. Why are these irrelevancies here? They aren't cited to anything. There is no information anywhere in the article about the phenomenon of Zionist antisemitism. I don't assume bad faith on the part of the editors that added these irrelevancies, but the effect (if not the intent) is to poison the well or engage the reader in whataboutism. The offending portion is this part: "Supporters of Zionism have frequently highlighted that Anti-Zionist views are expressed by some antisemites, just as pro-Zionist views are expressed by other antisemites. The relationship between anti-Zionism, pro-Zionism and antisemitism is debated ...." It is clear how silly and irrelevant this is when other ideologies are given the same treatment:

1. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the Black Lives Matter article: "Supporters of Black Lives Matter have frequently highlighted that views contrary to Black Lives Matter are expressed by some racists, just as views in support of Black Lives Matter are expressed by other racists. The relationship between opposition to Black Lives Matter, support for Black Lives Matter and racism is debated ...."
2. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the LGBT rights article: "Supporters of LGBT rights have frequently highlighted that views contrary to LGBT rights are expressed by some homophobes, just as views in support of LGBT rights are expressed by other homophobes. The relationship between opposition to LGBT rights, support for LGBT rights and homophobia is debated ...."
3. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the 2017 Women's March article: "Supporters of the Women's March have frequently highlighted that opposition to the Women's March is expressed by some misogynists, just as views in support of the Women's March are expressed by other misogynists. The relationship between opposition to the Women's March, support for the Women's March and misogyny is debated ...."

If no good argument is given for why these uncited irrelevancies should be included in the article, then I will remove them within the next couple of days. GHcool (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I kind of agree with GHcool, unless a source is tying anti-Zionism with antisemitism by Zionists then it is just whatabboutism. nableezy - 20:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually anti-Semitic pro-Zionism, the obverse of what much editing here has tried to affirm -i.e., an intrinsic nexus between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism - is well-documented, and quite a few sources on the former do note that, esp. in evangelical circles, pro-Zionism masks anti-Semitism, indeed, it is inscribed in the theology of evangelical pro-Zionism since the 'ingathering of Jews' into Israel is a precondition for their conversion to Christianity on the eve of the Messiah's return (Jews who fail to convert will suffer annihilation). This is very well-known among American Jews, as polls consistently show, their widespread private diffidence over the Christian right's support of Israel, which is appreciated politically, but not otherwise. If one is trying to skewer opposition to an ideological system of thought (Zionism) as inherently 'antisemitic' as a mother-lode of respectable pro-Israeli writers have done, a note on this complexity is more than due.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats all well and good for the article Zionist antisemitism, but absent a source directly tying that antisemitism among Zionists as being related to anti-Zionism it does not belong here. Its saying ok there are racists here, but there are racists there too. nableezy - 21:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you read carefully (not only the linked pages) the contexts in which the several books I cite mention anti-Zionism, the two are linked. I have linked the lead to that article whose title is, by the way, inept, in failing to distinguish 'Zionist' - a word normally used of Jews who espouse that ideology - and 'pro-Zionist', which is used of non-Jews who embrace the same religio-political creed. (Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Still dont really see it, that source is saying exactly what I wrote, that ok there are racists here, but there are racists there too, but adds there are non-racists here. It doesnt actually connect the topic of anti-Zionism with the topic of "antisemitic Zionism" or "Zionist antisemitism". nableezy - 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What source? I cited several for the mention of anti-Semitism among pro-Zionists in the context of anti-Semitism among Zionists. I've had a long day, but anyone with a little work can find that this point is made frequently. And it is important, given the extraordinary effort Israel and its supporters have made to define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic, even while evangelicals, who theologically at least, are anti-Semitic, rope-a-dope themselves into pro-Zionism. It is a mirror relationship and therefore absolutely congruent with the topic. Time for me to have a fag to get rid of my bronchitis, and hit the fartsack.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The one added to the lead. But again, I dont think it is a mirror relationship is a valid cause of inclusion. It still reads as whataboutism, and to the WP prefix minded, as WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 23:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct. It is whataboutism, victim blaming, and borderline offensive. But even if none of the above were true, it simply isn't relevant to an article about anti-Zionism. I have reverted the silliness. --GHcool (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

GHcool’s examples above are not applicable – they are missing the causality. If some BLM supporters are racist, some LGBT rights supporters are homophobes and some WM supporters are misogynists, they are not supporting those things because of those stated beliefs. There is no causality. That is why these are not documented or documentable connections. Just random chance.

On the other hand, Zionism antisemitism is a widely documented phenomenon, where the Zionism is a direct result of the person’s antisemitism.

Ultimately of course we follow sources. There are no sources connecting the themes that GHcool imagined above. But there are many sources connecting Antizionist antisemitism with Zionist antisemitism, as Nishidani has shown. Some other examples are Professor Gilbert Achcar (Achcar, Gilbert (2017-11-02). "Zionism, anti-semitism, and the Balfour Declaration". openDemocracy.) and Professor Joseph Massad (Massad, Joseph (2019-05-15). "Pro-Zionism and antisemitism are inseparable, and always have been". Middle East Eye.)

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

GHcool removed this from the lead as irrelevant and unsourced. RolandR disagreed, stating (a) leads don’t require sources and (b) affirming the removed matter was relevant.

• (2) I satisfied GHCool’s request for sources, adding:

(a) Gerald J.Steinacher,‘The Oldfest Post-Truth? The Rise of Antisemitism in the United States and Beyond in Marius Gudonis, Benjamin T. Jones (eds.), History in a Post-Truth World: Theory and Praxis, Routledge, 2020 ISBN 978-1-000-19822-5 pp.121-141,pp137-140.

(b) Anita Shapira, Israeli Perceptions of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, in Jeffrey Herf (ed.), Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence, Routledge, 2013 ISBN 978-1-317-98348-4 pp.229-249 p.231

(c) and a third, namely Alain Badiou, Eric Hazan, Ivan Segre, (eds.), Reflections On Anti-Semitism, Verso Books 2013 ISBN 978-1-781-68115-2 p.232

(d) and a fourth, namely Norman Solomon, 'The Christian Churches on Israel and the Jews,', in Robert S. Wistrich (ed.),Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, Springer 1990 ISBN 978-1-349-11262-3 p.143

• GHcool wiped out most of these additions with a second revert on an ARBPIA 1 revert rule page. The gravity of this is that he removed the evidence supplied when he requested it.
• Onceinawhile restored the material on the grounds that GHcool’s second removal was improper given that a discussion was underway on the talk page.

The discussion on the talk page has Nableezy in favour of GHCool’s argument for irrelevance, and Onceinawhile’s support for my argument for the relevance. There is also the fact that RolandR was in favour of retention. GHcool, promoted Nableezy to the Papacy by taking his v verdict as infallible, decisive, but the fact is that three disagree. The discussion so far on the talk page does not warrant an authority to gut the evidence given. II will replay to the substance of GHCool and Nableezy's points later today.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis et al developed the concept of New Antisemitism, which posited that the way that antisemitism is expressed has evolved and now takes the form of attacking Israel. The concept underlies the tendency by Zionists to try to push as far as possible the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Frequently, and crudely, statements are made that anti-Zionism is exactly that. A corollary made to support that argument is that antisemitism is very low or absent among non-Jewish supporters of Zionism. In response, anti-Zionists point out the ludicrous historical denialism inherent in that. Practically, Theodor Herzl's first step after publishing "Der Judenstaat" was to send it to prominent antisemites in order to gain their support. Arthur Balfour, who is celebrated by Zionists for the Balfour Declaration, declared himself in agreement with much of what antisemites said and wrote. Previously, while British prime minister, he brought in the Aliens Act of 1905, which was particularly designed to reduce Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe into the UK. The declaration of support for the creation of of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was largely a tool intended to increase support for the granting of control of that place from countries, including the US, which wished to reduce Jewish immigration or encourage their "excess" Jewish population to go elsewhere. In the interwar years, antisemitic regimes in Europe assisted Zionists to direct Jewish emigrants to Palestine, including the giving of military training to Zionists when the British limited Jewish immigration to Palestine in the wake of the Arab Revolt. Despite being an antisemite, Richard Nixon was a strong supporter of Israel, shoreing up Israel with a large arms lift in 1973 (which was a major cause of the subsequent Opec oil embargo). Despite believing in antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalists in Europe and North America declare their admiration and support for Israel because they regard the ethnocracy there as a model for their own countries and because they approve of the idea that Israel is THE Jewish state and that diaspora Jews should emigrate there.

The article has already gone down the road of oulining the attempts by Zionist organisations and individuals to portray anti-Zionism as wholly or largely antisemitic. I think that, in the interests of neutrality, the rebuttals coming from anti-Zionists should be included. Currently, Zionist claims have been presented as though they were non-partisan.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A particularly useful source for expanding this would be Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History, by Regina Sharif (Zed Press 1983), which argues that the strong support for the Zionist movement and the Israeli state by non-Jews in the west is based, at least in part, on traditional antisemitism and hostility to Jews. I will reread the book and try to locate a couple of key sentences to add to our article. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That would indeed be an important service for the article. It is not available via Google books, but widely cited). Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I still dont get how this is connected to anti-Zionism. By all means, include that in Zionism and in Zionist antisemitism. But what does that have to do with this topic? nableezy - 14:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't grasp what strikes, not only myself, but many, and certainly accomplished experts, as obvious. Antisemites, like Edouard Drumont, from the outset, were impressed by Zionism, as an excellent proposal to get Jews to fuck off outta Europe, one proposed by Jews themselves. Herzl himself stated that there would be a natural affinity between Zionists and anti-Semites, since they both sought the same end, to rid Europe/the West of Jews. It lies at the core of early Zionism, and means anti-Zionism when it is antisemitic (the thesis promoted on this page is that the relationship is intrinsic) and anti-Semitic pro-Zionism were perceived as having a perverse elective affinity. Deal with (a) while (b) excluding (as GHcool insists on doing)/ burying this other side of the coin, ignores sources and to a purpose, intended or not, of leaving anti-Zionism as something more or less tantamount to hostility to Jews or Israel or both. You can be hostile to Jews and proudly promote your love of Israel, as recent political events in Italy underline. If you can't see it, I can't help you beyond this point. Your position is that of the numismatist who is only interested in examining the head of a coin, not the tail.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The refutation of "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" is not in any way advanced by "Zionism has antisemites too". But to the point, a source connecting anti-Zionism with antisemitism in Zionism is needed. If somebody is anti-Zionist because of the antisemitism of some Zionists then sure that belongs. But the topic of this article is anti-Zionism, not Zionism. So the source needs to relate directly to that. nableezy - 16:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

the topic of this article is anti-Zionism, not Zionism

Try editing the antimatter article to cancel references to matter and see where that leads to. In conceptual analysis, one supposes the other. This has nothing to do with fair-mindedness. Nableezy certainly is fair-minded, but this concerns the ability to understand the relationship (dialectical or otherwise) of a term and its antonym. We cannot not speak of an antonym unless we are clear about the other term denoting its opposite. I'm ready to admit that Nableezy is one of the finest readers of wiki policy we have, but that can have its dangers if it is the only framework. I.e. in simple terms, if whataboutism is raised, N. will excel in policy interpretation about why Misplaced Pages must avoid that, and spend less time, certainly here, in weighing what the fundamental content means in practice. Here it is evident policy informs his judgment, and he has given no thought to the fundamentals of linguistics and logic applicable here, which govern language and articles, irrespective of Misplaced Pages policies. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is right, not because he is the Pope, but because he is fair minded.

The convergence of interests between a certain type of antisemite and the Zionist movement is an interesting phenomenon worthy of being somewhere on Misplaced Pages. Indeed, the appropriate place for that information is in the Zionist antisemitism article. It is not here. The "causality" argument fails because anti-Zionism does not cause Zionist antisemitism. This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. To say that anti-Zionist antisemitism and Zionist antisemitism are two sides of the same coin is to say that anti-BLM racism and pro-BLM racism are two sides of the same coin. They might be two types of racism worthy of discussion in the article on racism, but unworthy of consideration in an analysis of BLM's ideology or history. --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What makes it relevant are its connection to arguments made by Zionists and the counter-arguments made by anti-Zionists. There are two sides to the Zionist argument which are, roughly: antisemitism is prevalent among anti-Zionists; antisemitism is largely absent among pro-Zionists. Part of the rebuttal by anti-Zionists is to point out the historical denialism inherent in the latter claim, undermining Zionist claims as a whole by highlighting their dishonesty. The second part of the Zionist argument is necessary to the first as any force in the first disappears if the second part is untrue.     ←   ZScarpia  

ZScarpia's comments do not merit a response because Misplaced Pages is not a forum.

The claim that one must put contentious claims about a topic's antonym is needed to understand the topic itself is evidence of a person who is himself confused about the topic at hand. This is understandable; we are not used to thinking of words with the prefix "anti-" as a subject in and of itself. "Anti-Zionism" has more in common with "anti-abortion" or "anti-capitalism" than it does to "antimatter." "Abortion" and "capitalism" are discussed in their articles. Similarly Zionism is discussed in its article. The anti-Zionism article is about the history and ideology of anti-Zionism, not the merits or faults of any particular argument in favor of Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

These are red-herrings, and the confusion is all yours.

(a) Capitalism's principles are discussed in anti-capitalism, just as fascism is discussed in anti-Fascism. Liberalism lacks so far an article dealing with opposition to it, but covers a minute part of the critical hostility to the concept in a subsection of the article itself.

(b) Zionism is an ideology, a doctrinaire mindset that requires faith rather than cool analysis of the real world of practices, to be the benchmark for those who embrace it- no one contests that. Somewhat distinctively, however, though opposition to Zionism was dominated by Jews for much of its early history, the rise of a state embodying the principles of that ideology, particularly after its expansion in 1967, led its proponents to argue that the opposition to it was anti-Semitic. Hence we had the flourishing of the bizarre (new Antisemitism) theory/meme precisely to promote the idea that opposition to the ideology was actually opposition to Jews, not grounded in concern for human rights (the occupied Palestinians) but rather in the suppression of a human right (the right to a homeland in Palestine for immigrants) for the only (assumed) relevant ethnos, Jewish people the world over. It is rather like saying that the history of opposition to any other ethnic ideology,-because it is ethnic and ideological in its thinking pattern,- say Mussolini's fascism, cannot avoid running the risk of tacitly embodying Anti-Italianism, indeed that hostility to Italians is in variably hidden or just below the surface, of any mention of fascism. A patent nonsense, sand in the eyes.

(c) In practical terms this has entailed, for this article, the incremental shift from focusing on the (strong Jewish) history of anti-Zionism to increased highlighting of the suspected sentiment of hostility to Jews themselves in criticism of Israel. Much of your own editing drifts that way, as far as I can see, and the tendency parallels the diffuse drive by Israel and its supportive groups over the last two decades to shift the goalposts from the conceptual gravamen of anti-Zionism - outrage at human rights abuses -something that can be legally and empirically measured - to get the narrative or discourse reassessed as, really, entangled up in some ostensible antipathy to Jews. In the former, concerns for Palestinians, are slowly, eroded by showcasing rather a putative insensitivity -veiled anti-Semitism - to the concern for Jewish sensitivities-qua people with a putative existential bond to a State of the Jews- as the real issue to be teased out in any criticism either of the state or its programmatic ideology. What about "us", and your attitudes to "us". Talk about "us", your real feelings about "us" not "them".

To state this, as ZScarpia and others have done, here, is not foruming. It is a matter of trying to get editors to clear the elementary confusions, and their historical backgrounds, involved in arguing that an article about an opposition to an ideology must exclude any mention of that ideology itself. Another case of exceptionalist thinking which, fortunately, the actual documentary record, as shown, does not support.

(d) Making out that opposition to a (faith-based) ideology was tantamount to opposition to a real people is what a political pressure ground like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's tendentious Working Definition of Antisemitism was all about. Shifting the goalposts so that opposition to Zionism - traditionally a very 'Jewish' issue,- would, optimally, be branded as tendentially anti-Semitic, an obsession entertained about Israel among non-Jewish people. The article, thus edited, in short, reflects a recent highly politicized recasting of the topic that tends towards anachronistic revisionism via cherrypicked sourcing, WP:Recentism, if one prefers a policy peg.Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My comments are no more forummy than your own ... and a good deal less patronising, I hope. Don't fabricate "strawmen" to knock down (particularly not strawmen tied together with gobbledygook).     ←   ZScarpia   23:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolution

This edit by Nishidani satisfies my concerns about this irrelevancy in the lead. I am willing to accept it this mildly interesting information in the "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism" section. I hope that this edit by me satisfies everyone as well. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Check. This is patently false

Zionism was routinely condemned in Germany since 1870s as an element of the antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination.(ref name="Penslar")

If anyone knows Penslar's work, that is patent tripe. It is patent nonsense because anachronistic, anti-Zionism preceding the formal rise of Zionism as a doctrine itself). The quality of editing here is such that junk statements like that, and there are plenty here, are plunked in and remain without any stir from the reader/editorship, for years. I gather the source is

• Derek Penslar. "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: A Historical Approach." in Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, Janice Gross Stein (eds.) Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, University of Toronto Press, 2020 ISBN 978-1-487-52624-5 pp.80-95.

Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It is typical of the constant degeneration this article has suffered since 2016, with the evisceration of much of the cogent evidence that anti-Zionism was a dominant element in Jewish thought down to the 1930s (that is why the Timeline is required, which had been shifted off the article as something external to it, rather than something which captures the key events in anti-Zionism far better than this article does) and its substitution by focusing on anti-Zionism as an anti-Semitism as a response to the establishment of the state of Israel. That is, apparently, the remit of editors who have driven the article since then, particularly in light of the legislative proposals pushed by Israeli authorities to get this accepted as an accurate equation, rather than being an historical anomaly.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not own the book and the relevant pages are not on Google Books. I will reserve it from the library and check. This might take a week or two. Please do not delete for now. --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I got that chapter via Wikilibrary (search the chapter on De Gruyter).

There is this on p84:

"In Germany, by contrast, from the 1870s onward, antisemites were wont to judge Zionism more harshly, as a manifestation of ongoing global Jewish chicanery. Wilhelm Marr, who is credited with coining the term ‘antisemitism’ in the late 1870s, wrote here and there throughout the 1880s about shipping all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine, where they could put their boundless energy and resources to work in creating a model polity, a Musterstaat. Yet this relativelysanguine attitude did not survive the passage of time, as Marr’s antisemitic world view grew ever darker and more bitter. Marr wrote at the time of the First Zionist Congress of 1897 that ‘the entire matter is a foul Jewish swindle, in

order to divert the attention of the European peoples from the Jewish problem.’ Marr did not elaborate on his opposition to Zionism, for, as with Drumont and the other antisemites we have analysed thus far, Zionism was far from central to Marr’s concerns."

Idk how you get "routinely condemned" or antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination from that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Routinely condemned" in the article = "wont to judge Zionism more harshly" in the source ("wont" means accustomed to doing something)

"antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination" in the article = "a manifestation of ongoing global Jewish chicanery" in the source

If you don't think summary in the article is worded accurately, I am more than happy to quote Penslar directly in the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph is clear that it was "antisemites" that were responsible not anti-Zionists, this seems like a backdoor method of equating the two so I am removing that sentence. The succeeding sentences probably need scrutiny as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ditto the following sentence, it says quoted in Penslar, but Penslar goes on to say that "Marr did not elaborate on his opposition to Zionism, for, as with Drumont and the other antisemites we have analysed thus far, Zionism was far from central to Marr’s concerns. Again, the equating of the two things is wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

And the Nazi ideology, Penslar writes "Even in Nazi ideology, however, Zionism was little more than an addendum to a well-worn diatribe against international Jewish political machinations and inveterate malevolence. The presence of the Zionist movement did not substantively add to or detract from pre-existing modes of antisemitic sensibility". Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I am removing the last sentence of that para (Duhring) as well, the antisemitic connection with antiZionism is less than weak. Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I not correct in saying that anti-Zionism was originally a Jewish reaction to Zionism (eg Montagu 1917 "Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed") as somewhat covered in the pre 48 Religious section? The article should address the origin of AZ and subsequent development.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The earlier stuff is fairly well populated in the Timeline of anti-Zionism, including the note above about Montagu and murmurings dating back to the C19th. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right, I have just now noticed your commentary in the section Chronology or collective-based history? up above. Hum, still think we need some broad brush commentary about the origin and subsequent development in this article, particularly the idea that AZ = AS. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And it may be worth noting the statement of the German rabbis explicitly condemning Zionism and denouncing the proposal to hold the first Zionist Congress in Munich. "On 6 July the five-man executive committee of the German rabbinate did what no other country-wide Jewish secular or religious organization had done: it formally and publicly condemned the ‘efforts of the so-called Zionists to create a Jewish National State in Palestine’ as contrary to Holy Writ, and drew a sharp distinction between legitimate efforts to assist Jewish settlers in the Holy Land, and the illegitimate purposes of the Zionists." (David Vital, The Origins of Zionism, Oxford University Press 1980, p336). RolandR (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, the most significant Jewish political movement in the pre-WWII period, The Bund, was anti-Zionist, one reason being that Zionsim was perceived as racist.     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe can go back even further 1845 https://israeled.org/reform-assembly/ Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on this particular quote, but strongly support the general point being made here by Nishidani, Selfstudier, RolandR and ZScarpia that the pre-1948 section needs to be significantly enlarged to do justice to the mainstream anti-Zionism both of liberal/conservative assimilationist Jewish communal leaderships in the diaspora (e.g. the Anglo-Jewish Association) and of the various socialist and diasporist currents on the Jewish left, of which the Bund is the most important, although Autonomism, Folkism and Territorialism are all significant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Brauman/Badiou et al in the lead

I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but I'm concerned about the citation of Badiou et al in the lead. The text currently says "According to one analysis...". The citation is to Alain Badiou et al. This text is quite controversial text. The citation is to the section by Ivan Segré. I don't have the book but the Google books snippet shows that Segré is quoting an interview with Rony Brauman, which might not merit the word "analysis". I really don't think this is solid enough or useful enough to be in the lead, and suggest it be moved to the opening of the section "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism", with attribution to Brauman. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I put it there under the stress of immediate concerns here, but realized that it is not lead material, and indeed in reviewing the page presently I will removed it, as you yourself suggest,down the page. The citation is taken from the Conclusion, or summing up of the whole work, a summary of the analyses preceding it. All books I am familiar with on this topic enter into a critical crossfire depending on the POV of the reviewers. As an editor I've little time for Badiou, just as I have little time for Anthony Julius's book which is highly prized as a source here. But since both are RS, you'll not find me objecting to either. I'll adjust according to your suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Review

This article is well below par. Articles should not stagnate, be tweaked, fiddled with, for two decades without desultoiry attempts to review the results, put them into a standard wiki uniform format, and verify, one by one, all of the given sources, while addiing new ones. The references to Penslar are easily, in the present regime, confused (and he himself alters his emphases from article to article. I, for one, am willing to undertake this, but I only work efficiently if we have format that allows precise page indications for every tidbit of material harvested from source, a distinct bibliography, and a footnoting section. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• One in 7 of the notes (16 of 105) come from Anthony Julius's polemical book. He is not an historian, but a legal mind arguing the case for the certainly antihistorical and somewhat paranoid view that virtually all criticism of Israel/Zionism is tainted with anti-Semitism. That makes hundreds of Jewish thinkers over the last century into self-hating Jews in that they must be, by inference, anti-Semitic. Antony Lerman for one, called his tirade bankrupt, confused and malign.

he defines as anti-Zionism a cluster of different positions from "seeking to fix the world's attention on the injustices of the occupation", through "'Re-partition' anti-Zionism (also known as the 'two-state solution')", to 'Liquidation' anti-Zionism (also known as the "one-state solution')". And, second, he argues that all of them slide ineluctably into antisemitism. The first implies Israel alone is guilty; the second manifests antipathy towards the Zionist ­enterprise; the third wants to cancel the "last surviving Jewish political project of the 20th century". But none of these positions is necessarily anti-Zionist; none of the glosses automatically follows. Antony Lerman, 'Trials of the Diaspora by Anthony Julius,' The Guardian 27 February 2010

Evidently a text that controversial, even in the eyes of a level-headed scholar like Lerman, cannot be deployed to form the backbone of an article: it is like using a papal encyclical on abortion as the analytical framework for an article on abortion. Secondly, just looking at the way it is used, it is self-evident that a good deal of WP:OR has been used, in a way that Nableezy thought objectionable in the context above, i.e., many incidents or facts are cited for anti-Semitism, regardless of whether the pages in question are discussing anti-Zionism. In short, the article essentially is an extension of the muddled thinking behind Julius' polemic. There is a huge literature on this topic, and the use of Julius, aside from these factors, is a case of WP:Undue. At best we should cut back substantially the use of Julius (works specifically on anti-Zionism abound, and, when cited here, are nonetheless restricted to snippets) and summarize the main thust of his polemic/personal view, that anti-Zionism is essentially anti-Semitic.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Julius as a source, but I agree with you that 16/106 footnotes is probably too much for a single source. I began to trim Julius's stuff down and added other sources where necessary. I'll do more when I have more time. --GHcool (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Come now. He's patently, almost one would venture to say, toxically partisan. When you removed my query (how many etc) from the statement below, you evidently saw nothing odd in what is a decidedly extremist opinion passed off as a fact. I.e.

Government officials in charge of the administration of the British Mandate for Palestine were anti-Zionist.=sfn|Julius|2010|p=295

Sure! the first High Commissioner in the early crucial years, who made several major and lasting decisions, was an ardent Jewish Zionist, Herbert Samuel, for example. Jeezus. Anyone assessing Julius’s work has to have a certain intimate familiarity with the people and topics he generalizes about. That remark could only come, perhaps by tertiary sources, from Churchill or Richard Meinertzhagen. Churchill is certainly on record that 90% of the British officials in Mandatory times were opposed to Zionism. No. Many, esp. in the army, just knew that the Balfoiur Declaration would cause them a massive and long-standing headache. Churchill would not brook being bothered by men in high office, in London or Palestine, who opposed him, often on serious technical grounds. Churchill got Meinertzhagen his appointment there, figuring that the latter was a Jew given his intense pro-Zionism. He was right in the last regard: Meinertzhagen was so pro-Zionist he complained to the home office, I think, that the Mandatory authorities were creating obstacles for Zionist gun-running to Palestine (which he supported). But he was also an intense antisemite, (and came to admire Hitler as strongly as he supported Zionism) and was given to railing against anyone who opposed him as ‘anti-Zionists’. Zeinertzhagen was perhaps even Churchill’s source for that generalization, and Meinertzhagen was a forger of his own diaries, a congenital liar. He’s an excellent example of what we are talking about an influential pro-Zionist who was at the same time a self-confessed anti-Semite. We have extensive and detailed studies of the period, its officials, and these Chinese whispers about the Palestine administration’s anti-Zionism are known to be nonsense. So Julius either cherry-picks, or relies on a single outdated rumour that confirms his prejudices, that anti-Zionist are everywhere you look. he just hasn't read the serious literature on the vast complexities he describes with a broadbrush here (as opposed to his medieval excursus) It is pseuds'corner history by muddling details, ignoring sources –history as caricature. Everytime I’ve had occasion to examine parts of that book – it’s unbearably tendentious in its browbeating contextual flaunting of knuckling ignorance – I find junk simplifications. It is useless, in sum, but RS allow it. We should use it only with reservation, and only when there is confirmation in the technical academic literature for this or that point (at which point, the fact that he echoes these renders him expendable by replacement of a stronger source).Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I just finished reading through a bunch of reviews of Julius book and it is fairly clear that it is mainly a polemic. When I have a little time, I will see if I cannot summarize these reviews but for now, I think the trimming/replacement with more thoughtful sourcing is the right approach. Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The English literature aspect of anti-Semitism, much of the book, gets more or less praised but for our purposes here:

"In the closing chapters he deals with the highly charged question of whether particular forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitism in another guise."However, as he develops his argument it turns out that virtually any criticism of Israel, even the suggestion of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, is suspect."(David Cesarani The Journal of Modern History)

"The 2012 paperback edition, under review here, has a new preface by the author intended to respond to several critics of his hardcover edition to remedy the “current muddle concerning the connections between ‘criticism of Israel,’ ‘anti-Zionism,’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ In addition to the preface, Julius concluded the paperback version with a twelve-page outline of his “Propositions on anti-Semitism” that distill his definitions of the muddled terms and their relationship to one another. But rather than adding anything radically new to the work, “Propositions” simply lists in condensed form Julius’s own convictions regarding these terms, as opposed to illustrating how his definitions relate to one another. It remains to be seen whether these additions will satisfy his critics.(Heatheer Miller Rubens, Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies, Journal of Religion)

"There are of course anti-Semites who have merely adopted anti-Zionism as a disguise for their Jew-hatred, and in order to claim respectability for their views or to evade laws against anti-Semitic activity" (p. 578). This sentence, coming on the fourth page from the last, completely undermines the thesis he has devoted so much effort to creating." "I wish there had been a bibliography. In a book with nearly 600 pages of text and nearly 200 pages of notes, a few more listing secondary sources would have been helpful. Did he use Barbara W. Tuchman and Todd M.Endelman? Yes. Did he use N. A. Rose’s The Gentile Zionists: A Study in Anglo-Zionist Diplomacy, 1929–1939 (1973)? I am not sure, but I think not." (Joshua B. Stein Roger Williams University)

"Julius seems to accept, with some hesitation, that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not much different. The book often seems more like a lawyer’s brief than a historical work. All historians are deeply influenced by concerns of the present. The challenge is to use them constructively. On the whole, Julius fails to do so. He mainly seems determined to argue the case that the abomination of antisemitism is alive and well in England" (Peter Stansky Stanford University)

"The final two chapters deal with contemporary anti-Zionism, both secular and confessional, and it is the discussion of this subject that seems in many ways to have been the driving force behind the inception of the book. Julius links the criticisms leveled at Israel to many of the anti-Semitic tropes explored earlier in the book. Here, his tone becomes almost polemic, and though Julius holds that there are ways in which Israel can be criticized without anti-Semitism, the definitions of the two that he uses are not always clear. Particularly in his section on Jewish anti-Zionists, his very personal distaste for the group is clear. Though he mostly skates around describing the group as anti-Semitic he claims: ‘Their perspectives on anti-Semitism are defective; their contributions to anti-Semitism are strong’ (p. 554). Though many of his points are persuasively argued, his lack of balance and scholarly analysis proves detrimental to his argument." (Hannah Farmer University of Southampton)

"The biggest problem with the book is also its rhetorical strength: a capacious definition of antisemitism, viewed as a constant throughout history. The term never serves as a category of analysis, a term that is historicized and in dialogue with its historical context. Julius does not place hostility and distrust of Jews in any historical or cultural context, nor does he seek to evaluate changes in the discourse over time. Furthermore, he does not discuss the distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism that has been well developed in scholarship on this topic. Julius is quite condescending about anti-Zionist arguments, often dismissing them without sufficient engagement. His harshest criticism is reserved for Jews who express what he considers anti-Zionist views.(Dana Rabin The University of Illinois)

"Julius’ definition of the "new" antisemitism would seem to settle the matter: “ first emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in consequence of the Six Day War, but became hegemonic in the 1990s and 2000s in consequence of certain developments mostly unrelated to the Middle East It is to be distinguished from the ‘old anti-Semitism’ because it takes Israel and the Zionist project as its collective term for the Jews, because its geographic hub is Western Europe, because self-identified Jews are among its advocates, and because it comes from the Left—indeed, has become part of the common sense among people of a broadly progressive temper. It is taken to be continuous with the ‘old anti-Semitism’ in its principal stratagems and tropes, while novel in its specific focus upon the Jewish State." (Edward Alexander Springer) Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• This erasure is not only unhelpful, but noxiously POV-pushing, in my view. By snipping out a key qualification in the lead's generalization, the reader is left, as before, with a pseudo-fact, the idea that Jewish antizionist organizations historically distintegrated, or became pro-Zionist. That stuck out as an untrue, and decidedly tendentious aut/aut judgment, and I fixed it by adding the exception, the way Reform Judaism did not disintegrate, or endorse Zionism. Part of it reformed, and, conserving its historic position from the late 19th century (which yes, gradually waned by the 30s) continued the tradition of opposition to Zionism. That is an abc level fact of American Jewish history, everyone must know, surely? The excision leaves us with the idea opposition within American Jewry disintegrated by 1942, leaving the fold unitedly 'pro-Zionist'. In any case I will expand on this in the relevant section. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Stuff removed for the moment

• I'm trying to source the page predominantly to scholarship. In revising this, the major problem as usual is that Misplaced Pages is naturally given to being edited in dribs and drabs, breaking up history and thematics into a list-like sprawl of what is Joe Blow's opinion of this or that, with section headings splitting the matter into groups, nations, ethnic bodies and political positions. As a reader if I see that kind of page, I don't generally read it: because there is no coherent narrative development, but simply the outcome of hundreds of edits that find the text, and adapt whatever may have caught their attention to the relevant section, or create even another one. That is not how encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written.

The amount of scholarly material, learned books and articles is massive, so analysis is extensive even if there is a profound rift between competent researchers on a topic like this. Eventually, I hope, we can move to a more synthetic overview, and weed out a lot of citations that are just repetitions of something often known and said, whose presence here is justified because the person who said it is notable wikiwise.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can anyone ferret a link to the essay '"Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,' Rosenfeld 2006. All we appear to have is a link to a wiki article which sums it up, where the links once again fail, at least for a net illiterate like myself.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• By contrast, reform Jews rejected Judaism as a national or ethnic identity and renounced any messianic expectations of the advent of a Jewish state. Reform Judaism dropped many traditional beliefs, including aliyah, the Hebrew word used to describe religious Jewish return to Israel, as incompatible with modern life within the Diaspora. Later, Zionism re-kindled the concept of aliyah in an ideological and political sense, parallel with traditional religious belief; it was used to increase the Jewish population in the Holy Land by immigration. Support for aliyah does not always equal immigration; however, most of the world's Jewish population resides within the Diaspora. Support for the modern Zionist movement is not universal, and, as a result, some religious Jews, as well as some secular Jews, do not support Zionism. Non-Zionist Jews are not necessarily anti-Zionists, although some are. Generally however, Zionism does have the support of the majority of the Jewish religious organizations, with support from segments of the Orthodox movement, and most of the Conservative, and more recently, the Reform movement.

1. Ross p. 6.
2. Rachael Gelfman, "Religious Zionists believe that the Jewish return to Israel hastens the Messiah" Archived 25 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine
3. Ehud Bandel – President, the Masorti Movement, "Zionism" Archived 7 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine
4. "Reform Judaism & Zionism: A Centenary Platform". Miami, Florida: Central Conference of American Rabbis. 27 October 2004. Archived from the original on 25 November 2011. Retrieved 8 May 2015.

I've striven so far to take the text as given, conserve, fine better sources for whatever is asserted, in respect of earlier editors' efforts. But there is a good deal of unfocused waffle that is not really focused on anti-Zionism, but strays into talking about Zionism, and, as here, poorly referenced (My Jewish learning, Masorti Movement, etc). I think the text can do without this piece. I'd appreciate input, and if there are any objections to its removal, then one would expect that the drift be improved by replacing the references with serious sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• (2)

  After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some African-Americans supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Immediately after the war, the black power organization Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee published a newsletter criticizing Israel and asserting that the war was an effort to regain Palestinian land and that during the 1948 war, "Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres."

1. Dollinger, Mark, "African American-Jewish Relations" in Antisemitism: a historical encyclopedia of prejudice and persecution, Vol 1, 2005. pp. 4–5
2. Carson, Clayborne, (1984) "Blacks and Jews in the Civil Rights Movement: the Case of SNCC", in Strangers & neighbors: relations between Blacks & Jews in the United States, (Adams, Maurianne, Ed.), 2000., p. 583

• (3)

  Proponents of Zionism note Zionism's success in establishing the Jewish state of Israel in the region of Palestine, and seek to portray anti-Zionism as broad opposition to Israel and a Jewish presence in the region. Supporters of Zionism have frequently highlighted that Anti-Zionist views are expressed also by some antisemites. The relationship between anti-Zionism, pro-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism, while others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a method to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank.

Third para of lead with 87 words at a glance representing positions critical of anti-Zionism and a small tail for anti-Zionist positions wriggling its 25+ words. A violation of WP:NPOV. It should be rewritten with due balance between both views.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC) What on earth has this to do with Palestinian nationalism and anti-Zionism. The title suggests we are to get Palestinian views, not those of a couple of Afro-Americans in the 60s /70s. The only apparent point to such junk dumping is, as far as I can imagine, that of associating Palestinian antizionism with black power organizations. Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hey, GHcool. Thanks for the compliment but you state that you find the following of 'questionable relevance' and removed it here.

stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area,(efn|In one of several incidents that stirred local rage against the occupying British forces, when an Arab thief killed one of their soldiers, a unit of Allenby 's troops burnt down the entire village and killed or wounded some 30 of its residents. They went unpunished.)

1. Laurens 1999, p. 480. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLaurens1999 (help)

I think the reasons for inclusion are cogent.

(a)The paragrasph is the sister piece I added to the paragraph below it now, per NPOV. We required a balancing statement of the context for the detailed material I added to give a complete coverage for the Zionist suspicions that British administrative resdistance or leg-dragging in executing the Balfour Declaration was anti-Semitic.

(b) In short, the paragraph is concerned with the roots of British anti-Zionism in that period, and the Palestinian perspective (that is still less in focus, but I'll try to improve it shortly)

(c) The relevance for it is established by secondary sources that deal precisely with this theme. In my view, the 4 volume La Question de Palestine written by Henry Laurens is the most neutral and comprehensive account scholarship has to date on the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians.

(d) Laurens alludes to this incident precisely in his volume one treatment of the impact the dutiful i8mplementation of Balfour's promise under the section heading 'Antisionisme et antisémitisme' (pp.480ff).

(e) Using it is a first step to explaining what our article never really took seriously as an NPOV obligation. We have been highly focused on Zionist complaints of anti-Semitism throughout, and in this section, but have neglected background on why Palestinians at the time were hostile to anti-Zionism and as diffident as were Zionists about Great Britain's behavior. Taking it out once more tilts the narrative to Zionist anxieties and concerns by eliding those of the Palestinians.

(f) So it is not I, Nishidunny/Nishidunno, as editor who is asserting its relevance, but one of the major narrative authorities on the period, and it is germane to the still undeveloped balancing of Zionist and Palestinian backgrounds to the anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism crux.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(g)The passage needs adjustment with a link to Allenby and one more item of the footnoted details. I propose:-

stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area,(efn|In one of several incidents that stirred local rage against the occupying British forces, when an Arab thief killed one of their soldiers, a unit of Allenby's troops burnt down the entire village and killed or wounded some 30 of its residents. They went unpunished.Allenby's desire to pursue the matter ran up against a wall of resistance in his staff and administrative officials. )

1. Laurens 1999, p. 480. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLaurens1999 (help)

Globally

This edit asserts that there are studies globally (i.e. outside of Europe) that purport to have "failed to find any statistical correlation between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism." I don't have access to the article, but it appears from the body of the text that both studies were in Europe, not in any other part of the globe. GHcool (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not good enough to say you haven't got access. We have jstor Misplaced Pages access and other instruments here for editors.

Both Beattie (2017) and Werner Bergmann (2008) giver comprehensive overviews on the literature, summarizing over a dozen studies done in numerous countries on the anti-Zionism/antisemitism correlation theories. Read them and you will find mention of research like that of (Dunbar 1995) In the USA; Frindte, Wammetsberger, and Wettig ( 2005). Kaplan and Small (2006)’s survey of 5,000 people from various different European countries;, Baumand Nakazawa (2007)’s on Canada; Kempf (2012) on Germany and Austria; Baum (2009) idem for Christians and Muslim; (Cohen et al. 2009)(Cohen (2012); Dekker and van der Noll (2011) for Holland, aside from Bergman’s mentions of Swiss research and his own in Germany, and Beattie’s on US internet users in this context. I’ve had to download over 1,200 pages of books and articles and are slowly reading through them to write this page. I expect that you should, rather than glance at the bibliographical references used, and counting ‘ah, two’, actually read the cited texts – only 50 pages -where all this disparate harvest of scholarship is paraphrased, analysed and tested. Had you done so, you would not have altered several to two. So far I make elsewhere a mere passing allusion to the numerous similar studies (Stillman) on the Arab world, and Harkabi et als, judgments in that regard, and haven't had time to add several works like that of Esther Webman,The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 46, 2010, Issue 5 pp.677-697, for all the Arab material needs thorough reorganization as I did with the Soviet stuff this morning.

I am still awaiting an explanation for the rationale behind your other tag.

Opposition to the Biltmore Program also led to the founding of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism,}} which, according to Noam Chomsky was the only Jewish group in America immediately after WW2 to lobby for the immigration of Jewish Holocaust-survivors to the United States, rather than Palestine.

1. Kolsky 1992, pp. 40–57. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKolsky1992 (help)
2. Chomsky 2012, p. 103. sfn error: no target: CITEREFChomsky2012 (help)

The clock tells me I've spent 10 and a half hours today on this, so I expect that you'll appreciate my curiosity in seeing the rationale behind the dropping of the tag there, which must have takew 10 seconds. Some work please, if the tag is to be taken seriously and not just removed as vexatious and subjective dislike of the sentence's meaning.

This article was a shambolic mess, and still largely is, a dumping ground for googled tidbits almost totally shorn of cogent scholarly insight, except for obiter dicta from the usual sources. It is meaningless to compile lists of this was said, someone else, notable, replied, esp. when the comments and replies are repetitive, hackneyed, as opposed to the serious to-and-fro of analytic approaches. It is almost fatally vitiated by the overwhelming emphasis placed on the putative anti-Semitism =anti-Zionism nexus. That is an official Israeli talking point - don't look at the substance of some extended analysis, but erect a theoretical definition that suggests anything said re Israeli policies is tendentially hostile to Jews, and therefore, one shifts the goalposts from the substance to the psychology allegedly behind the content of an analysis. All this has been remarked on by analysts, but there is no sign of it, so far, on this page. The topic is anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism, which has its own page(s).Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The rationale behind tagging the sentence about the American Council for Judaism's immigration lobbying efforts as irrelavent to the topic of anti-Zionism is because it is irrelevant to anti-Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

?? Are you serious? At Biltmore, most American Jewish bodies reach a turning.point, embracing the idea of underwriting the Zionist programme for massive immigration into Palestine as war news highlighted Jewish suffering in occupied Europe. The exception was the American Council for Judaism, which retained the anti-Zionist position, and pushed for the alternative, for increasing massively immigration to the United States. The whole article is about opposition to Zionism, and this is a palmary instance of a concrete anti-Zionist proposal on the core presupposition of Zionism, that salvation for Jews lies anywhere but in the diaspora. I'll expand on it, if that simple note is not sufficient, but the relevance is patently cogent.Nishidani (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious how an organization with the subject in its name lobbying for immigration to the US not Palestine is a relevant historical node. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• C-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• High-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles