| Revision as of 14:10, 22 November 2003 editRK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,561 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:41, 22 November 2003 edit undoAdam Carr (talk | contribs)26,681 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :I have been arguing this for over a year. This virulent kind of anti-Zionism '''is''' anti-Semitism, and it is not a valid form of anti-nationalism. (See the Talk page for ].) These views are not not logical arguments, they are not based on an fact. Such views, and the wesbites that promote them, belong in articles under ], and not in political articles like this one. ] 14:10, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC) | :I have been arguing this for over a year. This virulent kind of anti-Zionism '''is''' anti-Semitism, and it is not a valid form of anti-nationalism. (See the Talk page for ].) These views are not not logical arguments, they are not based on an fact. Such views, and the wesbites that promote them, belong in articles under ], and not in political articles like this one. ] 14:10, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC) | ||
| Those links were carried over from the old article. Feel free to delete them and find a new set of relevant links. ] | |||
Revision as of 14:41, 22 November 2003
See also: Talk:Zionism/archive1, Talk:Zionism/archive2
Since this is a completely new article, I have archived the old talk.
This new article represents a month's co-operative editing between me and other interested users. Adam 12:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Post-Zionism is not synonmous with the neo-Canaanite movement. This article needs to clarify the fact that the term "Post-Zionism" is still loosely defined, and can include those who consciously identify as Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
Post-Zionism's most controversial advocates are anti-Zionists, who naturally receive a lot of press, out of proportion to their influence. It also really should be noted that the neo-Canaanite movement has little following among Israelis, or among Jews worldwide. It is only accepted among those who wish to replace the State of Israel with an Arab majority, which they euphemistically call the "state of both peoples". This state will be effectively and politically ruled by an Arab Muslim majority; all sides agree that any single-state solution will soon have an Arab Muslim majority; this is not in dispute. This context is necessary to understand why most people reject the neo-Canaanite movement. Many people have publicly criticised it as a disguised form of anti-Zionism that aims at the total removal of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Arab Palestinian State, and I have seen nothing so far to refute this position. Indeed, such views are tacitly admitted by the neo-Canaanites. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
RK, I must say that I found Zero's paragraph on post-Zionism a little unclear, but it's not an area I know much about so I didn't change it. Please feel free to suggest an alternative (btw, I did ask you to review the draft before it was posted here). Adam 01:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It didn't say that Postzionism was the same as the (neo-|NULL)Canaanite movement, but anyway I rephrased it and also made the point that there is a problem with the definitions. I don't want to labor that point as in fact there is no agreement on the meaning of many terms in this article including the term "Zionism" itself. Postzionism deserves its own article where the internal and external debate can be aired but I don't think that should be done in this article. Note that what I have written does not even attempt to present the arguments in favor of Postzionism; I think that doesn't belong. Btw, I think that mention of the Canaanite movement would be better moved into its historical setting earlier in the article. --Zero 10:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The word "Zionism" comes from "Zion", being one of Jerusalem's names, as mentioned in the bible. Zionism is, literally, the yearning for the Holy Land, Zion (Jerusalem) being its symbol in the eyes of diaspora jews of the time (and much before). I corrected that bit of the article, and linked "Zion" to its wikipedia definition, which is pretty accurate.
Also, I deleted two links:
one referring to jews converting to islam, which might be relevant to some people, but not to the issue of Zionism. The other was plain racist and ignorant, in my humble opinion. I'm gonna look at that link again, just to make sure. --Tohe
- I think your working here actually works better than the wording you used in the main article, so I have incorporated it there. Adam
That link contains, beside valid criticism, lots of blunt propaganda, without a bit of reasoning such as: "The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world..." and a page of images entitled "Zionism and Nazism: We Can't Tell The Difference, Can You?". If that's not blatant propaganda, I don't know what is. Those things are valid as opinions but I don't think they should be offered as valid anti-zionist claims. Wonderer
- I have been arguing this for over a year. This virulent kind of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and it is not a valid form of anti-nationalism. (See the Talk page for Anti-Semitism.) These views are not not logical arguments, they are not based on an fact. Such views, and the wesbites that promote them, belong in articles under bigotry, and not in political articles like this one. RK 14:10, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
Those links were carried over from the old article. Feel free to delete them and find a new set of relevant links. Adam