| Revision as of 02:47, 25 November 2003 editRK (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users10,561 edits It has nothing to do with intelligence. Zero0000 has committed libel by fabricating beliefs I do not have, and making me out to be a bigot.← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:50, 25 November 2003 edit undoAdam Carr (talk | contribs)26,681 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| '''I am deleting all this pointless and off-topic arguing. Zero and RK, you are both intelligent people. Go away and take a deep breath and come back when you have constructive contributions to make.''' ] 02:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) | '''I am deleting all this pointless and off-topic arguing. Zero and RK, you are both intelligent people. Go away and take a deep breath and come back when you have constructive contributions to make.''' ] 02:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) | ||
| '''I hate to be heavy-handed, but I won't allow the contructive approach so far taken with this article by all parties to be derailed by this petty name-calling.''' ] 02:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) | |||
| :It has nothing to do with intelligence. Zero0000 has committed libel by fabricating beliefs I do not have, and making me out to be a bigot. Until he stops fabricating positions and attacking people for beliefs they do not have, we will get nowhere. Would you like it if someone repeatedly lied about your beliefs, made you out to be a bigot, and then twisted your replies around to "prove" that you really are a bigot? I doubt it, and I would never do such a thing to you. This kind of behaviour is simply not acceptable in polite society. As for constructive contributions, that is difficult as long as Danny's Zero000's anti-Zionist bias keeps grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of the real world Jewish community. All I can say is that their fairy tale representation of what Jews believe bears precious little resemblance to reality, outside of cofgee houses for anti-Zionist Jews. ] 02:47, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC) | |||
| ] 02:47, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:50, 25 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 wording 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
I added an article called Prominent Zionist Figures. It's hardly anything now, but I'd like it to become quite extensive. I do think that all of the people to be mentioned there, should also be incorporated into Zionism, or other complementary articles. Regardless, it'd be good to have such information concentrated under one article, as events are under Timeline of Zionism. Wonderer (a.k.a. Tohe)
For the record, the large chunk of text "Zionism and Germany" added by 216.239.85.234 and deleted by me was taken verbatim from a book review in the Journal of Palestine Studies (vol 129, 1). The interactions between Nazi Germany and the Zionist organizations do deserve an airing somewhere in Misplaced Pages, but I would argue against putting it in this article (except for a link). Viewpoints other than Brenner's would obviously need to be included. --Zero 03:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am deleting all this pointless and off-topic arguing. Zero and RK, you are both intelligent people. Go away and take a deep breath and come back when you have constructive contributions to make. Adam 02:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I hate to be heavy-handed, but I won't allow the contructive approach so far taken with this article by all parties to be derailed by this petty name-calling. Adam 02:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)