Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:22, 23 June 2004

Older text is archived here:

• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 1
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 2
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 3

A shared state

Would someone please explain how the following in the article makes sense:

A distinction also needs to be drawn between the anti-Zionism of those who actively seek the physical destruction of Israel and the death or expulsion of its Jewish inhabitants, and the anti-Zionism of those who argue that Israel ought to be voluntarily transformed into a state in which Jews and Palestinians live together as equals. While committed Zionists may see little validity to this distinction, it is a real one.

How is it anti-Zionist to support the expansion of Israel to occupy all of Palestine in a state incorporating both Jews and Arabs? That appears to be an objective of at least some Zionist groups, including the pre-independence groups which wanted all of Palestine for Israel, and it seems odd to describe as an anti-Zionist position something which includes those clearly pro-Zionist views.

Is it the policy of Israel today that Jews and Arabs are NOT equal within Israel? If it isn't, the equality portion also seems not to be useful, since it would be describing the official policy of Israel as anti-Zionist. Jamesday 10:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Zionism" logically has to mean "opposed to the objectives of Zionism," and there is no doubt that the objective of the Zionist movement today is the defence of Israel as a Jewish state, a state which Jews control by virtue of being a large majority of the population. It is true that Jews and Arabs are for most (though not all) purposes equal in Israel, but that is because Arabs are a 10% minority and they don't jeopardise the Jews' majority status. A reunited pre-1948 Palestine would have only a very narrow Jewish majority, and if the 1948 refugees and their descendents were allowed to return it would have an Arab majority. This is clearly contrary to the current objectives of Zionism, and to propose it is therefore in that sense "anti-Zionist." This is not to make any comment on the merits of the proposal. Adam 10:41, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Surely "While committed Zionists may see little validity to this distinction, it is a real one" is rather insulting to the intelligence of Zionists? I'm kind of curious - do you have any quotes from people who find it difficult to distinguish these two diametrically opposed positions? - Mustafaa 23:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Qaddafi, Israteen

"Thursday, 15 May, 2003: Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi renewed his calls Wednesday for establishing an Israeli-Palestinian state under the name of "Israteen" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Qadhafi said the solution was plausible on condition of allowing the repatriation of Palestinian refugees from wherever they were. Qadhafi first made his proposal at the Arab summit held in Amman in 2001. It was since made part of his "White Book" published on his private internet Web site. His suggestion "guaranteed the settlement of the Middle East conflict as the new Israteen state would become member of the Arab League," Qadhafi said."

"Israteen", by the way, is a combination of "Israel" and "Filasteen". I suppose some would still interpret this as calling for the "destruction" of Israel, but clearly not for, as the article put it, the "physical destruction" of it. - Mustafaa 08:14, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

The EUMC recently issued a two reports on anti-semitism in europe and whether or not there are links to anti-zionism. suprised that they are not referenced here. http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction=content.dsp_cat_content&catid=1

Neturei Karta

How are they not ultra-Orthodox? That goes against everything else I've read about them. - Mustafaa 18:19, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

They are "orthodox" all right, in the sense "radical". It is wrong to present them as a mainstream of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism though. --Humus sapiens|Talk 18:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

should this article only present anti-zionism from the anti-zionist point of view?

Since zionism is dealing only with the zionist POV, this article should be dealing only with the anti-zionist POV.

How about an introduction like this

Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view, both historically and in current debates. All these points of view have in common some form of opposition to Zionism.

Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. It follows that anti-zionism is a form of anti-racism."

This is of course not NPOV, but it states the POV of the anti-zionists, just like zionism simply presents the POV of the zionists as the only truth with no opposition. Should this be a fair solution to the problem? Zw 22:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You just don't get it, do you? Adam 02:24, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, actually not. Zw 04:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the wikipedia as it stands is a little too biased toward the Zionist point of view. (For example, following the Zionist page it would lead you to beleive intellectuals like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn held their beliefs only because they were "socialist liberals." Ha, as if that was the only intellectual opposition to Zionism. And as if there weren't Jewish Israeli citizens who also opposed Zionism.) I really only see this being resolved by separate articles from the moderate-Zionist and from the moderate-Anti-Zionist. Any extreme views do not belong, but naturally people are going to disagree on this one issue. I just don't want every article to sound like it was written from the POV of the ADL. MShonle 07:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Neither Zionism nor Anti-Zionism are written from any point of view. They are encyclopaedia articles, which present facts as objectively as possible. I am happy to debate the accuracy of any fact presented in either article, or any fact which anyone feels has been omitted from either article. But kindly spare us any more of this crap about what point of view the articles represent or ought to represent. Adam 10:17, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

But the reality is that the articles are from certain point of views. They are moderate point of views, but we haven't reached the encyclopedia ideal just yet. For example, you can list nothing but objective truths, but even truth reporting can be "spun" and biased in one way or the other. Or perhaps you're in objectivism land and believe your article ideal is actually achievable? MShonle 00:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Adam 04:55, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? You don't know what spin is? You don't know what facts are? You don't know how the presentation of certain facts can generate bias? Have you ever taken a social science course? Give me some clues here. MShonle 05:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have a PhD in history, so kindly don't patronise me. I believe it is possible to write an objective and truthful article about both Zionism and anti-Zionism, and I believe these articles come fairly close to being that. I am happy to debate specific issues. I am not interested in a philosophical debate about the meaning of truth etc. Adam 06:52, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So don't have a philosophical debate about truth, then. Anyway, you seem to have conveniently missed my "specific issue" I raised about the Zionism article acting like only socialist liberals hold anti-Zionists views. Perhaps you could change that, as you seem to be neutral enough. MShonle 07:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article makes no such claim. It says that anti-Zionist views are widely and increasingly held in most western countries. Adam 07:17, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I put something about this issue on the Zionism discussion, with the specific quote, so let's pick up our discussion there. MShonle 08:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam Carr wrote: "I have a PhD in history"

LOL - yes, as you are heavily announcing it, we've noticed that. So what? I have blue eyes and like Italian opera. Zw 11:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I feel this article is quite biased. It does not really represent anti zionism in a neutral fashion. For example, while the article states that anti zionism is not anti semitic, it gives an example of a soviet cartoon which clearly implies the opposite, why? The links I have added are key texts and articles for western leftist anti zionists....please do not remove them.

Updating the Intro

"Anti-Zionism can be opposition to these objectives, and that any person, organisation or government that opposes these objectives can in some sense be described as anti-Zionist; or Anti-Zionism can be opposition to a specific implementation that meets these objectives. The most common opposition to Zionism of the latter form comes from disapproval of the treatment of the Palestinians."

I put in the above wording because I think it would really clarify things. I believe that most people I know who object to Zionism would not object to it if the Palestinians didn't have to pay the cost. For example, if Jewish settlers wanted to occupy a previously uninhabitated land, I doubt there would be any objection to Zionism at all. However, the implementation of Zionism is not only that there should be a Jewish state, but that is should be in Palestine. That is the critical difference, and it's a disservice to those who oppose zionism to act like they only oppose the abstract idea of it, when in reality virtually all oppose the specific way it's been done. MShonle 09:27, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I changed the term "disapproval of the treatment" to "disapproval of the perceived treatment", as more NPOV. Jayjg

How would the theory above explain "anti-Zionist" Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, Riots in Palestine of May, 1921, Hebron#1929 Massacre, Great Uprising of Palestinian Arabs in 1936-39, their rejection of numerous offers to partition the land (Peel Commission 1937, UN 1947, etc.) Let me guess: because of Jewish occupation of 1948, or perhaps 1967? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A highly disingenuous objection; if a million people come into your country loudly proclaiming they plan to take it over, are you supposed to wait until they actually take it over before trying to throw them out? - Mustafaa 00:44, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was not "their country", and it wasn't a country at all, just a corner of Ottoman Empire called Southern Syria. The problem is not that, but extreme intolerance to accept Jews as anything other than dhimmi and inablility to compromise in repeated offers to partition the land. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The current intro already includes these concerns, in more eloquently-stated form. It says that Zionism is either support for a Jewish homeland, or support for the State of Israel as the Jewish homeland. Anti-Zionism, therefore, is opposition to either of these objectives. It is not necessary to redundantly say "or Anti-Zionism can be opposition to a specific implementation", because the State of Israel is a specific implementation. --Delirium 18:22, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

We want to effectively communicate the ideas. Even though such results could be inferred from the shorter version, we cannot assume everyone is going to be reaching those conclusions. The purpose of the introduction is to explain the results of the definition; not just to define it. I think someone reading this article would be very confused without the high-level picture. Your disagreement that it's redundant is not enough, because it provides new and helpful information. Try to imagine yourself as a reader coming upon the word "anit-zionist" and looking it up in the wikipedia having no idea what it means. Our job is to help the person who goes to the encyclopedia in the first place. It is not our job to make the most mathematically terse article possible; which would only serve to confuse, not enlighten. MShonle 22:08, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's not what's being done though. A very clear statement is made: Zionism is either support for a Jewish homeland in general, or support for the particular homeland in the state of Israel; anti-Zionism is, then, opposition to either of these positions. Adding on more sounds a lot like you're trying to push a particular point of view, whereas a simple statement of facts is both more elegant and more neutral. --Delirium 01:42, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree if you want, but you gotta give more than just the definition, you need to motivate it too. Trust me, no point of view is being pushed: other than pushing it back to a ballanced, neutral stance. I honestly would like to see a good objection to my three sentences other than someone thinking it's redundant (which it's not). MShonle 02:35, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is now being turned into the same swamp of slogans and propaganda as all the other Israeli-Palestinian etc articles at Misplaced Pages. This is mostly Zw's fault. I am very annoyed about this, since weeks of work went into getting it into a state which was both intellectually respectable and acceptable to all the people then working on it. I don't have time at present to respond to all the current damage being done to the article, not do I enjoy redoing work which I have already done once. I may just take it off my watchlist and let it degenerate into the same useless mess as most other related articles. On the other hand I may return and purge all this stuff with fire and sword. Adam 00:41, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hey, a general good rule is not to have things in your watchlist to which you have high emotional involvement. Don't get burned out. One article just isn't worth it. MShonle 02:37, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the current article is not very good at all. The previous one was far better. --Delirium 01:42, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

As a caveat to that, not all the changes have been bad. I do like some of Mustafaa's changes, for example. --Delirium 01:46, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with some of Mustafaa and Mshonle's edits, but I don't class them with Zw's propaganda. But they all damage the previous balance of the article by dragging all this stuff into the opening section. Adam 02:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you speak out against Humus sapiens' propaganda campaign as well? -- Dissident (Talk)] 02:14, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Humus has a clear point of view. However he is not trying to impose it on this article in the way Zw is trying to impose his. He is rather conducting an argument in the Talk page, as is proper. In any case, since Humus's pov is definitely the minority pov at Misplaced Pages, he may be excused some stridency in stating it. Adam 05:24, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am flattered someone noticed my contributions. Beware, my "propaganda campaign" may turn you into a blood-sucking, wells-poisoning Zionist. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zionist used interchangeably or as a code word for Jew

This important point has been lost in all the edits. The reasons Jews see anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic has less to do with seeing "attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic", and more to do with the fact that anti-Semites use the rhetoric of anti-Zionism to attack Jews, and the term "Zionist" as a code word for Jew. This fact inevitably muddies the waters in any pro-Zionism/anti-Zionism debate. Jayjg 14:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Do people really object to Zionism based on Church/State?

The article states "Others may object to Zionism on the belief that religion and state should never be combined." Is this true? One could argue that "Church" plays a greater "State" role in Israel than in most industrial democracies, and many (particularly secular Israelis) see the religious establishments has having far too much power in the country. Nevertheless, Israel itself is not a theocracy, and the Zionist movement was started and run by secular Zionists against the opposition of most Jewish religious leaders the time. As well, I would be hard pressed to find a country in which religion was not supported in some way by the State (communist China being the obvious large exception). Finally, the largest numbers and often most vehement "anti-Zionists" are Muslims who themselves support theocracies in their own states, but ironically also in Israel itself (of course this would be a Muslim theocracy, and Israel would be renamed Palestine).

Comments? Jayjg 14:58, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A second question occurs to me; are there any other international movements like "anti-Zionism" which oppose a country based on the notion that Church and State should never be combined? Against Iran, for example, or Saudi Arabia, based on Church/State separation? If there are, then it might support the notion that this is a reason for anti-Zionism. If not, it would indicate that anti-Zionism is probably not truly based on an ideal of separation of Church and State, and more on opposition to a specific State. Jayjg 15:52, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You need look no further than libertarians, atheists, and academics to see opposition to the combination of religion and state. This is actually part of my opposition to how the article used to be stated. While it says anti-Zionists can be anti-Zionist for many reasons, the focus seems to dwell on anti-semititsm, and not the legitimate human-right concerned activists. I'm an American, and in academic circles in America there's a huge feeling of responsibility for the Palestinians, because of America's continued support of Israel. Most of the people I know object to Zionism because they think it's similar to how America treated the native-americans so long ago. Based on the profiles I've read here, it seems like I might be the only American editing this recently. MShonle 19:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, of course, people are opposed to the combination of religion and state, but that doesn't answer the question; are there any identified international movements in opposition to any specific states where religion and state are mixed (which actually includes many states), other than Israel? I can't think of any examples of such a movement, which suggests that the putative reason is not the real reason. Moreover, it seems that the claimed "opposition to any mixing of religion and state" is quite vociferous in the case of Israel, which, at the end of the day, is still a secular democracy; wouldn't those opposed to this mixing focus first on true theocracies, such as the aforementioned Iran and Saudi Arabia? Are these groups mentioned carying signs in rallies decrying (for example) Hamas and Hizbullah based on the stated desire of these groups to create theocracies in the region?

As for the part about Palestinians and native Americans, that has nothing to do with mixing of church and state. Please recall that the Zionist movement was secular, and based on the idea of Jews as a people, not Judaism as a faith. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm getting a very strong feeling that this objection to Zionism "on the belief that religion and state should never be combined" is a red herring. Jayjg 19:43, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of "libertarians oppose this" you don't understand. Actually, another international group opposed to it in any form are the socialists (granted, some socialists focus on it more than others). (Perhaps you've not attented socialist rallies in America.)

Also, the Palestinian/native American thought I put down was a separate thread: of course it has very little to do with separation of religion and state. But to answer your concern, those I know in academia feel very strongly about separation of church and state no matter what the religion and no matter what the state. I feel the focus on anti-semitism is more the red herring. I would propose even that the anti-semitism content from this article be put in the anti-semtitism article instead, as it is not true anti-Zionism... but in general I get annoyed when people try move around helpful information, so the content might as well remain, no matter how distracting it is about the real reasons why moderates oppose Zionism. MShonle 20:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I fully understand that "libertarians" might oppose the mixing of church and state, but I'm not aware of any specific "Libertarians against Zionism" movement. In any event, Zionism was not a movement to create a theocratic state run under Jewish law, but a movement to create a secular democratic state for Jews. And in fact, this is what it has done. The whole "objection to Zionism on the basis that religion and state should not be combined" appears to have no basis in fact.

As for academia feeling strongly that church and state should be separated, I'm sure much or even most of American academia does feel that way, but they only seem to consistently and vociferously state these objections (and create boycott movements etc.) in the case of Israel. They certainly do not have the same kinds of reactions to the aforementioned Hamas or Hisbullah or Islamic Jihad, whose clearly stated goals are to create theocracies in place of the current secular democratic Israel. Given these facts, and the underlying fact that Israel is not a theocracy, it is quite clear that the statement regarding "objection to mixing of church and state" is irrelevant at best, and a red herring at worst.

Would you prefer to remove the statement, or should I? Jayjg 16:18, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph of intro

Now it's confusing, long and wrong. How's this: The term "Zionism" was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890 and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, or Zion. The First Zionist Congress led by Theodore Herzl adopted this idea as the Basel Program in 1897. , Anti-Zionism can be opposition to these objectives, or to a specific implementation that meets these objectives. In some cases, anti-Zionism stems from anti-semitism, but not all anti-semites are anti-Zionist, nor can most anti-Zionist be considered anti-semitic. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's much better; more accurate and to the point, and it does capture the most important facts and issues. The only area of question would be the very last statement, "nor can most anti-Zionist be considered anti-semitic". Not only does it seem superfluous (you've already said that anti-Zionism stems from anti-Semitism in some cases, not all cases), but in any event how do we know that the last assertion is true? Jayjg 16:26, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is too complex to discuss in the intro, and making questionable statements like that is entirely out of place. Many people would argue that most anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, and there is good evidence for this viewpoint (just take a look at the ridiculous anti-Semitism coming out of most self-described "anti-Zionist" media outlets, especially those in Arab countries). The intro should give a more clean definition: Zionism is either support of a Jewish state in general, or support for the specific Jewish state of Israel, and anti-Zionism is opposition to either of these. The only possible anti-Zionism not covered in that definition is opposition to a specific implementation other than Israel, and as far as I know that's not an issue, as there are no other proposed specific implementations, at least currently. --Delirium 23:05, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You edit out two completely valid and established reasons why non-anti-semitic groups are against zionism (namely, church/state separation, and more importantly the treatment of the Palestinians), and then you claim ignorance of non-anti-semitic reasons against Zionism? Obviously your POV is creeping away from the talk page and into the article itself.

You are clearly confusing the valid arguments against Zionism with the clearly anti-semitic arguments against Zionism. And that's exactly the narrow POV I've been trying to so long to get out of the article (and it could be accomplished with just two sentences!).

Article is too Biased!

Ultimately, I don't care who writes it or how it is said, but this article has to mention the Palestinian treatment (call it "reported" if you have to, but there's no point denying their mistreatment) plus the church/state boundary discussed before in the opening. You collectively who edit me are silencing valid reasons and are making the article too POV. MShonle 12:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are trying to inject false reasoning into the article to try to advance your own personal agenda. I understand that is it important to some anti-Zionists not to be lumped into the larger group of worldwide anti-Zionists, for whom anti-Zionism is simply a variation of anti-Semitism. It is clear that many anti-Zionists are not anti-Semites in intent, though I personally doubt whether they are a majority of the "movement". Nevertheless Zionism was not a movement to create a mixed church/state entity, so anti-Zionism cannot be an objection to that goal - the goal simply wasn't a part of Zionism. Similarly, the goal of Zionism is not to oppress Palestinians, though that may have been an outcome of a number of things, including the creation of the State of Israel, Arab instransigence, Arab terror, Jewish ethnocentrism, etc. Thus you have confused objections to the current formulation of the Israel government, or current Israeli policies, with anti-Zionism.

Actually, I haven't "confused" objections with the current formulation at all! My sentences were removed to further the agendas of Zionists; I'll specifically state that the agenda on the wikipedia editors right now (who delete my work) is to create a strawman argument: the false notion that the only opposition to Zionism is anti-semitism. I am not proposing anything radical here. I'm merely stating that groups exist that oppose Zionism because of its results, and not its objectives. Just so you know, I think Zionism was a noble goal, and perfectly understandable, but a complete failure in practice. That is why I oppose Zionism. However, the heavily POV article would lead you to believe that I don't exist! My sentences, clearly, elegantly, and fairly showed that people object to the implementation. You'll have to have a good reason for why these two sentences shouldn't exist. I'm getting really tired of being put in a box with anti-semities, as if you knew me you'd know how much it annoys me. MShonle 20:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll have to specifically state that this particular editor (who did not remove any statements, by the way) is not trying to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This, in fact, is the strawman argument that you are trying to promote. Anti-Zionism is not synonymous with anti-Semitism, and the article devotes paragraphs to explaining why that is true, and why and when they are also often reasonably conflated. Your sentences were explained more clearly in the following section, and did not belong in the intro, were they were merely a defensive inclusion because you perceive your anti-Zionist stance as being confused with anti-Semitism. I understand your personal need not to be seen as an anti-Semite, but this does not justify inserting erroneous and defensive statements into the introduction. The introduction succinctly and clearly explains what anti-Zionism is, it doesn't need to also try to explain the many things it isn't.

As for groups that exist which "oppose Zionism because of its results, and not its objectives", you are not a group, and you have completely failed to document their existence, or that they oppose Zionism for the reasons you state. More important, if such groups did exist, they would be anti-Israel groups, not anti-Zionism groups. Perhaps you can start a new Misplaced Pages article on anti-Israel groups, and discuss their purpose, scope, charters, etc. You could start with the U.N. ;-) (that's a joke). Jayjg 21:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The introduction, as it stands, is concise, clear, and accurate; explains what anti-Zionism is, not all the many things it is not. Contrary to your claim, it makes no reference at all to anti-Zionism being equated with anti-Semitism; it does not even mentioned anti-Semitism. Your "two simple sentences" injected inaccuracy and confusion into the opening. The point that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not synonymous is made clear in the very next section in the article, as is the point that much of the movement today in the West is fuelled by perceived mistreatment of the Palestinians. And your suggestion that "there's no point denying their mistreatment" again betrays your lack of NPOV; whether or not their treatment is "mistreatment" is, again, a matter of some debate. Jayjg 14:15, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, this is the talk page. POV of course exists on the talk page: that's what it's for! Just to be sure that you don't twist my words further I'm saying it's fine to even say "reported treatment", even though it's plain to me that the Palestinians are being mistreated, I'm willing to concede that not everyone agrees. You on the other hand seem to only want your POV, but worse of all you won't even admit its presence. At least I'm telling you. MShonle 20:14, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, this is the talk page, but it's not the "lets debate the whole Israeli-Palestinian issue" page. The problem is that you keep trying to inject your obvious POV into the article page. Regarding the terminology itself, "perceived treatment" is the most NPOV, as it neither confirms nor denies the treatment, but merely explains the fact that many people perceive it that way. As for me, I haven't taken a stand on it at all, I'm merely trying to keep the page neutral. Jayjg 21:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to debate "the whole issue." I've shown flexibility here. I've revised my sentences repeatedly and defended the case to Adam Carr enough that he stopped editing me out. Change it to perceived if you like, and I will not change it. But please stop deleting something that must belong in the introduction. You cannot even dare to discuss anti-Zionism without first mentioning those who oppose it due to the treatment of the Palestinians. That's the only non-anti-semetic protest I've heard from groups specifically opposed to Zionism.

So, please, leave my sentences intact. The earlier versions were fine, and I've already conceded more than what I should reasonably expect. I've done so only because this important protest to Zionism must appear in the introduction if a clueless reader is to have any idea what the greater issue is about. Also, I don't care for your semantics game of "anti-Israel"/"anit-Zionism". But seriously, from the point of view of a clueless reader, they are going to be very confused about this article unless we are upfront in the beginning about all groups. MShonle 23:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And just to backup my claim about the Orkut group this is from a group titled "Anti-Zionist Jews":

"We are Jews who believe Zionism was an understandable and forgiveable error, but one which continues at a great cost to the Palestinian people, who deserve to have full political enfranchisement, as political equals in a binational unitary, secular and democratic state; and it continues at great cost to the Jews, because it fosters renewed anti-Semitism and forces Jews in Israel to adopt postures that are contrary to centuries of Jewish values of pacificism, pluralism and cosmopolitinism; and it continues at great cost to the world as the origin of much of the conflict in the Middle East, which has led to world-wide terrorism, which has in turn led to repressive political prerogatives internationally. We are NOT self-hating Jews. We are just not narcissistic enough about our Jewishness to think that as Jews we have a special dispensation from God to deny a colonized people the political equality to which it is entitled."

If I wanted to make the article in my POV, I would probably say something much closer to the above. As it stands, the reasonable and englightening text I propose is a far cry from the above, just because being NPOV is important to me. So, I've demonstrated my point and will continue to remove any bias that acts like such inconviences don't exist. MShonle 23:51, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First I have to say, the infighting is what we Jews do best. What else did you expect this group to say: We are self-hating Jews, and therefore we adopt the position of those who hate the Jewish state? Naturally, they will justify their views, as I'd expect from anyone. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you should read thier discussions (if you are on Orkut) to discover that they aren't self-hating. But I guess you're saying that their views are justified? If so, I'm glad. MShonle 00:15, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't be, and don't read between the lines. It is in human nature to make up justification for their actions or views, no matter how extreme they are. You dug up some bozo the clowns and attempt to give them publicity in a serious encyclopedia. The "For example" phrase doesn't belong to the intro, please think about it and revert. An intro should be short and clean, examples belong to the article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 00:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Short, clean, and completely blind to the reality that the Palestinians are a major reason people oppose Zionism? That doesn't make sense. MShonle 00:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

1) it is an opinion, not a fact. An alt. opinion is the reason is AS, which we agreed to remove from the intro. 2) it's already covered in short & clean version. 3) examples belong to the article not to the intro. The intro's function is to invite a reader to continue reading, not give dubious examples or winding and confusing explanations. That's what the rest of an article is for ;) ←Humus sapiens←Talk 01:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humus Sapiens is right. The introduction should be short and to the point; it should not have discussions of either anti-Semitism (which many people believe is the real reason for anti-Zionism) nor the Palestinians (which Mshonle believes is the real reason for anti-Zionism). Mshonle's personal agenda is well covered in the very first paragraph following the introduction, there is no need for his continued vandalism of the introduction. Jayjg 03:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Zionist Jews" inaccurate

Changed "Israelis and Zionist Jews outside Israel" to "Israelis and Zionists outside Israel". The position stated was a Zionist position, not one held solely by Zionist Jews. It is worth remembering that there are more Zionist non-Jews outside Israel than Zionist Jews, particularly Zionist Christians, but also Zionists of all faiths and none, including even Muslims. Jayjg 21:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

4th and 5th paragraphs in Jewish responses to Zionism

These paragraphs seem confused; does anyone know what they are trying to say? Jayjg 22:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

These paragraphs are about Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism. Many anti-Semites try to justify their anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism by claiming "Anti-Zionism can't be anti-Semitic; after all, even Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist!" The problem is that they are just plain wrong; While many Orthodox Jews used the phrase "anti-Zionism" to refer to some of their beliefs, they had an entirely different definition of the term. Some opposed the return of Jews to the land of Israel before the messiah arrived, but otherwise had no problem with the idea that Jews had a right to live in the land of Israel. Others opposed the idea that a Jewish state should be led by agnostic and atheist socialists, but otherwise had no problem with the idea that Jews had a right to live in the land of Israel. RK 23:29, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

O.K., but as worded it still seems confusing and repetitive. How about this instead:

Many 19th century and early 20th century Orthodox Jews objected to "Zionism" because they rejected secular and atheist attempts to build a secular and socialist Jewish state in Palestine. Orthodox Jews in this group did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine and reconstitute a Jewish nation within its borders, but instead hoped that if any such state were to be created, it would follow to some extent Jewish law and tradition, and that its leaders would be religious Jews. Other Orthodox Jews of that time objected to any creation of a Jewish state in Palestine before the arrival of the messiah, though they accepted the right of individual Jews to move to Palestine. However, following the events of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel, this position is now only held by a small minority of Orthodox groups. Jayjg 03:22, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)