Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zero0000 (talk | contribs) at 02:19, 25 November 2003 (Baptists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)

I removed "Satmar" and "Not recognized by other Jews" because both POV statements are indicative of profound ignorance and arrogance. Neturei Karta is comprised of Satmar Hasidic, other Hasidic (i.e., Toldos Aharon), and non-Hasidic components. Their bastion, the Batei Ungarin neighborhood in Jerusalem, is divided along the lines of followers of the Hatam Sofer and followers of the Besht. While the site may have been funded by Satmar Hasidim in America (I do not know that), that does not mean that the sentiments it expresses are theirs alone. In fact, they are not. As for "Not recognized by other Jews," I would suggest that people stop speaking for the Jewish people as a totality. Recognized as what? As Jews? BS. Yisrael af al pi shechata Yisrael hu and I would not even go so far as to they shechatu. As for Satmar per se, they are certainly recognized by other Hasidic groups--note the marriages between them and Vizhnitz, for example. The bold statement that they are "not recognized," meaningless as it may be, is offensive. It is particularly offensive by someone whose own community has come under attack (wrongly, I might add) for deviating from "mainstream Jewish practice." Oh, and RK, one thing you may not know. Whenever there is a bomb in Jerusalem, the medics and zach on the scene to offer help are very often people associated with Neturei Karta--in fact they are organized by Yehudah Meshi-Zahav, the "Operations Officer" of the movement. Finally, with regard to a previous comment you made about a similar reversion, being a leftist is not necessarily an insult... Danny 01:53, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)

Danny, it is unfortunate that accuse me of "profound ignorance" on a topic that I am well read on. I can't imagine why you think I am confusing Satmar (one particular extremist Ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist group) with all the other ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist groups. I never made such a basic error; as you should know by now, I have read a number of well-received books on this subject such as "Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism", by Aviezer Ravitzky, (Univ. of Chicago Press), articles in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing), both of which I own in my rather extensive library, as well as a number of ancilliary articles on this topic. (I can prove this; ask me to quote from any page, any paragraph.) I think you misread the website, which really is from a Satmar POV (how can you say otherwise?), then misunderstood my comment, and ended up criticising me for beliefs that I do not have.

As I said before, I am willing to work with you, but you have stop repeatedly trying to make a tiny extremist group out to be a mainstream part of the Jewish community. Except for anti-Zionist extremists and those on the political left, Satmar and the other groups you mention are generally considered outside the pale of the Jewish community. In fact, they themselves have stated this as well, many times. In fact (and this has nothing to do with me) when newspapers and Palestinian organizations try to use these fanatic groups to illustrate a "Jewish" point of view, both religious and non-religious Jewish organizations have accused such people of having an anti-Semitic bias. It's that serious.

I am a bit hurt by your claim that I am inappropriately speaking for the entire Jewish community; I am not. What I mention here is an extremely well known position. Practically no one in Modern Orthodoxy, Reform, Conservative or Reconstructionist Judaism (let alone secular Judaism) accepts these tiny anti-Zionist groups as part of the greater Jewish community. By their actions and words they have consigned themselves to a fringe status. It is intellectually dishonest to paint them as part of the mainstream Jewish life, just as it is intellectually dishonest to present Baptists as part of the mainstream Catholic Church. In both cases different groups claim the same legitimacy and historical origin and Scripture, yet in both cases an impartial analysis shows that these groups just are not the same. You need to stop exagerrating your points. Yes, we know that the Satmat et al. are halakhically Jewish (Jewish people according to Jewish law); but we also know that these tiny groups publicly admit and proclaim that they are not a part of the rest of the Jewish world, and that the rest of the Jewish world no longer will have anything to do with them. Stop making this personal. RK 01:27, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

My employer the Jewish politician says that the best argument against there being a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world is to try to get two Jews to agree about anything. I begin to see his point. Adam

(Why am I writing this?) RK, your analogies are getting more silly by the minute. What you are really claiming is that Baptists are not Christians because they hold positions opposed to that of the Catholic Church. Probably there are Catholics who really believe such nonsense, but it is still nonsense.