Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 11

Comments on getting new sources
Too many articles/books about antisemitism are used as sources. Anti-Zionism suffers from problem of many activist/ideological (anti-ideological) movements, that mostly non-WP:RS groups write neutral or positive things about them while lots of WP:RS sources trash them; and then, to compound the problem, even pro-anti-Zionist sources have to write responses.

How to get more good sources: 1. Wikipedia searches for topics, sources. Just a few interesting things I found: ]Snettie(talk) 22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC), Neturei Karta, Zionism (includes Arabs), Politics of Israel
 * Current Arab groups: International Day of Quds, Arab European League
 * Current Jewish Groups: True Torah Jews Against Zionism
 * Historical Jewish Groups: [[True Torah Jews Against ZionisUser:Snettie|Snettie]] (talk)22:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC), Matzpen, Jewish Anti-Zionist League
 * Allegedly Anti-Zionist authors, haven’t checked them all out: Israeli Black Panthers (1975), David Hirst (1977), Wilbur Crane Eveland (1980), Uri Avnery (1988), Ella Shohat (1986), Abbas Shiblak (1986), Marion Wolfsohn (1980), and Rafael Shapiro (1984).

2. Internet Search "anti-Zionism" and/or "anti-Zionist" and names of specific WP:RS publications that might have neutral or positive views: Counterpunch, Merip.org, etc.

Miscellaneous:
 * Rense and Memri both too partisan to be used as WP:RS
 * Possibly ok: www.zionism-israel.com/his/anti-zionism-history.htm This can be used carefully since for some facts it is very good; Jewish Virtual Library too often very dated; both obviously have biases.
 * See largely unsourced Anti-Israel_movements - merge into this article?
 * Category:Writers_on_Zionism needs beefing up and might have a few authors; look through probably allegedly anti-Zionist authors articles or search their name and antizionist on web and see what comes up

Will continue to add points here as relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

- Can I count these sources as authentic and use them to edit?Snettie (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.jewsnotzionists.org
 * http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com

What is your opinion on this sources? Can it be used or it is too religious?Snettie (talk) 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Sources like that only can be used about their own views and activities, but obviuouly they are appropriate for this article. Make sure you use at least one quote where they call them selves anti-Zionist or say "we are opposed to Zionism" or something like that... CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc, I am impressed with all of your edits in this area, is this group new to you? Are they shocking? Could you help me with removing a redirect, typing in True Torah Jews points to Torah Jews - since this group comes up first in internet a internet search for this name it should have its own section, otherwise even people as knowledgable as yourself may not know about this group or their beleifs. In the spirit of improving Wiki, will you help a newbie with a redirect?Snettie (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can take it as given that a group calling itself "Jews Against Zionism" or "Torah True Jews Against Zionism" is indeed snti-Zionist. Surely we need no citation beyond their own name? RolandR 07:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * YOu mean own name, if have wikilink and a WP:RS? I also was responding thinking about the larger topic of when groups can be quoted about their own activities. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

--


 * http://www.zionismontheweb.org/antizionism/
 * What is your opinion on this source? Can it be used or it is too political?Igorb2008 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like an excellent place to find WP:RS. Any opinions from the site, if specifically identified to Dr Andre Oboler or others would have to be used on a case by case basis, like the two I mention above and others that might come along. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He might also be an editor; I seem to remember something, but I dunno. Quickly I'll add The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America and American Council for Judaism, as likely places to start looking or just good sources. The latter is officially anti-Zionist and has been around since Biltmore.  Night all, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * American Council for Judaism is not anti-Zionist. See their position on Israel.Igorb2008 (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Without wanting to bite, your use of exposed external links should, in the future, be corrected by including them in single brackets ([]) and formatted into text. I suspected your newbie-ness only by not seeing you around the block before, but that edit caused me to look at your userpage, et.al; now I have an idea from where you come, quite literally too, it is a ’bona fides’ back-check.


 * Simply, you are wrong on about ACJ.  You conflated ACJ’s religious support for Israel with some aspect of Zionism, or its anti-.  Support for Israel is not necessarily just Zionist; lack of support for Zionism is not necessarily lack of support for Israel, and anti-one is not strictly anti-the-other, as they quite clearly indicate and you observed.  Can you find any use of the word ‘Zionism’, or its anti-, on their immediately available pages?  I doubt it.  Obviously, they are pro-Israel, as I am, but it is a definitional difference, that you apparently haven’t seen, haven’t comprehended in an NPOV light, or oppose.  The differences revolve around Zionism and anti-Zionism, with the latter being our topic of discussion; assumptions that a country or a religion is that axis of rotation conflates other things and constitutes SYNTH, to put it in wiki-parlance. They obviously are involved, however, and occur in our historic time at least, in the following order; Judaism, Zionism, Israel.  Where they occur in this rotational discussion, whether as the spokes, the rim, or whether they are the grease, or the bumpy road upon which it traverses is beyond my metaphorical capacity.  Again, we must work from an adequate definition.


 * I suggest you see ACJ's ‘About us’, they do not mention Zionism or anti- once; they say, “We interpret Judaism as a universal religious faith, rather than an ethnic or nationalist identity.” Later it says, “We share with all Jews an appreciation of the significance of the Land of Israel as the cradle of our faith. Along with all people of good will, we embrace the hope for a prosperous and secure State of Israel, living in justice and peace with its neighbors. As American citizens, our ties to Israel are historical and spiritual, but in no way political.”  The bolded phrases are only to show ACJ’s specific differences with other supporters.  I hope in those bolded phrases you see basic known definitions of what our anti- is about.  If you don’t, then look here, and type in ‘Zionism’, or better yet, type in ‘anti-Zionism’ and see where you go and what you learn; I haven't done it myself though, I just kinda going on faith.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't knew how to change external links into numbers, so now I got it. As for ACJ, you misunderstood my comment, I don`t think they are Zionist either. I admit that I never heard about this organization before, and my opinion on them based only on their position expressed on their site, but their view best can be described as Non-Zionism,and not anti-Zionism  or Zionist. From what I understand,at least in the present,they do not oppose Israel existence,they simply don`t view American Jews as in any way politically connected to it, they view themselves as simply Americans whose faith is Judaism. Igorb2008 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help. They are saying they are absolutely not Zionist, without using the word, and with 'but in no way political', pretty much opposes secular Zionism, and their religious convictions oppose religious Zionism.  I admit they currently soft-sell their anti-Zionism; they always haven't done so, historically.  They are an RS, for this page, and have historic credentials. CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems ACJ were Anti-Zionist in the past, and of course they can be used as RS, for this page, but I don`t think their current views, at least as described in their site, can be used as an example of Anti-Zionism, only as Non-Zionism. They are opposing Zionism among American Jews, saying they should be politically affiliated only towards America, but they don`t seem to oppose Jews from other countries seeing Israel as their homeland or as a refuge from persecution .Igorb2008 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple solution to this dispute is wikipolicy: if they organization or some WP:RS calls them anti-Zionist, we can; if they don't we can't. :-)
 * That looks like my comment, unsigned above, so let me ditto it again and sign... CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The TorahTrueJews group is a WP:FRINGE group and may not be used outside articles about themselves (Neturei Karta). -- Avi (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Same with http://www.jewsnotzionists.org and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com. -- Avi (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

POV of Moving Paragraph into new Diaspora Section
I assume USer:AMD hasn't read recent Talk section discussions, including that this article is about a range of anti-Zionist views, not just Jewish views pro and con anti-Zionism. If he did perhaps he wouldn't have assumed that just because a Jewish writer is the author of a sentence in the International section that his views merely represented those of "diaspora" Jews and not some wider grouping - like a large percentage of knowlegable people in the international community. I'm not saying the paragraph was perfect, but it's absurdly POV to move it out of the International section and into its own diaspora section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that it belongs to "Secular Arab" section, as it discuses Arab Anti-Zionism. I think is is irrelevant that author is Jewish, and it does not discuss Anti-Zionism among Jewish community.Igorb2008 (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually Neumann - and other sources to be entered when found pertaining to Israel's actions largely causing worldwide anti-Zionism - belong in an early overview of anti-Zionism section (which would replaced the current two clunkier leading sections). I am slowly between other projects accumulating WP:RS. The structure has become more POV with new section name "Anti-Zionism outside the Jewish community." Again, something like the below in (Draft) historical order is a far more NPOV structure, but I'll await more WP:RS before I start doing work to make it so.

NEW VERSION: More Useful/NPOV Structure Thoughts on why this is (or is not) a more NPOV structure than current one which emphasizes Jewish anti-Zionism and Jewish anti-anti-Zionism? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Overview of Anti-Zionism (including points above)
 * History of anti-Zionist movements
 * Before WWII
 * Jewish reactions
 * International reactions
 * 1948-1967
 * (Subsections created only for major groupings, events)
 * 1967-1982
 * (Subsections created only for major groupings, events)
 * 1982-1993
 * (Subsections created only for major groupings, events)
 * 1993-2001
 * (Subsections created only for major groupings, events)
 * 2001-Present
 * (Subsections created only for major groupings, events)
 * Contemporary debates on Anti-Zionism
 * Among Jewish factions
 * Political (or some broad category with relevant subcategories, for example)
 * Debates over a "Jewish" state
 * Debates over colonialism, apartheid and racism
 * Debates over alternatives
 * Debates over relation to antisemitism/conspiracy theories


 * I think that current structure is better, since it better presents diversity of motivation and expression in Anti-Zionism. There is big difference between Jewish religious anti-Zionism and Muslim religious
 * Anti-Zionism, between Soviet Anti-Zionism, to Catholic Anti-Zionism  and other types in all periods.  So to present anti-Zionism by type is much more helpful, then chronological development. But maybe new :section can be created  like "History of Anti-Zionism", that can present its development historically. As for debates on anti-Zionism, I think it can be good to make "Debates over alternatives" section, but :debate over "Jewish" state :and character of Israel is not debate of Anti-Zionism, it mostly debate between Zionism and Post Zionism, and so in my opinion, not related to the subject of the article.  As for :"debates over colonialism, apartheid and racism" , if created it will only turn to section for general anti-Israeli allegations,that cant be connected to Zionism or anti-Zionism. I also that that "Debates over :relation to antisemitism" should be presented separately form "conspiracy theories" section. Igorb2008 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Late comment. I read this comment again (several times) and felt pointing to some specific differences in perspective might be enlightening; they are intended to be helpful.  You say “debate over the "Jewish" state and character of Israel is not debate of Anti-Zionism, it mostly debate between Zionism and Post Zionism … not related to the subject of the article.”  This is true, but limited, what I see this: The debate over the "Jewish" state and Israel’s character is the continuing debate of what Zionism is (to be).  There is no constitution; it remains an unanswered internal question. Zionism also defines itself as the Jewish state, and thus, to some degree must (being a gentile) include Diaspora Jews.  All the while, Israel remains the Zionist state, and both Israeli and Jewish opinion varies widely and loudly.  These are largely internal, and like you say, constitute debate of what Zionism is, not its anti-.  At the same time however, opposition to specific ideologies within Zionism, from whatever source, must be seen equally as a form of anti-Zionism (against that one, the different one, the other guy’s, the one with which you disagree, whatever).


 * You characterize this anti-Zionism as the Zionist - Post-Zionist debate; this is not incorrect, but it is too internalized to be NPOV. Zionism after 1949 is factually post-Zionism anyway; you won, you have a country and it is a recognized fact.  Myself and the wider world are outsiders to that debate; that is your internal debate and your decision, not outsider's.  Much of the outside world characterizes their anti-Zionism as the debate about a specific something that takes these internal debates and externalizes them for others.  The most specific RS'd something that defines anti-Zionism outside Israel is the specific difference between Medinat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, the specific difference between the recognized state and the additional geography constituting  the widely unaccepted and overly ideological revisionist dream of Zionism and Israel.  That specific debate is best characterized for outsiders as the (post-)Zionist – Neo-Zionist debate.  It certainly does for me and my RSs.  Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your point. Maybe my problem is that, as Israeli, I define anti-Zionism differently then  anti-Zionists  themselves define it. To Israelis, it would sound weird defining somebody who debate  Medinat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael difference, or borders, or debating character of Israel, as  Anti-Zionist, since it is also internal debate, and Israelis also constantly see this debates, among Zionist parties in Knesset, in the media. Equating  Medinat Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael for example, and annexation of West Bank and Gaza , would  be opposed by vast majority of Israelis and Zionists also, not because they are Anti-Zionists, but because then Israel will probably will cease being Jewish state, or cease being a democracy. For Israelis, Anti-Zionism is  something that Hamas or Hezbollah believe, destruction of Israel, creating Arab state in its place,expulsion of Jews, etc. But of of course, outside world view, is the one that  must be presented in the article.Igorb2008 (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Understanding that there is an external anti-, which includes many specifics of the internal Zionist debate, and excludes many specifics of Ham's or Hez's definitions, is positive, collaborative and enlightening. For myself, I can now better understand some of the internally generated discussions that have produced non-understandable or inconsistent responses.  I also want to point out, and then drop, another 'specific' for later.  You are free to discuss these internal debates and do heatedly, in America particularly, we are not allowed the same right; open discussion is derided and discouraged in an organized effort.  We are outsiders but only to a degree; but by the loudest, we are seen only as absolute outsiders of the triple-shelled sphere that is Judaism/Zionism/Israel, (or currently, Judaism/Israel/Zionism).  Maybe this is synth, but I can now see, for the same reasons, where you might be tagged with my anti-, and I might be tagged with your Z.  Additionally, you well understand the dearness, depth and breadth of the debate; I am a similar participant from the outside, and asking the same questions.  The inability to openly discuss these questions, particularly when generated by similar motivations of right/change/improvement, rather than from just Ham's and Hez's limited anti- (with which we are tagged), only increases anti- feelings.  Would you feel similarly, if your parallel debate was quashed?  We might pick this up later as discussion moves on.  Warmest, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Igorb wrote above, which was then interrupted by another editor: I think that current structure is better, since it better presents diversity of motivation and expression in Anti-Zionism. There is big difference between Jewish religious anti-Zionism and Muslim religious. Anti-Zionism, between Soviet Anti-Zionism, to Catholic Anti-Zionism  and other types in all periods.  So to present anti-Zionism by type is much more helpful, then chronological development. But maybe new :section can be created  like "History of Anti-Zionism", that can present its development historically. etc. :My reply was:
 * Obviously both approaches have their pros and cons. I personally would have to look at things as I went, first deleting poorly sourced or unsourced material. Then dealing with things historically. For example if Dar al-Islam being vs. Zionism has been there from the start, it's in front of history. Different Catholic views over the years might better be presented historically.
 * What is not acceptable is removing material from its original sourcing and then saying it is irrelevant, like last edit you made. But I'll put it all back where belongs with Neumann. My main goal is to alert people this article has an absurd POV right now and that that can be overturned easily with good sourcing. So I have to throw up objections and proposals as I accumulate sources, before make any big changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I a also think it can be added to Neumann views, but by itself, mention of wars in "secular Arab" section was out of context. Now you corrected it.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for agreeing. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Morning outdent. I have no problem with Neumann in the Arab section, but he is talking about “goyim--let alone the Arabs”, and “as do most people in Europe, a great many Israelis, and a growing number of North Americans.” He talks about liberal Jews too. Neumann probably should appear much higher on the page because his general overview of the impact of the Palestinian situation, which includes almost all sub-divisions we might choose, particularly post-67, 77, 87 and 2001. This interpretation parallels Igorb’s ‘continuing saga’ approach, another page of which would be the continuing traditional ‘Messiah before Israel’ Judaic position.

On the other hand, Carol’s historic approach is particularly better to document changes in opposition, because those are RS’d specifically, and that is how we must work. For this page, periods of increased anti-Zionism seem most relevant, but there are neutrality issues there. Are there refs that indicate periods of decreased anti-Zionism? They would certainly have to be ref’d. Maybe there are no such events/periods; Neumann notes a growing number opposing. (This particularly highlights Neumann’s concern for “the stretched definition” of another (improperly associated, but ref'd) term as well as those who tend to espouse it more easily). I can think of one group, but it is a transitional change, also best ref’d historically; that page however, is so full of pov’d synth, that it would be uninformative at this point.

I have little concern about the dated periods, and would like to add some existing links and pointers within them, if that is acceptable to others. I do have problems with the early undated period, however. It should start with Herzl and note the internalization of Judaism with nationalism, which Zionism is; prior to that, despite Zionist retroactive inclusionism since, Zionism was an exclusionist break with Judaic assimilationist evolution at that time, and thus mainly internal Judaic opposition. This continued through Balfour 1917, Paris1919, King-Crane, Passfield 1930 and the White Paper 1939 (this one included decreased anti-), but included growing goyim opposition, and pangs of liberal conscience regarding result. Dated periods should include 1897-1917, Balfour to Passfield(?), Passfield to WWII/knowledge of Holocaust (and/or Biltmore, since that was the mainstream Zionist decision point). Knowledge of the Holocaust caused the greatest reduction in anti-Zionism, although Balfour and 1949 are milestones also. Please excuse the non-inclusive listing, but their inclusion is base on impeccable Judaic and Zionist RSs (based on their existing multiple usages).

I really haven’t looked too closely at the new-version-outline after the dated periods, except that ‘Among Jewish factions’ should be ‘Among Jewish and Zionist factions’; that is an important element, easily RS’d, (e.g. Labor vs Likud positions, J Street. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with CasualObserver Neumann section belongs in a more general area cause not just Arabs - and like I said right in an introductory area.
 * Yes, there is a lot of WP:OR general statements in here and just because they haven't been removed yet doesn't mean they can't be in a flash. If you want to keep it, you better reference it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Confusing
This sentence makes no sense:

"Palestinians who struggle for self-determination emphasize their view that the history of the Israeli-Palestine conflict has led to over 90 percent of the pre-1948 British Mandate of Palestine being controlled by Israel and millions of Palestinians made refugees."

Who said this? Palestine has largely been an abstract term for most of history and its borders have changed constantly. Right up until the British mandate Palestine was simply reference to the general area between Jaffa and the corners of Arabia. The Arabs still control and can claim occupancy to over 80% of former British Palestine.

What is pre-1948 Palestine? That makes no sense whatsoever. Can someone please explain? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * pre-1948 British Mandate of Palestine. Self-explanatory.  nableezy  - 03:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is pre-1948 British Mandate of Palestine? Over 80% of BM of Palestine before 1948 is controlled by Arabs, not Israel. Does Israel occupy Jordan too? I'd like to see a reference for this statement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Transjordan is usually separated from Palestine as that was administered separately as a semi-autonomous region well before 1948. You will routinely see sources treating Transjordan and Palestine as two separate entities.  nableezy  - 07:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Transjordan was part of British Palestine. Can you find a source that clarifies your statement (and also the sentence)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs)  08:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ,, . Let me know when you need more. But if you are not aware of these things it would be best to read up before questioning it. The boundaries of Mandatory Palestine are not abstract, they are clearly defined.  nableezy  - 08:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok sweet. But we will need to correct the statement in the article because it is rather ambiguous. Pre-1948 British Palestine still technically included Transjordan and other areas. So it is inaccurate to say Israel controls 90% of official Pre-1948 British Palestine. Also, none of those sources explicitly verify the sentence. They do not refer to refugees or connect exactly with the language. An editor just wrote the sentence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection
Is this appropriate. I for one am tiring of the Stalin troll. Beganlocal (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Why aren't "Interpretations of Aliyah" and "Haredi" together?
Can someone explain why the one paragraph on Haredi isn't under Interpretations of Aliyah - or at least underneath it?? This confusing placement starts the article off in a disorganized-looking fashion. Hearing no rational explanation for either of the above -- Something that can be incorporated into the article - I will incorporate Haredi into other section. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

H.G. Wells
I want to remove the H.G. Wells quote. There's a minor problem with it: It's attributed to Wells in 1948, when he was already dead for two years. That seems a bit dubious to me, and makes the source of the quote somewhat suspect, unless of course Wells was using... a Time Machine! Zing! Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.95.205 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like sloppy citing, rather than an invention. The source cited is the 1948 edition of Palestine Dilemma by Frank Sakran. The book wads first published in 1944, when Wells was still alive; and Wells presumably made the statement earlier. I request that you leave it for a while, and I will try to trace the original source. RolandR 10:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now traced the original of what I believe Sakran misquoted; an essay in Liberty magazine, later published in a collection of Wells' essays. I have corrected the text; if anyone has access to the Sakran book, maybe they can check whether he cites this, or indeed any source; or whether perhaps he is referring to another, similar, comment by Wells. In any case, the sentiment, if not the exact words originally used, can be reliably sourced to Wells. RolandR 11:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the snippet of the Sakran book available on Google Books, it seems as though the final phrase ("The Canaanites, unlike the Jews, are still there") was his own gloss on Wells, and he did not attribute this phrase to him. The original edit seems to have resulted from some very careless reading of the sources. RolandR 11:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-semitism
A couple editors have repeatedly added a "see also" link from this article to the article *Misuse of antisemitic accusations... giving voice to the opinion that antisemitic accusations are misapplied to those who oppose Zionism. Whether or not a valid opinion, it is a contentious opinion and should not be wedged in here through "see also" links. I'm not going to edit war this, but this other article is currently before WP:AfD, where a number of editors have expressed strong offense to its POV. I've removed a second link to European Jews for a Just Peace, an unreferenced article whose notability is questioned, the text of which does not establish it as an anti-Zionist organization. Opposing Israeli actions in Palestine is not necessarily anti-Zionist. Even if we could source that this organization is anti-Zionist it is an improper use of see also links to use them to link to every instance of a subject. For example, we have an article about the Pro-life movement. We do not turn the "see also" section into a catalog of random organizations that affiliate with that movement. That's overlinking. Not a POV issue, just not encyclopedic. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, despite giving one of the participants a caution for edit warring editors here have ignored the talk page in order to edit war the article to full protection. Is anyone going to use the talk page now?  Is there any justification for why these two links should remain?  Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean to say editors have voted to delete Misuse of antisemitic accusations, when this is about the single most significant pressure that can be exerted on any modern day politician in a western society? Wonders will never cease. 86.159.247.180 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I try not to answer rhetorical or moot questions. But as a side note we also don't have a false accusations of pedophilia page either.  The reasons for deletion can be found in the deletion discussion.  - Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted because it was a mess. There were several anti-Zionists who took part in the deletion discussion without voting to keep it. What might be useful is a main article on the relationships claimed between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The material here is rather thin and strikes me as tending towards bias in the opposite direction that the deleted article leant in. A full article would allow for things to be more nuanced.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'm a pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist, or feel I have much to say either way so I can't quite pigeonhole myself POV-wise. I just don't like to see people trying to twist the content on Wikipedia to serve a political agenda (personal or often, I suspect, professional) at the expense of straightforward honest coverage of the world around us.  I try to avoid this little hotbed of wiki-warring because of all the unpleasantness associated with editing these articles, but I see some really antagonistic editing on both sides.  I guess it's not surprising because there is a war to shape the public conception of things, and Wikipedia is the embodiment of the public's conception of things.  But onto the content question, yes, the phenomena of people equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is real.  The substance underlying these beliefs, that some instances of anti-Zionism are indeed thinly masked antisemitism in belief or outcome, and that conversely some people who are not antisemitic are unfairly and even deliberately tarred as such for their opposition to Zionism is also sometimes true.  Very touchy subject, but an important one nonetheless.  - Wikidemon (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed way to a solution for the article.
Attempt to cite definitions of both concepts and see what parts do not overlap. controversy doesn't necessarily cut the truth in the middle each time.

The main point is really Are anti-zionists part of a group\groups that have historically been antisemitic? Are such groups judging zionism (assuming it is the ideological counterpart of jewish ethnic identity) in a way they don't judge other ethnic groups (for example palestinians?) Are such groups trying to debase the nationhood of the jews ( independent of any state ? ) ?

In my opinion the overlap is almost complete. if you base your antizionism as a conclusion to opposition to nationalism while being an advocate for another type of nationalism or ethnic identity you are either specifically romanticizing the above group you favor or are an anti-semite for whatever this makes you. this puts all pro-arab \ islamic groups and their supporters who recognize the rights of other people but deny the right of jews to a state as pretty much antisemitic from all areas. again criticizing the state of israel as a government \ culture is something else but still puts you through the above if it's possible that you are still the above if it's something said government did in order to preserve the country with the uncertainties of the time, iow 1948 arab invasion and "civil war" in the mandate before that. does it associate you with the negative things such as pogroms and genocide? , no if you don't advocate the same motifs, but it's enough to be an "isolated" anti-zionist for it to be a yes (not something significant for the article unless someone finds a good source for it)

in a nutshell a light should be shed on pro-arab ,(world) left leaning right leaning, and jewish groups —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftadot (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the jewish section above the world section?
It is known that the relative and total prevalence of antizionist views is greater among the arab states and antisemitic circles. while certain religious groups are a small controversial minority.

Is this part of the efforts to make it seem unrelated to jews who are by the way not really an ethnic group unlike the everlasting palestinians?Shiftadot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Neturei Karta
The quote under the picture of the Neturei Karta reads "Neturei Karta calls for the peaceful dismantling of the Zionist state at AIPAC conference in Washington, DC, May 2005" Please can the word peaceful be removed from that sentence. It manipulates the idea that Neturei Karta are a peaceful organisation, which does not reflect their actions. The word peaceful will incite people to believe that Neturei Karta are peaceful. Colt .55 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NK state explicitly "Neturei Karta deplore the systematic uprooting of              ancient Jewish communities by the Zionists, the shedding of Jewish               and non-Jewish blood for the sake of Zionist sovereignty and the               Neturei Karta favor a peaceful transition from the present Zionist               rule to a non-Zionist entity". You may disagree with them, but that does not give you the right to mischaracterise their position. RolandR (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

remove or seperate the znti zionist conspiracy theories
some unpopular theories that are overly quoted in a scare campaign against dissent should not be used to whitewash to occupation that causes a lot of problems in the middle east and the world and linked with resistance, there should be some buffer. 109.66.17.64 (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the "Definition" section
Hi, the "Definition" section as currently worded is done so in a poor way. In particular, this sentence:


 * However, advocacy of the elimination of the State of Israel exists among some high profile Jewish intellectuals and "Israel's Jewish accusers have played a crucial and disproportionate role in the upsurge of antisemitism precisely because they speak as Jews."[4]

For completeness, here's the cite:


 * Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor. The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey 2006. The quote is from the jacket of the book.

Now, I want to come right out and say that I personally don't necessarily disagree with the conclusion of the quote. I realize too that it is sourced, as per the reference. The problem here has more to do with the way the quote is inserted. The notion that antisemitic or antizionist Jews have contributed disproportionately to the rise of "acceptable" antisemitism in the general populace is not without controversy. It would be one thing to source the quote in the paragraph, like so:


 * However, advocacy of the elimination of the State of Israel exists among some high profile Jewish intellectuals, among them [some high-profile Jew who advocates the dissolution of the state of Israel or its destruction] and [some other high-profile Jew who does the same] . Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, authors of The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders, have alleged that "Israel's Jewish accusers have played a crucial and disproportionate role in the upsurge of antisemitism precisely because they speak as Jews."  [Here, a short blurb about why these authors or this book are notable, or alternatively an explanation at how they arrived at this conclusion.]

See, the above (at the cost of brevity) makes clear who is saying what. First of all, it removes (or rather clarifies) the weasel words "some high profile Jewish intellectuals" by actually naming two (presumably the book in question had one or two in mind, but I haven't read it). Second, and most importantly, the attribution of the quote, previously relegated to a footnote, is incorporated into the text.

Why make these changes? It seems to give the quote undue weight, doesn't it? And that in a nutshell is exactly the point. Because as it stands right now, a quote is worked into the prose of the article with nothing to distinguish it but quotes and a footnote; while a discerning reader may notice that it is a quote, he is unlikely to fully internalize that this controversial statement is being made by two guys who wrote a book who may or may not be important, respected, or have any data to back up their assertion. When you quote a controversial statement -- or any statement, really -- you need to be explicit about it being a quote. Otherwise I could write things like:


 * Nonetheless, belief in the blood libel continues to this day, most likely because "there is a great deal of historical support and documented evidence of Jews using the blood of Christian children to make their bread, something most experts have now come to accept."[1]

Do you see what I did there? A few people who follow the cite might see that I'm referencing a work by a Klan member (I'm not, I just made up the quote, but do you doubt I could find one like it?) but overall by integrating it into the prose this way I'm subtly pushing the POV that the quote represents an expression of unchallenged truth.

Eniagrom (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the same
Part "Christianity and antisemitism" does not belong in this article, because antisemitism is not the same thing as antizionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosniarasta (talk • contribs) 12:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

arab "anti colonial" makes no sense
the article says how the arabs say it like europeans infridging on there "rightful territory" while, really the jews are teking back there homeland after millenia of exile. shouldnt that be stated in the article? 69.115.204.217 (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No. RolandR (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * More precisely: we're stating the positions of others; we're not making arguments. --jpgordon:==( o ) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits based on primary source
Three recent edits are based on a primary source, with no secondary source indicating that the content would be representative or otherwise important in the context of anti-Zionism. Unless such independent, secondary sources are found, this content should therefore be removed from the article. Cs32en  Talk to me  22:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources are broadcasts on national television stations in which the speakers allege Zionist conspiracies (however stupid they may seem). They are also religious leaders. How is this not relevant to "Anti-Zionist conspiracy theories"?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC))


 * Because there is no reliable independent secondary source that reports on these texts in the context of anti-Zionism. Cs32en   Talk to me  01:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is not one of relevance, it is one of them being cited in secondary sources as being representative or important in the context of anti-zionism (cf the Protocols, which are widely acknowledged as being a significant and long-lasting conspiracy theory). --Andrensath (talk &#124; contribs) 01:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Union section
I recently made two different edits to the Soviet Union subsection. The last was reverted by Andrensath with the edit summary "rv unsourced"

The preceding version that was reverted to, however, was equally unsourced - and even worse. The old version was also vague (at best) or simply incorrect (at worst). For one, it contains a reference to something called "Zionology": despite years of requests - in this case just here by myself, but also on other Wikipedia pages by others e.g., Nixer and Yms, , - no one has been able to secure a source (other than a Wikipedia mirror) actually explaining some historical phenomenon known by this name (the "Zionology" article simply redirects to Soviet Anti-Zionism). It also mentions but fails to convey the relevance of the famous Jackson-Vanik amendment, which, as my version correctly notes, especially dealt with the issue of Jewish emigration (refuseniks) out of the Soviet Union (rather than the issue of persecution in general -- see lede for the Jackson-Vanik article and the section for background).

Since nothing concretely wrong with my version has been spelt out, but I have been reverted wholesale, I will now revert back to my version. (For really, what is the point of reverting to some old unsourced version with the edit summary like "rv unsourced"...?) In the future, please bring some counter-argument to the table when you disagree, rather than trivially reverting me without any real reason provided at all.

Thanks. 209.183.32.42 (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-what?
I find it quite surprising, given NPOV, AGF, RS, V and MOS, etc., that while the terms 'Anti-Israel', 'Anti-Israel movements', and 'Anti-Israeli movements' (others?) are all redirected here, the term 'anti-Israel' does not occur once in the article. Hmmm, this current arrangement and the accompanying lack of the term's inclusion seems to limit the content quite effectively, but not neutrally. I also note that the term seems used most often by those who aren't, to describe others they consider adversaries, but the term is seldom used for self-identification, based on the RSs that I've seen. Those sufficiently interested might want to correct this, because it seems quite prone to getting righteously tagged. It might however cause even more 'issues'. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead
The article originally started "Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept, or opposition to specific Israeli government policies since its establishment". A few days ago, an editor deleted the last clause in that formulation, arguing that "Anti-Zionism is opposition to a state for the Jews. It is not anti-zionist in any way to oppose the policies of the Israeli govenment since this would make most or all of the Israeli population anti-z". I reinserted it, noting that "Opposition to, for instance, the Law of Return, or to various land laws, is anti-Zionist, though proponents may still recognise the state of Israel". The editor then replaced the phrase with "opposition to policies that permit or facilitate the return of the Jews to Israel and the reconstitution of their national home there". This formulation is problematic in several ways. It is factually inaccurate, it is unsourced, and it includes, as a statement of fact, a very contentious assessment of the nature of Zionism. While it could be legitimate to use such a formulation, with sources, in a discussion of Zionism, it is inappropriate to use it, in Wikipedia's voice, in the opening sentence of an article. I again reverted to the original version. This edit and reversion have been repeated today. I agree that the original formulation is imperfect and possibly too vague; but it is certainly preferable to the contentious statement which two editors have attempted to insert in its place. Can we discuss this here, and try to reach an agreed formulation, without going into a revert war over this? RolandR (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that both versions are problematic,because some, who identify themselves as Anti-Zionist, do not oppose Zionism itself, but rather oppose Israeli government policies. So somebody can be Zionist, but hold the exact same views, and oppose the same policies for the same reason.  First version is problematic  because it does not make clear that some Ant-Zionists are not against Zionism, as Zionists see it, and the second is problematic for exclusion of the group mentioned, who not necessarily oppose  to policies that permit or facilitate the return of the Jews to Israel and the reconstitution of their national home there, but still view  themselves as anti-Zionists.Igorb2008 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the existing (original) version addresses your concerns. It reads "Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept, or opposition to specific Israeli government policies since its establishment" By stating "or specific Israeli government policies", it does not automatically conflate those who oppose these policies with those who oppose the ideology of Zionism, or the existence of a Jewish state. RolandR (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is, that it states that opposition to specific Israeli government policies mentioned, is Anti-Zionism, and by this, conflate those who oppose specific Israeli government policies mentioned, with Anti-Zionism. I propose that the new lead will state something like: " Anti-Zionism can be opposition to various ideologies within Zionism or opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept. Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies,even without opposition to Zionism itself."Igorb2008 (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you miss the point. Opposition to particular policies (eg, the Law of Return) is not necessarily anti-Zionist; some oppose this, or other laws, but still call themselves Zionist. On the other hand, some who call themselves "anti-Zionist" oppose some Israeli legislation, but not necessarily Zionist ideology, or the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The existing formulation is broad enough to encompass this complexity, while your reformulation would exclude some of this. RolandR (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that existing formulation is excluding, by it logical composition.Logically, it states that "A is B,C or D". From that stands that D is A. But that exclude D that isn't A, in this case critics of particular policies, who are not anti-Zionists. I think that  "A is B,C or sometimes D" formulation solves the problem, since Anti-Zionists are those who oppose Zionism, those who oppose Jewish state Israel founded on that concept, and only part of those who  oppose particular policies, so nobody is excluded.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It states that anti-Zionism "can be" (not "is") A, B or C. It does not state that any of these is anti-Zionism. RolandR (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it would state that "B,C,D can be A", than you would be right, it would mean then, that D(opposition to polices) can be A(Anti-Zionism), but does not have to. In the current form,"A can be B,C or D",it means that A doesn't have to be D(it can be B or C instead, but both B, C, and D have to be A. "can be" in the current form means choice between opposition to various ideologies within Zionism, opposition to the Jewish state of Israel founded on that concept,and opposition to particular policies. It doesn't mean, that it can also not be Anti-Zionism, unless the order of state and effect in the sentence reversed.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist beliefs.
From what I understand, many Andi-Zionists justify their position by  arguing that Jews are not nationality or ethnic group like other, but only a religious group, and as such cannot claim the right of self-determination. Some also believe that, Ashkenazi Jews at least ,are not of Middle-Eastern origin, but native Europeans, who converted to Judaism(such us  Khazar theory), and as such, view establishing of Jewish homeland as example of European colonialism, and Jewish presence in Israel/Palestine as foreign. Many Anti-Zionists also believe that Israel was established because of Holocaust in Europe. I think that this should be explained in the article, as it is not immediately clear why Anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist narratives are used in Arab countries, for example.

Also, it is mentioned that secular Arab Anti-Zionist sentiment has increased with ongoing Arab Israeli wars.Is there any study or source that support this? From I understand Anti-Zionist sentiment increased since 1920, when because of Jewish immigration,percentage of Jews to Arabs in Palestine grew, but now some Arab states recognized Israeli independence, while others made conditions for recognition.Igorb2008 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think that most anti-Zionist Jews argue that Jews are only a religious group, nor that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazar converts. Some, of course, hold these views; but it is not the mainstream. The position is more complex than that, and is generally based on a liberal or socialist political world view, on anti-racism and anti-imperialism. The article makes a start at identifying and explaining these themes.
 * Nor do I think that most anti-Zionists agree that Israel was established "because of the Holocaust". Of course that was one of the factors, but far from the only one, and it would be a mistake to attempt to identify a single cause. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, that most anti-Zionist Jews don't hold those views, but they are prominent among Non-Jewish Anti-Zionists. For example in Arab Anti-Zionist rhetoric, Israeli Jews are frequently described as Europeans and foreigners to the region.Many believe that Palestinians are "punished" because of German WWII actions,or even that Holocaust was fabricated to gather sympathy for the Jews. Also the article identified but did not explained why and how anti-racist, anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist narratives are used by anti-Zionists. Probably most Zionists are also against racism, colonialism or imperialism, and it is not clear from the article, how Anti-Zionists find it conflicting.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an argument for clarifying and improving the article; not for removing the sentence, as you did. RolandR (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence I removed is not related to my argument here. I removed it as OR. Also non of the sources for the addition, that many left-wing Jews oppose Zionism as an integral part of their internationalism and anti-imperialism, identifies those Jews as left-wing or internationalists,and identifies them as anti-imperialists in only one of four.Mostly they just say that Zionism is racist or Islamophobic.Igorb2008 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
According to sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, at a dinner shortly before his assassination in 1968, Martin Luther King responded to a black student who harshly criticized Zionists "Don't talk like that! When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism."

I think this is a misquote. It should probably be removed, as it seems v. misleading in it's current state. NickCT (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether King said it, but it's true that Lipset wrote King said it. See Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend for another source (beside the one cited in this article). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend that entire paragraph ( "According to sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset.. and was not written by King." ) be deleted.  This article is about anti-Zionism, not Lipset or King.  There is lots of material that discusses the relationship between anti-Z and anti-Semitism (the subject of that particular section), so there is no need to bring in a dubious quote that has been called into question.   If the quote were included, the article would be obliged to mention that the quote has been called into question, and that would lead to a non-encyclopedic paragraph.     The material does belong in this encyclopedia, but in another article, namely Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend.  --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Noleander - Agree. 2nd your suggestion to delete.
 * @Malik Shabazz - Confused. Isn't Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend a widely recognized fraud? NickCT (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The alleged letter is indeed a fraud; even CAMERA recognises this. There is, however, a more ambiguous claim regarding a comment King allegedly made at a dinner in Boston shortly before his death. This comment, mentioned by Malik above, was reported by Seymour Martin Lipset; though others have questioned this account too, claiming that King was not in Boston at the time. RolandR (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An article as important as this deserves quotes that are more solid.   I'll look and see if some other notable figures have made similar statements, and are supported with more reliable sources.  --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality. " Generally agreed to be accurate representation of a MLK speech at the Rabbinical Institute. from: Jews, African Americans, and Israel: The Ties That Bind by Dr Harold Brackman for the Simon Wiesenthal Center January-February 2010 also can be found at Wikiquote.  JuJubird (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... you know I just checked wikiquote and the reference appears to be broken. The quote does seem to be widely distributed on the internet, but I can't seem to attach it to any reliable sources.  From what I can find, the quote seems to be linked to King's March 25, 1968 speech to the Rabbinical Assembly.  I can't seem to track down a full transcript of that speech.  Can anyone help out? NickCT (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that quote is very relevant to this article:  the sources should be discussing opposition to Zionism, and i don't see any mention of opposition to Zionism in the quote.  Perhaps that quote would be better in Israel or Zionism?  --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding An External Link
I am attempting to add an external link to a web site that promotes anti-zionism. The purpose of this is not to support that web site, but so there can be a place where these web sites have their true purpose exposed. Many web sites attempt to hide anti-zionism behind another story. There should be a repository where they are identified. Is there a better place than this? Does it belong in a section other than external links? Marcusholt (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the site? Who is "exposing" the true purpose of the site? Who is attempting "to hide anti-zionism behind another story"? If the link is to a genuine anti-Zionist site, it could perhaps be listed under "External links"; though there moight be a case for a direct mention and link in the body of the text. If, however, it is a white supremacist antisemitic site, then it has no place in this article. You don't offer enough information for other editors to be able to answer your query. RolandR (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now seen your edit. The Institute for Historical Review is certainly not an anti-Zionist site, but a holocaust denial and antisemitic site. It has no place in this article, nor indeed anywhere in Wikipedia except in articles about racist groups. It has been agreed several times on the reliable sources noticeboard that this is emphatically not a reliable source. Please do not add links to this hate site again. RolandR (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Input needed in Zionism article
Input could be beneficial at Talk:Zionism, regarding the best way to include anti-Zionism material in Zionism article. --Noleander (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move -> Criticism of Zionism

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved Kotniski (talk) 10:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism → Criticism of Zionism — Current title seems to be somehow POV-pushing. I'm actually surprised it's not renamed yet, most controversial articles here that criticize some ideologies, religions begin with "Criticism of", and to some extent Criticism of Zionism sounds much neutral than provocative "Anti-Zionism". There are various Zionist organizations that may criticize some points of Zionism and on the other hand promote other points of this ideology. Drimidiri (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is not about "Criticism of Zionism"; it is about Anti-Zionism, which is a long-existing and distinct political phenomenon with its own adherents and opponents. Changing the tittle would alter the scope of the article. It's no more POV a title than Zionism, Antisemitism, or Anti-Fascism. Wikipedia has several hundred  articles titled "Anti-x", from Anti-Abolitionist Riot (1834) to Antizyme RNA frameshifting stimulation element -- are you going to claim that all of these are also inherently POV? RolandR (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * well, if it's not about criticism of Zionism, I take it, there should be another, separate article for that? Because like I said, within zionist community self-criticism exists, just like in other ideologies. Or what? Since this article's scope isn't enough for adding criticism of Zionism (the only explanation is that in this article being added something which is in overall against Zionism). Drimidiri (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Anti-zionism is a thing unto itself. Opposition is not necessarily criticism; often, it's just throwing rocks. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the nom here that this is POV pushing. To be titled "Criticism of" implies more neutral information is being given. Linda Olive (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Partial support. As it is any criticism of Zionism is labelled as antizionism. // Liftarn (talk)
 * Weak Oppose - I agree with the proposer that the article is about any and all (significant, documented) criticism of Zionism. However, the the most common term used for that topic is "anti-Zionism".  And the WP guidelines say we should use the most common terminology.   I suppose another approach would be to have two articles, one on "pure" anti-Zionism (where that precise phrase is used by the sources) and another on "Criticism of Zionism" for other critical material that does not employ the phrase "anti-Zionism".  But that would be splitting hairs, and would not benefit readers. --Noleander (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - Not really well read on this topic, but RolandR and Noleander's logic seems persuasive. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose with Alternative Suggestion - I agree with RolandR/Noleander's comments. But Drimidiri is right when saying (There are various Zionist organizations that may criticize some points of Zionism and on the other hand promote other points of this ideology). The biggest problem with the article is summarised by the unsourced statement in the lead (Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism is used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies or discrimination against Israelis and Israeli culture) - this is sometimes true, but is not mainstream. The cleanest way to solve this is to use Criticism of Israel as an umbrella article, with Anti-Zionism referring to criticism of the ideology of Zionism and/or the existence of the State of Israel.Oncenawhile (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article is a joke
Anti-zionism is not anti-semitism, and anti-zionists are ever suspicious of people who try to merge the two. The header does not even bother to make the distinction, but instead it actually claims anti-zionists "discriminate" against "Israelis" aka Jews. Know that I tried to make the header and entry more concise and sympathetic to anti-zionists, but I was hounded by users who are apparently zionists, so this is pretty much a hopeless pursuit. The bottom mentions the semitism-zionism distinction, but does much to merge the two terms. Anti-zionists, in the extreme, believe that Zionism is a form of racism in which Jews and gentiles see Jews as favored by God, and given rights which arbitrarily exceed non-Jews. It is not an opposition to Jews, it is an opposition to racism typically performed by Jews and gentiles alike. In the least, Anti-zionists are opposed to activities which appear to arbitrarily favor Jews, such as irrational support for the expansion of the Israeli state, or messing up wikipedia articles which try to make simple distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.48 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This comment is nonsense. No-one is trying to conflate anti-Zionism and antisemitism. This IP has reppeatedly removed the statement "The term has been used both historically and in current debates to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source". This is an accurate statement in the lead of the way the term anti-Zionism is used and understood. The IP has also repeatedly added the unsourced and nonsensical phrase "Zionism is an ideology which consist primarily of the belief that there are some goods which are indebted to the Jewish race".


 * I am an anti-Zionist; but do not recognise my views in the caricature expressed by the IP. I do, however, consistently distinguish between "Jews" and "Zionists", and frequently act to rectify such confusion in Wikipedia articles. And, as an anti-Zionist, I reject the very notion of a "Jewish race" which this IP is trying go add to the article. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That statement isn't even grammatically correct, lol, and mr. cherry picker, I was also removing "Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism is used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies or discrimination against Israelis and Israeli culture." Which is, oh get this, a merging of anti-semitism with anti-zionism IN THE HEADER.  No, you aren't an anti-zionist.  You are the definition of a zionist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.16 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your unsolicited opinion. Now please explain your objections, in terms which other editors of this page can relate to, without making unfounded allegations about other editors. RolandR (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article (at least not without a proper citation). Did the author mean that "Many commentators assert [...] the difference is one of degree"? He probably wanted a. The article cited only argues that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are no different when one supports hamas. It supports none of the authors assertions. What is that middle sentence even supposed to mean? where did it come from?


 * "Many commentators assert that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. The difference is rather one of emphasis with some preferring to emphasize the link and others to separate the issues. Others argue that contemporary anti-Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic.[79]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.182.4 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti-semitism is discrimination and prejudice againist Jewish people. Anti-Zionism is disagreement or discrimination againist Israelis. You are correct to say they are not the same. You are not correct to say they don't often overlap. Also check out articles like Anti-Americanism or Anti-Canadianism. Anti-Zionism is the Israeli equivilent to these which includes ALL citizens of Israel INCLUDING those who are Arab even Palestinians and even Israeli Anti-Zionist. Like every other form of Anti-National Sentiment it can be a rejection of government, a rejection of their culture, or a rejection of people of that nationality despite their ethnicity or religion. Therefore if I attacked a Palestinian because he was Israeli it would be Anti-Zionism, if I attacked a Jew because he was Israeli it would be Anti-Zionism, if I didn't agree with the government of Israel that would also be Anti-Zionism. Now, if I attacked an Israeli because he was a Jew or even because I held a prejudiced belief that all Israeli's are Jews that would be Anti-Semitism. If you don't believe me about including culture and people check out every other anti-national sentiment. By the way as an Israeli Jew living in the United States I use the term Anti-Zionism properly. I personally don't care if you don't agree with the Israeli government that is irrelevant. I'm Anti-American because I disagree with the government even though I hold no problems towards their people. So although Anti-Zionism is not always an attack on Israeli people it can be and therefore when it is (and only when it is, as in not attacking the government) it is discrimination but not necessarily Anti-semitism unless it is targeted because that the person or group being attacked is of Jewish ancestry or beliefs.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some flaws in your logic, Rainbow. 1. You haven't provided any sources. Specifically, where are your sources for the claim that anti-Zionism can be defined as "criticism of the government of Israel"? (See DIVERSITY discussion below.) 2. You're equating anti-Zionism with anti-Americanism and anti-Canadianism, but there's a crucial difference between them. A person can be anti-American in the sense that he opposes, say, US foreign policy in the Mid-East. He doesn't necessarily oppose the existence of the US, though. The same applies to being anti-Israel. A person can be anti-Israel in the sense that he opposes, say, Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. But I'm arguing that there's a difference between being anti-Israel and being anti-Zionist. Being anti-Zionist means, crucially, rejecting Zionism, i.e. rejecting the principles upon which the independence of the State of Israel was declared (or the circumstances leading up to the formation of the State of Israel). In the case of anti-Zionism, then, the opposition is to an ideology, and not merely to the policies of a given government. It is opposition to Israel's existence, not merely to its conduct in a given time frame.—Biosketch (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Most anti-zionist use the problems with Jews, Palestinians and Arabs as there reason why Israel should not exist. They also say that Zionism is a racist belief. Zionism is the belief that Jews should have a homeland and is not necessarily racist any more than any other people saying they should have a country. That being said many Jews are racist againist Palestinians and vice versa. Both Palestinians and Jews hate each other that can't be argued. And it is like Anti-Americanism and Anti-Canadianism because of the reasons why they oppose the right of Israel to exist not because that they don't support it. Find an Anti-Zionist who says it is not because of the Israeli-Palestinian relations or because of racist beliefs towards Jews. On the second part this is not conflating Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism as they are not the same but do often overlap. If you are Anti-semitic you are almost always Anti-zionist as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Find an Anti-Zionist who says it is not because of the Israeli-Palestinian relations or because of racist beliefs towards Jews." Well, me for instance. I am an anti-Zionist because I believe that Zionism is at its core deeply racist in its attitude towards Jews, and because I see it as a manifestation of Western colonialist arrogance. This is not the place to argue or justify my views; but I ask you to recognise that this is the reason for my self-definition as an anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it racist to say that any ethnic group deserves its own country. Zionism believes Jews deserve there own country. It is the same thing as saying Jewish Nationalism. It is not at its heart deeply racist. As for your western colonialist comment. Most Jews in Israel are actually Mizrahi. That is Middle Eastern and African Jews. And even then if they were Western as in White European or North American then it still wouldn't matter because your not attacking the philosophy anymore but the methods by which its goal was obtained therefore having nothing to do with Zionism itself.-76.121.251.142 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is not an appropriate forum to discuss these questions. I simply responded to your challenge to find an anti-Zionist whose primary motivation is neither opposition to Israel nor antisemitism. I certainly don't expect you to share or agree with my views; but you may not deny that these are my views.
 * On a factual matter, as far as I am aware, for the past twenty years or so, since the massive immigration from the former Soviet Union, Mizrahim have no longer constituted a majority of the Jewish population of Israel. RolandR (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Diversity of anti-Zionism
"Some commentators argue that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel or its policies, particularly in the occupied territories."[6]

[6]Klug, Brian. No, anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism. guardian.co.uk, Wednesday December 3, 2003.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment

The problem is that Klug doesn't use anti-Zionism in the sense of "opposition to Israel's policies." There's no source to support the claim from the article quoted above: some commentators (?) argue that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel's policies. Fair opposition to Israel, yes; that's what Klug is saying. But opposition to Israel's policies? Where's that coming from? That's not anti-Zionism; it's just criticism of Israel. 132.64.188.44 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Our task here is not to interpret Klug, but to report what he said. I have my own interpretation of the meaning of his comment; but that would be purely my own synthesis. Nor should we demand that our sources themselves cite reliable sources -- that could lead to an infinitely recursive process. Klug is an acknowledged expert on antisemitism and on Jewish/non-Jewish relations, and the Guardian is a reliable source; that is all that matters here. RolandR (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, your own interpretation of Klug does not validate him as a source for the information in the article. The question is how an ordinary and minimally-biased reader understands him. Kindly demonstrate where in the article Klug defines anti-Zionism as "opposition to Israel's policies." Otherwise, at the very least there are grounds for a tag. And if no clear source can be found, it would be prudent to remove the claim altogether. Thank you.132.64.188.36 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested rewording of problematic passages
If the proposed changes below, or the general gist of them, is considered acceptable, it would be advisable that the message at the top of the article be change from,

Original: Further information: Criticism of the Israeli Government

to,

Proposed: This article is about opposition to Zionism. For criticism of Israel, see Criticism of the Israeli Government.

'''1a. Original:''' Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism is used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies or discrimination against Israelis (whether Jewish, Arab or otherwise) and Israeli culture.

'''1b. Proposed''': Sometimes the term Anti-Zionism is used to describe discrimination against Israelis (whether Jewish, Arab or otherwise) or against Israeli culture.

Explanation: There is as yet no source for the claim that anti-Zionism is used to describe opposition to specific Israeli government policies.

'''2a. Original:''' Some commentators argue that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel or its policies, particularly in the occupied territories.

'''2b. Proposed:' Brian Klug of the Guardian'' has argued that anti-Zionism represents fair opposition to Israel.

Explanation: Klug is saying two things in his article: (a) it is legitimate to criticize the policies of the State of Israel (criticism of Israel), and (b) it is legitimate to reject Israel's right to exist (anti-Zionism). RolandR and Rainbowofpeace have made the mistake of misconstruing Klug by way of the fallacy of accident: criticism of Israel is legitimate and anti-Zionism is legitimate, therefore anti-Zionism is criticism of Israel. Klug, however, was careful to keep anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel separate from each other.—Biosketch (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said that criticism of Israel is legitimate and Anti-Zionism is legitimate, therefore anti-Zionism is criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel is only one form of anti-zionism and some criticism of Israel (not all) are even antisemitic. I am also of the strong belief that Anti-Zionism is not only criticism of Israel (via the belief Israel shouldn't exist) but discrimination againist Israelis.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm not sure why I attributed that interpretation to you. Anyway, if you say that "Criticism of Israel is only one form of anti-zionism," you're agreeing with me that criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism oughtn't be conflated into a single term. Regarding your "strong belief that Anti-Zionism is not only criticism of Israel...but discrimination [against] Israelis," have you a source for that claim, or did you edit the article to insert it in solely on the basis of your personal conviction? If you do not have a source, it would be best to remove it for now (a la WP:NPOV). Meanwhile, I'm going to proceed with the edits proposed above, unless someone has reason to object.—Biosketch (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

On discrimination againist Israeli and Israel
Some one took down my citation. It may be opinionated as is almost all the links on here but it is just as valid as say citation #9 Jewsnotzionists.com. The point of the citation is to prove like citation #9 that anti-zionism can be used in different ways or in #9s case by different people whether their opinion is right or wrong. The point of it was I found someone who used it to mean what I stated it means. If I was saying something that needed hard facts like water is H2O then the argument would need to be cited with proof. This is a controversial subject with arguments on both sides and both sides are using what could be considered biased sources. However, I am not using my source to state that all anti-zionism is right or wrong I am using it to state it can be used in another way.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

And also if you actually read my source it does not confuse anti-zionism with anti-semitism although it does say that many forms of anti-zionism are anti-semitic it if you do a ctrl f search for Anti-Zionism it will state only some forms of Anti-Zionism are Anti-Semitic around the first highlight. It does believe in new antisemitism but does not state that is anti-zionism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The website that was originally linked to – Christian Action for Israel – has been replaced with a link to the website that originally hosted the referenced document. Also, after reading the essay in its entirety, no mention was found that would support the assertion made previously, that "Sometimes the term anti-Zionism is used to describe discrimination against Israelis (whether Jewish, Arab or otherwise) and Israeli culture." The document is dealing specifically with discrimination against Israel and the Jewish people. No mention is made of Arab Israelis or of Israeli culture. Please remember that the assertion had been tagged with . Since the citation offered does not contain the information requiring a source, the unsourced details have been removed. Immediately following are the passages relevant to assertions of anti-Zionism as discrimination against Israel. 1. p. 3-4: "Anchored in the 'Zionism is Racism' resolution, but going beyond it, the new anti-Jewishness almost requires a new vocabulary to define it. It can best be defined as the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, national particularity and peoplehood anywhere, whenever that national particularity and peoplehood happens to be Jewish. In its more benign form (if it can be called benign), it finds particular expression in the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena – where United Nations human rights bodies are used as the mask or protective cover for this anti-Jewishness (e.g. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban). In its most lethal form, it refers to the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for existential or genocidal assault, as evidenced by the suicide-bombers – or what I prefer to call genocide-bombers – since their own acknowledged and asserted intent is the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be – the convergence of both politicide and genocide. In a word, classical or traditional antisemitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new antisemitism – incompletely, or incorrectly, as 'anti-Zionism' (since not all critiques of Zionism are anti-Semitic) – involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of antisemitism – and common to both – is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals – a classical antisemitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g. discrimination against Jews in education, housing or employment) – to discrimination against Jews as people – a new antisemitism – for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement." 2. p. 5: "This finds expression not only in the "Zionism is Racism" indictment – and the singling out of Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and Israel's ideological raison d’être, for discriminatory treatment – but the further criminal indictment of Israel as “an apartheid state,” and the calling for the dismantling of this “apartheid state” – a euphemism for Israel’s destruction." 3. p.7: "I am referring here to the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations; with Israel emerging, as it were, as 'the collective Jew among the Nations.'" 4. p. 9: "This refers to the state orchestrated incitement to violence and terrorism against Jews, including the singling out of Israelis and Jewish nationals as targets of international terrorism." 5. p. 10 "Israel and the Jewish people have been singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena – and worst of all – singled out for destruction."—Biosketch (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A tag from 2007
An article with 80 references does not need to be tagged as unreferenced. It has been removed. The first sentence has been rewritten and the article needs serious copyediting by editors who can write English and have a genuine understanding of the ideology being discussed (which is not true for many of the contributors to this page).--Geewhiz (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
The source given for the "definition" in the lead has to be one of the most polemic propaganda articles i've ever read. Someone change this please :/ 188.192.9.154 (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Read on discrimination againist Israel and Israelis above. If you do not agree with what it says please elaborate.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism isn't opposition to the "establishment of a Jewish state", it's opposition to the Jewish state on the land of Palestine, aka Israel. That's a big difference. And saying that anti-zionism equals discrimination is just nonsense. Look up the definition of discrimination, there is nothing discriminatory about the opposition to a political entity or movement. However, CJCurrie changed it back now, but i still think that the article shouldn't be linked. It is obviously propaganda and thus is not a valid source. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's far from being an ideal source for the lead section. But to argue that anti-Zionism is opposition to a Jewish state specifically in historic Israel you'll need an independent third-party source like a prominent history book or something similarly neutral but at the same time authoritative. However, I personally think the claim you're trying to advance is weak. The U.N.'s anti-Zionist Resolution 3379, which proclaimed that Zionism is racism, didn't care where the Jewish state was; the problem it perceived was the very existence of a Jewish state.—Biosketch (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The resolution doesn't say anything about the creation of a Jewish state at all, it explicitly condemns Israel's actions ("the racist regime in occupied Palestine") and labels Zionism as Racism (which is plain wrong imo). I'll try to find a good source, but i think it is pretty self-explanatory as the goal of the modern Zionist movement led by Theodor Herzl always was to establish a Jewish state in historical Israel and not anywhere else (look History of Zionism for example). I think this is very important because denying the Jews the right for self-determination would indeed be discriminatory. But Anti-Zionism is essentially just the opposition to Zionism, the opposition to a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to Israel. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The mention of Palestine is arbitrary, purely for geographical context, just as the mention of "in Zimbabwe and South Africa" is. It's the "racist regime" that is condemned underlyingly. And though the resolution does not say so explicitly, it's the Zionist idea of a homeland for the Jewish people that's being attacked as a "doctrine of racial differentiation or superiority." Also, Herzl wasn't always committed to the idea of establishing the Jewish state in historic Israel. He was in favor of the Uganda Plan, and his heart attack was largely owing to the Zionist movement's majority opposition to that plan. Herzl was a Ugandist – or at least he was sympathetic to Ugandist attitudes for a time, for fear that if European Jewry continued insisting on Palestine, vital time would be lost and many Jews would perish because of growing antisemitism. There were many in the Zionist movement who shared this view. I should provide sources for these claims, but they're scattered all over seminar papers and disk-on-keys.—Biosketch (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Significantly, one chapter of Herzl's book The Jewish State is titled Palestine or Argentine?". Herzl writes: "Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion". Famously, he goes on to write that, if the Sultan were to give Palestine to the Zionist movement "We should there form a  portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as  opposed to barbarism". RolandR (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is as you said the resolution does not explicitly mention it so there is lots of room for interpretations. It does however say that "international co-operation and peace require the achievement of national liberation and independence[...], as well as the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination." That can't just be applied to Palestinians, but to Jews too. So I personally don't think that your analysis is correct but even if it was, would it really matter? Even if the UN resolution stated that Jews were subhumans that don't deserve to live, let alone deserve an own state it would still be just the opinion of the UN General Assembly. Remember that anti-zionism contains a wide spectrum of supporters ranging from human rights advocates to racists. The view of a single organization shouldn't be important here.

About Herzl: I don't know much about him but Zionism started as a movement to settle Jews in Palestine and was also later executed that way. So if someone refers to Zionism today this is probably what he means. For example Encyclopaedia Britannica also defines it this way: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657475/Zionism 188.192.9.154 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @, that is interesting. How is it significant, though?—Biosketch (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the comment above that "the goal of the modern Zionist movement led by Theodor Herzl always was to establish a Jewish state in historical Israel and not anywhere else". In fact, until the split with the Territorialists in 1905, several geographical sites were investigated. Herzl himself was not committed to a state in Palestine. RolandR (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. Then we agree.—Biosketch (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @anonIP, you're right, there would appear to be a contradiction between "the recognition of the dignity of peoples and their right to self-determination" and the equation of Zionism with racism. Then what was the premise for the resolution? If it was the post-1967 occupation, that is not Zionism – certainly not in the historical sense of the word. Moreover, the U.N. voted to accept the partition of Palestine into a state for Jews and a state for Arabs, and that would seem to contradict the claim that Zionism was racism because it advocated a Jewish state in Palestine. But as to what importance the U.N.'s declarations have, on the scale of importance they do need to rank pretty high because it's a global forum. A polemic reference shouldn't go in the lead because it's too far from representing the consensus. The U.N.'s declarations may frequently be absurd – even bigoted – but they're far more prominent.—Biosketch (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to make sense. The UN is a political forum and as such the goal was to bring a political message across: That the UN doesn't side with Israel anymore. And that politicians doesn't abstain from bending the truth to justify their actions isn't new, is it? :p

And yes i agree that it is nonetheless important and should be included in the article but not as source for the definition for anti-zionism as it is obviously biased like the other source we already have here. Anyway, can we remove that source from the lead or is anyone still in favour of it? 188.192.9.154 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Because of the fact that anti-zionism is often although not always synonymous with anti-Israeli sentiment when it is opposition to the establishment of Israel or the claim that Israel's citizens have no right to citizenship it is by its very definition a form of anti-national sentiment much like anti-americanism, anti-canadianism, anti-german sentiment, anti-Irish sentiment or even anti-palestinian sentiment. Anti-national sentiment is any form of attack on a specific nation, people of that nationality both inside and outside that nation (attacking Irish Americans because they are Irish), or that nations culture (and no I'm not talking about Israels actions). Many people believe Israel has a right to exist while still considering the actions of its government to be wrong. You can still critize what Israel is doing but to say that it shouldn't exist is a form of anti-national sentiment and is considered a form of discrimination. Now when you use Anti-Zionism more broadly like some are imposing it becomes discriminative by its definition denieing Jews the right to their own country. So therefore if we use it in either sense of the word it is clearly discriminatory. Israel has the right to be critized like every other country. Just like every other country Israel has its faults. But I don't see anywhere near as many people getting in an uproar over say treatment of the LGBT community in the United States, or treatment of Roma in Europe.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between terms like anti-americanism and anti-zionism is that the former is an umbrella term that can refer to either criticism of the american government or discrimination and prejudice against americans in general while anti-zionism refers to a specific point of view, the negation of zionism. The equivalent term for Israel would be anti-israelism but it is currently not used for political reasons. Instead for discrimination against Israelis the media usually uses anti-semitism (even though over 20% of Israel's population are not jews). I'm argueing that while opposition to the existence of Israel (at least as a Jewish state) is an integral feature of anti-zionism in general, this view alone is no discrimination because it involves no prejudice against Israelis. Again, remember that "opposition to Israel's existence" does not automatically mean that one wants to physically destroy Israel or deny the Jews an own state. A common leftist viewpoint for example is that zionism is wrong because it imposed a Jewish state in Palestine without the consent of the local population and is thus to be treated akin to a colony. I don't see any discrimination in that. 188.192.9.154 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To an extent on the concept of colonizing the palestinian population I agree with you. But people forget Zionism is not only the name of a political ideology but Zion is another name for Israel as well. And over half this article is about how discrimination againist Israel is not antisemitism so why would people use that. Anti-Zionism is an opposition to Zionism (The Jewish right to have their own country) and/or Israel as a Jewish state. Believe it or not one can be pro-Israel or pro-Zionist and still be pro-Palestine or pro-Palestinian. What Palestine really needs is for the Israeli government to stop oppressing its people and to give them that small piece of land they as for in the gaza strip and allow to proclaim it Palestine. If one held this view they would be neither Anti-Zionist or Anti-Palestinian. Also when I use the word Anti-Zionist to mean discrimination I'm talking about those who are raised from age of 4 to use a machine gun to destroy the "Zionist entity". To me that is an extreme form of Anti-Zionism. And I'm not stateing that in certain circumstances Israel dosn't do the same thing to the Palestinians. Not all Anti-Zionism is discriminatory but it would be hard to argue that some definately isn't. And btw I couldn't set up a page on Anti-Israeli sentiment or Anti-Israelism for the same reason Anti-Chilean sentiment was nearly taken down. People would call the first one a neologism even though it is a compound term and therefore a concept and not a word and the second would be a neologism. As long as one denies that Israel has a right to exist that will automatically discriminate againist Israeli citizens. As long as people deny Palestines right to exist that will automatically discriminate againist Palestinians. As long as people deny Jews the right to have their own land that will be considered not only anti-zionist but also antisemitic however this is only when it denies Jews right to their own country period. There since Anti-Zionism refers to both anti-Israeli sentiment as well as denieing the right for Jews to have their own country it will be a form of discrimination. Since I have sourced that and it is only as biased as the entire concept of anti-zionisnm I think it should stay.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have given it three days and no one has replied I'm changing it back.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see this change as an improvement. I don't think it's terribly controversial to say that the term "anti-Zionism" is sometimes used to designate what is described as discrimination against Israel or the Jewish people. It's another thing for us to say that anti-Zionism is such discrimination, however. CJCurrie (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When it is talking about Israel specifially how is in not a form of anti-national sentiment? It seems to me it would be a form of anti-Israel sentiment in its narrow form which is not always discriminative and its general form of denial of a country for the Jewish people it is discriminative by definition because it would be denieing a specific group its rights because they are members of that group not to mention most Jews are ethnic Jews which would also make it a form of racism specifically antisemitism. So it depends on your definition but by one definition and often times by the other definition it is by defintion (lol) discrimination.-23:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbowofpeace (talk • contribs)
 * I think this is getting into the territory of original research, which is something we should avoid. CJCurrie (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My source I posted states that anti-zionism can refer to the denial of Jewish people with the right to have their own country which it states is discrimination so it is not original research. And it being a form of anti-national sentiment is as obvious as 1 being a number.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that your most recent edit is limited to replacing "opposition" with "anti-national sentiment." This isn't an egregious change, in my view, but neither is it an improvement. The definition of "anti-national sentiment" isn't especially clear, whereas "opposition" is both clear and easily understood. However "anti-national sentiment" is interpreted, moreover, it is simply a type of opposition. In other words, this change in wording is not for the better.
 * Perhaps someone else will want to give their opinion. CJCurrie (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinarily Poor Article -- and Bad Topic
So, WP has processes for nominating articles for Article of the Day, or articles of exceptional quality. How does one nominate an article for being of exceptionally crappy quality? (Better yet, what in hell does it take for a wise moderator to just delete the whole thing? Please send me a pointer as to how to propose that and I'm on it...!)

I won't even ask about the process for questioning whether a topic ITSELF is, well, not just not noteworthy, but simply not an appropriate category. I don't think it is -- it should be merged into Zionism, imho, for the same reason I think we don't need an article about "Anti-Vegetarianism" or "Anti-Environmentalism" or (now I'm gonna need bodyguards) "Anti-Settlement-ism" -- but then again, I'm not a frothing armchair lunatic, on either side of the issue.

This one's just a freaking lightning rod for non-POV idiots on both sides. And, not only isn't it even close to being acceptable by WP standards -- IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT IT EVER WILL BE with this subject, given who's likely to edit it (cf. supra, starting around the word 'frothing'.)

(BTW - anybody who's thinking of coming back at this (before it gets deleted) with "well, 'anti-semitism' is a legit topic!". Yep. It is. Because there's no such thing as 'semitism'. Think, young jedi....)

A Doon (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

removal of quotes
Not only was the section on "anti-zionism is/is not antisemitism" a total quote farm, but it was accumulating quotes not even referring to anti-zionism. I've removed the following:


 * Former Soviet dissident and Israeli Minister, Natan Sharansky has suggested a "3D Test of Anti-Semitism: Demonization, Double Standards, Delegitimization"


 * American political scientist Norman Finkelstein also argues that anti-Zionism and often just criticism of Israeli policies have been conflated with antisemitism, sometimes called new antisemitism for political gain. He argues


 * "Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.' The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It's to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It's a role reversal – the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians. So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It's no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it's the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism."


 * European Jews for a Just Peace, an association of Western European Jewish peace organisations, reject the association of legitimate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism:


 * "Legitimate criticism of Israel, based on its policies against the Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as well as inside Israel cannot be called anti-Semitic. Such an accusation deliberately mis-uses the term, aimed at awakening fear of anti-Semitism, rather than diminishing it. It would represent the silencing of freedom of speech."

Note that although the lead-in discussion for the last two quotes refers to anti-Zionism, there is no such mention of this in the quotes themselves. This is obviously WP:SYNTH -- the editor was attempting to equate anti-Zionism with criticism of Israel, something that the quotes themselves do not do.

Benwing (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Zionism
I just had a look at the "opposition to zionism" section of the Zionism article, and... it does a much better job of it than this article. Anti-Zionism has become a very loaded word, because it has been used both by antisemites seeking legitimacy and supporters of zionism/Israel to delegitimize criticism. A lot of material here refers only to opposition to zionism, and is being drowned out. Maybe it should be in an Opposition to Zionism article? Jules.LT (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a propaganda tract not a serious article
This article is a political propaganda tract, nothing more. Anti-Zionism is diametrically opposite to anti-Semitism, as the Norwegian bomber Andreis Breivik so amply demonstrates. Instead it is just a rehash of the arguments of those who advocate a 'new anti-Semitism'. As such it is dishonest. It cites a number of Israeli academic propagandists like Dina Porat and just Noam Chomsky by way of reply. Why?

It makes no mention whatsoever of the consistent history of Jewish opposition to Zionism e.g. the Bund, the largest Jewish party in Poland which gained 17 Council seats in the 1938 elections in Warsaw compared to precisely one for the Zionist parties.

It makes no mention of the fact that anti-Semites have consistently supported and welcomed Zionism - from Eduard Drumont, the anti-Dreyfusard - to Alfred Rosenberg. If facts are uncomfortable for an Encylopaedia then one should ask why.

It has been revealed on a no. of occasions that Wikpedia is a target for professional paid Israeli propagandists. This page is one result.

Tony Greenstein 28.7.11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygreenstein (talk • contribs) 00:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just went over first two paragraphs, and I cannot understand that private stuff remains here with so much OR/POV/non-V. Will take some time for wp before this is ok. -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, what? Wikifan Be nice  08:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Since Zionism is the belief that Jews have the right to return their homeland, opposition to it is inherently anti-Semitic. Are you the same Tony Greenstein described here, by the way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imagining404 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Zionism isn't the belief that Jews have the right to return to their homeland, and by the way, the Jews were in Palestine THOUSANDS of years ago. That kind of logic reeks like the British argument to colonize India (we were here first). Secondly, do you take anything in that stupid blog you posted a link to seriously? I mean, come on! The blog is so clearly biased, the guy gets called a million bad words in one sentence. Why don't you take a look at this guy's views and what he has to say about them himself rather than believing some raving madman. Sure, this guy has orthodox political views, but it's ridiculous to call him (as an anti-Zionist) an anti-Semite, as he's a Semite himself. Also, this article has a whole entry on Jewish opposition to Zionism. If Zionism is what you described, the right of return to Israel, how come so many Jews disagree? How about you just say no more, because you're obviously a Zionist yourself. DenDelhaize (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionist
I made IMO a relatively non-controversial edit here.

Here is the original edit:

"Others contend that to the extent anti-Zionism represents opposition to Israel's existence, it is inherently antisemitic. Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionists."

The "others contend" quote is not supported by any source. This unsourced sentence leads to "Yet some Jews remain anti-Zionist" - sourced from Jews Not Zionist, a non-RS that could only be used to describe the views of that organization.

The problem here is that editors are assuming one's ethnic/religious status has some bearing on opposition to Israel's existence. It doesn't. Roland R claims my edits is my own synthesis but this is quite the contrary. The whole paragraph is synthesis, and none of it is supported by a third party reliable source. Just because your Jewish doesn't somehow make your opposition to Israel more legitimate. So either my edit should be restored or the whole sentence should be axed until one can find a suitable source to support it. Wikifan Be nice 09:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggesting being Jewish makes their opposition more legitimate; rather, the Israeli government or Zionists (as evidenced by this article) quite often accuse opponents of Zionism of being antisemitic. It's a fairly common perception held by many Zionists, as the information in this article shows. (Look at how much attention we've given antisemitism in an article about criticism/opposition regarding a political ideology.) So the thinking is that "if anti-Zionist is so antisemitic, why are so many religious and secular Jews opposed to it?" As well, this article itself has a "Jewish Anti-Zionist" section, so it'd be proper to include something about this under the "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism" section. That's my understanding of why it should be mentioned that many Jews are in opposition to Zionism. I'm assuming some of the citations later used under "Jewish Anti-Zionism" would work. I'll look into it. 98.95.118.106 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in Secular section
It repeats a lie that Jews returning to their homeland is "colonization." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartian1 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not an error or a lie. It is a description backed by reliable sources. RolandR (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically which organization is being accused of antisemitism and being called into question as a non-WP:RS?—Biosketch (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. Their website is certainly a reliable source for their own views. RolandR (talk) 10:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They don't appear to be a notable organization, in which case neither they nor their views merit attention in an encyclopedia article.—Biosketch (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not true. WP:N covers the existence of articles, not the content of articles.  nableezy  - 15:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And the subject of a Wikipedia article is by definition notable. RolandR (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

In Prague Jewry is in power
I was taken aback by the sentence "In Prague Jewry is in power" in the Anti-Zionist conspiracy theories section. I found it incredible. Incredible it was. The source seems to be Simon Wiesenthal's book 'Justice not Vengeance'. In what world is a book, of which the author is a Zionist Jew, a reliable source on anti-Zionism? Not only that, but if it were true this sentence would have to be in an article on antisemitism. I searched Google for this quote, and it is nowhere to be found.

I can't edit it out of the page, but can someone at least temporarily remove it until it is a proven fact that both the Volkischer Beobachter and Neues Deutschland used this sentence? The only instance where I found this was a news source directly quoting this article. That is embarassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenDelhaize (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the picture accompanying this story would be a good illustration of the nature of antizionism. 

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism
As per Shrike's suggestion, I've come to the talk page to discuss the section entitled Anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Originally I blanked the section down, but Shrike rightly suggested that I summarize what the sources say instead. I'll try to get to work on that soon, but if anyone wants to help with it, I'd be grateful. On another note, but related to the same section, is there any reason why both viewpoints aren't given equal attention? I'm assuming it is just an issue with the length of the quotes, and if so, we should keep in mind that we should stay neutral and give fair attention to both sides on this issue. Cheers. 98.95.118.106 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Definitions"
All definitions are either plain wrong or factually disputable. This makes the whole entry unbearable. Without any bias in the motivation for this absolute critic. Thanks Rmsoran (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)rmsoran


 * Agree. Anti-Zionism is not necessarily opposition to the broadest conceivable definition of Zionism, one that includes all strands of Zionism. For example, Non-Zionist Anti-Post-Zionism would be very extreme: I really think few Anti-Zionists think that Jews, as a nation, have the no right to self-determination - in the way that, say, the Kalaallits or the Sámis have. Or think that Jews have no right to live in the(ir) Holy Land. Steinberger (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirects
Curently both anti-Israel and Israelophobia lead here. I think there should be a seperate article made to discuss discrimination faced by Israelis around the world and on the international stage and since people refuse to consider definitatively anti-zionism to be that I suggest we create a new article. To start I'm asking for these two terms to not be redirected here. Since people on here claim it is not against Israel but against zionist that shouldn't be a problem.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Also I'm probably not going to name the article either of these but I just think redirects would be better suited to the article I'm thinking "anti-Israeli sentiment" would be best. But I think that redirects here too.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I will take the silence as permission to go ahead.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal of the Israelophobia article into the Anti-Zionism article
The Israelophobia article is very closely related to the subject of Anti-Zionism and is ultimately based on it. I propose that Israelophobia be merged into Anti-Zionism. Apart from the lack of any references or sources in the Israelophobia article, I think that the content in the Israelophobia article can easily be explained in the context of Anti-Zionism, and Anti-Zionism is a long-established and encompassing topic, that the merging of Israelophobia will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Saguamundi (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would just delete the article and leave it as a redirect. There is no referenced information in the article so nothing is suitable for inclusion here. Dlv999 (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A useless neologism with only useless content.  Zerotalk 11:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's nothing to merge, it would probably better to take this to AFD. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition
The current lead is :
 * Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionistic views or opposition to the state of Israel. The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source.

I had modified this that way :
 * Anti-Zionism refers historically to the opposition to the Zionist project by Arabs but also some British and even Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
 * Nowadays, it can refer to several concepts from the opposition to some positions or policies of the State of Israel or to its extension and, in its more extreme expression, it can refer to the hostility to its own existence.

This was reverted on the basis that "[the] edit seems to suggest that Anti-Zionism is a limited concept it also ignores the fact that today anti-Zionism is more about Israel than Zionism."

I agree that Zionism is today more about Israel and about Zionism but I don't agree that the lead I suggest said the contrary and the current one is not better.
 * the current lead limits Anti-Zionism to the "opposition to the State of Israel". That is not clear. What does it mean exactly ;
 * the historical opposition is important too and should not be rejected. The fact to talk about this doesn't mean that it would be a "limited concept". The historical zionism could be introduced after the contemporary one anyway.

Is there any suggestion to take these comments into account ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree the former stated Zionism refers to opposition of both Zionistic views and/or opposition to the state of Israel. Therefore the historical opposition is acknowledged at least if you are talking about pre-Israeli Anti-Zionism. signature added by Pluto2012 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Rainbowofpeace,
 * (I permitted myself to ident your comment with ":" and to add your signature)
 * I assume that you 6th word of your answer is "Anti-Zionism".
 * How do you understand "Opposition to the State of Israel" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm wrong but almost all anti-Zionists (if not all) are against Israel. Since the founding of Israel in 1948 both Zionism and Anti-Zionism have made that their main focus. That's not to say that Zionism didn't exist without Israel but of course Anti-Zionism includes opposition to the state of Israel. Anti-Zionist aren't against Jews in America or France. That's because it isn't about those countries. Its about Israel.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the different forms of anti-Zionisms target different topics directly related with Israel. That may be some of its policies like the fact it is a Jewish State and not a laicist one, the expansion in Cisjordan/Judea/Samaria and sometimes even its existence.
 * But my point is that the lead must explain to what precisely anti-Zionism is against because stating it is an "opposition to the State of Israel" doesn't mean anything to me...
 * Do you understand what I mean ? I have the feeling that we may not understand each other ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I partially understand what you are saying but ultimately Anti-Zionism is in some ways even more about Israel than Zionism itself. We must not ignore that ultimately its about Israel. Usually about its existence. If you have something specific you want to add to the definition than add it but make sure it is an add-on and not a limiting of the definition.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I agree that nowadays anti-zionism is about Israel more than about Zionism. That's not my point.
 * But I disagree that anti-zionism is "usually" against the existence of Israel. The only anti-zionism that is against the existence of Israel is the one of Iran and Hamas. There are many other kind of anti-zionism. I am quite sure that the most usual one is the one that oppose to the extension of Israel in West Bank and East Jerusalem...
 * I agree with your comment that "[any modification of the lead needs to be] an add-on and not a limiting of the definition"
 * What is your mind ?
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's sounds like you have some good ideas and you agree with most of my points so go ahead and add what you want and if I disagree I'll post something here.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This reads more like original search: "The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view in opposition to these, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source." I think this is redundant as nearly any kind of opposition to one ideology or another has no single source, and makes things too convoluted unnecessarily. I think the lead should simply stick to the consensus definition of opposition to Zionism as an ideology and the policies of the State of Israel. Laval (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the most part I agree with you but I also think that at times for certain extreme Anti-Zionism it wouldn't matter what Israel did. The most extreme forms of [anti-]Zionism aren't about Israeli policy but the existence of Israel itself.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (I added [anti-] in Rainbowofpeace's answer.)
 * Nuancing a little bit Rainbowofpeace, I agree with him that the most extreme form of anti-Zionism is against the existence of Israel itself but the most important (in term of "followers") refers to the opposition to some (not the) policies or characteristics of the State of Israel.
 * Regarding Laval's comments :
 * I agree that on the "form" point of view, the lead is "convoluted" but the reason is that there is no simple definition and even less consensual definition of Anti-Zionism. A good exemple for this is the position of Shalom Arshav that claims to be pro-Zionist, is in favor of the State of Israel in the borders of 1967 but is totally opposed to colonisation of West Bank/Judea/Samaria, divided around the question of Jerusalem and arguing Israel should be more secular, which makes some religious movements, particularly among settlers, refer to them as anti-Zionists. In other word, this movement is pro-Zionist and anti-Zionist simultaneously.
 * The current nuance is the lead is also important when so widespread movements are gathered, not to say amalgamated, behind one label : Ultra-Orthodox Jews, British officers in Mandate Palestine, communist supporters of a binational State, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, Post-Zionist scholars, Peace movements in Israel, BDS followers, socialist and liberal supporters of a secular State, ... All these are anti-Zionists but could hardly live together.
 * Anyway, I like very much the definition of Zionism reported by Laval. I think both Zionist and anti-Zionist can adhere to this. And I think the final result sounds good if we can just note the extreme point of view reminded by Rainbowofpeace
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Examples
Reading the lead, and thinking about Laval's comments here above, I think a third paragraph in the lead should give concrete examples of anti-Zionist points of views. That could clarify the "defition" and its potential ambiguities. What's your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Weasel words] [citation needed]
"The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. Several commentators have claimed that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day anti-Semitism." this fragment, as well as most of the article is a case of: [Weasel words] [citation needed]

some commentators claim some scholars say some say some think people consider WHO CARES GIVE ME REFERENCES SHOW ME PROOF

let's be serious here, if you edit this article do it right, don't turn it into zionism propaganda, please don't do that if you don't want to start wondering why most people in the world are anti semitic, it's because of things like these, propaganda, lies, empty words and insults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.225.61 (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

+1, Completely agree with this sentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.219.214 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge with timeline
I propose to merge Timeline of anti-Zionism into this article for two reasons: I have no strong urge to delete this article, since the info may be useful in the whole context (it would be much better to use it for history section of Anti-Zionism article), but once again i doubt it is relevant as standalone.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First reason is that the article "timeline of anti-Zionism" doesn't warrant for standalone article - it is too small (Anti-Zionism is 58k, timeline is 11k), it doesn't have parallel article in any other language, and i don't see how it contributes to split the info in two - one organized article can do a much better job.
 * Second reason is that Anti-Zionism is not an organized movement, but rather a collection of poorly related political opinions from various communities in the world, opposing Zionism - each for its own reason (within Jewish community and out of it). Further, seeking info on Anti-Zionism in literature, i can find only one instance for some kind of timeline - the chronology of opposition to Zionism within the Jewish community in Eastern Europe (the only book dealing with such issue); which however is a very different topic, compared with the collection of unrelated facts about anti-Zionism, opposition to Zionism, and Anti-Semitism mixed with Anti-Zionism, as put here.
 * Hi Greyshark, and thanks for the notification on my talk page. I am against the merger for the following reasons:
 * The timeline article is very much a classic wikipedia timeline article, akin to Timeline of Zionism. It would be difficult to integrate into this article, without turning it into prose.
 * The timeline article helps readers orientate themselves in this very challenging subject. A history or timeline of this topic is critically important for a reader to be able to understand both Anti-Zionism and Zionism. Allowing the History of Zionism and / or Timeline of Zionism articles to exist without also being able to read about those who held the opposite view over the last 150 years would detract from readers' understanding of the overall subject.
 * I do however think that this main article is desperately lacking a summarised "history" section.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is basically what i propose - to put this info as "history of Anti-Zionism" section within "Anti-Zionism" article; it however may require some work to transform it from "timeline" into a good "history" section.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Greyshark09, your merger proposal seems like a very good and appropriate suggestion. The short timeline should be properly merged with the newly created empty history section. Let's generate consensus about this. Shalom11111 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Is Anti-Zionism a manifestation of Antisemitism?
Four sources I have cited above propound and document this position. An editor claims the suggestion is an 'irrelevant and pejorative link'. I invite him to defend this position here, and request reliable sources to support this contention.Cpsoper (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Another editor suggests the link between Anti-Zionism and is WP:OR, I invite him to demonstrate this by indicating that the 4 sources I have quoted do not support or document the strong connection. On the contrary it is the primary focus of each to demonstrate this unequivocally. Shall I augment them here? - it would be easy to do so. Since when has contentiousness of a well documented and described proposition been an obstacle to it being a fit subject for encyclopaedic coverage? See some of the pages which include the depiction of Muhammad, for example. Are not accuracy and objective documentation the primary considerations?Cpsoper (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What nonsense is this? Of course Anti-Zionism is not Antisemitism. It is true that there are some anti-Semites who use the terminology 'Anti-Zionism' in a hypocritical way. But of course this does not mean that everyone who opposes Zionism is an anti-Semite. 'Anti-Zionism' refers in many cases to Jews who oppose the idea of a Jewish state, read e.g. Neturei Karta. Paul K. (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Paul, even in its most extreme forms the mere involvement of Jews in a movement has never been useful to refute that is is intrinsically concerned with malice to Jews. Ahmedinejad was reported to have a Jewish background, on the basis of his family name, some Jews cooperated closely with the concentration camp guards etc etc.Cpsoper (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [ec] The category link is appropriate because the subject is of interest to readers interested in antisemitism. It does not necessarily assert that the subject of the article is antisemitic. An elephant sanctuary could be in the topic elephants, and that does not assert that the sanctuary is in fact an elephant. That category is for the broad study of the topic, it is not a label. It has certainly been called that by many people, either because it is advanced by people with antisemitic agendas or because (so goes a serious line of argument) it is inherently antisemitic. However, as an encyclopedia we cannot assert that anti-Zionism is or is not a form of antisemitism. However well sourced that claim could possibly be, it a matter of opinion that cannot be stated in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Further, any assertion that anti-Zionism has been called a form of antisemitism has to be sourced very carefully for WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV reasons, not to the sources that call it antisemitic (because it's bordering on WP:OR and suffers from a cherry-picking problem to hunt for sources until we find somebody calling it that) but rather to a neutral secondary source that makes the statement that others have described anti-Zionism as antisemitic. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. The category page clearly states at the top "This category is for issues relating to antisemitism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic"; the same logic would mean that it is not for ideas that are allegedly antisemitic. In the past, the category was considerably broader, including such pages as Abraham Foxman and Anti-Defamation League. But the criteria for application of this category were tightened, and it is now explicitly NOT intended to be used in instances such as this article. RolandR (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please show us the proper basis for the restriction of the category. Perhaps by linking to an archived discussion? Or by reiterating the basic function. What benefit does it serve the general reader to be blind to the link between the two general phenomena?Cpsoper (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Such a position seems inconsistent with wiki's guidelines on categories, and given the prominence of the topic in the article it seems most peculiar not to crosslink them.The discussion is  here, the proposition for a unified approach to various categories of bias not applying to organisations clearly does not apply to broad movements of thought or attitude analogous to the many strands of anti-Zionism, as is evident from the other category pages, see racism for example. Cpsoper (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we clarify one thing please. Cpsoper, do you believe that holding Anti-Zionist views makes a person an antisemite? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, my opinion is not the issue, it is the contention of the sources I have quoted that the two phenomena are profoundly interlinked. As I have argued not every compulsion to wear a yellow badge is Antisemitic, but in general the two phenomena are closely intertwined. But this is reiterating old ground. May I repeat my requests to you above? Perhaps answer them in their place to maintain some order.Cpsoper (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We are going round in circles so yes your opinion does matter. We need to understand where you stand on this core question, as I am currently unable to see the logic in your argument (which as i have tried to show, seems to me to be totally illogical). Could you please provide your view on this question, solely to help us understand how you have constructed your argument? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only issue in question is whether Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism are intertwined sufficient to justify a cross linkage of this page with Antisemitism. Do you deny this? Every source I have quoted argues they are closely and profoundly interlinked, now can you provide a single RS to show that this interlinkage is completely false? The immediate question you pose is not relevant to this issue, and it unnecessarily personalises the matter, as I think other editors can see.Cpsoper (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources for you (courtesy of the article I linked above):
 * Michael Lerner claims that the American Jewish community regularly tries to blur the distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, and says it is a "slippery slope" to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include legitimate criticism of Israel.
 * Philosophy professor Irfan Khawaja asserts that it is a "false equation" to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, writing "The point is not that the charge of 'anti-Semitism' should never be made: some people deserve it…. But the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is a farce that has gone on long enough, and it’s time that those who saw through the farce said so…" Khawaja, Irfan, "Poisoning the Well: The False Equation of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism", History News Network, online, 28 March 2005:
 * "… Schoenfeld takes umbrage at questions about the power of “the Jewish lobby,” and construes the asking of such questions as evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases, he thinks that a particular criticism of Israel is overwrought, and takes its being overwrought as evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases the claim is that a Jewish author is self-hating, which becomes evidence of anti-Semitism. In some cases we are told that a person draws attention to his Jewish friends while criticizing Israel, which only proves that the person wishes to be insulated from charges of anti-Semitism—which proves, in advance of any actual accusation, that he must be an anti-Semite.... The point is not that the charge of “anti-Semitism” should never be made: some people deserve it. Nor must it always be made with trepidation: some people obviously deserve it. Nor must anti-Zionists be thought immune to the charge: too many of them are guilty.... But the equation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism is a farce that has gone on long enough, and it’s time that those who saw through the farce said so—at length, if necessary....I’ve mentioned just a few examples here, but whatever its virtues (and there are some, as I’ve been at pains to suggest), the deficiencies I’ve described characterize the “new anti-Semitism” literature as a whole. For examples, consult Phyllis Chesler’s The New Anti-Semitism (pp. 4, 171-179, 182-185), Abraham Foxman’s Never Again: The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (pp. 17-21), Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel (p. 210), the writings of Bat Ye’or, as well as scattered essays in Rosenbaum’s anthology, Commentary, at WorldNet.Daily, or in your local Jewish paper. The modus operandi is more or less the same: First we are informed, accurately enough, of the existence of the new anti-Semitism. Then we are told that anti-Zionism is now ubiquitously used as a cover for that anti-Semitism. From there we skate imperceptibly to the equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. And from there we are blackmailed into accepting the equation on pain of being accused of anti-Semitism."


 * Brian Klug argues that anti-Zionism sometimes is a manifestation of antisemitism, but that "[t]hey are separate" and that to equate them is to incorrectly "conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people."
 * Earl Raab, founding director of the Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University writes that "[t]here is a new surge of antisemitism in the world, and much prejudice against Israel is driven by such antisemitism," but argues that charges of antisemitism based on anti-Israel opinions generally lack credibility. He writes that "a grave educational misdirection is imbedded in formulations suggesting that if we somehow get rid of antisemitism, we will get rid of anti-Israelism. This reduces the problems of prejudice against Israel to cartoon proportions." Raab describes prejudice against Israel as a "serious breach of morality and good sense," and argues that it is often a bridge to antisemitism, but distinguishes it from antisemitism as such.
 * Irfan Khawaja suggests that some legitimate criticisms of Israel are improperly attacked by deliberately conflating them with criticisms that are anti-Semitic in nature.
 * Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, in the book The Politics of Anti-Semitism, write "Apologists for Israel's repression of Palestinians toss the word 'anti-Semite' at any critic of what Zionism has meant in practice for Palestinians on the receiving end. So some of the essays in this book address the issue of what constitutes genuine anti-Semitism – Jew-hatred – as opposed to disingenuous, specious charges of 'anti-Semitism' hurled at rational appraisals of the state of Israel's political, military, and social conduct."
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting these. However all they demonstrate is attempts to conflate or accusations of conflation of the phenomena. Who has argued the two phenomena are identical? - every single author I've cited distinguishes them, most explicitly welcome ordinary criticism of Israel. That is not the issue. Your citations don't demonstrate that these phenomena are not intertwined to the extent that Anti-Zionism is now the principle means by which anti-Semites express their hatred of Jews. This is my contention, it is the contention of these authors. Look for example at this study that very closely correlates extreme anti-Jewish attitudes to anti-Israel attitudes amongst Europeans. . Here are a number of other serious publications supporting this contention, one written by a Muslim.  It is quite absurd already to deny the deepening and organic connexion between Jew hatred and Israel hatred - for we are not here primarily addressing criticism of either. What kind of encyclopaedia suppresses cogent, critical and well documented opinion? Cpsoper (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Twitter "is now the principle means by which" ISIL militants "express their hatred of" Iraqi Shi'a and Western powers. But that doesn't mean Twitter should be in the Category:Jihadism. You are fighting so hard for something you believe in good faith to be true, but without recognizing that the spectrum of views you are describing is extremely subjective and most likely unprovable. It is also, as shown above, an extremely negative and low-brow propaganda tool, hence the resistance you are facing. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument. Twitter is the technological instrument, Anti-Zionism is the ideological vehicle, just as race hatred was for the Nazis and Cossacks, jihad for the Farhud, or doctrinal disputes for Chrysostom and the Cappodocians. Your next statement is vague, 'the spectrum of views you are describing is extremely subjective and most likely unprovable' and needs clarifying. The confluence of Jew hatred and Israel hatred is crystal clear and abundantly documented, even your own sources concede this. It's exceptionally shocking if you read Arabic. Wiki's category policy does not require one subject to be a pure subset of another - if it did a very large number of the links under categories would currently be inconsistent with it, not least in the Antisemitism category itself, Racism in Dickens, Nostra Aetate, and Conspiracy theories involving Jews to name but three. Cpsoper (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The text you cite that "very closely correlates extreme anti-Jewish attitudes to anti-Israel attitudes amongst Europeans" is explicitly NOT about anti-Zionism. The author states "While there is a long and sad history of anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere, and while the relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism through modern times has been thoroughly explored, whether extreme criticism of Israel is de facto anti-Semitic remains bitterly contested, as exemplified in the recent AUT boycott debate. Our research question is different." If the author states that he is not writing about anti-Zionism, it is not appropriate to cite the study as correlating antisemitism and anti-Zionism. RolandR (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The research question is not 'when anti-Israel statements are anti-Semitic' but 'whether individuals with strong anti-Israel views are more likely to harbor anti-Semitic views' p.3 - the whole paper is devoted to examining precisely the link you contest. The authors conclude, 'From a large survey of 5,000 citizens of 10 European countries, we showed that the prevalence of those harboring (selfreported) anti-Semitic views consistently increases with respondents’ degree of anti-Israel sentiment (see Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 3), even after controlling for other factors.' Look at figure at bottom of p.21. The probablity of the Chi2 test for linkage between antisemitisim and anti-Zionism (the authors' term) comes out as < 0.0001 (p.19), stronger than any other factor, and the correlation was stratified, the stronger the hate the stronger the hate. Remove this reference again if you insist on keeping the blinkers on, but I suggest if you do, something other than truth-seeking is at work here.Cpsoper (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting find, thanks. I will respond to this in a new section below. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously a non-debate. The suggestion that "Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism are intertwined" is a malicious POV, and including it in Wp. would of course constitute a gross violation of Wp`s encyclopaedical neutrality. Continuing this discussion is therefore pointless. Paul K. (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is undeniable that some scholars, commentators, activists, etc., have taken this position. There seems to be a recent public swell in branding anti-Zionism as antisemitic, and those waves probably lap on Wikipedia's shores like everyone else's. Whether that is a malicious position or not depends to a large extent on how one defines terms and how one frames the debate. Also perhaps who's behind it, some ideas gain currency on their own, sometimes someone is pushing them. The article itself points out that anti-Zionism takes on different forms and exists in different senses, ranging from opposition to the state of Israel to opposition that Jews should be living in Palestine at all. There is a lengthy section in the article, reasonably neutral and well enough written, about the subject. That is enough. There is a reasonable discussion to be had on how much of that should be included in the lede if any, and whether that affects categories. It would be unreasonable to accept a single aspect of the subject as standing for the whole subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It is largely a POV that is adopted by paid advocates for Israel or by people who are otherwise active in Israel's extensive public diplomacy efforts. If you look at the sources adduced to support the position in the discussion above: the JCPA, "Palwatch", Memri, the Jewish virtual library, ect. many of them would fall into that category. I would be very dubious about using these kind of activist sources even to represent a specific POV on the debate, let alone for verification of accepted facts, for which they are totally unacceptable. Dlv999 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As the sole 'representative' here of the behemoth Israel propaganda machine you perceive, and as an entirely unpaid Gentile, who has never visited the country, but as one astonished, whilst living in a neighbouring Arab state for 6 years, by the virulence of Jew hatred there, I'd like to pose just one question. Can you cite one recent, serious and unacknowledged error in the sources you choose to deride? I'd be happy to examine it with you. PMW and MEMRI in particular have an international reputation for accuracy, fact checking and self correction. Selective they certainly are, though far from always negative, but even trenchant critics acknowledge they are usually accurate - when the details are scoured over. Western governments, the media and their agencies often cite them - why so? I can vouchsafe the care of many of their translations myself - but perhaps you could enlighten us with a single, recent example? It shouldn't be difficult, if they are as dubious as you claim. Cpsoper (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I had already read wiki's entry before posting my request - hence the call for recent alleged inaccuracies. The best example there is about the young girl and Farfar, where the dispute if over word order and the suffix na. Word order doesn't matter as much in Arabic as in English, but it is significant - the commonly used 'Khaibar' phrase 'itbach al yuhud' (slaughter the Jews) familiar to those who watch the videos of the Mari Marmara passengers, and many other depressingly familiar videos illustrate this. It would be strange and add unusual emphasis, but not wholly ungrammatical to say in Arabic 'Itbachna al yuhud' (we are being slaughtered by the Jews). It is 7 years old. So the main dispute is over whether 'na' was said or not in a low quality sound track. Cpsoper (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

NGO Monitor correlation analysis
Interesting find. FYI the original survey results from ADL is here (it's 10 years old). It is very worrying data - particularly the summary on page 6 which suggests that about a quarter of people in Western Europe are antisemitic. And that's only the people who were willing to effectively admit it to a stranger on the phone. I don't want to believe it so I hope the data is skewed some way or another, but I can't explain it from the paper.

Anyway, to the correlation with Israel. Firstly it is important to note is that NGO Monitor is not RS, so i'm not sure we can use it, but interested in others' views. Either way, it is interesting so I will give my thoughts below.

One can easily question the authors' motives, which could show itself in how they chose their "anti-Israel index". They did not use all the Israel-related questions in the original research, so one wonders why. I am sure you have done enough statistics in your time to know how data can be manipulated through selective choices.

But even putting that aside, the heart of the question here is (1) exactly how strong is the correlation (p.21), and (2) how strong is it relative to other factors (p.19).
 * (1) The bottom chart on p.21 shows that for the perhaps 5-6% of respondents who scored maximum 4 on the anti-Israel index, about half were anti-semitic. Anything less than 4 and the majority were NOT anti-semitic according to ADL's definition
 * (2) The data on p.19 shows a clear correlation to other factors, such as being anti-immigration, or being Muslim. So to follow your logic, should Opposition to immigration or Islam be in the Category:Antisemitism? Or are they "not correlated enough" in your mind? If not, where does one draw the line?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, these questions are about negative attitudes to Israel. That is not necessarily the same as "anti-Zionism", which is often a more philosophical attitude than these questions. The authors here do not connect the results to anti-Zionism, so nor can we.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The authors took an obvious fact, that antisemitic people are more likely to be critical of Israel than non-antisemitic people, and turned it around to suggest a relationship in the other direction. It is a standard statistical fallacy.  People with severe migraines are more likely to stay home from work, therefore (by exactly the same analysis and reasoning) staying home from work is a predictor of migraine suffering.  It is a true conclusion from the purely numerical point of view, but presenting it in that direction is misleading.  Incidentally, to your list of other problems with the study is the fact that one of the "antisemitic statements" explicitly names Israel: "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country." To make such a judgement requires deciding which feelings towards Israel count as "loyalty", which depends on one's own attitude to Israel.  For example, one who believes it immoral for Israel to hold on to the occupied territories is likely to hold that someone who supports the settlements is more loyal to Israel, but one who believes holding the territories is in the interests of peace is less likely to make that judgement. One can also suspect that some ignorant people who agreed with the statement were merely accepting the identification of Israel with Jews that is a standard part of Israeli propaganda. Zerotalk 20:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Kaplan OR chart.jpg basic but important corrections:


 * 1/ The data does not come from NGO monitor, that is the host site for a free copy of the pdf, the original publisher was JCR. An accessible copy was requested by the very editors who have since chosen to remove the paper. There should be no doubt it is RS.
 * 2/ Why is it obvious that 'antisemitic people are more likely to be critical of Israel than non-antisemitic people'? If anti-Zionism has nothing to do with Antisemitism, why should there be any link at all? The authors set out explicitly to examine 'whether those with extreme anti-Israel views are more likely to be anti-Semitic'. It is their null hypothesis that the two phenomena are unconnected - precisely what we are addressing here. You however claim the study fails to address this properly. The suggestion that there is a a confusion of causality indicates that causality is clear to you - if so state the cause explicitly here. If Jew haters usually hate Israel, why is that 'obvious'? The authors also ask the important corollary, 'not only whether those with anti-Israel leanings are more likely to be anti-Semitic, but whether the degree of anti-Israel feeling differentially predicts the likelihood that one harbors anti-Semitic views.' (emphasis mine) - the chart summarises their findings.
 * 3/ Asking if native Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country is obviously an anti-Jewish trait. Just like asking if Kurdish Americans are more loyal to Iraq than to the US, is an anti-Kurdish question, rather than an anti-Iraqi question.
 * 4/ The question of whether other factors should be linked to Antisemitism is a moot one. However on chi2 testing, Anti-Zionism scored more than double the value of the next highest correlate, (anti-immigrant views, 196 vs. 97), and with lower degress of freedom (4 vs 6).
 * 5/ It is claimed the 'identification of Israel with Jews ...is a standard part of Israeli propaganda' - this is irrelevant, what is important is whether the link exists in the minds of those who hate Jews, the evidence here is overwhelming that it does, and correlates more strongly than any other association.
 * 6/ The suggestion that a distinction exists between anti-Zionists who are refined philosophical ideologues, and haters of Israel who are malicious Antisemites needs substantiating. The difference appears contrived, especially given the convoluted history of dissimulated Jew hatred.
 * 7/ The removal of this paper remains in dispute, as its findings are seminal to this discussion. Is there academic research which demonstrates a lack of association? The removal of the category link to Antisemitism is also contested and is based on improper grounds.Cpsoper (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Cpsoper, interesting points. Before I respond in detail, would you be gracious enough to describe which of the points made by me and Zero you DO agree with? It will make progressing easier if we can build on some common ground. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree, it's 'very worrying data'.Cpsoper (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anything else? A number of strong points have been made above, many of which you have yet to provide your view on. Please let's build some common ground. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After rereading your point 6 above, I've decided to not waste any more of my time on discussing this with you. To make such an obtuse statement shows that you know little or nothing about the subject of this article. If you wish to consider avoiding accidentally making such absurd statements in the future, and wish to contribute constructively to this topic, I suggest you spend some time reading a little about: (1) the evolution of Jewish nationalism and integrationism in the 19th century, (2) the history of Zionism including its status as a very marginal view in Jewish thought prior to 1917, and (3) perhaps consider the diverse thoughts of Ghandi, Arendt, Desmond Tutu, Chomsky and various Hasidic groups. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 2, the authors of the article agree with me: "Presumably, those with anti-Semitic leanings would be more likely to espouse anti-Israel viewpoints than those who are not anti-Semitic (given that Israel presents itself as a Jewish state), implying that q > r, which in turn implies that the fraction of those with anti-Israel leanings who are anti-Semitic (f) exceeds the unconditional proportion of the population that is anti-Semitic (p)." When I read the article, I was struck by the way this sentence stands out like a sore thumb, undermining the central thesis of the paper but never followed up on.  It is quite correct, a tendency for antisemitic people to be anti-Israel inevitably produces a statistical correlation if you reverse the variables. The authors state it clearly but then go on to reverse the variables regardless. Zerotalk 14:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

All of this is extremely interesting, but not relevant. This article is about anti-Zionism, not about antisemitism or anti-Israel sentiment. Although these issues are clearly related, and can be raised in the context of the article, unless it can be shown that the Kaplan article relates somehow to anti-Zionism, rather then to other issues, then it is inappropriate to use it in our article. To my reading, the Kaplan article does not correlate anti-Zionism to antisemitic views, and cannot be cited as evidence of such a correlation; to do so would be unacceptable synthesis. RolandR (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * '"A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'

WP:SYN. Wistrich testimony to the UNHCR inter alia. Cpsoper (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Church Of Scotland
The addition was one sided and not consistent with the source or our WP:NPOV policy only including one viepoint from the source (without attribution). I made some changes to bring it in line with policy (but was reverted without an explanation): adding the position of the report, per the source, not just the criticism of the report and attributed the criticism per the source. A further issue I addressed is the claim that it was criticised "as anti-Zionist". I didn't find anything in the source that would support that. I would appreciate it if the editor would quote the exact text from the source that they believe supports that particular claim. Dlv999 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for erasing your edit, we were editing simultaneously, for the strength of reaction to this report and further references please see the crosslink. I think you will find it considerably more explicit and detailed about the allegations of inaccuracy and Anti-Zionism.Cpsoper (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Arab Anti-Zionism is inextricably bound to Arab antisemitism
So I was reading a book earlier, and I read something interesting that I thought might be on the Wikipedia page, and I was disappointed to see that it wasn't [1]. (in case the reference link doesn't work, the book is "Arab Attitudes to Israel", and the page is 202. This page (and the rest of the chapter) quotes many arab scholars describing how one cannot separate Judaism from Zionism (although one can be Zionist without being Jewish, in their view, one cannot be Jewish but Anti-Zionist).  Moreover, Zionism is described in what appear to be explicitly racial terms, where Zionism becomes an ineffaceable stain on an individual.  So, perversely, the Arab scholars derive that Anti-Zionism entails Anti-semitism as a matter of course (and some (specifically on the linked page make the further claim that one can take Zionism and Judaism to be synonymous).

This seems important, because it seems to capture the inherent antisemitism that we see in Arab anti-zionism, replete with canards, conspiracy theories, demonization, dehumanization, etc. that aren't characteristic of ordinary territorial disputes. Moreover, the observation directly contradicts the oft-heard slogan that "Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism", since at least in the case of traditional Arab anti-Zionism, there is really no difference. It should be noted that Zionism in the arab view is a much larger construct than just a desire and campaign for a national home for the jews, so when Arabs use the term "Anti-zionist", it actually just means "anti-semitic" and this is due to the difference in the understanding of what Zionism is. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I recommend you consider some introspection in your own thought process. You are accusing anti-zionists of over-generalising and making unjustified extrapolations into racism, whilst making exactly the same generalisation and extrapolation yourself.
 * It is true that some anti-Zionist scholars are anti-semitic, just as it is true that some zionist scholars are anti-arab. In suggesting that such a fact pattern creates an "inextricable bind", you have simply made a Hasty generalization.
 * Perhaps you might spend some time learning about anti-zionists who aren't racist. Perhaps start with Timeline of Anti-Zionism
 * I also recommend you consider whether the authors of the books you read may have any underlying bias. Do you really consider Yehoshafat Harkabi a neutral scholar?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Whether he's neutral does not really matter, but I do think he is. Moreover, he is quoting Arab-Muslim philosophers, so I don't see what the problem is.174.44.174.192 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Quotes are certainly partial and reported out of their context. They may be fake. A generalisation is made ouf of these, as you do yourself. The author had a politcal agenda.
 * See WP:RS as far as wikipedia is concerned. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, Harkabi wrote this book over forty years ago, and later completely revised his opinions, becoming a proponent of Israeli withdrawal from the 1967-occupied territories and one of the first members of Israel's military establishment to call publicly for recognition of and negotiation with the PLO. It would be extremely misleading to cite Harkabi's 1971 book without also citing, for instance, his 1988 Israel's Fateful Hour, which drew very different conclusions. RolandR (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hakarbi changed his opinion on whether anti-zionism in the arab world was one and the same with antisemitism? He's never repudiated that.  Moreover, the quotes are not partial.  They include the entire argument.  I don't see how you can deny this fact when we see arabs shouting 'kill the jews!' or 'wipe out the jews!' all the time, but then when they actively code-switch it to 'zionist' when they're writing to an english-language audience.  The quotes are from arab-muslim thinkers, and those quotes have not been repudiated. Moreover, no one has ever suggested that Hakarbi had repudiated his original book about the ideology of the arabs.  He said that he believed in negotiating with the PLO because he felt it would be the most effective way to make Israel the best it could possibly be (he described himself as machiavellian in this regard). See [2] 174.44.174.192 (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been asked here above for introspection...
 * How far is this claim true or not : "when we see arabs shouting 'kill the jews!' or 'wipe out the jews!' all the time" ? What is reality ? What do scholars write about this ?
 * If we can gather *all* the wp:rs on the topic, maybe we can draw a fair picture of the situation and avoid the traps of the Arab, Palestinian and Israeli mythologies. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you doubting whether or not this happens even in countries rendered judenrein by expulsions? Look, I wish it were false, because that means that all of the people who have been killed in these riots/pogroms by such mobs in the Arab world would still be alive.  I mean, I think that at a certain point, it becomes totally impossible to ignore that this is the opinion of a large portion of the population of Arab and Muslim countries.  Here, I did a  [search] for you.  Arab antisemitism is a real phenomenon, and I don't see how you can sit there denying it in the face of really massive amounts of evidence.174.44.174.192 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have been asked here above for introspection...
 * Arab antisemitism is a real phenomenon. This must be analysed and weighted anyway. It depends very much on what Arabs you are talking about. And in the case of an Israeli ears, it also has to be filtered from their government propaganda and the collective memory and mythology.
 * Making links between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is certainly right but equalling both of them is of course false. Equalling the opposition of the Arab world to Israel to anti-semitism is propaganda. Equalling the opposition of the Muslim world to Israel to 'Jihad' is also propaganda.
 * That is very complex issue that requires highest end scholarship, empathy and introspection.
 * Anyway, we are not here to debate this. Wikipedia is not a forum but a project of encyclopaedia. You have been explained why regarding wikipedia rules (WP:RS) your suggestion cannot be followed. To move forward, you need to study. You may start with the last book of Gilbert Achcar and his critics by Jeffrey Herf. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Anti-Zionism (meaning opposition to israel) is necessarily anti-semitic. What I did say was that in many cases, Arabs themselves have taken them to be equivalent, which I showed with the provided quote.  Wikipedia has a responsibility to not whitewash the truth.  You claimed that the quotes were out of context.  Surely they're not.  They're totally consistent with a worldview that is very commonly held in the Arab world, and I think that you're reflexively denying them on the basis of political correctness or because it's too horrible an idea for you to believe that there are people who think that way.  I want you to know that the Roosevelt Administration (even many jews like Felix Frankfurter) chose not to believe the reports that were delivered regarding the nazi mass-murder of the jews, and that choice to deny reality on the basis of wishing the world was a better place prevented many more from being saved. The same kind of attitudes are not widely held by Jews or Israelis, so it's not some sort of thing where both sides are demonizing one another.174.44.174.192 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't say that - so you can stop wasting our time now. As to your idiotic soapboxing, why don't you do the same googlesearching for the phrases "death to arabs" and "kill the arabs", and you will see that extremist zionists are just as bad as extremeist anti-zionists. Perhaps you could start the opposite discussion at Talk:Zionism. But of course you won't, because you believe that anti-zionist-extremists are more common than zionist-extremeists. And that, my friend, is because you are inherantly biased. You will not be able to prove this either way - there are no statistics. So please, unless you have any actual edits that you want to make here and then mirror at the Zionism article, please just stop wasting everyone's time. And think about taking time for introspection on your inherant bias. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you ought to introspect on your inherent antisemitism. Peace. Remember which country has Mein Kampf and the Protocols as bestsellers.174.44.174.192 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anti-Zionism is a category of Antisemitism - Arab or not. It is well recognised as the principal contemporary manifestation of Jew hatred and has been since Patrick Moynihan and Chaim Herzog's speeches at the UN. See Hebrew University's Robert Wistrich presentation to the UNHCR. See also Cpsoper (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are wrong. It is logically impossible to suggest that Anti-Zionism is a subset of Anti-Semitism, because of the existence of Anti-Zionists who are not Anti-Semites. Perhaps you should read the Anti-Zionism article. Your sources do not support your "is a category of" for exactly that reason. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is inconsistent and incoherent. Have you read the sources? I have read the article. Each one of them, by itself stands as an independent RS for the proposition. Wistrich's principle contention is that Anti-Zionism is the principal manifestation of contemporary Jew hatred, and provides evidence drawn from the activity assembly he address. Subsequent history more than amply justifies his contention. Many of the 187 other linked subjects are not 'subsets' of Antisemitism either, do you wish them removed too?Cpsoper (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your sources show that Anti-Zionism is a common manifestation of antisemitism. Similarly a high fever is a common manifestation of malaria. Do you see how these can't be flipped round (as you have done) and remain necessarily true? Put it another way, "is a common manifestation of" is not equivalent to "is". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, on these grounds, you could argue that forcing Jews to wear yellow badges is a manifestation of Jew hatred and therefore any page describing the compulsion of the wearing of yellow badges would be inappropriate to link to Antisemtism if there were only one example in history of a Buddhist or Christian being compelled to wear a yellow badge. This is not pure maths we are describing. There is a strong confluence between hatred of Jews and hatred of Israel, that is the contention of each 4 sources, with a wealth of evidence in each case for a highly selective and malicious bias against Israel that bears all the characteristics of historic Jew hate, and there are many other RS. The categories ought properly to be linked, and I repeat my request for solid evidence if you wish to reject this.Cpsoper (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some anti-Zionists are antisemitic. Some antisemites are anti-Zionist. But they are not equivalent terms, or beliefs. Similarly, some conservatives are racists; some racists are conservative. But we would not be justified in treating either term as a category of the other, no matter how many writers describe an apparent link between them. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Roland, malice towards Jews and malice towards Israel are becoming strongly confluent. This is the core issue each source posits. Data from popular surveys of both phenomena, from the Arab and Islamic and and Palestinian press, from individual authors on both sides of the debate strongly illustrate this . Do you doubt this? It may be possible to clinically separate the phenomena, as you have, or in the more contrived manner I've described above, but the increasing and massive extent of overlap is easily demonstrated from multiple RS. They are now conjoint twins. (By the way, in case any should wonder, I am not Jewish).Cpsoper (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government, and the sources therein. What you are describing is well publicized as a propaganda theme, created and used by supporters of Israeli government policies to deflect criticism. That is why this topic needs to be dealt with in a much more nuanced fashion than you have done so far. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of this response, Dershowitz responds to it in some detail. However, it is a distraction to ask whether Israel uses refutation of Antisemitism as a tool for its defence either justly or unjustly (it was after all founded to protect assimilated Jews against hatred). The only real question here issue is whether hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews are linked. Can you please demonstrate they are not, and focus on the question?Cpsoper (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course there is linkage, just as there is linkage between malaria and a high fever. You need to be more specific, as "linkage" is a very vague term. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, how about interdependence or interreliance, both terms suit the sources and the data?Cpsoper (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Showing by facts that Zionism is the number one Antisemitic entity is considered un-neutral and biased but the statement that "Arab Anti-Zionism is inextricably bound to Arab antisemitism" (inextricable: incapable of being disentangled or untied ) is unbiased? aside from being an illogical statement since Arabs are the only Semitic people in modern times, it is obviously biased and offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by عبدالرحمن ر. جدوع (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Abd ArRahman, the term Anti-Semitism was coined to dignify Jew hatred, as the wiki entry clarifies, either you've chosen to ignore this or you haven't read the article you're citing. It resulted in the most extreme barbarism. Sadly the Grand Mufti Al Husseini actively participated in it. So to apply the term to Arabs in order to make Israel look bad is a rather ironic exercise in self-disclosure. The question here is how usual is Anti-Semitism in Anti-Zionists, in this section, especially amongst Arab Anti-Zionists. Please stick to the point, rather than going off on a tangent. Cpsoper (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini isn't a representative of whole (not even nearly) body of Arab world, so trying to reflect what Moshe Pearlman - whose a leader IDF spokesperson, which disqualifies him as a neutral source - claims about him being an antisemitic on the Arabic mainstream is sheer ridiculousness. Also, Haj Amin was the one who said: "[The Jews] always did live previously in Arab countries with complete freedom and liberty, as natives of the country. In fact, Muslim rule has always been known for its tolerance ... according to history Jews had a most quiet and peaceful residence under Arab rule. - 1937", so basically pro-zionists twisting Haj Amin's motives is based on nothing but on his opposition of Israeli state on the lands of Palestine not hatred towards Jews.


 * In Semitic_people, we can conclude that the Aryan-Jewish conflict in Germany led to the association between Jewish and Semitism because of the tendency of the Semitic region to Monotheism. Hypothetically speaking, if roles were switched and the Nazi oppression towards Jews was directed to Muslims in Germany instead, oppression of Muslims would've been legitimately described as anti-semitism since Islam is trendy in Semitic region. Therefor, pulling the antisemitism against Arabs in Palestinian-Israeli(not Jewish) conflict is meaningless and self-contradicting.عبدالرحمن ر. جدوع (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What does "pulling the antisemitism" mean? --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clear enough. I meant describing Arabic opposition of the state of Israel on the lands of Palestine (Arabic Anti-Zionism) as Antisemitism is meaningless and self-contradicting.عبدالرحمن ر. جدوع (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I really didn't want to get involved in this debate again, but reluctantly feel the need to respond to some of the above.
 * In the first place, there is an irrelevant semantic quibble. "Antisemitism" is the term commonly used, and understood, to mean "racism directed towards Jews". Whether this term is semantically correct, whether the Jews are indeed Semites, whether others who claim Semitic origin can also be targets of antisemitism, are tangential. I too have my views on this, which I have argued in appropriate forums. But this is not the place; we use terms as they are commonly understood, not as we think they ought to be interpreted. So in this context, to claim that Jews cannot be victims of antisemitism, or that Arabs cannot be antisemites, is misplaced and unhelpful
 * On the other hand, there is an elision of opposition to Israel and Zionism with racist hatred of Jews, which is then used to argue that anti-Zionism and all opposition to Israel is ipso facto antisemitic. This too is a nonsense, and it too should have no place in Wikipedia. As I note above, some anti-Zionists are antisemitic, and some antisemites are anti-Zionist. But by no means all, in each case. These are entirely distinct categories, and it is not helpful to confuse them. And most Arab opposition to Zionism results from opposition to Israel's dispossession of the Palestinian people, not from a racist hatred of Jews.
 * Can we try to keep to discussion about what this Wikipedia article should say? We may be able to find agreement on that, even though it is clear that we will not reach any agreement on the rights and wrongs of Zionism and the Palestine-Israel conflict. RolandR (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Berlin demonstration photo
Earlier today, Wlglunight93 added a picture of a person with Nazi tattoos, apparently participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Berlin. Since this photo, while clearly illustrating Nazism, and arguably antisemitism, does not seem to be related to this article, I removed it, with the edit summary "No evidence is presented that this unpleasant picture has anything to do with anti-Zionism". Wlglunight93 promptly returned the picture, with the edit summary "Read the description: 'around 1000 pro-palestinian people came together in Berlin to protest against a pro-israeli rally on Joachimstaler Platz in Berlin'." Even if we accept this description, which is an unsourced assertion added by the uploader on Commons, the edit summary still does not justify use of the picture in this article, since it fails to establish, or even to assert, any link to anti-Zionism. It would be unsupported original research to claim that this picture is of an anti-Zionist. It is evident that not all demonstrators against Israel are anti-Zionists, and this article discusses at length the distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. To use this picture here is in effect to assert that these two phenomena are the same, and is thus unacceptable POV. Because of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions, I am unable to again remove this image. But I believe it has no place in this article, and hope that other editors will agree with my assessment and themselves remove it. RolandR (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)