Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qaddafi, Israteen

 * "Thursday, 15 May, 2003: Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi renewed his calls Wednesday for establishing an Israeli-Palestinian state under the name of "Israteen" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Qadhafi said the solution was plausible on condition of allowing the repatriation of Palestinian refugees from wherever they were. Qadhafi first made his proposal at the Arab summit held in Amman in 2001. It was since made part of his "White Book" published on his private internet Web site. His suggestion "guaranteed the settlement of the Middle East conflict as the new Israteen state would become member of the Arab League," Qadhafi said.[UPI]"[1]

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

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

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


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

should this article only present anti-zionism from the anti-zionist point of view?
Since zionism is dealing only with the zionist POV, this article should be dealing only with the anti-zionist POV.

How about an introduction like this

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Updating the Intro

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

The 2nd paragraph of intro
Now it's confusing, long and wrong. How's this: The term "Zionism" was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890 and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, or Zion. The First Zionist Congress led by Theodore Herzl adopted this idea as the Basel Program in 1897. , Anti-Zionism can be opposition to these objectives, or to a specific implementation that meets these objectives. In some cases, anti-Zionism stems from anti-semitism, but not all anti-semites are anti-Zionist, nor can most anti-Zionist be considered anti-semitic. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:10, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Give me a break, Jayjg. I'm putting in only facts. You need not describe it as vanadlism, which is an abuse of the term. If anything, you are the vandal, deleting valid points of view because it's inconvienent for you. I want to have a civil discussion about this, but if you, Jayjg, continue to be inflamatory and result to cheap name calling, I'm likely just going to bow out and the wikipedia will have yet another biased article that could not be corrected due to narrow minds. At least Humus has shown reasonability by at least conceeding that it's not just the objectives, but the implementation, that people object to. Already that is a good start and gives me some satisfaction. I still don't think the article is neutral enough. MShonle 04:59, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you believe that your statements are facts, though that doesn't make them so. In any event, the issue currently is not with the point you are trying to make, but with its placement.  It simply does not belong in the Introduction, as has been explained many times.  But the good news for you is that it gets into the very next section, so there is no doubt your point of view is being expressed.  As for your accusations vis a vis my own motivations, your point of view is not "inconvenient" for me in any way; that is merely a strawman argument on your part (please see the link for more detail).  And regarding my "deleting valid points of view", I did not delete them, I merely reverted to the earlier NPOV version of the article into which you had (yet again) inserted your own personal agenda.  Finally, in response to your threat to bow out, I hope you do not do so, as Wikipedia articles benefit from multiple points of view. Jayjg 16:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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

4th and 5th paragraphs in Jewish responses to Zionism
These paragraphs seem confused; does anyone know what they are trying to say? Jayjg 22:03, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


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


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


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

Should the term "ultra-Orthodox" be used?
Aside from being difficult to define, it is seen by many as pejorative. Would it be better to simply remove the "ultras" and leave "Orthodox"? Alternatively, should the non-pejorative term "Haredi" be substituted? Jayjg 03:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's common in America and is not considered pejorative. Perhaps elsewhere it's different. MShonle 05:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's common, but who doesn't consider it pejorative, those who use it, or those to whom it is directed? The groups in question don't call themselves "ultra-Orthodox"; the tend to call themselves a number of other things, including Orthodox, Chassidic, Haredi, and simply Jewish.  Well, as the Jewish FAQ points out regarding the term "Ultra-Orthodox"
 * In practice, the term is usually used as a disparaging synonym for Orthodox or Chassidic. What passes for an unremarkable level of observance is inaccurately elevated into a form of "fanaticism". Many people outside the Orthodox community mistakenly identify those who wear Chassidic garb (long black coats, earlocks for men, wigs/kerchiefs for women) as "ultra-Orthodox." In fact, the Chassidic groups are no more or less observant than other Orthodox groups who do not dress so distinctively.


 * As well, the social scientist Marvin Schick has noted
 * "through the simple device of identifying [some Jews] . . . as &#8216;ultra-Orthodox,&#8217; . . . [a] pejorative term has become the standard reference term for describing a great many Orthodox Jews . . . . No other ethnic or religious group in this country is identified in language that conveys so negative a message." Jayjg 16:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One might imagine that the term could be applied to groups or sects that are "more Orthodox than Orthodox" so to speak. This is the phenomenon noticed in the phrase "post-post-Modernist". Just because group A calls themselves Orthodox, does not mean that group B cannot be "more Orthodox". Now, that calls into question just what the hell Orthodox is meant in relation to, but that's a seperate issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:26, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the groups that are labelled "ultra-Orthodox" don't consider themselves to be "more Orthodox than Orthodox." In this case both group A and group B consider themselves to be simply Orthodox. Jayjg 20:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have raised this issue with Orthodox Jewish friends. Their view is that the term "ultra-Orthodox" is based on a misunderstanding of Judaism by non-Jews, who use the faulty analogy of Christian denominations to understand variant traditions in Judaism. "Orthodox" (from the Greek, meaning "of the right teaching") is a Christian theological term, but there are no theological differences among Orthodox Jews, only differences of observance and ritual. What matters for Jews is not theology but rigorous observance. What non-Jews call "ultra-Orthodox" Jews are really only ultra-observant Jews, or members of Hasidic sects who are distinguished by traditions of dress etc. I therefore agree that the use of this term in an article which is not about Jewish theology is misleading and should be avoided. Adam 13:12, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the idea that "ultra-Orthodox" is a phrase primarily used by non-Jews is simply false and I doubt it was coined by non-Jews either (etymological sources welcome). I'm not too conversant with the US scene, but in Israel one says haredi if speaking Hebrew and ultra-Orthodox if speaking English.  Everyone does that, from the guys in the street to the academics in their journals.  However, the ultra-Orthodox tend to call themselves just Jews, consistent with their self-image. To quote Noah Efron: "In their view, they are not a sort of Jew, they are simply Jews, the ideal from which all other Jews deviate." (Real Jews, p16). The ultra-Orthodox in Israel form well-defined communities; it is not a label attached to individuals according to their personal degree of observance. As I said, it is possible that the terminology popular in the US differs from that in Israel. --Zero 16:09, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't live in the US (for the 1000th time). Zero may well be right, I am reporting what observant Jewish friends tell me about the usage of the term. My point is that this article is not about Jewish theology or religious practice, and a contested term ought not to be used casually in other articles. Adam 16:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have deleted the term ultra-Orthodox throughout the article. I have deleted some of the weak and irrelevant material which has crept into the article since I last edited it. I have cut and revised the "Soviet anti-Zionism" section, most of which was irrelevant to this article and the rest full of tendentious statements and bad English. I have cut the Martin Luther King statement which seemed to be of no relevance at the point where it was inserted. Possibly it would be relevant somewhere else. But since the King "letter to an anti-Zionist" is now known to be a hoax it is probably better to leave him out altogether. Adam 22:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * While King's "letter to an anti-Zionist" is a hoax, I don't think that particular statement has been questioned. Jayjg 02:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That may be so. I still think the King quote was of no particular relevance at the point where it appeared. Why is/was King an authority on whether anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism or not? Adam 07:25, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The King quote should not be there. As well as being of unknown veracity (the sole source is a book in which the author claims to have heard it personally), Adam is right in questioning whether MLK was an authority on this subject. --Zero 09:20, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * It's vaguely important in a provincial sense, as it's been an influential quote in the US, where blacks on the whole do not tend to be very Zionist. So it's not important for Zionism or anti-Zionism per se, but it is important as a prominent and influential reaction to anti-Zionists in the US.  Not sure where it'd best go, but this article does discuss reactions to anti-Zionists and controversy over whether they're anti-Semites, so it doesn't seem completely irrelevant. --Delirium 17:33, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?
Is the neutrality of this article still disputed? If so, by whom, and on what grounds? Jayjg 16:35, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Viajero disputes it.

I suspect that if Viajero disputes it, he will mention it himself. As for you, if you want to insert that statement of the Catholic Church, perhaps you could come back here to Talk: and explain where you think it belongs and why. Jayjg 19:24, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I dispute it, mostly on account of the Arab Anti-Zionism section. --Zero 03:16, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zero has been saying for months that he disputes the neutrality of that section, yet he has ignored my repeated requests to explain exactly what he objects to, or to propose an alternative. It is not acceptable to maintain a disputed neutrality tag for months on end without doing anything to resolve the situation. Zero should put up or shut up. Unless he does so forthwith I will remove the tag. Adam 04:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have stated the reasons in the past, too bad you don't remember. The main problems are, (1) it makes too little distinction between Palestinians and other Arabs, (2) it has an a-historical focus on anti-Semitism, which is particularly offensive in the case of Palestinians, (3) generally it treats Arab anti-Zionism as a pathology to be discussed as if it is similar in nature to smallpox.  Btw, removing dispute tags from disputed articles is WikiNaughty, and I would not advise it. --Zero 05:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding your points in order, 1) What distinction do you feel is relevant? 2) What is an "a-historical" focus on anti-Semitism, and why is it "particularly offensive" in the case of the Palestinians? and 3) Where in particular do you see the section treating Arab anti-Zionism as "a pathology"? Jayjg 03:18, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * (1) There is actually a 2-dimensional distinction, between Palestinians and others and between pre-1948 and post-1948, making 4 cases which have their own characteristics. It is obvious that the Palestinians were directly affected by Zionism in a way that no other Arabs were, so their reaction to it has to be separately treated.  (2) The charge that Palestinian anti-Zionism pre-1948 was largely anti-Semitic is an absolutely false libel designed specifically to demonise the Palestinians.  It is not borne out by an examination of the evidence (which I have done in some depth).  There is no reason to believe that the Protocols were more influential in Palestine than in, say, the UK.  This article is going to keep an NPOV tag until mention of the Protocols is removed from this section.  (3) This is my feeling about the section, agree or not.  --Zero 13:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ok, so suggest another wording for the paragraph in question. I am not wedded to the existing wording, but I want to see an alternative. Adam 06:22, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Zero having once again failed to back up his complaints with any useful suggestions, I am removing the neutrality tag. Tagging articles and then making no effort to substantiate the complaint is just blackmail, and not acceptable. Adam 15:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dispute it. Most of the objections I have to make have already been covered by MShonle, Zero and others but I will return with objections if absolutely necessary, since I am already occupied with keeping the Pro-pro-Zionist parade in check on other articles. -- Simonides 08:40, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is not sufficient to state objctions. It is incumbent on people who dispute an article's accuracy or neutrality to propose alternatives. Otherwise I am apprently required to guess what you and Zero want the article to say, and then do your work for you by writing your alternative version. Unless I see some concrete proposals for alternative wordings of the paragraph in question, I will remove the tag again. Adam 09:15, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead, make my day. --Zero 09:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking you to write the article for me, Adam, and I wonder how you inferred that. The question was whether the article is still disputed: it appears several Wiki contributors still think so, and that answers your question, meaning the tag has to stay on. I wouldn't mind rewording the article myself but it appears from the edits that there's a troupe around here that keeps reverting sense into nonsense (which would drag me into another edit war) - and for some reason they consist of the same members I deal with on other articles. I wonder what the connection is. It couldn't possibly be a shared bias, right?


 * To be marginally more specific, the problem starts right at the beginning when you say one of the definitions of Zionism is a movement to support the development and defense of the State of Israel. Once you add "defense" then you can tag absolutely everything to anti-Zionism: criticism of Israeli foreign or military policy, or simply criticism of Israel, and then extrapolate from there to the charges of anti-Zionism being anti-Semitism, with such baseless propagandist comments like these in the article: Moreover, the term "Zionist" is often used interchangeably or as a code-word for Jew, leading to a further blurring of the distinction. Yeah, right - stellar example of NPOV editing. -- Simonides 10:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Since the term "Zionist" is often used interchangeably or as a code-word for Jew, leading to a further blurring of the distinction, it's hard to see how this is not NPOV. Jayjg 15:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Often? How often? Proof, please - and not some one-off internet link to a nutcase, like you provided yesterday as "proof". -- Simonides 02:34, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually that's a fairly popular site. In any event, how many webpages will it take to satisfy you? Jayjg 02:53, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, you seem to exhibit either a great degree of difficulty or a great degree of disingenuousness when it comes to very simple concepts. One does not say with a straight face "blacks are currently often referred to as ni--ers" and point to the hundreds of sites which do so - you have to be able to establish that it is mainstream or widespread enough to merit attention; similarly "Zionist as a synonym for Jew" does not occur "often" because you can point to three, five, or ninety-five websites written by fringe elements - you should be able to establish that it is a common usage. Is it all that frequent? Are people aware of it? Does it turn up in newspapers or daily parlance? By the way, since you are so fond of quotes and hearsay as "evidence", this FYI might be useful - the "anti-Semitic" attack you posted about yesterday was a hoax. -- Simonides 03:57, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Simonides, you seem to exhibit an overwhelming need to use ad hominems in your debates; for example, your first sentence added nothing of value to your paragraph, aside from reflecting negatively on you. Other contributers here seem to be able to debate the issues without lacing their statements with insults and invective, and I have often encouraged you to do the same, as yet to no avail. If you continue to be unable to control your emotional outbursts, I will simply have to ignore what you say and discuss these issues with the more dispassionate members of the board; it's just not worth my time trying to pick some value out of the insulting rhetoric.  Regarding the common use of "Zionist" to represent "Jew", you will only concede that one is a code word for the other if used that way in common parlance.  However, as we both know, it is only commonly used that way in the West only by anti-Semites, who are a relatively small percentage of the population; yet it is precisely those anti-Semites to whom the article is referring!  Thus you have created a requirement which a priori cannot possibly be met.
 * Regarding the article, yes, this woman perpetrated a hoax; are all the incidents listed in this article: http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=12163 also hoaxes?


 * It was not an ad hominem but an observation of a recurring approach you use in arguments: blink and stall; and your flippant appeals for detachment are quite unconvincing, given that I have looked at your contributions one more than one article and they amount to partisanship. Next, your statement in no way indicates you are speaking specifically of anti-Semites - it is a blanket statement and clearly refers to the populace as a whole, so you need to reword it. Finally, I think you never did look up ignoratio elenchi, ie arguing or providing proof for an argument not made - I did not say there were no anti-Semitic incidents, only reminded you that you are not very critical in picking your "evidence" - and that does bear on your contributions to any article. -- Simonides 18:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Response ignored: see Ad hominem. Jayjg 19:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the website Jayjg is referring to: Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal. He offered it as proof at Talk:Anti-Semitism_%28archive_11%29 that there is sufficient literature which uses the term "Zionist" instead of "Jew". One wonders whether feebler logic is employed in the article or in citing it as "sufficient literature". -- Simonides 04:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, what is your definition of "sufficient"? Are you disputing the fact that "Zionist" is used interchangeably with or as a code word for "Jew" in this and other literature? Jayjg 16:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I already explained what would be "sufficient" in this case - since you are referring to society as a whole, you have to prove the usage is mainstream. If you are referring to anti-Semites alone, change your wording. -- Simonides 18:59, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not referred to "society as a whole", nor have I said it is "mainstream"; those are your inferences, and they are not implied by the text. See Straw man. Jayjg 19:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyone not pushing a POV that can read will agree with me. Since you are not willing to justify your sentence, it has been removed until you can give it some grounds or reword it. -- Simonides 20:25, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Simonides, anyone not pushing a POV that can read will agree with me. Since you are not willing to justify removing the sentence, it will stay until you can give some grounds to remove it, or reword it. -- Jayjg 21:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The removal of the sentence has been amply justified above with the simplest of analogies and explanations. All you need to reinstate it, is to change the wording to mean what you claim it means. Secondly, you cannot "protect" the article as a non-admin, and doing so constitutes trolling; I may request comment on the matter. -- Simonides 20:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not bothering with "you're wrong" "no you're wrong" arguments with you. In any event, the fact that anti-Semites use "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" muddies the waters, the wording has been changed to reflect this, and should now be amply clear to everyone. If you still dispute the wording, then suggest a better alternative. Jayjg 20:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, the wording has finally been changed - you see, it is not impossible to agree on things. -- Simonides 20:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You deleted the changed wording twice before (now) accepting it. I would recommend actually reading text before deleting it. Jayjg 20:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's equally recommended that one explains one's edits. -- Simonides 20:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

About Simonides and straw-man arguments against Jews
I am becoming very concerned about the behaviour of Simonides; he has already declared himself an enemy of "Zionist" contributions to Wikipedia, (although he has little idea of what this word really means; he uses this word as slur word.) Simonides's distortion of the content of the anti-Zionism article (and others), and his distortion of the views of Jewish groups, are straw-man attacks. As you know, no mainstream Jewish denomination, organization or group has ever claimed that a criticism of an Israeli policy or government is anti-Semitism; no on here on Wikipedia here is saying that either. Simonides' repeated claims to the contrary are Jew-baiting strawman attacks. They are not only factually false (and thus have no place in an encyclopedia), but will only serve to encourage open anti-Semitism. This isn't about a disagreement on how to phrase facts; this is about his manufactoring of false "facts" in order to hurt others whom he disagrees with. This behaviour is out of line. RK 13:39, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. Not being a regular to these sorts of articles (that is, articles on Zionism, Anti-Semitism, Judaism, the Israel Palestinian question, etc), I don't have an opinion on Simonides one way or another and for all I know your accusation may be entirely correct.  However, as someone who "just surfed in" today (July 19th, 2004) I must say I too found the Zionist/Jew bit confusing.  I actually don't know very much about this subject and was looking to Wikipedia to educate me on it, and I have a habit of looking through Talk: after reading a controversial article to see who is saying what.  When I read that 'Zionism is often used as a code-word for Jew' in the article, I took this to mean in mainstream use.  I live in Asia; we don't talk about Jews much here, so I actually had no reason to doubt this.


 * Simonides was concerned that people like me (i.e., not knowledeable about the issues) might interpret this equivalence as being in broad use, rather than spouted by fringe anti-Semitic groups. Jayig seemed to think the text did not imply this, and stated that it was not what he meant to imply, at any rate:


 * I have not referred to "society as a whole", nor have I said it is "mainstream"; those are your inferences, and they are not implied by the text. See Straw man. Jayjg 19:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess, getting around to the point, is that reading the text as worded currently, I did make the assumption that the term Zionist was in mainstream (read, not anti-semetic) use as word for Jew.  If this is not the case, I think the wording ought to be changed, especially since both Jayig and Simondes seem to agree on its non-mainstream use.


 * In an unrelated way, I can imagine it would be deeply frustrating for non-anti-Semitic or even Jewish anti-Zionists (whatever they may take the term to mean) to have people assuming that by anti-Zionist they mean anti-Jew. Since, as you yourself point out, RK, no Jewish organization or indeed editor on Wikipedia wishes to make the claim that criticism of the State of Israel equates anti-Semitism, it would seem benefitial to make the distinction between anti-Jew (anti-semetic) and anti-Zionist (prehaps anti-Israel? -- what a muddled word this one is).


 * Anyway, I'm sure you all understand what I mean.

I not only understand, I thank you for summing up the discussion so astutely. Thank you for the clarity you bring! Cheers, Sam [Spade] 07:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jews and Arabs did not live in peace in Palestine
As in most Arab lands, Jews in Palestine were dhimmi, and, as such, second class citizens who experienced periodic oppression and violence. Attempts to whitewash this are revisionism of the worst kind. My first edits were simply to remove the POV lines, and leave the factual material; now I have replaced them with more accurate statements which, I suspect, will not be at all pleasing to those who look at history through rose coloured glasses.

And by the way, there was no objection among Arabs to "other immigrant populations"; please find me any record of such. Jayjg 16:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Second-class dhimmi inhabitants" is correct, and so is "Islam enjoins Muslim respect for Judaism as a fellow monotheistic religion". "Jews and Arabs had lived together in Palestine for centuries with little if any mutual conflict" is correct; "had experienced only sporadic violence directed at them by Arabs" may be correct, though I would like to see documentation of that. The original version (which, incidentally, I did not write) is factually correct.


 * Would you say that in the early to mid 20th century "Whites and Blacks had lived together with little if any mutual conflict"? The sentence implies that the status of the two communities was more or lest equivalent, as opposed to the reality, that the Jews were in no position to create any "conflict". Jayjg 20:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, because it would be false - lynchings were a not uncommon occurrence (I assume you refer to America.) I am not aware of lynchings being a commonplace event in Ottoman Palestine. - Mustafaa 21:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's a webpage which outlines a whole series of actions against Jews in 19th century Palestine from 1848-1864: http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~peters/nationalism.html . Thoughts? Jayjg 21:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the first thing I notice is that this page seems to conflate attacks against Jews as Jews with both the kind of petty oppression that Ottoman governors routinely engaged in against all their subjects irrespective of religion and with simple brigandage. When that is sifted out, the remainder is real but quite small. - Mustafaa 22:08, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's the real part I'm focussing on, and what I referred to in my "had experienced only sporadic violence directed at them by Arabs" statement. Jayjg 22:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. - Mustafaa 23:21, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So then it belongs back in the article? Jayjg 15:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Jewish or any other immigrant state" is trivially correct; their opposition was to Jewish immigration, not to the existence of a Jewish community in Palestine. For a parallel, witness Algerian opposition to the pied-noirs' efforts. "Immigrant state" on its own would probably be a better wording than "Jewish state". - Mustafaa 17:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "Jewish or any other immigrant state" implies both that Jews are no different from any other "immigrant" to Palestine, and that European powers were bent on creating some sort of state in Palestine which disposessed Arabs, and weren't overly picky about who that would be. Jayjg 20:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The former, as far as I'm concerned, is correct; the latter is not implied, in my reading. But in the interests of NPOV, I've replaced it with "a Jewish immigrant state", which has neither implication. - Mustafaa 21:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I find your wording acceptable. Jayjg 21:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and "the majority and superior status of the Arab population" is incorrect; Palestinian nationalism joined Arab Christians and Muslims together. Nor is the use of the term "Palestinian" to refer to Arab Palestinians at all anachronistic; see that article. The idea that "Palestinian" was some sort of neologism is itself a piece of pro-Zionist revisionism, spread by the likes of Golda Meir. - Mustafaa 18:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you can find any evidence of Arab Christians opposing late 19th/early 20th century Zionism, I'd like to see it. The use of Palestinians to refer only to Arabs is undoubtedly anachronistic; the word is not a neologism, but it was used to refer to both Jews and Arabs, and most often as a modifier. Jayjg 20:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The most famous early anti-Zionists I know of were Christian; Muslims seem to have taken longer to realize the threat Zionism posed, as the Faisal material suggests. You've surely heard of Khalil Sakakini, for instance? - Mustafaa 21:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea that Zionism was a "threat" is POV. As for Sakakini, wasn't he excommunicated?  In any event, as far as I know, he became an anti-Zionist after the British took over, and the Muslims no longer held a superior position (in fact, the Christian British were now top dogs). Jayjg 21:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure Zionism being a threat is POV (however unlikely a scenario where it wouldn't have been was); this is Talk, not the article! As for Sakakini, excommunicated or not he had the legal status of a Christian, and was apparently an anti-Zionist before WWI:


 * Khalil As-Sakakini, an Arab nationalist and Palestinian Christian, also pointed to the dangers of Zionism in regard to the Arab World in his diary on 23 February 1914. He stated that his hatred of Zionism had not evolved from a hatred of the Israeli people and their prosperity, but rather from his opposition to the doctrine itself and the Zionist attempts to built a nation at the expense of others. By conquering Palestine, Zionism had conquered the heart of the Arab World, since Palestine is the linking point between the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Africa. The Jewish occupation of Palestine would end the Arab contact, especially between the African and Asian Arabs.


 * Good find. O.K., getting back to the point, does the existence of Sakakini refute my point about "the majority and superior status of the Arab population"? Jayjg 22:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't have the book on me right this second, but I seem to remember seeing something similar in One Palestine Complete. - Mustafaa 21:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Arab population was both Muslim and Christian - over 10% Christian, in fact, and an unknown number of Druzes - so yeah; the statement is not correct. The Arab population did not enjoy a superior status; at most, the Muslim population did. - Mustafaa 22:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concerning the dhimmi status of Jews in Palestine, it is almost an irrelevant issue for this article because very few of the Zionist immigrants were dhimmis. Most of them were not Ottoman subjects and therefore, due to the concesssions known as the Capitulations, were under the protection of various foreign consols. The Jews resident already in Palestine before the main Zionist immigrations were a mixture of Ottoman subjects (mostly Sephardim) and foreigners. So some were dhimmis and some were not. In general, the Jewish Ottoman subjects did not support the Zionists and some openly sided with the Arabs against the Zionists (this should be mentioned in the Jewish anti-Zionism section). Many in the present Haredi community in Israel see themselves as representing an unbroken anti-Zionist (or at least non-Zionist) tradition stretching from the old Yishuv to themselves. --Zero 15:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

One more comment, rather off-topic. The actual situation of a dhimmi depended very much on the whim of whoever was in charge at each moment. The difference between a kind ruler and a cruel one could literally be one of prosperity versus starvation. In this respect, Palestinian Jews fared better than most. With some exceptional periods they had lower taxes and fewer hassles. For example, the head (poll) tax was in theory imposed on every adult male at three rates according to income, but in practice was imposed only once per household at the lowest rate. An illustration of how the Jews saw their situation occured in the 1830s when the Ottomans were temporarily displaced by Egyptian invaders. The new ruler abolished the dhimmi status of Jews and Christians, instead imposing equal (but severe) taxes and obligations on everyone. These obligations included serving in the army. The Jews regarded this as a terrible disaster and demanded their previous status back again (eventually succeeding). This is not say that there were no bad times. Of course there were many (but let's not rely on known forgers like Joan Peters for our examples, eh?). --Zero 15:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * While Peters' scholarship is shoddy at best, I don't recall anyone claiming her sources were false, much less accusing her of forgery.   What prompts you to make this claim? Jayjg 18:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * A case of forgery I found in her book was a "quotation" formed by taking parts of two sentences a few pages apart in a report and joining them together in the wrong order. However, generally "fradulent" would be a more accurate description as it covers biased editing of quotations, selective presentation of sources, and sometimes blantant lies about what sources contain. Better not start me on it.  Some scraps of previous debate can be found at Talk:Palestinian refugee. --Zero 12:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, shoddy at best. However, in the context of this discussion, did you feel the quotes provided on that page (regarding anti-Jewish violence in 19th century Palestine) were "fraudulent"? Jayjg 14:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nationalist narratives
"Local nationalist narratives, outside of Palestinians, emphasize the idea of Israel as a threat to the nation (commonly citing extremist Israelis' dreams of a nation stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates"). Among Palestinians, these emphasize other issues - such as the Palestinian refugee problem, and the fact that almost all the land that would form a prospective Palestinian state is either annexed by or controlled by Israel - and are best treated separately."

Who are the "extremist Israelis" who are cited as dreaming of a nation stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates"? Also, what land is being referred to as "almost all the land that would form a prospective Palestinian state"? Jayjg 16:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals such cases as: Lehi/Stern; Shmuel Neumann; Holyland Camping; Israel Eldad;. Unsurprisingly, though, Arab sites tend to emphasize their voices more than Israeli ones.


 * The first link refers to Stern's 18 Principles, but doesn't quote them in any way, so I have no idea if he said that or something else. The second doesn't talk about an Israeli state from the Nile to the Euphrates, but Jews living there.  I do not think the third site is Israeli at all, but represents American Christians, though I could be wrong.  The fourth article points out that Eldad has moderated his views greatly.  I personally believe that "Nile to Euphrates" is a strawman perpetuated in Arab propaganda, and something that is not found in the platforms of any Israeli political group.  Oh, and I don't consider a guy with a website to be an Israeli political group. Jayjg 20:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "Israeli political group"; I said "extremist Israelis". Given its absence from mainstream modern Israeli discourse, we can replace that with "extremist Israeli individuals" if you feel that the current phrasing suggests the former reading. As for the Stern 18 principles, see SaveIsrael.com: - Mustafaa 21:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 2. THE HOMELAND
 * The homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18) This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety.


 * That wording works for me. Jayjg 21:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And as for Lehi, see Jewish Virtual Library: - Mustafaa 21:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Lehi's goals were maximalist: conquest and liberation of Eretz Israel; war against the British Empire; complete withdrawal of Britain from Palestine; and establishment of a "Hebrew kingdom from the Euphrates to the Nile."

As for the land, that is of course the British Mandate of Palestine. As far as I know, no Palestinian group today has any ambitions against Jordan. - Mustafaa 18:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So you mean the post San Remo Mandate, including Israel? I think the wording as given is at best vague, and needs to be clarified. Jayjg 20:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think I've addressed that now. - Mustafaa 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think "most of" rather than "almost all of" is more accurate. Jayjg 21:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Israel claims more than 77% of the former Mandate as its own territory (judging by the CIA World Factbook, which omits East Jerusalem); another 73% of the West Bank is officially under Israeli control, adding another 16%. I've lost track of the Gaza situation, but that adds up to 93% already. - Mustafaa 22:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess it's just a semantic difference between "most" and "almost all". Jayjg 23:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose the term is ambiguous. How about if we replace it with "over 90%"? Or would that be contentious? - Mustafaa 23:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's probably more accurate. Of course, that's over 90% of the post San Remo mandate, but under 40% of the original Mandate. Jayjg 23:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool. Of course, the British Mandate borders were arbitrary both before and after (you've no doubt heard the story of "Churchill's hiccup"); the traditional boundaries of Palestine as given by medieval Arab geographers have more geographic sense to them, being essentially restricted to the fertile north and east.  But unfortunately, they're also fairly obscure and inexact. - Mustafaa 23:56, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's true the borders were somewhat arbitrary, but it's also true that the Balfour Declaration (as an example) still referred to the original (significantly larger) mandate. And if I'm not mistaken, it's actually around 30% of the original mandate.  In any event, my next concern is with the words "annexed by"; the implication here is that even, for example, the parts of the Jewish state included in the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan have been "annexed by" Israel.  Is that your contention? Jayjg 02:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My point is that this (previously non-Israeli) land is claimed by Israel as an integral part of Israel. I see "annexed" as expressing that point concisely; if you can think of a better expression to say that, I'm not wedded to the precise word choice.
 * As to the Balfour Declaration, if so, so much the worse for it; Britain promising twice as much land that it had no right to in the first place is even worse than it promising Cisjordan alone (having already promised Transjordan to Faisal in 1915), even if most of that land is empty desert. However, what it actually says is considerably less specific, and no doubt deliberately so: . It not only does not state the boundaries of Palestine, it doesn't state that any such national home would encompass the whole of Palestine either. Nor was there any "Mandate" for it to refer to; the British Mandate was formalized by the San Remo conference itself, before which it was a mere occupation. - Mustafaa 05:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * All the land of Israel was "non-Israeli" before Israeli independence, and it is now all "claimed by Israel as an integral part of Israel". The same is true, for example, of Nigeria, yet no-one speaks of Nigeria as having "annexed" the land upon which the country rests.  If your contention is that Tel Aviv is "annexed" land, then the phrase is highly POV.  If not, then I don't seen the phrase as adding any value at all, I think "controlled by" alone covers it. Jayjg 15:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "Controlled by" works for me, though certainly I would regard Tel Aviv as annexed land. - Mustafaa 17:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
I think Mustafaa's recent edits to this article have improved it considerably. I don't always agree with Mustafaa but his presentation here of Arab attitudes to Zionism seems to me to be accurate and fair. I notice however that we are still waiting for a proposed alternative to the paragraph which Zero claims to find so offensive. I have given up waiting for Zero to act on his repeated promises to propose an alternative. Perhaps Mustafaa could have a go. Adam 18:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually think most of Mustafaa's additions are a valuable addition to the article as well; I just want to make sure they are factual and NPOV. Jayjg 20:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I might try and rewrite that paragraph, but - as Zero points out - this needs a lot of work just to disentangle the two stages and the Palestinian vs non-Palestinian aspects of it. I'd be quite interested to see Zero's version, actually; he seems extremely knowledgeable on the details of the conflict. - Mustafaa 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes he is knowledgeable, but his attitude towards this artcile has been completely negative and obstructionist for months, for reasons I don't understand. I would like to see a proposed alternative to that paragraph from somebody - I don't care who. Adam 06:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some few halting words...
I have little time to work on this article, but I'll make a start (despite and not because of Adam's bad manners). The Faisal-Weizmann agreement is placed in a passage that starts "Towards the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine", but in fact it was a whole generation later. The quotes give detail beyond what is necessary here since there is a whole article on the subject. Anyway, it has to be separated from the narrative of the Palestinian situation. In Palestine there was never any significant welcoming of Zionism; that is just a myth of the traditional Zionist narrative. There was opposition right from the start. Standard works on this subject include Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before WWI, and the books of Muslih, Porath, and Kimmerling&Migdal. However, outside Palestine there were indeed a few Arabs, such as Faisal, who for a time saw Zionism as an opportunity rather than as a threat. See Faisal-Weizmann Agreement for a good article on this.

Here are a few paragraphs. They are very rough and I don't have time (today) to work them into the existing text.


 * The earliest tenuous Zionist settlements in the 1880s had minimal effect on the local Arab population and evoked little interest. However, around the turn of the century, the increasing scale of Zionist land purchases  led to a sequence of bitter disputes mostly related to the increasing prices.  While some Arabs benefited from being employed as laborers, others were dispossessed when their land was sold by its absentee owners.  Many petitions, mostly in vain, were made to the Ottoman authorities, demanding that Jewish immigration and land purchases be restricted.


 * By the eve of World War I, the Zionists, whose intention of becoming the dominant population in Palestine was no secret, were seen as a grave potential threat by most the Palestinian public, but this threat was not widely accept as imminent until the Balfour Declaration made by the British in 1917. Palestinian anti-Zionism at this stage did not have the form of a nationalist movement, but rather expressed the fear that Zionism would disrupt the lives of the Palestinians in an unfavorable fashion.  The Ottoman rulers had been foreigners too, but they did not try to populate the country with Turks and they shared the same religion, Islam, with most Palestinians.  However, the agreements that the European powers made between themselves after WWI led to a separation of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world under British control and this kindled a genuine Palestinian nationalism.  Initially such nationalism was restricted to (largely Christian) urban intellectuals; it had little input to the anti-Zionist riots of 1920 and 1921 in which dozens of Jews (Zionist or not) were killed.  However, during the following few decades Palestinian Arab politics came to be dominated by nationalists, with public support, and by the end of the 1920s most anti-Zionist rhetoric was expressed in nationalist terms even when the proximate causes of particular outbursts (control of the Temple Mount in the case of the 1929 riots) were religious or economic.

The next thing to write about is the 1936-1939 Arab revolt against the Zionists and the British. Missing but important are the role of the "notables" in Arab society, the role of the British, and probably other things.

That's it for today. --Zero 15:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The anachronistic language ("Palestinian" for "Arab" or "Arab Palestinian" or "Palestinian Arab") needs to be cleaned up. Your points about "shar[ing] the same religion, Islam" and "nationalism was restricted to (largely Christian) urban intellectuals" seem at first blush to be mutually contradictory.  Why do you call the riots of 1920 and 1921 "anti-Zionist" rather than "anti-Jewish"? Jayjg 15:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Zero - this looks like a great start. I see the points about "shar[ing] the same religion, Islam" and "nationalism was restricted to (largely Christian) urban intellectuals" as mutually complementary, insofar as they explain why nationalism first began more among Christians than among Muslims. - Mustafaa 17:16, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on how you see them as mutually complementary? Jayjg 17:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't really see the problem. It explains why the Christians would be more motivated than the Muslims to identify with Palestine rather than with the Ottoman Empire. - Mustafaa 17:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * O.K., as I see it there are here are the points in order:
 * 1) The Ottomans didn't arouse nationalist sentiment at least partly because they were Muslim.
 * 2) When the (Christian) British took over they starting allowing in lots of Jews.
 * 3) Nationalist sentiment was aroused first among Christian Arabs.
 * If 1) and 3) are true (I'm not sure they are), then shouldn't nationalist sentiment have been aroused first amongst Muslim Arabs? Jayjg 18:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean - the missing link is that Christians were also the first advocates of non-Ottoman states in general (Levantine Christians were the main founders of both pan-Arabism and pan-Syrianism) - thus becoming nationalists in Ottoman times already - and were therefore natural early adaptors (or, more accurately, conceivers) of other localist ideologies. 1) is thus not totally true, although nationalist movements remained quite small under the Ottomans. - Mustafaa 18:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jayjig, your point (1) is not what I intended. The Palestinians had been under foreign rulers for many centuries and the question has to be asked why the Zionists were not seen as just the next foreign ruler to come along. The main reason is that the Zionists wanted to populate and not just rule, but another part of it was that the Zionists were not Muslims. Since most Palestinians were Muslims, they preferred to be ruled by other Muslims. It was not a point about nationalism. I'll try to clarify the passage. --Zero 11:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Fait accompli" groups
"While almost all groups agree in regarding Israel's creation as an injustice to begin with, some regard the 1949 armistice lines as a fait accompli which it would be impossible or unjust to attempt to reverse given the massive Israeli presence there. For instance, many Palestinian refugee "right of return" groups (e.g. Al-Awda) emphasize that they would be willing to live under Israeli rule, and would not wish to dislodge too many Israelis. In such cases, the goal is usually restoration to the 1949 armistice lines, with an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

What is meant by many Palestinian refugee "right of return" groups and "would not wish to dislodge too many Israelis"? Jayjg 18:31, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Al-Awda is a British group, not a Palestinian group (although it presumably includes British Palestinians). It advocates the "return" of all 5 million Palestinians to "their homes" in what is now Israel - even though the great majority of these 5 million have never set foot in Israel. This would of course "dislodge" most Jewish Israelis, both physically (to accommodate several million people in a very small country) and politically (in that such a state would no longer have a Jewish majority, and would thus cease to be Israel). The demand for the "right of return" for all the descendents of the 1948 refugees (most of the original refugees being now dead) is thus a covert demand for the destruction of Israel, which is why Israel will never accept it. Adam 13:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I presume it is a transliteration of Al-Awda ("the return") which is a Palestinian organization whose mailing address on their home page is in California. --Zero 13:36, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see - the website I found was British. I guess they are an international group, but the substantive point is the same. Adam 14:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My point here is not to debate the politics of Al-Awda, but to understand why the article states that many "ror" groups would not want to displace "too many" Israelis, and what "too many" means in this context. Neither point is clear; I suspect the statements may not be factual either, but I can't even figure that out until I know what they mean. Jayjg 14:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If al-Awda is representative of "RoR" groups, then the statement is bunk - it's quite clear from their website that they advocate the abolition of Israel. The statment should therefore be deleted. Adam 15:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You have a point, and the whole concept needs to be examined. I'm also concerned with the statement "under Israeli rule"; do they expect to come back as internal "refugees", living under Israeli control?  Or would they expect Israeli citizenship, in which case "under Israeli rule" seems pejorative at best; for example, naturalized American citizens are not considered to be "under American rule". Jayjg 16:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The present wording is unacceptably close to unintelligible. However, Adam's comments are outrageous. This article should state what the opinions of important parties are whether we agree with them or not. --Zero 01:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I am unable to find a statement at the al-Awda website which says that the 5 million Palestinians (al-Awda's figure), if resettled in what is now Israel, "would be willing to live under Israeli rule." In fact it says "We campaign for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland." It is obvious that if 5 million Palestinians were resettled in Israel, they plus the Arab Israelis would outnumber the Jewish Israelis, and thus the question of "Israeli rule" would become meaningless. Can someone show where al-Awda has said that the resettled Palestinians would be willing to live under Israeli rule? Adam 06:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You are right that it has no such statement, but then again there is nothing about "resettled in what is now Israel" (your words) either. What it says is "they are entitled to live anywhere in Palestine which encompasses present-day "Israel", the West Bank and Gaza Strip".  Under the link "Factsheet" you can find an argument (doubtful or not) that this is possible without displacing most Israelis.  It reads like a unitary state proposal, but the details are very unclear.  There is a big rhetorical exaggeration about the number of Palestinians who would want to return to "their former homes".  It suits them to claim that all the refugees and their descendants would make that choice, but of course they know that only a small fraction really would (as shown by surveys).  It is reminiscent of the previous Zionist claim that all the Jews of the world would rush to Israel as soon as they were able. I'll finish with a question: did Fiji cease to exist when the Indian component of the population passed 50%? --Zero 10:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The exaggerations extend further than that, specifically to the actual numbers of Palestinian "refugees" listed as existing around the world. As for the number wishing to return home, if al-Awda overestimates, I think you seriously underestimate.  The Palestinians in question are typically currently living as second or even third class inhabitants of Arab states in which they are denied citizenship and many other fundamental rights regardless of how many generations have been born in the country (Lebanon being the most egregious example, and Jordan being the obvious exception). There is no doubt that hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions, would wish to move to Israel and the territories, and that hundreds of thousands more would wish to move from the territories to Israel proper, where the infrastructure is better and in particular the standard of living higher, access to work easier, and economic prospects better.  The comparison to Zionist claims and Israel is seriously flawed.  To begin with, I don't think that most Zionists "claim[ed]" that "all Jews of the world would rush to Israel as soon as they were able"; rather, I think it was their fervent hope that Jews would do so, as indeed millions did.  However, Israel has generally had a lower standard of living and vastly more difficult economic prospects for Jews contemplating movement there than the countries in which they already lived; this stands in marked contrast to the situation of most Palestinians vis a vis Israel.
 * Regardless, and more to the point, the fact that al-Awda calls Israel "present day" and puts its name in quotation marks would indicate that they, in fact, do not accept the present day Israel as a fait accompli. Jayjg 14:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Jayjg; his implication is very clear. RK 13:48, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, we seem agreed that the paragraph is nearly unintelligible, and what is intelligible may not be factual. Any objections to removing it? Jayjg 00:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O.K., here's the paragaph in question:

While almost all groups agree in regarding Israel's creation as an injustice to begin with, some regard the 1949 armistice lines as a fait accompli which it would be impossible or unjust to attempt to reverse given the massive Israeli presence there. For instance, many Palestinian refugee "right of return" groups (e.g. Al-Awda) emphasize that they would be willing to live under Israeli rule, and would not wish to dislodge too many Israelis. In such cases, the goal is usually restoration to the 1949 armistice lines, with an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

If someone can make it intelligible and factual, it might be worth putting back in. Jayjg 19:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Protected?
Um, why was this article protected? Jayjg 03:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Because of a revert war. &#8212;No-One Jones 05:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What revert war? Jayjg 05:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The one on FOX News&mdash;I protected this article to prevent spillover. &#8212;No-One Jones 06:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you joking or serious? I don't know what is going on on FOX News, and there is no revert war going on here. The cavalry has arrived too late.  Jayjg 06:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason for protection at the moment. --Zero 11:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The edit summary should have indicated that I was joking. However, if Jayjg and Simonides have agreed on how to word the sentence or sentences dealing with who uses "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" (that is what was at issue in the last set of reverts, yes?), I will happily unprotect the article. &#8212;No-One Jones 13:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's often hard to tell when people are joking on the internet, especially if you don't know them, or they come from other cultures. I've seen enough bizarre things said in all seriousness on the internet to be wary of assuming something is an attempt as humour.  As for the "revert war", if you look above at the end of the "Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?" section you will note that Simonides and I came to agreement at 20:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC); you protected the page almost 5 hours later.  As I said, the cavalry arrived too late. Jayjg 14:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

blurring of the distinction
Concerning this sentence:


 * Moreover, anti-Semites often use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew, leading to a further blurring of the distinction.

I agree with the first part, but I don't think the second part is quite right. It does not blur the distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism, but rather it makes it harder to tell who is which. Not the same thing. If I say "I am a woman", it does not blur the distinction between men and women, it just makes it harder for you to realise that I am a man. --Zero 11:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How would you word it, then? Jayjg 14:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The people who blur the distinction are Zionists who want spin their opposition to look like anti-semites to gain political leverage! Sam [Spade] 07:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * SS, the discussion is about anti-Semites who are too shy to call themselves this politically incorrect term, so they use the AZ code-word. Now, are you saying that anyone calling him/herself an AZ is a genuine human rights fighter for all the nations including Jewish and it's only those damn Zionists who spin their opposition to look like anti-semites to gain political leverage!?
 * How's this: Moreover, anti-Semites often use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with or as a code-word for Jew, leading to a further blurring the perceptive distinction.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 08:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the case - e.g. neo-Nazis in the extreme case, but cryptofascists as well - David Gerard 13:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there is some of that, but its generally pro-zionists who blur the distinction in order to smear (usually left wing) anti-zionists as anti-semites. Leastways thats what I've noticed. I saw a documentary where they explained what "anti-semite"ment by showing pictures of anti-zionist left wing protesters w signs comparing Israeli policies to those of nazi germany. This was said to be textbook anti-semitism. I beg to differ. Sam [Spade] 16:56, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You do have a strong point there ;-) Both need mention, of course. A reference to that documentary would be useful, or better yet a study of such references. I'm increasingly turning into a reference naz enthusiast - David Gerard 17:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was a nightline (on ABC) episode maybe three years ago, so I won't be able to reference it very well ;) On the other hand I am quite certain there are dozens of sources certifying that some consider the comparing of anything done by the state of Israel to anything done by Nazi Germany to be anti-Semitic. Considering this is a favorite tactic of protesters against certain Israeli excesses, it paints w a rather broad brush a group (left-wing anti-Zionist protesters in the west) who are largely non-anti-Semitic (in my crude estimation anyhow). As far as all this code word for Jew stuff, maybe. I'd like to see some evidence. The anti-semite web sites/propaganda materials I have seen just come out and blame the Jew, w no mincing about w code words. I remember when this "Zionist = code for Jew among anti-Semites" subject came up before on Lyndon LaRouche. I had a bit of trouble finding actual evidence for it, but I did come up w a couple links, and, but I don't know if we call what these guys are doing "code words". Their pretty darn obvious as anti-semites, a far cry from some long haired anti-global/anti-war/anti-Zionist "oppression" protestor who waves his "Sharon is a nazi" sign until the police knock it out of his hands and drag him off. I don't think it helps anybody other than the real nazi's to give these very dissimilar Anti-Zionists the same "anti-Semite" label. Sam [Spade] 17:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you been following the discussion above? Did you read the whole section on "Straw-man anti-Semitism"? These topics are covered in both the discussion and the article itself.  As well, links have been provided to sites of anti-Semites who do indeed use "Zionist" as a code word for Jew.  If using "Zionist" instead of "Jew" is not a code word, then what is it? Jayjg 18:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Its one of the most internationally signifigant things Jews are doing, thats what it is. Its also possibly the most controvercial issue internationally right now. There are a cornacopia of reasons one could be for or against it, and its entirely possible to be both anti-semitic and anti-zionist, or one, or neither, etc... I don't buy the code word stuff frankly, and fail to see any convincing evidence of it whatsoever. Sam [Spade] 21:32, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What does "Its one of the most internationally signifigant things Jews are doing, thats what it is" mean, and how is it relevant to the discussion? I'm sorry I must ask this, but have you read the entire article?  The points you make regarding the distinctions between anti-Zionist and anti-Semite are already made in it.  Regarding the code word "stuff", did you see this link (given above as well) as one simple example? Beware of Zionist controlled PayPal Here's a page that uses the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably, and resurrects all the old anti-Semitic libels: Kosher Kerry Cons Christian America Here's a page that says that Kosher symbols have no religious significance, but just support Zionist "murders"  Here's a Muslim site which admits quite candidly that "Jews" and "Zionists" are used interchangeably  and another Muslim site doing the same  and another writer using them interchangeably and here again As a muslim,we believe in that Jesus is alive and was not killed by The Jews(zionists). And the many sites referring to the "Zionist Occupied Government" or ZOG (here are some examples:   and the "anti-Zionist" actions of the Polish government in 1968 etc.  All you need is a few minutes and a search engine to find hundreds of pages and sites using the words interchangeably.  Jayjg 22:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, your arbitrary removal of the sentence has been noted and corrected. If you have any rational arguments against its inclusion, please bring them here. Jayjg 21:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Please dismount from your illustrious steed, and discuss my above statements. Sam [Spade] 22:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * They have been discussed, and responded to. You have yet to respond to my response.  You are the only editor objecting to the phrase, and you can't arbitrarily delete it.  Even Simonides, who is quite hard on these kinds of things, agreed to it. Jayjg 22:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have a look, and do try to adjust your tone, oh mighty one (peace be upon him ;) Sam [Spade] 22:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What does "some" add? Should it mention the fact that "some" Muslims do as well, as evidenced above? Jayjg 22:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

code-word for Jew
Lets see some real evidence for this, other than half-crazed anti-semite propoganda. Can't you understand that they prob hate zionism as well as Jews? Probably because zionism is Jewish? Also because some nazi-types are trying to make friends w islamists, re:"he who is the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Sam [Spade] 22:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * All anti-Semitic propaganda is "half-crazed"; you've created a tautology. And yet, they still use it as a code-word, particularly so that they're not seen as "half-crazed".  As for them hating Zionism, yes, they hate it because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs. Jayjg 22:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What a ridiculous and racist statement. -- Simonides 03:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Which statements are ridiculous and racist, and why? Jayjg 04:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I feel a bit ridiculous. Did I say something racist? Maybe the bit about "half-crazed", or maybe the arab thing? Either way I appologise, which is pretty easy when I don't know what I did ;) Sam [Spade] 05:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I've been to another page and realize Simonides is just making ridiculous assertions. He is taking your quite true statement that anti-Semitic groups have been trying to make alliances with Arab or Islamist groups in their attempts to fight their common "enemy", and trying to pretend it means that you (or I) have said that Arabs and anti-Semites are "natural friends" Jayjg 05:05, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, for sure (RE: that last), here is an example of joint propoganda efforts. Sam [Spade] 05:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, so some evidence for "code word for Jew"? Sam [Spade] 05:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam's statement was relatively specific: he mentioned "Nazi-types" (I assume he meant anti-Semites, though this is a dilution of the word Nazi and I have castigated Sam for doing this before) agreeing with "Islamists" (by which I assume he means Islamic fundamentalists.) You Jayjg, wrote that And yet, (anti-Semites) still use (Zionist) as a code-word, particularly so that they're not seen as "half-crazed". As for them hating Zionism, yes, they hate it because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs. There is only one implication to the latter part of your statement and it is that "anti-Semites are trying to make friends with Arabs" - suggesting that all "Arabs" are alike, and that anti-Semitism appeases them somehow - speaking so broadly and negatively of any ethnic group constitutes racism, and your remark is just as racist as the website Sam posted a link to. -- Simonides 05:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There is only one implication to the latter part of my statement? What nonsense.  Yes, you would prefer to promote a particular implication, in order to besmirch me, but that implication is one you have invented.  Anti-Semites are looking for allies, and they believe they might find them among Arabs, so they are reaching out to them; whether or not they can or will make an alliance with any particular Arab or Arab group is an entirely different question. No, I'm afraid it is only you who thinks "all Arabs are alike". Jayjg 06:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's see:
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Arabs. (note: no specific mention of any Arab group, much less any fundamentalist group, just "Arabs" in general.)
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with the French.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Leftists.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Asians.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Afro-Americans.
 * *anti-Semites ... hate (Zionism) because it is Jewish, and because they're trying to make friends with Russians.
 * Sounds like ignorance and prejudice to me any way you interpret it. -- Simonides 07:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. What would you make these statements? Jayjg 15:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but I don't recollect us having talked before. Are you sure that was me? Sam [Spade] 06:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, re: Wheeler. -- Simonides 07:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)