Talk:Revisionist Zionism/Archive 2

Revisionism and Fascism
AndyL,

To put it bluntly, stop adding misleading information in this page about fascism and Revisionist Zionism. This is an old trick used to defame groups and individuals by tying them to movements that we today we see as extreme and illegitimate but at those times were perfectly mainstream movements no different than communists or the Spartacists. Especially since the context of those links are transitory and limited to a very short time period, the early to middle 30s and one faction, Lehi, not Jabotinsky who had nothing to do with these streams and who repudiated and ostracised those who pushed those views in Hatzohar, namely Abba Ahimeir and Uri Zvi Greenberg.

I know all about Doar Hayom, my grandfather was a contributer in Moldova during the 30s to one of the publications, and I know that how you added the information in regards to a a few individuals, which are part of totally different factions within the same movement, and lumped them into one, which is nothing short of misinformation. I am trying to prevent the gross defamation of this movement: the presentation of Revisionist Zionism as some sort of "Nazi Jewish movement" that anti Zionists, radical leftists, and anti semites are so fond of doing.

I do not have the book on Revisionist Zionism at hand, it is at the local library and I will pick it up sometimes during the week, but I am absolutely sure that your presentation, which although has certain historical legitimacy, is still misleading. Bear with me here, wait a couple of days and I will substantiate my source. It will have your coveted mention of Hitler and Mussolini, but it will be in context.

Finally, I am not at all ashamed of my movement, I am ashamed at how it is presented without context or historical accuracy. Like I said, what you said is historical, but it is not contextually correct. To this I object. I am not trying to "protect" the readers or erase percieved skeletons from Revisionism's history, I am attempting to put crucial information that can be easily misunderstood in context.

Hope you understand,

Guy Montag 01:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've substantited my statements. Do not remove factual information from articles. If you wish to add material go ahead. Also, be careful to not "contextualise" by whitewashing, rationalising or burying. This is not a polemical forum. AndyL 02:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I thought, you quoted Christopher Hitchins, a leftist and the main proponent of pushing a insidious connection between Nazis and Revisionist Zionism. This is ridiculous.

By the end of this week, this will be refuted.

Guy Montag 02:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hitchens supports the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. Not much of a leftist, I'm afraid. AndyL 03:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Ze'ev Jabotinsky

"Accusations have been made by a number of left-wing writers such as Shlomo Avineri and Christopher Hitchens that Jabotinsky's movement was "fascist" in the 1930s, before WW2."

This is not over. I am not going to let you libel the Revisionist movement and then rely on the moderators to protect this article from editing. His article is not reputable, it is not research, it is an op-ed based on his political agenda. I am not just going to forget it when this is nothing more than a propogandistic distortion of the facts.

Guy Montag 23:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to correct that article as Hitchens is not a leftwinger. AndyL 02:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which facts are being distorted? The fact that one of Jabotinsky's chief acolytes referred to him as "our Duce"? The fact that a Revisionist newspaper wrote an editorial saying that Hitler was ok except for his anti-Semitism? I'm sorry if these facts prove embarassing to the Revisionist movement but that is not our concern as editors despite your self-proclaimed mission to use wikipedia to promote Revisionist Zionism. AndyL 02:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An editorial and a visionary of one faction have absolutely nothing to do with the Revisionist movement as a whole. They are flukes connected in a time span of less than 2 years. Nothing in the Revisionist platform or Jabotisky's agenda had any ties to fascism. Jabotinsky admired how Mussolini organized youth groups, but he despised the fascistic movement. Abba Ahimier refered to Jabotinsky as Duce, but these references were unrequited by Jabotinsky, and his relationship to Ahimeir was complex, if not strained at best.

If you had even a modest historical understanding of the movement (through books written by professors, such as Jacob Shavit or historical narratives by Ze'ev Jabotinsky) instead of relying on op-eds, you would understand that these accusations against Revisionist Zionism have been heaped by the left as a tool of defamation, not because it was historical truth, no matter the flimsy facts you cite. I came here exactly to make sure that myths that you are trying to propogate are repudiated, and the relevent information is put in context of the movement as a whole.

Guy Montag 06:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what about the shirts? Anyway Guy, you're a propagandist here to "spin" for your guy. If you have additional facts to add that's fine, my objection is to your attempt to remove facts. AndyL 16:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like I said before, I will not allow you to slander this movement. I am not going to remove historical facts or gloss over anything shady, but I will make sure that it is not listed outside its relevent timespan or context. It is just not ethical in what you are doing when you provide no in depth relevence to your "facts". When you list facts that mislead it is tantamount to lying, no matter if they happened or not. For example, I will use a famous misuse of the facts.

In the 70s, the Soviet Union and the USA were in a car competition of some sort. The USA came in 1st and the Soviet Union came in 2nd. In the USA it was reported as it happened, in the Soviet Union, Pravda reported that the Soviet Union finished in 2nd place while the USA finished before the last car.

Both say the same thing, they just happen to be written differently. Anyway, I am not going to continue having this dialogue. The next thing post it will be the relevent information from Professor Jacob Shavit.

Guy Montag 19:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"but I will make sure that it is not listed outside its relevent timespan or context."

You say this after having buried factual information related to the 1930s Jabotinsky movement under Lehi despite the fact that Lehi would not exist for at least another decade?AndyL 19:18, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didnt bury anything. It was a huge undertaking to expand this article. I know that Lehi split with the Irgun in the 1940s. I dont remember what I wrote, but if there was a mistake then I am glad that it was corrected. Secondly, the ideological foundation of Lehi existed within the writings of Abba Ahimeir and Uri Greenberg. In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with the distortions at hand.

Guy Montag 01:55, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have some nerve to remove this:

"the Irgun, under the leadership of people such as David Raziel, and later Menachem Begin was fighting for the establishment of the unnamed Jewish state on the ground,independently of any orders from Ze'ev Jabotinsky."

Once again, you are proving yourself to be a know-nothing in relation to this movement. I am going to petition that this article be unlocked. If you dont know anything about this subject stop editing it.

Guy Montag 01:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence you wrongly claim was removed appears in the article in the section titled "Irgun: Origin and Activities". AndyL 02:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright, here is the relevent source: It is from "Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement" written by Jacob Shavit. This is by far one of the most exhaustive books written on the subject.

Jabotinsky and fascism (p. 359)

The Revisionist model of a socio-economic class structure and its proposed national reconciliation mechanism for the solution of labour conflicts in the Palestinian economy probably formed the most tangible meeting points of fascist idealogy and praxis, and the socio-political programme of Revisionism. The idea of a corporative state as a solution to the crisis of industrialized nations, and as a method of achieving industrial peace, spread during the 1920s and 30s all over Europe in a variety of forms....Both conservatives and non conservatives viewed the corporative system as the solution to labour-management relations, distribution of income, and the expansion of industrial output.

(p. 360) Jabotinsky wrote on the 4 of October in an answer to Shlomo Jacobi that he take "fascistic control" of the Revisionist movement that "Revisionism is not fascistic. The only thing Italian fascism and Revisionism had in common apart form rejection of the class struggle was compulsory labour dispute arbitration, the view that national interests trenscended class interests. "Revisionism opposes fascism" wrote Jabotinsky, "believes in democracy, freedom of speech and thoought, parlaimentary government, and freedom of speech and press."

(p.363)     On to the most important part (Context) Until 1933, the maximalist wing of Palestinian Revisionism evinced almost boundless admiration for the fascist ideology. This positive was not necessarily due to the belief that fascism had indeed brought political stability to Italy and prevented a communist takeover, which were the reasons for the approbation of Italian Fascism among conservative and intellectual circles in Europe. The favourable attitude among maximalist circles within hazohar ahdn betar had a much deeper cause, bieng anchored in the histiosophic conception of the maximalists. Abba Achimeir testified that his close friend Joseph Katznelson was among the first to welcome the Black shirts in Italy. Achimeir himself in 1923 still showed an ambivelent attitude toward fascism, comparing it to Russian Bolshevism, which he loathed. His conclusion however, was that Italian Fascism was less dangerous than Russian communist imperialism. It had induced a new spirit into Italian youth; it was a people's movement led by journalists, lawyers, party politicians, and so forth, whose strentgh lay in political demogogy. According to him, Fascism, owed its success to the degeneration of Italian Liberalism into fascist Bonapartism; it was a movement of the urban, politically activist masses, functioning through mass-meeting and mass media. Fascism was a mass oriented national liberation movement that inspired the restoration of the national historical past. As such it had much in common with Zionism, which was far removed from internationalist Communism, because the latter denied the past. The difference between Fascism and Bolshevismlay in their ideological point of view, since it supported national rather than class egoism. For this reason, Achimeir said that, if forced to decide between the two, he would choose Fascism. At the same time his article of the year 1923 was a mere theoretical and hypothetical exposition. Meanwhile the best alternative to Fascism, according to Achimeir, was the democratic republic, provided that it was fortunate enough to be guided by a popular Republican-Democratic mass movement. If this failed, the only way to save European culture from Russian asiatic barbarism, and European society from anarchy, was Fascism.

In 1928, the year Achimeir began writing for Doar-ha-Yom which at that time was still edited by Itamir Ben-Avi, his estimation of Fascism as an alternative to threatening Bolshevism and a decadent democracy was strengthened even further. Earlier it was mentioned how he was influenced by Oswald Spengler's monumental study on the decline of the West, but his Zionist oreintation caused him to adapt its ultimate conclusions. His basic assumption was that Liberal bougeois European culture was degenerate, deeply eroded from within by an excess of liberalism and individualism. Socialism and communism on the other hand, were portrayed as "overcivilized" ideologies. Fascism on the other hand, like Zionism, was a return to the roots of the national culture and the historical past. Apart from this, Italian Fascism was not Anti-semitic, whereas communist ideology and praxis were intrinsically anti-Semitic. Communism was anti-Zionism, Fascism was not.

However there were more Achimeir's approbation of Fascism than his comparison of Zionism and Fascism as two movements espousing national and intellectual Romanticism. He aslo developed a favorable attitude toward fascist praxis and its psycho-politics, such as the principle of the all powerful leader, the use of propaganda to to generate a spirit of heroism and duty to the homeland, and the cultivation of youthful vitality (as manifested in the fascist youth movements).

When Achmeir wrote his series of articles under the Title "From the Notebook of a Fascist" he was not trying to engage in journalistic provacation; he simply did not see anything wrong in calling himself a fascist- the opposite was the case!

It should be remembered that at this time Achimeir was not yet a member of the Revisionist movement, and that Doar ha-Yom represented the editorial views of Ben Avi and his associates in Benei-Benyamin.

(p.364)

In this series he theoretically positioned Jabotinsky as Duce a leader of a national guard who would establish an active mass movement which would guard and rule over a passive majority....

To get to the point... Both Achimeir's Leninist association and shocked and alarmed the Ha-Zohar leadership, foremost Jabotinsky himself.

(p.369)

On August 9 1932 Jabotinsky wrote to tell Abba Ahimeir that his romantic ideas, like the zeal of his followers was considered excessive. Ha-Zohar, he wrote, was a democratic political movement of a patrician rather than populist or Romantic kind. As a consequence, the behavior of Achimeir and his friends threated his [Jabotinsky's] cherished movement, and if Achimier's views were indeed similair to those which he expressed in his articles and letters, than there was no room for the two of them in the same political camp.

There is much much more, but for this you have to read the book. If you are interested in the subject, you will not find a more in depth "objective" look at the movement than this.

I apologize for any insults or rash decisions on my part.

Hope this is enough.

Guy Montag 04:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll ask that the page be unprotected if you agree not to remove factual information (ie add information to the article, do not subtract from it - do not remove reference to songs, editorials, newspaper columns etc). It is certainly fair to say there was a fascistic *tendency* within Revisionism or that a strain within Revisionism was influenced by fascism in the early to mid-1930s though I concede that Jabotinsky himself seems to have rejected or at least resisted this tendency. AndyL 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like Jacob Shavit said, there was a fascistic influence (the Italian fascistic influence, not Spanish or German) within the maximalist wing of the Revisionist movement up to 1933. There was no fascistic influence on Jabotinskiy or any of the wings of Revisionism beyond Achimier and his followers. After Israel's establishment Shavit says that the ideological difference on the ground melted away and that there was no fascistic element in the groups themselves, in fact democracy was praised due to the hegemony of Labour. Corporatism was the dominant economic movement among the middle class in Europe the 1920s and 30s. At least the corporatist economic system was highly praised and considered at that time and small aspects of corporatism were admired by Jabotinsky as a way to democratically bring class harmony for the sake of the national interest. Abba Ahimeir, who was not a member of any Revisionist wing, was an authoritarian (you read that paragraph already) who despised communism and felt that Italian fascism had more in common with Zionism's goals. There was no fascistic tendency, there was an alien movement implanted by Abba Achimeir and his followers.

Now that you have the information, we can unlock this page and amend it in accordance with historical accuracy.

As for op eds, Hitchins has proven himself wrong since Doar ha-Yom wasnt a member of any Revisionist movement, and when Abba Achimeir was calling Jabotinsky Duce, it was a theoretical vision of how Achimeir wished the Revisionist movement to function.

As I have substantiated evidence, you should substantiate evidence for your songs.

Guy Montag 22:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll work on that. AndyL 22:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page protected
This page has been protected due to the request at Requests_for_protection. If you feel this page his been protected in error, please post the reason on the request page. --Jiang 04:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, do not remove information. If you feel you should add or qualify info then fine but whether or not Abba Achimeir was a member of the Revisionist movement at the time he had a column in a Revisionist paper and the comments about his trial appeared in a Revisionist paper. If you exise info again I will have the article reprotected from you. Do you understand? Add, do not subtract. AndyL 13:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Andy, Doar Hayom was not an official paper in the Revisionist movement. It represented the editorial line of one man. As so, I do not it feel has any relevence to the Revisionist ideology page. I have added Abba Achimier's orientation toward fascism and explained his views in context of Revisionist ideology, who he influenced, and how he stood in respect to Ze'ev Jabotinsky. If you think that more should be added, by all means add, but make sure that it has a purpose, that it adds relevent, enriching information.

Also, please substantiate the context and source for the Ha'am quote. Once again, I am sure that there is a historical basis for that quote, I just cant find any sources for it. When you provide a source, we can put it up again. As such, I cant edit or add anything to what you wrote unless I know where it came from.

Guy Montag 21:33, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "However, there were more Achimeir's approbation of Fascism than his comparison of Zionism and Fascism as two movements espousing national and intellectual Romanticism. " because the sentence is ungrammatical and meaningless. Please rewrite in plain and clear English. AndyL 15:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New "Historians"
Do you expect me to trust sources like Tom Segev ? Use mainstream sources for your information.

Oh, and the Doar Hayom quote is irrelevent to this article. Like I said before, it wasnt a Revisionist paper.

Guy Montag 22:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of you writing an essay that reflects your ideology. It's immaterial whether you "trust" the sources or not. AndyL 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly an encyclopedic entry on the Revisionist movement, not socialist propaganda against the Revisionist movement. Every stream is noted, every ideological inspiration cited. I did not gloss over anyone. Putting your defaming spin on it takes away from the objectivity and historical progression of the Revisionist movement. Guy Montag 22:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The paper was put out by Jabotinksy supporters and, by your own admission, the author of the column was a mentor to a wing of Revisionism.

At the time he wrote this article he was not a member of the Revisionist movement and the paper was not officially affiliated with it. He did not join the movement until 1930. He wrote the article in 1928. Doar Hayom was not associated with the Revisionist movement. It was one of many newspapers that were allowed under a free press. If you cant read or don t understand the information I provided in the Revisionism and fascism discussion circle, then you clearly arent fit to add any information here. I provided information, you ignored it and continued to add it contrary to fact.

Guy Montag 22:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to add information, fine, but if you remove the cited info one more time I will again have the article locked and take you to the arbitration committee for disciplinary action. AndyL 22:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This isnt the Socialist international. Send your threats to someone who cares.

Guy Montag 22:39, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I *am* an administrator. AndyL 22:31, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have any evidence refuting the claims cited then make it known but you cannot dismiss scholarly evidence simply because you don't like the scholars. AndyL 22:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This information is not supported by the majority of historians and they are regarded as POV controversial sources. That is why I dont not trust them. Jacob Shavit is the University of Tel Aviv Head of Jewish Studies. Tom Segev is an ideologue of the far left. If Jacob Shavit disagrees with Tom Segev, I go with Jacob Shavit, not with a controversial ideologue.

Guy Montag 22:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That is *your* opinion but your opinion does not dictate the contents of wikipedia articles. Regardless of what establishment historians in Israel think of Segev do you actually have any evidence to refute his statement? Do you deny there was such a column in the newspaper or that such comments were written about the trial? Do you have any evidence to support such a contention? If not the fact that these historical facts are reported by somone you don't like is completely irrelevent. AndyL 22:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I really dont care who reports it, I only care how it is reported. I have this educated feeling that Mr. Segev twisted whatever was said out of context, so I dont trust solely his word. I personally dont care what Abba Achimier's lawyer said at an insiginificant trial, it was established that he had fascist tendencies, what I dont understand is what does mentioning what his lawyer said at a trial add to the established fact that Achimier had fascist tendencies? What does stating that Netanyahu's father said something or other about Achimier have anything to do with Netanyahu himself, who comes from the left of the Revisionist movement? I think it has nothing to do with it, its useless fluff that doesnt belong in an article about Revisionist history and ideology.

So my question is this, do you have any sources other than Tom Segev that confirm what was said? If you do, I wont have an objection to it even if it is fluff.

Guy Montag 23:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Guy, are you saying that Shavit has said that Segev's claims that are cited in this article are fabrications? or merely that these matters are not mentioned in Shavit's work? The former would certainly be worth mentioning. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I will take a look into the book when I get the chance later next week. From my extensive reading on the movement, and Shavit, I remember him mentioning something about numerous such events cited by leftist historians, which much like the songs are either fabrications or misinterpertations of events. Shavit had no love for the Lehi movement, and as such it is evident in his tone when he speaks about them. So there is no reason in my mind to believe he would gloss them over.

Guy Montag 23:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But does he actually deny that the column "from the notebook of a fascist" was written by Abba Achimier? Does he deny he wrote an article welcoming Jabotinsky as "Our Duce" or the facts of the trial? As for the newspaper, if it wasn't Revisionist how would you describe it?AndyL 23:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course he does not deny that Achimier wrote those things, you read it yourself. The newspaper was pro Revisionist but not officially affiliated with Revisionism but a group called Benei Binyamin. As for the trial, I will have to look into my sources. I still dont see what his comments have to add to the fact that Achimier was a proud Italian style fascist. It was already established. I consider such facts fluff.

Guy Montag 08:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand the need for accuracy of information, and the strict avoidance of bias. However, is it not more constructive to have the controversial information posted, but with a notation indicating it as a questionable source? Expurgating the information is a stopgap which requires constant maintenance and (eventually) locking the page to edits. If there are differing opinions on a topic, include them all, rather than debating which is the least unbiased. If you strongly disagree, make an edit stating that the point is contended; the contention can be cited itself, and so on ad nauseam.

As a defense of my statement, the mere fact that the point is so heavily contended implies that it is of relevance to someone. Personally, I would rather see fluff than omission.

--Penumbra2000 00:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transfer
"Transfer" is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. The term needs explanation. AndyL 22:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transfer is Population transfer. Ethnic cleansing is a pov term that I will not in any way allow in this article.

Guy Montag 22:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Also, we will not use controversial New "Historians" in this article. mainstream sources only" Not your determination to make. AndyL 22:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is the current term used. "Transfer" is an obfuscation and a euphemism. AndyL 22:48, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Deportation" is also an acceptable term. Transfer implies (or at least includes the possibility of) a voluntary arrangement and thus is an inaccurate and even deceptive term to use. AndyL 22:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deportation talks about individuals. The term is Population transfer. We have already discussed this term ad infinitum in the binational solution talk page and everyone has agreed with this term.

As it says in the population transfer page: "Population transfer is a term referring to a policy by which a state forces the movement of a large group of people out of a region, invariably on the basis of ethnicity or religion."

Guy Montag 23:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Deportation talks about individuals." And "mass deportation" refers to populations.

Tell me, in the literature, is Stalin's treatment of Crimean Tatars and Volga Germans described as "transfer" or as "mass deportation"?AndyL 23:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Population transfer, because Stalin moved them around but within Soviet territory. The Volga Germans who were expelled from Polish areas to Germany is also catagorized as population transfer.

Guy Montag 23:49, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Please show me where in the literature Stalin's policies are referred to as "population transfer" rather than deportation? The only people I'm aware of who would use a term like "transfer" are Stalinists. AndyL 22:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Deportation talks about individuals. The term is Population transfer. We have already discussed this term ad infinitum in the binational solution talk page and everyone has agreed with this term.

Actually, what the binational solution page says is: "Zionist "transfer solution", which involves politically annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Israel and forcibly deporting the entire Arab population to other Arab countries by methods unspecified"

I don't see how you can argue that deportation is an inappropriate term and then cite the binational solution article when the binational soluition article says that transfer is "forcibly deporting the entire Arab population to other Arab countries by methods unspecified". I have no problem with using those exact words in this article to explain what is meant by the word "transfer". As for "ethnic cleansing" that is the modern phrase used to describe the practice so, for purposes of clarity, it should be used when explaining what is actually meant by the ambiguous and misleading term "transfer"AndyL 23:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please explain to me why the term "ethnic cleansing" is inaccurate and don't just say it's POV - that's a meaningless (and circular) claim if you are unable to explain that why the term does not describe the "transfer" concept accurately. AndyL 23:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has to do with liguistics as much as with the meaning. Deportation refers to a specific kind of expulsion, just as ethnic cleansing or population transfer refer to other kinds of expulsions. Linguistics have to do with accuracy, and are the litmus test for POV or NPOV. As I've said, we all came up with this term after days of discussion, so I accept it.

Guy Montag 23:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that you read the binational solution talk page for more information, but the general agreement on the term is that ethnic cleansing implies top down organization to force a population to leave an area through violence and genocide. For example, the violence in East Timor, or the Armenian Genocide' could be considered "ethnic cleansing", because it involved the murder of thousands of people to force another group to leave an area. Population transfer on the other hand is forcible (and sometimes through national agreement) expulsion/transfer of a group but not through violence or genocide. Restrictive laws, such as were used in Arab countries to force Jews to flee, or just plain cordoning off an area and putting people on trucks and telling them to not stop until they cross the border. It might imply what Ariel Sharon is doing now with his Gaza expulsion plan, where he tells a group of people to sell their property at what the government offers and resettle them somewhere else. It is still forcible population transfer, but it wont include the IDF murdering Jews to achieve it. In other words, ethnic cleansing is a specific term, usually implying organized violence to achieve its goals, while population transfer imply population transfer/expulsion, but through a myriad ways that exclude violence.

Ask yourself what is the difference between a race riot and a pogrom? There is a similiar difference between population transfer and ethnic cleansing.

Guy Montag 23:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I see a conflict brewing. The fact is, I think that some of Guy Montag's changes are good -- for example, calling Lehi a nationalist-messianic movement is definitely better than calling it a pseudo-religious movement.  But other changes are ill-conceived.  For example, to say the Revisionists were fighting against Histadrut "discrimination" mischaracterizes the situation.  I have no doubt that the Histadrut did bad things to the Revisionists.  But "discrimination" usually connotes actions taken against a passive group of people (passive because they are in some way the subjects of another group).  A struggle against discrimination does not really challenge this unequal relationship, it really just ameliorates the way the dominant group acts towards the subordinate group.  It is unfair to apply this term to the Revisionists, who were far from passive, and who were engaged in a political (and at times military) struggle with the Labor Zionists.  Certainly, the Histadrut had many advantages and I think it is important to refer to their hegemony.  But the Revisionists were not fighting against the way the Histadrut was treating them -- they were fighting against the Histadrut itself.  They did not want to Histadrut to be nice to them, they wanted the Histadrut to be replaced by them as the hegemonic Zionist force.

Well, many functions of the Histadrut and the Sick Fund were based on political affiliation. If someone in the Yishuv claimed membership in the Revisionist Party, they were denied access to the Sick Fund, kicked out of their job, and were boycotted by Histadrut affiliated labor. If a Histadrut employer had a Revisionist working for him, he would be boycotted until the Revisionist employee(s) was fired. I'd call that discrimination. Plus, not every Revisionist was a member of the Irgun, some were just middle class business owners who were boycotted because they refused to support Labour Zionists.

Guy Montag 00:04, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * About "ethnic cleansing," well, I personally hate the phrase and the way it is used. But AndyL is quite right that it has become a neutral phrase referring to a particular set of policies and actions.  What the Revisionists were arguing for might not have been called "ethnic cleansing" (or the Hebrew equivalent) at that time, but today "ethnic cleansing" is exactly the correct phrase.  Perhaps this is the way out of the argument.  Andy L, are there published historians who have use the term "ethnic cleansing" in this context?  If so, perhaps we could have a few sentences describing (without labels) exactly what the Revisionists did or proposed to do, and then say "At the time this set of policies was called X; today some, like M___, refer to it as Y, and others, such as N___, refer to it as Z (e.g. "ethnic cleansing").  Is this possible?


 * Finally, if Guy Montag really did write "Also, we will not use controversial New "Historians" in this article. mainstream sources only" (I am coming to this late in the discussion) -- well, Guy Montag is simply wrong. Guy, I urge you to read over our NPOV policy carefully.  You have every right to include Revisionist views in this article.  And you have every right to insist that the "New Historians" not be presented as if theirs are the only legitimate views.  But you have no right to dictate that certain published sources not be used.


 * Above, you wrote "Do you expect me to trust sources like Tom Segev" and AndyL was quite right that it does not matter whether you trust him or not. No one memer of Wikipedia has the right to dictate what sources are or are not allowable.  No one is claiming that Segev is the objective source for all truth in the universe.  This article should certainly include views that are different from or oppose Segev's views.  Nevertheless, Segev must be included here, to comply with our NPOV policy.


 * As long as someone's writings are published or publically available, relevant (clearly they are) and reputable in the sense that these historians have positions are at established universities or libraries, or have had government positions, of if their books or articles have been published by mainstream academic or trade publishers, or in peer-reviewed journals, or have appeared in major magazines (e.g. Time) or newspapers (e.g. The New York Times or Haaretz), or if their books and articles have been cited in books published by academic presses, or articles in peer-reviewed journals -- well, if any of these conditions have been met, then you have absolutely no grounds for excluding them. If you delete their views, you will be subject to sanction.  I am not threatening you, but I am trying to explain our policies to you and warn you that these policies are enforced.  As long as you do not violate these policies, all of us are happy to have you join us in our work. I am assuming that your intentions are honorable -- to help improve Wikipedia in your own way, while complying with our policies.  So I just want to make sure you are clear on those policies. Slrubenstein   |  Talk  23:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allright, if you put it this way, then my only objection is that Andy has exclusively used them as undisputed sources. I will not delete them, but I want them qualified. Let Andy or whoever provide another source to substantiate what Segev claims. Until then, I not going to delete anything, but I want the readers to know that Tom Segev is a New Historian, ironically a revisionist but only when it comes to history. Guy Montag 23:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Let Andy or whoever provide another source to substantiate what Segev claims" Why? We do not normally require multiple sources for a documented fact. As for using Segev as an "undisputed" source. Again, cite a source that disputes this specific claim by Segev. If you can't find one then, indeed, the source is undisputed. AndyL 00:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then I will make a note that Tom Segev is a New Historian. (Guy)


 * I think that is appropriate, if only by way of identification. By the way, the relevant article to link is New Historians (although I just made New Historian a redirect). -- Jmabel | Talk 20:12, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Segev is a new historian is irrelevent in that none of his conclusions or arguments are mentioned in this article. All we are doing is using him as a source for the facts concerning Achimier. When we list sources we don't usually add the political orientation of the authors unless we are actually citing their opinions. Here we do not cite Segev's opinions, simply referencing facts.

I've removed the following "whereas communist ideology and praxis were intrinsically anti-Semitic: Communism was anti-Zionism, Fascism was not." The statement is completely POV as well as inaccurate (Not all Communists were anti-Zionist, witness Hashomer Hatzair which was a Marxist Zionist movement until well into the 1950s and the claim that Communism is "intrinsically anti-Semitic" is not only POV but absurd. AndyL 03:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is POV, I've clearly stated that it is Achimier's POV. Read Jacob Shavit's information again, you will find the same quote talking about what Achimier's views were.

On a sidenote, Hashomer Hatzair was not Zionist, it supported a binational solution even before it became a puppet of Mapam and the Soviet Union.

Guy Montag 07:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the "according to Achimier" clause. As for your contention that Hashomer Hatzair was not Zionist, I'm sure that would come as a surprise to the members (or alumni) of Hashomer Hatzair who had a leading role in the Palmach during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War or who died during that war or in the years of the Yishuv establishing their Kibbutzim. Ironically, had it not been for them, Israel would likely have lost that conflict. They definitely would have lost the conflict had the Soviet Union not authorised the sale of arms to Israel via Czechoslovakia. Incidentally, Trumpledor (after whom Betar is named) died defending Hashomer Hatzair settlements and was a HH sympathiser. Also, Hashomer Hatzair wasn't "a puppet of Mapam", it was a political party in the thirties and forties until merging with Achudat Avoda to form Mapam. True, Hashomer Hatzair never engaged in the terrorism practiced by the Irgun and Lehi before 1949 and by the Likud in government but that doesn't mean they weren't Zionist. AndyL 11:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * (Possibly slightly off topic) Guy, do I understand from the above that you would say that those who supported a binational solution were necessarily non-Zionists? What about cultural Zionists who had no focus on the creation of a state? It would seem to me that anyone who advocated an in-gathering of the Diaspora to Palestine was a Zionist. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I personally disagree. Zionism is the equivelent of Jewish nationalism. Anything else, such as Mr. Ha'am's "cultural center" is nothing more than regional automism similiar to the anti Zionist Jewish Bund.

Guy Montag 08:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that the emerging Israeli government of 1948 endorsed a bi-national compromise, and that many Zionist parties in Israel support a bi-national solution *today*, the idea that a binational solution is (or ever was) fundamentally antithetical to Zionism can be dismissed as absurd.

You've misunderstood. See binational solution.


 * Ah. Apologies -- for some reason, I was reading "binational solution" as "two-state solution", when I really should have known better. Notwithstanding which, the basic point is still addressed in the next section:  CJCurrie 09:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Further to the same, I could add that Noam Chomsky considered himself (and was considered) a Zionist in the 1940s, in the sense that he supported kibbutzim settlement efforts in the region within a context of Arab-Jewish cooperation. I recently watched a Chomsky biography in which he claimed that his early beliefs were grounded in "Zionism, though it would be considered anti-Zionism today" (or words to that effect).
 * The popular meaning of the term has changed over the years, but one could certainly be a Zionist in the 1940s and earlier without supporting the principle of a "Jewish state". CJCurrie 20:40, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Chomsky has crossed from anti Zionism to another realm, which I dont think we should discuss here. Other than mentioning that my opinion of his rationilization and him is incredibly low, I will end it here.

Guy Montag 08:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Notwithstanding anyone's opinion of Chomsky today, the fact that he was unambiguously considered a Zionist in the 1940s (while holding roughly the same views on national settlement that he argues for today) might be enough to suggest that a more expansive interpretation of Zionism's parameters may be required. CJCurrie 09:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont know if those views were considered Zionist, since by the 1940s, a large swathe of labour Zionism considered settling the land exclusively for Jewish settlement as Zionism. Arab-Jewish cooperation is a noble idea, much like world peace, but Mr. Chomsky has not changed his position even when the situation on the ground changed dramatically. Today he supports a binational solution, which makes him an Anti-Zionist.

Guy Montag 18:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, CJ, I'm with you, but my question was specifically directed to Guy, because I am trying to understand where his statement characterizing HH as non-Zionist comes from. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:16, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comments were directed at Guy as well -- I'm also puzzled by his definition, and was trying to point out that the term "Zionism" has encompassed a wide variety of beliefs vis-a-vis national settlement over the years. CJCurrie 21:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As much as I love to discuss Zionism and its currents (I am writing my thesis on Zionism), I point out that Hashomer Hatzair was what today we would consider either a non-Zionist, or anti-Zionist. And I define Anti Zionism as any position which advocates the dissolution of a Jewish homeland or denies Jewish self determination on its historical land. Hashomer Hatzair was anti Zionist because it voted "no" in the Biltmore Conference, which declared:

"The Conference declares that the new world order that will follow victory cannot be established on foundations of peace, justice, and equality, unless the problem of Jewish homelessness is finally solved. The Conference urges that the gates of Palestine be opened; that the Jewish Agency be vested with control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for upbuilding the country, including the development of its unoccupied and uncultivated lands; and that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated in the structure of the new democratic world."

Voting "no" on such positions makes one anti Zionist in my book. Not to mention, they were associated with Mapam, which until 1953 was nothing more than a puppet of Stalinist USSR. Yes, Mapam became ardently nationalist during the Suez War. In fact, it supported territorial expansion with the same ferver as Herut, but that doesnt exempt Hashomer Hatzair, which when Mapam split between its two "right" and "left" wings, to join as a representative not of the maximalist socialist Ahdut Avoda-Po'alei Zion, but the left communist "kiss Soviet ass" Mapam which joined Ratz and then Meretz/Yahad.

I define Zionism as Jewish nationalism.

I also would mention that I dont consider Yahad a Zionist party.

Guy Montag 08:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but virtually every work on historical and contemporary Zionism has identified parties such as Hashomer Hatzair, Mapam, Meretz and now Yahad as Zionist, by virtue of their support for a Jewish state. I would suggest that all Wikipedia articles on the subject should follow this example, rather than relying on a narrower definition.

I generally follow mainstream principle, and I dont want to revolutionize the definition of Zionism, but I still think that reexamining the actions of Hashomer Hatzair in light of the Biltmore conference is in order.

Guy Montag 18:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Since 1948/49 (or perhaps a few years later), support for Israel as a "Jewish state" has been the generally accepted standard for describing a group or party as "Zionist" -- which is why Meretz and Yahad have been almost universally described as Zionist, while Hadash is not. Prior to 1948, support for Jewish immigration to the region was probably a sufficient criterion.  By comparision, a party's positions on global political divisions, land concessions and immigration policies appear like secondary concerns.  CJCurrie 09:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "I generally follow mainstream principle, and I dont want to revolutionize the definition of Zionism, but I still think that reexamining the actions of Hashomer Hatzair in light of the Biltmore conference is in order. "

Shouldn't one also examine the actions of Hashomer Hatzair members during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War? Given the overrepresentation of Hashomer Hatzair members in the leadership of the Palmach/Haganah and the role of Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim in that conflict I think any objective observer would be hard pressed to describe them as anything but Zionist, certainly it would be absurd to call them anti-Zionist. AndyL 18:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Histadrut
This is a ridiculous discussion. So far I have backed up all the information I provided. In fact, I have cleared up myths, iadvertant lies, and historical innacuracies provided by other posters in this post. So take seriously what I write. The Histadrut was dominated by Labourites. The Secretary General of the Histardut was always a member of the Labour Party, and treated it as an extension of it. The Histadrut denied visas to Revisionist members during the White Paper times, the Histadrut denied membership and hence jobs and healthcare to Revisionist party members. The Histadrut blackmailed unaffiliated businesses to close if it did not employ their members. The Histadrut boycotted businesses that employed Revisionists. This is not "alleged" or "percieved" this is documented fact. Saying an event is "alleged" or "percieved" when it happened is dishonest. I brought up the Holocaust because I know that when certain individuals say the "alleged Holocaust" you know that they are Holocaust deniers or anti Semites. On other issues it becomes ridiculous, such as the "alleged death of Elvis Presley." What about alleged discrimination of Blacks in the 60s? At some point it doesnt become NPOV but a lie.

Any information regarding this be found with Jacob Shavit in his book "Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement."

Guy Montag 06:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So quote Shavit then but you can only make this assertion as an undeniable fact if, in fact, it is accepted by all parties. Do all Israeli historians and parties agree that Revisionists were denied services by the Histadrut or is this contested. I'm not asking for your or Shavit's opinion on whether or not this is a fact. I am asking whether everyone agrees it is a fact or if it's contested. If it's contested then we should either state that it's an allegation or cite a source. Please look up the NPOV policy rather than beg the question by asserting that something is a fact because it's a fact. AndyL 06:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, almost every historian agrees on this, its just that Tom Segev or Mr. Finkelstein are too busy whitewashing Arab atrocities or making links between Nazism and Zionism that they have little time to focus on Yishuv history. So no, it is not contested. Right now I am busy with other subjects and I cannot provide the quote. All that matters is that it exists, it is cited and historians do not dispute it. I am sorry that you have never heard of this fact, but then again, we have different focus from each other in Zionist history.

Guy Montag 07:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My main remark here is that you are both at least butting up against the 3RR rule here, and I suggest you work here in the talk page to find mutually acceptable wording rather than keep reverting each other in the article. I suspect Guy is factually right here, but clearly it is not a point on which everyone agrees, and what I believe the article should at least give a specific citation (with page number, and possibly a quotation) from Shavit, and possibly a quotation from that work. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)