Talk:Zionism/Archive 11

Zionist betrayal of the Jews during WW2
There is an important dimension to the holocaust that is generally ignored with regard to Zionism. This is the fact that Zionist leaders during World War 2 refused to entertain propositions presented by both the Nazis and the Allies, regarding the deportation of European Jews to various countries around the world. A common attitude held by Zionists at the time was that the mass prosecution of Jews would result in the creation of a Jewish state after WW2. To quote Greenbaum: "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe". I'd like to see these element of Zionism added to Wiki... --Zimmer79 on 23 September 2007.


 * Given that these are controversial statements you will need to provide references for them. Which propositions are you referring to? The Nazis proposed Madagascar but the plan never got off the ground - it had nothing to do with the Zionist movement. The British staged the Evian conference but scholars generally agree that they were doing so merely to pretend to be doing something and not out of genuine intention. The Zionist movement sent observers but were not invited to participate in the conference. It is wroth mentioning in this context that the Soviet signed a pact with the Nazis. One stupid statement by a Zionist functionary (you provide no reference for this statement) does not prove "a common attitude". Most Ashkenazi Zionists had relatives in Europe and would not have been happy to see their family, friends and communities destroyed. Zionist influence in the late thirties was negligble and the British decided to abandon the whole Jewish National home project. What you are trying to do is to blame the holocaust on its victims. -- Telaviv1 13:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore your comment about blaming the holocaust on its victims as it have zero bases. Instead I am pointing out that Zionists manipulated ordinary Jews in order to achieve their political ambitions. This is a very important topic when presenting the nature of Zionism. More quotes - Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938 that "If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative." "If I am asked, "Could you give from the UJA moneys to rescue Jews, 'I say, NO! and I say again NO!" quote by Izaak Greenbaum, head of Jewish Agency Rescue Committee February 18, 1943. Rabbi Wise, as head of the American Jewish Congress in 1938, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. stating "It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference ... It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws." The Australian Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann has written an article called "Spiritually and Physically Responsible" with respect to Zionist action, and indeed their inactions during the WW2. Quoting this article -
 * "It is an historical fact that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that: a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
 * The Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
 * The answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments: a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees. b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a "Jewish State" at the end of the war. c) No ransom will be paid This response to the Gestapo's offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber."
 * This article is available from a number of sources online, including the True Torah Jews Website, JewsAgainstZionism.com - http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/gedalyaliebermann.cfm --Zimmer79 on 24 September 2007.

Listen, I'm at work now and this requires a lengthy response. To be honest I'm not sure its worth my time, however:

1.Wikipedia seeks to work on academic standards. The Rabbis you are quoting are not acamedicians and mostly believe that the earth was created 5700+ years ago. They are not a relaiable source. 2.The issue of how the Jewish Agnecy leadership (that is the Zionist leaders in Palestine) responded to the holocaust is best addressed by Tom Segev, 7th million. He feels their repsonse was inadequate. Whatever individuals said BEFORE the war, and they may have said these things, does not provide proof of any alliance. These are unfortunate indivudal statements and were made before the Nazi extermination program. At best they provide evidence that not enough was done, not of malice. A statement to the effect that the leadership was criticezied for not doing enough could be inserted into the page. 3. Zionist groups led the Warsaw ghetto uprising and were at the forefront of Jewish resistance both in gettos and in the forests. 4. the story about the gestapo I have never heard and don't believe.There is no way the Spanish would have agreed to it. 5. The murder of most of Europes Jews significantly weakened the worlds Jewish communities and made a state less likely. there was no way of knowing if there would be sympathy after the war. As it was the British damn near created an Arab state in Palestine. 6. The Zionists were warning about the importance of anti-semitism and providing Jews with tools to confront it. It is reasonable to claim that they underestimated what Hitler was capable of and did not repsond fast enough. The orthodox Jews who you are quoting are probably bitter because of that. 6. just because it says somehting somewhere online doesn't mean its true. Just because they say they are jewish doesnt't mean they are. Just because they are Jewish doesn't mean they speak the truth. 7.Whatever your intention, the opinoins you are expressing are, in my opinion, in effect anti-semitic. I assume you are misguided rather then malicious, so I will try to explain why I think this. a. the vast majority of the world's jews are today Zionist and in over reacting to these stories you are implying that they are culpible in the Holocaust. b. Your assumption of Zionist consipriacies is a manifestation of classic Jewish-consiparzcy theories such as the Protocosl of Zion. The Zionist movement fucntions as a democratic sysstem with elected representatives and a wide range of opinions and not as a conspiratorial manipulative body. the leaderhsip of the Jewish Agency and of the Zionist movement were elected. C. claiming that a significant body of Jews would deliberatley cause their own people to be murdered ina gruesome fashion is deeply offensive. d. I should add that my mother and gradnmother were murdered whille my uncle and aunt who were zionist were saved because of their efforts to reach Palestine. My fahter was saved because a pro-Zionist member of parliament in England asked the Foreign secretary to give him a visa. 8. whatver their failing the zionists basically fight for the Jews. they may make mistakes but these are honest mistakes. Their basic interest is not in doubt. I hope this helps and ask that you not be offended, my aim is to educate not to insult. Telaviv1 09:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) >>They are not a relaiable source.
 * Do you consider the Wall Street Journal a reputable source as such information was published in it on December 2, 1976?
 * 2) >> There is no way the Spanish would have agreed to it.
 * The Jews were not to be deported permanently to Spain, but instead transported from there to the US and UK colonies.
 * 3) >> The murder of most of Europes Jews significantly weakened the worlds Jewish communities and made a state less likely.
 * This is a matter of opinion. Some might say it strengthened their resolve and that Jews would, as a result of WW2, be more inclined to agree with the notion that they would only be safe in their own country. The facts are that the Israeli state was created out of the ashes of WW2.
 * 4) >> in effect anti-semitic
 * Stating that my comments are anti-semetic is a futile attempt at sensorship. The are many Anti-Zionist Jews in both the US and occupied Palestine, and there are many Jews who view Zionism as anti-Jewish, since they believe that Isreal can only be created by the Messiah.
 * 5) >> the vast majority of the world's jews are today Zionist and in over reacting to these stories you are implying that they are culpible in the Holocaust.
 * This is invalid. Judism is not equal to Zionism. Critising Zionism is in no way a condomnation of Jews. Many young, socially conscious indiviuals, wear Palestinian scarfs to symbolise their opposition to Zionism and what it stands for. Accusing them of being anti-semetic is simply dumb. Its like being called Anti-American for critizising Bush, Clinton, or Carter.
 * 6) >> The Zionists were warning about the importance of anti-semitism and providing Jews with tools to confront it.
 * This doesn't disprove my arguement. Zionists might well have fought to protect Jews but it doesn't mean they wouldn't sacrafice many of them in order to achieve their political aims.
 * 7) >> whatver their failing the zionists basically fight for the Jews.
 * Again your doing nothing to disprove the argument that Zionists allowed Jews to die in order to achieve their aims. The Zionist mentality was that future Jews would prosper. This can of course be interpreted as "fighting for the Jews", or fighting for their best interests in the long term. It does not of course mean that they did not betrayed many Jews in WW2. --Zimmer79 on 25 September 2007.

I propose adding the above information if there is no further interest in discussing it. [Unsigned: Zimmer79 ]


 * Am opposed to such an addition. Any material needs to be rooted in fact and good citations. When you talk about Zionist "manipulation" and "the nature of Zionism" or "the Zionist mentality", you are making a leap from any sources you might have to a particular (and I believe at least implicitly racist) interpretation. Claims about the effect of the destruction of European Jewry on Zionist resolve or otherwise, claims about whether Zionist leaders "would" or "would not" have sacrificed European Jews are pure speculation and not for an encyclopedia.


 * On the sources: the Ben Gurion quote is probably accurate, and comes from Lenni Brenner's anti-Zionist Zionism in the Age of Dictators, chapter 13 (citing Yoav Gelber, Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry (1939-42), Yad Vashem Studies, vol.XII, p.199. However, the meaning of the quote is rather contentious: quite simply, Ben Gurion never had the choice; he is posing an imaginary dilemma. This cannot be seen as an actual betrayal. The Rabbi Gedalya Liebermann source is not a very good one (as testified to by the widescale republication of his text by neo-Nazi websites): find a better source for the Wise quote before using it. The Spanish claim is completely ridiculous - no serious source makes such a claim. You also mention Wall Street Journal 1976, but don't say what exactly was said in that article. BobFromBrockley 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

desire of Jews to emigrate to where they can get rich
"The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70,". - This is a total lie - you can't have a desire to return if you left voluntarily (after profitably selling your property to Palestinians) and there is nothing to prevent you from returning (except that the money is better in Rome or Florida or NYC). Fourtildas 06:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claim is ridiculous. --GHcool 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's why most people move. Money talks. Besides, the USA is full of rich Zionists defending Israel. None would ever live there though. That's for dumb Russians and not the JAPs of this world eh? Mixino1 03:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you mind explaining why? Currently I am not swayed by either side of the argument, but by not backing up your claim it is leading me to think that the Anti-Zionists may be right. —The preceding Donkeypoodle 7:27, 25 April 2007 (PST)


 * Fourtildas, the Jews were expelled. Also, Palestinians didn't exist at that time. Dragon Smaug 00:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

oh yes, nothing to stop you except the hordes of angry arabs. Nope, nothing a all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jewishness" is a religious concept
If your mother's mother's mother was "Jewish" then you are "Jewish". Even if you never heard of "Jews" you are "Jewish" according to WP and fundie Judaism and fundiXianity. And Zionism is Jewish supremacy - ask any Nazi - they will recognize the similarity. I've been thinking of writing an article on ethnic/racial/religious/nationalist/supremacist movements, but these articles seem to get deleted by people who are uncomfortable with the obvious comparisons.


 * you have a very wrong view of jew identity, the idea that jewishness is not an ethnicity is a reform(as the reform judaism article states:"Early Reform Judaism, in order to assimilate more into European culture, held that Judaism was no more a peoplehood, but was only a religion"). and take your anti-zionist bull**** elsewhere. Varcety 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy quote in the Anti-Zionism section
BrandonYusufToropov keeps trying to introduce, without discussion, a lengthy quote into the Anti-Zionism section: --- In the modern period, certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, some vehemently so. Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book ‘’A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism,’’ that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:
 * “The first of these is to prevent desecration of the name of God. And since the State of Israel often claims to be acting on behalf of all the world's Jews, and even in the name of Judaism, these Jews feel they must explain to the public, and primarily to non-Jews, the falsehood of this pretension. The second commandment is to preserve human life. By exposing the Judaic rejection of Zionism, they hope to protect Jews from the outrage they believe the State of Israel has generated among the nations of the world.”

--- BYT is well aware of how controversial any additions to this article are, and particularly, given the history of his lengthy and sustained disruption here in the past, how controversial his additions in particular are bound to be. More specifically, as has been explained to him numerous times in the past, the Anti-Zionism section is merely a summary of the lengthy Anti-Zionism article; as such, it should not contain quotes from any individuals, much less one-sided quotes like that. Please keep in mind the section should be a brief summary of the other article; the quote does not add any specific knowledge not already summarized in that section. BYT, it's quite disappointing that you tried to slip this in without any discussion, and then continued to revert it; if you would like to insert it, please explain why, and then get consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone interested in actually reading the archives (or perhaps re-reading them) will conclude that the quote was in fact discussed here, at length.  [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT] 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In don't see this particular quote mentioned there; where is it? I also note that the discussion you linked to was from August 2006, whereas you first slipped that quote into the article in January 2007. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, it was August of '06. See this diff. . As a direct result of the discussions on talk page that I cited. People asked me to come up with a cited reference from an authoritative source, remember? Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is not "lengthy" by my lights. Do you have some philosophical problem with the content? BYT 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The absurdly long sub-section was cut down to a reasonable size on December 26. Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is lengthy and one-sided, and certainly not appropriate for a summary section, as detailed above. The quote can be found in the Anti-Zionism article, where it belongs. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that's where you want it to go. I disagree. Could you clarify for me -- what WP policy compels us to segregate properly documented, reputably sourced criticism of this political philosophy to another article? BYT 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BYT, you're repeating months-old arguments, and please review straw man. Do you have any other response to my points above? Jayjg (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, the fact that you've dodged this question for months without answering it directly (and are dodging it now) does no great credit to your position. On your other points, I'd like to direct you to WP:OWN. You may benefit from taking a break for a while here. Signed, Editor Distinctly in the Minority Here. BYT 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've explained the reasons over and over; usually when I do that, you just start a new section, pretending that you haven't read or seen or understood the reasons. I'll repeat them one last time for you: As for your other ideas, WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus, and you would undoubtedly benefit from your "break" advice far more than I would. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Anti-Zionism section is merely a brief summary of a lengthy article on the topic. Therefore, it should briefly summarize, rather than containing lengthy references to and quotations from your own preferred author.
 * 2) The current summary fully encompasses the various viewpoints captured in the Anti-Zionism article.
 * 3) The quote itself is one-sided, and would only invite "counter-quotes", which also don't belong in an article summary section.
 * 4) Gathering consensus for controversial edits is extremely important.
 * 5) The people in question, Anti-Zionist Haredim, encompass perhaps 100,000 of the 14 million Jews in the world (under 1%), and 100,000 out of hundreds of millions of anti-Zionists (1/10 of 1% at best). Overemphasizing their specific beliefs is a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * I agree with Jayjg. I have no objection to the quote being on wikipedia, but the section should be a short summary of a longer article, Anti-Zionism, where the quote can usefully sit. BobFromBrockley 10:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC concering Rabin quote ...
... see link here. BYT 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(Rfc comment) I don't see any need for a lengthy 4-line quote in the anti-Zionism summary. There is a whole page for that material. The anti-Zionism section needs to be a general summary of the other article. Adding a quote from one person tips the balance, invites further unneccessary additions and is against the preferred article guidelines which state "..those sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the sub-topic covered in that section". So no, I don't believe this article should carry the quote.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 13:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question is whether the intensity of some Jewish opposition to Zionism has been covered adequately.
 * Must such content (quote or no quote) be segregated to the Anti-Zionism article?
 * The circle we've got now is, "There's a special section for Anti-Zionism, this topic is irrelevant elsewhere in the article..." leading inevitably to "This section is too long" and thus to "Anti-Zionism is where such material must go." Has anyone noticed that, by an extraordinary coincidence, the effect of this cycle over a period of months is to protect the Zionism article from reality-based critiques, in a way that we don't protect, say Communism or Feminism? BYT 14:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Answers: 1. According to guidelines - Yes it has been covered correctly per guidlelines. 2. This article is about Zionism, not anti-Zionism. Therefore detailed material should really go on the other page. 3. Criticism of communism is treated in the fashion outlined above. In summary style and a link to the relevant articles.See. There appears to be no coincidence nor protection going on by editors wishing to have a standard summary section here.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In summary Hope that helps. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The Anti-Zionism section is merely a brief summary of a lengthy article on the topic. Therefore, it should briefly summarize, rather than containing lengthy references to and quotations from your own preferred author.
 * 2) The current summary fully encompasses the various viewpoints captured in the Anti-Zionism article.
 * 3) The quote itself is one-sided, and would only invite "counter-quotes", which also don't belong in an article summary section.
 * 4) The people in question, Anti-Zionist Haredim, encompass perhaps 100,000 of the 14 million Jews in the world (under 1%), and 100,000 out of hundreds of millions of anti-Zionists (1/10 of 1% at best). Overemphasizing their specific beliefs is a violation of WP:NPOV.
 * 5) Asking whether such content "must (quote or no quote) be segregated to the Anti-Zionism article" is a straw man. There is no specific policy about which content must go in the main article, and which must go in the summary, and there never will be. However, both the Zionism and Anti-Zionism articles are quite lengthy (Zionism is 71k, and Anti-Zionism is 50k), and Anti-Zionism really is a movement and phenomenon in its own right. In general, this kind of division is extremely common; see, for example, Marxism and Criticisms of Marxism.


 * Why are you saying the section should only be a summary of the Anti-Zionism article? And why did you remove the material we had previously discussed without comment?  I'm replacing the two paragraphs you removed; can you please discuss these matters before deleting material?  It seems you're asking others to show this kind of respect. Mackan79 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll add more sources shortly. I would really love to have a dialogue here, because I have no intention of inserting something inflammatory or inappropriate, but simply think we should have a concise, sourced section which effectively summarizes the criticism in a fair way.  I have a hard time understanding how we can have an article on Zionism that barely mentions, for instance, the Muslim criticism.  If there are issues with the current phrasing, or if certain points seem inappropriate, I will not fight for something unreasonable.  Otherwise, I'm currently looking for more sources, since a couple editors were concerned about original research.  Mackan79 23:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding sources. It's a summary section, so add the sources to the main articles instead. There certainly shouldn't be anything in a summary section that is not found in the main articles. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt to turn this article into a clone of anti-Zionism
Mackan79, the content you are trying to add here may belong to anti-Zionism or some other articles related to the conflict. Please reread the title of this article. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Humus, are you aware that this material has been there for several months, and discussed previously? This is not another attempt to add material; I'm suggesting that the material should remain as it previously was.  I did read the title of the article, which is Zionism.  It strikes me that anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, being responses to Zionism, are relevant to that topic.  Can I ask why you disagree?  Also, if you oppose specific material, can I ask that you remove only that material?  Blanket reverts don't suggest good faith and cooperative editing.  I'll be adding sources as I find them, and would ask that you not continually revert me as I do this.  The material is extremely brief and summarized; if you'd like to remove it, at least get concensus first.  I think it would be much more productive to try to work towards an acceptable, sourced, and fair section, though, which is all I would like to see. Mackan79 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, many if not most articles related to Jews are under constant attack. "It was like this for a long time" is a frequent but a lame argument. There are separate articles on anti-Zionism, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. Please review WP:SUMMARY. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Humus, you have to pick one or the other. Either people should discuss before making bold controverted changes, or its ok to change anything you want whenever you want.  WP:BB suggests we should wait, and I have heard many people argue this on this very page, including Jayjg right above.  Also, please check out WP:POVFORK.  The existence of another article is not an excuse to gut any criticism on this page.  Several policies make clear that criticism of a topic, if noteworthy, should be mentioned within that article itself, not divided into other articles.  If you disagree, can I ask you to provide the policy to which you're referring?  The idea that we should not discuss criticism of Zionism in the article on Zionism seems very strange. 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yawn. Just as I said, another attempt to turn this article into a clone of anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you missed two points: 1. I did not add the material, which has in fact been here since 2003. . 2.  This criticism, anti-Zionism and post-Zionism section is somewhere less than 5% of the article.  I'm sorry that the article is constantly under attack, but this material was not part of such an attack.


 * Also, please try harder to be Civil. We should be able to discuss content without insulting each other.  I am making every effort to do this for you. Mackan79 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To explain my last revert further, I'm not sure that another 6.5k of text in a 71k article is appropriate for what is essentially a summary. Also, Mackan's version raises concerns of POV and undue weight. GabrielF 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all of the footnotes make it look very specific, but I'm not sure it is. Also, I'm not sure how you got 6.5K of text, but I imagine it includes the extensive footnotes I'm including to show it's not original research.  The text of those could be removed.  In any case, can you explain how focusing less than 10% of the article on Zionism on criticism and competing theories is undue weight in any case?  Again, we're talking about material which has been here for over three years.  I would think we should discuss this and reach concensus before simply removing it.  I appreciate your explanation, but I believe continuing to remove the material is also inappropriate, per WP:BB.  Can I ask that we discuss this first, and make changes as appropriate?  Mackan79 17:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the Zionism article. The Anti-Zionism and Post Zionism articles are eager for this material. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, can you explain how what you are advocating is not a WP:POVFORK? Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism are both subissues of Zionism, defined in their very names by Zionism.  What is your policy basis for removing this material? Mackan79 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackan79, all this has been discussed here at length. Please use search, read this page & its archives. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked and I can't find it. Could you please point where?  This material has been here for 3 years before Jayjg decided to remove it on February 1 without inviting comment or explaining in talk.  If there were previous discussions, it would seem they must have resolved to keep the material, no? Mackan79 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't even understand your point. Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism are different topics than Zionism, alternatives to them (or possibly opposition to them), and really movements in their own right. Since the amount of material on all these topics is very great, and there is no way they could be kept in one article anyway, separate articles have been developed to discuss these differing topics. At a very simple level you could compare it to Marxism and Criticisms of Marxism. Alternatively, you could look at it as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism. The Anti-Zionism article has been around since Sept 2002, so it's hardly a new thing. And, regardless of whether you view them as different movements or sub-topics, the main articles are elsewhere, so the primary information should be there, and a brief summary here. This has all been discussed at great length many times in the past, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up yet again. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, I didn't bring it up; you chose to remove material that has been here for more than three years. You also haven't been able to come up with a policy to support your removal of relevant, sourced, and under-weighted material.  Now you're claiming not to understand WP:POVFORK, even though you cite the policy all the time?


 * In any case, I'll see if I can find some additional compromise. The main problem is the complete failure to even mention Muslim criticism.  Is that not somewhat relevant?  Also, please note that the article has a substantial section on "international support".  This means the article has chosen to discuss not just the ideology, but responses as well, doesn't it?  Mackan79 05:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand WP:POVFORK, but your argument seems unrelated to it. Indeed, you insist on creating a POVFORK, which is baffling. As for the rest of your argument, please review straw man. I don't have to repeat myself, I've explained very clearly why detail that isn't in the main article should not be placed in the summary. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried again, with basic explanation in the edit summary. I appreciate the thought that we shouldn't get into details about criticism here, but the existence of Arab/Muslim criticism seems pretty huge. As to the other parts, I removed some details, but think it's appropriate in a section on Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism to at least give post-Zionism its own paragraph. I hope we can work with this; I'd like to make a few more changes, but thought I'd put that up for comment. Mackan79 03:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Content forking. When you insert into this section material not found in the main article, the result is a POV-fork. Beit Or 19:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you may have misunderstood the policy. As it states,


 * Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example wikipedia:summary style, which explains the technique.


 * Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.


 * What this says is that if you want to remove material from this article to the anti-Zionism page, then you "must" summarize that material on this page. It does not say material on one page must be limited to what appears on another page.  Could you clarify what you mean? Mackan79 20:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure which part you're talking about. Anti-Zionism discusses Muslim and Arab opposition in detail. Mackan79 21:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As per Content forking, this is a summary article. As there is an article on Anti-Zionism, a summary of that article needs to appear here. Any additional information should be added to the Anti-Zionism article and summarized here on the appropriate section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop removing all reference to Arab and Muslim opposition? Even if you were correctly representing the policy, that material is discussed at length in Anti-Zionism.  In any case, you're not correctly representing the policy, as I just laid out.  Would you please quote the policy section you're referring to? Mackan79 21:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review straw man. Also, you keep pretending you are simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually insert far more than that. If you were only inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", and the main article did indeed already have a copy of that information, then you might have a chance of getting somewhere. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never pretended anything of the sort. In fact, from the beginning, I've made clear that I think you are actually doing a whole number of things here which are inappropriate, including the deletion of long-standing material without discussion or concensus immediately after chastizing someone else for exactly that.  Nevertheless, one of your continuing actions has been to delete any and all mention of Arab and/or Muslim criticism.  I wasn't sure if you were aware of this. If it wasn't your intent, I'm glad to know.  Mackan79 05:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For 19 years, the W. Bank was occupied by Jordan, Gaza - by Egypt. I wonder if your theory can explain why were there no Palestinian intifadas to resist this "invasion of Palestinian land." Moreover, the Soviet post-1948 "anti-Zionism" was not any less furious than the Arab kind today (actually, the latter reused the Soviet terminology and imagery). Did Israel occupy a part of the USSR? Please stop promoting some kind of Dar al-Islam. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't trying to promote anything. It simply seemed odd to say "Many in the Arab world oppose Zionism," when at least in the current age, that opposition stands far above all others and is nearly universal.  Interestingly, if you saw the Karsh quote I provided below, it makes the same point from the very pro-Israeli perspective: arguing that Arab anti-Zionism is so much stronger clearly based on some underlying personal hostility (antisemitism).  Meanwhile, the English pro-Palestinian literature actually seems to minimize and gloss the extent to which the Muslim man-on-the-street is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist.  I found dozens of sources talking about Arab anti-Zionism before 1967, but most of the authors seem to avoid discussing it thereafter.  Needless to say, finding the right way to discuss the issue is rather delicate.  I'll try to find a way to avoid the language, based on your concern, but have simply found it difficult to do so effectively. Mackan79 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of fact
An editor as recently added a large number of fact (almost every sentence). That tag is not a "weapon" to assert a POV. An unsourced tag at the top of the article, and endeavoring to find sources (there are many, by the way...) is the preferred approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to assurt a POV. I added the tags, because many of the historical statements are unsourced. I just wanted to clarify which statements were unsourced.--Sefringle 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Arab/Muslim Opposition
I'm not sure why people are continually reverting any mention of Arab/Muslim opposition to Zionism. An argument is being made that material in this section must first appear on the Anti-Zionism or Post-Zionism page, per WP:POVFORK. There are simply two problems: 1.) WP:POVFORK doesn't say that, but also 2.) This material is discussed on Anti-Zionism at great length.

For reference, I had reduced the material on Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism to four sentences:


 * The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples, many of whom view Israel as occupying the Arab land of Palestine.[32][33] Generally opposed to the initial creation of a Jewish State in Palestine or the Arab world, these critics sometimes assert that Zionism is a form of racism.[34][35] These and other critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[36] and the accompanying violence, as negative consequences of the Zionist movement.[37] For Palestinians, opposition to Zionism is often said to lie in their own competing claim for nationhood.[38][39]

This section is being reduced to two sentences:


 * Critics of Zionism, such as Joseph Massad of Columbia University have asserted that Zionism is a form of racism,[32] both in its support of Israel as a Jewish State, and in its continuing policies such as the Law of Return. These critics view the changes in demographic balance which accompanied the creation of Israel, including the displacement of some 700,000 Arab refugees,[33] and the accompanying violence, as negative but inevitable consequences of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State.

Is there a reason we are not mentioning the opposition of Arabs and/or Muslims? Ironically, in the extended "International Support for Zionism" section above, we state that King Faisal I of Iraq supported Zionism. Mackan79 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep pretending you are simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually insert far more than that? If you were only inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", and the main article did indeed already have a copy of that information, then you might have a chance of getting somewhere. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jay, I said you are reverting any reference to Arab and Muslim opposition because that's exactly what you and others are doing. First you deleted the material altogether on February 1, and now I have been blanket reverted several times in trying to replace it, without any sort of explanation, specific objection, or proposed alternative. (I happen to think this is inappropriate, but I digress).  I guess now you're saying you would actually be open to additional material from the Anti-Zionism page.  So that's my fault again for not reading your mind?


 * The problem, secondly, is that your request seems nonsensical. Are you saying the section should simply be a definition of Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism, completely divorced from the article?  "Anti-Zionism is the opposition to Zionism, defined as [definition here].  Post-Zionism is [definition here]."  This would strike me as very strange.  I took what we had and reduced it to a 4-sentence summary of Muslim and Arab opposition to Zionism.  It strikes me as a very fair and appropriate treatment.  Could I ask, if you'd like to see something else, that you be a little more helpful in finding an alternative? Mackan79 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan79's addition: "The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples" - Says who? The quotes you add do not support this assertion. "The most"? - how was this measured? Here, you say "I did not add the material, which has in fact been here since 2003.", but this edit that you give has nothing in common with yours, M79. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The material has changed since 2003, but has remained in general form. The material on Muslim opposition was added later, and I then changed it further in the attempt to come up with a suitable compromise.  In any case, I'm not set on any phrasing. I had considered changing the first sentence, but I left it because it seemed good enough, and nobody had taken issue with it.  So could I suggest instead, "The earliest opposition to Zionism came from the Palestinian and Arab peoples, who tended to view..."?  I believe I could source that.  Or "Much criticism of Zionism comes from the Palestinian and Arab peoples," which the current source would support.  I could propose something else; I'm really just trying to state the obvious here, that the main opposition to Zionism comes from the Muslim world, which I think is pretty widely recognized.  I also think its basis should be noted at least briefly. Mackan79 04:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan79, it has been made quite clear to you that you should first add material to the main article, then try to summarize here. You have also continued to pretend that you were simply inserting "reference to Arab and Muslim opposition", when, in fact, you continually inserted far more than that. Furthermore, your insertions themselves were irredeemably POV bits of Original Research; for example, as pointed out by Humus Sapiens, you kept inserting the claim (apparently very important to you since you keep referring to it) that "The most vocal critics of Zionism tend to be the Palestinian and Arab peoples", when your sources did not claim anything of the sort. You also kept re-inserting other unsourced claims, such as "Among the notable minority threads within Zionism is one that holds Israelis to be a new nationality..." There's no "mind-reading" required here, just reading the comments of the people who are disputing your edits. When people say again and again "add new material to the main articles, not the summary", it shouldn't take some sort of genius to figure that they want you to add it to the main articles, not the summary. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Jay, you've said a number of times this section must come only from the WP articles on those subjects, but you haven't provided any support for that demand. Moreover, as I've pointed out, you appear to be profoundly misinterpreting WP:POVFORK, which states that forked material must be summarized in the original article, not that material must be forked and then summarized or deleted.  Am I wrong?  Could you explain?  Also, with all due respect, the "it has been made quite clear to you" and "then you might have a chance of getting somewhere" comments are starting to get out of hand.  Could we cut back on that?


 * As to the material itself, as I said to Humus, it has primarily been there for 3 years. Like much of the article, it was not entirely sourced, so I've been sourcing it.  Irredeemably POV?  I provided a host of sources with text; if you wanted to conform the text differently, you could have done that.  In any case, this is the first time you've raised NPOV, or particularly which parts you consider problematic.  Was I supposed to know that?  First I hear OR, then I hear that the material would be great for anti-Zionism but not here, now I hear that it's POV and so presumably not ok for anywhere. I'm supposed to decipher that?  I don't want to spar with you; I simply want you to explain why you don't like my edits when you revert them, so I can at least try to come up with something more agreeable.  Mackan79 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Put the detail in the main articles first, so we can understand it in context, then we can look at how to best summarize it. That's very clear, isn't it? Jayjg (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that it's what you want to see happen. I hardly see how it's clear that it is what must happen. Unless, of course, you own this article. BYT 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated on Feb 15, "WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus". Jayjg (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is you've been telling me I have to do something without even attempting to argue why. This may be perfectly clear from your perspective, but it's not particularly clear from mine.  Am I simply supposed to say "Yes sir, right away sir"?  When you make demands without explaining them, this seems to be what you expect. Mackan79 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasons why have been explained multiple times, for days. You respond with the same straw man arguments. Every person who has come here to comment on the RFC has said the same thing as well. Why do you insist on adding new material here, rather than in the main article, and summarizing here? Jayjg (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, the problem is that you have been deleting material without justification, and then throwing a long list of arbitrary demands at me only to change them immediately upon completion. There are in fact many reasons why I think this is inappropriate, but ultimately, what you are suggesting is a completely nonsensical policy.  There is no immediate synchronization requirement across WP, which would solely serve to prevent the incremental betterment of the encyclopedia as it is intended to be edited.  You are citing a policy which in no way supports your request, and in fact states the exact opposite, that if material is remove to another article, it must be summarized in the article from which it came.  This is why I object.  If you want to synchronize the material, that's great, but it doesn't entitle you to delete anything in the article which you decide to subject to this standard. Mackan79 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually didn't find this clear. I assumed that if I put it in the other article and then summarized it here I would have been chastized for system gaming or something similar.  I already wasted my time sourcing the section due to OR concerns only to be told, oh, no, it's actually something else.  In any case, I'm fine with the current version if it achieves concensus. Mackan79 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When, several days ago, I said It's a summary section, so add the sources to the main articles instead. There certainly shouldn't be anything in a summary section that is not found in the main articles. and This is the Zionism article. The Anti-Zionism and Post Zionism articles are eager for this material., how could I possibly have been more clear? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, do you believe that your saying something means I have to do it? Simply for reference, I asked you for a policy here,here,here,here and here. Mackan79 04:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been pointed to WP:POVFORK and straw man already. We don't have to keep repeating these things. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I've told you each of those times that you're clearly misinterpreting the policy, which prohibits the removal of critical material from an article without summarizing it, not requires the removal of critical information unless it's a summary. Have you responded?  I said this here,here,here,here and here.  I believe your argument is that the material in this article and other articles on those topics have to be identical.  That would be great, except it's simply not what the policy says.  Is this your argument?  You complain about straw men a lot, but it's somewhat ironic if you never say what your argument actually is.Mackan79 16:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have material in a summary section, but not in the main article, then obviously a POVFORK has been created. Common sense also applies. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What WP:POVFORK states is that if material is forked away, it must be summarized. It does not state that what remains must exclusively come directly from the larger article.  This would serve absolutely no purpose, and would be entirely counterproductive to the incremental betterment of WP, as well as the possibility that a section within an article might want to stress different material than is stressed in the generalized article on that subject.Mackan79 19:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the obsession to talk about disputes and antisemitism, eh sorry, anti zionism (same thing) in this article all the time. Clearly this article is only about Zionism. Unless you're well informed with Zionism, this article is probably not for you (speaking generally). This article should not be a source for disputes. Amoruso 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I understand you to say that an an article that's "only" about, say, Charlie Parker, should say only laudatory things about him? His heroin use, for instance, would be banned from any mention there, on the theory that it belonged in the anti-Parker article? And presumably an article "only" about the space program would have to omit reference to the Challenger and Columbia explosions, because these belong in the anti-space program article? You really are segmenting out large tracts of objective reality here. BYT 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See straw man. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re Humus' concern, I changed the phrase to "some of the most," which is supported by that source and many others. One other: Karsh, Efraim (2003). Rethinking the Middle East. Routledge, pg. 98. "Indeed, the fact that Arab anti-Zionism has invariably reflected a hatred well beyond the 'normal' level of hostility to be expected of a prolonged and bitter conflict would seem to suggest that, rather than being a response to Zionist activitiy, it is rather a manifestation of long-standing prejudice that has been brought out into the open by the viscisitudes of the Arab-Isarael conflict." Disregarding his conclusion, he seems to make the background point pretty clearly. If another phrasing is preferred, however, I remain open. Mackan79 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Some of the most..." is a good example of WP:WEASEL. Of course, the conflict is much deeper - and justifiably we have other articles dedicated to this. These quotes and discussion belong to anti-Zionism, not here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're now saying that this article shouldn't acknowledge Arab/Muslim opposition at all? Mackan79 14:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, please see WP:Weasel. There is an exception for when "the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion," as it is here. Mackan79 14:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Anti-Zionism. Don't see the material there yet. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See Anti-Zionism

See also Anti-zionism


 * "Modern anti-Zionism in the Arab world comes from a variety of ideological backgrounds:local nationalism, pan-Arab (or more rarely pan-Syrian) nationalism, Islamism, socialism, and anti-colonialism, to name a few. Anti-Zionism in some form is nearly universal as a popular sentiment. The principal objections to Zionism found in all varieties of Arab anti-Zionism are the views that the Palestinians' land was unjustly taken from them by the British Empire (through the Balfour Declaration) and subsequently by Israel, first in 1948 and then again starting in 1967; that this process continues today in the West Bank and Gaza Strip; and that the Palestinians are still suffering from its consequences. Different ideologies, however, emphasize different aspects of this, and differ on the appropriate response."

See also Anti-Zionism.

Incidentally, I agree (if this was a concern) that the dual reference to racism wasn't necessary, but I continue to think that some reference to Arab and Muslim opposition is necessary if not to whitewash the subject. I'll try something again later; suggestions welcomed. Mackan79 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that specific material, including the footnotes, in that section? Please make sure it is there first. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, if I may ask, are you holding up the hoops here, as though for a trained dog to jump through? Is there a policy point I'm missing here? If so, could you please cite it, as opposed to issuing orders? Once again, who gave you the deed of ownership on this article, please? BYT 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A better question is, what brings certain users here with 0 knowledge on the subject and 100% POV, to incessantly attempting to push it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated on Feb 15 and Feb 20 "WP:OWN is just a link you brandish whenever your specific agenda doesn't gain consensus".  Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Humus, you just deleted sourced text providing readers with an understanding of Arab and Palestinian responses to Zionism. Would you like to explain why you did this, or was it simply a whim that you don't feel like illuminating? BYT 03:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Search the previous section for Dar al-Islam. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:POINT. BYT, we aren't going to play that game where you ignore all previous comments on a Talk: page, and pretend they never happened, asking the same questions again and again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And precisely which point would I be "disrupting" WP to make? That Arab opposition to Zionism exists, and that mention of same is germane to this article? The republic shudders, yes. Now, to the heart of it: is the act of disagreeing with you somehow to be considered an assault now on the entire encyclopedia? Please do clarify precisely what you mean here, Jay. BYT 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the previous comments, and re-read straw man. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." I hardly see how this principle is relevant when I am not even attempting to ascribe any position to you, but instead  asking you, as the admin you are, for clarification on your implication, above, that I have somehow violated WP:POINT. Once again: What "point" do you believe me to be "disrupting" WP to make with this edit? BYT 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got no particular axe to grind, but whether anyone here is right or wrong I don't think any of you are arguing in a particularly reasonable fashion.


 * Jayjg and Humus sapiens, I can understand you may be frustrated by this argument, but to be honest, I don't think you've been particularly civil or helpful with your arguments. Coming to this page fresh and reading constant references to straw man arguments where there really doesn't seem to be one, and not directly answering many of the points made to you (mostly in very civil language) is not very good, especially as admins. Sorry, but it has to be said.


 * Mackan79 - although you appear to remain civil throughout and have asked several times for clarification on points that have not been answered, *you also* are guilty of not answering many of the points put to you. The same goes for BYT, although your responses generally match the frustrated tone of the admins, so nil point for you.


 * All 4 of you need to take a breath and perhaps *try* to find a consensus by answering the specific points made, none of this quoting guidelines back and forth shit. You're not here to win an argument (although that may be *your* agenda it's not what Wikipedia is for)


 * For example:
 * Mackan79, in response to the admins asking you to put stuff on the Anti-Zionism or Post-Zionism pages you say... "and the main article did indeed already have a copy of that information / This material is discussed on Anti-Zionism at great length.".  Well back it up! Instead of posting on the Zionism page and having them revert it why don't you post each change you wish to make here with a link supporting your assertion that what you've added is indeed in the Anti/Post Z pages?


 * Admins, Mackan79 makes this point - "I believe your argument is that the material in this article and other articles on those topics have to be identical. That would be great, except it's simply not what the policy says.  Is this your argument?  You complain about straw men a lot, but it's somewhat ironic if you never say what your argument actually is.". He's actually got a point. Just reciting "Straw man" or "put it in the other page" is not a good answer and I don't see much expansion. You've wasted just as much space repeating yourself so why not be detailed and precise? It's not enough to believe you are right (this goes for all of you).


 * We all get into silly arguments, and I certainly don't want to become embroiled in this one, but you must all understand that from an outside point of view this just looks like bickering, from *all* of you. Please, *give some slack* to each other and be civil and look for a way to work this out properly. Iainspeed 06:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

two references needed
In the section Zionism, I added two templates. Can someone please get references. I'll give ya'll at least two weeks.--Urthogie 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Added these. BYT 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
Citing only what proponents consider Zionism to be -- "diaspora nationalism" -- seems to violate WP:NPOV. BYT 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not undue weight to quote what those who believe in an ideology call their ideology on that ideology's page.--Urthogie 13:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then I would think it would not be undue weight to quote what those who don't believe in that ideology have to say about the matter. If for some reason you feel their opinions belong only at Anti-Zionism, I strongly disagree. Simplest way may be simply to omit the ref. But if we insist on quoting one side in the opening graph, we need to quote the other. BYT 13:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitions by those who believe/support the ideology receive more weight than those who criticize. This is not undue.  We define democracy as "rule by the people" because democrats advocate this point of view, even if they don't practice it.  We don't start in the lead with an ideological or instrumental criticism of democracy.  Your understanding of NPOV is very limited.  NPOV doesn't mean quoting both sides everywhere.  In the lead, for example, the main point is to define the subject, and only briefly touch on criticism.--Urthogie 13:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hear what you're saying, but I don't see what's "limited" about trying to implement this:


 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that are attributable to reliable published source(s).


 * Zionism is a controversial contemporary political ideology, and simply quoting the proponents' POV in the opener seems surrealistically unbalanced to me. In the opening graph, we've cited one side and have omitted all others. I'm at a loss to understand why the "diaspora nationalism" ref is even in the opening, because it appears to me to be opening up precisely this can of worms. It's compelling a collision course with the guideline above. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this. BYT 13:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that "diaspora nationalism" is not from a POV source. It's from a book on "nations and nationalism." There is therefore no NPOV issue, you're making this up. Even if this was a Zionist source (which it isn't), I'd still disagree with your interpreation of NPOV, by the way. But that's beside the point. This source is a book on nationalism in general, not a Zionist book.--Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie: what you originally wrote, and then (unhelpfully, in my view) removed so that it would not show up on the talk page, was;


 * It is a diaspora nationalism, though. People have opposed it, called it colonialism, imperialism, etc.  But noone has said its not a diaspora nationalism.  I'd like to see such a source.--Urthogie 13:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to either or both of your comments above, may I comment? We've moved rather uneasily into epistemology now: what Zionism "actually" is. My postmodernism decoder is down right now; let's not go there. Question is, is it balanced, in the opening graph, to cite only what proponents consider Zionism to "be". Let's have a discussion about that. BYT 14:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with your postmodernism decoder and everything to do with a book on nationalism. Not a book on the zionist cause, but on nationalism.--Urthogie 14:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again -- can we have a (civil) discussion about the balance of views presented in the opening graph?

It may be helpful for me to share a close analysis of section in question:

Described as a "diaspora nationalism,[3] <passive voice does not say who's doing the "describing">

... its <Zionism's> proponents ... <apparent referent "proponents" provides a clue, of dubious grammatical quality, to reader that the answer to the question "who's doing the describing" here is or could be this collective noun "its proponents" -- in any event, "its" must refer either to that collective noun or to "Zionism," in which case WP is guilty of failing to say, in the text of the article, precisely who describes Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism" -- or, for that matter, who describes it as something else.>

... regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.[4] <we are now definitely making a political statement from the point of view, and using the language of, "its proponents", and excluding the language of "its opponents," a courtesy we do not extend to, say, Irish nationalism, Note that Irish nationalism does not pretend to know what I.N. actually "is," or offer a single quote from a single volume to convey how it is "described," but the article rather points out that it is "contrasted" with the position of the Unionists, a concession to reality that appears to me worth modeling here.>  BYT 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yusuf, let's make this simple. Do you honestly know of someone who thinks "diaspora nationalism" is not a proper description of Zionism?  There are critics of zionism, calling it imperialism or colonialism, but none of them deny that it is a nationalist movement for the (re-)creation of a jewish homeland in israel.  I'd like you to find one.--Urthogie 15:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "let's make this simple" -- I don't think your tone is helpful. WP:CIVIL.


 * Most orthodox Jews circa 1900 certainly did not consider Zionism a diaspora nationalism, as they felt Jewish nationalism itself depended on the return of the Messiah.


 * My point is that this is one of dozens of possible ways to describe Zionism, and there is no good reason to choose terminology (like "diaspora") to describe (or, let's face it, define) Zionism that "its opponents" would never choose in a million years. We could also describe it, with a citation, as "an initiative bitterly opposed by U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall." Or as any number of other provocative things. That wouldn't make for a balanced opening graph, though.


 * I notice you don't have much to say about the parallels I just drew with the Irish Nationalism article, and consider that omission, along with your disregard of WP:CIVIL, to be a less than encouraging sign for our dialogue. Could you please comment on what I actually wrote? BYT 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Orthodox Jews don't deny that Zionism is a diaspora nationalism. They deny that it follows Jewish law.  Please find one source, then?--Urthogie 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Here. .


 * The problematic nature of this dilemma became apparent in the early stages of the Zionist project, with the coining of the term "Hebrew," used to distinguish between the Jews in the Diaspora and those in the Land of Israel, and to underscore the ancient historical link with the region...Over time, and paradoxically enough, the Canaanite stand, with its source in anti-Diaspora right-wing Zionism, ultimately joined forces with the anti-Zionist left, which is more concerned with the Palestinian problem, within and outside Israel. -- Jewish Identities: Fifty Intellectuals Answer Ben Gurion, Eliezer Ben Rafael, Brill Academic Publishers.

There's actually quite a lot to choose from in this particular part of the ocean. But I cite this quote against my better judgment, because (if I may) you are changing the subject (check the opening of this discussion). Specifically, you are ignoring my larger point, now repeatedly put to you, that "diaspora nationalism" is one of many possible, citable, ways to describe Zionism, and that there is no valid reason to pick it over something that a contemporary opponent of Zionism might come up with, other than the fact that it's presently popular in Israel. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 17:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This source doesn't fit the bill. Just because right wing zionism is anti-diaspora doesn't mean Zionism is not "diaspora nationalism".  Rather, what it refers to (if my reading is correct) is the opposition of right-wing zionists to Jews being in the diaspora, and espousing their views there.  It's about as "diaspora nationalistic" as you can get.  I think it's obvious to recognize once you see the entire book quote in context.  The next sentance is:


 * Boaz Evron (1988; 1995), for instance, a Canaanite of the first order, claims that at its inception, Zionism was an ideology of power that sprang from the position of weakness of Diaspora Jewry.


 * This is the "for instance" they supply-- "diaspora nationalism". What this is talking about is similar to the quote from Jabotinsky:


 * Eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you. (From "Tisha B'av 1937"))


 * It's "anti-diaspora", because it wants the diaspora in Israel. Diaspora nationalism.  Makes sense, no?--Urthogie 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Let's take this from a different angle. Is it your opinion that the reader should not be told, in the text of the article itself, precisely who "describes" Zionism as a "diaspora nationalism"? A yes or no will do. Thanks. BYT 18:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need to say who, because no reliable source disagrees with this, and it's not even a controversial point. Jews (from the diaspora) started a nationalist movement called Zionism.  This is not the controversial element, it's merely definitional, and even the most radical right-winger or left-winger acknowledges this as Zionism.  Encyclopedias are meant to show what knowledge is known of something in the world.  Currently, the world-- at least reliable sources-- acknowledge Zionism as a nationalism from the diaspora.  NPOV is not even related to this fact.--Urthogie 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

So your position is yes, we should avoid mentioning who holds this view in the opening graph.

With respect, that's irresponsible, because Adam Heribert, in Seeking Mandela: Peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians, (RoutledgeCavendish) holds that "extreme" Zionism is ethnic nationalism, another of the four types identified by Gellner.

Arnold Toynbee (to bring out the big guy) also holds that Zionism is ethnic nationalism. "... it is not ethnic nationalism per se that is bad, but Jewish ethnic nationalism, which should be given up and exchanged for another one." Arnold Toynbee on Judaism and Zionism: A Critique, Oskar K. Rabinowicz - 1974 (W.H. Allen).

There are dozens more like this, I believe. I repeat my suggestion that we work together to apply WP:NPOV to this article's opening graph. BYT 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This still doesn't contradict "diaspora nationalism". You can have an ethnicity (Jews) in a diaspora (Jewish diaspora). The term "ethnic nationalism" would actually not be very controversial, the reason we don't say it is because it's not descriptive enough-- it's obvious.  jews are an ethnicity.  This is their nationalism.  Ethnic nationalism, sure. However, we don't say that because it doesn't explain what's so distinct about Zionism, which is the whole point of this article.  We're not trying to make obvious points such as Jews are an ethnicity, but rather that Zionism is unique for these reasons, here's some info about it.  This is really more of a style issue than an NPOV issue. --Urthogie 19:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And this brings us (back) to my point. Why are we using your formulation, rather than Toynbee's? Because you say it's unique to Zionism? BYT 19:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, I want to point out NPOV no longer has anything to do with this. The view that it's ethnic nationalism is not an "opposing view" to the view that it's diaspora nationalism.  Given that both are true, there's no NPOV issue.  This is merely a style issue.  Once you're ready to deal with it as such this conversation can progress.--Urthogie 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We can put the change under whatever category you want. I suggest we rewrite the sentence in question so that it reads:

Zionism's aim was and is the self-determination of the Jewish people; it has today become a form of ethnic nationalism. BYT 19:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ...It always was ethnic nationalism, if we define Jews as an ethnicity. This largely depends on whether you view Judaism as an ethnicity... kind of a slippery slope.  See Who is a Jew? for various views.  I don't support this change.  If Jews are an ethnicity then its obvious, if they aren't then its POV.  But noone disagrees that there is a jewish diaspora, so the current version is definitely more solid.--Urthogie 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Urthogie, we have a problem here, and my sense is you're not being very serious about working collaboratively to resolve it. a) If "ethnic nationalism" is (as you plainly state above) essentially as "true" as "diaspora nationalism," and if I've got reputable sources identifying Zionism as "ethnic nationalism," why then should we prefer "diaspora nationalism" over "ethnic nationalism" (or over a choice not to mention either category)? Other than your personal preference, I mean?


 * Bear in mind that there is a strain of academic opinion that holds "diaspora nationalism" to be identical to "ethnic nationalism." Note too that I'm quoting you in the following three-word phrase: "Ethnic nationalism, sure." For you then to turn around and start questioning whether Jewish ethnicity exists in the first place seems disingenuous.


 * Are you willing to edit this article collaboratively, or aren't you? If so, what do you suggest the sentence should look like? BYT 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually am discussing this constructively, just not to your liking in my opinions. This is how conensus is built.  First you have to acknowledge my point: "ethnic nationalism" implies Judaism is an ethnicity, something on which reasonable minds can disagree.  Noone reliable disagrees that this is diaspora nationalism.--Urthogie 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not so much a matter of me not liking your opinion as me pointing out that your opinions occasionally contradict each other. Either Jewish ethnicity is "obvious" (your word) or it is "something on which reasonable minds can disagree" (your words). Let's call it an evolution in the discussion.


 * Given that the opening of this and every article is supposed to be "written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article" and given that it is "even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible" WP:LEAD, do you think the sentence under dispute is as clear as it should be?


 * I've given you my draft; it doesn't work for you. Fair enough. What would you offer in turn, given that this is a constructive conversation we're having? BYT 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to specify the source of the quote if it doesn't take up too much of the sentence.--Urthogie 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that does nothing to address the concerns I've raised here.


 * Suppose we simply move any discussion of diaspora nationalism to a later point in the article? It is, after all, an undefined term of greater complexity than the casual reader can realistically be expected to grasp without some explanation. (Does it refer to a variety of different nationalist movements, that of the Kurds of the present day, say, or specifically to the historical Zionist one? The answer appears to depend on whether you are looking at a book specifically about Zionism.)


 * As it stands, the sentence strongly implies that the proponents of Zionism are the most notable groups or individuals to endorse this description, which is either misleading or (if true) a big POV issue.


 * As it stands, we have no reference to the fact that some people view generic "diaspora nationalism" as indistinguishable from ethnic nationalism, and challenge the label itself.


 * As it stands, we have no acknowledgment that there were Zionists who wanted to cut off all ties to European Jewry and call themselves "Canaanites". It's just too complex an issue to handle in the opening graph. BYT 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've offered a compromise which even I dislike and you've rejected it. I guess that's what you call constructive.  How is it constructive that you say this is a complex POV issue when noone disagrees with the phrase "diaspora nationalism"..except apparently you?  I don't see how this is constructive.--Urthogie 00:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You don't even offer a draft of the passage under dispute, and you call that trying to work collaboratively? "Compromise" means you get precisely the terminology you want, only in more detail. Give me a break. This article really is a perfect metaphor for the mess in the Mideast. You get to say what Zionism "is," from your chosen sources, and in your words. Do you actually want an improvement in the process here? I think not. Fine. Back to battling edits. BYT 00:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky's notability
Institute of Historical Review of Chomsky's ''The Fateful Triangle"

New York Review of books on "The Fateful Triangle"

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs on "The Fateful Triangle"

"The Fateful Triangle" referenced in Publishers Weekly

Chomsky interview on Zionism -- ZNET

Tikkun interview with Chomsky on Israel, Zionism, 9/11, other political issues -- this piece cites poll naming him as "the most important public intellectual in the world today."

Thought and Action interview with Chomsky on Middle East and political issues

Chomsky interviewed at Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

-- BYT 02:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You've introduced a POV issue where there wasn't one. The lead isn't a place for individual POV's., it's a place for summarizing the article.  There is no section on Chomsky in this article, and yet you have added him to the first paragraph of the lead.  "Diaspora nationalism" is not a POV, as even anti-Zionists recognize it as a definition.  Chomsky's quote however, is a POV, although its admittedly a notable one.  However, being notable does not qualify one for the lead.  I suggest you add him to the anti-Zionism section of the article.  Putting him in the lead is in violation of the Wikipedia guideline Lead, which suggests we should deal with criticism in general, not a specific criticism.  Notice that there is no quote in support of Zionism.  "Diaspora nationalism" is not from a pro-Zionist book, it's from a book defining and discussing nationalism.


 * I'd like to remind you that you came here claiming there was POV issue. When we looked at the source, we found that there wasn't.  Keep this in mind, that you came in here somehwat like a bull in a china shop.  And keep in mind that consensus (being constructive) is not only based on democracy, but on basing one's arguments on guidelines and logic.  So far you've falsely raised NPOV, and are now violating Urthogie 11:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: " Putting him in the lead is in violation of the Wikipedia guideline Lead, which suggests we should deal with criticism in general, not a specific criticism." --- do I understand you to say that the opening paragraph should "deal with criticism in general"? BYT 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please add a sentence on anti-zionism. We'll try to gain consensus on a good one.  Quoting chomsky though, I think we can agree, is not a good replacement for summarizing anti-zionism.--Urthogie 11:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think the sentence would be more likely to work if we crafted one together. How do you think it should read? (In other words, what is the sequence of words you recommend placing in the opening paragraph?) Let's WP:TALK it over. 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How about:

"opposition to Zionism has come from a variety of areas, ranging from religious to nationalist to political dissent of the ideology as either immoral or impractical."

How would you modify that?--Urthogie 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have it read:


 * Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism <Palestinian critic ref here> to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical <Chomsky Reader ref here>


 * Chomsky seems to me to deserve a fuller examination in the anti-Zionism section.


 * What think? BYT 13:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, and I want to point out your point about adding criticism to the lead was a good point, but you approached it in the wrong way by focusing on the "diaspora nationalism" quote which is completely NPOV and actually regarded universally as true.--Urthogie 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for forwarding a draft for us to discuss. You will not revert this if I put it in, correct? BYT 14:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct, assuming you add the version discussed here.--Urthogie 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We did it. Many thanks, and look forward to working with you to improve the article. I've removed the POV tag. BYT 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think the reference is even necessary, as it's not a disputable sentence. Mind if I remove it, per References?--Urthogie 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I do mind. The principle is to cite references. WP:CITE holds that we should cite "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" and points out that "any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." Clearly this is a controversial topic, so citing major points in the opening graph, as we agreed above, is appropriate. BYT 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone's going to challenge this sentence. This is a controversial subject but it's not controversial that there are a variey of opinions such as anti-Zionism Zionism etc.  If someone removes the sentence without discussion, I'll revert them.  This is mainly a style issue.--Urthogie 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All the same, I believe the reference should stay, as you and I agreed above. If someone takes it out I will put it back in, per WP:CITE. 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE has nothing about being allowed to restore unnecessary references. The question here is if its necessary. It's clearly not.--Urthogie 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It also says nothing about making peremptory decisions about what is or is not necessary. Nor does it give you, or anyone else, any special authority to identify what is "clearly" necessary, and exclude other cites. This is your own viewpoint, this "necessary" business -- our guideline puts an exclamation point after the words "Cite it" and says nothing whatsoever -- not one syllable -- about removing citations. You should stick by your agreements. BYT 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is clearly unnecessary. Pointing out that this is my opinion adds nothing to the discussion.  Why do you think its necessary?  Do you know of a single reliable source which goes against the sentence? (By the way, I am sticking to the agreement... notice how I haven't removed the citation, but discussed it first.)--Urthogie 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why am I pointing out that it's your opinion? Because you're treating it as a fact. What's "clearly unnecessary" to you is irrelevant. Your sticking the words "clearly" or "obviously" in front of your opinion doesn't turn it into objective reality. The objective reality here is twofold: 1) we agreed to it, and 2) there is not a whisper of authority in WP:CITE that authorizes, or even suggests, the removal of the cite. Peace, BYT 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the question is if its unecessary. If it's unecessesary, it wouldn't be in line with Cite.  So why do you think someone would remove this sentence?--Urthogie 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: "Well the question is if its unnecessary." I'm not at all sure that is the question. Who made that the question? I think a better question would be "Is this or is this not what we just agreed on?" Followed closely by "What should we work on next?"BYT 19:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Cite for Weizmann quote
<i>“With regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence.” Weizmann quoted by Arthur Ruppin [ Fateful Triangle, p481, see source: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140] )</I>

And other mainstream cites, including:

A.N. Wilson: The Decline of Britain in the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 104

If there's persuasive evidence this is a fake quote, please supply it and discuss it here, rather than simply removing cited material. BYT 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's original research; how do you know he's talking about Zionism and "expulsion"? Also, where did he say this, and what makes it significant? Clearly sourcing it to Fateful Triangle won't do, that's a polemic written by a non-historian. I'm removing it on those grounds. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I hardly see how it's original research, inasmuch as Weizmann also described the native population as "obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." (Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry By Michael P. Prior; Routledge, 1999.)


 * You're right, though, his position should be made all the clearer for readers. In any event the "Negroes" quote is manifestly relevant to a discussion of Zionism and the Arabs.


 * Note that I sourced the quote to historian, not to Chomsky, though Chomsky would certainly be a notable author on this topic, whether or not you personally regard "The Fateful Triangle" as a polemic.


 * As I say, though, I sourced to a mainstream historian to avoid just such misunderstandings. And I'll replace it on those grounds. BYT 22:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bringing in a second alleged quote doesn't make a first alleged quote any less original research. You seem to be pulling together disparate alleged quotes from dubious sources in order to allege some sort of belief Weizmann or Zionists held about Arabs. Wikipedia is not the place for your "similar veins" and your undue emphasis on obscure and dubious claims. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I want to recap what's happened here.


 * First Humus said it was a false quote, which I personally believe to be a failure to assume good intent.


 * Now no one is saying the word "false," but rather insisting that it's an "alleged" quote, despite my having brought my sources.


 * Once again, the text under dispute is cited in A.N. Wilson: The Decline of Britain in the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 104 -- I think the "alleged" and "dubious" business is out of line, unless all cited quotes in the article are now to be regarded as "alleged" and "dubious," in which case we'd better remove them all, eh?


 * You claimed I was placing original research in the article. I think you may be mistaken on that one.


 * Let's look at what original research actually refers to. It prohibits "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Is it really an unpublished fact, argument, concept, or theory to claim that Weizmann promoted expulsion (or "transfer")? Is claiming that he described Arabs as "Negroes," in referring to the "Arab question," really an unpublished fact, argument, concept, statment, or theory? More to the point, are these cites germane to the article, and to the section?


 * As for supposed undue emphasis, may I respectfully suggest that we look a little closer at that page, please? We will find that it demands that we "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I think attempting to use this regulation to prohibit quotations of the stated opinions of the first president of Israel is just a bit of a stretch. BYT 23:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I remember reading a discussion about this particular quote as a fake. It is copy/pasted from one unreliable (to put it mildly) source to another, one variation is "kushim" instead of the N-word. So which one was it? The books you quoted are not RS. Even if proven true (the burden is on you), I also don't see how it would be relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, please keep in mind that I am me, not other editors. Second, keep in mind that all significant views must be presented; conspiracist polemics don't count. According to which reliable historian did Weizmann promote expulsion? Name and quote them please. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, what source did A.N. Wilson give for that alleged quote? Please give the footnote, thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

a: "Promote" is a red herring, I think, Jay -- we're talking about "opinions" of leading Zionists. That's what the passage in question is about. Here's your quote: "Although he did not declare it openly, his conversation with fellow delegate Aaran Aaronsohn shows that he regarded the expulsion of the Arabs as a prerequisite (see Masalha 1992: 12-13). Weizmann described the native population as the rocks of Judea, obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path. (see Flapa 1979: 56, and Ingrams 1972:31-32)' (Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry By Michael P. Prior; Routledge, 1999, page 192.)  By what possible calculus does a description of Weizmann's views on this issue constitute original research? Again, I encourage you to read the actual text of what you're citing.

b: Humus, your simply declaring that everything I've cited is "not a reliable source" seems inappropriate and counterproductive to me.

c: If the quote is fake, we shouldn't use it. Let me do some digging. BYT 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * O.K., so you're promoting the view of Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought and Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry; as I said, a particularly narrow, polemic view. So, what was the actual source for the "quote"? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and try not to tell me what I'm promoting. I'll show you the same courtesy, okay?

By the way, the speed with which something you disagree with becomes "narrow" and "polemic" makes my head spin. Something tells me the problem with those books is that you disagree with them. And let's face it, when you disagree with them, the standards shift around here.

("What's the REAL source for Beowulf? Huh? Did you look at the manuscript? Or are you just looking at a copy? Hmmmmmmmm?")

Now, here's the part where we build some trust and actually start working on the article together, Jay, just like we're freaking supposed to.

FYI, I did some research on Wilson and found he had been involved in a literary hoax that involved preying on his weakness for using unsubstantiated quotes in nonfiction works. That's got my spider-sense tingling.

Maybe he fell for something here, too, in which case I'll withdraw the edit. Something tells me Chomsky wouldn't use something like this and cite "Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamdina (Jerusalem, 1985), p.140" unless he was sure of his stuff. Oh, wait, I forgot, Chomsky is the antichrist.

Howzabout you let me try to figure out if someone other than ardent Zionists has objected to this, okay? You guys may well be right. If you are, problem solved. If you're not, you can go back to tag-teaming me if that makes you feel better, but personally I hope you'll eventually start thinking about ways to pursue "truth even unto its innermost parts" with me on this woefully unbalanced article, to use Louis Brandeis's phrase. (A plug for my alma mater, sorry.) BYT 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BYT, if anyone needs to "calm down" it's you. Every time you start trying to insert negative material into Zionism related articles (which, of course, is all you ever do on Zionism related articles) you get all worked up, then the Talk: comments become longer and longer, interminable reprises of everything you ever imagined happened on the article, new sections every day repeating your previous posts, etc. Take a deep breath, and step back. Also, please avoid straw man arguments; Chomsky is not a historian, but rather a linguist who writes polemical works about (among other things) Israel and Zionism. That doesn't make him "the antichrist", but it also means he's not a reliable source when it comes to these topics. Feel free to quote him on linguistic theory. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

That "straw man" thing is getting a little old -- why don't you wait until I actually ascribe a position to someone before accusing me of doing so inaccurately?

Back to our top story tonight ...

'''More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann once told to Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value." Y. Heller, Bamavak Lemedinah: Hamediniyut Hatziyonit Bashanim 1936-48 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-48 (Jerusalem, 1984), p.140. '''

Not a whisper I can find from any source that this is a falsified quote -- to the contrary, it shows up again and again, obviously translated from the Hebrew into more than one version. BYT 02:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is this the best source you could come up with? BYT, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Minus point for your inability to show a RS - a secondhand (or is it 3rd?) "anecdote" won't work. Another minus point for promoting a mistranslation of Kushim (Ethiopians) as a nasty English racist slur - no doubt someone put there intentionally - not you, but you actively and irresponsibly spread it. Minus point for your repeated propagandist attempts to misrepresent the subject: mainstream of Zionist movement. You keep throwing mud in hope that some will stick. Finally, a minus point for your childish tantrums such as above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * For those interested, the "bar" has been raised such that the four RS Engllish-language citations I have provided for this quote thus far somehow are being "spun" as inadequate.


 * There is an inexplicable silence about the fact that I have in fact sourced the quote to its original Hebrew publication <<Y. Heller, Bamavak Lemedinah: Hamediniyut Hatziyonit Bashanim 1936-48 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-48 (Jerusalem, 1984), p.140.>>, and offered two translations of the same remark, thus confirming the basic content of the passage.


 * We are left with the question of whether the cited remarks of a future President of Israel on "the Arab question" are relevant to a section on Zionism and the Arabs. BYT 10:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see we've already moved into the phase of the discussion where you start reprising everything you ever imagined happened on the Talk: page. That didn't take long. Anyway, how can you possibly have sourced the quote to Y. Heller, Bamavak Lemedinah: Hamediniyut Hatziyonit Bashanim - do you read Hebrew? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, Jay, I think a more relevant question would be, "Why are the four English-language citations I provided insufficient?" BYT 11:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Review WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the reminder on that. Here's what it says. "Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known .... should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." Not a word about it having to be an original source, by the way, but I will cite that below nonetheless, under "Source the first." If I may summarize:

Source the first: "The British told us that there are some hundred thousands Negroes [kushim - in the original Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - (Protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech at Jewish Agency Executive, 20 May 1936. In Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)

Source the second: "Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine "there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'" History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995).

Source the third: "More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ["kushim"] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine;  currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England.  He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992);  'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996';  editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993).

Source the fourth: "The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991.

Source the fifth: "Chaim Weizman, Israel's first president, once noted that, "there are a few hundred thousand negroes [in Palestine], but that is a matter of no significance." Israel's 'apartheid' should not be allowed, Jeremy Tully, Johns-Hopkins Newsletter, November 15, 2002.

Source the sixth: "Several hundred thousand Negroes" remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10.

Source the seventh: "Chaim Weizmann, a future president of Israel, noted in 1917 that the British had told him that there was a population in Palestine of 'a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'" Mark Zepezauer: 'Boomering'. Common Courage Press, 2003. BYT 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked for reliable sources. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A new user might conclude -- erroneously, perhaps -- that you regard any source with which you disagree as unreliable.
 * I'm sure that's not what you mean, though. What specific problems are you having with the seven cites above? (Not with one, I'm asking, but with seven.) BYT 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure if you search some more, you'll find more than seven. This is not the first time for one unreliable source to regurgitate an anecdote from another. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (R)esearch that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.' (Quoting WP:OR, a text appealed to so instinctively here that I would assume everyone on this page would have memorized by this point; yet it is apparently slipping some people's minds at the moment. Emphasis has been added.)


 * Humus: You started out this conversation insisting that the quote was fraudulent (an example of failing to assume good fatih, in my view).''


 * You then moved on to claiming that the first two sources I had provided were not reliable.


 * Then to claiming that all four of the sources I then provided were not reliable.


 * Then (above) to claiming that all seven of the sources I had provided were not reliable.


 * You have not provided any evidence, or indeed any comment whatseover, on why, specifically, we should consider Yosef Heller's book to be unreliable, or why we should consider the Journal of Palestine Studies unreliable. I asked you to comment on these sources, not on me or what I might do next. Is there a reason you don't want to do this? BYT 11:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't "move", my position is the same: 1) I question the reliability of your sources and 2) relevance of the alleged quote to the subject. Even your "sources" call it an anecdote and use various wording for the same "quote", except the English-language racist slur which Weizmann did not use in Hebrew. BYT, you'll have to work hard to regain my good faith. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The first source, Heller, is, of course, not your own, since you've never read it; please stop making this misleading claim. Your second, third and fourth sources are polemics, all too eager to repeat dubious rumors. Your fifth source, a Johns-Hopkins newsletter? Please. Your sixth source, and only good one (Wilson) merely says it is "attributed" to Weizmann; and for good reason - a real historian can sniff out iffy claims. Your seventh source? More of the same, from a cartoonist. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Careful here. Someone reading too hastily might conclude that one editor's personal dismissal of something as "polemics, all too eager to repeat dubious rumors" somehow invalidates the source.
 * Surely if you have a serious question with authenticity here (and it sounds as though you do), you should be able to include a supporting citation to that effect in the article? Or reference such a citation on the talk page?
 * Or is it that such a citation does not exist?
 * You're not suggesting that it's your opinion we're concerned with, rather than those of scholars in the field, Jay? There has not been anything I've seen that supports the original assertion that the quote was falsified.
 * Is that what you're saying, or isn't it? BYT 10:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please deal with the points made, rather than attacking those who make them and trying to put words in their mouths. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky often doesn't use primary sources for his quotes. I've even emailed him about this other fake quote he used and he blamed it on a secondary source (Flapan).--Urthogie 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again: (citable) evidence that the quote is inauthentic is ... ? BYT 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BYT, you were unable to produce a reliable source for that "anecdote" in the first place, so your request to prove it's a fake is unreasonable. There are more fakes where this came from - would you need "(citable) evidence that the quote is inauthentic" for each? ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Humus, you intially claimed that I was inserting a false quote. Is that still what you're saying, or isn't it? If so, on what do you base your claim? BYT 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard it from him myself. But seriously, I remember reading about this as a fake quote, but I don't remember where. Even your best source admits that it is a third-hand anecdote. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jokes aside, do you have any evidence to back up this claim? If you don't, it's okay to say, "No, I don't." BYT 20:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you insist on adding a third-hand anecdote, the burden is on you. Also your addition contains a very tendentious interpretations. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

These references are all extremely removed and partisan reproductions of the quote, and the entire thing really smacks of mistranslation/noncontext. I recommend that the original be provided if we don't want it viewed through the lens of extreme POV sourcing.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BYT, you keep citing "Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140)". Have you actually read that source? I believe it is in Hebrew. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if this dubious material is accurate, it appears to be more suited to the Anti-Zionism article; the claims made in it are brought up almost solely by anti-Zionists, in polemic works. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure article belongs wikiproject Palestine
I'm happy to see that WikiProject Palestine appears to be getting off its feet. However, I am not sure this article belongs in WikiProject Palestine. While Zionism undoubtedly had a massive effect on the lives of Palestinians. It is a Jewish (Israeli) ideology not a Palestinian one. I feel that including Zionism as part WP: Palestine is the equivalent of including the articles about arab nationalism or Fatah in WP: Israel. Perhaps this discussion should be continued on another page so that all issues over jurisdiction can be ironed out. Oneworld25 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think an article about Apartheid would belong in a WikiProject South Africa? BYT 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The post above is an example of the kind of "scholarship" that articles related to Jews and Israel attract. WikiProject Palestine seems to be ambiguously covering both the geographic region of Palestine (which includes territory of Israel) and Palestinian politics (which includes fighters against racism such as Hamas). ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Slim
Re: (Brandon, AN WIlson is not a historian, or any kind of serious researcher in this area; for a contentious edit like this, you would need an academic source or otherwise recognized specialist.)

Clarifying: Slim, what kind of source, specifically, do you feel would qualify as an "academic source or otherwise recognized specialist"?

I want to be sure I am hitting the mark for you, and it would be disappointing to both of us if I went out, purchased something in Hebrew, purchased something else that translated it, sat both of the volumes down, and carefully transcribed them for the benefit of discussion here, only to learn that some T had not been crossed or some I was missing a dot.

I know you will be fair about this. Please let me know clearly what I'm aiming for here. I have provided not one, but seven citations for this quote thus far. BYT 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Brandon, I don't know who the other sources were that you've provided previously. AN Wilson is just a journalist and popular writer. You would need someone who really is a historian, I suppose, or some other recognized scholar in this area. I'll take a look through the history to see if I can find the sources you've supplied already. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Those sources seem fine to me, Brandon. It might be a good idea to add a couple of the more academic ones as additional refs just to stave off disputes in the future. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added them. BYT 17:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, thanks. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

BYT, please refer back to the discussion above. As has been explained many times, there are issues with the claims and sources, and you can't keep starting new sections to discuss material that has previously been discussed. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not WP:OWN this article, Jay. The cites are relevant, accurate, and exhaustively sourced. BYT 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and neither do you. Please be WP:CIVIL, and respond to the questions above. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to make people go through this again, but I can't see what's wrong with the sources for that quote. One of them is Ghada Karmi, a writer in London who is a research fellow at the Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, which I believe is part of Exeter University; and according to her Wikipedia article, she's also an associate fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and a visiting professor at London Metropolitan University. She cites this quote in The Palestinian Exodus, 1948-1998, p. 66. There's a footnote after the quote which I can't see; it would be good to find out where she says the quote comes from. We could perhaps make clear in the edit that it's a quote attributed to Weizmann, rather than something we know for sure that he said, though it's always the case with quotes that we can't be 100 percent sure that people really did say them. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  18:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone is taking it from one source, Heller. Here, for example, is the footnote in this book. The claimed quote is dubious in my view, but more importantly, it doesn't seem particularly relevant to the actual topic of Zionism. Anti-Zionist authors have taken an extreme comment, allegedly made in an off-hand aside, and suggested that it is actually a key component of Zionism. In actuality, it is one of the key components of Anti-Zionism, broadcasting extremist quotes (real or invented), and asserting that it is they that are the true face of Zionism, not the actual formal statements, policies, actions, of Zionists. As far as I can tell, no-one here has actually seen the quote in question; BYT keeps citing it as if he's read it, but he refuses to actually say he has, and I don't think BYT reads Hebrew. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't see the footnote in the link you gave; did he take it from Heller, and can you say what page it's on?


 * If all roads lead to Heller, and if he doesn't say where he got it from, you're right to be suspicious, but the quote is not out of sync with other things that were said. I took a quick look through the books I have here to see whether I could find the quote, and I couldn't, but I found others that are consistent with it e.g. when Weizmann says the Arabs were too "primitive" to understand democracy (attributed to a conversation with Einstein, and the date is given, so it seems legit), and this was very much the British position at the time, so not surprising that Weizmann held it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the link, and all roads do lead to Heller. From my point of view, even if accurate, this is not really about Zionism, but rather an argument made by anti-Zionists, based, again, on some alleged off-the-cuff statements: "oh, look, see how terribly racist these Zionists were, of course they planned to colonize and rob the Arabs". The attempts to focus this article on these anti-Zionist arguments and narratives, is, at best, undue weight, and might fit better, if anywhere, in the anti-Zionism article. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say if the idea of transfer was discussed by leading Zionists, and it was, it's relevant to the history of Zionism. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, but do you think that specific material should be restored? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, though it needs to be written differently, and preferably not attributed to AN Wilson. We could say that Heller has attributed a statement to Weizmann allegedly made during a speech to the Jewish agency in 1936 that "quote," and we should quote Heller insofar as we know what he actually said, not the other secondary sources. I'm also told Negroes may not be the best translation for kushim in this context, because it's apparently unusual to refer to Arabs as kushim in Israel, and that "dark-skinned people" may be a better translation (though this was pre-Israel, so who knows). This is why we need to use Heller's original reporting of the speech. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So what do you guys need to see from me? BYT 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would probably be helpful to find the original Heller paper, just to nail it down, but that needn't be left to you; we can all help to look for it. Otherwise, I feel it's okay to include it in the meantime with the secondary sources we have, although it might be an idea to write it differently to indicate that the attribution isn't 100 percent. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The anecdote is mistranslated, badly attributed, and wrapped in inflammatory rhetoric. Even if is better sourced, a few editors questioned whether it belongs in this article. IMO, this combination constitutes WP:REDFLAG. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, what do you need to see from me on this? We should resolve this by working collaboratively. BYT 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * First we would need to clear something up. You keep citing "Yosef Heller, Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 [The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948] Jerusalem, 1984, p.140". Have you actually read that work? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. Lots of people quote things here that they haven't read. You may have noticed that article contains lots of quotes that were originally written or spoken in Hebrew. Are you saying that we should remove all of those quotes until we can prove that the editor who posted each one read the source in the original Hebrew?
 * This is an English-language encyclopedia, Jay. BYT 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:CITE. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. And your prevailing assumption here -- which you are, I must concede, laboring inspiringly and manfully to avoid discussing -- is that the cite for any such quote must lead directly to the original words spoken in the original tongue. (I.E., Hebrew.) This is what happens when we keep raising Heller, is it not?


 * I will ask you once again: Is this "original tongue" standard something you are planning to apply to all quotes in this article of yours? Is it required by Wikipedia, or by you?


 * I would also like to know: If I dutifully track down hard-copy originals of one or more of the following sources, scan the pages into PDFs, and, then, say, e-mail them to you for your approval, would that be sufficient to convince you that the sources in question actually do reference the Weizmann quote?

"Finkelstein: 'Chaim Weizmann once blandly observed that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no signifiicance.'' History's Verdict: The Cherokee Case. Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Summer, 1995)."

"Masalha: 'More revealing, however, is the anecdote Weizmann (Israel's first President) once told Arthur Ruppin, the head of the colonization department of the Jewish Agency, about how he (Weizmann) obtained the Balfour Declaration in 1917. When Ruppin asked what he thought about the indigenous Palestinians, Weizmann said: 'The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes ['kushim'] and for those there is no value.' Israel's Moral Responsibility Toward the Palestinian Refugees, paper by Dr. Nur Masalha. (Masalha is a former assistant professor of Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bir Zeit University, West Bank, Palestine; currently Reader in Religion and Politics at the School of Theology, Philosophy and History, St Mary's University College, England.  He is the author of 'Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought' (1992);  'Israel and the Palestinians, 1949-1996';  editor of 'The Palestinians in Israel' (1993)."

"Chomsky: 'The perspective is traditional. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel and the most revered Zionist figure, remarked that the British had informed him that in Palestine 'there are a few hundred thousand Negroes, but that is a matter of no significance.'' Deterring Democracy, Noam Chomsky. South End Press, 1991."

"Wilson: 'Several hundred thousand Negroes' remark attributed to Weizmann. A.N. Wilson: 'After the Victorians: The Decline of Britain in the World'. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Page 10."


 * Or would I perhaps be required to study Hebrew for a few years, so I could repeat the process and e-mail you pages from Heller's book, along with a signed, notarized affidavit that I had actually read it and understood it?


 * (I am quite serious with this offer to e-mail you PDFs of the relevant English-language pages, Jay. But I do need an assurance from you that we will not stumble, you and I, upon yet another in the surrealistically long series of technicalities that have, alas, prevented this material from making it into your article.)


 * Make no mistake. I am looking to engage with you in a dialogue on how to improve this article, Jay, and to do so in a way that involves viewpoints that may not always agree with your viewpoints. As an admin, you would, I think, bear a responsibility to either a) engage constructively in that dialogue, or b) take a break for a while from editing this article -- to which, perhaps, you have grown a little too close over the past few years. BYT 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't argued for any "original tongue" standard, and this is not the first (and likely not the last) time I must to warn you not to invent straw man arguments for me. Also, your continual (in fact almost non-stop) assertions that I am claiming ownership of this article guarantees that I will read no further than the first location in any comment of yours in which you make this uncivil canard. As a result, I was unable to read the vast majority of your comment. If you wish to engage in collaborative dialogue, please try again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This "straw man" business -- it's an ongoing theme of yours. Let us clarify. When you wrote this:


 * As far as I can tell, no-one here has actually seen the quote in question; BYT keeps citing it as if he's read it, but he refuses to actually say he has, and I don't think BYT reads Hebrew.

... what exactly were you getting at, if it wasn't that I needed to have read it in Hebrew? BYT 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed you all regarding my research into the quote. I'll post or e-mail more as and when I receive it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, Brandon, WP:CITE is quite clear, you must say where you got something:
 * "It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source. For example, you might find some information on a web page which says it comes from a certain book. Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there, your reference is really the web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear."
 * You kept citing Heller as if you had read him, when, in fact, you hadn't. If you've only read secondary sources, then you should only quote the secondary sources. Second, I'm quite dubious of these secondary sources; I strongly suspect they are all relying on Chomsky, and I'm not at all sure that Chomsky himself is quoting his source correctly, or in the proper context. In any event, it's a dubious chain; Chomsky alleging that Heller says that Ruppin quoted Weizmann quoting the British as saying something. This game of Broken telephone leaves us with very little we upon which we can rely. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Back up, please. Whether you personally are dubious about a published source is irrelevant. Finkelstein published it, whether you wish he had done so or not. When your personal decree about whether something is or is not dubious is what determines what goes into this article, we are all in a great deal of trouble.

Now. You said that it was a straw man argument that I had invented for you, this business about my having to read the quote in the original Hebrew. Above, you are saying that only the "primary source," Heller's book, in Hebrew, is "what [I] must cite." Which is it?

When you accuse me of setting up a straw man for you, Jay -- which you do quite regularly -- you are obliged to back that up. It's a lot like accusing me of lying. I resent that.

You have been applying this standard to me, by asking me whether I'd read the Hebrew -- while you were not at the same time applying that "Have you read the original language" standard to, say, the English translations of Jabotinsky's work that appear in this article. How, specifically if you please, is my pointing this out a straw man? BYT 03:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You implied you had read the original, when you cited it directly on several occasions, both in the article and on this Talk: page. I challenged that claim more than once, and you eventually admitted that you hadn't read it at all. The issue was not that you were required to have read the Hebrew original, but the fact that you falsely implied you had done so; and that is, as you put it, "a lot like lying". That deals with your straw man argument; please desist from making them in the future. As for Chomsky/Finkelstein etc., please re-read the points which have been raised more than once already; given the fourth-hand nature of the claim, the generally polemic sources which make it, and our current inability to access the original source to understand exactly what it says and its original context, the claim as presented is highly dubious. SlimVirgin is currently in the process of trying to find out exactly what the original author (Heller) actually said. So far the indications are that he is unhappy with Chomsky's presentation because it attributes to Weizmann beliefs which Weizmann was actually attributing to the British. No doubt more information will be available soon. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: ''You implied you had read the original, when you cited it directly on several occasions, both in the article and on this Talk: page. I challenged that claim more than once, and you eventually admitted that you hadn't read it at all.''

I've got an idea. Why don't you a) stick to what I say, rather than what you believe me to imply, and b) abandon the notion that you are somehow empowered to challenge people about what they have and have not read. It's rude and it does not foster good communication on talk pages.

Re: That deals with your straw man argument; please desist from making them in the future.

Not in the least. A straw man argument, for what feels like the fortieth time, is when I maintain that you hold a position that you in fact do not hold, and argue against that imaginary position. Even if I had claimed to read Hebrew, or Mandarin, or Sumerian, I would still not have imparted any position to you. I would like to ask you again, please, to identify ...


 * which sentence, specifically, I have written on this talk page actually establishes a straw man argument against you. You make this claim with such dizzying frequency that I really think you should be responsible for backing it up, Jay. BYT 09:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brandon, you're making little sense at this point. You kept citing Heller, a source which you hadn't read - see  . When you cite a source, you imply you have read it. It took me a great deal of persistent interrogation, but you finally did admit you hadn't read it. WP:CITE is quite clear that you should not cite sources unless you have directly read them; seeing them referred to in secondary sources is not enough, you can only cite the sources you have actually read. When I did try to figure out whether or not you had actually read the source you were citing, you invented a straw man argument that I was insisting on an "original language standard" for quotes, when, in fact, I was merely insisting that you only cite sources which you have actually read, per WP:CITE. Please don't continually invent straw man arguments. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 12:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: you invented a straw man argument that I was insisting on an "original language standard" for quotes... -- I missed the part where I maintained that this was in fact your position.

So far, I've given the English translation of Jabotinsky, of which you presumably approve, as an example that this "one-language" standard isn't what you're currently doing.

Are you quite sure I didn't ask you whether this was your position? Are you quite sure I didn't do so to clarify whether you were being entirely consistent in your evaluation of quotes that make it into this article?

Perhaps you could quote the passage that's confusing you. BYT 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Brandon, you stated quite clearly that:
 * "your prevailing assumption here... is that the cite for any such quote must lead directly to the original words spoken in the original tongue."
 * and then asked
 * "Is this "original tongue" standard something you are planning to apply to all quotes in this article."
 * Your question was whether I was going to apply this straw man "standard" you invented for me to all other quotes as well, not whether I was applying it to the Heller quote. In addition, I don't know why you continue to invent additional logical fallacies for me to correct; for example, there are no passages that are "confusing" me. Though I know this is an unlikely outcome, given your past history, I would strongly encourage you desist from further attribution of any of your generally false assumptions to other editors. This tactic may have been successful for you in other venues, but I, for one, recognize both straw man arguments and statements which beg the question, and I'll call you on them every time. Also, as we're already into the phase of discussion where you simply repeat yourself, generally ignoring all previous discussion, and often starting new sections as if history has been erased, please do not be surprised if further responses are brief at best. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All very entertaining. "Any such quote" referred to the slight variations on Weizmann's "kushim" quote, as I believe you know. No version of it seems to satisfy you except one that is incomprehensible to or, even better, concealed altogether from, the English-speaking reader. My question was (and is), were you planning to run the whole article that way? If that's a straw man, I'll buy you a cigar.

To the point. If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.) BYT 01:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "as I believe you know" - Though I know this is an unlikely outcome, given your past history, I would strongly encourage you desist from further attribution of any of your generally false assumptions to other editors.
 * "No version of it seems to satisfy you except one that is incomprehensible to or, even better, concealed altogether from, the English-speaking reader." = repetition of previously debunked straw man argument. The issue was never the exact wording, but rather the obvious violation of WP:CITE, and the broken telephone nature of the alleged quote itself. As predicted, your comments again did exactly what you always do, straw man, beg the question, and repeating yourself, ignoring my previous statements. My responses from now on will be much more brief, and will simply refer you back to previous responses. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised to see this (it's not like you at all), but you failed to answer a direct question. Maybe you missed it:

''If Slim's research proves the quote to be authentic, will you drop your opposition to including it? (I will certainly drop my attempts to get it into the article if Heller states clearly that his work has been mistranslated.)'' BYT 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My response will depend entirely on the results of SlimVirgin's research. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Research results
Okay, this is probably as good as we'll get without quite a bit more research.

This is a translation from the Hebrew of Arthur Ruppin's speech as reported by Joseph Heller.

This is translated into English from Heller, Yosef. Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 (The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948), Jerusalem, 1984, p.140, quoting the protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, May 20, 1936.

Ruppin's speech was made in German, and the original is in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem. I am going to try to get it, but it may take some time. Weizmann may have spoken to him in Hebrew, English, or German; we don't know.

Joseph Heller's reporting of the speech in his 1984 book was in Hebrew. I don't know who first translated it into Hebrew. The English above is Heller's translation of the Hebrew, plus some copyediting tweaks (punctuation fixes, or text added in square brackets). This is as faithful a rendering as we can hope to find without reading the original German text.

As to whether we should include it, I think we should. This is an important part of early Zionist and Israeli history. Ruppin and Weizmann were both pivotal, as was the British government, and this quote sheds some light on all three. If we use it, we can leave out the other secondary sources (AN Wilson etc): Heller is the secondary source they all quote, and we now have a translation of the text directly from him. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you think it should be included? What wording would be appropriate? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that we have a reliable translation, I'd leave out AN Wilson entirely, and would probably write something like this. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this research. I am yet to be convinced this quote belongs to this article. Also, I don't understand why Jabotisky is so prominently quoted there: AFAIK, he did not represent the mainstream of the Zionist movement. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If SlimVirgin wants to put it in, I'm fine with it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Humus that it may make sense to prune Jabotinsky back a bit, but otherwise am very satisfied with the (massive) amounts of work you've done on this. BYT 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto, but I do think that Jabo is important. He certainly was not the mainstream in his time, in any sense; he was quite a marginal figure. But his views incerasingly became/have become the mainstream - or very influential on the mainstream - after 1948. BobFromBrockley 12:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't defend the way the rest of the section is written. It seems a bit disjointed, and very short considering its importance. All I did was a copy edit of the material that was there, then I worked in the Weizmann quote. If I insert it, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, do you have a source for that last paragraph of your proposal?-- sef rin gle Talk 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Jewish nationalism
Jewish nationalism currently redirects to Zionism. Shouldn't there be a seperate page on Jewish nationalism which briefly introduces the different sorts of Jewish nationalism, of which Zionism has been the most significant but not the only one? (For example, Territorialism, Bundism, Simon Dubnow's Folkism, Jewish autonomism are all also forms of Jewish nationalism. BobFromBrockley 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All those other movements were far less massive (in both time and popularity), and/or not sufficiently nationalist. E.g. the main motive in Bundism was Socialist Revolutionary movt., in Territorialism - urgent need for a refuge, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This territory is probably covered by Jewish political movements.--Pharos 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to say that the fact that Jewish nationalism is discussed in Jewish political movements isn't a strong enough argument as, for example, Jewish left is both there and has its own article. But then I looked at what links to Jewish nationalism, and found that there are almost no links: Jewish left says: "There were non-Zionist left-wing forms of Jewish nationalism, such as territorialism (which called for a Jewish national homeland, but not necessarily in Palestine), autonomism (which called for non-territorial national rights for Jews in multinational empires) and the folkism, advocated by Simon Dubnow, (which celebrated the Jewish culture of the Yiddish-speaking masses)." Apart from that, most of the links could go to Zionism. BobFromBrockley 11:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Would it make sense to just shift the redirect of Jewish nationalism to Jewish political movements? After all, ethnic political movements are all somewhat "national" in scope, no?  Otherwise "Jewish nationalism" as an article would just be a vaguely defined subset of almost all currents of "Jewish political movements", with the possible exception of Jewish Anarchism (depending on what definition of "nationalism" you are using).--Pharos 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the redirect for now, because the topic of Jewish nationalism is at least broader than Zionism. If there is ever a desire to write a separate article on the topic, we're still open to that possibility.--Pharos 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not put a link at the top of Zionism to other forms of Jewish nationalism? Telaviv1 13:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I just had a quick look at this article. Does the article says that at the beginning of the movement, the majority of Rabbis rejected the idea but it was gradually accepted for various reasons (which the article should explain)? It might be already there but I couldn't find it. --Aminz 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this point is adequately covered. BYT 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot see this statement in the article. --Redaktor 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Left wing support for Zionism
Why does the sentance "This has led to a loss of support for Zionism among the political left, especially in Europe" link to a page about anti-semitism? they arent one and the same thing.Fennessy 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why use the word "ideologue?"
In the section "New Jewish mentality" in the sentence: "One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov..."

As far as I know the word "ideologue" is generally used as a pejorative.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ideologue 1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Why is that word used in this sentence? 216.87.87.19 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previously anonymous user. Why is that specific word being used? Thanks!WacoJacko 12:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there is a clear bias in this sentence which should be addressed and probably changed in order to conform to wikipedia standards. 216.87.87.19 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Changed. BobFromBrockley 14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Slightly bias sounding discribing anti-zionism
Quote from the article page: Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs, many of whom view .... That sounds a bit bias. Critics are made to look like a sort of ignorant vox pop. I would think it would soun better if first where mentioned the usual critics. Scolars etc. Then mention that critism has a large popular support in arab countries ( btw are all Palestinians Arabs? ) Something like:

Opposition to Zionism comes from various sources. Academics like Chomski, X, and Y are opposing Zionism on various grounds. There is also Jewish opposition from groups like A and B. A opposes on religious grounds, B opposes on filosophical grounds. Political opposition comes primairily from nations surrounding Israel. This is opposition has a large popular support. I feel this sounds more balanced. But considering the accuracy of the debate I feel I do not know enough details to modify the front page.

Aixroot 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I half agree. I have changed the opening sentence. I am also unhappy with phrase "Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs" because it is hard to verify or falsify. BobFromBrockley 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's simply not true there are neo-nazi groups worldwide that are in opposition to zionism and they only recruit white members also many non nazi groups despise political zionism (82.47.164.103 23:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Jewish Autonomous Oblast
How much information should this article (which should be about Zionism) give to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? This has been the subject of something close to a revert war, instead of being discussed here. Personally, I think roughly this amount of information is appropriate: "In 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Russian Far East but the effort failed to meet expectations and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population." Whereas this much seems too much, when the topic is Zionism: "n 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast, a project now over 70 years old. Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, also the Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, said 'one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions.' It is estimated that at least 3,000 Jews live today in the city. The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia estimates the number of Jews in Russia at about 1 million, or 0.7 percent of the country's 143 million population. Sheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan -- just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population. Concerning the Jewish community of the oblast, Govenor Nikolai Volkov has stated that he intends to, 'support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations.'" If the short version does not strike the right tone, perhaps an alternative could be given, but surely not of more than one or two sentences. BobFromBrockley 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Four points should be enough. I have removed redundant information on population statistics and what are left are the four sentences below that convey the status of this Zionist alternative.

"In 1934, the Soviet Union established the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan, its capital.   Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, 'support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations.'  The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004."

or as I would suggest, a more contemporary statement such as below.

The Jewish Autonomous Oblast continues to be an autonomous oblast of the Russian state. The Chief Rabbi of Birobidzhan, Mordechai Scheiner, says there are 4,000 Jews in the capital city. Governor Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004 on the 70th anniversary of the regions founding in 1934.  </Blockquote>

Culturalrevival 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bobfrombrockley. What "Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated..." or when Birobidzhan Synagogue was opened has nothing to do with Zionism. This belongs to JAO and perhaps to Jewish history in USSR/Russia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think CulturalRevival you are proposing too much. That is more than the article has about Nachman Syrkin, similar to what it has about Ber Borokhov or Ahad Ha-am - this article shouldn't go into too much detail. There are plenty other articles where such information is useful. If there was more than one sentence here, it should say something about relationship of JAO to Zionism. (By the way, cultural autonomy currently redirects to minority rights. Anyone with an interest in Jewish nationalism or Soviet Jewry feel like creating a cultural autonomy article?) BobFromBrockley 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As long as there is some mention of the topic, I guess... Culturalrevival 02:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputes leading to protection
I have no strong opinion on many of the issues here, because I am not highly knowledgeable, but I did get the page protected so maybe I should be the one to try and open discussion. Let's try and keep it calm and reasoned. Thus far, I have seen the following objections to the current (protected) version:


 * New Historians cannot be used without attribution
 * factual material cannot be replaced with POV invective

And the following defenses:


 * Material is very well sourced, so just saying "POV" is inadequate
 * No such standard exists for New Historians, and in any case we can just add attribution
 * No substantive arguments have been made against this version, and the other version contains provable lies, like "no Arabs on the coastal plain"

That last one was me. Just to elaborate; I think it's safe to say that Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, etc etc were not empty ghost towns before European Jews showed up, and a quick read of Jezreel Valley reveals that its settlement was accomplished through the eviction of some 8,000 fellahin. Well, hope that gets the ball rolling. Eleland 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The part about the New Historians baffled me the most. I guess attribution can be used, but it implies that the sources are somehow incredulous and subsequently "open to interpretation." How does a direct quote leave room for interpretation? Alyoshenka 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially when we're talking about Benny Morris, whose findings have basically become the mainstream Israeli view (and have been harshly criticized by other New Historians and some foreign leftists as too flattering to Israel). I can see wanting attribution for someone like Ilan Pappé, who is legitimately controversial, but not Morris. <tt>&lt;  el eland  //  talk  edits  &gt;</tt> 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not familar with the disputes that led to protection (but not surprised that they were bitter), anyway please remember that Mizrahi/Sephardi Jews were no less Zionist then Ashkenazi Jews and were, from the start a significant part of Zionist migration.

More importantly, I think the Antisemitism template should be inserted into the article at a suitable point, as the Zionist political movement was very much a response to Antisemitism.

The land in Jerzereel was purchased legally and efforts were made to help Fellahin evicted. I think this point was discussed in the Peel report. Telaviv1 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I have no idea whether that's true, but it's irrelevant. The revision said that Zionists settled in areas devoid of Arab population, not that they bought from absentee landlords, evicted the landless peasants, and then maybe made "efforts" to help them. <tt>&lt;  el eland  //  talk  edits  &gt;</tt> 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not intending to take sides in this dispute, but I did want to suggest that attribution carries no implication that the sources involved are unreliable so long as it is equally applied to all sides. It's a common approach in Wikipedia to address disputed accounts. That is, it's reasonable to require adding words like "According to [new historian(s)]..." before what new historians say, but if this is done, per WP:NPOV it would also be appropriate to require adding words like "According to [conventional historians]..." when reporting what conventional historians say. I agree that per WP:NPOV, so long as the sources involved are appropriate for inclusion in the first place, the article cannot explicitly or implicitly appear to endorse one account as true and should report both accounts in a similarly sympathetic tone, although it can indicate which is the majority and which the minority account. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Introduction
I am removing the sentence "Formally organized in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, the movement was then composed mainly of Russian Jews with leadership provided by Austrian and German Jews.[2] Vienna was the original centre of Zionism.[2] " Not only is it not true, it is also not supported by the reference it provides. The Zionist movemet was based in Switzerland ("In Basel I created the Jewish state" - Herzl). Telaviv1 10:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Muslim Zionism" section
There is no such thing as Muslim Zionism, any more than Buddhist Zionism; certainly some individuals support Israel, but there is no movement comparable to Christian Zionism. Maybe supporters of Israel in Islamic communities could be discussed in some article about moral supporters of Israel, but it's totally out-of-place here.--Pharos 18:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, what ever happened to the sub-section on the (mostly historical) socialist support of Zionist aims? That, like Christian Zionism, was also an identifiable movement, or at least an identifiable tendency.  I wonder if we could have some sort of article directly on supporters of Israel, who are not Zionists as normally understood (i.e. are not Jews with a national feeling).--Pharos 02:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Woh Pharos, are you saying that only Jews can be zionists? This is plainly wrong. I agree that there is no "Muslim Zionist Organization", but these isolated Muslim thinkers make a valid and constructive point that deserves to be noted in this article. Emmanuelm —Preceding comment was added at 13:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think Christian Zionists are really "Zionists" either, though they agree with Zionism on some points. Like I wouldn't call some non-Greek person who supported Greece a "Greek nationalist".  But that's a separate point.  The point specific to "Muslim Zionism" is that not only is there no organization, there's no movement; it's just that there are a number of individual Muslims who are sympathetic to Israel.  Just like there are a number of Buddhists or Hindus who are also sympathetic to Israel.  But unless someone can write a sourced article on "Muslim Zionism" demonstrating that it's a notable movement, I don't think such a concept deserves special mention here, any more than Buddhist Zionism or Hindu Zionism.--Pharos 16:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pharos, I re-introduced the Muslim Zionism subsection, with modifications to adress your criticisms. I feel it belongs here for three reasons:
 * The NPOV policy states an article should "represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias." There should be no "bias for or against religion, faith or beliefs". These guys are public figures expressing Zionist ideas. This basic fact overrides your personal feelings about it.
 * Since there is no article about Muslim Zionism (fine with me), this article is the only place where their contribution can be noted.
 * Their argument is especially valuable to "true" Zionists because it contradicts the mainstream Muslim view using the Qur'an as a source. Yet, few "true" Zionists have heard of Qur'an 17:104.
 * I restored the section, shortened it and clarified the position of these guys in the Muslim world. Please let it be. If you chose to continue this edit war, I suggest you place a request for comments in this page. Emmanuelm 13:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is exactly one (1) person who has made this Qur'an 17:104 scriptural argument, out of about one billion Muslims. Yes, there are numerous Muslim individuals who support the right of Israel to exist, but they do so for secular reasons (that Jews have a right to a homeland as other nations do) — and these are the exact same reasons that Buddhist or Hindu individuals have for supporting the right of Israel to exist.  This really is an issue of representing things "proportionately".  Now, if this Qur'an 17:104 scriptural argument had some sort of backing from a significant intellectual movement, then this would be analogous to Christian Zionism.  But it does not, and the situation is not analogous.  Muslim thinkers should not be assumed to be "automatically" super-anti-Zionist, so that any Muslim thinker who is sympathetic to Israel for mundane secular reasons is extraordinarily notable.  This representation of "Muslim Zionism" in the Zionism article is wholly out of proportion to any movement specific to Muslims.  If you want to put it somewhere, maybe as I said it belongs on some sort of article directly on worldwide support of Israel.--Pharos 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is grossly undue weight. Muslim Zionism deserves about half a sentence. Currently, the section is about 40% the size of the "anti- and post-" section. Does anyone think for a second that Muslims supporting Zionism constitute, in the history of Zionism, anything like 40% as significant a factor as anti- and post- Zionism? I know we have whole articles on Anti- and Post- Zionism but individual articles are required to be balanced in themselves. <tt>&lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt;</tt> 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is unduly long. It's only a short paragraph. As the topic doesn't have its own article (and probably never will!), I don't think that's outrageous. As a compromise, could the quote go into a footnote? BobFromBrockley 13:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are aware that Palazzi is the only Muslim in the entire world to make such a "Muslim Zionism" religious argument, are you not? How could this possibly be proportionate?  The other individuals mentioned are just random Muslims who are sympathetic to Israel, and are not any more significant than than a group of random Buddhists or Hindus who are sympathetic to Israel.--Pharos 23:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The chapter looks OK now and I like JaapBoBo's new title. The presentation of an argument requires a minimum of text. Therefore, the length of chapters cannot always be exactly proportional to the importance of the subject. Emmanuelm 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Emmanuelm. New title is much clearer, but these are more than just "random" Muslims; they represent a movement, albeit a small one. BobFromBrockley 16:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have ended a week ago with (what seems to be) an agreement, I removed the "unbalanced" flag. Emmanuelm 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Zionism
It seems to me that this page is doing two things at once, on the one hand its providing a summary of Zionism as an ideology and, on the other a history of Zionism. I think it might be helpful to create a seperate history of Zionism (nto to be confused with the history of Israel) and then one could remove most of the history stuff. It would make this page more digestible (and shorter). What do you think? Telaviv1 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree.  Yahel  Guhan  18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be sensible, as article is long. Analogies would be Socialism and History of socialism, for example. BobFromBrockley 14:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Aims of Zionism
I removed this new section, as it seemed to me repetitive of material elsewhere, rather non-neutral, in need of a lot of punctuation/grammar clean-up, and out of sequence in the article. But it contains some referenced material, including a chunky quote, so maybe bits of it could be used. Here it is: -- Aim and ideological justification Zionism sought to establish a state that the Jews could claim fully as their own. Its founder, Theodor Herzl formulated an answer against anti-semitism, based on the ideas of 19th century German nationalism. According to this nationalism people owed their primary loyalty to their nation, i.e. their ethnic group. Unlike other nations the Jewish nation did not have a state but was dispersed in their Diaspora. There they almost inevitably became victims of anti-Semitism. Herzls answer was the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jewish nation. In that way the Jews could become a people like all other peoples and anti-semitism would cease to exist. This aim of the type of Zionism started by Herzl, Political Zionism, was adopted by all other main types of Zionism. Labor Zionisms main aim was the establishment of a socialist state for the Jews. Cultural Zionisms main goal was the establishment of a new spiritual center for the Jewish nation, which not neccesarily required the establishment of a Jewish state, but did require the establishment of a Jewish majority. According to Hannah Arendt in 1946 Herzls image of the Jewish nation being surrounded by enimies was shared by the Zionist movement and the Jewish masses. The establishment of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state in Palestine was fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They would either have to move or become a minority in their own country. Nonetheless mainstream Zionism never doubted its historical right to establish a Jewish majority on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. Zionism justified this with two 'facts': the bond of the Jewish nation with Palestine, as derived from its history, was unique, while the Arabs of Palestine were part of the Arab nation and therefore had no special bond with Palestine. Therefore the Jews had a preemptive right to Palestine. For example Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings influenced deeply the labor leaders, wrote in 1921 :"'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country ? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.'" According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'. - BobFromBrockley 14:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob,
 * you write : "repetitive of material elsewhere"
 * I checked after user:JaapBoBo edited and didn't find where this was described. To what do you refer to state it is already written somewhere else ?
 * I agree with you it is not neutral but it is sourced. Rather than to remove this, it should be completed and eventually of pov flag added to the section but not removed...
 * Rgds, Alithien 15:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. Perhaps I was hasty. It doesn't really repeat material elsewhere. There is a herzl section elsewhere, a cultural Zionism section elsewhere, etc. But this material is not there. Would be good to put the sourced material into its correct sequence - in a NPOV way. I'll try to do this. BobFromBrockley 16:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, have done this for first para. But second para is extremely POV and dubious. However, the quote from Gordon is useful, but I can't work out where best to put it in article. This is the passage, but edited for clarity:
 * Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings influenced deeply the labour Zionist leaders, wrote in 1921 :"'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible... It all came from us; it was created among us... And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.'" According to Zeev Sternhell, 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument'.
 * I am a bit skeptical, though, of the accuracy of the quote, as the sentence "Such creations, or event the creation of the Bible alone, give us..." looks like it's missing a word or two. BobFromBrockley 16:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I share your mind about neutrality and the missing words. I hope JaabBoBo will clarify the matter.
 * I think in the sections we could add (with sources) other aims :
 * the aim of building a new society (Labor Zionism mainly)
 * the aim of "countering" anti-semitism
 * And it should also be added that the "challenge" to build a jewish state was not only to manage the "indigeneous arab population" matter but :
 * convincing political authorities (ottoman and then British) to support the project
 * convincing jewish of the world to emigrate to Palestine
 * gathering funds to finance the project
 * building the administrative structure required to get a state.
 * In the section concerning the demographic matter, it should also be stated three solutions were discussed
 * transfering the arab population
 * considering mass jewish immigration will compensate arab majority
 * building a bi-national state (a minority view).
 * What do you think about that ? Do you see other things to add ? Alithien 08:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent list to me! Are you volunteering? BobFromBrockley 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And if Telaviv's proposal of a History of Zionism article were to be accepted, would this aims section go here or there? BobFromBrockley 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here.
 * Let's see other comments. Alithien 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here.
 * Let's see other comments. Alithien 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the section describing Zionist justifications for their claim on the land of Israel. The section gives pov's of Finkelstein and Hellberg. For NPOV other views may be added (if you can find them in a reliable source). --129.125.35.249 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New Jewish mentality
Is "New Jewish mentality" the right title for this section? How about "Cultural Zionism" or "Zionist culture"?BobFromBrockley 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual error.
I see nothing to justify this claim "the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel.". The peaks of immigration to Palestine were 1925 34,386, 1933 37,337, 1934 45,267, 1935 66,472, 1939 31,195 (eg this site). The post-war figures seem to be these: 1945 1,036, 1946 21,710, 1947 25,503 (though these are by ship, maybe a few more arrived overland). PRtalk 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. It could better state: the Holocaust increased the support for Jewish immigragtion. --87.208.1.240 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

very interesting so today you use the holocaust to justify your stealing even though you were stealing land prior to the fictional event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.51.252 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have question about what "is" zionism
what I haven't seen addressed yet is, the distinction between: zionism = a homeland for the Jewish people, versus the new definition of "Zionism equals racism," that Zionism means the homeland must remain distinctly Jewish, and so citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion. Can that be expounded on in the article? thx Alextheblade 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Zionist writers basically look to create a liberl-democratic state in which minorities have typical rights for such a state. Try reading alneuland by Herzl to get a picture. There was no consitition for a state perpared in advance so the issue was never precisely worked out but your statement "citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion" is not based on fact. I think the information you want is in anti-zionism. Zionism = racism is not a definition. Racism is a totally different phenomena. I added some new section headings to make the obectives and strcture of the zionist movement more obvious and easier to find by people such as yourself. Telaviv1 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

History of Zionism'
because the history takes up so much of this page at this point, I am giong to move much of the content to History of Zionism per WP:SUMMARY. In the mean time, it would be helpful if someone can create a summary for this article.  Yahel  Guhan  04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the removal, which amounted to about 80 percent of the text of the article.. I don't necessarily object in theory to summarizing what is at History of Zionism, but I think the summary should appear simultaneously with the removal of the material.  In other words, if you want there to be a summary, please write it.  But I think in this case, the summary would have to be fairly lengthy.    6SJ7 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * fine. We can remove parts of the sections slowly based on importance. For now, I won't re-revert you.  Yahel  Guhan  05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am currently rewriting the article and probably responsible for it getting too long.

There is still a lot fo stuff that needs to be added, but also a lot of things that can be removed. I have reached the 1945-1948 period and will put most of that into a seperate article relating to the Zionist conflict with Britain. A lot of the post 1948 seciton is, in my opionion, irrelevant but I haven't got down there yet. In response to this comment I took most of the sections on Socialist and Cultural Zionism and moved them to the relative articles.

there may be other bits which can be moved into different articles, for example the bits about opposition to Zionism cold be moved to anti-Zionism except that the anti-Zionism entry is a total mess. Telaviv1 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Flapan/Porath on Palestinian nation
Dear Telaviv1, please don't remove reliable and sourced material. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give all pov's if there is more than one. So please leave this 'According to Flapan .... . According to Porath ....'. I'm not reverting your Porath text either. --JaapBoBo 23:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Porath is the undisputed authority for the early history of Palesitnian Nationalism. Its a two volume book. The Flapan work you refer to (I have read it) is not about Palestinian Naitonalism and is being quoted out of context. Telaviv1 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Porath is not undisputed if I can give one example of somebody who does not agree with him, i.e. Flapan, but others like Finkelstein, Gorny, Sternhell agree.
 * Besides, you are right that Flapan did not write about Palestinian nationalism, but that is not relevant. The text (According to Flapan, from the beginning Zionism ignored the Palestinians as a nation but chose to see the Palestinian Arabs as part of the larger Arab nation) doesn't mention Palestinian nationalism; instead it mentions the Zionist behavior toward Palestinans as a nation. --JaapBoBo 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant because it is undue weight.
 * This article is about Zionism.
 * The "according to Flahan" or worse tne "according to Finkelstein" to write things all historians agree on are not welcome.
 * Less disputed sources (Finkelstein) or specialized on the topic (Flahan) should be used.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote someone - anyone - who says Porath is mistaken? You simply don't know what your talking about.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine
The article doesn't say enough about non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine before the twentieth century. It points out that there were Jews living in Palestine both before and after the Jewish rebellions against Rome, but it doesn't give us a good idea of just WHO those others were. Also, I'd like to see some discussion of how those Jews who were indigenous to Palestine before Zionism happened (Palestinian Jews, if you will) responded to Zionism. Tom129.93.17.229 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You might borrow a book from your library, e.g. by Kimmerling (Palestinians: The Making of a People / The Palestinian People: A History) or Porath, if you prefer the zionist view. Than you can add stuff yourself. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the Zionist movement and not about Palestine. The references to the Jewish history in the area are to establish the background to the formation of the zionist movement and the Jewoish connection to the area. Try the history of Palestine for more info about non-jewish history. also the article is too long as it is.

The term indigenous is problematic when used about Jews. How many generations do you have to live somehwere to be indigenous? You might say Jews are inherently non-indigenous, except possibly in Israel. The term Palestinian-Jews was used by the British to describe all Jews who were citizens of Palestine under the mandate, including immigrants.

Most of the material on Jews in Israel/Palestine before 1900 is in Hebrew. On the whole the Jews of Jaffa were ethnically mixed and pro-zionist, while the Jews of Jerusalem (over 50% of Jerusalem's populaiton by 1860, depending on your sources) were mostly (desperately poor) Ashkenazi ultra-orthodox who lived off charity from Europe. There were also communities in Safed and Hebron. There was immigration from the Yemen and Bukhara (Uzbekistan) in the 19th c.

I guess the subject is worth an entry of its own but its not really my period (I specialize in the Mandate). Telaviv1 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we get some verification of the most recent Biltmore edit. What moderate Arab plans agreed to continuing Jewish immigration?  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of the biltmore stuff. It only needs a paragraph. There's a link to the text so people can always read it for themselves. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Biltmore Programme
Telaviv1, I think you focus too much on the text of the program. Of course Flapan must have been aware of the text, so he has taken this into account. Actually the text talks about the Arabs, and doesn't mention a claim of all of Palestine. However I think Flapan considers the proceedings of the conference, which were different. If Flapan interprets part of the real text as just paying lip service than that is the result of his historical research. If you disagree than that's your interpretation, i.e. WP:OR. --JaapBoBo (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that a good-will editor will go and check as often as possible what are the other minds on the topic and on what material is based scholar's analysis in order to respect NPoV and give all PoV's on a topic its due:weight.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing opposition in the lead
I have removed this from the lead:


 * "Rival Islamic, Arab and Palestinian claims to the Holy Land as well as the deep roots of antisemitism in European culture have meant that Zionism has aroused powerful opposition. Widespread reverence for the old-testament, ancient prophecies of a Jewish return and persecution of the Jews have helped it garner international support."

Please, instead of engaging further in edit warring, let's work here on talk to find a sourced, reliable version that we can all agree upon. The article will be ok without this (or the Chomsky) paragraph for the time being. That paragraph is problematic because of the large number of unsourced assumptions. By using the term "Holy Land" it suggests that the only Islamic/Arab/Palestinian claims to the land are based on conflicting religious notions with the Jews. Then there is the assumptiont hat there is deep roots of antisemitism in Europe. While there clearly is a history of antisemitism in parts of Europe, this blanket statement is simply not accurate, and clearly unsourced. There is no source that there is "Widespread reverence" for old testament prophecies, outside of early 20th Brittish pressure references in the WWI section.

I also dispute that it is improper (POV) to cite Noam Chomsky. While the sentence may need some qualification, it is fine to get the opinion of someone who represents a POV. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following:


 * Linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky summarized opposition to Zionism, stating it has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[fact] Other commentators state that opposition to Zionism is related to anti-semitism and conflicting Islamic claims to the Holy Land.[fact] International support of Zionism is often based on belief in Old Testament prophecies.[fact]

What we need to do is present both sides of the conflict. We cannot state that the only reason people oppose Zionism is because they are anti-semitic. We can state that some people say that, as long as we attribute those claims to a source, and we make it clear that is just one of many views, as opposed to The Truth. What do others think? Is it a bad idea to try to include multiple POVs (including Chomsky's) in the lead? Is it a bad idea to call for sources for bold, controversial claims? I think not. -Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Your statement is better. How about this: ["[anti-zionism|Opposition to Zionism]] has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing national claims and political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[chomsky ref] Some of the opposition to Zionism is related to anti-semitism. "

competing national claims covers the islamic-arab-palestinian angle. I think it is unfair to relegate antisemitism, it deserves prominence but I don't mind compromising on that issue as long as it is preoperly ackowledged as a factor.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

unwieldy
There is a lot of data here. Is there anything we can do about this lengthy discussion? Please delete all unecessary data(like this current post you are reading). Article unsigned purposefully, due to space already consumed by this lengthy discussion.