Talk:Zionism/Archive 7

Is the more important meaning of "Zionism" an ideology or a movement?
Sorry to shove my answer right at the front, but it seems to me obvious: the most important meaning of zionism is the movement that started in Europe circa 150 years ago to create a homeland to collect the Jewish diaspora. Over the years it has mutated and spawned many submovements and perhaps ideologies, and it may have a different meaning in modern times (often qualified as "modern Zionism" in that context) but the historical fact is all encompassing: note for instance that zionism when it was founded was concerned with establishing a place for Jews to live, and early zionists debated whether to do that in Uruguay, so the whole business about "traditional Jewish land" and "Biblical Promised Lands" should be moved to footnotes. It is not part of the most "important meaning of zionism".

(This continues a discussion from the above section)

Maybe I'm miss-reading you, Polonius, but I don't think that I'm introducing the split in the definition: it has always been there. I think my "his Zionism" examples should make that clear. Moreover, I think the English language generally reckons "ism" words to imply ideologies primarily, and movements secondarily if at all.

Pre-1948, I think it would have made more sense to refer to Zionism primarily as a movement (the matter is moot with me; not sure how I'd come down ultimately), but now that is much less the case. As you yourself note (and feel free to amend your words), Zionism today is more of an ideology than a movement. In fact, I would strongly guess that outside of discussions of history, when the word "Zionism" is used today, it almost always refers to an ideology. I expect that you will not like this at all, but in my opinion, the meaning of a word is indicated by its actual use in language, and not by whatever dictionaries or other sources giving definitions say it is. In that respect, today I think "Zionism" refers primarily to an ideology.

As a comparison with my "his Zionism" search, I've googles "Zionism's," in the notion that a movement could convey possession but an ideology could not. I got some hits for "religious Zionism" and "cultural Zionism," and most of the rest were negative: "Zionism's useful idiots," its "diabolical goal," its "legacy of ethnic cleansing," on and on and on. This, again, is indicative of how the word "Zionism" is used today, as opposed to what is directly offered as a definition. (And of course it's nothing like exhaustive or authoritative!)

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts, but I'd also like, just to get a feel for where opinion stands, people to state directly their opinions on (a) whether the primary definition of "Zionism" is that it is a movement or that it is an ideology, and (b) whether, for the sake of clarity in the article, it would be useful to use the term "Zionism" to indicate the ideology and "Zionist movement" (or something else) to indicate the movement.

(Note that I have rigged the poll so that if everyone just flips a coin on both questions, 75% should agree with me ... ;) )

Marsden 14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At least part of the problem, I think, is that Zionism-as-ideology opens up a tremendous can of worms. The visibility of the term "Zionism" nowadays is primarily in the pejorative sense; ideas and ideologies (and people and politics) are referred to as "Zionist" by opponents, not by proponents. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I would think it exactly the opposite: isn't it more pejorative to accuse someone of being a member of a movement than of adhering to an ideology?  "Movement" opens up the door for group-think; for accusations of conspiracy, etc.  Why do you think that Zionism-as-ideology opens up a can of worms? Marsden 19:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See, now I think ideologies are more like things people stumble upon or grow into or are brought up in, while movements are things that people join to further, perhaps, the goals of that movement. Movements by definition are conspiracies! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Zionism can be described as a movment in 2005 just as well as in 1948. After all, what are the activities of Gush Emunim and the Yesha Council other than efforts to advance Zionist goals? Brian Tvedt 16:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And the trick for us as editors is to determine what balance we place on the various meanings for the contemporary reader. Question: who describes themselves as Zionists-by-ideology and not Zionists-by-movement? And where do Zionists-by-epithet fit in? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you describe those Israelis who oppose the activities of Gush Emunim and the Yesha Council -- including many whose opposition is based on the belief that these activities endanger Israel itself -- categorically as non-Zionists? And why did both of you decline directly to state your opinions on which is the primary meaning of the word "Zionism?" Marsden 19:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I can make a very strong argument for either one as being the primary meaning, depending upon who is speaking and who is listening. The word is now sufficiently emotionally and politically loaded so as to make denoting either version as primary POV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions, Marsden: No, I would not describe Israelis opposed to settlment building categorically as non-Zionist, and I still believe that Zionism is primarily a political movement. A movement can contain within it factions that disagree on how far to go and the tactics of how to get there.Brian Tvedt 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a good discussion. I am going to suggest again that we lead with the movement for exactly the reaons discussed, that it gives context and order to the discussion of what Zionism is. The movement forms the historical basis for Israel, after Israel was created, a number of sources laid claim to the title -- like patriot in the United States post-Revolutionary War -- by starting with the movement, we can then explain how the movement changed after its goal was achieved, and why it is sometimes used pejoratively. How about:


 * Zionism has had a number of meanings since the term was coined in the late 19th century. It was originally used to refer to a Jewish political movement started in the 19th century in response to persistant anti-Semitism, whose goal was the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in the historical Land of Israel, though there was a religious connection of Jews to the Land of Israel from the earliest days of Jewish history.  Since this original goal was achieved with the formation of the State of Israel in 1948, modern Zionism may be more generally considered an ideology concerned with the support and development of Israel, and with encouraging Jews to settle there.  There were historically a number of competing Zionist factions, each with a different view of how a Jewish homeland might be achieved, though almost all were secular in nature and the movement was originally opposed by many religious Jews. Since the Holocaust, the movement has become widely embraced by the Jewish community, including by most religious Jews, though ideological differences remain within current Zionist thought.

Thoughts? --Goodoldpolonius2 21:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about this:


 * Zionism is an ideology and political movement that supports Jewish control of the historical Land of Israel, where ancient Jewish kingdoms existed from roughly 1300 BCE until the Jews were expelled by the Roman Empire in 135 CE. While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe. The Zionist movement acquired British and League of Nations sponsorship after World War I, and culminated in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, after the Holocaust and World War II.

Marsden 00:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we are getting close, but I would drop "The Zionist movement acquired British and League of Nations sponsorship after World War I," since the British were only sporadically supportive, causing much of the struggles of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s (the White Paper, for example), and the League not deeply involved. Also, I think that "Jewish control of the historical Land of Israel" should be replaced with "homeland for the Jewish people in the historical Land of Israel" -- the movement was certainly not concerned with control over the whole land, which encompassed more than modern Israel, and some Zionists did not even care about sovereignty, just settlement. I also think we should add a sentence at the end about post-1948, "Since 1948, modern Zionism may be more generally considered an ideology concerned with the support and development of Israel, and with encouraging Jews to settle there." How's that work? --Goodoldpolonius2 03:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The "homeland" phrase works for me. I'd like to keep, in some form, reference to the Mandate. I think the creation of the Mandate and the creation of the State of Israel are the two key events in the history of Zionism, and that they warrant inclusion in the opening paragraph. I think the "post-1948" information should be in a second paragraph or later -- pre-1948, the goal of Zionism was very clear; post-1948, with the main goal having been achieved, the details tended to fracture the understanding which particular efforts indicate Zionism: support for the continued existence of Israel, sure, but beyond that gets murky. Marsden 14:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Concerning post-1948, I think it should be stressed that Zionism is concerned with maintaining Israel as a Jewish state. --Yodakii 08:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'm not sure that's accurate. Jayjg (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Really? Are there any post-1948 Zionists that don't support Israel as a Jewish state? --Yodakii 11:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice this. Were there any pre-1948 Zionists who didn't "support Israel as a Jewish state"? Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that there was also a cultural/religious Zionism, with a goal only to encourage Jewish immigration, and strengthen Jewish identity, that was opposed or indifferent to the Jewish state. One moderate example I can think of now is Martin Buber and others who advocated binationalism as opposed to a seperate Jewish state. --Yodakii 01:48:25, 2005-09-13 (UTC)
 * It seems a rather fine point; they're all promoting intensified Jewish presence in the land. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, they both promote intensified Jewish presence in the land, that is what makes them Zionist. But the difference is in priority: political power or cultural preservation (these are not mutually exclusive goals), how this presence is viewed in the context of surrounding non-Jews. I think these differences have huge practical implications. --Yodakii 16:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Marsdan, on the issue of the Mandate, I agree that it was important, but it was not so much the Mandate itself as the Balfour Declaration. The British were very ambivalent about the idea of a Jewish homeland, Balfour aside, and they hardly allied themselves with the Zionist cause, or "sponsored it".  The White Paper of 1939, for example, was also a huge turning point, but not in a positive way.  How would you suggest working it into the intro? I am okay with making post-1948 the second paragraph, but for the reasons suggested by both you and jpgordon, we probably want it in the intro, but can relegate it to a second paragraph. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you, Polonius, on the relative importance of the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. The Balfour Declaration was something that the Brits could have walked away from very easily: it only declared that they "viewed with favor," and would "use their best endeavors to facilitate" the Zionist cause. Would you want to bring a claim of breach of contract against anyone based on words like that?

The Mandate Text, however, granted authority to Great Britain in Palestine and directed that the authority be used in specific ways to further the Zionist cause.

Also, while the 1939 White Paper did indeed curtail British support for Zionism, don't forget that it occurred after the British had put down the Arab Rebellion, to the benefit of the Zionist cause. However ambivalent it was, Israel would not have come into existence on anything like the timeline that it did without British sponsorship, or something to replace British sponsorship. For thirty years, the Brits kept Palestine from becoming independent or joining a neighboring state, and they kept the doors at least partly open to Jewish immigration, which probably would not have been the case, one way or the other, were the Brits not there.

Marsden 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, silence implying consent (hopefully many of you are helping the victims of KaFEMA rather than being the victims ...), I'm going to make the following replacement to the intro paragraph:


 * Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports Jewish control of the historical Land of Israel, where ancient Jewish kingdoms existed at various times from roughly 1300 BCE until the Jews were expelled by the Roman Empire in 135 CE. While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe. The Zionist movement acquired British and League of Nations sponsorship after World War I, resulting in the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine, which specifically called for “placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home.” After an often tumultuous Mandate period, and after the Holocaust and World War II had destroyed Jewish society in Europe, the Zionist movement culminated in the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.


 * Following the creation of the State of Israel, “Zionism” has come generally to mean support for Israel, although it is sometimes used more specifically to refer to efforts to maintain or expand Jewish control and a Jewish majority in Israel and in the Occupied Territories under Israel’s control.


 * Marsden

The second paragraph should read: Following the creation of the State of Israel, “Zionism” has generally come to mean support for Israel, although it is sometimes used more specifically to refer to efforts to encourage Jewish emigration to Israel or expand the Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control. Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marsden, I generally like it, but a few small changes. The first sentence is a bit off, the historical land of Israel is much larger than modern Israel, and the goal was not to control the territory, but to establish a homeland. "Zionism is a political movement and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland in the historical Land of Israel, where ancient Jewish kingdoms existed at various times from roughly 1300 BCE until the Jews were expelled by the Roman Empire in 135 CE." Also, drop World War II - the Holocaust is enough there. Otherwise, with Jayjg's changes, it looks good. Good job, put it up. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Both work for me -- Polonius, I had meant to make your change before, but forgot by the time I was cutting and pasting. I don't have time now to get all the links in, but I'll make the replacement tomorrow morning ... unless one of you is feeling ambitious ... ? Marsden 13:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

"Territories" Link
I restored the link to Palestinian territories entry. There really should be a disambiguated "Occupied Territories" entry refering specifically to the territories occupied by Israel, which is what the term almost always means in common use, but the actual "occupied territries" entry is thoroughly general and almost misleading. The entry on "Palestinian territories" has some verbage about which of the Occupied Territories are not "Palestinian." To just vaguely refer to "territories under Israel's control" without a link essentially raises an obvious question without answering it.

I also removed the link to the Balfour Declaration. The Declaration is discussed and linked later in the article; the passage in the text where the link had been was from the Mandate document.

I'd also eventually like to move the link to "Jewish political movements" to somewhere probably in the "Establishment of ..." section.

Marsden 00:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the link again, as its far too restrictive. The "territories" referred to in that sentence include Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula.  "Palestinian territories" refers only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and possibly East Jerusalem. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I remopved the link again. Until now, there was no reason to call it "Palestninian territory". "Referring to the lands Israel would evacuate in Gaza Strip, President Abbas said that 97.5 percent of these lands were state-owned lands..." - and pre-1967 these territories were under Egyptian / British / Ottoman control. Also let's not forget the fact that Israel won the territory in defensive wars (hello, Kaliningrad!)   ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Humus, just reading what you wrote, you seem to imply that now -- as opposed to "until now" -- there is a reason to call it "Palestinian territory." I understand Jay's objection; I don't understand yours.  It is very clear to me that using the phrase "territories under Israel's control" demands explanation:  this is not some hypothetical matter, but rather the real situation.  Because of problems elsewhere in Wikipedia, there is no good, clean link to be made to explain exactly what is meant -- "Occupied Territories" would be the obvious link, but the article on that is nonsensical and people seem intent on keeping it that way.  While Jay's objection to the use of a link to "Palestinian territories" is correct, I continue to believe that such a link, while flawed, is preferable to no link at all.  Jay, I'm going to give you a couple days to respond before I make the change.  Marsden 14:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed only later that my edit can be considered a revert to Jay's version. By "until now" I meant that only after Israel gave Gaza away to the PNA it can be called a "Palestinian territory", before that it was a disputed territory.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe the issue is that we have different ideas of what the sentence actually means. Does it mean Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula?  In other words, are we saying that, for this usage in the second paragraph, Zionism = support for settlers? Or Zionism = support for inside the green line Israelis + settlers? Or Zionism = support for extremists who believe that the whole historical land of Israel should be part of the state?  --Goodoldpolonius2 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The first, because it has, at times, and according to some, meant support for a Jewish presence in all of those territories. The statement is intended to be as inclusive as possible. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Polonius, I don't think there is any real disagreement on what is meant: territories outside of Israel proper that are (or were) under Israeli control. These are the West Bank, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip until very recently, and the Sinai Peninsula until 1979. Each of these, while they were under Israeli control, had Jewish-Israeli communities developed within them under IDF protection. These territories are also exactly what is meant in common usage by "the Occupied Territories;" "Palestinian territories" would exclude the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. Marsden 15:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And yet, the Golan Heights are not commonly considered to be part of the "Occupied territories", at least in the minds of the press and most readers, precisely because they do not consider them to be "Palestinian". As well, Zionism can mean the encouragement of Jewish settlement in any territory under Israeli control, which at one point included the Sinai Peninsula, though it doesn't any more, and which certainly include Israel itself.  For this reason, any link to Palestinian territories is inappropriate, which, in any event, you've admitted yourself. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from recharacterizing my position. As I think I have clearly stated previously, a link to Palestinian territories is flawed but preferable to no link at all.  This is not at all the same as admitting that any such link is inappropriate.  I asked you elsewhere to provide a link that you believe would be acceptable to put for the "territories under Israel's control" phrase in the opening paragraph; please consider that request to be repeated here.  In the absence of you providing such a link, your protestations about the Palestinian territories link being incomplete rings rather flat.  Marsden 23:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A flawed Easter egg link is actually worse than no link at all, especially when there is no pressing need for any link. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have always understood "Occupied Territories" to include the Golan Heights (which is part of Syria, of course). The Palestinian territories article is specifically about areas once part of Palestine, so Jay has a point.  I think what's needed is an article precisely on the territories Israel seized in 1967.  The Sinai should be included for historical purposes.  I would call it Israeli-occupied territories, but that would raise the inevitable objections over the word "occupied".  The term "disputed territories" to refer just to those areas is no good, as it unfairly counts the land on only one side of the 1949 armistice lines as "disputed".  I think Territories under Israeli military control is OK, as long as it is explained in the article that most countries in the world, the UN, human rights organizations, and the vast majority of the people who live in the territories themselves consider them "occupied". Brian Tvedt 01:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Brian. My preference is to have a disambiguation page for "occupied territories," with "(general)" and "(Israeli)" as the separate pages.  Do you think that, until some other solution is available, it would be better to have no link at all or a link to "Palestinian territories" or "West Bank" (the latter may in fact be preferable because Gaza is no longer Israeli controlled)?  I note that the main issue is that the link would be incomplete because it doesn't include the Golan Heights, and not that the link doesn't give an example of territory controlled by Israel. Marsden 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The main issue is not only that it doesn't include the Golan Heights, but that it doesn't include Israel itself. An article that deals with all of these issues, but is quite poorly written and titled, is Occupation of the Palestinian territories.  That article talks of Palestinian territories, but, somewhat bizarrely, also mentions the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and even Lebanon. It's not an appropriate link either, for that reason, and because it's just an argument about whether or not the territories are occupied. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Look at the referring sentence, Jay: "... to refer to efforts to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel and to expand the Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control."  Israel proper is mentioned separately, and isn't really germaine to the phrase where the link is to appear.  Marsden 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Encouraging Jewish immigration and expanding Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control are different actions; one is not solely dependant on the other. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Created entry, Occupied Territories (Israeli). Added link to it. Disambiguated occupied territories. Polonius, I undid your edits to the second paragraph, partly because I think the different varieties of Zionism (aren't there really dozens? At least two for every Jew, right?) shouldn't be brought up in the introduction, but mostly because in my grand plans I hadn't planned for changes in that paragraph. My apologies, and I hope we can discuss here what finally to do. Marsden 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your new article appears to be a POV fork of Occupation of the Palestinian territories. I've suggested they be merged back together here: Occupation of the Palestinian territories. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, actually. I agreed with your assessment that the "Occupation of ..." article wasn't very good, so I wrote a new one.  It is not a fork.  I wouldn't disagree with an opinion that the "Occupation of ..." article should be deleted, because I did cover some of the same territory ... so to speak.  If you think my Occupied Territories (Israeli) article is POV, you should of course post a warning and make whatever edits you think are appropriate, but I think I've been pretty careful about keeping to the facts, so please have a care in this:  my faith is good, whatever you may think.  Marsden 23:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Marsden's article is a good start. We should keep that one, and merge whatever is sensible in the "Occupation of the PTs" into the new one.Brian Tvedt 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think an article is poorly written, you should re-write it, not create a fork of it. Please continue this discussion in the proper discussion page. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Jay, as I have mentioned to you before, it is rather counterproductive for you to make comments and even edits when you're not really paying attention to what is going on. I wrote a new article.   I did not fork anything.  My article was on the territories occupied by Israel.  If anything, the "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" article should be merged with "Palestinian territories."  As you yourself have noted, the Palestinian territories do not include the Golan Heights or the Sinai Peninsula (pre-1979).  My article is also not about the occupation so much as about the territories; it is more concerned with geography than with the politics of occupation.  You have my consent to move this comment and my 23:42, 15 September 2005 comment to whatever discussion page you think is proper.  Marsden 19:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marsden, as I've mentioned to you before, you need to Assume good faith and stop making belligerent comments. I've previously explained that Wikipedia already has articles covering these subjects, it doesn't need a dozen articles covering the same topic, each a personal divergent version. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's sometimes said that the first time a person hurled an insult instead of a punch, that was the beginning of civilization. You don't like my "belligerent comments;" I don't like your belligerent edits, reverts, and redirects, nor your drawing of other people into your belligerence to get around Wikipedia rules.  And yes, you have explained to me and to Dear Liza and to everyone else why you can't fix the hole in the bucket and why you won't let anyone else fix it either.  It's one thing to assume good faith, Jay; it's another thing to ignore evidence to the contrary. Marsden 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please start with existing articles and work to improve them; don't create POV forks. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I did. See Occupied Territories - Revision as of 16:38, 13 September 2005.  You reverted it.  Any  other thoughts? Marsden 13:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you tried to change the subject and the focus of the article. There was already an article which dealt with the topic of interest to you, which I brought to your attention.  Rather than working with that, you created a POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Where do we stand?
I am a bit confused now -- who added the POV label and why (I first thought it was Guy Montag, but now it seems to be Marsden)? Why were my changes reverted, when I was not trying to deal with territories issue, but rather than multiple types of Zionism today? I don't really have a dog in the territories link debate, but I do think that the second paragraph should reflect the idea that Zionism now refers to a variety of ideologies clustered around, as Marsden said, a single point of view. To say that Zionism is often used specifically to refer to settlement in the territories is correct, but it is also used specifically in a number of other ways, depending on context, such as Jews who support the state for religious reasons, or even old kibbutzniks and labor union types. Can we please reflect that? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think LeonTrotsky added the POV tag. I think it should stay, for the time being.  There are several paragraphs that I think have POV problems; at our current rate of agreeing on two paragraphs a week, all of the Middle East conflicts will probably be resolved by the time we've gotten through it all.  I like the introduction section quite a bit as it is:  definition; etymology; and scope of article.  I think the second paragraph captures the different meanings of the word today, whether simple support of Israel or Gush Emunim-ish.  How people come to these positions is more part of the historiography and the context, which I think belong in the sections beyond the intro.  Just my opinion. Marsden 03:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, bonus points for your first few sentences -- one of the few times a Talk page comment has made me laugh (in the good way, as opposed to nervous chuckling or I've-just-gone-insane-because-of-your-comment chortles). I am not so sure about the second paragraph, I read it as specifying that there are two meanings for Zionism: 1) support for Israel 2) Support for aliyah and possibly the settlements.  I just thought we could make the range explicit.  --Goodoldpolonius2 03:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)




 * Do you agree, though, with the two meanings given in the paragraph, both that they are accurate as far as what is meant when the word is used today, and that this definition is fairly complete?  To me, that someone supports Israel (Def. 1), or that he supports aliyah and settlements (Def. 2), are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the quality "Zionist."  Whether he holds his beliefs for religious reasons or for secular reasons merits elaboration, but only (I think) deeper in the discussion.  I like an introduction to answer the question, "What?"  The question "Why?" necessarily involves a lot more detail; I think that bringing up "Labor Zionism" and "Religious Zionism" in the introduction raises more questions than it answers.  I think that, as the intro is now, someone can read it and be left with the feeling, "Now I have a basic understanding of what Zionism is; if I want to know more, I'll keep reading."  If we drop the terms "Labor Zionism" and "Religious Zionism" in the intro, I think the feeling created is, "Now I understand that Zionism is one or the other of these two things, neither of which I understand.  Guess I'll go read the Britney Spears article ..." Marsden 13:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, now it seems that Viriditas], who doesn't even pretend to take part in these discussions about how the article should read, has taken it upon himself to revert. I'll revert him back, eventually, pending what we decide here.  [[User:Marsden|Marsden 14:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Marsden, I generally agree that we don't have to introduce a lot of complexity, I just think that the current sentence structure does not necessarily make those two conditions clear. (Incidentally I think there are at least three common usages: 1) support for Israel 2) support for Aliyah as a primary goal -- the original homeland concept 3) Support for settlement, You don't have to support settlements to support Aliyah) The second paragraph also does not really discuss that there are many "Zionisms" which I think is important.  On the other hand, I have to say that I am not desperately worried about the second paragraph, so if you strongly object, I'll let it go. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Polonius -- at present, there are some editors protesting that support for settlement is contrary to Zionism, but declining to discuss the matter: Kuratowski's Ghost and Humus sapiens.  I tend to agree with our original position that support for settlements is now a particular meaning for Zionism, but these worthies are unwilling to discuss the question and keep reverting to their preferred version.  Thoughts?  Marsden 05:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Its simply that "Zionist" is not particularly used for supporters of settlements or for the rightwing. Far rightwing groups like the Kahanists shun the term "Zionist" as a description of themselves and in fact use it in particular to refer to the leftwing: Labour, the former Meretz and leftwing Likud all of whom have called themselves "Zionist". Outside Israel, "Zionist" when not meaning literally a Zionist is a euphemism for Jew or for a Jew imagined to be part of a conspiracy to conrol the world, the anti-Semites using it typically do not distinguish between left and right wing Jews or Israelis and indeed have little understanding of the real issues in Jewish or Israeli politics. Kuratowski's Ghost 16:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the best way to stop an edit war is to stop edit warring. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to repeat excellent arguments already posted by others and provided my thought in the edit summary.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How about replacing "Jewish immigration to Israel" to "Aliyah"? A section about territory Jews immigrate to can be added in the Aliyah article. --Yodakii 14:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Some people seem to think its too hard for the casual reader to follow links in wikipedia to find out more about words like "aliyah" (note to casual readers: click the word "aliyah" to find out what this word means). In any case, here's another compromise: instead of "Jewish immigration to Israel", how about "Jewish immigration to territory under Israeli control"? --Yodakii 15:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As GOP has pointed out, there are many Zionists who support aliyah to pre-1967 Israel, but not to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I don't think your proposal deals with that. Jayjg (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that might well be true, Jay, but that doesn't go to support removing any mention of that strand of thought. And all of this talk is going to produce an article that doesn't mention the elephant! Why is aliyah to the occupied territories encouraged? Why would it be? Grace Note 06:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Because the "occupied territories" are Judea and Samaria, aka Eretz Yisrael, and Jews have the right to live on every inch of their patrimony.Guy Montag 16:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats right. There is an article about aliyah that should deal with that. This article should deal with Zionism, and it already serems to be getting too big to cover all the details and differences in opinion. --Yodakii 01:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Zionism and Arabs (2)
I believe that this section is unprofessionally written, incomplete, and in some parts innacurate. I propose that we,


 * Expand context about Hebrew Labor.
 * Explain influence of Pan Arabism.
 * Provide divergent viewpoints and more context about the views of Zionist leaders toward Arabs (for example where is Benny Morris in regards to Ben Gurion's view of the Arab population?).
 * Provide a factual basis for Palestinian nationalism as opposed to Pan Arabism.

I believe that this subarticle has too little information, could potentially become its own article if expanded correctly. Guy Montag 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely, its current form is a compromise wording of an earlier anti-Zionist diatribe Kuratowski's Ghost 00:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

(although not in the most widely used version compiled by Maimonides).
The text (although not'' in the most widely used version compiled by Maimonides). '' was recently inserted into the section mentioning the fact that aliyah was included in the many lists of the 613 commandments. I'm going to remove it for the following reasons: In summary, not only does the insertion contain uncited POV, but it is also highly selective, creating POV in an already watered down statement of Jewish belief on the subject. Including this just opens the doors to counter-arguments from the many other authorities who differ with Maimonides, or who insist Maimonides still believed it was a commandment, or to other statements from Maimonides which contradict this, and that is not the purpose of this article, nor within its scope. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The section is simply giving an overview of the source of the belief in aliyah, not giving a detailed rundown of the various positions various halakhic authorities take. In fact, some go much further; for example, Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish authority at least as well revered as Maimonides, in his comments on Numbers 33:53 states that it is a commandment to take possession of the Land of Israel, not just live in it.
 * Even so, the statement is already watered down; as far as I know every single list of the 613 commandments includes aliyah aside from that of Maimonides, yet the section in question only says "many" lists do. In this, as in many other areas of Jewish thought, Maimonides appears to stand almost alone - the vast majority of halakhic decisors explicitly state that it is a commandment, though the article does not even mention this.
 * The insertion makes unsupported claims, specifically that the version by Maimonides is the "most widely used".
 * Most authorities believe that Maimonides simply did not explicitly list aliyah as a commandment, but rather assumed it as a foundation for or implied by other commandements - note, these authorities often pre-date modern political Zionism by centuries, and so were not motivated by modern politics.
 * Maimonides himself made many other statements regarding living in the land of Israel that give a very different impression - for example, in Hilchos Melachim 5:12 he says "whoever lives in the Land of Israel remains without sin". In Hilchos Avadim 8:9 he says that if a Jewish slave wishes to move to the Land of Israel, his master must move with him, or sell him to someone who will move to the Land of Israel, which implies that there is a commandment to live there (otherwise he would have not been able to force his master to move). Hilchos Avadim 8:10 states that if a slave flees to the Land of Israel, the Jewish court frees him, and the Talmud (Kesubos 110) lists the reason as being the commandment to settle in the Land of Israel. There are a number of legal rulings by Maimonides of this type, which if nothing else indicate that Maimonides' position is not nearly so clear.


 * I essentially replaced the wording, eliminating "most" from "most widely." Jayjg reverted, but I'm going to put it in again absent a good argument against doing this. Maimonides' version clearly is widely used -- Wikipedia's own article on the 613 mitzvot includes Maimonides' list as its only example, and describes Maimonides' work that included the list as "The most important of the above works" from a list of works that include versions of the list. It is also the only version that I have seen reproduced anywhere online. While Jay claims that the absence of aliyah from Maimonides' list should not be mentioned because virtually every other list includes it, that is not logical if Maimonides' list is "the most important" of the lists; it is essentially original research for Jay to conclude that the singularity of the absence of aliyah to Maimonides' list makes it not worth mentioning.
 * I'm sure it is true that others of Maimonides' writings indicate what Jay alleges, but the text from the article refers particularly to the 613 commandments. It would make sense (in fact, when I replace the wording, I'll do it myself) to note that Maimonides' other writings tend to contradict the omission, but that does not necessarily nor, I think, in fact warrant suppressing the note about the "most important" of the mitzvot lists being the exception to the statement in the article.
 * Jay describes the clarification as "uncited POV," which may be true regarding "most widely," which I eliminated, but not "widely," nor anything else about the clarification. It is also highly selective, clearly, not to note that the exception to including aliyah in the mitzvot comes from perhaps the most important of the versions.
 * Marsden 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Number of refugees
Let's come up with some language that neither minimizes the plight of the millions of refugees nor makes their status seem solely like a consequence of Zionism. If I recall correctly, part of the reason many are still refugees is the refusal of the countries they are in to grant them citizenship (in my opinion, for the purpose of continuing their status as pawns in the greater Arab-Israeli conflict.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 64.173.42.209 20:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)Lex


 * The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Concilation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev. 1) 64.173.42.209, please stop putting "millions" in the article, this is simply a misreprentation.  Also, you appear to be about to violate the WP:3RR, for which you can be blocked. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The refugees in Jordan who have citizenship are also still registered as refugees with UNRWA, even though they and their parents have never lived anywhere else, so I'd lay some blame there too. It's a bit complicated and off-topic for this page. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not difficult to understand why more refugees registered than actually left - the U.N. itself was quite clear on the reasons; initially it was due to "duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute", and in subsequent years it was due to the fact that "all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence" and a birthrate that was "high in any case", contributing to "a net addition of 30,000 names a year."  According the U.N., the refugee lists also contained "many false and duplicate registrations." . Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, is the proper range closer to one million than two? If it's closer to two, then "millions" is correct; if it's closer to one, "around a million" would be correct; if it's something under 750,000, "hundreds of thousands" would be correct. (We use "hundreds of thousands" to describe the number of Jewish refugees (or DPs) a couple paragraphs earlier; what was the actual range?) Regardless -- right now the language is, hundreds of thousands of Arabs being made refugees; millions of Arab refugees (taking out "being made") might be a good compromise, if indeed there were enough to say "millions". (Ramallite and I had a bit of a edit conflict here; he's not responding to me.)  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The proper number is 711,000. That is how many refugees were created by the conflict, according to the UN agency created specifically to deal with the issue. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Otherwise stateless families of refugees are still refugees -- especially since the conflict has continued for half a century. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they are is actually matter of debate, and in any event one cannot lay the blame for their remaining as refugees at the feet of the original War of Independence. Can you name another similar group of "refugees" - that is, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of refugees, still considered refugees 60 years after a war? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a matter of debate. That's why we're debating it. And no, I can't really think of another such group. But there are a lot of unique aspects to the whole situation; can you think of another case of a people reclaiming land their ancestors were ejected from two millenia previously? Perhaps we need to elide any actual attempt at enumeration in order to present NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How about if we just give exact numbers and references instead? See my latest edit. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, there is still currently a "very large number" of individuals who, under international law, are entitled to some kind of compensation. The displaced Palestinians left behind what would amount to 10-20 billion dollars worth (in today's money) in property, bank accounts, etc. These are not gingerbread cookies, they are actual people who had their homes, schools, parks, places of business, and things everybody else takes for granted, and they lost all of that (fleeing war or being forced at gunpoint amounts to the same result in the end when you're not allowed to return because you're the wrong religion). What citizenship they have (or don't have) now, and arguing who to blame for calling them refugees is ignoring their true plight. Furthermore, there are other reasons for denying citizenship other than the 'pawn' argument, Palestinians have never really been liked in Arab countries, we seem to be much more entrepreneurial and financially successful than most natives, and that pisses a lot of people off. So denying citizenship is a form of discrimination (not that I personally care, I'd rather be stateless than a citizen of one of those dictatorships ;) ) Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In some ways the Jews and the Palestinians have a lot in common, clearly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the things they have in common is that each side had a similar number of refugees, though the Jewish refugees are rarely recognized, and certainly were not treated in the same way (i.e. kept as perpetual pawns by their brethren, and as perpetual welfare recipients by the UNRWA). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in seeing you quote the specific international law which states that refugees are entitled to compensation. Be that as it may, the number of still-living displaced Palestinians is estimated in the tens of thousands at most, though their left-behind wealth does seem to grow almost exponentially with each passing year - perhaps it has to do with the continual mistaking of government property (e.g. "parks") for private land.  And, of course, your analysis does not take into account similar numbers of Jewish refugees displaced from Arab lands, who left behind significantly larger amounts of wealth and have never been compensated. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A google search of ("compensation for refugees" and "international law") will provide a list of sites that refer to the IL / Geneva Conventions on the compensation of refugees in general, as well as arguments as to whether Palestinians fit those requirements or not (which to me is like a stabbing victim negotiating the size of his wound with his attacker). Although I don't have any data, I'm not sure the majority of Palestinians in Palestine would consider other Arab nations as "brethren", that is debatable, but the treatment of Palestinians by these regimes is a testament to their quality, not ours. I'd be interested to see where you found that actual refugees are "tens of thousands at most", because if that's the case then the worst case scenario of the Palestinian Right of Return isn't harmful to Israel. Even those (government property) parks that you refer to may very well have been built on (Absentee Law) seized land to which non-Jews held title deeds before 1948 - heck even Ben Gurion Airport is built on such land. "Arab home" in Israel is a euphemism for historical and more expensive dwellings, the wealth does grow each year because property values go up. Finally I did not discuss Jewish refugees for the same reason I didn't discuss the fashion tastes of Margaret Thatcher, it's not relevant to my argument. However, on that topic, there have been increasing movements of late by Jews to reclaim lost property, especially in Iraq right now. Personally, I'm all for that. Ramallite <sup style="color:DarkBlue;">(talk) 13:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the number of actual refugees still alive, I read it in an article in Ha'aretz from a couple of years ago, though I don't have it handy. It makes sense, in any event, as the events occured almost 60 years ago.  However, as you know, the claimed "Right of Return" does not just refer to the actual refugees, but to their millions of descendants as well.  Regarding "parks", the fact remains that 70% of the land of what is now Israel was government property, not individual land-holdings of various Arabs.  Another 7.5% was owned by Jews, and another 3% by Arabs who stayed in Israel and retained ownership of their land.  As for the the value going up, I think the increase has more to do with memory inflation than with monetary inflation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems the only real argument here is over the definition of a refugee. Hundreds of thousands (over 700,000?) is correct if you only count those directly displaced 1947-48. Millions (4-6 million?) is correct if you include those displaced since and their decendants. How about mentioning both numbers and how they are calculated? We might not all like it, but its in the "criticism" section, after all. --Yodakii 04:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how is the "definition of a refugee" issue relevant to the subject of the article. Of course one can attempt to criticize "bloodthirsty Zionists" for this unique definition and its consequesnces. OTOH, one can attempt to criticize them for spots on the Sun.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Zionism is not an abstract philosophy unaffected by the material world. The refugee issue, like anti-Jewish hostility, plays in an important part in Zionism's development. Anyway, if the exact number of refugees is causing an edit war how about just calling it "a large number" and citing sources? --Yodakii 10:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We are talking about a bigger issue than the number. Let's take a look at this news: Resettlement ends 16 years in limbo (PDF, link from . We read: "1989: U.N. stops recognizing refugees from Vietnam..." The Palestinian refugees alone are not going to follow the same path as 100+ millions of other refugees in the last 60 years. Those others were resettled, stopped being recognized as refugees and now lead more or less decent life. Uniquely, all of descendents of the Palestinian refugees are also being counted as refugees. Whoever is saying that the reason for this difference is Zionism, please explain.  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Those who regard Jews and Arabs as racially distinct
Those who regard Jews and Arabs as racially distinct thus condemn Zionism as racist... There is a whole disputed article dealing with this issue. There is no need to bring the dispute here. I'm replacing it with something shorter and clearer.


 * I don't think this pro/contra discussion belongs here: there is an article Arab-Israeli conflict dedicated to these arguments. There is also Zionism and racism and Anti-Zionism, etc. That said, sorry but I am going to revert your edits because you unfairly removed arguments of one side only, including some vital details like "Zionist groups differ widely from each other".  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that seperating pro/contra discussions makes a cleaner article. Anyway, I've reworded the paragraph to include details I carelessly removed. (Sorry about that.) --Yodakii 10:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They also disagree on the basis that Palestinians and Jews are not racially distinct from each other, that Israeli Jews themselves are racially "mixed" (nearly half of Israel's Jews come from Arab countries, and there are also almost 100,000 black Jews from Ethiopia);  This is part of the straw-man argument that Palestinians and Jews are racially distinct. I'm not sure this can be considered neutral unless the misrepresentation is pointed out in the text or removed. --Yodakii 15:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is this "part of the straw-man argument that Palestinians and Jews are racially distinct"? It rather looks like an argument that Zionism is not inherently racist. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it implies that such an argument (that Jews and Palestinians are racially distinct) is made by critics of Zionism when it isn't. --Yodakii 06:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone who accuses Zionism of being "racism" makes that argument. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It may seem that way to some people because there is a more basic difference between Zionists and their critics: The definition of racism. This is what I wanted to clarify in that paragraph. People who define racism as including ethnic/cultural discrimination regard Zionism as a form of racism, while those who don't include ethnic/cultural discrimination into the definition don't consider Zionism as racism. Both conclusions are correct depending on the definition of racism. The basic issue is not whether or not Zionism is racism, but whether ethnic/cultural discrimination is racism or not. Without recognising this difference Zionists and their critics see the other's conclusion as irrational. --Yodakii 07:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Racism is discrimination based on race; that's why it's called racism. If you discriminate based on something other than race (e.g. gender, class, religion, height, weight, eye colour), then it's discrimination, but not racism. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree here. For all purposes, the institution of today's Zionism (as opposed to the context in which it was founded yesteryear in Europe) cannot in all honestly be classified as racism. That there exists racism from Israeli Jews against Israeli non-Jews is not an edict enshrined in the manifestos of today's Zionism. Don't get me wrong, Zionism is still a blatantly discriminatory ideology on a par with racism, but it is not based on race. One Israeli Jew is also quite capable of being just as racist against another Israeli Jew, and that latter Israeli Jew to yet another Israeli Jew despite the principles of today's Zionism. If we are to properly examine Israel's racism and non-race-based discrimination enshrined in Zionism, it must be done independently. Only in the context of "Jew on Jew racism" should Zionism come into play. It is in "Jew on Jew racism" that early Zionism's European Nationalist foundation (and the unofficial legacies of it today) is intimately intertwined with. Al-Andalus 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Achad Ha'am & Religious vs Secular and Post-Zionist & Borochov & General Comment
General - Wikipedia has one of the best articles about Zionism on the www and its first place ranking in Google is well deserved. Let's keep it that way by steering clear of adjectives and putting more facts in and less controversy. There are some sticky points: Achad Haam and Cultural Zionism - "One early Zionist thinker, Asher Ginsberg, better known by his penname Ahad Ha'am ("One of the People") rejected what he regarded as the over-emphasis of political Zionism on statehood, at the expense of the revival of Hebrew culture. Ahad Ha'am recognised that the effort to achieve independence in Palestine would bring Jews into conflict with the native Palestinian Arab population, as well as with the Ottomans and European colonial powers then eying the country. Instead, he proposed that the emphasis of the Zionist movement shift to efforts to revive the Hebrew language and create a new culture, free from Diaspora influences, that would unite Jews and serve as a common denominator between diverse Jewish communities once independence was achieved." It is not "instead" so much as "in addition" - and it depends on the period. Above is a distortion and may stem from anti-Zionist propaganda that made use, out of context, of a few quotes by Achad Ha'am. Achad Ha'am immigrated to Palestine and died in Tel Aviv. If he didn't believe in independence and a Jewish state he would not have done so. He wrote a memorable eulogy for Pinsker who was a regulation type Zionist. His main point (especially before 1918) was that the Jewish people were obviously not ready to come to the land in droves and would need a cultural revival first. Many commented on the hopelessness of the early Zionist settlements and the seeming impossibility of getting any "Volkerrechtig" charter as Herzl wanted - it really did look hopeless then. That was what inspired Achad Ha'am's comments. (Oct 02 05) Religion: " While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the movement was originally secular" That is misleading. Kalischer and Alkalai were religious. The BILU and Chovevei Tziyon were religious. While there were many secular delegates at the first Zionist congress (the one you know about) in Basle, there were also lots of religious ones. There were also 2 previous less successful Zionist congresses in Rumania and Minsk a couple of years earlier.

Post-Zionism - The following is probably untrue: "Critics tend to associate Post-Zionism with anti-Zionism or postmodernism, both charges which are strenuously denied by proponents." I don't think that Ilan Pappe would deny that he is an anti-Zionist, and I don't think Avi Schlaim would deny it either. Very often people who are called post-Zionists by others strenuously deny that they are post-Zionist.

Borochov - The article omits the main point about Borochov - he arrived at a MARXIST analysis of the Jewish problem, and claimed that Marxism ignored the important influence of nationality. [not a user - find me at [MidEastWeb]

"Home" vs "Homeland"
I have changed the references in the article to the Balfour Declaration so that the references exactly mirrors the Declaration. Balfour uses the word home, never homeland. Huldra 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Christian Zionism a significant feature
People should consider more the need to recognise how much of an impact the Christian Zionist movement has played in the Jewish Zionist movement. Along with the many other good resources from both secular, Jewish, Christian and Muslim views, the following books should be consulted all of which are written by accredited academians (Stephen Sizer got an MA from Oxford) and cite primary sources of documents (not just the opinions of other academics). These books are available at good academic libraries in Universities with Political science or History departments.

My urging to point out the impact of Christian Zionists in the Jewish Zionist movement is not to portray Jewish people or the Jewish Zionist movement as weak or somehow dependent but rather to portray the catalytic impact of the Christian Zionist impact on an already formidable and committed group of Jewish political activists. It is not even to create some crank pot conspiracy theory but rather to bring to light lesser discussed information often clouded over by the widespread of secular views of the Arab Israeli conflict on one hand and Dispensational ones on the other from the Christian right.

Anyone who is serious about researching and creating a more academically viable and balanced article ought to consider putting in the hard yards and following academic links such as these listed and other books people cite as references before simply deleting them:

- Stephen Sizer. Christian Zionism: Road map to Armageddon? (InterVarsity Press: 2004) - Very indepth analysis of the historical, theological and political claims and influences of the movement. - Lawrence Jeffrey Epstein. Zion’s call: Christian contributions to the origins and development of Israel (Lanham : University Press of America, 1984) - Michael J. Pragai. Faith and fulfilment: Christians and the return to the Promised Land (London, England : Vallentine, Mitchell, 1985) - Irvine H. Anderson. Biblical interpretation and Middle East policy : the promised land, America, and Israel, 1917-2002 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005) - Paul Charles Merkley. The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891 – 1948 (London: Frank Cass, 1998) - Gorenberg, Gershom. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount (New York: The Free Press, 2000). - Boyer, Paul. "John Darby Meets Saddam Hussein: Foreign Policy and Bible Prophecy," Chronicle of Higher Education, supplement, February 14, 2003, pp. B 10-B11.

See also sources concerning US-Israeli economic alliances such as those given at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ustoc.html which site Library of Congress data on economic and military contributions by US Administrations to Israel.

Arcan 14:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Article should remain disputed
This article needs to remain disputed because the level of truth claims made by political ideologies and relgious views are just so significant, therefore the presentation of them in an NPOV is even more significant. Ideological and Relgious views define right and wrong, natural and unnatural and what is important and what is unimportant. Presentation of the facts is never just as simple as it sounds, it is always presented through somebody's lense. According to some people, some facts are not worth mentioning and are seen as irrelevant - and vice versa. Making the article disputed is important most of all because when someone who doesn't know much about the subject (a junior high school student for example) is looking for information they should know that the such truth claims are very contested. To present the page as if it is a mostly finished and objective presentation of the facts is partly misleading. Even when the article is closer to objectivity than subjectivity it should still retain the disputed tag. If think the fact that the article has 5 archives of talk pages as well as the fact that most of the disputes are over content rather than style is evidence enough of this.

Arcan 07:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Archive6
FYI, I just moved 128 kB of talks into Archive6. The last edit I saw was dated Sep 3. This page is still too long, feel free to adjust the move as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Introductory paragraphs and definition of Zionism
The introductory paragraphs denies the fact that Zionism is and was ". . . used RETROACTIVELY to describe EARLIER efforts and ideas to return the Jews to their homeland for whatever reasons." ref: []

Secondly, it denies the fact that Zionism is a DESCRIPTIVE term used to describe anyone who believes Jews either should return to and/or are entitled to their homeland (just like all other peoples).

The above omissions and the exclusive statement of Zionism as a political movement with the suggestion that it is singularly monolithic in the first paragraph are not even internally consistent with the rest of the article. For example, the 3rd paragraph states, " . . . a variety of different, and sometimes competing, ideologies ... fit under the general category of Zionism." Yet, the first paragraph states, using the singular, that Zionism is AN Ideology.
 * The introduction is still suffering from this deficiency. Doright 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article is extreme in this point of view NPOV. This is clearly demonstrated by the biased and selective and erroneous editing of source materials that have been included. For example, whereas the source for much of this article is taken from the following web page http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm which explicitly states: “The MODERN formulation of Zionism was divorced from religious aspirations.”  - emphasis added. Yet, the first paragraph states that Zionism “was originally secular” and leaves off the essential modifier, MODERN.

Respectfully, Doright

Additional evidence - “Zionism, the Jewish longing both to return to their homeland and for self determination i.e. to be a nation like any other, continued. . . ” from 136 CE. Source: [] -Doright

DoRight, you may want to discuss your edits here in Talk first. As to your change, you replaced existing text about the origins of Zionism with: Zionism gained secular support within Christendom, largely as a response to "The Enlightenment" of the 18th century, Jewish emancipation, and rampant anti-Semitism in late 19th-century Europe. I am not sure that is correct -- Zionism did not really exist until the second half of the 19th century,  and it remained primarily a secular Jewish movement until after the Second World War. The only real outside support was the on-again, off-again British support for a Jewish National Home -- there was not widespread secular support within "Christendom" during most of Zionism's history. The current language that you replaced: While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe, is, I think, more accurate. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Goodoldpolonius2, Language and the exact meanings of words change. That’s one of the reasons why new dictionaries and encyclopedias are written.  Elsewhere you have agreed that zionism is now used (“retroactively”) to refer to the Jewish People’s association with the land of Israel prior to the actual coining of the term (“Zionism”). This is despite the original more narrow definition of the term.  This aspect of the evolution of the term Zionism is identical to how the term anti-Semitism evolved.  That is, it was originally coined to represent a PARTICULAR theory of Jew hatred based upon race, but now has evolved to take on the more GENERAL meaning of Jew hatred regardless of rationale.  You say, “I am not sure that is correct -- Zionism did not really exist until the second half of the 19th century.” But, that’s like half pregnant.   It’s clear that “did not really exist,” means that you actually agree that it did exist.  Otherwise you would not qualify your statement with the modifying word “really.” However, it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. I think that’s why you wind up with the phrasing “did not really exist.” My suggestion is to try, “Modern Zionism did not exist until the second half of the 19th century,” instead of “Zionism did not really exist until the second half of the 19th century.” I think you’re still trying to reconcile the usage of Zionism (GENERAL meaning) with the distinctive changes in the 19th century (the PARTICULAR) and you mean to reflect this in your writing.  Although this may all seem a bit pedantic, it’s really much more than that.  It’s a very important point in the context of contemporary dialog with regard to the claims and rhetoric of anti-Zionists and other antisemites who seek to delegitimize the Jewish state and the veracity of the claims of the diaspora, both in the 19th-20th centuries and today.   Doright 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity: You are aware that anti-Zionists and anti-semites are not wholly overlapping groups, right?  Because seeing you toss off a line like "anti-Zionists and other antisemites" makes me wonder.  Perhaps merely a syntactical error?  If I'm overreacting, please forgive me, I'm not trying to start a fight.  -Kasreyn 17:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, Thank you for your kind and cogent reply. I’m brand new to wikipedia and look forward to being a productive contributor and fun colleague. However, it does seem a bit awkward to have an entire section of the discussion dedicated exclusively to me. If you agree, I’m going to change the heading to something topical, like, “discussion of the introductory paragraphs.”

My edit should have read “increased secular support”, not the unqualified “secular support” that I posted. That was a typo.

I hope the following will facilitate a meeting of minds. Europe, where "The Enlightenment" of the 18th century occurred, the Jewish emancipation occurred, and rampant anti-Semitism in late 19th-century occurred is properly included as part of  Christendom. Hertzl himself, as a European existed in Christendom You state, “there was not widespread secular support within "Christendom" during most of Zionism's history.” I, of course, agree with you on that. I believe you’ll agree that [secular] support increased at various times? Notice, that my edit that you reverted, does not state when the increase(s) occurred, but merely what the causative antecedents were for the increase in support.

I trust that there is no dispute regarding the generally accepted understanding of the centrality of the effect of the "The Enlightenment", the Jewish emancipation, and anti-Semitism on Zionism and its support. I think the introduction, as Marsden rewrote it in September and as it persists today, fails to even touch upon this essential context of world history, without which modern Zionism would not exist.

To say that Zionism was originally secular is to deny the history of the Jewish people prior to the 19th century. This is a profoundly a-historical and anti-Jewish POV. This is tantamount to saying that anti-Semitism (Jew hatred) did not exist until the term anti-Semitism was coined in the 19th century. Anti-Semitism existed and Christian anti-Semitism, in particular, existed since nearly the beginning of the Christian era. See Christian Antisemitism, A History of Hate, by William Nicholls http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1568215193/104-2596207-6895134?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance Likewise, Zionism, Jewish aspirations for their homeland, existed long before the coining of the term Zionism.

Is there anything that you disagree with in the following paragraph? If so, how would you edit it?

Zionism is Jewish patriotism in support of a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel, where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times. Zionism’s earliest history is chronicled in the Jewish Bible, which provides evidence of the first link between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. Zionism gained increased secular support within Christendom, largely as a response to "The Enlightenment" of the 18th century, Jewish emancipation, and rampant anti-Semitism in late 19th-century Europe.

Goodoldpolonius2, thanks again and nice “meeting” you. --Doright


 * The article begins, "While Zionism is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe." This is correct, as Zionism as any sort of organized movement or ideology began in the 19th century, though the religious tradition predated it.  The Zionist movement was indeed secular, the longing for Zion was not.  But the key element is that there was almost no effort for the Jews to return to the historical Land of Israel before the birth of the secular Zionist movement, and that Zionism, used today, refers to that movement and its offspring, which culminated in the creation of Israel. Though it is well-argued, I disagree with your analogy with anti-Semitism, Zionism is more like communism, a political ideology with ancient roots, but only organized into a real movement recent times. Your own source,, gives three definitions, all of which apply to the modern movement.  Though I do agree that we can include the retroactive nature in the intro, which I will try to do.


 * Goodoldpolonius2, you say, “This is correct, as Zionism as any sort of organized movement or ideology began in the 19th century, though the religious tradition predated it.” I hope you will agree that your statement is a product of a POV and could benefit from some analysis.  Since Judaism predates the 19th century, your statement implies that either religions are not ideologies or the Jewish religion is not an ideology or that the Jewish religion is not an organized ideology.  Likewise, your statement implies that there were no organized Jewish movements to take and/or return to the Land of Israel prior to the 19th century.  This is, as you know, false.  Even the text of the current article mentions a few of them (e.g., Sabbatai Zevi).  Doright 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the history, Jewish emancipation (an article I worked on extensively, along with Haskalah, etc.) was certainly one of the reasons why Zionism found fertile ground in the late 20th century, but neither it nor Haskalah were proximate causes of the birth of the movement, which came from 19th century Romanticism mixed with the pogroms of 1880-1883. I am also not sure why Christendom is evoked in the way you do, it is a somewhat strange phrasing to my ears, and the movement was a Jewish one (and a minority Jewish one at that).  Perhaps you can provide sources that explicitly support that view. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I mention Christendom because I believe that its useful towards understanding some of the issues modern Zionists have faced attempting to settle the Land of Israel after it became Dar Islam (the land of Islam). Doright 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Originate
Goodoldpolonius2, I found err in your introductory paragraph and chose to make a very simple edit to correct it, but you have asked me to come here to give reason to it despite giving the explanation in my edit summer. So here goes.

In regards to the Land of Israel, the paragraph refers to it as the land "where the Jewish nation originated". I will in all sincerety be very disappointed if I honestly need educate you as to where the Jews originated. That land was the land promised to the Jews (aka Hebrews, Israelites) as descentandts of Abraham Avinu, Yitzchak v'Ya'akov in the devine promise that was made. None of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel, and so nor do the Jews if our descent from the patriarchs is true. What use is it to suggest we originated in Israel when saying so delegitimises our descent from the patriachs and negates the existace of the Jewish people in the first place.

With "where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history" it is just more accurate to say "where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states had come to exist at various times in history." Al-Andalus 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed this somehow - apologies. Your argument is problematic, even sticking to the Biblical account of the birth of the Jewish people. For example, you are wrong when you say that "none of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel". According to the Bible, Isaac was born after Abraham reached Canaan (Mamre, which was thought to be near Hebron), and Jacob was born in Moilahhi, outside of Beer Sheba, and given the name Israel in Mahanaim, across the Jordan (but still in the historical Land of Israel). This leaves the fact that Abraham was born in Ur, I guess, as the counterexample, but even Biblically, that is sketchy, as Abraham was promised to be made a great nation in the "land I will show you," there was no nation until Canaan.  And even leaving aside the textual analysis, it seems to be a stretch to say that the Jewish nation originated in Ur of the Chaldees, as I don't think anyone has ever made that argument.  Additionally, the earliest available actual, historical evidence places the origins of the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel from around 1200 BCE. So, I think arguing that because the Biblical Abraham was born Ur means that the Jewish nation did not originate in the land of Israel, even despite the fact that the existing historical account says otherwise, is really pushing a point. It is like saying that the Jewish nation originated in the Rift Valley in Africa. --Goodoldpolonius2 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ur of the Chaldees is most commonly identified with Sumerian Ur which lies west of the Euphrates and therefore within the borders of Israel defined in Genesis 15:18. Don't confuse Land of Canaan with Land of Israel. But this is beside the point, the Jews as a nation originated with the area of modern Israel regardless of where Abraham was born. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This could be dragged on forever. I think a middle ground would be that the Land of Israel is where the Jewish nation came to it's fulfilment as a political entity. That is beyond a doubt, and supported by history and science. To say that the 'Ívri ("from the other side") as a people originated in Israel denies our roots. You also have the numerous people that joined us on our journey towards the promised land. They also constitue our origins. Some of the martriarchs were converts, and they too are our origins. The descent of the Hebrews after reaching the Promised Land may have been born in that region (as it was promised) but there we did not originate. Al-Andalus 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC).


 * I think that your desire not to use the term "originated" is driving your arguments, and I am not sure why the term is objectionable. I believe this is really overcomplicating matters - first you said that the patriarchs were not from the Land of Israel, so the Jewish nation did not originate there, but this is clearly not right, as both historical and Biblical accounts show.  Now, you are saying that perhaps the matriarchs did not come from there, and that converts were not always from the Land of Israel, but I am not sure why that matters. In both Biblical and historical accounts, the Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel - that does not mean that every Jew was born there, or that each Jew can trace their roots there, but in every sense of national origin - spiritual, physical, historical, and national conciousness, then the Jewish nation certainly came from there as much as any nation every originated in a location (the Mongols from the steppes of Asia, the Swedes from Scandanavia, the Arabs from the tribes of the Arabian pennisula, etc.).  Also, replacing "the Jewish nation originated in..." with "the Jewish nation reached its fulfillment as a political entity..." seems quite tortured. Perhaps the most convincing thing would be for you to provide some sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I actually know the answers to the questions you ask regarding why Al-Andalus finds the term "objectionable", but they're not particularly relevant for this page. The bottom line is that the historial record finds the origins of the Jewish nation in Israel, not Iraq, or Egypt, or elsewhere. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know all that. Notice I did not say that the patriarchs were not born in Israel (apart from Abraham, who was born in Ur). What I said is that they did not "originate" there. I was born in Australia, that does not mean the origins of my family or people are there. As for Jayjg, please enlighten us all, for what higher reason do I find the term "objectinable". Don't be shy now. You're hardly the type not to post "irrelevencies". Al-Andalus 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Al-Andalus, that is my point, I am not sure what purpose your extreme precision serves, especially as I am not sure it is accurate. For example you said "None of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel, and so nor do the Jews if our descent from the patriarchs is true," but you say now that two of the patriarches were indeed born there -- it seems to be odd to say that they were born there, but did not originate there, I am not sure I understand the distinction in this case, wouldn't it mean that Abraham's origin is whervever Abraham's father is from, and so forth, ad infinitum? That pretty much means that the only meaningful statement is that everyone originated in east Africa, which is needlessly reductionist. Similarly, given all of the info presented on how the Jewish nation's first archaelogical, political, and religious appearance was in the Land of Israel, and, indeed, the centrality of that belief in both secular and religious thought, you really do need to provide a reputable source if you are going to argue to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to address my problem with "originate" as briefly as posible. Maybe it's just me, but the word "originate" to me brings up the notion of a people that sprung up in the land miraculously and out of thin air, or from a people previously there (neither of which is how it happened). In saying the Hebrews originated in the Land of Israel, rather than saying that it was the place of destination as devinely promised to be settled by us, the chosen people of origins distinct from the people already in that land (the Canaanites, Moabites, etc.), puts us in the same boat as them, ambiguating our distinct origins. I don't know if I've gotten my point across. Al-Andalus 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC).


 * Israel is where the Jews became a nation, just like England is where the English became a nation, even though they emigrated to England from German lands, and quite possibly from Asia before that. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

EXACTLY!!! The English; such a simple yet effective analogy. We all know and accept the English did not originate in England. The origins of the English lie not in England nor with the Celts (the people original to the British Isles), but from Northern Europe and the Germanic tribes (the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes). Likewise, the Jews did not originate in the Land of Israel, but migrated there as a people with origins elsewhere and then established themselves there with devine guidence, a covenant with Him and the devine promise to that land. Funny, I never thought the affirmation would've come from you. Al-Andalus 08:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Oh please what garbage. The three forefathers of the Jewish people were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham was born in Ur, most commonly identified with the Sumerian Ur lying west of the Euphrates and therefore within the borders of Israel defined in Genesis 15:18. Isaac and Jacob were not only born in the Land of Israel but in fact in Canaan lying west of Jordan more or less the area of modern Israel. Kuratowski&#39;s Ghost 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Misc

 * Doright: for the record: I object to your caracterization of me/my edits in your edit line: .....even if, as you claim, a Jew says it. ... I have never made such a "claim". Please do not ascribe to me something I have not said/done. What I have done is to point out that the source you used; www.palestinefacts.org, is not a NPOV source, this according to themselves:
 * My edit summary was: Dorights source does not even claim to be neutral (see hidden text)
 * My insert was:
 * In other words; if a source itself states that it presents facts with a pro-Israel point-of-view, I think it should be noted. Regards, Huldra 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Huldra, your objection is noted. However, as I pointed out eariler, the fact that the number 20,000,000 is greater than the number 15,000,000 is not a matter of POV it's simple math. Therefore, it appeared to me that you are bringing up the issue of POV in a knee-jerk matter that is not germaine to the point being made. The reference from the jewish internet association that you objected to merely stated the simple mathematical fact that was already establsihed by the immediately preceeding Christian Science Monitor citation. Did you not read it? Or am I to conclude that you will dispute any sourcing from the jewish internet association, even when their statements are collaborated by independent sources? -Doright

Is someone saying Jewish sources are not acceptable? Pintele Yid 08:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Invalid link #1 In the fourth paragraph of the introduction it is stated that "Christian Zionists greatly outnumber Jewish Zionists. [1].", while the link itself is a news article and doesnt tell us how they got the estimate themselves. I think this invalidates the link completly and calls for the removal of both the link and the suggestion that Christian zionists outnumber Jewish zionists. I think the latter group is hard to indentify anyway, because they dont see themselves as such.--Pezazu 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Pintele Yid's changes
Good edits on the whole -- much cleaner. I'm not sure about a couple of the capitalization changes: post-Zionism and prime minister. Also, I think the "territory now known as Israel" is more accurate as well as more assonant, since 80 years ago, there wasn't conflict over Israel; there was conflict over the territory that became Israel. Oh, also -- the last part, about the defenders of Zionism, the change from "inherant" to "inevitable consequence" -- that's a real meaning change, I think. Since it's a "they argue" paragraph, I guess we need a cite to what they really argue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the removal of the blog "Jews sans frontiers". Admittedly, I'm new to studying the issue of Zionism/Anti-Zionist, but on a cursory reading the blog didn't seem to be anti-semitic or encouraging violent or lawless activity; merely, politically opposed to Zionism. Pintele Yid, was this removed "for cause" or "for balance"? -Kasreyn 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Article Title
The article states: -- “This article is intended to be a survey of the history and objectives of the Zionist MOVEMENT.” -- It obviously should be renamed “Zionist Movement” or “Modern Zionist Movement.” Doright 07:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Doright, I think you will find consensus strongly against this suggestion. Please see my comments and the discussion about the intro above. --Goodoldpolonius2 13:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Goodoldpolonius2, to that I have no doubt, however I believe that may change with discussion. Please see my recent reply to your earlier comments.[]  Again, it's clearly stated in the article: "This article is intended to be a survey of the history and objectives of the Zionist movement."

Zion
My edit summary got truncated (my slip of the finger). As the article states, "Zion" is an old name for Jerusalem. It is not derived from an ideological or historical fact about the Jewish people. --Zero 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-Jewish Zionism
FYI, I've reintroduced subsections in that section. In addition to the existing religious and secular ones, this could possibly include: Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * League of Nations and the United Nations: (both the 1922 Mandate and the 1947 plan included at least partial endorsement of Zionism)
 * Conservative Zionism.


 * Two issues: 1) What is conservative Zionism? If we mean recent support for Israel as a ally of the West among conservatives, that seems a bit dubious, as it really isn't Zionism in the regular sense. 2) The Muslim Zionism section is bad, and needs to either be expanded or go. We have one guy "pointing out" a presumably controversal religious view (which he does not call Muslim Zionism), yet it has its own header on par with Christian Zionism, or non-Jewish socialist Zionism.  I tried to comment this out, but was reverted.  I then tried to qualify it, but that was reverted as well.  What is the justification for keeping the "Muslim Zionism" section? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it needs to be rewritten, but I disagree that it should go. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It doesn't matter how many people brought the quote: it is from the Qur'an, which, AFAIK, most Muslims take literally. These days, many people (including some Muslims) say that Islam has been hijacked and over-politicized in the 20th century. This looks like an evidence of that. Perhaps the subsection[s] need some renaming/rearranging, but the text stayed here for months without serious objections. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries about toe-stepping! I still think there needs to be a notability standard here in terms of "Muslim Zionism" -- the Quran also says things about hunting down Jews behind trees (or at least the Hamas charter quotes something to that effect), so I would want to make sure that the interpretation of these passages is actually shared by some number of Muslims.  I similarly would object to one guy's quote from the Talmud, religious books are tricky, there are lots of nuts willing to interpret, and to claim that such a thing as "Muslim Zionism" exists requires some standard of evidence.  Believe me, I'd love some evidence that it exists, but it really seems to be stretching the point to just quote the Quran and say that some Muslims are Zionists.  If you really disagree, I'll let it drop, so no worries. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer the section title Zionist motives in the Quran or perhaps The Land of Israel and the Jews in the Quran? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV discussion
This is an article written expressly by individuals with a purely Zionist point of view. Any editing of this article by anyone else is not permitted, as any facts or any THING stated would simply be deleted shortly after entry by the original author. This is censorship and is very wrong.

The main theme of Zionism stems from deep rooted Jewish philosophy which links the Jewish people to what Jews call the Land of Israel. Though this is the origin, the modern definition of Zionism is far more more secular than religious, a contemporary political movement among the Jewish population and other non-Jewish supporters. The term Jewish in itself, is no longer used to indicate a religious philosophy (see jew). For that reason especially, this new, ethnic Zionism is viewed very controversially by the rest of the world, and is often regarded as a form of racism. This is because it asserts that; Those of Jewish bloodline, regardless of their religious philosophy, should have sovereign ownership of this region as citizens of the State of Israel. These citizens are to be granted higher status and have rights over any of the native inhabitants of the region prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, referred to as Palestinians. This article also fails to mention the most striking fact about Zionism which is, the current conflict in the Middle East, and the bloodshed involved in the establishment of a Zionist state. It would seem that no user is permitted to mention these facts lest they be deleted, and the user blocked. That is illicit censorship, and borderline fascism. Another concept of dispute is whether those currently residing as Israeli citizens ARE of the bloodline of the original Israelites. The supposed lineage they share and vagueness with which this research was done (see khazar) conclude that perhaps, your average Nigerian may share an equal amount of original Israelite blood as does a modern Israeli citizen. These are facts that need to be mentioned in this article, and Wikipedia is not a fireum of personal bias and political sponsorship. It should be an open encyclopedia where any facts (provided that they are facts and not fabrications) can be openly added. The preceding content was originally added by Tezcore.


 * There is an entire article dedicated to expressing Your arguments. It's called anti-Zionism.--Chodorkovskiy 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Update
What exactly is the problem here? Whoever put in the dispute tag needs to explain exactly what is wrong with the article as it stands. You need to be more specific. AucamanTalk 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and Jewish Homeland (wl)
The article says "Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism." However the wikilink for Jewish homeland forwards to the article on Israel, which I don't think reflects what Chomsky is calling for. Could someone who is more familiar with the subject look at this. Paulleake 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AntiZionism
"Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism" - surely with a link to the seperate article on this it should no be in this article except as a single link?

"White-wash" - Americanism? Idiomatic?
"the label "Zionist" is also used improperly as a euphemism for Jews in general by those wishing to white-wash anti-Semitism (as in the Polish anti-Zionist campaign)."

My only problem with this otherwise good article is that "whitewash" seems a bit too Americanized or idiomatic somehow for an international topic like this.

It's also a bit vague and doesn't entirely convey (what I'm presuming) is the meaning - that anti-Zionism is a cover or disguise for anti-semitism. Anyone else agree?
 * Take a look at whitewash -- I'm surprised its colloquial usage (as in downplaying a problem) is so old. So, yes, it's an Americanism, but a very well established one -- looks like hundreds of uses on Wikipedia, though I've not dug through them to see how many are metaphorical. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "White-wash" has long since stop meaning anything American. It's like when Americans say "hutzpa" - they aren't reinforcing the Jews' control over their brains, they just like the word.
 * As for anti-Zionism, it's a perfectly legitimate (albeit stupid) movement and the article only points out that the language of anti-Zionism is sometimes used to cover anti-Semitism.--Chodorkovskiy 06:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not in contention; we're just discussing whether the phrase "whitewash" is too idiomatic for this usage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

References & copy-edits
I've turned this article's refs into the new format and couldn't resist from making some copy-edits in the process:. I was surprised to find that Hibbat Zion was "Larry Mohr's". Any clue what's that about? Also I've added 1947 Gromyko's statement, gave credit to Lord Shaftesbury, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)