Talk:Zionism/Archive 9

Definitions
I changed the order of the definitions. Since nobody denies that Zionism is a political movement seeking to bring back the Jews to Eretz Israel, and since that fact doesn't exclude the other definitions, I placed that - neutral and indisputable - definition first. Within that sentence, I replaced the old non-neutral references with the scholarly ones that Jayjg was kind enough to provide, and I changed the wording to reflect their content (see talk page section "The Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel?". I put the Gellner description next, because it is also relatively uncontroverisal (few Zionists would deny that Zionism is a nationalist movement), and because it is a description by a neutral scholar. I placed the "national liberation movement" bit last, because it is the only one that is subject to POV disputes. I also indicated that that is the way its proponents describe it, because that seems to be the case, and because all the links provided as references are to Zionist sources.

I hope nobody feels that these changes are POV or otherwise unreasonable. --Anonymous44 16:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your changes are reasonable to me and well explained here. Thanks.Giovanni33 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll accept your edits, but I've fixed the ref formats, and taken out the links more appropriate for Anti-Zionism, where, rather unsurpisingly, they already existed. Let's keep the articles about the correct topics, and ensure they don't duplicate each other. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also restored the part about "and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed up to the 2nd century CE", because the fact of Jewish nationalism and the fact of Jewish states are different ideas. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad that you believe my edit in the introduction to be appropriate. That aside, I still totally disagree with your idea about the External links. While I am not especially enthusiastic about those particular links, and I don't think they make much difference (so I wouldn't like to participate in another edit war about this, for the time being), I believe that the principal essence of your stance is absolutely incompatible with, and can be extremely detrimental for, Wikipedia's policies and its spirit. The steps of the Dispute resolution process must be followed until this issue is resolved. Hopefully, neutral Wikipedians will see the situation more clearly. --Anonymous44 19:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Right wing support
It seems that recently there has been some sort of right wing support of Israel. I don't know if this is documented, but the left wing support topic in the article doesn't appear to have any references either.

Political POV bias
The addition of the article about "Left wing support of Zionism" and it's claims that support fell out of favor only because of the move away from socialism without an article discussing present right wing support for Zionism is completely POV and needs to be balanced.

Since no one has offered to put up a counterbalance to the clearly POV statements in this particular section of the article I have removed all POV statements from the section on "left wing support of Zionism".


 * I guess nobody bothered because 1) you misunderstand WP:NPOV, 2) your idea of "counterbalance" is WP:OR, 3) as you can see, this page is often inundated by anonymous trolls and 4) new topics go to the bottom of the talk page. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't misunderstand WP:PNOV, it appears that you have however. Citing that "left wing" support of Zionism, and the current lack thereof, is directly related to the Socialist aspects of the early Zionists is a clearly politically slanted, and therefore heavily POV, statement. Please stop adding back in this biased paragraph unless you are willing to document any sort of reference material to support it. As it stands, the paragraph is not backed up by any facts or reference material and is clearly POV. I am going to once again remove the POV sections of that particular paragraph until there is some documentation supporting the claims in the section.
 * Just out of curiousity, are you suggesting that the analysis is incorrect, or are you just wanting to use the "documentation" requirement to support your unrelated (and incorrect) NPOV complaint? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Jpgordon, I am pointing out the fact that the analysis is factually incorrect. Your claim that I am requiring documentation only to serve what I can only assume you believe are political ends shows that you are clearly biased on the situation. If this article is going to be considered a reliable source of information it is important that there are no unsupported POV statements contained within the article. If you were unaware, encyclopedic entries are supposed to contain only facts, not baseless assertions. Contrary to what your comments seem to imply, disagreeing with your (incorrect) unsubstantiated beliefs does not indicate a POV bias, but instead does exactly the opposite.  I am going to be once again marking this page as disputed and removing the obviously POV information until the article is cleaned up or the incorrect section is removed.  If vandals continue removing the disputed tag, I will report this to the moderation staff of Wikipedia so that the situation can be resolved without one side resorting to obviously political motivations in attempt to portray a biased, anti-left, picture of the topic as is currently being done with the revisions that have been made to this article. Law82 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your use of the term "vandals" indicates either an ignorance or a deliberate misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies. You are engaged in a content dispute. It is not vandalism to be on either side of the content dispute, and removing disputed NPOV tags called "editing". Feel free to "report this to the moderation staff", if you can find one, since such doesn't exist. The place to discuss this is here on this talk page, as you are doing; if you can establish consensus for your proposed changes, they'll stay in the article; otherwise, they won't. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am going to be marking the article, once again, as NPOV if Humus Sapiens continues vandalizing the article by adding political POV bias, not to mention linking to a an extremely biased wikipedia "article" which serves as little more as a forum to bash the politically left. Since he seems to be content to simply change the content of the article without offering any supporting evidence, not to mention not even trying to take part in the discussion of the controversy of the "left wing support of zionism" section, I have been left with no other choice. I have reverted the POV corrections and will continue to do so until documentation, not hearsay, is provided as support for the supposed "facts". Law82 09:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've updated the POV statement about left wing support for Zionism to remove POV bias from it, while still giving service to the fact that some believe, correctly or not, that the shift away from left wing political support of Zionism is due entirely to the shift away from socialism. Law82 01:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoever you are -- I'm certainly inclined to agree with you. You'll get further with these kinds of discussions, though, if you adopt a username and sign your comments. BYT 12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While I won't post under my main account for these revisions BYT, due to the fact that the one time in the past that I corrected a factual error on a Wikipedia article regarding the middle east, and more specifically Israel, vandals tracked down my email address and flooded my inbox with hate mail (not to mention my computer was subjected to a dedicated denial of service attack), I am creating a new account to deal with subsequent corrections to this article. Law82 13:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can defend against this sort of criminal attack by editing via Tor (anonymity network). Please don't refer to good-faith disagreements as vandalism. Somegeek 16:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove sourced information because it does not reflect your POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not remove sourced information because it didn't reflect "my POV", I removed a link to an article that claimed that any opposition to Israel or Zionism is equal to antisemitism, which is clearly POV. For this same reason I updated the incorrect paragraph to remove POV bias.  If you continue to abuse your administrator position, and continue to remove factually correct edits, I will continue to update the article with NPOV information and, if required, mark it as disputed if you continue to vandalize it with blatantly POV articles.Law82 09:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Humus is not "abusing" his position. He'd have to protect

the article or block you for his actions to be considered abuse. Right now, you're just intimidated by the fact that he's an admin. Well, get over it. "Vandalism" is deliberate and blatant damaging of Wikipedia, POV pushing is, well, POV pushing. -- Chodorkovskiy ( talk ) 10:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, he is threatening to block me for removing the POV bias in the article, so I consider that abuse of his administrator privileges. In any case, in an effort to get this dispute over and done with, I have added a link to the article he cites as "proof" that those who oppose Zionism are inherently antisemitic with a statement that more information on the belief that European (and the political left's)  increasing lack of support for Israel is wholly due to the move away from Socialism can be found there. This removes the POV bias from the paragraph as he had written it, as well as allowing people to research Humus' particular POV if they so desire.Law82 14:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he's threatening to block you for violating the three revert rule. Any admin will do exactly the same thing if you violate 3RR. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the content, other than the repetition of it. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So he can arbitrarily undo factual corrections to put the article in line with his POV beliefs without participating in the discussion on the talk page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period, but it is against policy if I correct his revisions? Law82 14:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'll block him if he violates 3RR also. You already have, but since you weren't warned, you're being given a little bit of leeway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see that there is at least some semblance of neutrality in this discussion, since it seems Humus is not entirely familiar with the rules surrounding the 3RR, primarily "Except in cases of vandalism, if an administrator has personally been involved in a content dispute on that page, that administrator should not block the user for 3RR violations. Instead, the administrator in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken." In any case, I have tagged the article as disputed until a solution can be reached as far as the content in the "Left wing support of Zionism" section Law82 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know Humus well enough to know that he'd actually simply post a report on WP:AN/3RR and let some other admin do the blocking. That's how we usually do it, so as to avoid exactly the situation you're suggesting. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So he would go around the rules and do it by proxy? Interesting to know. Law82 15:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Go around the rules"? The rules don't say an admin involved in a content dispute can't call attention to a 3RR violation; anyone can call attention to a 3RR violation. That's what WP:AN/3RR is for. If Humus committed one (which he hasn't -- he stopped at 3 to avoid exactly that), then you yourself could get him blocked for 24 hours (if you documented his violation properly). It's hardly "going around the rules" to ask other admins to review a situation and take action if appropriate. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will keep this in mind in case this becomes an issue again. For now, however, I'm going to sleep.  Hopefully we can actually get a discussion going on the POV statements in the article, instead of just edit wars, soon so that we can get this situation resolved amicably.Law82 15:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the article and do not find it particularly biased against the Jewish people nor the state of Israel, nor does it provide support for Zionism in any way. Zionism is a more activist subculture of worldwide Jewish culture with long roots in lobbying for various goals and aims which have differed not only throughout time but also due to loosely affiliated Zionist organizations and thinkers whos opinions may differ from eachother and change throughout history.

If this article were written about Hawkish Zionist ideologies vs. Dove everyone else then the concern of bias may have been warranted. This is not the case. User:Taylor Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.0.218 (talk • contribs)

It's sad to see that nothing has been done to try to provide a POV-free version of this article. I'd try for a revision, but seeing as there are a handful of people who are, apparently, intent on keeping a politically-slanted viewpoint on this particular topic (sadly enough some of these people are Wikipedia moderators) I am going to withdraw myself from the discussion. Law82 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection
How do I go about getting an article protected from vandals or unregistered users? --יהושועEric 16:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:RFPP would be how. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Haredi opposition to Zionism
One by one, I am going to provide very nice sources. Now of course, claims are going to show up saying 'Satmar and the like are not notable, since they are only tiny sects'. Let's start with that lie. I quote from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm :
 * Satmar
 * "Jewish anti-Zionists today consist of a several very small and very vocal group - .... tiny groups of reactionary ultraorthodox Jews .... the Satmar "

Now, I would like to invite the reader to watch the following videos. (As background information: Satmar has split up into two parts - one part is led by Rabbi Aharon Teitelbaum, one by Rabbi Zalman Leib Teitelbaum. The war between the two is very strong and not a single Satmar Hassid would go to the celebrations of both rabbis.) Now, watch this: Now, look at the words quoted above and judge the reliability of a website which defines Satmar as a 'tiny group'. Also notice that both of these videos show only the New York department, and that Satmar has similarly huge groups in London, Antwerp, Jerusalem and several other cities. Their total number is well over 100,000. Now, I am sure most of you will bring this website as a source for showing that Satmar really isn't relevant for this article.
 * Rabbi Aharon, two weeks ago
 * Rabbi Zalman Leib, a few months ago

Okay, now that we have established the size of Jewish movements opposing Zionism, let's work on the sources. For starters, look at the Wikipedia articles on Satmar and on its greatest leader ever, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum. As it says, "Reprinted with the permission of The Continuum International Publishing Group from The Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green." That sounds reliable, eh? I quote:
 * Now let's take http://www.zionismontheweb.org/antizionism/Against_Zionists_not_Jews.html this site. As that site says: "The web site www.jewsagainstzionism.com claims that True Torah Jews are anti-Zionist. It belongs to the Ultra Orthodox Chassidic Satmar sect. The group numbers about 124,000 and believe that the Jewish homeland can not be created until the messiah comes."
 * Next we have this one http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/LandIsrael/modern_landisrael/QuestioningZionism/Neturei_Karta.htm.
 * "The anti-Zionist world-view of the ultra-orthodox groups Neturei Karta and Satmar Hasidism perceives Zionism and the estab­lishment of the State of Israel as an anti-messianic act, conceived and born from sin. These groups vigorously deny the very legiti­macy of the collective political return to the Holy Land and to Jewish sovereignty. For them, this is the handiwork of humans, violating the Jewish people's oath of political quietism."

We have also this one http://www.newzionist.com/2006/05/in-other-news/ which says: "The Satmar sect is also staunchly opposed to any forms of Zionism, and won’t even approach the Western Wall because they believe it has been soiled by Zionism, which they feel is an abomination." Next we get to Belz.
 * Next we have http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1820242,00.html this one, saying (about the previous leader of Satmar): "Similar numbers had greeted him when he visited Israel in 1999 - notwithstanding the fact that Satmar is the most anti-Zionist of all Hassidic groups."
 * Then we have http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1439 this one. "The Satmar chassidim in New York are at the extreme end of the anti-Zionist spectrum." And also about Munkacz: "One of the strongest and most vociferous opponents of Zionism in pre-war Europe was R. Elazar Shapira, Rav of Munkacz, and author of Minchat Elazar."
 * Belz
 * http://www.revisionisthistory.org/warren.html says "It seems that the Haredi (i.e. Hasidic) Belz rabbi, Yisachar Dov Rokach, speaking one recent Saturday night at the conclusion of the Simhat Torah, and in the wake of the mass shootings of Palestinian rioters in September by the IDF, warned against Jewish violence. He said the injunction to live by the sword was a "blessing which had been granted to the descendents of Esau, and not the sons of Israel." He warned of the danger which the Zionists were in as a result of Likud policies. Yisrael Eichler, a follower of the Belz rebbe, pointed out that the rabbi's talk was in keeping with the sacred admonition of "not provoking the gentiles.""
 * Then we have http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V96I2P58-1.htm which notes that " the Belzers resisted emancipation and were particularly opposed to Zionism on the ground that a reestablished Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel must await the coming of the Messiah..." (And note that the same website says "it is estimated that, despite their rising profile and high birth rate, Israel's haredi population just barely exceeds 100,000 souls". A nice example of why NOT to trust such websites (FYI, the normally held figure in all censuses is about 600-700,000 people.)
 * Satmar, Belz, Tosh, Skver, Pshevorsk
 * http://www.cjnews.com/pastissues/99/mar31-99/front2.htm "The protesters, garbed in traditional black, included members of virtually all the chassidic groups based in Outremont, including Satmar, Belz, Tasch and Skver." And "The lengthy release, issued by a group called the Central Rabbinical Congress of the U.S.A. and Canada, condemned the continued incarceration of the three without charges, and referred to "all forms of Zionism [as] inherently antithetical to the teaching of our faith."" For what the CRC means, see http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/documents/callfromcrc.pdf this and http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbinicalcourts/crc/statements/nytimes093082.cfm this.

Anyone need more sources regarding Satmar being anti-Zionist? I will keep adding some more throughout the evening, perhaps. *in the meantime, adding and adding* --Daniel575 | (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * None of this affected Zionism, it's history or philosophy in any way and therefore, if it belongs anywhere, it would be anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You remove my section on Orthodox anti-Zionism, then every mention of Orthodox Zionism disappears as well. Face it. You cannot have it both ways. Either you place my section back, or the section on Religious Zionism disappears as well. The section is specifically about 'Jewish opposition to Zionism'. These movements represented (and represent) a HUGE number of extremely involved Jews. Your removal of this section borders on vandalism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue being solved with the creation of the article on Haredi anti-Zionism, which I had prepared a while ago already. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states up to the 2nd century CE.
I was wondering if anyone could explain me what were these "jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" that existed up to the 2nd century, because I am not aware of them. As far as I know, in 63 BCE the Romans conquered the jewish kingdom and from them on what you basically had was a puppet kingdom that had to ally with Rome. --213.190.195.101 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Few people know that the Romans gained much of their territory without force, and their control of Israel was an example of this. They placed Herod on the throne but left him mostly independent, it was only after he died shortly before the birth of Jesus that they took a more direct role in the governing of day-to-day affairs. However we extend the date to the second century because of the two Jewish revolts that created independent states for short periods of time (it was actually three revolts but the second one wasn't in Judea).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And how did you manage to keep that information hidden from so many people, one would like to ask? "Control of Israel"? That country only exists since 1948. What was there before can hardly be compared to the modern notion of a state. What people are doing there in that specific sentence of "Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states up to the 2nd century CE" is original reasearch which as far as I know is not allowed in Wikipedia. --213.190.195.101 11:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See History of ancient Israel and Judah and in particular Bar Kokhba's revolt. Do these articles "manage to keep that information hidden"? ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there wasn´t any independent Jewish kingdom till the 2nd century. It´s clear what people are trying to do wit that: they´re trying to portray these kingdoms as some sort of predecessor do modern Israel. I don´t take as reference articles from Wikipedia such as those which are biased in a way to fit modern political events and agendas. --213.190.195.101 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky
Hello, all. I am on a campaign to rid this article of Citation Needed tags. Does anybody have a source for this sentence? "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."

I tried to find one on the 'Net but my knowledge of the subject is not broad or deep enough. Lacking a source, I propose to delete this sentence in a week or so.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think if you go here: http://www.infoshop.org/octo/matrix/index.php/Noam_Chomsky and read about halfway down, Chomsky is quoted as to saying something very similar on CSPAN TV interview.

Dicussion between Users
I am doing a copy of my Discussion with User:Daniel575:

Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1 - ==Zionism = Racism== Please do not make similar changes to the article Zionism again. I have reverted your edit. From someone purporting to be a professor of history, I would expect a slightly higher level of editing. Also, please do not again make such controversial changes with the 'minor edit' button. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. --Daniel575 | (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

2 - == About Racism and Discrimination ==

Dear Daniel: You are right. As my own language is Spanish I always edit all my editions in English as "minor edit". In this particular case it should be a "major edit". I am sorry. In this article Category:Discrimination may be better than Category:Racism. I also agree with you.

The issue in question is confusing, since both concepts have similarities. You can see as examples: Zionism and racism – Discrimination Chosen People Zionism and racism - UN resolutions Allegations of Israeli apartheid Desmond Tutu - Views on Israel, Jews, and Judaism List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel And Jimmy Carter's book: "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid". Actually Religious Zionism seems to be quite controversial in the Modern World as Marxist Atheism and Islamic or Christian fundamentalism are.

So allow me, my dear friend, to salute together with you the heroes of Humanist tolerance as: Count Folke Bernadotte and General Yitzhak Rabin. Best regards. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism?
Not all Jews are Israelis (and vice-versa) and not all Jews mindlessly agree with the government of Israel's every action. To imply that all Jews must agree with your political views is as racist as the sort of anti-semitism some are condemning in this article. I've edited out some of the 'citation needed' statements, and hope they will only be returned with a citation, and with less blatently political phrasing. - Kyle543 00:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wonderful. Someone reentered the statements within seconds. Well, I wont get into an editing war about this, but none the less, you, the re-editor, should consider adding citations or refrasing the statements, for the sake of your own integrity and honesty, if not Wikipedia's. Kyle543 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the section to which I believe Kyle543 is referring:  In recent years the term Zionism has been adopted by anti-Semitic groups as a way to avoid the stigma associated with the outright hatred of Jews [citation needed]. These groups make use of the existence of non-Jewish Zionists to mitigate their standpoint when under scrutiny [citation needed]. The author should find somebody else making those or similar statements and quote or cite that person; otherwise, there is an implication that Wikipedia itself is stating those assertions as fact. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 01:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (I just work here.)
 * Citations provided. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an example of the tunnel vision and all-too-eager ideological chloroforming of principles of basic neutrality that land WP in hot water. If you must appeal to a desire of anti-Zionists to camouflage their alleged "outright hatred of Jews," it is incumbent upon you to address, without evasion, the obvious question of whether contemporary (and historical) Jews who have opposed Zionism thus have an outright hatred of themselves. And if so, whether they are aware that they have this hatred. BYT 04:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hearing no discussion, I've removed this blatantly POV text. (Did so while I was logged out unawares, immediately before posting this note on the talk page.) Please remember that talk pages have a purpose, and that the proper place to engage in discussion about controversial edits is right here. Please do not reinsert this blatantly POV text without gaining consensus (see WP:Consensus) to do so. BYT 10:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverted. Behave. Your screaming is highly inappropriate and will not gain you any support. There is a source. There is no POV issue. The subject is a very well known issue, even Martin Luther King mentioned it. Discussion finished. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checking here. Other editors have a problem with this passage, and you decline to discuss their concerns, preferring instead to revert the text under dispute. Correct? BYT 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When a Muslim called Yusuf comes in to deny that antisemites (a very large percentage of whom are you coreligionists) use 'anti-Zionism' as a 'legitimate' form of criticism of the Jewish people, yes, I decline to discuss. A source was provided. You have nothing to base yourself on but your own lies. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. FYI, I'm not an anti-Semite. You are aware that WP is based on collaborative editing, especially with regard to controversial text, right? Just want to be clear I'm getting a conscious announcement from you here that you do in fact refuse to discuss your edits on this page. Please confirm. BYT 21:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Confirmed. And sure, you're not an anti-Semite, you're just an anti-Zionist, right? I HAVE explained this before. (Why am I going to do it again...) It is a plain, known fact that numerous groups, both Muslims and neo-Nazis, hide their anti-Semitic message and nature behind a veil of 'anti-Zionism'. There are two sources. Don't like it? Too bad. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Couple points. 1) Clearly, some people use Anti-Zionism as a smokescreen for Anti-Semitism. I think the Laquer quote is excellent, in that it makes the point that not all Anti-Zionists are Anti-Semites as well. Daniel, I respectfully ask that you tone your rhetoric down a bit. You've been editing here long enough to know that's not okay. Also, you undermine your own position when you post as you have. I'm sure you don't want to do that, right? IronDuke  00:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * IronDuke's purported evenhandedness here is not supported by fact. All manifestations of anti-Zionism are hostile to Jews and Judaism. The problem is that some forms of christianity and all forms of mohamedism are theologically repugnant to Judaism. The mohamedan claim that the Jewish Prophet Moses bows to hubal of Mecca, (i.e., is muslim), or the Vatican imagination that it is the "true" Israel are both manifestations of a completely repugnant and discredited "replacement theology." To the extent that muslims or christians come to this page to impose their repugnant theology on this article must be resisted with full force.--Lance talk 11:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is repugnant anti-Muslim statements which must be resisted with full force. I care not what editors' personal POV's, religious beliefs, etc. are, I only care that editors follow the rules. There are some editors here who, in their anti-Islamic statements, are dangerously close to violating WP:NPA, if they have not done so already. Criticize the edits, not the editors. IronDuke  20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Zionism is simply a movement embodied by the actions of a disgusting state - there is no 100% correlation between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and this article should reflect the opinions of writers who state the same. BhaiSaab talk 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Read it [here].BYT 00:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BYT, I think you have formatted your RfC a bit improperly. Niggling here, but you should use five tildes, not four. Also, although I don't disagree with your second sentence, it isn't the place for it, as the box above the RfC makes clear. No worries if you don't want to change it, just letting you know. IronDuke  00:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct. My error. Back to sentence one in the RFC -- I feel this portion of the intro has major problems:


 * In recent years the term Zionism has been adopted by anti-Semitic groups as a way to avoid the stigma associated with the outright hatred of Jews. These groups make use of the existence of non-Jewish Zionists to mitigate their standpoint when under scrutiny


 * POINT ONE: "Anti-Semitic groups" above is way too broad, whether the sentence ends with a cite or it doesn't. It's like saying, "Evil people whom WP declines to identify -- but you know who they are -- have adopted the term 'Zionism' for their own nefarious purposes, and in service of their agenda of hating Jews. Please bear that in mind whenever you hear criticism of Zionism."


 * It's fundamentally biased, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia.


 * POINT TWO: The intro makes no mention of the fact that groups of Jews, and individual Jews, have throughout history opposed Zionism, and oppose it today. Left unanswered in light of Daniel's text above is the important question: "Are these people anti-Semites, and if so, do they realize that they are anti-Semites?"


 * Daniel has said twice now that he refuses to discuss his edits on this page with me because I am a Muslim. I hope he changes his mind, but even if he doesn't, what do other editors have to say about all this? BYT 16:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, generally such behaviour is called "racist", though race isn't the issue; if it were reversed, and you were doing that to Daniel, it might well be called "antisemitic"; "bigoted" might be the appropriate generic term. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * BYT, don't accuse me of being a Zionist. You can ask User:Meshulam if you want to know how Zionist I am. I do not know of any greater insult than being named a 'Zionist'.
 * Next. It is a plain and established fact that many antisemites hide their anti-Semitism by pretending to just be 'anti-Zionists who do not have anything against Jews'. There are plenty of sources for this. It is a well-known and common fact. Some examples are, as mentioned now in the article, David Duke and a number of European neo-Nazi groups. --Daniel575 | (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

BYT, what's the issue here. Do you deny that anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" as a cover for "Jew"? Or is it the sources? The placement in the article? Jayjg (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that he is indeed denying that, which is why I do not consider him worthy of a single second of my time. --Daniel575 | (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that some anti-semites use anti-zionist as a cover, but this information is very loaded and doesn't deserve to be part of the articles introduction. Stick to concrete facts in the intro please and put the polemic later on in the article, it's current location lends it too much authority. manchester_me 03:09, 9 November 2006 (GMT)
 * This isn't my battle. I feel compelled to say my piece only because Daniel575 has invoked me to support his claim that he is not a Zionist. As it is, I don't really care if Daniel575 is a Zionist. It is irrelevant to whether his edits are acceptable. Similarly, whether a user is a Muslim has no bearing on whether his edits are acceptable. I agree with Daniel575 that many people (David Duke is an excellent example) use the term Zionist when they really mean Jew. However, criticizing Zionism is not the sam as criticizing Jews or Judaism. Daniel575's edits call into question whenever anyone uses the term Zionist disparagingly (which is ironic, considering the lengths to which he will go elsewhere to vilify and demonize Zionists). Daniel's rule seems to be: you're allowed to criticize Zionism if you're Jewish.  Regardless of whether that view makes any sense, it is blatantly POV, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. --Meshulam 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that the vast majority of non-Jewish 'anti-Zionists' are plain antisemites in a different coat. Their obsession with Israel is totally irrational. Why do they continuously criticize Israel, call for boycotts, accuse us being an 'apartheid state' etc, while they do not give Muslim / Arab states which perpetrate much worse crimes against humanity the same treatment? That is anti-Semitism. Singling out Israel, from all countries of the world, while ignoring the crimes committed by every other country in the world. That's plain anti-Semitism.
 * And yes, in a way, that does mean that Jews are more entitled to criticize Zionism than non-Jews are. Now of course I completely agree with some things Israel is criticized for. Just this morning, an 'accident' caused a barrage of artillery to land 1 km from its intended target, killing at least 19 and wounding at least 30 civilians. Criticizing Israel for such things is completely acceptable.
 * But critizing the people who live here is not. These 'anti-Zionists', many of whom are plain anti-Semites, blame all Israelis (and all Jews!) for mistakes made by the government and/or army. For example, in Holland, an Arab-Islamic lobby group demanded that the Dutch organization of Dutch Jewish communities apologize for the killing of Sheik Yassin! What does the Jewish community of Amsterdam have to do with that?! That is plain anti-Semitism. I refuse to every ally myself with such groups.
 * Regarding tbe issue of who are entitled to criticize Israel, I definitely believe that all (descendents of) Palestinians are. They are, like us Jews, personally involved. But Dutch lefties, Sudanese Muslims, Russian neo-Nazis - what do they have to do with the issue at hand? What's their business here? Why do they only focus on Israel - why is always only Israel (well, together with the US) singled out to be attacked? Are North Korea, Sudan, Iran, Saudi-Arabia and plenty of other countries so innocent that they are not worthy of any criticism? But Israel is? That, gentlemen, is anti-Semitism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel, first I want to say that I'm on your side here. You're claiming to be critical of Zionism; that demonstrates less than a full understanding of the diversity of views that fall under the umbrella of the term "Zionism." I understand from your talk page that you are Orthodox; then, you must know the importance of Eretz Yisrael as the Eternal Home of the Jewish people. What a particular Jew thinks of our National Home, the Land of Israel, is irrelevant; even less so to describing Zionism. Governments in Israel will change innumerable times; but that the Jewish people are an aboriginal people indiginous to Land of Israel is an Eternal Fact. This importance has nothing to do with what any particular Jew, or anyone else thinks. As far as the muslim troll on this page, you were justified in your dismissal of it. The arguments given were inane and evil; not worthy of response. The arab presense in Israel is an alien presence; it has no legitimacy; your granting it legitimacy is dishonest and further provokes conflict. The arab and muslim has to be dealt with harshly; being kind just encourages their evil intentions and actions.--Lance talk 10:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your kind of bigotry, pure hatred, is much worse. Your kind should be expelled from Eretz Yisroel rather than that any Arab should be expelled. How dare you say such things! Be ashamed of yourself! The Zionist presence in Eretz Yisroel is a disgrace and has no legitimacy and the Zionist state will, at some point, be dismantled. May it happen soon in our days, peacefully and without any harm to any living thing. Your type of Zionism is the type that the greatest rabbis have cursed, have condemned. To all Arabs / Muslims reading this, please be aware that the above Zionist hate speech does NOT represent Jews or Judaism. I and hundreds of thousands of other Jews, including the vast majority of Haredi ('ultra-Orthodox') Jews very strongly condemn Zionism. The above writer has been infected with the deadly disease called 'Zionism'. I and tens of thousands of others pray every day for the Zionist state to be abolished. Don't expect me to approve of your words, Lance. Zionism = Racism. Zionism = Oppression. Zionism = Fascism. Well, in any case, I do not think anyone now still dares to consider me 'POV' on this subject, in either direction. I am the most neutral person you will find. Dear Arabs, trust me, I am *not* going to protect or defend Zionism. I am completely neutral, NPOV. Personally I hate Zionism. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am shocked by what you are saying; and I would like to know how you justify your assertions that I find highly objectionable. If you were not Jewish, I would not pursue this with you. My interest is how such assertions made above, in particular, the false equations that you present, can be defended within the Jewish tradition?--Lance talk 11:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * False is POV. For further explanation, take a look here: User_talk:PalestineRemembered . --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What I am suggesting (and have placed in the article) is this:

'''Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals, a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" '''

Comments? BYT 14:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How can you make the assertion that it is only "Zionist" who argue this? And how can you possibly justify inserting an original research attempt to refute their statement? That is, of course what that entire "However, much..." sentence is. The policies are there for a reason. Jayjg (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How is it the original research? There is a citation supporting the sentence that BYT put. Nannu-ctg 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a source for his claim, but not for his argument. Original research is often sourced. BYT is trying to refute the claim that antisemites use the word "Zionist" as a cover for Jew, so he's created an original argument essentially stating "However, many Jews also are anti-Zionist, so it's not all antisemites". That's an interesting (though flawed) argument (who says Jews can't be antisemites?), but it's one invented by BYT. As WP:NOR states, it "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Jayjg (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BYT is trying to refute the claim that antisemites use the word "Zionist" as a cover for Jew. -- By no means! Antisemites use this tactic all the time. But this article is not Anti-Semitism. BYT 17:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of anti-Zionists are not Jews. The way the graf is structured, it's giving undue weight. IronDuke  17:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Both BYT and IronDuke are correct here. This disputed section of text is just soapboxing the idea of new antisemitism which is heavily disputed. Corresponding to what IronDuke is saying the whole section of text should just be taken out otherwise some text from Norman Finkelstein or Dr. Brian Klug should be added to counterbalance this notion. (→ Netscott ) 18:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, what we seem to have gotten on the table is ...


 * NETSCOTT: Delete the entire Daniel575 passage, or, failing that, explain the connection of this claim to new antisemitism if we decide to retain the graph.


 * JAYJG: Leave the Daniel575 passage alone, because BYT is "trying to refute the claim that antisemites use the word 'Zionist' as a cover for Jew" [a contention I deny]


 * DANIEL575 and LANCE: Do not interact with BYT concerning this text because he is a Muslim.


 * IRONDUKE: BYT's proposed text fails to clarify that most Anti-Zionists are not Jewish (and thus, presumably, he wishes to use Daniel575's text in its place).


 * BYT: Use this text, but revise in such a way as to accommodate Ironduke's note (above):

'''Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. However, much criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come from Jewish groups and individuals, a fact cited by anti-Zionists who hold that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Regardless, according to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" '''

Have I summarized this correctly, or are there other voices/issues to take into account? BYT 11:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the original research by synthesis, "Many argue X, however Y" is so obviously tendentious that I am surprised you continue to suggest it. Tom Harrison Talk 14:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good point. There are still some bugs in this. It should perhaps be something closer to this:

'''Many Zionists argue that certain groups use criticism of Zionism and the State of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitism. Criticism of the Zionist movement has, throughout its history, come both from non-Jews and from Jewish groups and individuals, with a diversity that leads contemporary anti-Zionists to argue that anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-Semitic. Only a minority of contemporary Jews openly oppose Israel's status as a nation-state, while opposition to "Zionism" as a political pejorative is strong in both Israel and the United States. This is perhaps because such attacks are easily perceived as attacks upon Judaism itself. According to a researcher at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, "right wing and neo-Nazi antisemitism is increasingly articulating its hostility to Jews in the form of anti-Zionist rhetoric (David Irving; David Duke)" '


 * Comments? BYT 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for the notion that only a minority of contemporry Jews oppose Israel's status? Also, the first statement concludes by essentially parroting anti-Zionists feelings about Zionism. Yet, that position (anti-Zionism is not antiseimitism) is effectively a response to the charge (inapproprite though that charge may be) that anti-Zionists are, by definition, anti-Semites. The statement above ignores that reality. But I have no strong opposition to the statement above.--Meshulam 17:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit puzzled. Where did I endorse Daniel's text? IronDuke  17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't -- my bad. BYT 17:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A total lie. It is not just 'Zionists' who say this. Many people say this. Was Martin Luther King a Zionist? Absolute and total disagree. Adding something like this will result in all possible pov and disputed tags being added to the article. --Daniel575 | (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel -- to return to Square One: It might be simpler (and, frankly, produce a better article) if we just deleted the paragraph that started this whole dispute. That, you will recall, was my very first suggestion. Linking hatred of a religious group to one's opposition to a political philosophy is simply inappropriate, in my view. BYT 19:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am most comfortable with that suggestion, as well. I thought BYT's language was effective. But better to eliminate the paragraph altogether.--Meshulam 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand how people can justify deleting the passage. It is obviously relevant, reliably sourced, and not even particularly controversial in mainstream discourse. It may be an unpleasent fact but do people really dispute that anti-semitic people sometimes use anti-Zionist rhetoric to avoid the controversy of anti-Jewish rhetoric? For the most part people's arguments here seem to be centered around the statement that "Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-semitism" this is true but in this case it is also a red herring as the passage does not say anything about the two  being one and the same.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "the passage (is) ....not even particularly controversial in mainstream discourse" -- I'm not really sure how this assessment of yours squares with the discussion we've been having on this page. Have you been reading that discussion? Obviously, the passage is stopping some people cold. I suggest, once again, that we delete the passage. BYT 10:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don;t even understand how you could argue that some people who have shown clear anti-semitism have begun to use anti-zionist rhetoric instead. Once again the passage is reliably sourced and relevant, I ask you not to remove it again.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Passages can be well-sourced and unencyclopedic; passages can be well-sourced and irrelevant; passages can be well-sourced and contain overbroad generalizations. Moshe, I'd like to ask you: why, specifically do you think this text should be in, of all places, the introduction? BYT 10:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Moshe Silverburg. --Daniel575 | (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course you do. But there are big problems with the statement. It involves WP:OR. It may seem obvious to you that people are hiding behind the term anti-Zionist, when they really mean anti-Semite. But how can such a thing be documented or verified? At best, it has been documented and verified that some Zionists accuse anyone who disagrees with them of "anti-Semitism." If that is the case, then the article can reflect the fact that Zionists try to dismiss criticism by calling their critics anti-Semitic (as we saw happen here on this forum, between Daniel575 and BY). But to make a statement of fact that many anti-Zionists are really just anti-Semites is 100% WP:POV, 100% WP:OR and 100% unverifiable. --Meshulam 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The tone of this discussion is deteriorating. One editor refuses to discuss issues with another because he's a Muslim; someone is called a "Muslim troll"; Zionism is disgusting, a disgrace and a disease; and another editor and his "kind" ought to be expelled from Eretz Yisroel for disagreeing?

This page is for discussion of the article, and the article should only contain the views of reliable published sources, regardless of what anyone thinks of them. Personal views aren't needed, and refusing to discuss issues because of someone's religion/ethnicity is a serious violation of Wikipedia's ethos, so please, no more. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I noticed you've reverted to this disputed text once again. I'd like to ask you ...


 * Why you feel the text belongs in the article, given the problems that we have identified here over the past few days.


 * Why you feel it belongs in the introduction, specifically.


 * Whether you feel there is consensus among the editors in discussion here to restore the text as you have done. BYT 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is a recognized Hindu fundamentalist organization, responsible for several pogroms against Muslims in India and, incidentally, the murder of Mahatma Gandhi. That it is portrayed in the Zionism article without any note of its deeply problematic ideology is deceptive.

Deleting information about RSS being banned in India and its fomenting of riots
Humus, why did you delete this cited material about RSS? If the KKK were to issue a press release opposing Zionism, would a reader who had never heard of the KKK be entitled to some information about its history and motives? BYT 10:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See guilt by association and poisoning the well. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I got that -- that much was in your edit summary -- problem is that I didn't put the RSS thing in there, someone else did. But neglected to give any context about their status as a quasi-fascist nationalist group. So to my way of thinking we can either delete the reference to them, which is probably cleaner, or we can tell people what kind of group it is.

Just saying, "This political party in India supports Zionism" is a little like saying, "David Duke, an American politician, says X." If you've never heard of David Duke, you've got a right to know what he stands for. What are your thoughts on all this, please? BYT 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Frankly I don't have a clue what RSS really is. I will let others speak about removing it. I don't mind, as long as the phrase "many sections of Indian society" stays. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note to all -- Inadvertently, I made this edit anonymously ; did not realize I had logged off. BYT 14:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Definition of Zionism
The article defines Zionism as "a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." I think that this should be edited to read "Zionism is a political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people." If you look at the writings of many of the early Zionist thinkers, such as Herzl, most were not set on the idea of placing it within the British mandate of Palestine initially, but instead simply wanted to establish a Jewish state, and they defined that as Zionism. It was not until later in their writings, after they had defined themselves as Zionists, that they eliminated the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Argentina or Uganda and embraced the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. Any thoughts?


 * Strongly agree. BYT 11:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Herzel himself only saw Uganda as a temporary solution. Zionism is from biblical references and from the very name ZION you can understand what place it refers to. Amoruso 12:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may quote:


 * "One issue of historiography that has implications for teaching on Herzl’s Zionist legacy is the undeniable fact that Herzl’s vision, as represented in his seminal statement of the Zionist project, the book Der Judenstaat, was not tied exclusively to Eretz Israel. Of course, Eretz Israel was the obvious and desirable choice. 'Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland', wrote Herzl:


 * "The very name would be a marvelously effective rallying cry. If his Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake the complete management of the finances of Turkey. We should there form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. We should as a neutral state remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.3


 * "However, he was open to territorial alternatives, most notably a region in Argentina which had already become the magnet for Baron de Hirsch’s massive colonization project.  '''Historiographical Issues in Conveying Herzl's Legacy," Shimoni. BYT 12:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. "Of course, Eretz Israel was the obvious and desirable choice". It says right in the article itself that Uganda was temporary solution and was also objected. Zionism is from the very first exodus where it says that the Jews cried over the rivers of the Babel and cried for Jerusalem and said that if they'll forget Jerusalem they'll forget their right hands. This is a basis for Judaism. The idea of the coming of the Mesiah and the establishment of the third temple etc - it's all zionism. The modern Zionism movevent advocated the modern creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. if that didn't work... then other proposals were briefly suggested. But they called it Zionism for a reason. Zion = Israel & Jerusalem. Amoruso 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Text under dispute seems to say Eretz Israel was the only possible homeland envisioned by early Zionists, and that is simply not true. It makes no mention of the flexibility of Herzl and others on this point.


 * The fact that a passage has gone unchallenged as a "longstanding" chunk of text does not inoculate it against factual inaccuracy. (Especially, I might add, in this article.)


 * The Rastafarians use the term "Zion" a lot, too. Does that mean Jamaica is in the Middle East? BYT 13:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I failed to see the word "only" you're referring to.
 * That fact does on the other hand suggests you use talk before remvoing chunks of texts, like you do now. Cheers.
 * Well, The Matrix uses it too, but are you suggesting the Zionism movevement used it in this metaphorical sense ? They were Jewish you know. How many books of Zionists have you read incidentally if you really want to make this claim in its serious sense ? It seems you wish to take the isolated alternative proposals and make them seem as important and they're not. The vast material of Jews ever since the first exodud back in the 500's BCE places the objective on Israel as well as the actual prayers, poems , books and so on. All of the Zionist movemvent members expressed this desire in their books as well, including of course Herzel himelf. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Amoruso 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the word "only" appeared in the text. What I said was that the text seems to say that the Middle East was the only objective for a homeland, and it's fair for me to point that out because the Middle East is the only destination for a homeland that is in fact mentioned. That's misleading at best and (calculatedly, in my view) dishonest at worst. We wouldn't say that Argentina was the sole geographical objective of the movement, and we shouldn't say (or imply) that the Middle East was, either. P.S.: The fact that someone's Jewish certainly doesn't mean he or she is incapable of using "Zion" in a metaphorical sense. BYT 15:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're also confusing two seperate things. The objectives of the Zionist Movement which had alternate proposals (possibly and only temporarily though) than Zion as a place for the Jewish state and the word Zinoism itself which is only regarded per Israel and Jerusalem per its definition. It's true others took this term per Zionism (southern African religion) but it's not related - it's other use. The idea of Zionism is the return of Jews as a state in the Land of Israel and it predates Herzel in thousands of years. That's a fact. Amoruso 15:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite true. It's also true that this article's very first words read: This article is about Zionism as a movement, not the History of Israel. The material you are fighting to include here may well belong in that article, though I can't speak for the editors there. BYT 15:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The first Zionist congress in 1897 in Basel made this statement and this statement only as its conclusion:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz­Israel secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion by appropriate means of the settlement in Eretz-Israel of Jewish farmers, artisans, and manufacturers.

2. The organization and uniting of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, both local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.

3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.

4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism.  Amoruso 16:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about before that. Please read this.


 * SHUSTER: Originally Herzl did not restrict his musing on the location of a Jewish state to the Middle East, according to Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, author of Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel.


 * BENJAMIN BEIT-HALLAHMI: Herzl wasn't interested in Palestine. He just wanted a place for the Jews to settle, and at first he was interested in Argentina and East Africa and other places....


 * SACHAR: Although later on in later years after he organized the Zionist movement...


 * SHUSTER: Again Howard Sachar.


 * SACHAR: ...he began to realize that there was a deep-rooted wellspring of religio-cultural identification with Palestine among most Jews. And so he by and large fixed his attention essentially on a diplomatic solution to the Jewish issue in Ottoman Palestine.


 * SHUSTER: Herzl understood that his political goal needed an organization. So in 1897 he gathered about 250 followers at the first Zionist Congress. It opened in Basel, Switzerland on August 29, 1897, and launched the World Zionist Organization. The goal, expressed in a formally adopted program, would be the creation of a home in Palestine for the Jewish people. []BYT 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all it's bullshit. If you read Herzel himself you would see these are lies. Secondly, this article is about Zionism (movement like you said) and not Herzel. Zionist movement official statement was in Basel, Herzel was just a person without that. He wasn't a dictator so his opinion even if it was that, which it isn't, is not pertinent. Amoruso 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With respect, I disagree. Anon's first post in this thread points out that the objectives and opinions of the early Zionists are what is under discussion here. You seem to think "early" means no earlier than 1897; I see no reason to think that. You dispute my source, above, but provide no source of your own to suggest why it should be discredited. I believe the text should come out, and encourage other editors to share their views on this. BYT 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What source ? BENJAMIN BEIT-HALLAHMI is a psychologist... Herzel wrote everything. He has one very short chapter in his book about Argentina where he writes it as an option but clearly writes about the importance of Eretz Israel. Then there's the Uganda proposal which he stated himself was temporary. Then there's the OFFICIAL zionist movement's opinion which talks only about Eretz Israel. Other than repeating the known alternative proposals which didn't amount to anything other than what I just said do you have any actual source, of zionists talking that zionist movement purpose is a jewish home not in Israel ? That doesn't exist. I think you lack a whole lot of information on the subject and you came to a wrong conclusion somehow based on nothing. Cheers. Amoruso 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What your source does say is this :

SHUSTER: Herzl understood that his political goal needed an organization. So in 1897 he gathered about 250 followers at the first Zionist Congress. It opened in Basel, Switzerland on August 29, 1897, and launched the World Zionist Organization. The goal, expressed in a formally adopted program, would be the creation of a home in Palestine for the Jewish people. Amoruso 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, what Herzel intended before 1897 is irrelevant. The first zionist congress is exactly that - the FIRST - there wasn't any "modern Zionism movement" before that, that's a fact so "You seem to think "early" means no earlier than 1897; I see no reason to think that" is just factually wrong. Amoruso 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think what Herzl said before 1897 is irrelevant. The fact that the 1897 conference decided on Eretz Israel is important, but that was not the basis upon which Zionism was founded. Zionism as an idea evolved from the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland, to establishing one in Eretz Israel. Look back at the writings prior to 1897 by most any Zionist and you will see that no specific land was determined to be the Jewish homeland. That decision came in 1897. My objection is that it is implied that ZIonism has always been focued on the idea of establishing a Jewish state in Erezt Israel, when if you read the writings of early Zionists this is clearly not true. Herzl was just a man, but he is also considered to be one of the foremost leaders in the push for Zionism, and is in fact considered to be the "Father of Zionism." Herzl and many of the earliest Zionists were not religious and were not tied to the land of Israel in the way that Zionism is considered to be tied to the land today. Herzl was a secularized, Westernized reporter when he first considered the concept of Zionism, while covering the Dreyfus Case. Through this, he saw the rising anti-Semitism and concluded that the only way to preserve Judaism was to form a "safe" nation for Jews. Herzl did a good portion of his work on Zionism in the time period between 1890 and 1895-- before the first Zionist Congress. And in these works he pushed the idea of a Jewish state, and did not push a given locale for it. Herzl considered Argentina more than he considered Uganda, and he considered Palestine and Argentina fairly equally. I think this article needs to include what Herzl and others thought before 1897 because those were key factors in shaping Zionism and are part of its history. 67.190.108.208 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Anon, You say "Look back at the writings prior to 1897 by most any Zionist" - why don't you provide such writings that say what you claim ? It's false. Herzel didn't talk about Argentina more than Israel. In fact, he never mentioned Uganda - that was a late british proposal which he considered as a temporary solution. As for Argentina, he writes exactly 3 sentences on it - that's the only mention he ever had of it. Read the book.

PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?

Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.

This initial consideration of Argentina by HERZEL ONLY as an option is irrelevant to the fact that zionism movement is about Israel, zionist movement that yes started in 1897 based on the historical zionism for Israel for 2000 years. Amoruso 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, what you claimed is of course not true but exactly the opposite : "Moses Hess's 1862 work Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine as a means of settling the national question."

At any case, alternate proposals such as Argentina belong in their section possibly but not in the lead of course. Amoruso 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This line of reasoning is -- like the version of history you are defending -- prone to getting just a little delusional in spots.


 * The question isn't whether Palestine was or is important to Jews, but whether a political movement identifiable as Zionism a) existed before 1897 and b) was rooted exclusively in the principle of a homeland in the Middle East. Your answer appears to be "no" and "yes," respectively, which would put you at odds with the Jewish Virtual Library, a source that identifies Mordecai Manuel Noah as an "ardent utopian Zionist". He dies, inconveniently enough, in 1851, and the point to which he wanted Jews to emigrate was not Jerusalem, but greater Buffalo, New York.


 * A retroactive use of the contemporary label "Zionist," some may say. Fine. But somehow the time-marker of Birnbaum's introduction of the phrase "Zionism" in the early 1890s doesn't stop contemporary Zionists from projecting their own present notions of Zionism into the past, as indeed this very article attempts to do.


 * Attempts to isolate what Zionism actually was in the nineteenth century apparently run afoul of certain contemporary political interests. It is a matter of historical record that early Zionists (by which I mean people who advocated this idea before 1897) did not agree on where the homeland was to be. Pretending otherwise is nonfactual and unencyclopedic. Leon Pinsker, for instance, according to the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Zionism and Israel, was willing to accept "a country other than Palestine.".


 * And re your challenge "Why don't you provide such writings that say what you claim?' -- here is a relevant passage from Pinsker's Autoemancipation:


 * "The goal of our present endeavors must be not the 'Holy Land,' but a land of our own. We need nothing but a large tract of land for our poor brothers, which shall remain our property and from which no foreign power can expel us. There we shall take with us the most sacred possessions which we have saved from the ship-wreck of our former country, the God-idea and the Bible . It is these alone which have made our old fatherland the Holy Land, and not Jerusalem or the Jordan." (And yes, it goes on to express a hope of a return to Jerusalem ... but so what? Jews have been expressing that hope for centuries in a religious context. We're talking about what his political program was in the nineteenth century. That program was as follows: "The goal of our present endeavors must be not the 'Holy Land," but a land of our own.")


 * The multiplicity of voices on this question extended into the next century, and it is simply inappropriate to write an Introduction that whitewashes this fact.


 * Read this, please: "Some believed it should be based on religious principles, others that it should be a secular state. Some argued that there should be no state at all, but rather a Jewish cultural base in Palestine. And others, hungering for an empty land which Jews could call their own, seriously pursued the bizarre "Uganda plan" which envisaged recreating Israel in British East Africa." Is that quote accurate or inaccurate, please? Where are these facts reflected in our introduction? BYT 22:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is getting too long and I find myself repeating myself. I also lost interest. Others can reply instead of me. I stand behind the basic fact that Zionism is about Israel and Jerusalem. This is simply a basic definition of the term. You seem not to understand the idea of temporary or "what can we do it will never work" solutions as compared to the objective and the goal. Like it says in your link "Pinsker was willing to settle for a Jewish homeland in a country other than Palestine" - well many did that was the rift - but because it was an alternative proposal. Pinsker was a Zionist for wanting to create the state in ISRAEL - that's the primary concern. I think you fail to see this point in the matter. you also now think that any person who's called a Zionist is part of the Zionist movement contradicting your early remark that this article is about Zionist as the movement and not about other uses of the term. King David himself was a Zionist, this is not related to the matter. This article is about Zionism as the modern political movement that started in 1897. Others might explain this to you more eloquently any why "others, hungering for an empty land which Jews could call their own, seriously pursued the bizarre "Uganda plan" strange that you think this quote proves your point. Cheers. Amoruso 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC


 * I did not quote the books because I did not have the time to sit here and type it out. Still, you found enough to completely change my words. I never said Herzl mentioned Uganda-- on the contrary, I very clearly said he didn't. I also never said he mentioned Argentina more than he mentioned Palestine. But the truth is, I have read his book, and he mentions both exactly the same amount. I find your condescending attitude uncalled for. The reason I cam across this post was because I just finished studying in-depth Herzl's book and I was doing some research and found the sentence in question, which I still think is inaccurate. You quoted in full everything he had to say about the location. But you proved my point, by quoting Herzl stating that Argentina was a viable alternative and by quoting him when he said "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion." What you quoted was all of what he wrote-- he essentially wrote two paragraphs considering each as an alternative. Yes, he only has three sentences about Argentina, but he only has seven sentences about Palestine. Hardly a mandate (pardon the pun). But if you read the rest of the letter, or the book, you see that he does not come to a conclusion regarding the locale of where the Zionist nation should be. As I sadi earlier, the vast majority of early Zionists were secular, and had no spiritual attachment to what is now Israel. Their concern was to establish a state that could be a refuge from anti-Semitism, not to establish a Messianic, or spiritual, nation. Don't get me wrong, Herzl saw the symbolism of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, but I don't think he would have been any less happy had the state been placed in Argentina.

I also think the scope of the article should be expanded past 1897, since most of the writings that shaped modern Zionism were written before the first Zionist Congress was convened. 67.190.108.208 0:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso writes: This article is about Zionism as the modern political movement that started in 1897. I see no mention of this standard in the article (indeed, the article goes out of its way to mention events before 1897), and it has certainly gained no consensus among the editors in this discussion.


 * He also chooses not to acknowledge that the text he claimed did not exist did in fact exist.


 * Again: this is an encyclopedia, and the passage in question in the article is nonfactual and unencyclopedic. It should be deleted, inasmuch as there is no historical basis for claiming that the Middle East was the sole geographical objective of the early Zionists. If people decide to revert such an edit without evaluating the historicity of this matter, I will file an RFC. BYT 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments stange to say the least. Nobody commented on this discussion they chose to ignore it for now, perhaps because they see how ignorant it is. Zionism in its definition is related to Israel and Jerusalem because that's what ZION means. Look it up. As for the Zionist movement, these were your words above - this talk about Zionism as a MOVEMENT - are you saying the movement existed before 1897 ? Obviously this a load of you know what. Any editor who worked on the article will tell you that. Amoruso 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is your contradiction right here : The article talks about Zionism as a movement, not about the history of Israel etc. Zionism as a movement:

Theodore Herzl organized the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. P'''rior to the Congress, Zionist activities had been initiated by several different groups such as Hovevei Zion (lovers of Zion) with no central direction or political program. The Basle Congress was the foundation of a mass Zionist movement. At the conclusion, the congress adopted the resolutions below.''' Herzl wrote in his diary, "At Basle, I founded the Jewish state.. If not in five years, then certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.” The resolution says Palestine and Palestine only. So even when you're factually wrong about zionism in general and the intentions of zionists, it's simply not the article's content in your words. Amoruso 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

People who are arguing that we should remove the reference to the land of Israel seem to be doing so based on a misunderstanding. Even if Herzl did think that Uganda would be a suitable homeland (which he actually didn't) he was not the only early zionist leader, in fact he wasn't even the most influential among the Zionists themselves, he was only the most visible in gentile society, for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice. Notice that every single early Jewish settler (pre-Herzl) emigrated to Israel and not Africa. The idea that zionists were open to other locations is just a bit of revisionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Moshe here. Even to Herzl Uganda was but a minor notion as a stopgap measure. And the other early Zionists were appalled that he even considered the idea. At most it is a historical burp. To pretend otherwise is simply historically inaccurate. JoshuaZ 02:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Moshe and Amoruso are correct. The proposal was floated at the time to give the Russian Jews a chance to escape the wave of pogroms when the Ottoman Empire closed its doors. What's interesting it was the Russian Jews (at the time the largest population in the Jewish diaspora) that was so much against it that their delegation walked out from the 7th Zionist Congress: "Despite considerable opposition and a demonstrative walk-out by the Russian Zionists, the delegates agreed by 295 in favor, 178 against and 98 abstentions that a committee should be dispatched to examine the possibility of Jewish settlement in East Africa." See also . Note a typical propaganda trick when a humanitarian proposal is taken out of historical context. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, Israel/Palestine has always been where the majority of Zionists/Zionist thinkers have wanted a Jewish homeland to be. I don't think this is a controversial point, and I'm not sure why it is now. "Next year in Jerusalem" wasn't just a turn of phrase. IronDuke  06:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that just saying "majority" really captures it, it would probably be more accurate to say "all" with an asterisk.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Herzl - why by no means was the only founder of Zionism - started his thought process by observing that no matter how assimilated and integrated Jews were in Europe, they were still subject to discrimination at best and persecution at worst (and I doubt he'd change his mind if he saw the way things are now). He was a systematic thinker, and it's fair to say that Zionism as a movement (as opposed to the thinking of a journalist stationed in Paris) crystalized when Eretz Israel became the goal. We should certainly note that Herzl considered other places, but it would be historically false to describe Zionism as anything but an Eretz Israel-bound movement. --Leifern 12:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur and fail to see why the alternative proposals section should warrant inclusion into the intro. --tickle me 13:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Re; "for Jews it was obvious from the start that Israel was the only choice" -- I hardly see how it was obvious to, say, Pinsker. On the topic of whom, I was challenged here to identify a Zionist thinker who rejected Israel as the primary objective. In response, I cited and discussed Pinsker in some detail on this page. Here's the quote people were swearing didn't and couldn't (or perhaps we could all be honest for a moment and simply say "shouldn't") exist:


 * And re your challenge "Why don't you provide such writings that say what you claim?' -- here is a relevant passage from Pinsker's Autoemancipation:


 * "The goal of our present endeavors must be not the 'Holy Land,' but a land of our own. We need nothing but a large tract of land for our poor brothers, which shall remain our property and from which no foreign power can expel us. There we shall take with us the most sacred possessions which we have saved from the ship-wreck of our former country, the God-idea and the Bible . It is these alone which have made our old fatherland the Holy Land, and not Jerusalem or the Jordan."

Translation: I tracked down what people dared me to track down. Then the goalposts shifted and reality was redefined. Again. (Hard to believe such a thing is possible on this page, I know.) Anyway, apparently in this wikidimension Zionism has always meant Israel, Zionism always will mean Israel, war is peace, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. On the theory that historicity actually matters in an encyclopedia, though, I'm filing an RFC. BYT 18:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Brandon, the intro as you want it gives hugely disproportionate weight to what, I think, could not even be said to be a significant minority view in the history of Zionism. Moshe has it about right. "All" with an asterisk. IronDuke  04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, the article has a duty to summarize responsibly what happened in the nineteenth century (i.e., after "Zionists" like King David) and before 1897. Otherwise, it's not really about contemporary Zionism, but a carefully selected retroactive strain thereof. I can't say the notion of Federalism in the US is identical with that of Manifest Destiny, can I? BYT 15:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The respect is mutual. However, I do not believe your analogy is a commanding one. I believe, in fact, that the "carefully selected" portions of past versions of this article have consisted of minutiae cobbled together in the service of a novel synthesis. IronDuke  16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

seems to me that Zionism in this context is the establishment of a Jewish National Home State in the historical Jewish Zion, i.e. The Holy Land, i.e. Jerusalem, i.e. Mt. Zion, etc. Establishment of a Jewish National Home State in another vicinity would be better served under the title of Jewish Nationalism or some such, in particular since it never got past hypothetical status. Similarly, Zion in The Matrix, Zion of the Rastafarians, Zion of the references in Christian liturgy, Zion of the Mormon worldview, and The New Jerusalem of the Christian liturgy are only indirectly relevant. {http://www.liberationgraphics.com/ppp/monograph_definitions_of_zionism.html]Gzuckier 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gzuckier, Ironduke -- Historical question I would like you address seriously: Did Zionists holding different views about this before 1897 (say, between 1890-1897) know that they were not actually Zionists? Or are we redefining the term retroactively for them now? BYT 20:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good question. I don't know if they would have referred to themselves or been referred to by others as Zionists. Anybody know? Gzuckier 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposals for a Jewish state
I copied the content of Proposals for a Jewish state here because it seemed most appropriate here and that article has been nominated for deletion.


 * Since the 1600's, there have been a number of proposals for to create a Jewish state:


 * Curacao - 1652 - David Cohen Nassy
 * Cayenne - 1659 - David Cohen Nassy
 * Ukraine - 1790 - Abraham Hirsziwicz
 * Herson (modern day Ukraine) - 1806 - Czar Alexander I of Russia
 * Crimea- 1818 - "Crimean Plan" - Anonymous
 * Russian Steppe - 1822 - The Ploish "Sejm"
 * Asia Minor - 1825 - Pavel Pestel
 * Ararat New York State - 1825 - Mordecai Manuel Noah
 * Caucasus - 1845 - Joseph Golohowsky

Subsequently, User:Amoruso deleted the above material from this article on the grounds that some of it was false and the true part was mentioned in other articles. I think this is the right place for this material.

Rather than edit war over this, I would like to hear the opinions of other editors of this article.

Please comment here. If you wish to participate in the AFD discussion for Proposals for a Jewish state, you can do so here.

--Richard 14:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs here, though inaccurate material certainly shouldn't be included. BYT 14:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Can you help me determine which of the above are true and which cannot be verified?
 * So far, it seems that the proposals of David Nassy and Mordecai Manuel Noah are mentioned in the articles on those individuals. Can anybody determine the truth of any of the other mentioned proposals?  --Richard 15:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying it should be inserted into the existing section with proper refs. For example, David Nassy article doesn't talk about any "proposals". Amoruso 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just happened upon this after being away for a few days. Not only doesn't the David Nassy article talk about any proposals, he did not set up (or apparently, propose setting up) any "state."  It talks about setting up "colonies", with that word apparently being used in its broadest sense, of a "settlement."  It certainly has nothing to do with Zionism.   6SJ7 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Dispute concerning whether early Zionists regarded Israel alone as the geographical homeland to be created for the Jewish people, or whether Israel was one of many possible homelands. 


 * Brandon, I reverted because all encyclopedias and dictionaries that I know of discuss Zionism as the move for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine/Israel, and I added the EB as an example. There was an early Uganda proposal by the British govt, for example, but proposals that were rejected don't define the nature of the movement. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Slim. We are left with the question, then, of whether contemporary Zionism existed before 1897, and how its geographical goal should be described. How do you think we should address this issue in the article? BYT 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'll have time to look into this for the next few days. Is there anything particular you feel is missing from what the article currently says about pre-1897? In case it's of any use, the following is what the EB says. SlimVirgin (talk)


 * Herzl was not the first to conceive of a Jewish state. Orthodox Jews had traditionally invoked the return to Zion in their daily prayers. In 1799 Napoleon had thought of establishing a Jewish state in the ancient lands of Israel. The English statesman Benjamin Disraeli, a Jew, had written a Zionist novel, Tancred. Moses Hess, a friend and co-worker of Karl Marx, had published an important book, Rom und Jerusalem (1862), in which he declared the restoration of a Jewish state a necessity both for the Jews and for the rest of humanity. Among the Jews of Russia and eastern Europe, a number of groups were engaged in trying to settle emigrants in agricultural colonies in Palestine. After the Russian pogroms of 1881, Leo Pinsker had written a pamphlet, “Auto-Emanzipation,” an appeal to western European Jews to assist in the establishment of colonies in Palestine. When Herzl read it some years later, he commented in his diary that, if he had known of it, he might never have written The Jewish State.


 * Herzl's first important Zionist effort was an interview with Baron Maurice de Hirsch, one of the wealthiest men of his time. De Hirsch had founded the Jewish Colonization Association with the aim of settling Jews from Russia and Romania in Argentina and other parts of the Americas. The 35-year-old journalist arrived at the Baron's mansion in Paris with 22 pages of notes, in which he argued the need for a political organization to rally the Jews under a flag of their own, rather than leaving everything to the philanthropic endeavours of individuals like the Baron. The conversation was notable for its effect on Herzl rather than on the Baron de Hirsch, who refused to hear him out. It led to Herzl's famous pamphlet The Jewish State, published in February 1896 in Vienna ("Hertzl, Theodor" Encyclopaedia Britannica).

RFC -- some important questions for SlimVirgin

 * Slim -- thank you for your message on this. I see where you are coming from, and understand why you reverted. Please note, though, that EB says, above, in the passage which you cite in support of your edit, "Leo Pinsker had written a pamphlet, 'Auto-Emanzipation,' an appeal to westearn European Jews TO ASSIST IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COLONIES IN PALESTINE." (Emphasis added.)


 * My question: Is that true or is that false?


 * May I ask you to compare that EB claim you cite to the following quote from that very work of Pinsker's, Auto-Emanzipation?


 * "The goal of our present endeavors must be not the 'Holy Land,' but a land of our own. We need nothing but a large tract of land for our poor brothers, which shall remain our property and from which no foreign power can expel us. There we shall take with us the most sacred possessions which we have saved from the ship-wreck of our former country, the God-idea and the Bible . It is these alone which have made our old fatherland the Holy Land, and not Jerusalem or the Jordan."


 * And could you then compare that EB claim to this extract from a contemporary eulogy of Pinsker?


 * If his proposals had met with a favorable hearing among Occidental Jews, for whose sake and in whose language he wrote his book, and a commission had been fitted out to seek the "safe retreat": he spoke of, he would have deemed it proper to investigate the claims of Palestine along with the claims of other countries; and had the choice fallen upon Palestine, he would have rejoice in the lucky chance. But a commission of the kind, there can be no doubt, would have sought the retreat in one of the countries of America or Australia, perhaps even in Africa, anywhere rather than in Palestine, and Pinsker would have consecrated his life, not to colonization in Palestine, but to colonization in the land designated by the commission.


 * If EB is in error, are we obliged to repeat its error here? Isn't clearing up such inadvertent errors -- often left unrectified for years or decades in traditionally published standard encyclopedias --- an important part of WP's mission? BYT 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a logical fallacy to equate Pinsker to Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Pinsker is called “Zionist pioneer”


 * And again, Pinsker called “Zionist pioneer”


 * Pinsker “formulated the modern idea of Zionism”


 * Pinsker described as “Zionist thinker”


 * Pinsker’s “Auto-Emancipation” called “early Zionist pamphlet”


 * Pinsker becomes “leader” of “Hibbat Zion” (“Lovers of Zion”) movement (described in Zionism as an “early Zionist group”


 * Pinsker described as “doctor and Zionist”


 * Pinsker called “first great Zionist writer”


 * “Hibbat Zion,” which Pinsker eventually heads, described as “first Zionist movement”; founded in 1882 BYT 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is he a Zionist, or isn't he? BYT 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He was, but not everything he wrote defines Zionism. BYT, it seems that you are trying to trow dirt in hopes that some will stick. What's next? ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please focus on my argument, and not on me. If he was a Zionist, and indeed an important early one, then his view that Palestine was not the objective of the movement needs to be taken into account in the introduction. Claiming that all Zionists a) came into existence in 1897 and b) supported the geographical goal of Palestine is simply false. BYT 10:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Proof for what?
 * That was a Zionist, and an important one? Read the bulletpointed cites above.
 * That he argued against Palestine as a geographic goal? Read the passage from Auto-Emancipation. Again. (And then, perhaps, acknowledge here, openly, that it exists). Then read this eulogy. Again.
 * That both EB and WP are fast-forwarding over questions of historicity to define Zionism in a way that supports proponents of a contemporary political movement? See Zionism and the quote Slim provided. BYT 11:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You built your house on sand. Do you really expected this OR to work? Pinsker was one of many, and nobody gave him some super-Zionist status. He alone did not define Zionism. Ther were Moses Hess, Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Eliezer ben Yehuda, and many others. Good bye. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This "did he/could he possibly/did he want to define Zionism" business is a red herring. You keep bringing it up, but it is no part of the edit or the RFC. Start another discussion about definitions if you want. What I want to establish is a clear answer to this question: "Did early (pre-1897) Zionists hold unanimously to the view that the homeland should be in Palestine?"

If the answer is "yes," the first sentence of the intro is OK as it stands.

If the answer is "no," the intro needs to be changed.

If the answer is "sources murky, shake 8 ball again later," the intro needs to be changed. The way it reads now, it suggests that ALL Zionists argue, and have always argued, that Palestine was the only goal. Historically, this is simply untrue. BYT 15:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some Zionists indeed occasionally argued otherwise, but you're trying to give undue weight to those arguments. Beit Or 15:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly. From another point of view, of course, the current intro gives undue weight to the proposition that such arguments do not exist and have never existed. which is what the casual reader may assume if we're not careful. Bearing such a problem in mind, how do you think the text should read? BYT 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The intro shouldn't (and doesn't) reflect everything written in the article, only the most important points. This one is not sufficiently important. Beit Or 21:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's inaccurate or biased about this, please?
 * Zionism is a political movement among Jews, although supported by some non-Jews and not supported by some Jews, which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. In its early years, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions on where that homeland might be established. From 1897 onward, it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. BYT 16:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

IronDuke, can you please explain your description of this as "original research"? Is it your view, for instance, that all Jews support Zionism, and that the burden of proof lies with those disputing that view? BYT 17:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A Jewish homeland in Israel is and has been the primary goal of Zionists, with few exceptions. You are trying to give it undue weight (and also, as I forgot to mention, violating WP:LEAD), by placing it in the lead, and by implying that a small, minority view has as much currency as a much more dominant one. IronDuke  19:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Help me clarify -- I think the graph above makes it quite clear what the majority position now is, yes?

And once again ... I missed this part: it was "original research" because ... ? BYT 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, actually, the above graf obscures it quite nicely, in fact. And yes, you did apparently miss the part about original research. It's there, though. ;) IronDuke  20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So it needs more work. No problem there. And on the original research -- how am I to improve if you won't tell me where the problem is? Can you please be a little more specific? BYT 22:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need more work, it's too far from reality to merit more work. Zionism = desire to return to Holy Land. Yes, there were occasional proposals to settle elsewhere, but this was not even, properly speaking, Zionism. You are attempting to cobble together facts in the service of a novel synthesis, that Zionists had many opinions about where to settle. For the most part, they didn't. And even if what you are saying were true, it sure wouldn't belong in the lead. A footnote somewhere in the article stating that other proposals were occasionally considered would be okay, I guess. But that's it. Does that help? IronDuke  23:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it certainly does help to hear your views. Could I also ask you tell me what part, specifically, of the graph that I suggested for inclusion constitutes "original research"? BYT 23:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You sure can. "...the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. In its early years, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions on where that homeland might be established." IronDuke  00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, Encarta : movement to unite the Jewish people of the Diaspora (exile) and settle them in Palestine Zionism, modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine history channel modern political movement for reconstituting a Jewish national state in Palestine. The Columbia Encyclopediainfoplease an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel webster You're simply confusing Zionism as a movement and the fact that a person can identify himself as Zionist and certainly seek other alternatives - Zionists can hold many views but ZIONISM not. I hope that clarifies it. Amoruso 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in here: The paragraph proposed by BYT is original research because it attempts to draw a conclusion from the facts that is not supported by reliable, verifiable sources. There is no doubt that different members of the Jewish communities of Europe had different ideas about where they might establish a colony, a temporary refuge, a "national homeland", the national homeland, or a state, or several of the above, or other types of places for Jews to settle and/or govern themselves. But these were not all necessarily "Zionist" ideas. In some cases, which have been discussed, they were "Plan B" in case what is now Israel did not work out. To say that Zionism "embraced a variety of opinions on where that homeland might be established" puts a spin on those facts that is not supported by existing research. That is why it is original research. (And even if there were sources to support it, it would be a fringe theory that does not belong in the intro.) 6SJ7 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points. I think that the last para in the intro ("Zionism should be distinguished from Territorialism") should be moved someplace else (==Alternative proposals== perhaps?). It should be distinguished from a variety of "-isms", and as we can see, listing them in the intro only confuses our readers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification. So it is original research. My apologies. I was incorrect. Thanks for taking the time to actually discuss the edit and explain in detail why you objected to it, 6SJ7. You're right. BYT 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Zionism vs. Territorialism
The danger of editing an article one knows little about is that you can make errors from ignorance. On the other hand, by being bold, I am learning more about this subject. Sometimes, the involvement of a relative ingenue can help by clarifying what should and should not be clarified. Hopefully, this edit will meet with approval from those who know more than I do.

I got involved here from the AFD debate on the Proposals for a Jewish state article. My opinion on that article has changed towards the negative for reasons that I will explain in greater detail under that topic.

However, I do think there is value in giving more prominent mention to the alternative proposals. Without having read the entire long discussion about the "Definition of Zionism" above, i am going to speculate that the issue comes down to this:

One side wants to argue that Zionism is and always was about a Jewish homeland in Palestine and sees any suggestion that Zionism was originally open to the possibility of other locations as "revisionist" and possibly POV-pushing (e.g. suggesting that Zionism only settled on Palestine for pragmatic reasons rather than idealistic principle).

The other side notes the other proposals and tries to report on them in this article purportedly in the name of historical accuracy.

When I got involved in this debate, I started on "the other side" and tried to insert information from the Proposals for a Jewish state article. However, Amoruso has helped me understand that much of that article was either unsourced or blurred the distinction between a settlement/colony and a proposed Jewish state. At the moment, the only solid proposals that I know of are Ararat and East Africa (Uganda).

However, in researching this, I discovered that the British proposal of a Jewish state in East Africa was very divisive, caused a walkout by the Russian delegation and led to the formation of the Jewish Territorialist Organization as documented in the Alternative Proposals section of this argument. Obviously, this incident supports the argument that the Zionist movement saw itself as committed to a homeland in Palestine. However, it also suggests that there was not a uniformity of sentiment on the topic throughout the movement's history and that it took a critical decision such as Herzl's proposal of the East Africa project to make clear how central the focus on Palestine was. In essence, the outcome of that debate seems to have been "We Zionists are focused on Palestine. If you want a Jewish state outside Palestine, you don't belong here." The ITO seems to have accepted that message and left.

All of the above is behind my one line addition to the intro paragraph.

--Richard 16:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to the new paragraph that you added to the bottom of the intro. I think what needs to be made clear -- and I do not have any sources right at hand so I am not doing it -- is that the non-Holy Land proposals were all essentially "Plan B"s that were developed due to the difficulties (at first perceived, and then realized) of creating a homeland in what is now Israel.  Your link to the Territorialism article, while not necessarily a bad idea, creates some issues of its own because that article has some problems. I just fixed the ones I could easily correct.  It could be argued that the whole bit about Herzl's proposal for a temporary emergency homeland in Uganda should be disregarded in the whole discussion, because it was never a proposal to create the homeland there instead of Israel, which is what this whole subject seems to be about.  Similarly, while I improved the discussion of the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Territorialism article, I think there is more stuff in the Jewish Autonomous Oblast article that needs to be in the latter article.  Like, for example, the fact that this "homeland" was conceived of as competition with Zionism.  Also, the whole thing about "Proposals for a Jewish State" is only causing confusion.  The fact that some Portugese Jewish leader in the 17th century (or whenever) tried to create a refuge for Jews thrown out by the Portugese Inquisition has nothing to do with Zionism.   6SJ7 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think Jewish Autonomous Oblast has any relation to Territorialism. JAO was a Soviet project in the Stalinist USSR and the ITO ceased to exist before JAO was ever created. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I had never heard of Territorialism before yesterday.  It did seem to me like the part about the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (which I did know a little about, but I had never read the article before) probably did not belong there, but since I wasn't sure, I just fixed up the fairly obvious inaccuracies.  6SJ7 19:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Obviously it doesn't apply because it wasn't created by Jews. We could put Madagascar in the same category or perhaps refugee camps in Eritrea. Amoruso


 * All that nonsense at the bottom of the terminology section is clearly propaganda, Zionism is well accepted to mean support for a Jewish state in Israel, that simply is what it means today to most people who say it, the assertion that "the label "Zionist" is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for anti-Semitism." is purely an attempt to label people against Zionism as anti-Semitic, I'm going to delete this, I just think it's way to subjective an assertion to be part of an encyclopedia article, this idea of substituting the term territorialism is just an attempt to deflate and complicate the issue, the term Zionism is in common usage to mean the movement to form the state of Israel, Anti-Semitism means anti-Semitism, sorry Zionists, nice try Arch NME 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states" in intro
We have lately reinforced the principle that putting a "spin" on facts that is not supported by external research constitutes WP:OR. There is no such external research that I've seen to describe these entities as "self-governing states."

If you feel the text should go back in, please provide, and discuss here, responsible references from reputable sources, so we can all reach consensus before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all described in the wikilink provided. No need to copy-paste references from there. Amoruso 20:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss cites in support of the notion that they were self-governing states before you revert. Thanks. BYT 20:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't personally care for that sentence. Jewish kingdoms existed is enough. Amoruso 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
In the section concerning the rise of Nazis its pretty clear there has been an act of vandalism, someone should restore it. jordan 06:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting. Amoruso 10:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In the terminology section there is clear vandalism in the first sentence. 66.58.243.235 12:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason ...
... for using the passive voice in the intro to avoid identifying which specific definition for Zionism we're quoting there?

(Other than, you know, the fact that I was the one who suggested that we make this specific?)

WP:CITE guides us as follows: When sources are mentioned within the body of an article, it is helpful to identify them clearly on the first mention.

We're ignoring that guidance in this article because ...? BYT 13:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for others, but to me it seems to particularize the definition to Webster's, suggesting a post-modern 'it means whatever the power-elite wants it to mean' intrepretation. Most of us base our editing decisions on content rather than on personality. Tom Harrison Talk 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if we're uncomfortable with the personality of "Webster's", let's simply not quote from it. The guidelines are there for a reason, yes? BYT 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a typical definition, and Laqueur's quote that you silently tried to remove is also fine. BYT, it seems that you keep finding new reasons to cause disruptions here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What silent thing was I doing? Huh? Diffs, please. If I changed anything other than the Webster thing, it was inadvertent. As for "causing disruptions" by citing WP guidelines and suggesting that editors follow them ... whatever. BYT 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * . What policy was that about? In addition to repeatedly disrupting this article you seem to be confused about policies and guidelines. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth noting that dictionary.com shows definitions for Zionism from four different sources and all of them mention that Zionism aimed at creating a Jewish state in Palestine or Israel. If we stated that Webster's dictionary defined it that way we would be misleading the readers by implying that other dictionaries define it differently which is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to the dictionary thing -- "typically" works for me, because that at least clues the reader in to the fact that we're citing one among many.(Compare: "Socialism is defined as 'that system of government that operates with the worker's best interests in mind." [followed by a cite from some obedient Stalinist dictionary]) There are other definitions you wouldn't like, but then again, is your liking a definition the issue here?   The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Houghton Mifflin) defines it as "The belief that Jews should have their own nation; Jewish nationalism."


 * With regard to the Laqueur quote, I am a little disconcerted here, because I do not remember deleting that text, and it looks very much as though I did. My apologies. I honestly don't know how it happened. Whether or not that seems strange, it's true. The quote certainly needs to be counterbalanced with one offering another viewpoint, in my view, but it was not what I was trying to edit. If I deleted it without saying what I was doing, I'm sorry. BYT 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Aha! I see what happened. I inadvertently incorporated this edit in my reversion,  -- with which, it turns out, I agree, but that's a different story. Two conversations were going on at once, and I should have noted that in my edit summary. Sorry for the oversight. BYT 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Terminology: zionism equated to anti-semitism
All that nonsense at the bottom of the terminology section is clearly propaganda, Zionism is well accepted to mean support for a Jewish state in Israel, that simply is what it means today to most people who say it, the assertion that "the label "Zionist" is also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for anti-Semitism." is purely an attempt to label people against Zionism as anti-Semitic, I'm going to delete this AGAIN, I just think it's way to subjective an assertion to be part of an encyclopedia article, the term Zionism is in common usage to mean the movement to form the state of Israel, Anti-Semitism means anti-Semitism, that qoute about anti-zionism in russian or whatever belongs elsewhere, maybe in the russian wikipedia, POST A COMMENT HERE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT Arch NME 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Archenemy, it is irresponsible to remove sourced and factual information simply because you don't like it or are clueless about history. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That qoute is full of opinions and misleading statements. It's like an instruction manual on how to accuse someone against the state of israel of hating all jews. this portion of the qoute especially


 * The test is twofold. It is almost always clear whether the attacks are directed against a specific policy carried out by an Israeli government (for instance, as an occupying power) or against the existence of Israel. Secondly, there is the test of selectivity. If from all the evils besetting the world, the misdeeds, real or imaginary, of Zionism are singled out and given constant and relentless publicity, it can be taken for granted that the true motive is not anti-Zionism but something different and more sweeping


 * It's saying arguing against "the existence of israel" is anti-semitism not anti-zionism and also that merely focusing on the issue is anti-semitism, this is garbage. I'm being responsible by removing it. citing editorial comments isn't the same as citing a fact - Arch NME 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. The author is a authoritative historian and you are...? BTW, he lists facts, the term Zionism was/is indeed misused many times. See Denial. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I fear that I am getting into the habit of butting in, for which I apologize. However, the phrase "authoritative historian" seems to me a contradiction in terms: a historian's "authority," it seems to me, is exactly equivalent to his ability to make clear that his portrayal agrees with facts and reasoning. To assert that a particular historian's portrayal of something is "authoritative" and therefore that the facts and reason must agree with it is backward.

The inclusion of the long quote from Mr. Laqueur in the introduction of this article gives not only the impression, but ironically also the appearance, of a chicken choking on a large ice cube. Who has stuffed this choking hazard down the poor bird's throat?

And now, by way of rescue, it has been proposed that a balancing ice cube be inflicted upon the bird. I don't know, maybe it is true that between the two chunks there would be an air passage.

But for myself, this much chunkiness says very clearly, "What a poorly written article! I will not bother to read further!" And I have not read further, by the way.

Anyway, many of the people supporting the first block of ice now oppose the second. It almost seems that they keep two weights in a bag, a greater one and a lesser one. And when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism's foes, out comes the lesser weight, and if it meets this weight, in must go the change. But when someone comes along and proposes a change that seems damning to Zionism rather than to its foes, then out comes the greater weight, and unless it exceeds this weight, the change must stay out.

And I write this because I think these people probably believe sincerely that they are protecting something with their actions. But I think the truth of the matter, if you pay attention, is that they are on the contrary desecrating it.


 * I removed his editorializing and left the historical stuff, I hope this will satisfy you. I'm a thinking human being who knows bullshit when I see it. That's the great thing about wikipedia. Arch NME 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Arch NME, please know that I agree with your edits. That section of the article is soapboxing the idea of new antisemitism which is a rather disputed concept (note Norman Finkelstein's criticisms). Cheers. (→ Netscott ) 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You agree with his edits? For what unimaginable policy-based reason would you do so? By your standard one could remove anything by Finkelstein as well, simply because one disagreed with his views. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there is a concern about the quote, here is its beginning: "Is it permissible to criticize the state of Israel? This is a rhetorical and, in the final analysis, nonsensical question. No government and no political movement is beyond criticism. But are not critics of Israel, some argue, automatically dismissed as anti-Semites even if they are Jewish? Such arguments are unacceptable, but it is also true that behind the cover of "anti-Zionism" lurks a variety of motives..." I thought it is worth to be included in its entirety but too long.←Humus sapiens ну? 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a relevant quotation from an expert on the topic; one doesn't remove these kinds of things simply because one disagrees with the author's views. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. And I would further argue that we are all "thinking human beings who knows bullshit when we see it." As such, the statement accompanying the quote is accurate, and the removal of that context is not permissible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a massive quote as it is. How could you leave that part out and justify the last 4 sentences in it's place though that part is editorial as well. I edited down to the factual information, TWICE, and it keeps getting reverted. Stop it. Be reasonable.  It's clearly one sided opinion comment that does not belong here. What is the matter with you? Save your political agendas for elsewhere, this is an encyclopedia. I'm reverting back to my edits again soon, you have no valid argument here. Leave it this time. BE REASONABLE. It's the equivalent of putting an quote from some nazi propagandist in there to explain what the term zionism is. You just can't do that. Just cus some guy wrote it doesn’t make it true. We could all call ourselves "expert" historians and put our own webpages up full of our opinions and start citing them. - Arch NME 04:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I reverted your edit, because that's not quite what's being said. What is meant is that some anti-Semites use the word "Zionist" to mean "Jew." It's true that some of those may be what are called "new anti-Semites," but the classical kind do it too. That's a separate point from the one being made. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Slim (or anyone) -- do you feel it would be appropriate to add a quote here that would represent an alternate viewpoint on this issue, provided that the quote comes from a reputable source? BYT 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Brandon, I don't see why not, so long as the source is reliable and on-topic i.e. is speaking about Zionism and/or the use of the term "Zionist" as a synonym for "Jew" (or not). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. BYT 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Brandon, I would say your quote is off-topic, in that it's about the alleged equation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, whereas the sentence introducing it is about how some antisemites use the term "Zionist" when they really mean "Jew." However, now that I've read the first source more carefully, it seems it's off-topic too, so at least it's balanced. :-)
 * I think it would be better to find sources who support and argue against the claim that antisemites use the term "Zionist" as a euphemism for "Jew." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be more logical to just remove both quotes/sections of text? Wikiquote exists for a reason, no? (→ Netscott ) 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Slim: I see what you mean, but it seemed appropriate to provide a quote that balanced the one that was already there. Perhaps it would be best if we removed both of them. (But keeping both would work for me, too.) BYT 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's an important point and should be kept, but the sources, for and against, do have to address the point directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with BYT that keeping both would be fine as well. (→ Netscott ) 21:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Chomsky quote, in addition to demonstrating how delusional he is, has nothing to do with this article.  6SJ7 02:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * anti semitism marginal in the united states ... yeah. Amoruso 04:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's something that has to with the Chomsky quote: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolute 100% nonsense Humus sapiens. I can't believe you'd even go there when BYT actually sought SlimVirgin's view prior to adding that quote. (→ Netscott ) 05:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What does a linguist talking about allegedly non-existent antisemitism in America (at the same those "privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control", but hey, he's a "Jew himself", so it's OK) has to with Zionism? You are right, absolute nonsense. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A lengthy off-topic quote by a linguist, even if he is a Jew (as if that were relevant), does not belong in this article. Jayjg (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Laquer is talking about "post" antisemitism.... hello? As if that wasn't a contested concept. What does it have to do with terminology? That paragraph is there to soapbox the idea of new antisemitism pure and simple. (→ Netscott ) 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, not necessarily NAS. The Soviet and Polish Jews were persecuted because they were officially considered "Zionists". The term Zionism was intentionally misinterpreted by Soviet linguists. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you keep making that claim Netscott. Laquer is talking about using the word "Zionist" as a euphemism for "Jew"; that has little to do with New antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * edit/conflict -- No, not necessarily? You know full well that the whole core of new antisemitism is the concept of equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism... Laquer calls it "post" antisemitism. Please don't take people to be idiots, read the history section of new antisemitism notice the ref. to Russia, hello? (→ Netscott ) 06:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The USSR and the Cold War definitely contributed but these two concepts are not the same. Try to read the relevant parts a few more times, maybe you'll see some differences. I am not taking my colleagues for who they are (I don't care) but for what they do, and so far you failed to impress. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your over-simplified view of New antisemitism is not particularly accurate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger
Danile575 unilaterally created an article about the Haredi position on Zionism, and removed all of that material from this page. I disagreed with that move, and I still think it was a bad idea. My sense was that folks on this page were happy to be rid of him and did not protest. He has been banned from Wikipedia due to his abusing editing and comments. I think the time is right to revisit this issue in a more civil manner. Since the article Haredim and Zionism covers a topic that is integrally linked to the history of the Zionist ideology (at least as much as many of the other sections of this article), I think it belongs in the Zionism article, and not as its own separate article. Any objections?--Meshulam 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't belong in this article at all as there's already too much of it here Zionism. What you're suggesting is not a merger but an WP:AFD for Haredim and Zionism and then if there's something minorly important that's not here already or in Haredim it could be added. Amoruso 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all suggesting a WP:AFD. The Haredim and Zionism article is imperfect, but it covers a genuine subject that I believe is relevant to this article. Indeed, it used to be covered in this article until Daniel575 moved it.--Meshulam 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, that material belongs to Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, except that not all of it is anti-Zionist. --Meshulam 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's edits
Laqueur describes how the label "Zionism" was/is used as a euphemism instead of "Jew" - surely relevant here and not "off topic". BYT, stop disrupting WP and don't remove relevant quotes. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus -- I think perhaps you missed Slim's assessment (below):


 * Brandon, I would say your quote is off-topic, in that it's about the alleged equation of anti'''-Zionism and antisemitism, whereas the sentence introducing it is about how some antisemites use the term "Zionist" when they really mean "Jew." However, now that I've read the first source more carefully, it seems it's off-topic too, so at least it's balanced. :-)
 * I think it would be better to find sources who support and argue against the claim that antisemites use the term "Zionist" as a euphemism for "Jew." SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your reaction, please, especially to that final sentence? I think I may have overlooked it if you addressed this suggestion directly. BYT 20:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The campaigns that Laqueur talks about were against what they called "Zionism". The Soviets intentionally misinterpreted the term and that is what's important and relevant here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say the following:
 * Noam Chomsky is a linguist, and radical political activist; neither his vocation nor his avocation make him any sort of an expert on Zionism.
 * We don't quote Robert Spencer in the Islam article, so we certainly won't quote Noam Chomsky in the Zionism article - at least Spencer has written and published books on the topic.
 * Just as Islam and Criticism of Islam are separate articles, so too Zionism and Anti-Zionism are separate articles. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but Noam Chomsky's book "Fateful Triangle" is on at least an aspect of the topic of Zionism, and in my opinion his avocation of political activism has made him an expert of a sort on Zionism: how many people can recite specifics of the history of Zionism as well as Noam Chomsky? We might disagree with his assertions that all these specifics fit neatly into his more direct political interest in colonialism/hegemony, but there are not very many people in the world who can, right off the cuff, give as informed an exposition on the history of Zionism as can Noam Chomsky. Noting also that he considered himself a Zionist activist in his youth, at just about the time that Zionism was blossoming, and the dismissal above of his opinions seems not to fit the facts.

It is my opinion, by the way, that any comments from Noam Chomsky belong only very marginally, if at all, in a general article on Zionism. But my reasons for believing this do not depend upon dismissing him as an expert on Zionism, which to me is not a sentiment grounded in fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.166.207.83 (talk • contribs).

Jay:

No, one certainly wouldn't quote Robert Spencer in Islam -- but it seems to me that it would be completely appropriate to quote him as one of multiple quoted points of view in Islamism, which is, like Zionism, a political philosophy. (Behold -- a quick check of that article confirms that he is in fact mentioned in the text of that article, and his views are summarized responsibly there.) If you feel he should be part of a group of quotes there, we could certainly have that discussion.

Back to this discussion: Chomsky's real problem is -- let's be frank --that you personally disagree with him. It seems to me that the primary criterion (at least for the purposes of this page) of "expertise" on the topic of Zionism is agreeing with its tenets, as you appear to do.

Is there another WP article on a political philosophy where all the academic voices quoted are required to support the movement? BYT 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BYT, Chomsky's real problem is that he is a linguist and radical political activist, not any sort of expert opinion on Zionism. Let's be frank - the only reason you want to quote him is because his views coincide with your own, and, of course, the usual WP:POINT. Oh, and we're not doing the "new section for every comment, new section to repeat the previous day's questions" nonsense that happened here before. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. Progress here. You're actually responding. Let's continue to be frank, then. Grant that our politics are not compatible. (There's a shocker.) Have you noticed that your quoted expert always seems to stay in this article, and mine always seems to vanish? Is there, on the great green earth, any sufficiently qualified skeptic of Zionism whom you would deign to place next to Laqueur? BYT 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus Sapiens is right above... I didn't notice it before, but Noam Chomsky is speaking of an entirely different issue which is indeed new "anti semitism". The original quote was simply talking about how Zionist was used to refer to a Jew as a Jew, it's a terminlogical thing, it's not saying that an anti zionist person is anti semitic, it simply says how for some people the word zionist replaced the word Jew. Amoruso 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So -- the Soviets didn't really mean "anti-Zionist" ... we know as an objective fact that they really meant "anti-Jew." And Chomsky didn't really mean "anti-Semitism" ... we know as an objective fact that he really meant "'new' anti-Semitism." And Alice cradles the flamingo in her arms and attempts to use its extended neck to strike at a croquet ball.

Speaking of surrealistic transitions, I'd like to throw one back your way, return the conversation to its mooring-point of a few dozen syllables ago, and ask Jay, once again, if any academic skeptical of Zionism is sufficiently qualified to be quoted in this article. He's fallen prey to one of his habitual bouts of mystic silence in the presence of a direct question. BYT 02:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Take your personal vendettas someplace else. Yes it is a terminology issue and that is why it is in that section. You got the Soviet part correct. For "skeptics" see Anti-Zionism. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BYT, do you have a specific academic in mind? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Jay. I'm looking for your guidance. BYT 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's my guidance: use top-notch subject experts as sources, recognize that Zionism and Anti-Zionism are separate articles, and avoid incessant Talk: page trolling and WP:POINT article editing. Hope that helps. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, Jay, it doesn't help in the least. Since you're taking the lead here in removing what I consider to be a notable alternate voice to balance Laqueur, I'd like to ask you to suggest a replacement.
 * Otherwise this passage is woefully out of balance, as several editors -- Netscott, Arch, myself -- here have noted. Slim is of the opinion that both quotes were off topic. Do these opinions exist, or don't they? Is the article yours, or WP's?
 * The remedy seems to me either to balance Laqueur or to remove the quote. (If you have other ideas, I'd certainly like to hear them.)
 * It sounds from your tone like you're not up for removing the quote (a position that suggests, but offers no details on, a disagreement with Slim's assessment), so I need some specific help from you in identifying an actual human being who holds or held a view contrary to Laqueur's.
 * That's not trolling, in my view, but yet another attempt at collaborative editing on an article that has for months been very much in danger of succumbing to problems described eloquently in WP:OWN.
 * My question for you remains: do you believe an academic's being qualified to be quoted in this article is the same as his or her agreeing with the principles of Zionism? I do I hope you have enough intellectual integrity to address that question directly ... and to give us the names of real, live (or, for that matter real, dead) academics you would be willing to see quoted here if your answer to this clear, and now repeatedly posed, question is "no." BYT 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you ask for my advice if you refuse to take it? Any comment with the phrase "I hope you have enough intellectual integrity to address that question directly ..." is obviously trolling. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a fair question to put to you specifically, Jay, and perhaps even pointedly, inasmuch as you've just told us that the world's most acclaimed linguist is unqualified to discuss terminology related to Zionism. Once again: Do you believe an academic's being qualified to be quoted in this article is the same as his or her agreeing with the principles of Zionism? BYT 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So far User:Arch NME, User:BrandonYusufToropov and myself have removed them and User:SlimVirgin has referred to the Laquer quotes as "off topic". Can we just remove them now? If not then please answer BYT's rather pertinent question above. (→ Netscott ) 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Zionism, Zionism and Anti-Zionism. Back to Laqueur: the quote is about terminology, so I don't see how it is off-topic. Are you able to contribute constructively on the subject? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)