Talk:Zionism/Archive 13

I think Anti-Zionism is only one of the form of the criticisms to Zionism. And it is a wide subject. There is also Post-Zionism and Non-Zionism (whereas not described in the article). In this section is also described the "allegations of racism against Zionism", which is not an consensual anti-zionism position... So I suggest that the section is titled : "Opposition to Zionism". Ceedjee (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does somebody disagree ? And better : would somebody agree ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see these links: [1] [2], [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam Yusuf,

Here are roughly 20 (other) references to the same topic but maybe from more reliable sources (except inist) : [9]. They are already in the article Anti-Zionism.

I can only ask (for the 5th time) the same question than here-above :

• Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section ? If so, which one ? And Why ?

Please, apologize but I have to tell you that nobody understands what you want exactly...

Ceedjee (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about this. I know he's covered in Anti-Zionism. Problem is, WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK say we should summarize all "major Points of View" that show up in Anti-Zionism in this article, Zionism, and I believe Mahatma Gandhi's views on the topic qualify as a major Point of View, esp. given that they were controversial at the time and attracted global interest and concern from leading Zionists. BYT (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam Yusuf,

The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line. Maybe first step would be to develop his point of view on the matter there first. Then, we could see which one of his quotes, pov or analysis could be added here. It must just fairly summarize his mind.

Because, else, execpt "Gandhi too opposed to Zionist entreprise", I don't see what to say. Ceedjee (talk) 11:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Would that language work for you here at Zionism, Ceedjee ? BYT (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam Yusuf,

Of course.

Do you refer to the recent add of material concerning Post-Zionism and Neo-Zionism ?

If so, I suggest you behave exactly the same way : this was summarized by this.

NB: The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay -- would Ceedjee's proposal -- "Mahatma Gandhi, too, opposed the Zionist enterprise" -- work for you? Would you, for instance, replace it if someone else took it out? I'd like to get your feedback on this before we proceed. BYT (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam Yusuf,

This is not my proposal.

My proposal is that we do not change anything until the article Anti-Zionist is developed.

Eg, there would be a section in Anti-Zionist named "prominent historical characters who opposed to Zionism", then we could give some of them here.

NB: I conclude from your absence of comment concerning my former answer to your question that you admit I worked with the policy I suggest while you purposedly ignore this. I think your attitude will be considered very disappointing by external observers.

Could you please check as read the following sentence :

"The space devoted in Anti-Zionism to Gandhi is currently : 1 line."

Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BYT, please stop misrepresenting what other editors have said on the Talk: page, and please review Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised. By the way, Brandon, do you know how much Gandhi wrote about Zionism? Can you quantify it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent questions -- I'm filing them for now in the Great Not-Yet-Addressed Questions folder, and eventually we can get to every question everyone has posed here during the present dispute. I may have a couple of questions myself that have not yet made it to the top of your list ... let me doublecheck on that, though.

Hey, did you happen to see the movie Enchanted? My girls fell in love with that film. Did you notice how they cast Idina Menzel in a non-singing role? This was mystifying to me, because Enchanted was a great new Disney musical (hasn't it been a while since we've been able to say those words with a straight face?), and because of Menzel's extraordinary work on the Broadway musical Wicked, which is now immortalized in a classic cast album. One of the great vocal performances in the history of the American musical theatre, in my view. I mention this in reference to Zionism because it seems important now to establish that anyone who wants to argue that the choice to cast Menzel in a role that did not allow her to sing had something to do with her views on Zionism, pro or con, would be hard-pressed to prove the point with a citation from a reliable source. I've scoured everything at my disposal, and have found nothing that supports such a claim. No one has made it yet, of course, but just in case it comes up, I feel it's a good idea to be prepared. Looking forward to the rest of the discussion of other matters, I remain, yr humble obdt BYT (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Anyway, Gandhi appears to have written one brief letter on the subject. As I said, neither a significant part of his thought and writings, nor a significant part of Anti-Zionist thought. The mention in the Anti-Zionism sub-article seems about right. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay, thanks for the good note, and do check out Enchanted if you get a chance. Great fun. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because Gandhi did not publish extensively on the topic of Zionism, he does not belong in the article. I'm not sure if I agree with you on that, but I just might, if it's a standard we can both come to rely on as a tool for helping us to work together to improve the article. To help me get a little bit clearer on the standards we're using for this article, are you suggesting that people who don't publish extensively on the topic of Zionism, and happen to be Muslims, former Muslims, or Christians, also don't belong in the article? BYT (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is more relevant to be pro-Zionist in Islam than anti-Zionist in India ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Gandhi did not publish extensively on the topic of Zionism"? No, Gandhi, in all his voluminous writings, penned one brief letter on the subject. In any event, his views are captured in the proper sub-article. Are you arguing that the views of Muslims on Zionism also belong in a sub-article? If so, which one? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake -- I am afraid didn't phrase the question properly. What I'm trying to resolve is not so much about Gandhi per se as it is the threshold we're using to establish notability. You're saying that Gandhi's published output on this topic is not enough to get him over that threshold. I might disagree and pose other standards for notability -- his ranking among published lists of the world's most important people, say, or the fact that his position was widely quoted and discussed in the media at the time, or the fact that he maintained the position persistently in the face of heavy opposition, or the historical relevance of his attracting high-profile attention from leading Zionists (like Buber), or the fact that he made sure his party, a major one, held firm to the same position of opposing Zionism until his death, and on and on and on. But you're saying that the publishing thing is the only thing we should look at in order to establish Gandhi's notability here. I'm open to using that as a standard, but I have some questions. What I want to figure out is whether that "publishing-on-Zionism" standard is one you plan to apply as our only standard to everyone we would consider putting in the article, or just to Gandhi? Does it, for instance, apply to Palazzi? Or Idina Menzel, for that matter? :) <BTW, if we moved the material on Muslims and Christians and Former Muslims Who Support Zionism to a sub-article that would work for me, but I have no idea what it could be called.> BYT (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam once more Yusuf,

>". What I want to figure out is whether that "publishing-on-Zionism" standard is one you plan to apply as our only standard to everyone we would consider putting in the article, or just to Gandhi? Does it, for instance, apply to Palazzi?"

Unfortunately you never read what I am writing. This is disappointing. We cannot move this in another place because : "(...) it is more relevant to be pro-Zionist in Islam than anti-Zionist in India (...)."

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

BYT, there are no hard and fast rules; it depends on the material, the source, the location in the Zionism article, the structure of the Zionism article, among other things. Every case has to be judged on its own merits. In the case of Gandhi, he wrote only one brief letter on the subject, out of all his voluminous writings, so it's given the space it warrants, a mention in the anti-Zionism sub-section, and a full treatment in the Gandhi article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jay -- thanks for the good note, above -- there may not be hard and fast rules, but there are hard and fast standards, and one of them is that we should be constantly trying to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm still not sure how omitting reference to the Gandhi/Buber controversy [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] (for instance) accomplishes that.

I'm also not entirely sure that we are applying notability standards in a consistent way here, and I'm a little mystified by our inability to directly address the question of whether Palazzi is "notable" in the sense that you are saying Gandhi is NOT "notable". They are both under discussion for the same article, after all, and certain standards are set out by WP:PEOPLE that are meant to apply this article. I think I must have posed my question to you in a confusing way, and if I did, I apologize. Perhaps the best thing for us to do at this point is to look directly at the guideline:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

Where I need help is here: Are you saying that Palazzi is notable, under the "less stringent" reference above, and, if so, why isn't Gandhi also notable under the same "less stringent" reasoning? I don't see anything above, or anywhere in WP:PEOPLE about the person having had to publish on the topic in question. BYT (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, each item deserves its own evaluation; we're talking about Gandhi. The citations you have brought are mostly about Buber, not Gandhi - in fact, a number of the sources are the writings of Buber himself. Most of the mentions are at best passing - one is just a footnote. Perhaps the incident should be mentioned in the Buber article, but if you feel Buber's response should be mentioned in the Anti-Zionism sub-article, I'm fine with that. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf would like to move [20]. I think it makes more sense at the other place. Could you explain why ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- I think we should finish clarifying the received meaning of the term before jumping to a discussion of how people may be using the term, then back again. Also, I think the territorialism vs. Zionism distinction should be dealt with early in the section, because a lot of readers are likely to get the two mixed up. You didn't ask about the style edits I did, but I think "should" in the version before I edited it [21] is unencyclopedic. Also, I wasn't trying to move a section, but rather trying to move an (edited) paragraph. BYT (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Salam Yusuf,

The section you moved doens't define what is Zionism but rather what it is not. So we could wonder about the due:weight to talk about this in the article. Territoralism is anecdotical.

On the other side, both other contexts of use of the word are well-known.

Wouldn't it be better to introduce matter in by decreasing importance of due:weight ?

Nevertheless, I agree the style of your edits is better than the other one. So, from my point of view, you can keep your version but at the current place. Ceedjee (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay -- works for me. BYT (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all jews live in israel yet all are in favor of israel..as not all italian americans live in italy but are in favor of italy .zionism is the in favor of a jewish state.

++It seems correct to most cristians that its correct natural normal to have 26 cristian countries but just 1 jewish country, In a fair world today there would be more jewish countries as THERE ARE more cristian or catholic or protestant or muslem countries. To say jews are greedy or want everything is opposite REALITY jews want ONE country only ONE while cristians already have 26 and muslems have 11.The cristiand got THEIRS by conquering entering and converting by force. jews have no superpowers nor want more than a fair shake. with jews ALWAYS in israel ,the european jews reentered international agreement after WW2 They never try to convert anybody. 26 to O N E . whos the greedy person here???

raquel samper comunidad judia murcia http://comjudiamurcia.googlepages.com/home jewish center murcia spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comunidad judia murcia (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hola Raquel, the fate of Israel and of Jews will not be decided by Wikipedia, so please try to keep a cool head. Oh, and welcome here, we need new fresh faces like you. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are many Jews who disagree with Zionism and the state of Israel, Noam Chomsky being just one example. Look at how the USA treated blacks in the 1940s and 1950s, look at how South Africa treated blacks until the 1980s, the look at how Israel treats Palestinians NOW. If you can't see the similarities and how wrong all three are, then I'm afraid you're not looking very hard. But whatever, you'll just say I'm antisemetic and close your mind to the idea that you might be wrong. 82.15.27.109 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

disagreeing is not being against the existance of a state of jews. I may disagree with israel on a spec policy but id die for its survival Im a zionist. A nonzionist might disagree as i might on policy but would not care about its survival.i disagree within wikipedia but i want wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murcia fluent (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bodega. You may write what you want in your personal page but Talk pages should be about the contents of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Is mediation still required? Geoff Plourde (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the following text to her for further discussion:

The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 55% of the world's population, rejects Zionism.[22][23][24]

There are a number of issues with this material:

1. Material in this section is supposed to summarize material in sub-articles, yet I see nothing on this in the sub-articles.
2. The text makes the claim the claim that the movement is "representing 55% of the world's population". It's not clear what the relevance of that 55% is, and in any event, given that most of these countries (aside from India) are dictatorships of one kind or another, while the governments of these countries may rule those populations, it is unclear that they represent their views (or their wishes, or anything else).
3. The references used are weak at best. The first is a speech by Castro in 1979, hardly relevant today, and certainly long precedes the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86, supported by many of the non-aligned nations (including India), that rescinded the "Zionism is racism" claim. The second is a dead link, and the third dates from 1980 - see the issues with the first link.

Let's discuss this issue further here. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. An equivalent section can be added in the daughter article. Not really insurmountable.
2. The section should be rewritten to indicate that the NAM claimed to represent 55% of the world's population, not that it was the case.
3. The point of the statement is not to distract attention from the passage of 4686, but to indicate a major source of support for that sort of thinking historically; there are nuances between "reject" and ZiR, of course, which is what the NAM statements trace out. Which is also why it being an "outdated" reference is hardly relevant. The primary source need not be retained as a cite, but with supporting secondary sources, it doesn't hurt IMO.

In general, the context of these statements - and similar ones by the OAU and, indeed, the Commonwealth - are extremely helpful as an aid for a reader, in that it locates the ideological context of various objections to Zionism. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot really find objective support for "the non-aligned movement rejects zionism". The best I can find is support by the NAM countries for UN Resolution 3379 equating zionism with racism, which implies (but does not state) that Israel is an illegal entity. This resolution was sponsored (in part) by Cuba and voted by the other NAM members. It was rescinded in 1991; Cuba voted against. The many other anti-Israel UN resolutions cannot be seen as a clear rejection of Zionism and of the right of Israel to exist.

I believe that, in the spirit of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, the article should merely quote sources, leaving the conclusions to the reader. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Most NAM sessions from the 1950s till Oslo included categorical statements about Zionism, some of which went further thn 3379 and some which were more modulated. That in itself is an interesting graph of international reactions to Zionism, though obviously out of the scope of this main article. More to the point, there are several secondary sources that describe those statements, and place them in context. An interesting, if brief, summary is Geldenhuys, Deon (1990). Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge UniversityPress. p. 272..

I quite agree that the section should be re-written closely following a secondary source. I'll wait to hear from Jay before I attempt that. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

O.K., which up-to-date secondary sources do you propose using, and what do they say on the topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See above, Jay, for my answer to that question. I hardly think a scholarly, peer-reviewed article published in the 80s is out-of-date in the same way that a political speech is... --Relata refero (disp.) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the reference to Abdelkader Amlou in "Muslims & Arabs supporting zionism". I Googled his name and all I found were blogs, many written by him. The discourse was very blog-like, not academic. I could not find a single secondary source. I looked in Amazon.fr and found no book by this poet. Therefore, despite my declared sympathy for this guy's opinions, I cannot justify his presence in this article. See WP:SOURCE for more details. PS: he is Moroccan and writes in French; for the record, I was born in Morocco and French is my mother tongue. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This text appears to me to violate WP:UNDUE:

Muslims & Christian Arabs supporting Zionism Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship and Canadian Imam Khaleel Mohammed, find support for Zionism in the Qur'an.^[1][2] Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Bengali journalist Salah Choudhury and Pakistani journalist Tashbih Sayyed.^[3]

The article currently emphasizes (as above) the positions of individual Muslims and Arabs who support Zionism. These are fringe viewpoints, at best, and if we feature a section on individuals in these groups who support the movement, it is incumbent upon us to offer a similar level of detail and attention to the (far more numerous) individual Muslims and Arabs who oppose Zionism. Simplest option, I think, is to delete the section. BYT (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just two sentences, and it cites notable individuals. We've already discussed this at length, and the consensus was to leave the material in. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

the fact that a large percentage of muslims/arabs are against zionism is well established and does not really require us to delve into the individual reasoning behind each proponent. on the other hand, the fact that there are responsible prozionist muslims/arabs is a fact which does deserve noting for anything more than a shallow gloss on the subject. this is not comparable to fringe opinions in science, for example, where there are solidly objective reasons to downplay the views of those who believe the earth is flat or perpetual motion is achievable. this would be more comparable to playing down the opinions of americans who were originally against invading iraq, as a fringe group of little significance; when in fact it provides an important perspective on the actual degree of linkage between two points of view which tend to be conflated in the absence of information. Gzuckier (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "delving into individual reasoning behind each proponent" -- which the article text under discussion doesn't seem to me to do -- but instead offering the same level of analysis, at least, to mainstream views if fringe views are quoted (which is a dubious undertaking anyway). And yes, these are definitely fringe viewpoints in the Muslim and Arab world. BYT (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

BYT, you argue that this group is too "fringy" to be mentioned. I disagree. As I wrote earlier, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in WP:NPOV as such: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I easily found six public figures, including five published authors; it ought to be enough. I reverted your deletion. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi BYT,
I will write again what I said before. The support of Zionism is Arab and Muslim world is extremally little. That is why I think it is not undue:weight to point out the "little minority" who support this. The Arab and Muslim majority point of view is developed in the article about antizionism.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is a phenomena of pro-zionism among minorities who feel oppressed by arabs and arabism. a widely known example of such is kurds, although the phenomena manifests itself with other minorities such as the amazigh. I've encountered this several times, but i'm not sure what sources would be the best to describe this connection. In particular, this (http://www.agraw.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=1161&forum=3) has a well-written anthropological article quoted from somewhere, i'd rather point to the source. and there's this (http://israelkurdistannetwork.blogspot.com/2008/02/zionist-kurdish-connection.html) for another example, but again i'd prefer a more formal site than a blog of an NGO. anyone with ideas? 80.179.69.194 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

how about this? http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/israel_kurds_11804.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.67.250.218 (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

CeeDjee, Arab support for Israel is not "extremely little", just little. No matter the idea, five published authors justify its inclusion in Wikipedia. Anonymous, about Kurdish support for Israel, could you find a published source and write a short sentence about it? Thanks. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuel, what do you think about the two published links above? looking at the edit history, it's been inserted, yanked out, inserted and yanked out again. better have someone back it up, than have a revert war. 132.66.201.181 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We are summarizing the PRO view at a level of granular detail, and with a focus on fringe viewpoints, that is not in balance with our responsibility to summarize more mainstream contemporary and historic CON views (as they appear, for instance, at Anti-Zionism). BYT (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Palestine have good place in Middle east...so Zionists seems so clever!!!.A lot of problems help to make Palestine convenient to be the home of israel.One of the most important problem is the poverty and the need for money.The second standing problem is the incoherence which make it easy to go into the land as a new part.The problem which make it so easy to use military tool that weakness of the sovereignty of the government of Palestine.(Volks For Volks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.233.106.205 (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The material for this new section was taken from the bio article on Ben Hecht. Because of its length and detail, it did not seem appropriate in that article in its complete form. It was therefore shortened with a link added to this section for more details.

Should any editors decide to either rename this section, or otherwise remove it, please make any corrections to the link at the Ben Hecht article also. Thanks.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The following were in the "see also" section in the Ben Hecht article. I'll leave them here if anyone wants to add them to this article

• Rudolf Vrba
• Rudolf Kastner
• Stanislav Szukalski
• Irgun
• History of the Jews in Hungary
• Fortean Society

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed. While Ben Hecht is interesting we can't start having forty lines and a picture for every prominent (more or less) American Zionist. Wikipedia isn't big enough. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Opposed to total removal. Please wait for a consensus before removing it entirely and unilaterally. If it is too long, please consider condensing it a bit. Section is not just about Hecht - it concerns Bergson group and a highly significant period historically. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support its removal. Ben Hecht and the Bergson group are hardly representative of the American Zionism; and I say this as someone who wrote most of the Malchiel Gruenwald article, and cited Hecht extensively in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am willing to withdraw my objection and defer to your judgment on this, as I perceive you know far more about the subject matter than I. However, I find no other reference to American Zionism in the article; removing the section would leave a void. Would you consider developing a more representative section to take its place? Hertz1888 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

If the Bergson group belongs in here then perhaps we shold restore the History of Zionism to this article?

Nearly everything in this article is already in History of Zionism and that is better written.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to participating in Wikipeida. But this article... it's just beyond. Totally.

I mean: Zionism had two major effects. 1: The creation of Israel. 2: The creation of the Palestinian diaspora.

Today we KNOW a lot about what happened in 48, and how the expulsion was in accordance with the wish for a pure Jewish community, with as few arabs as possible. We KNOW that Zionist leaders dreamed about transfer of the Palestinians. That was an integral part of Zionism as an ideology.

It's not bias. It's not politics. It's history. It's facts.

I see that there have been stuff about this is in the past, and that it's now edited out of some reason. It's time for a reality check. An encyclopedia should represent facts, not distort them. But this article is just that: Distortion. 89.139.84.195 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC) o.e.

While the creation of a Jewish state was a publicly stated Zionist goal (but only from about 1942 to 1948), expulsion of the Arab population of Israel was never an objective of the Zionist movement. In contrast the publicly stated objective of the Arab league in 1948 and of the PLO (from its foundation until 1995) was to expel the vast majority of the Jewish population. The objective of the Palestinian leadership in 1948 (Haj al-Husseini) was genocide. The Zionist movement had a democratically elected leadership and no leadership was ever elected on the basis of a promise to expel the Arabs. Zionist ambitions were based on forecasts of Jewish migration. Before 1948 and 1967 the idea that Jews could create a powerful army was seen as laughable - not the least by the Arabs themselves. Only a tiny minority of Jews believed that a Jewish army could be created that would conquer Palestine.

The conspiracy theory you refer to only relates to the 1948 war which was not initiated by the Jews, and whose end could not be foreseen. The Palestinian exodus in 1948 is mentioned here but this article is not about this (controversial) issue.

Hope this is helpful. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, I respect that you have your opinions about what the goals of the Zionist movement were. But quite frankly: You are not up to date at all with what's been happening among historians for the last 15-20 years. You're even not up to date with the internal debates about this that are going on in our country Israel. I know that this sounds terribly arrogant, but I suggest that you start reading more history. For example Benny Morris - nowadays a freaked out war monger, but still a reliable historian. "1948" or "Righteous Victims" will get you a long way. Or the works of Tom Segev, for example "One Palestine: Complete" ("Yamei Kalaniot" be ivrit).

Very shortly, to your arguments: you're right that the Zionist leaders never publicly vowed to expel the Arabs. On the contrary they tried NOT to say anything about this in public. But we know from diaries, letters, minutes from internal meetings and so on, that the idea of Transfer was very much alive in Zionist circles. Ben Gurion wrote in his diary in 1937: "With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims, p. 177)

What you claim about Arab and Palestinian attitudes and political strategy is also wrong. And what you claim about the initial (lack of) military might in the Yishuv is as wrong as it gets (reading list: "The Iron Wall" by Avi Shlaim). But that's not the subject here. The pro-palestinian site Palestine Remembered has gathered a lot of quotes from Zionist leaders that are clearly pro-transfer. Browse through and see for your self: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

Yalla bye, achi. 89.138.162.59 (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)o.e.

I regret to inform you that wikipedia will not adopt the new historian version but rather report it as what it is, a research theory, with lots of debateable research. the debate between new historians and "old" historians rages on, and wikipedia is the last place to push a POV over the other. do consider that the group of 'new historians' is rather small (although vocal) and is met with fierce opposition - something wikipedia can't ignore, and so shouldn't you. you are quite correct in declaring that your attitude towards the subject is arrogant indeed - Telaviv1 isn't "wrong" - he has a different view on the subject, and you should respect that. MiS-Saath (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear offended anonymous, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. In a nutshell, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth . If you know about published information or opinions that belongs to this article, be bold, insert it into the article with proper sourcing. I warn you, however, that you picked a difficult article to start with. At the end of the fight, the most reliable source wins.

I will also point out other articles directly related to you complaint : 1948 Palestine war, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1948 Palestinian exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, Palestinian refugee. Welcome to Wikipedia! Emmanuelm (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: make sure you read the report of the 1937 Peel Commission, especially the part about the so-called "population transfer", how they thought it was perfectly dandy, had worked beautifully between Greece and Turkey and was the very most elegant solution to Britain's embarrassment in Palestine. Many, including Ben Gourion, agreed. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As it happens I'm reading the iron wall and have Benny Morriss's latest book on order. I don't consider Pappe to be reliable, I think Stalinists are as bad as Neo-Nazis. I havn't read the Israeli archives but I've read the British ones and I've read the Peel Report which is a great intro to the conflict. I read/own Segev's book and it says nothing of what you describe actually its mostly about the 1917 - 1929 period and only devotes a single chapter to 1939 -1948. Beware of Palestinians quoting Zionists out of context, a lot do. Their own record is hardly impressive. Don't believe everything you hear even if the source is left-wing. I have a lot of expereince of this stuff and there's a lot of half-truths flying around. Finalyly, achi, allow me to say that I too respect your opinions. I suggest you learn about Jewish history in Europe - perhaps try reading about the pogroms in poland 1945-1948 (Jan Gross) or the Jewish escape from Eruope (Brichah).

Telaviv1 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps try the Farhud or Shafiq Ades - in the discourse that encourages seeing Mizrachi jews as "Arab Jews" and "brainwashed" "victims of zionism", it's among the factual events cast aside. MiS-Saath (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, I'm very happy to hear that you're reading Shlaim and that Morris is on the way! I'm sorry if I assumed things about your level of reading that were not correct.

Concerning Segev: Yap, he doesn't say much about 1948. But what he shows is how the Zionist leaders, for example Weizmann, had political goals that they didn't pursue in public. For example: They publicly accepted the dogy "national home" formulation, but were explicit in private that what they wanted was a fully fledged state. This is just to show that your argument concerning what Zionist leaders were saying in public is off the mark. I haven't read the Peel Report. On the other hand I've spent quite a lot of time in the Israeli state archives reading original documents in Hebrew and English. And I'll be glad to learn more about Jewish history in Europe.

Some final words about "history": Of course history can never be 100% accurate. Every historical timeline will to some extent be a "research theory", as EmmanuelM says. BUT: It is still the case that some things either happened or did not happen. Either there was a holocaust, or there wasn't. Either Napolean tried to conquer Russia, or he didn't. The same thing applies to Zionism. On some issues there are still legitimate debates - we're just not sure what the evidence tells us. (or we don't have sufficient evidence). But when it comes to the concept of transfer, then there's just no doubt - we KNOW that Zionist leaders, especially since the 30s and onwards - thought that it would be a good thing. Then there is the separate issue of what happened in 1948, if there were formal orders for expulsion and so on.

And EmmanuelP - I might very well enter new sections into the article later on! Just have to do it properly, so it will take some time. kol tov, 193.217.19.236 (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC) o.e.

You're confusing several things together. It doesn't take real science to understand that transfer is some form of a solution to the israeli arab conflict, although a one-sided one that has severe moral issues and other reprecussions. it is quite natural that some zionist leaders would ponder about it privately. the converse is also ofcourse true - dissolution of Israel and spreading the jews back into the diaspora would also be a one-sided solution with severe moral issues and reprecussions. i would be surprised if no arab leader ever thought of that. the issue at hand, however, is whether it is endemic to zionism and to what extent. this is one issue that is hotly debated and still will be, one that has the revisionist "new historians" claiming one thing and most of the other historians claiming the other. as far as this article should be concerned, the issues are not seperate. one would also need to consider the amount of evidence and the prominence and numeric significance of those particular leaders. and remember to consider the converse: is dissolution of israel endemic to arab nationalism or to islamism? should it be part of those articles? MiS-Saath (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to the above has just been added to this article. If you follow the link you will find an article that seems to violate NOR and NPOV. Perhaps people who watch this page are better informed - could you look at this and comment on its talk page? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Much of this article discusses Zionism as it was practised before the second world war. In particular the "types of zionism" and the issues relating to language and exile. They should refer to the movement as it is now.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, a Zionist may be a Jewish nationalist, but not necessarily. Jewish nationalism is certainly not the source of Zionism. The source of Zionism is in Jewish beliefs and traditions that connect the Jewish religion and people with the land of Israel. Zionism would continue even with every trace of nationalism removed from the equation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm,

I'm aware that some people regard Zionism as having its source in the beliefs and traditions of Judaism, and in connections between Judaism and the historical Land of Israel. I'm also aware that this perspective is not universally supported, and that its critics include both Zionists and non-Zionists. I don't believe that our article should either endorse or reject the position. CJCurrie (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, there can be no doubt that Zionism is rooted in religious tradition. That tradition was present in the thoughts, and acts, of even the most socialist inclined Zionist leaders:

Today, more than ever, the "religious" tend to relegate Judaism to observing dietary laws and preserving the Sabbath. This is considered religious reform. I prefer the Fifteenth Psalm, lovely are the psalms of Israel. The Shulchan Aruch is a product of our nation's life in the Exile. It was produced in the Exile, in conditions of Exile. A nation in the process of fulfilling its every task, physically and spiritually . . . must compose a "New Shulchan"--and our nation's intellectuals are required, in my opinion, to fulfill their responsibility in this. --(David Ben-Gurion, letter to the writer Eliezer Steinman, 12 June 1962)[25]

Perhaps, if it were not there, todays problems would be easier to solve. But religious belief is tightly interwoven with Zionist politics. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there's doubt that Zionism is partly rooted in religious tradition and partly rooted in 19th century nationalism, which is what our article should convey. I'm sure you could find several quotations like the one above, but that's not really the point; the view that Zionism stems from, or is a fulfillment of, Jewish religious tradition is very much disputed -- including by some within the Zionist movement. (Btw, Ben-Gurion was not the most socialist-inclined of the early Zionist leaders. I suspect that some Mapam or HH leaders might have held differing views.) CJCurrie (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I've adjusted my wording again in a bid to find consensus. Could I request that neutral-but-informed parties offer their views on the matter? CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The modern movement was largely secular, at least for its first few decades, though it also had roots in Jewish religious belief. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An obscure quote from a letter doesn't seem to me to be strong enough evidence but I agree that zionism has its origins in religious ideals. I think that saying that "the concept of Jewish nationhood arose 3000 years ago" is problematic as many theorists (though not all) regard nationalism as a modern phenomenon (dating from the French revolution roughly) and Zionism is above all a nationalist movement with all that implies (ie the desire to have a sovereign state, a flag, an anthem etc. which all theorists agree is what a nationalist movement desires).

TBy definition anyone who is a member of the Zionist movement is a Jewish-nationalist supporting a Jewish state in one form or another. I think Jews who think Jews should live in Israel are not Zionist if they oppose Jewish sovereignty in Israel. That is their thinking is not a product of a nationalist philosophy but purely religious. I accept that the boundaries between religion and nationalism are a little blurry here but Zionism is absolutely 100% a nationalist movement. That is what its founders were creating (and Herzl was completely secular). Ben-Gurion was aware of his orgins in religion but he always described Zionism as the the national movement of the Jewish people and his aim was to create a sovereign state. Telaviv1 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, if you think what I wrote needs adjusting, please make any changes you think would make it more accurate. Or, if you, and everyone else, is happy with are CJCurrie's edit (which I consider highly POV), leave it as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As Jayjg has told you, and as everyone knows, the first Zionists in Palestine were secular, and this continued for decades.

What he's not mentioned is that Zionists attacked the Jews of Palestine - in fact, the first clear act of Zionist terrorism was in 1924, assassinating the leader of the Palestinian Jews, Jaacob de Haan, before he could get to London and make a separate arrangement with the Mandate. In August 1948 the Israelis bullozed synagogues (Kletter "Just Past? The Making of Israeli Archaeology," 2005). PR^talk 10:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PR, what you're saying is incorrect. The first Zionists are widely considered to be the hovevei zion and the biluim who were all orthodox to some degree. In addition secularism does not mean rejection of religion. Secular Zionists may still have been moderately religious so religius factors played a part. The socialist zionists were more opposed to religion but they did not arrive until later. As far as I can recall Jacob de-haan was Dutch and a zionist who changed sides becoming an orthodx jew in Palestine. He also published homosexual poetry. The cause of his murder and its implications are hardly as clear as you suggest.

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Whilele the Zionist mvoement was largely secular in its objectives I am not sure if it was secular in its origins.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see that in the referenced material. 24.17.52.87 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and someone else reverted it. Zionism had religious roots to be sure, and grew as a result Antisemitism, but it was secular Mr.Herzl, who is credited with its initial political form. There is also the nationalism, another secular movement. Certainly in America, its great growth prior to Balfour must be credited to Brandeis, although I admit, one couldn't state that using Wikipedia alone and his name is yet to occur on the article page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think is depends what you mean by "origins". The 19th century origins were secular but the foundation on which those were built was obviously religious. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its time to remove this ambiguous statement. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem Telaviv1. The article makes it clear there are strong religious traditions, but surely it is also true to say that as a movement it was mainly secular in its origins. All of the key early thinkers and activists were secular. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it should say that the founders were secular, rather than "secular in its origins". Telaviv1 (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of 'origins' is a valid point, and religious points are by far the most ancient and Judaic. On the other hand, there were non-Judaic groups, which developed similar concepts, based on their own reading of other, newer, versions of the same RS, and for different reasons. This does not necessarily mean that they were Zionists, because the RS'd terms for them are different, and there are RSs that indicate these have been retroactively accepted and subsumed as being Zionists. I will readily admit that the roots of Zionism are religious, but it was definitely not the religious-based Zionists that introduced Zionism to the wider world; they were a small minority, especially in the early days. It was absolutely true the secular crowd brought the movement to the fore. That said, the post-1967 land acquisition and the post-1977 Likud political alliances are certainly the most direct causes of what the right-wing Zionists think and consider Zionism to be today. Please be careful how neutrally this is stated. How about something like; Although the roots of Zionism emanate from religious tradition, political Zionism grew and has been dominated by secular Jewry, until recently. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to say "mainly founded by secular Jews" and linked to "secular Jewish culture". I think that is sufficient. The boundaries between the religious and the secular are not simple, espcially in the Middle-East. Telaviv1 (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand there is difference between political and religious Zionism. Political Zionism is secular in its origins, and has its roots in rise of nationalism in 19th century in Europe, and establishment of many free nation states at that time. Religious Zionism, on the other hand, has its roots in Judaism and Jewish religious traditions.

So, in late 19th century, political Zionist would argue that Greeks, Bulgarians,Italians, Serbians and other people created their own independent states, so to solve the problem of antisemitism Jews must also have their own independent state and "to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state". Religious Zionist,on the other hand, would argue that Land of Israel is promised to Jews by God, and they have religious duty, mitsva, to settle in it.Igorb2008 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As TelAviv1 says, line is v blurry, and I would be wary of editing along these lines. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To balance things up a bit, I would like to see a link to:

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

Particularly interesting is this quote: "Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.188 (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Which land is "today Palestine?" Telaviv1 (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! (Ssd175 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

This confuses me, as I don't see how it should be any more pro-Zionist or anti-Zionist to describe terrorism as terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.107.4 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Zionist plan (well documented) to ethnically cleanse the natives is by definition "terrorism". --Fourtildas on 9 February 2007.

There is no Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse anybody and even if there were, it is not the definition of terrorism. Don't make up bullshit facts please. GHcool 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinians are not "natives" of Israel and historic Palestine. They are merely descendants of Arabs immigrating in the late nineteen century and beginning of the twenty century into Israel-Palestine, under the Ottoman (Turkish) occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.88.75 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of plan Dalet? That is a zionist plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to make it completely Jewish.202.147.182.226 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Plan DaletEggball (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Get real. The article doesn't even mention the evil terrorism commited by Zionists against the British military in Palestine (Zionists funded and trained mainly by Nazi Germany if truth be told). This is a puff piece for Ashkenazi extremism. Don't cover up reality. Mixino1 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Terrorism, and there is no Palestine. Palestine is defined as a stateless nation, and you can hardly blame the Jews for wanting they're land back, they've been shunted from corner of the globe to corner of the globe. Zionism is not terrorism, Zionism is basically the Jews saying "No, were not going to give you our land." Also, It is impossible for people of our background to understand the causes behind Zionism, as we haven't been shunted around, persecuted, and generally treated like s@#$ for our existence(thats only been happening since we got involved in the middle east!). The Jewish society is much older, and when it comes to the middle east, theres a lot of history that goes undocumented by our so called neutral historians, but is still remembered and well known by the people. These ancient feuds between religions, nations, and ideals has been going since before the first Pharaoh sat on the throne, and it is not our place to judge the acts of Zionism as "Acts of Terror" because A). We do not fully understand the motives and reasons for these actions, and B) a good deal of violence in the Middle East has been the West's Fault. We've stirred the pot and added fuel to the fire so many times that its a wonder ANYONE in the Middle East still talks to us. And people wonder why so many of the Middle Eastern Peoples hate us and want us dead. I want you to think on that next time you want to make wild generalizations about Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole concept of zionism centers around racist ideals and was strengthened with the use of terrorism. These european jews who have arived back into Palestine are not semites. They are europeans who have imposed themselves onto the original inhabitants of that land. Many of these jews are even africans. This was never the land of ashkenazis to begin with let alone trying to justify the absurdity of "getting their land back" after two thousand years. The Palestinians have EVERY right to defend their land and get back what the Jews have stolen from them.202.147.182.226 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Palestine. It's the place at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean where the People who call themselves Palestinian have lived for thousands of years, as recent DNA profiling has shown. They have been there much longer than the Zionists because they never left. They weren't keeping the place warm for Zionists for when they decided to wander back. It's thier country. It wasn't an empty land when the Zionists arrived. The Zionists knew that they couldn't play the victim if they were perceived to be doing what they were doing, namely stealing other peoples land, so they lied. Do you see how that works?Eggball (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not blind, and unlike many here I have visited Palestine seeing both the Zionist and Arab sides of Hebron and other disputed territories. I have also visited perfectly happy Arab neighbourhoods inside Israel and talked to Arab Israeli citizens. Granting citizenship to Arabs sounds nothing like ethnic cleansing to me. It is offensive in the extreme to compare the IDF's over zealous defensive tactics with the clearly genocidal acts of Nazi Germany. The question that must be asked is this; If the West Bank (Palestine) was still under the control of the Kingdom of Jordan as it was before 1967, would we still be crying foul about the lack of a Palestinian state? Is this pro Palestine or anti Israel? I am not Jewish by the way because I know if I do not declare that I will be accused of Zionist propagandising. Fyfman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyfman (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit less blind than the previous guy! I have also been in Palestine and I clearly saw how Palestinians live. They don't have any freedom of movement inside their own country, they can't use the airport, they have to pass check-points, they are trapped by that horrible and non-human wall into small disconnected areas, they live in extreme poverty, and each day of their life for more than 60 years they have been forced to see military tanks, soldiers holding guns, at every corner. It is a very hard life for those Palestinians that are not terrorists to be treated like terrorists! I think that any kind of state is a very bad (not to say also criminal) state if it decides to fight criminality by putting in jail all the population! This means Zionist way of thinking and dealing with problems is completely wrong! and it is also criminal! I have also been talking to many Israeli-Arabs and they tell me that Israel offers them a lot of money to sell their lands and move to the USA giving them an American citizenship in exchange of signing a contract in which they and their children must never return to Israel again! and this is just because they are Arabs.. i think this is Zionism!! A very horrible thing! So, in my reply to the previous guy I would like to respond: please open your eyes more! you are not blind, but you see just what you like to see and not the truth. Nur ('82.75.250.252 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)',,)

The introduction of the article cite only proponents definition of Zionism. I think to be neutral we have to tell the reader the other's POV on Zionism exists (and from very important organizations and thinkers). This is needed because the "introduction" have to provide and overview of the topic, the reader do not have to read the full content of the article. We all know that there are controversies around Zionism and this is important to note also. I tried to add the United Nation view on Zionism which considers it "a racist movement" (someone has undone my edit; I hope for structures reasons and not for bias: he/she is User:Jaakobou). I hope he will answer why? Bestofmed (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're out of date. the UN general assembly retracted the resolution several years ago. The resolution is mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the UN resolution needs to be mentioned and discussed in the opposition section.Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the introductions of the Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Capitalism articles. These movements all have "controversies" around them, yet all the articles have "only the proponents definition", none are defined by their opponents. I also looked at the Palestinian nationalism article; not only is there nothing in the introduction about how its opponents view it, but nothing at all in the entire article. David Sher (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the proponents' viewpoint on Zionism is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the lead section, fairness dictates that the opponents' view should be mentioned there too, immediately afterward. Or, better from my point of view, the proponents' and opponents' viewpoints should be taken out of the lead section.Haberstr (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Zionism is an ideology. Ideologies are defined by the beliefs of those who follow them. 76.191.177.233 (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• David -- Re: whether there is precedent for the prominent inclusion of opposing views. I believe there is.

• Islamism describes a complex labyrinth of "internal" controversies about that movement from its second paragraph onward. The article then goes on to detail the reservations of "external" critics of "Islamism" by both referencing, via quotes and footnotes, people who hold such reservations, (i.e,, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis) and by mentioning such people by name within the article (i.e., Fred Halliday and John Esposito).

• The Islamism article features such eyebrow-raising headings as "Shelter of the mosque" (and then quotes Lewis, a vocal opponent, about the danger of providing same) and "Attacks on civilians" (at which point one begins to wonder, purely for the sake of argument, whether "Zionists" have ever "attacked civilians"). The article includes photographs of attacks by people the article labels as "Islamists", and features, in the upper right-hand corner, a helpful template connecting the whole vast, messy topic to the portal "Controversies related to Islam and Muslims."

• Now, then. Some people (not you) have been known to get hot and bothered when an editor wonders out loud about questions such as whether "Zionists," like "Islamists," have ever attacked civilians, or whether there may, very occasionally, actually be disputes that fall into the category of "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism." So I'll make everyone who is reading this a deal: I definitely won't wonder any further about anything like that, or advocate for such photos in this article, or suggest a new template, because I believe those would be errors that would degrade article quality. Perhaps I could point out, however, that contentious ideologies like Zionism do make waves, too, from time to time, and that WP:NPOV is still supposed to be our policy, There really are points of view other than "pro-Zionism" that are relevant to the opening section here, and precedent exists, in Islamism and elsewhere, for the practice of prominently mentioning those points of view. BYT (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rmv large amount of text in footnotes. (Summary: Quotes in cites are to verify the claims of the text that they cite. They are not footnotes. Rmv massive swath of text per WP:FORUM, that additionally, fail to cite the assertion in the main text)
I didn't even like to leave the cites that were there, as the quote from one of the books, which one would hope was the most appropriate to citing the assertion, "the label "Zionist" is in some cases also used as a euphemism for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism", failed to do so. Hopefully someone can find those books and determine whether they actually cite the material. I believe that the phrase itself is correct, but of course what we need is verifiability. The irony of WP, in cases such as this, is that those most capable of verifiability (in this case, alleged anti-semites who read the sources that use Zionist as a euphemism) are the least likely to employ it in the service of a case such as this.

I will continue rewording the large quotations that do not verify the material. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

the intro has been irritating me for months so follwoing your comments I removed almost 5000 bytes worth of unnecessary referencing from the intro.

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest changing the title of 'Non-Jewish Zionism' to the above, as most of the groups discussed are not Zionist as such. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Summary: Rmv 'Evangelical'; All Christians supporting Zionism were not Evangelicals, nor is D.Lloyd George empirically observed to have been an Evangelical. Rmv discredited cite)
As the below cite shows, the previous cite was in error.

Original text removed: W. E. B. Du Bois was an ardent supporter of Zionism, (summary: Rmv WE du Bois; see Talk.)
As the below cite shows, du Bois was nothing like ardent in support of even Jewish resistance to Nazism, let alone Zionism. He was not opposed to either, but he is most certainly not notable as a supporter. The sentence, "W. E. B. Du Bois spoke about against Nazi persecution of Jews" would be verifiable, but not notable in this context.
Google Books search for quote: W.E.B. Du Bois by David L. Lewis.

I will continue finding cites for, or refuting the inclusion of, the other non-Zionists included. Anarchangel (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Loyd George was a nonconformist. http://www.jstor.org/pss/565044 his parents were baptists. I understand that this a type of evangelical. check your facts before you question what is written.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WiKi must be jewish, what a trick for people with an agenda to create their own dictionary?

1) The definition of zionism by wiki is what any jew would say and nothing like most people who use the term. It is mostly used as a term for jewish supremacy.

Zionism is a specific political movement, with precise, specific goals. While those opposed to Zionism sometimes use it as a catch-phrase for a host of perceived Jewish offenses (including what I assume you mean by "Jewish supremacy"), that does not change the facts regarding what Zionism actually is, any more than Marxism would become something else if that term were used inaccurately.

If by "Jewish supremacy" you are referring to anything other than Israel-related issues(where it is still an emotionally charged phrase that does not belong on Wikipedia), then you are into the realm of political myths and antisemitic bigotry, and not genuine scholarship.

I suggest a little more education and a little less prejudice. That is what is presented here.

2)The defintion given for "the 13th tribe" a book by arthur koestler, a jew, who explains how jews are not biblical israelites goes way out of its way to make claims of the book being false which is no more than common propaganda in jewish and zionist circles.

Well, first, the Khazars are completely irrelevant to the Zionist issue. No one would argue that the descendants of people who converted to Islam a thousand years ago don't have a tie to Mecca. The Khazars who converted became true Jews in every sense of the word, and part of the Jewish family and heritage.

That said, recent genetic studies have shown that Koestler's theory was apparently incorrect, or at least an overstatement. Ashkenazi Jews do not have the input from the Turkic gene pool that would be the case if their background were predominantly Khazar. So much for that theory, sorry. Current thought is that the leadership of the Khazars converted, and the state became Jewish, but most of the population stuck with their old religion. There is also genetic evidence of some intermarriage, predominantly of Jewish men and Khazar women...ie, Khazars marrying into the Jewish lines. Check out www.khazaria.com to keep upon the latest research on them...if you actually care about research.

The genetic arguement you provide is not proof. Even Turks from Turkey aren't very "Turkic" (in the Altay-mongolian sense of the word), genetically speaking, but are 'Anatolian'. If you catch my drift Hxseek (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I know of 2 more equal points that show that wiki may be jewish and perhaps several more that I will find. Ive only been noticing this a documenting jewish bias definitions in wiki on a per chance and coincidental basis for a month.

apparently "Jewish bias" amounts to any real scholarship about Jewish history,as opposed to anti-semitic stereotypes. IE, wikipedia is doing its job.

passage that actulaly reis not written in anti —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.119.242 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And stating that WiKi is with "Jewish supremacy agenda" and writing it with no facts behind that statement, isn't that a bit Anti-Jewish agenda ?

"WiKi must be jewish" - can you hear yourself? It this the kind of talk allowed in an Open-liberal-world round Encyclopedia ?

Do your homework, read the article, it's surrounding articles and some books, then, you'll have the permission of "jewishing" an Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.111.251 (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

67.77.119.242: I can tell you one thing about Wikipedia, it is not a soapbox for you to argue your point of view.WackoJacko (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, but note the article does suffer from excessive conflation of Zionist ideology as being completely congruent with Judaism as a whole. See my recent edit concerning population in the lede section. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take note: Every time an antisemitic comment appaears in the discussions casusalobserver says "I don't like your tone but I agree with your sentiment" apparently he believes we have a jewish supremacist agenda. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively, one could read my post and understand that I agreed with a following critical comment, which concurred that Wiki is not a soapbox. I did additionally comment that the then-current article content "suffer[ed] from excessive conflation of Zionist ideology as being completely congruent with Judaism as a whole." Three months later, another editor then makes a policy-breaking reference to an editor, rather than to content. Editorially speaking, this recent content appears to further continue the conflation of terms (I previously alleged), by including yet another conflated term. I don't really know what to think, but will base my personal interpretation on RSs. Currently, and within easy reach, is this one, which seems possibly accurate to me. Comments? Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't see a mention of Yehoshua Hankin in the article. Any thoughts/suggestions on where it would be best to add a mention about him? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)<a

I think mention of Shas does not belong in Religious Zionism section. It is a religious party and also can be described as Zionist, but although religious, they are not related to Religious Zionist stream within Zionist movement, more to general or revisionist stream. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorb2008 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick search on this and got contradictory information. The Member of Knesset most associated with zionist legislation is a Shas member http://www.politico.co.il/article.asp?rId=1258 but the editor of their paper regards Herzl as an evil doer (probably because of his secularism, though it may reflect the editor's ignorance)http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/1,7340,L-1780848,00.html.

So there is an issue for discussion here, but personally I think the comment should stay as it accurately describes the situation. Shas are not Zionist but profess a Zionist value system - more then many so-called Zionist parties. They have their own agenda and do not fit into standard frameworks.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think they are somewhat Zionists, but the question is whether they support Religious Zionism specifically . The fact that they are religious, does not mean automatically that they are supporters of Religious Zionism as opposed to general Zionism. I don't think Shas believes that it is Jewish religious duty to return to Land of Israel, as Religious Zionists believe.Igorb2008 (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. Do you think we should create an entry on Ultra-orthodox Zionism ("Hardal")or simply Orthodox Zionism?

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to stay mostly remote from this discussion, because it seems religiously internal in detail, but these differences exist and are relevant. What I think should be included is how they differ, and upon what concepts they agree; is Shas's definition of Zionism the same as the religious Zionists'. If both are 'religious', then there are apparently different interpretations of what constitutes that word, with respact to Zionism. What are the concepts around which they differ; are they messianic, universalist, exclusionist? How do they define and differentiate Eretz Israel and Medinat Israel? Where do they differ in their concept/implementation of the "Jewish State"? Where do they fall within the Z, post-Z and neo-Z debate. How do their views coincide or conflict with international views of Zionism and government actions affecting non-Jews in the WB, G (and the GH)? Do these word differences matter? You are far better equipt to explain the differences and similarities relevant to Zionism, but you can see I have a few questions. I hope my comments are helpful. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The thing about Shas, it is one of the few parties in Israel, that is not defined by it`s interpretation of Zionism or their views on the peace process. It is ultra-orthodox religious party, under leadership of their spiritual leader, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef . Shas Members of the Knesset and political leaders are not elected by inner-party elections, like in other parties, but are appointed by Ovadia Yosef, so he dictates its policies, and whether it joins the coalition, according to his interpretations of Halakha. Its main political objectives are support for Halakha role in government and the judicial system of Israel. They oppose civil marriages and divorces, for example. Their key demands in coalition building are financing for religious institutions and yeshivas, and welfare programs and support for the poor,unemployed and families with many children. As such, most of those who vote for it, are not themselves ultra-orthodox. For example, some Arab Israelis vote for it, because Shas defends government payments for families with many children. As for its views on peace process, its flexible and Shas at times were described as left-wing, for pressuring Rabin's coalition to negotiate with PLO, and support for Oslo accords and two state solution. Shas however demands that any deal must involve compensations by Arab countries, of Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews that were forced to leave their host countries and their subsequent property behind. Sometimes it was described as right-wing because of their support for unified Jerusalem, and opposition to Sharon`s Gaza disengagement plan without security guaranties, and lately, general opposition to removing settlements, if outside the framework of a peace agreement.

As for Zionism, i don`t think they view themselves as part of that debate, one way or another. They rather view themselves as part of religious-secular debate. They do not believe that it is Jewish religious duty to return to Land of Israel, as Religious Zionists believe,so for them Judaism and Zionism is not necessary synonymous. On the other hand, probably most of its voters describe themselves as Zionists, and in today`s Israeli political spectrum they are right-wing, and there were never right wing party in Israel, that I know of, that did not described itself as Zionist.

I think that we should create an entry on Zionism among Ultra-orthodox community. The statement about Shas in the article is true and must remain, but it does not belong in Religious Zionism section.Igorb2008 (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

That helps explain some things, thanks. I will leave the wording to others in consensus. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Expansion, sourcing, and NPOV needed. Criticism of Zionism is multi-faceted and has changed in character and content over time, as Zionism has changed. It began before the 1920s, of course, and Zionism's first critics need to have their viewpoints stated. Criticism of Zionism changed drastically and fundamentally after a specific place, Palestine, was decided on and serious and concrete efforts at establishing a Jewish/Zionist state there began. There are numerous unsourced statements. There is an unsourced accusation of association with anti-semitism without rebuttal.Haberstr (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I most heartedly agree. These aspects come from many different sources, and absolutely have varied over time; these should be discussed generally to facilitate an ordered presentation[26]. Much criticism is intramural, religiously speaking, while other is religious, evolutionarily speaking. It should be noted that Zionism is a non-assimilationist expression of Judaism and a break from the assimilation trend that was previously dominant, and continues. In light of other historical events, no derogation is implied or intended. Much criticism came from assimilationist American Jews particularly in the earlier pre-state period, including Isaac Mayer Wise and the American Jewish Committee, who were strongly anti-Zionist, although I sadly note one cannot say that, based on their current wiki-articles. Jewish anti-Zionist statements were made at the time of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference[27]. The clash between Brandeis and Weizmann in the early 1920’s is another historic incident of import, but is similarly difficult to discuss, since Brandeis' name isn’t even noted on the page, let alone his contributions to Zionism. There is also the ACJ from 1942; it is currently listed in ‘Other’.

The general evolution of Zionism, as well as increased anti- or non-Zionism, is somewhat indicated here, but is unreferenced for 1967 events. Latter events, which tend to indicate Zionist evolutionary trajectory are better referenced, but deal more with politics and territory than religion, although the growth of certain religious groups in this period stands out. These more recent evolutionary developments, particularly since 1977 and Likud power may be best characterized by differences initially between Zionism and Post-Zionism ideologies and more recently between right-wing Neo-Zionism and post-Zionism. Other sources[28] characterize differences in identity as being “Eretz Israel versus Medinat Israel”, and are similar. These impacts on Israel, Jews and Zionism have effects in Israel, in the Diaspora, as well as in the rest of the world. Yes, there seem to be problems with the current version.

I will delete the unsourced accusation for lack of NPOV rebuttal. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Zionism is an expression of Judaism. Religious Zionism is relatively minor part of Zionist movement historically, while mainstream Zionism is secular national movement, unrelated to religion. Many early Labor Zionists were Marxists for example, and considered any religion " opium for the people". Igorb2008 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already noted for the early years, but much less noted in the post '67-'77 years and since; it reflects the rise of Religious Zionism in the interim. If you consider that to be the case, please add reliably sourced and verifiable sources that support such views. The more difficult task generally revolves around finding the most relevant location for their insertion and how neutrally they are inserted. Good luck, this is a tough page. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Even now Religious Zionism is relatively minor part of Zionist movement. In latest Israeli election,for example, Religious Zionists, only got 3 seats out of 120 ( Israeli legislative election, 2009 ),

with The Jewish Home. And only Religious Zionists, see Zionism as an expression of Judaism, and religious mitsva. All other streams in Zionism see Zionism as national liberation movement, and their attitude towards religion varies. So to describe Zionism as a whole, as an expression of Judaism, I think will be misleading.Igorb2008 (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here so excuse me if i seem ignorant of your neutrality policies regarding articles that involve israel or zionism. But, does anybody else feel it is a little bit odd for an encyclopedia article to have a big section for other supporters of zionism including christian and muslim supporters and a microscopic section with dsputed neutrality for criticism to zionism with no mention at all of muslim and arab opponents? Am i allowed to expand the criticism section just a little bit and mention other referenced criticisms. I am afraid that my edits might cause the section to become more disputed and eventually deleted completely. I apologize again if this seems very naive but i'm lost in all those wikipedia policies and i really can't find the policy regarding editing articles related to zionism. Thank you in advance for your help.--196.205.225.151 (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No! You're not ignorant at all...you are noticing what I noticed too: a whitewash of the topic and virtual blackout of any significant or relevant criticism of Zionism. You ask "am I allowed to expand the criticsm section?" quote is quite telling for the way you asked this question. "What!? You're being critical of Israel? You must be an anti-semite! But I'm Jewish! Oh--then you must be a self-hating Jew! :-D Ha ha, no hard feelings, I mean no ill will, I'm just kvetching. Oy vey! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Because this is a page subject to considerable vandalism, it is semi-protected, so as a new editor, you will likely be refused edit rights for a while. You do note some extremely valid points, however, and I find them to be quite insightful; I'd say you have a real chance to contribute. It generally takes a few weeks of edits to build yourself a contribution history such that the great wiki-computer in the sky allows you to edit here. If you can keep a good history with no vandalism, you will be OK. I suggest however, that you also choose a username; that makes regular editors more comfortable when they look at edits. Take your time; consider basics about what is missing from your point of view, and what should be added that adds to quality article content and conforms with your pov. It must be reliably sourced and verifiable, and neutrally inserted. Those are the basics and quality of source is very important. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that there is a whole, lengthy article devoted to criticism of Zionism. It's called Anti-Zionism, and it's a spin-off or sub-article of this one. The article is merely summarized here. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to this wiki entry trying to find out more about what Zionism is, especially because from reading numerous articles in the mainstream media that Zionism is the extremist or militant end of the spectrum of Jewish or Israeli political parties. Yet when I read the entry, it all but "whitewashes" what Zionism is. Obviously there are many criticisms of Zionism (typically along the lines of the extremism, or fanaticism of militant Zionism). None of this is even mentioned in the article, which makes me think this is just another wiki site which is dominated by POV interest groups who tell only one side of the story. To improve this article there should be more attention to criticism of Zionism, and arguments made along these lines. If this was done I would give this entry more respect, but as it stands I think this is a biased and one-sided wiki entry. I might also add this is a very common failing in the basic framework of Wikipedia and how it functions, e.g. a committed POV group can slant/corrupt/or otherwise 'spin' an entry and override an expert's more informed and more impartial opinion thereof. Bottom line: don't trust wiki, read it with guarded prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.66.251 (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are making some serious allegations that are, frankly, an affront to the many editors who toiled to establish fair balance in this article according to the policies of Wikipedia. Granted, this article, like all of WP, is a work in progress, but you seem too quick to assume pervasive bias. If the article differs from what you expected, could that be because the mainstream media have given you a slanted and false picture? Read with skepticism if you wish, but I would hope that this article would help cut through some of the prevailing stereotypes. Also please see 30 March comment by Jayjg, above. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support for Israel`s right to exist and opposition to expelling Jews from Israel to is nearly universal among Jewish public opinion or Israeli political parties, and certainly not on extremist or militant end of political spectrum. I also don't think that mainstream media present it as such, mostly the opposite, calls to destroy Israel or expel Jews from it, presented as extremism, or fanaticism. And the article about Zionism must describe actual Zionist ideology and not stereotypes about it. Igorb2008 (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless this article is subject to milling due to various factions wishing to express their opinions. Am removing the NPOV tag from February so that process can begin a new and these factions can show some leadership in moving to address:

{{Multiple issues|article=y|refimprove=May 2009|POV=May 2009|expand=May 2009}}

Lycurgus (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tel aviv has reverted my sourced edit to an unsourced one including a link to antisemitism in a section that has nothing to do with antisemitism. Please explain. untwirl(talk) 19:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-zionism is linked to anti-semitism. If you don't understand that then you probably should not be editing on this page. I suggest you explain what you are trying to do and then we work out a way of expressing that is acceptable to both of us. Sources were provided. Your source is not one which is an expert in the field and is a weasal attempt to suggest that the Zionism is racism decision was not removed for just reasons. The USA clearly did not propose the motion simply to keep ISrael happy: if that were the case Bush would not have given the speech himself. I provided plenty of sources to show the motion was popular, passed by general consent and did not originate in an Israeli demand. Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism (and the chairman of the UN at the time was a former Nazi officer, possibly a war criminal, who may have participated in the extermination of the Jews of Thessalonika).

It appears as if you are trying to unduly highlight the resolution without giving due credence to the fact that the UN has accepted it was unjustified. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The source i used is the israel ministry of foreign afairs. "One of Israel 's conditions for the participation of a UN observer in the Madrid Peace Conference was the revocation of the infamous resolution 3379 equaling Zionism with racism."

tel aviv, you do not own this article, and i dont have to clear obviously relevant material with you. that section is called "criticism of zionism" not "why criticism of zionism is wrong and antisemitic" and it has a tag asking for expansion. i will ignore your personal remarks and ask you to stop trying to prevent critics of zionism from being represented in that section. with your wholesale deletion of my sourced material, i am finding it hard to assume good faith, and may take this to the appropriate noticeboard. i suggest you revert yourself, and list specific problems you have with the extensive and well sourced section you have gutted. untwirl(talk) 21:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv1 Ad hominem arguments are not helpful - a former Nazi officer, possibly a war criminal, who may have participated... is not fact, but prejudice . "Anti-zionism is linked to anti-semitism. If you don't understand that then you probably should not be editing on this page." is not helpful. "The USA clearly did not propose the motion simply to keep ISrael happy: if that were the case Bush would not have given the speech himself." - No logic to that, might have done it specially to keep them happy!

Most of the states who sponsored the original decision had a proven track record of antisemitism -is this true of the majority of "Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Cuba, Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Republic, Mauritania, Morocco, North Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Yemen, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, and United Arab Emirates."93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed these countries have a recorded track record of antisemitism so what is your question ?Benjil (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

untwirl's edits are valid, and constructive contributions to a balanced Encyclopaedia. Telaviv1's are, in my opinion, destructive.93.96.148.42 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Benjil, I thank you for your support but in my expereince the best way in wikipedia is to seek formulations that are acceptable to both sides. I beleive this is possible and aht the synthesis creates effective ideas and a path to understanding. I'm not happy with the current phraseology nor with some of the above comments but prefer to move on and find ways of expressing my views which are acceptable to everyone.

Incidentally you are not the first person to try and rescue my edits and this has recently been used by prejudiced (antisemitic?) wikipedians to attack me.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a key part of Zionist ideology and I intend to create a section expanding (and explaining) how Zionists understand this issue. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest "The Zionist use of "antisemitism"", as a more npov title. It is essential that criticism of Zionist exploitation of "antisemitism" is included.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how this turns into an NPOV and V section. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently presents a distorted and inaccurate account of the origins of this forgery. I would like to draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Origins and the current text of that article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to Labor Zionists and Socialist Zionists interchangeably. Historically, Socialist Zionism was a very different strain of thought, led by Ber Borochov, which started from a Marxist perspective but argued that the Jewish population represented an "inverted pyramid" of economic roles. From that, it was concluded that Jews must separate themselves from emerging socialist societies in Europe and develop their own economy and national entity elsewhere. The ong-term impact of Socialist Zionism may be too limited to warrant a separate section, but ti does the reader a disservice to seem to mention it and negate it at the same time.

On the other hand, Labor Zionism, led in the early days by A.D. Gordon, was only socialist in a broader, mostly non-Marxist sense. It could be viewed as putting the same program into effect, but for quite different reasons. Their point of view was that working the land (more than the proletarian industrial work highlighted Marxists) was necessary for the personal development of Jews, who had been isolated from the land for most of their history in Europe. And of course, Labor Zionism was the at least ostensibly dominant political viewpoint among Zionists in Eretz Israel from the early 20th Century until at least the the 1970s. Dvd Avins (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this passage from the article:

In 1903 the Tzarist secret police arranged the publication of a book containing forged minutes of a meeting of the elders of Zion in which they supposedly plotted to take over the world. This was one of the earliest, and possibly the most important example of situations in which anti-semitism and anti-Zionism have overlapped. There are many cases in which anti-semitism has manifested as anti-Zionism or vice versa.

My reason is fairly straightforward: Protocols of the elders of Zion is clearly anti-Semitic, but it is not "anti-Zionist" in the sense that the term is normally used. It has unquestionably been used in several "anti-Zionist" campaigns since the time of its publication, but the book itself is directed against an imaginary "Zionism" rather than the actual Zionist movement.

To describe the book as involving an overlap of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is original research and, by my understanding of the terminology involved, factually inaccurate as well. It would be entirely appropriate for us to describe when and how Protocols has been used by groups claiming to be "anti-Zionist", but the aforementioned passage is not suitable to the project.

Respectful discussion is welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It has not been proved that Tzarist secret police arranged the publication of the book.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with CJCurrie. Zero^talk 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"It has been used in anti-Zionist campaigns" but is not anti-zionist? I added examples of groups who have used the protocosl as you suggested (one from the 30's and one from the 80's) and references showing the authors were anti-zionist as well as anti-semitic.

You removed the material because it contradicts your POV or as you put it "is not anti-zionist in the sense the term is normally used". The comment that followed yours illustrates why this needs to be included.

BTW the person who thinks "it has not been proved..." also thinks Zionists deliberately misuse antisemitism (See his comments above). So tell me what do you think of his comment?

Telaviv1 (talk) 10:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that "Protocols" is not anti-Zionist in the sense that the term is generally understood today, even though it has been used by some anti-Zionist groups and fits into the delusional belief systems of those who are both anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic. That being said, I'm prepared to check Norman Cohn's book; if he actually made the case that "Protocols" was anti-Semitism expressed as anti-Zionism, then I will not object to this being included in the article.

I will also reiterate my view that referencing "Protocols" as the first thing in the "criticism" section is profoundly POV and misleading. As to the anon's comment, I don't agree with it and it has nothing to do with me. CJCurrie (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What i get from Cohn (I read it some time ago) is that for those who believe in the protocols there is no meaningful distinction between a Zionist and a Jew, since we are all part of te same conspiracy. They do not specifically target zionism but only began to have the title "elders of zion" after the formation of zionism. He does not trace their history after WWII, but they are said to be widely published in the islamic world and there have been TV series based on them (see antisemitism in the arab world). Mr anon incidentally does a lot of editing and if you check you will see that he shares a lot of your thinking. You cannot simply pretend that he has nothing to do with you just as you cannot pretend the protocols are not relevant to anti-zionism. Among WESTERN anti-zionists it might be argued that protocol believers are firstly anti-jewish and only incidentally anti-zionist (though they do use the Palestinian issue for jsutification and to find support). In the middle-east and north africa it might be said to be the reverse, people are first anti-zionist and only then anti-Jewish and the second flows out of the first but these people do exist and they are part of anti-zionism. Migration is, I think, increaiisngly diminishing the importance of these kinds of distinctions. It is also questionable whether one should make a distinction between people who beleive the prtocols to be true.

I guess the solution to the problem is to create a seperate section and put the protocols in there. They certainly need a place somewhere. I may turn it into a summary and move the main part into the History of Zionism. Talk to me before you start reverting and we can reach a "respectful" (as you put it) agreement.

Ah I see your version of respect is a one way street, should I call you Sir?.

Telaviv1 (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The book may (or may not) be directed against an "imaginary" Zionism, but it has been used and continues to be used head-on as a notorious instrument against actual Zionism. It seems to me that earns it a prominent place in the article. If the book had a different original intent, that information can be mentioned for the reader's benefit. However, functionality trumps origins. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note recruited by Telaviv1. Xotn (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Hertz1888. Furthermore, the purpose of Wikipedia is to help educate and inform individuals; given the past (and present) use of the book, if we choose marginalize its appearance in the article, we also downplay its historical importance and impact -- which is a disservice to readers. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Telaviv1's edits have devoted 1/3 of the section titled "Criticism of Zionism" to a forgery created long before the existence of Israel. This is blatant POV and a gross disservice to readers. Xotn (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And Zionism existed long before the founding of Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Xotn. this is not a propaganda war but an effort to educate. Saying I am engaged in conspiratorial behaviour is offensive (I get this a lot). Open your mind and work with me on this, if we can agree then we can create something which promotes peace and understanding (I assume you want this). fighting anti-semitism is a legitimate cause and should not be a problem for you. I expanded the section because people like yourself kept saying it wasn;t relevant so I had to prove it was. It was initially much shorter. Ironically, proving it was resulted in my finding interesting new material. The forgery was created a long time ago but continues to be influential and many people believe it to be true. I am willing to reduce the section in size if that helps.

Telaviv1 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not created by the Tsarist Secret Police - that is NOT to say that it is anything but a work of fiction!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Protocols and resolutions against Zionism belong to Anti-Zionism article, but not here, since it have nothing to do with opposition to Zionism i.e. opposition to Jewish national homeland in Land of Israel. What should stay here is Jewish religious opposition to national homeland before Messiah and opposition from those who believe that Jews should assimilate in their host countries. What should be added is conflict between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, with Jews and Arabs sometimes see each other as usurpers or not native to the land. Igorb2008 (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

                                                "It was not created by the Tsarist Secret Police - that is NOT to say that it is anything but a work of fiction!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)"

                  "It has not been proved that Tzarist secret police arranged the publication of the book.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)" 

Ummm first off ufo's have not been proved to be real yet they have there own wiki...so what does somethings credibility have to do with anything....the fact that it was written and played an important part of some history on earth is the only basis it needs to be mentioned. This site wikipedia isn't about changing history...its about preserving history so that people will know and better understand there past. To manipulate history would in essence be like me saying the holocaust never existed. It did an i'm not on a campaign to bash the holocaust with my ignorance stick. So please don't bash other history just because it upsets the stomach. Perhaps it may prove to be useful to the present and future. To completely disregard it is to live in a false reality....come back to earth my friend.

         "::::And Zionism existed long before the founding of Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

This is clearly a false statement because the word an concept of zionism was created only shortly before the formation of the state of israel that is today. Even in a biblical context no mention of zionism is EVER found in the torah. Though the word "land of zion is", it should not be confused with/or as Judaism. Judaism is a religion that places nothing before god. The creation/maintenance of the state of israel runs contrary to the religion. I want you to find me your proofs that "zionism existed long before..." reference the torah please and only because it is the first book given to moses and should be the first source you turn to... thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya4peace (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"I want you to find me your proofs that "zionism existed long before..." reference the torah please and only because it is the first book given to moses and should be the first source you turn to."

i am no expert on the subject by any means, so please excuse any mistakes. zionism is a movement which supports "the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel". why would the torah, a book written more then 2000 years before the arab/muslim invasion of israel, talk of zionism?

"This is clearly a false statement because the word an concept of zionism was created only shortly before the formation of the state of israel that is today."

it would seem to me that the jews would have had plenty of time to form feelings of wanting to return to their homeland in the 1300 years between the arab/muslim invasion and the relatively recent reestablishment of the state of israel. WookieInHeat (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This section previously opened with the statement, "Ideological opposition to Zionism later combined with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism." This statement lacks any sources, it seems to conflate a number of separate political movements, and its location at the opening of the section seems to condemn all anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Due to the nonfactual and biased nature of the sentence, I have removed it completely. Ca.w.hampton (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the source brought at the end of the paragraph supports both sentences. I have replaced the sourced material. -- Avi (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read the source. "This ideological opposition to Zionism later dovetailed with the anti-Israel cold-war politics of the Soviet Union and the Arab antagonism to Israel, as well as with anti-Semitism." This quote (more than halfway down, under "Anti-Zionism"), which the sentence I originally removed is directly paraphrased from, does not support the claim being made. This quote is saying that the mentioned ideologies all contained anti-Zionism. In no way does it contain any suggestion that the ideologies "combined" (which would be a blatant falsification anyway). Furthermore, the source article has a considerable nationalist bent to it. While it does certainly attempt to be impartial at times, it also seems quite comfortable in making proclamations such as, "The 6-day war, which resulted in a dramatic victory for Israel, had a profound affect on the attitude of Jews in Israel and abroad to Zionism and Israel. The war and lightning victory taught many Arabs that Israel was here to stay." To better fit with a neutral viewpoint, I am going to again remove the sentence, but I will attempt to replace it with something which better encapsulates the section. Ca.w.hampton (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Upon further examination, the information was redundant so I removed the unnecessary section and moved the reference down to fit with the matching information. Ca.w.hampton (talk) 11:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is it redundant? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there's any connection with Philhellenism. They appear to be on a similar concept, and in similar eras, applying on similar peoples (e.g. the British of the time). --94.70.87.157 (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Satmar, Dushinsky, Toldos Aharon, Toldos Avrohom Yitzchok, Spinka, Munkatch, Vizhnitz, Stropkov, Breslov, Sanz-Tshokowe, Pupa - that's not just a 'some', that's 'many'.
2. Neturei Karta is not 'tiny'. It has hundreds of devoted adherents in Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, as well as smaller groups in other countries. The fact that it consists of two separate wings is extremely crucial, since their views are radically different.
3. Ever heard of Yitzchak Ginzburg, Shalom Dov Wolpo? Chabad massively voted for Baruch Marzel during the last elections. You can ask any Israeli to confirm that Chabad is even more extreme than the 'dati leumim' themselves. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited this section to hopefully end the edit war, making it more succint but ensuring its neutrality (I believe). There is a Haredim and Zionism article where more detail should go (properly cited of course). I think "many" is correct, as per above, that "tiny" is a POV word versus "smaller", but more than a sentence or two on Chabad is too much here. Any material on their "extremism" needs to go to their article, properly cited.BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to describe Zionism as nationalist - have done so in first para of lede, in line with http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/657475/Zionism 93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)