Talk:Zionism

Neutrality

Removed the POV tag Yserbius (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to equate all opposition to Zionism with antisemitism, which is incorrect. Antisemitism is rooted in racism, but the belief that Israel is stolen land is not inherently racist, indeed it's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, one that is shared by much of the world (outside the US, of course, whose media have a clear bias in favour of Israel on all matters). Accusing all people with this viewpoint of racism, as this article seems to do, not only stifles debate but encourages more extreme viewpoints from people who feel like their viewpoint is not being heard - particularly worrying considering this article is on Wikipedia for schools. Is it possible to rectify this article, particularly the "opposition to Zionism" section, to give a fairer account of all different points of view? --94.171.77.82 (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed, as of now. The only comparison is that Anti-Semites tend to be anti-Zionists, and many anti-Semites hide behind anti-Zionism. Yserbius (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this is, the original people of those lands (Canaanites) are all dead. The Jewish people had those lands from that point on until Rome kicked them out. Todays "Palestinians" are all from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. If they do not like Israel being there, maybe they should go home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.70.66 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this point. Since there are many Orthodox Jews who are 100% against Zionism, the bias that Anti-zionism equates to Anti-semitism is obviously a flawed argument. Munta (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

On a theoretical level, anti-zionism is not the same as antisemitism. But in practice, yes it is. The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism. Regarding Jewish anti-zionism, it is a separate issue. But contrary to what you say, there are not "many" anti-zionist Orthodox Jews. Most religious Jews are Zionists. Today, only the Ashkenazi haredim are not officially Zionists but most of them are, or, at least, let's say they are not anti-zionists. The crazy anti-zionist religious Jews that we can see sometimes on TV are a fringe group, universally hated. Benjil (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism." Not really. To argue that the pre-inhabitants' right to self-determination trumps the Jewish right to self-determination is not Jew-hating.Jacob Vardy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

The statement that "of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination" is false. Judaism is a religion, and most religions do not have a home-state. (Vatican city may be an exception, but even here they do not give a 'right of return' to catholics worldwide.) Some argue that Jewishness is ethnic, not religious; but again, ethnic groups do not have a right to a state - except in Israel. (Agreed, white imperialism made some such claims e.g. in South Africa or South America, but that is now discounted.)::::Aa42john (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Supporting the right of self-determination of the Palestinians is not being anti-zionist. Of course there is the issue of who are the "pre-inhabitants" as Jews have lived there for thousands of years and Arabs were the invaders and have 21 countries already. And furthermore, the right of Jews to have one country trumps the right of Arabs to have a 22nd state. Benjil (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow this Articles Neutrality beyond compromised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.168.10 (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The first line of this article read "Viva ISRAEL! Viva ZIONISM! Long Live ISRAEL!". I have removed it due to it's lack of neutrality. SpencerCollins (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Very poor example of how the article was "written". That was short-term vandalism, now it's gone. Next problem. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Benjil writes On a theoretical level, anti-zionism is not the same as antisemitism. But in practice, yes it is. The belief that of all the people in the world, the Jews are the only one who have no right to self-determination is antisemitism. That is a fallacious extension. Even stipulating that Zionism is a policy of self-determination for Jews (itself an argued point), it is not the only such policy, merely the most publicized. To deny one of a set is not to deny the entire set. There is also some concern about logical consistency between "Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism" and "Zionism is not racist".Phaedral (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Zionism is the movement of self-determination of the Jewish people and *nothing* else. This is not an argued point this is the definition of Zionism and there is no "other set". Benjil (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We disagree only on the aptness of using the definite article rather than the indefinite. Zionism is undoubtedly the best known and most successful doctrine supporting Jewish self-determination, but that does not mean this one -ism owns the entire realm of discourse, nor is this one -ism universally supported even by all Jews.Phaedral (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

ok, absolutely the majority of Jew haters also hate Israel (using simple terminology). But the obvious abandonment of good and fair logic to report the truth is evident when there is no acceptance that people could love Jews and hate Israel, and even vice versa -- though harder to parse. The totally off the wall argument is about 1 Jewish state vs. 22 Arab states. A red herring. In Asia there are peoples living in boats for hundreds of years after losing their lands both in Thailand and the Philippines. There are Gypsies. The article seems to predispose the readers to believe that having a homeland is necessary for survival of a people. Ergo, compromised. 203.87.178.26 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the historical persecution\extermination of Jews a Jewish homeland being necessary for their survival might be a justifiable argument. What is probably more acceptable though is an argument that a homeland is necessary for a racial\ethnic etc groups self determination. Unlike Aborgines, Maori, American Indians, Ainu etc Jews are scattered across many lands and cannot negotiate with just one government for their needs. There's also an element of historical justice involved in that it is about the return of the Jews to the land the Romans, the European imperial power of the day, removed them from. 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the main thought of the anti-zionists to be "No state for Israel, and 23 arab ones". Furthermore 203.87 has an excellent point, the article definitely supports zionism. The criticism section is seriously lacking in actual content that is not "those who hate Israel are racist". If the expansion of Israel into the Gaza strip has been criticized by the United Nations, do you really believe that the representatives of the United Nations are all antisemites? The section needs to be expanded and covered without systemic bias. Acebulf (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The criticism section seems to be the only thing here with a POV. Yserbius (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the sections title is "Alleged" Racism and that's just one example. It is too obvious that in certain sections only a one sided partisan view has been stated. The oppositions and criticisms have not been well documented. Rather the emphasis has been on portraying a positive image of the movement only. I dispute the neutrality of the article. It will take me a while to complete my search for correct citations to add to the page. I Invite well sourced editors to correct the issues here. Facts are your friends (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The anti-zionism section presents primarily the Zionist POV. It uses straw man attacks and the [|association fallacy] to attack anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic. Over the next few days, I will look through the article on anti-Zionism and summarize that in this section to make the section NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ummonk (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the problematic portions, (i.e. opposition to Zionism) have been cleaned up. If it's alright with everyone, I'll be removing the neutrality tag in a few days. Yserbius (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead Section

I am unhappy with lead section. The information presented in it is one-sided and stick around "liberation movement". However, the Zionism is also perceived by many sources as a racist, discriminatory, heretic and even a nazi-like ideology. Why those views of Zionism are not in the lead section? It seems that the section lacks counterbalance, to address this I have made the following edits and I presume that it shall stay in the section.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From 1975 to 1991 Zionism was officially determined by the United Nations to constitute "a form of racism and racial discrimination". Within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict the Zionism is viewed by many scholars, world countries and Jewish orthodox religious groups as a system that fosters apartheid and racism.

The sources you're using there are mostly op-eds and self published sources and thus not acceptable per WP:RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, can we see a quote from the Stefan Goranov source? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD significant controversies should be covered in the lead. The current lead does mention this, but perhaps rather curtly and this might be expanded a bit? --Dailycare (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few sources that describe the criticism that Zionism is racist or discriminatory:

• Zionism, imperialism, and race, Abdul Wahhab Kayyali, ʻAbd al-Wahhāb Kayyālī (Eds), Croom Helm, 1979
• Gerson, Allan, "The United Nations and Racism: the Case of Zionism and Racism", in Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987, Volume 17; Volume 1987, Yoram Dinstein, Mala Tabory (Eds), Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1988, p 68
• Hadawi, Sami, Bitter harvest: a modern history of Palestine, Interlink Books, 1991, p 183
• Beker, Avi, Chosen: the history of an idea, the anatomy of an obsession, Macmillan, 2008, p 131, 139, 151
• Dinstein, Yoram, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 1987, Volume 17; Volume 1987, p 31, 136ge
• Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Arab attitudes to Israel, pp 247-8
• Korey, William, Russian antisemitism, Pamyat, and the demonology of Zionism, Psychology Press, 1995, pp 33-34
• Beker, Avi, Chosen: the history of an idea, the anatomy of an obsession, Macmillan, 2008, pp 139
• Shimoni, Gideon, Community and conscience: the Jews in apartheid South Africa, UPNE, 2003, p 167

If those are not sufficient, there are scores of others. Regarding the objections to Zionism because it is responsible for land confiscation and expulsions of peoples, some sources include:

• Salaita, Steven George (2006). The Holy Land in transit: colonialism and the quest for Canaan. Syracuse University Press. p. 54. ISBN 081563109X.
• Hirst, David (2003). The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East. Nation Books. pp. 418–419. ISBN 1560254831.
• Chomsky, Noam (1996). World orders, old and new. Columbia University Press. p. 264:. ISBN 0231101570.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
• "FrontPage magazine interview with Christopher Hitchens". December 11, 2003. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadlink= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• Masalha, Nur (2000). Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: the politics of expansion. Pluto Press. p. 93. ISBN 0745316158.
• "Essay by James M. Martin from "Atheist Nexus"".
• Quigley, John B. (1990). Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice. Duke University Press. pp. 176–177. ISBN 0822310236.
• Chomsky, Noam (1999). Fateful triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (2nd Ed, revised). South End Press. pp. 153–154. ISBN 0896086011.
• Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78.
• Yishai, Yael (1987). Land or peace: whither Israel?. Hoover Press. pp. 112–125. ISBN 0817985212.
• Rubenberg, Cheryl (2003). The Palestinians: in search of a just peace. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 162. ISBN 1588262251.
• Geaves, Ron (2004). Islam and the West post 9/11. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 31. ISBN 0754650057.
• Kassim, Anis F. (2000). The Palestine Yearbook of International Law, 1998-1999, Volume 10. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 9. ISBN 9041113045.
• Raphael Israeli, Palestinians Between Israel and Jordan', Prager, 1991, pages 158-159, 171, 182.

I don't think the lead needs to dwell on these objections to Zionism, but certainly the lead should have a paragraph summarizing the important criticisms of Zionism. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks talk for the sources. I agree with you that the lead section needs to develop a bit more about ooposition to teh Zionism, and I beleive that he pro-Zionism info has to be reduced and placed in other relevant sections-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 09:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I object to changing the lead section, for the following reason: this is an article about a historical as well as current phenomenon, thus the lead section must give an overview of how it evolved over time. Zionism was initially and for many decades viewed as a national liberation and self-determination movement. Its criticisms from the pro-Palestinian side were mostly developed after 1967. So it is proper to mention them at a later point. The lead section does mention in the middle the Jewish alternatives to Zionism that flourished in the early 20th century. --

Winnie_ru (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC) I added a sentence complicating Zionists' claim to have the right to occupy Israel, saying that it is controversial due to the fact that many other Empires have previously occupied the same land, and their claim that it is their ancestors' land could easily be said by many other races of people. However, this section was deleted, and I am unhappy about this because I felt like that paragraph of the lead section had a biased tone, claiming that Israel is the land of the Zionists' ancestors, and not bringing up this very common and reasonable counterargument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.66.90 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Undue article expansion not in accordance with summary style

We have an entire articles on opposition to Zionism as a whole and each of the component parts, as the plethora of see-alsos show. The article itself should have very little in each section, if not having a small section on the existence of opposition, with links to the appropriate daughter/related articles. This article is being turned into a bloated copy of all of the sub-articles, which goes against summary style. I think that the subsections need severe paring, and all the good information should be placed in the subarticles. -- Avi (talk) 01:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Zionism is one of the key elements in the discussion about Zionism itself. I bet, that there are(see upper section for sources) more opposition to Zionism in the world than those who support it, the anti-Zionism insentives are quite common also among some parts of Jewish Diaspora. This fact is intrinsic and the information about this shall be in the lead section. Right now, IMHO, the lead section seems to praise Zionism and disregards strong opposition to that ideology.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 09:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the lede, I'm talking about the ballooning growth of the interior sections, each of which has specific articles. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Avi, well, that is good idea.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Jim Fitzgerald—there are links to articles on the subject of "opposition to Zionism." They are obviously to be thought of as separate articles, to be covering separate perspectives. In my opinion brief mention of "opposition..." is all that is called for in the article on the topic itself—which is this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some sections in this article could be pared down a bit. I would recommend starting with "History" section and "Ultra-Orthodox" section: they have good sub-articles already, and yet are rather large in this article. Within the "Opposition" section: the "Antisemitism" section could be made smaller. The "Allegations of racism" should not be reduced until the Anti-Zionism article is improved in that regard. --Noleander (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the length of discussion about anti-Zionism in the article shall reflect the amount of discussion about Zionism that exist in scholarly world.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Amusing

The sheer NPoVness of this article is honestly astounding. This is what passes for "neutral" in Wikipedia's book? Why, one must ask, has so much dialogue and protective action been taken to safeguard this article against forces that might be brashly critical of its terrible falsehoods?

The answer, of course, is that Wikipedia is home to a huge contingent of Israelis and American Jews (both of whom are wealthier and have greater computer access than the Arabs, and both of whom are far more racially vociferous than WASPs) who watch this article like guards at a manor full of silverware. The long, fawning quality of the introduction, which uses suck-up tactics like listing the different 'kinds' of Zionism and their meanings to different Jews, is exactly the product of that disingenuous brand of info-peddling that seeks to slip in one's favored point-of-view into the factual zeitgeist. In plainer language, look at the article on Manifest Destiny: one quickly reads about the "superior" attitudes the Anglos held as they brutally pushed westward (the painting of choice was no accident), with "Anglos" or "English" always being wrapped in quote marks.

I would hope most people don't come to Wikipedia to learn about controversial political matters, but it appears our Jewish friends are spending a great deal of time and money (Megaphone, Israeli toadie moderators, etc.) expounding to the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Heard most of this before. I am not Jewish and do not get paid to edit this or any other Wikipedia article. Please assume good faith, which is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to be replying under the impression I was personally addressing you? What does you being or not being Jewish have to do with anything I said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there something that you think that the article should say? If so, please put in an edit request. Most Wikipedians are trying their best and are not being paid to add material.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that's the case, just as most Wikipedia moderators aren't Jewish. But I wouldn't even know where to begin with an article like this... "It is based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel...", "the Zionist movement continues primarily to advocate on behalf of the Jewish state and address threats to its continued existence and security...", the gratuitous inclusion of outline material like, "Strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace...", "Preservation of the identity of the Jewish People through fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education, and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values", "Zionism is dedicated to fighting antisemitism..." (Zionism is a person now? Where does he live?), etc. I'll state outright that I think this kind of fawning meticulousness is an effect of an excessively deferential attitude towards the Jewish community on Wikipedia. My evidence is, again, that the article on Manifest Destiny, where the colonizers were white Christians, is so wildly dissimilar in its tone that they might as well not be discussing the same phenomenon (which they are). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.188.182 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The WP:LEAD has some Manual of Style issues as it currently has eight paragraphs instead of the recommended maximum of four. Some editing is desirable here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Names

Isreal (formerly Palestine) is also known as "The Holy Land" or "The Levant". Romania is also incorrectly spelled.