Talk:Zionism

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)

Equating Zionism and manifest destiny is a false premise. Imperialist expansion across a continent is different than re-establishing a home in a small corner of the globe where a group's ancestors previously existed peacefully.--68.50.74.190 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with this guy even though he could have been more constructive from the start instead of coming in with ignorant accusations about a site that is COMPLETELY ran by the users. Seriously, where are you getting this money BS from? Why does money matter if any person, rich or poor, can change anything on the site? Anyways it is messed up to make Zionism seem like a noble thing but portray other groups like the KKK as evil. Not saying I am a supporter of either of these causes, just that both are equally racist and ignorant. You can't say a group of white people with extreme ideas is any better than a group of Jewish people with extreme ideas. We can point out that the Nazis wanted a master race but we can't point out that Zionists believe they are a master race or at least gods chosen people?but the real point here is if you can find a site that confirms it, you can add it to the article.Nobody else will ask before they change your stuff back so no point in asking to change it before you do. 64.119.57.59 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Equating Zionism and manfest destiny, is, for the same reason as all the other quotes from the article in this discussion, allowable - as they are the stated beliefs of members of the Zionist movement - and as such may be (and should be) included in full, providing that they are all stated in the context of 'it is the view/belief/mandate of the zionist movement/followers that....'. In much the same way that it the may include that: '*Person of importance* X stated that 'Opponents of the Zionist movement are often stigmatised as anti-semetic' or that '*person of importance* Y stated that the Zionist movement is a racist conspiracy.

A better argument against bias in this article would be that one side has been given an overly prominent position within the article - in that the Overview reads like a Pro-israel pamphlet 77.101.91.203 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Something that was missed and SHOULD be in here is what the Talmud says that brings the idea that Zionism is racist. The Talmud is an anthology of rabbinic doctrines and traditions. There are two versions, the Babalyonian and the Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmud is used as a guide for interpreting the Torah and even said to hold HIGHER authority than the Torah itself(Which I do believe is true). What's amusing is how its commentary has more wieght than the primary source thus drastically altering Jewish religious ideology. In consequence, we have racism and supremacism.

"The Talmud forms the religious training for Rabbis, observant and reformed Jews. Upon close examination is it clear that the Talmud not only supports racism and hatred, but is the source of hatred directed towards non-Jews" (http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=17&topic=595).

All over the internet you will find this sort of material. The Talmud is indeed supremacist hate speech. In the book of Sanhedrin for example, the term Goy and Goyim arise many times, it is a word reserved for gentiles who are not Jewish. As you all can imagine, it's about how Jews are better than everyone else, how they can commit heinous crimes without pursecution, and how they should exploit all other races because to them, we're all but cattle. Nice. Sounds completely contradictory to the Torah, no? Well it holds more authority than the Torah.

Holy crap. Religious Jew here. You know nothing at all. Have you even read the Talmud? I have, and I found nothing like you say. The Torah's always foremost as it is considered to be the word of G-d. The Talmud is commentary, a record of rabbis arguing over meaning. It is valuable, but it is not the basis of Judaism. I am honestly disgusted by the ignorance of the editor above.

Names

Isreal (formerly Palestine) is also known as "The Holy Land" or "The Levant". Romania is also incorrectly spelled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.127.183 (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, "Rumania" fixed. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Redesign countries on world map

There was another one who tried to redesign the countries of the world map, in the same period. Most of our fathers know what the result was. Piles of dead people. What was the benefit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.102 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Population Chart and "dead link" found

The chart of populations only for the years 1922 to 1945 can be found at: (Ref 27) "Report to the General Assembly, Volume 1". United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3
But, the populations for year 1950 must have come from another source that I can't find. I would like to see populations added to the chart for the years around 1882, 1890, 1900 and 1914. I think this is important to show the popularity and growth from the beginning of the movement. 99.64.0.82 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the chart in question does not show Zionists but Jews and I wonder how accurate figures are for earlier periods. Six months ago there was a far more important chart here showing global membership of the movement and how it grew. That is the chart that should be here.Telaviv1 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Another dead link

There is a very simple error that I would like fixed on the Zionism Page:

Footnote No. 1 has a dead external link to: Neuberger, Binyamin. Introduction Zionism - an Introduction, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 20, 2001. Retrieved August 17, 2006.

The address is currently set as: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Zionism%20-%20an%20

But it is missing the final several characters: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2001/8/Zionism%20-%20an%20Introduction

I hope this suggestion helps.

Vandeburgt (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, but the footnote appears to contain several separate sources. Someone with more history at this page may want to take a look. Rivertorch (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shamir, Hitler, etcetc

Shamir wasn't in charge, that was Avraham Stern, and the organization was Lehi. Those two articles tell the story and provide sources. Whether it belongs here is another matter. Zero^talk 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree not relevant to a general article on Zionism.

ADDENDUM: Also the sense of the statement about Shamir was just completely distorted: It sounded like Shamir offered to help fighting the British not in the Middle East, but to attack them on the British Isles. The only thing Stern (not Shamir) offered was " to aid German conquest in the Middle East in return for recognition of a Jewish state open to unlimited immigration." (as stated in the WP-article on Lehi) Mdphddr (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds better and has some substance. I think we should be careful with such nonsense like the BLP violation the article contained before about Shamir. Such unusual statements should be proved before they become part of the article. With a serious source and not with biased pamphlets. It was not clever to suggest just to add a "citation needed" mark for this statement as done by user Dailycare. Mdphddr (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The citation needed-tag is used to highlight unsourced statements. Other editors will then provide the source or, failing that, the statement will be removed. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)