Talk:Zionist antisemitism/Archive 1

This article's current title and content is anti-Semitic

While anti-Semites may have expressed support for Zionism, they did not do so as part of the Zionist movement or out of concern for Jewish welfare. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You calling an editor racist here? nableezy - 16:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Telaviv1, thank you for sharing your opinion on the article. I have some questions for you regarding your description, which is as follows: "anti-Semitic title, content that does not conform to the title, sources that have been labelled anti-Semitic by a court of law".

1. How is the title "anti-Semitic"?

2. Which content doesn't conform to the title? Can you list some examples?

3. Which sources have been labelled as "anti-Semitic" by a court of law and which court was this? I'm unaware of this. I would love to know more so I can scrutinize the sources.

4. Why should the article be deleted wholesale, rather than tweaked and revised with input from editors with diverse political/ideological viewpoints? Some people might conclude that a Zionist viewpoint is being favored and there is a bias against anti-Zionist or non-Zionist viewpoints on Wikipedia. There are multiple pages describing antisemitic manifestations of anti-Zionism (Example: the category for New antisemitism and its numerous articles), but for some reason the lone article describing antisemitic manifestations of Zionism must be scrubbed from sight. That doesn't strike me as fair or balanced.

You further claim that while antisemites can be Zionists, "they did not do so as part of the Zionist movement" and that these antisemitic Zionists are not concerned with "Jewish welfare". My response is that:

1. Christian Zionists often, for example, absolutely do make an explicit link between their Zionism and their antisemitism. EG, the belief that the in-gathering of Israel is a necessary prerequisite for the impending apocalyptic conversion and murder of Jews.

2. Many Jewish anti-Zionists have argued that Zionists are antisemitic and that Zionism is antisemitic. Whether you or I agree with this assessment doesn't change the fact that there is a widely held Jewish anti-Zionist belief that Zionist ideology is intertwined with antisemitism, and Wikipedia should document that these beliefs exist.

3. Who says that caring about Jewish welfare is inherent to being a Zionist? Example: Many would argue that the Israeli government's indifference to international antisemitism is proof that Zionists are often indifferent to "Jewish welfare". Some would even argue that indifference to "Jewish welfare" in the diaspora, or even active support for antisemitism in the diaspora, flows directly from the Zionist ideology of some Zionists who want to negate the diaspora.

Take care. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository for this sort of article, which is clearly encouraging prejudice.

Thank you for your polite tone, Mr Baltimore.

1. The title is anti-Semitic in that it is trying to shift the blame for anti-Semitism onto the Jews, not unlike claims that "the Zionists" where in someway responsible for the Holocaust, caused it or "collaborated" with it.

Broadly speaking Zionism is a Jewish movement, led by Jews and created by Jews, with a view to making political changes on behalf of Jews. To suggest that it is anti-Semitic is an offensive slander which does not have any basis in mainstream academic literature or mainstream Western press (it did in the old USSR, but that is another story). Zionism is not a single body of thought, which remains static over time but a broad school of a large variety of different approaches to Jewish issues and problems which are themselves constantly changing, to represent it as a single body of thought with a single purpose is mistaken.

2. This is not relevant: "According to the political theorist Michael Waltzer, early Jewish anti-Zionists in the 19th-century were often Orthodox Jews who believed that Zionism was a heretical ideology. These Orthodox Jews believed that the return of Jews to Eretz Israel and the establishment of a state would only occur after the Messiah came. Until the arrival of the Messiah, Orthodox Jews believed that Jews must accept living in diaspora and defer to non-Jewish rulers while waiting for redemption. Zionists, who were usually secular, despised the perceived passivity of Orthodox Jews to the point that they were often referred to as antisemites by Orthodox anti-Zionists." By the way the Zionist movement was born in about 1897 (precise year escapes me now) so 19th century Orthodox Jews cannot have been anti-Zionist. No Haredi Jews are actually quoted, for the very good reason that none can be found.

3. Tony Greenstein sued the campaign against anti-Semitism which called him an anti-Semite and the case was thrown out by the UK high court, as I understand it, the ruling doesn't specifically say he is an anti-Semite but says that there is a reasonable cause for calling him an anti-Semite. https://www.5rb.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Greenstein-v-Campaign-Against-Antisemitism-2019-EWHC-281-QB-final.pdf The material that is referenced in this article, is a very offensive comparison of Menachem Begin with Hitler and uses out of context quotes. In other words, this article is calling Zionists anti-Semites and trying to justify its claim by quoting an anti-Semite. Greenstein is also banned from the British Labour Party.

4. I objected to the title of the article which I think is misleading with regard to its content and purpose, which is mostly about Marxism. Many of the people quoted, like Tony Greenstein, have a very problematic connection with Judaism for example "the Austrian-Jewish anti-Zionist writer Karl Kraus" converted to Catholicism and his writings are not actually concerned with Zionism. The article is not about Zionism, it is about a group of anti-Zionists of Jewish origin. Its sources are not reliable or in anyway usefully descriptive of Zionism, though they could be a useful description of these particular "Jews", although calling many of those referenced Jewish is a bit problematic, since they do not practice the religion. In my opinion, if you want to keep the article, it needs to be rewritten and the title needs to be changed. There is also a serious issue, which is not addressed of what exactly is an anti-Semite. It is not an easy phenomenon to define or explain, the best definition is of course the IHRA which is problematic for many of these sources. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

1. No, it is covering anti-semitism within Zionism. The idea that Zionism is beyond reproach is an interesting personal opinion, but not relevant here.

2. Modern Zionism certainly began to have a wider following in the late 1800s, but no, Zionism and its prescursors stretch back much further. But if something is not supported by the sources then remove it. If it is, sorry?

3. So what? This isnt the British Labour Party.

4. Your objection is based on no Wikipedia policy or logic. You seem to think you are the arbiter of what an acceptable connection with Judaism is (????), even using scare quotes for some Jews. That is outrageous, you are not some authority on who is a Jew and whether or not they are real Jews or just "Jews". And no, the best definition is not the IHRA, that is one you and others have tried to push around here, but as per the sources that is not a widely accepted definition but rather a political one. nableezy - 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Zionism is not antisemitism. Stop lying to people. This article is worthless and anti-israel. 2600:100F:B1A0:E349:0:11:E4A2:CA01 (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is not necessarily anti-Semitic; however, there is no inherent contradiction between the idea of being Zionist, and the idea of being an anti-Semite. This article is well-sourced, and it's not any more "anti-Israel" than any other criticism of Zionism or Israel, which are as reasonable to feature on this encyclopedia as those of any country or ideology. Beyond that, Wikipedia does not bow down to the geopolitical interests of X or Y nation, so your idea that it being "anti-Israel" is some valid justification to call for its removal is ultimately absurd. LaughingManiac (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an outdated conversation from late 2022, no need to reply anymore as the discussion ended once nobody replied to nableezy. B3251 (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against "Antisemitism among supporters of Israel" and no consensus in favor of any other name. That leaves us defaulted to the current name. Many users here (including some Oppose votes) agree that a rename may be a good idea. But there is clear consensus against this particular name. Very few arguments here are based in policy. I would suggest, humbly, that any interested users discuss in more complexity the traits (and policies) they wish to incorporate in the name, before creating a new RM which depicts those arguments in clear, cogent, and concise prose. Without such a process, it appears unlikely that any name will garner consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 13:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Zionist antisemitism → Antisemitism among supporters of Israel – To address issues brought up in the deletion discussion. Ploni (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Ploni I obviously think the title is fine, but perhaps the article could be titled something like Antisemitism in the Zionist movement or Antisemitism within Zionism or something like that. I think changing the title to "among supporters of Israel" could potentially narrow the topic, and narrow it in ways that exclude any discussion or critique of the State of Israel. If someone alleges that the Israeli government collaborates with antisemitic politicians abroad, that isn't just a discussion of the antisemitism of the "supporters of Israel", it's also a discussion that addresses Israel's role in supporting antisemitism. One question I have would be: what distinction if any would be drawn between "supporters of Israel" and "Zionists" if the article were to be renamed? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• In what way would it "exclude any discussion or critique of the State of Israel"? I find it unlikely that anybody would consider Xavier Vallat, Viktor Orbán, Alfredo Stroessner, Anders Behring Breivik, etc. (all mentioned in the article) as members of the Zionist movement. Israeli Realpolitik in associating with governments and individuals with records of antisemitism is an altogether different phenomenon from antisemitism among 'Christian Zionists' and other pro-Israel groups. –Ploni (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploni If you support Zionism, then you are a Zionist. "This person was a Zionist but not part of the Zionist movement" doesn't strike me as a coherent distinction, particularly for people like Breivik who explicitly championed Zionism and denounced anti-Zionism in general and Jewish anti-Zionists in particular. You know that I and other Wikipedians previously criticized the sectarian and baseless notion that this article is merely about "Christian Zionists" or "pro-Israel groups". It is absolutely not. The underlying notion that this article is merely about gentiles who support Zionism is your design for what the article should be about, and it's a design that effectively excludes all mention of Israel's role in supporting antisemitism and the role of many antisemitic Zionist groups and individuals. The antisemitism of Christians Zionists specifically isn't even the only expression of gentile Zionist antisemitism, let alone the entirety of Zionist antisemitism as a whole. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

To my eye, renaming it broadens the scope of the article, not the opposite. You appear to be miscontruing my intentions as nefarious here, I apologize if I've been unclear in any way. @DanielRigal and GizzyCatBella: maybe you'd like to weigh in? –Ploni (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

With my same logic as previously, what would be the "mirror" for the proposed title? Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The "mirror" article is New antisemitism. The two topics are quite different, though. I hardly think there needs to be perfect symmetry between their articles (title-wise or otherwise). –Ploni (talk) 11:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

They are quite different, why it's not a mirror. I believe I have clarified why the proposed title is inadequate. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment If we look at the article Anti-Zionism it contains a section Anti-Zionism and antisemitism . If instead we look at the article Zionism we might expect to see Zionism and antisemitism but the symmetry breaks, we have instead a repeat of what is already in the Anti-Zionism article, a section called Anti-Zionism or antisemitism, the idea of antisemitism linked to Zionism not being addressed at all. This article remedies that defect so why not complete the symmetry and call it Zionism and antisemitism? Which Zionists can be addressed in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support the Antisemitism among supporters of Israel proposal, the title is inflammatory, and the content of the article has little to do with Zionism itself. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  @User:לילך5 What exactly is the difference between a Zionist and a "supporter of Israel"? If you support Israel, then you are a Zionist. The unstated sectarianism here is that "supporters of Israel" are gentiles and Zionists are Jews, which I regard as both an antisemitic distinction that conflates Jews with Zionists as well as an arbitrary distinction that serves to protect the State of Israel as well as many Zionist groups and individuals from scrutiny. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Supporters of Israel is way too vague, who they? Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I have outline in several comments above, vague, imprecise, I would support Zionism and antisemitism and the identification of which particular Zionists within that article. Having Anti Zionism and antisemitism while not having Zionism and antisemitism (or the current title) is clearly not NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Zionism and antisemitism" is definitely better than the current title, I would support this proposal as an alternative. –Ploni (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  My concern with "Zionism and antisemitism" is that the title may be overly broad and vague, and almost any conceivable topic that concerns both Zionism and antisemitism could be added to the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why? There is not a problem with Anti-Zionism and antisemitism (in the articles Anti-Zionism/Zionism) so why should the reverse situation cause any difficulty? For the avoidance of doubt, the opening sentence of the lead should define the scope which it seems to do, although I am not certain about equating supporters of Israel with Zionists, I don't think that works, quite. Selfstudier (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Cautious support'. I strongly support a rename but I'm not sure of the best title. The title proposed here is definitely an improvement over the current one but if anybody can think of anything even better then we can go with that instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - dont see any merit in the issues brought up in the AFD, and as that is the basis of the move request oppose. nableezy - 18:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, unless the title of New antisemitism is changed to match: an equivalent to this proposal for the latter article would be something like "Antisemitism and opposition to the Israeli government". Either way, the titles of Zionist antisemitism and New antisemitism must be considered together. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: "New antisemitism" is a term widely used in media, academia, etc., while there is no corresponding name for antisemitism as it relates to supporters of the state of Israel, so I think there is good reason for their titles to differ. By analogy, there is an article on "Christian Zionism"—a term for a distinct Protestant evangelical movement fundamentally different from Jewish political Zionism, but nowadays widely used by its members and observers—while there is no parallel movement in the Muslim world, hence "Muslim supporters of Israel". ➤ Ploni^💬 ➤ 17:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't like the current title much as I wasn't sure what the article would be about before I came here. However, the proposed title is worse as "supporters of Israel" is not a good match to people who promoted Zionist ideas before the establishment of Israel. For example, people in the 19th century who wanted to bring on the end-times cataclysm or as a means of ridding their own country of Jews. Zero^talk 02:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC

• Comment: That is a reasonable point. @Selfstudier's proposal "Zionism and antisemitism" does address this, however. The current title is needlessly provocative, and a small change like this is a positive step towards a more NPOV article. ➤ Ploni^💬 ➤ 17:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

My concern with “Zionism and antisemitism” is that it implies both support and opposition to Zionism are within the scope of the article. This is not the case, since anti-Zionism is covered by the New Antisemitism article. The current title does not have that ambiguity. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed new name of "Antisemitism among supporters of Israel" adds nothing, and might be used to justify removing large chunks of the article by creating a false and sectarian dichotomy between "Zionists" and "Israel supporters". The dichotomy between "Zionists" and "Israeli supporters" implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) is framed in such a way that Zionists are portrayed as inherently Jewish and "Israel supporters" are portrayed as non-Jews (or even as specifically Christian), a dangerous conflation of Jews with Zionism. The new name also could shield the State of Israel and its actions from mention because the State of Israel is, by definition, not a "supporter of Israel" - it is Israel. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: This would make the title less concise and raise the issues noted above by Bohemian Baltimore. Also like Bohemian Baltimore, I think the title might potentially be a little more natural if the terms were switched around, which, in the tightest configuration (more concise than those suggested in the first comment) is the current redirect: Antisemitic Zionism Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Some editors have raised some valid concerns about my proposed title, but there appears to be agreement (or at least no opposition—I am of course happy to discuss further) that the current title should be changed. How about Zionist antisemitism → Pro-Zionist antisemitism? As mentioned in the deletion discussion, this usage is fairly common (across the political spectrum):

1. "Pro-Zionist right-wing antisemitism continues to threaten Jewish lives in the US and Europe. ... It is high time that pro-Zionist US and European Jewish organisations issue special reports on pro-Zionist antisemitism." (Joseph Massad, [1])
2. "There's a dangerous and popular fashion in Europe to be antisemitic and pro-Zionist at the same time" (Slavoj Žižek, [2])
3. "Trump, however, has inverted this formula by positioning himself as a pro-Zionist anti-Semite." (Masha Gessen, [3])
4. "Throughout Europe most major racist parties are antisemitic, Islamophobic and pro-Zionist." (Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign, [4])

I think this addresses the concerns that "Antisemitism among supporters of Israel" and "Zionism and antisemitism" are too vague or restrictive. ➤ Ploni^💬 ➤ 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I dont think that works, "pro-Zionist antisemitism" seems to me to be about expressions of antisemitism that is Zionist, not expressions of Zionism that are antisemitic. nableezy - 21:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there really a meaningful difference? ➤ Ploni^💬 ➤ 00:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As a slight semantic twist, I suggested Antisemitic Zionism above due to Zionism being an ideology and antisemitism a base prejudice that can colour that ideology, and really should be subordinate to it. Zionism therefore sits more naturally as the noun, antisemitic as the adjective. This is the same as how it would be more natural to say something like 'chauvinist democracy' rather than 'democratic chauvanism'. Numerically, there are also slightly more direct references (or the like) to 'Antisemitic Zionism' than to 'Zionist antisemitism'. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That could work. Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is about expressions of antisemitism among Zionists, supporters of Zionism, supporters of Israel, etc., so "Pro-Zionist antisemitism" is more appropriate (and accurate). "Antisemitic Zionism" brings up the same issues as the original title. ➤ Ploni^💬 ➤ 12:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we are just going in circles now, there is opposition to the proposed change and no consensus on any other title. Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a meaningful difference. Richard Nixon would be covered by Zionism by an antisemite (see for example this or this), but less so in terms of antisemitism that is related to Zionism. To me this topic is anti-Jewish (effects, motivations) within Zionism, not Zionism among antisemites. nableezy - 20:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Offtopic stuff

@User:לילך5 Your attempt to remove huge chunks of the article without any discussion whatsoever is (Personal attack removed). You could have discussed these topics on the talk page, but instead you moved unilaterally to censor the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's discuss the deleted content and the reasons given for deletion, see if it stands up to scrutiny. Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier 1.) Let's start with the removal of the mention of Tony Greenstein. Reason given: "Not reliable, fringe figure." Declaring someone a fringe figure is an opinion, but either way "fringeness" is not a justification for removing sourced material from Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia itself has an article (with sources) concerning this "fringe" person. Clearly notable. If there is a concern over the particular source used, a tag can be adding asking for more/better sources. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Greenstein is biased but that is unsufficient reason to remove, it rather smacks of Idontlikeit. Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Alliance for Workers' Liberty is not reliable. Tony Greenstein himself was expelled from Labour for "‘anti-Semitic’ remarks" which were "mocking the phrase ‘Final Solution,’ using the term ‘Zio’". ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier 2.) The editor removed all mention of Viktor Orbán and his antisemitism, reason given: "Off topic, no one suggests Orbán is a Zionist". The assertion that "no one" thinks that Orbán is Zionist can be easily disproved. In Addition to Žižek, Peter Beinart also mentions that: "Some of the European leaders who traffic most blatantly in antisemitism – Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Heinz-Christian Strache of Austria’s far-right Freedom party and Beatrix von Storch of the Alternative for Germany, which promotes nostalgia for the Third Reich – publicly champion Zionism too." Electronic Intifada also refers to "Zionist anti-Semitism" in regard to Orbán and other politicians' cozy relationship with the Israeli government. Improve the section, don't remove it. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure we can categorically say that "supporter of Israel = Zionist", it may be true in many cases but not all. In fact that is a good reason for opposing Antisemitism among supporters of Israel as being not precise. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A Youtube video by "The radical revolution" and the Electronic Intifada are not reliable. Viktor Orbán's page does not define him as a Zionist. The only way to define him as a "Zionist" is to use the vehement anti-Zionist framing of any support of Israel as "Zionism". ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier 3.) The editor deletes a series of critiques of Trumpist antisemitism and Israeli's arms dealings with antisemites as: "Off topic. Selling arms or not criticizing Trump enough aren't antisemitism in Zionism." These are the editor's opinions, but others clearly disagree. A cursory search turns up this piece in the Middle East Monitor from a Jewish writer that says: ""The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies" – thus spoke the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. Herzl was far from the only Zionist to advocate for an alliance with anti-Semites, and this malign pattern still holds today. In Ukraine, for example, Israel has been arming and training the Azov Battalion, a vehemently anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi militia." This is a clear example of an observer criticizing these actions of the Israeli state as antisemitic and Zionist. The editor may have the POV that there's no link, and thus it's off-topic, but others obviously disagree. The editor also deletes mention that Jacobo Timerman denounced the Zionist establishment's silence on Latin American antisemitism as akin to "Judenrat" behavior, which whether one agrees with Timerman or not, is obviously a critique of Zionist actions as antisemitic or complicit with antisemitism. The editor's strange assertion that critics of Trumpist Zionism are merely objecting to "not criticizing Trump enough" - rather than decrying active collaboration between Israel/Zionists and the Trump administration - is right-wing, pro-Trump bias and is a blatant misrepresentation of what critics of Trumpist antisemitism have actually said. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 00:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, I would want to see evidence of Trump being or referring to himself as a Zionist (eg Biden recently visited Israel and was widely quoted declaring himself a Zionist but then there is no evidence that he is antisemitic). Need to think a bit more about this one and the Orban case. Not to worry about this overmuch, we should concentrate on the proper title for the time being and ignore any provocations. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump's page does not call him a Zionist. The entire block removed was tangential, mere passing quid quo pro deals with Israel does not making an entity "Zionist", unless you are using the vehement anti-Zionist definition that might define anyone dealing with Israel as "Zionist". ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the removal of large amounts of content requires further discussion, but accusing a fellow editor of being an antisemite is unproductive. Please try to direct future comments on content rather than contributors. –Ploni (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploni That's fair enough. I do feel that (Personal attack removed). But I'll try to be more focused in my remarks. What stands is that, yes, the content could have been discussed before large-scale removal. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ploni, @User:Selfstudier The editor is question has removed several of my words/comments so nobody can read them anymore (one of which wasn't even specifically about them), and threatened me on my talk page saying that I could be blocked without warning. Are they an administrator? Do they have the power to do this? Other people have made accusations of antisemitism (and more) against me, before I ever suggested that there was antisemitism or bias. Yet who gets threatened with being blocked? Only me. That's a double standard and I do feel intimidated by that user and their unilateral behavior. Despite multiple editors calling into question their removal of huge chunks of the article, the editor still continued to remove even more large chunks. The editor also deleted the entire external links section. I'm at a loss for words. They are picking apart the article piece by piece without any input or discussion. This is really unacceptable. I believe that their edits should be reverted, but I'm not going to do that because I don't want an edit war. Asking for input. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor is not an admin, in fact a relatively new editor to this WP, do please stay focused on the content for now. You may avail yourself of their talk page in the same manner as they have yours if you wish, that is a requirement before taking matters further. I tend to agree with Ploni that the mass deletions are potentially a cause for concern but let's stick with getting the title right in the first instance and then we will deal with the content problem. Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Selfstudier If large chunks of the article are deleted, my concern is that it will skew the debate on the naming of the article. Because editors are no longer viewing the article as it was when the debate started, but rather the massively trimmed version that the editor has created. I have left comments on their page expressing my concerns. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've removed this material piece by piece after inspecting the sources and finding that absolutely all were opinion pieces, most by entirely non notable authors - two third were PhD students and Jerusalem Post correspondents featured in the Jerusalem Post. The last piece was also opinion, but at least by a professor on Jewish history, but unfortunately on the subject of Zionism as fascism, not about antisemitism in the context of Zionism, and, perhaps needless to say, fascism and antisemitism are distinct. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 I have to question your assertions about the Robert Wistrich Piece. The full quote says: "Tony Greenstein, chairman of the Labor Committee on Palestine, has for instance been one of the more persistent advocates of the “Zionism is Fascism” myth as well as the thesis of Nazi-Zionist collaboration. Interestingly enough, one of Greenstein's discussion documents on Zionism (entitled “Anti-Semitism's Twin in Jewish Garb”) was hailed by an organ of the neo-Nazi National Front as “excellent.”" Antisemitism and fascism are obviously distinct, but in this instance, Wistrich is clearly discussing antisemitic fascism. Furthermore, the reason Tony Greenstein isn't mentioned on the page is because another editor previously scrubbed all mentions of Greenstein that I had added to the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the removal of the earlier Greenstein references later. I think the point stands that there is little point in having a critique specific to the individual unless we are to restore the earlier material that actually contextualizes the critique, though perhaps all of this is more apt for Greenstein's page. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

So there should be no mention of Greenstein on this page? I do agree with the IP user's point that there needs to be a criticism section of some kind, to give the article balance and neutrality. Whether these particular sources are adequate is a separate question. I haven't reverted any of that editor's removals, despite my disagreement with the removal, because I wasn't interested in an edit war. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I certainly hear you on stepping back from edit wars, but I hope you see my point about it being a tad nonsensical to retain critiques applying to removed material. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. Any critique of Greenstein should be paired with previous mention of him in the article. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have serious doubts as to whether this page actually needs a distinct criticism section, as what is being presented here is not a theory or concept per se, but more a set of geography-by-geography narratives on antisemitic Zionist trends. Any criticism can be quite readily integrated in text. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The editor who removed Greenstein also removed the entire external links section. Do you think the opinion pieces you removed could be added to an external links section? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The Robert Wistrich piece is obviously from a qualified author and has some thematic crossover that could make it potentially relevant as an external link. I'm not convinced on the other hand that those Jerusalem Post opinion pieces represent particularly high-quality reference material. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fairly in the dark on how prominent or relevant Tony Greenstein is as a public figure and activist, but surely you could always raise a talk discussion to ascertain a consensus on whether the Greenstein stuff should be included? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You guys are adding meaningless garbage like the "Adala" ngo making a ridiculous link between a single guy waving an Israeli flag on January 6 with "Zionist antisemites" while in the meantime delete ALL criticism from article. Are you fricking serious??? For every nobody who wants Israel to exist just so Jews can move there instead of staying in their country there are probably a hundred ANTI-Zionist antisemites on both the left and the right (have you ever heard of ZOG?). You are violating balance and NPOV, even assuming this article should exist at all. This article fails at due weight by a light-year or two. For example, Jared Taylor is not even antisemitic, although he is a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.28.186.233 (talk) 13:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Not only have I heard of Zionist Occupied Government, Wikipedia covers the topic. It also covers New antisemitism and any other number of topics dispute. Like this one. nableezy - 14:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"ALL criticism" was just some opinion pieces. And an article can contain criticism without a dedicated section (WP:CRIT). Iskandar323 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Poland section: synth? Or at least a stretch?

The current version of the page has a paragraph on 1920s-30s Polish government.

Neither of the sources describe Zionist antisemitism as I understand them. They describe Jewish parties making failed compromises with nationalist parties, but they do not describe this as antisemitic, and they in fact describe some antagonism between the antisemitic and Zionist elements here. This sounds more like the dirtiness of politics in a time of antisemitism than it does Zionist antisemitism.

Am I missing an important quote? Or perhaps this is better suited for History of the Jews in Poland? Freelance-frank (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Moved it. Freelance-frank (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Anything beyond examples?

Are there RS that substantively discuss this topic beyond examples? Examples currently in the article include: Zionists who ally with antisemites, antisemites who support or respect some version of Zionism, and people accusing Zionist organizations of being antisemitic, usually for making arguments about the "right kind of Jew" or what Jews ought to do. A separate conversation might be whether these examples are sufficiently motivated for inclusion, but I don't want to touch on that here.

Instead, I'd like to focus on whether there is material that can take this article from lots of very detailed little examples and opinions to one that has a big picture view. Unless it is hidden away in a subsection, I'm not seeing much of that.

Do sources that make these bigger-picture claims about "Zionist antisemitism" currently exist in the article? Or are there any not yet included? Freelance-frank (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed—the article in its current form is rather disjointed, bordering on WP:SYNTHESIS. I have not come across any reliable sources that consider these as one phenomenon, but stand to be corrected. The removal of any criticism of the idea that Zionism is somehow inherently antisemitic is also concerning.  Ploni^💬  21:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is some incredible synthesis. Just removed this text which said: "Gresh also notes that the European far right 'consider Israel an ally', as demonstrated by the 'case of the anti-Soros anti-Semitic billboard campaign in Hungary', citing this interview with the Middle East Eye. In context, the interviewee said, "I have always been convinced that some pro-Zionists are anti-Semitic. Vallat thought that the Jews would never integrate into France and that they had to go to Israel. Today, in Europe, the far right is not essentially anti-Semitic but anti-Muslim. They consider Israel an ally. We saw that in the case of the anti-Soros anti-Semitic billboard campaign in Hungary" (emphasis added). The removed article text said that the billboard justified one thing, but the text explicitly said it justified something else. This is a particularly egregious example, but there are a lot of less severe cases. Freelance-frank (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is definitly away with the fairies. The initial version was submited with 35 references, mostly a bunch of fringle sources and cherry picking using google search for "antisemitic zionist". Not a single scholary source is dealing with this "subject". Fabiolous. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The cynical antisemitism of certain gentile supporters of Israel is certainly worthy of coverage - as a few paragraphs somewhere else, perhaps at New antisemitism. This article is currently an UNDUE mess. PrimaPrime (talk) 09:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider the thought, that maybe, just maybe, the idea of Zionist antisemites just doesn't hold ground. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And maybe you should consider the thought that maybe, just maybe, being a Zionist does not naturally render one unable to engage in anti-Semitism; it is well-documented, for instance, that Christian Zionists are both Zionists, but also readily spread anti-Semitic rhetoric. LaughingManiac (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that is remotely true. Christian Zionists are not antisemitic, they support the Jews. 2600:480A:3091:3000:695F:6F7D:2112:812D (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with what seems to be clear consensus here that this is not a topic in its own right and the article as it stands now is an arbitrary mix of opinions and cherry-picked quotations from scholarship, some of which seem very non-noteworthy or even fringe. It definitely risks synthesis. I'd delete the article and make sure any useful content is covered in related articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a rewrite

Regardless of what we think about the Israel-Palestine conflict, Wikipedians should object to how biased and inaccurate this article is. To list just one of the many falsehoods it contains, the article repeats the thousand-times-refuted claim that the primary reason that politically conservative Christians tend to support Israel is because they have an apocalyptic fantasy of the end times occurring in the next few decades. This is at odds with evidence. According to this survey, only 12% of American evangelical Christians view "Biblical prophecy" as their most important reason for their support of Israel. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

There are c.100 million evangelical Christians, so 12% is 12 million.

I don’t believe the article says that politically conservative Christians tend to support Israel is because they have an apocalyptic fantasy

The lede currently says The prevalence of antisemitism has been widely noted within the Christian Zionist movement, whose adherents may hold antisemitic and supersessionist beliefs about Jews while they also support Zionism for eschatological reasons.

And the main body says Many Christian Zionists believe that the Gathering of Israel is a prerequisite for the final coming of the Christian messiah, after which a portion of Jews will convert and the majority of Jews will be killed and condemned to Hell.

I think we should add the 12% into the article, and use the word "some" as shorthand.

More broadly, the language should probably parallel articles like Antisemitism in the Arab world, which also needs some work.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I know of no Christian denominations that believe any of that. Don't speak for Christians. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact you "don't know of" them doesn't mean they don't exist.

https://jacobin.com/2022/02/israeli-us-evangelical-alliance-zionism-antisemitism

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2019/08/22/how-anti-semitic-beliefs-have-quietly-taken-hold-among-some-evangelical-christians/

https://politicalresearch.org/2020/07/09/end-times-antisemitism LaughingManiac (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

All of those are from hostile sources who are misleading when representing Christianity. He is correct in that there are no Christian demoninations that are Zionist antisemitic--no organizations like the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. hold such positions as part of their tenets.

You are being dishonest. 2600:480A:3091:3000:695F:6F7D:2112:812D (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Capitol

I think authors of the stuff regarding the capitol stuff are making a hunge leap in logic the capitol attack had nothing to do with jews and it was all about alleged electoral fraud 217.140.210.213 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Relevant article

This article also has plenty of references to other sources that could be tracked down and cited. Zero^talk 04:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

An article from a website filled with self-hating Jews like Tony Greenstein? How on earth is that a reliable source!? 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Europe section empty

There is no text in the Europe section currently. Should it be deleted? Apcynan (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Good news: there is no Zionist antisemitism in Europe. Freelance-frank (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@User:Freelance-frank All mention of Zionist antisemitism in Europe was removed piece by piece. Wikipedia is not censored. I see no good reason why the sections on Zionist antisemitism in France, Germany, and Austria should have been removed. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a flaw which created that effect. Writing articles that are essentially about a concept in terms of a country by country structure is a basd prtactice taken over from the habit of using the 'Reactions' model (list of countries that make a formal statement in reaction to some terrorism incident) and using it as the format. There is a very extensive body of evidence documenting Zionist leaders' expressions of contempt for the 'shape' of Jews (even extending to quips about Dreyfus coping his conviction because of his Jewish nose!). A class discomfort or distaste for the 'unwashed masses' of Ostjuden who began to move west after the 1880s.

The answer to the problem is therefore to recast this in the standard manner as an historical chart of comments made by such leaders about their fellow Jews. Zionists constituted a movement, and unease over the 'Jewish body' , which Zionists hoped to make more 'masculine and less 'Jewish' is what requires careful historical, not national, contextualization, in chronological order. The work of Sander Gilman is a good introduction. These antisemitic stereotypes within Zionist discourse persisted, until they found racial expression, in major thinkers like Arthur Ruppin and very much allign with the general racist outlook one finds in non-Jewish antisemites. If someone starts reorganizing it along those lines, I'll try eventually to lend a documentary hand. Otherwise I think it too messy to fix.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

My question on reading this suggestion is whether it is better targeted at self-hating Jew than at this page. This seems determined by whether these caricatures are primarily in the Zionist movement or if they are more broadly distributed throughout the Jewish community.

A counterpoint: much 1910-30s Jewish activism in the United States around decreasing antisemitism involved assimilationist within the Jewish community. Ironically, this often involved antisemitic caricatures of the "old-world Jew" in their attempts to push new Jewish immigrant groups to adopt American habits.

In the end, this answer should come from handling in solid sources, and I don't have a sense of where they fall yet. Freelance-frank (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

My "good news" statement is best read in a wry tone.

It is true that I removed these sections--but not that I removed all the content. Yes, a significant portion of these sections seemed to require original interpretations to fit them into the "Zionist antisemitism" framework, so I removed these details entirely from the article, mostly to other articles if possible. Happy to talk about any particular removal.

The reason the sections do not exist anymore, however, is that I moved the rest of the content to thematic, rather than national, sections. The US and Israel sections still exist because they were the biggest, but they would not if I were to complete this process.

In this light, I broadly agree with Nishidani that a different style of organization would help, though my first stab at this involved a switch to a thematic, rather than chronological, orientation. I did not finish this transition, and I'm now somewhat skeptical that such a "thematic" outline would work. Freelance-frank (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitic stereotypes about diaspora Jews

@User:Nishidani I have not read the work of Daniel Boyarin in ages, but I think I remember that he has written about the ways that some Zionists have constructed an antisemitic image of the diaspora Jew as passive, weak, effeminate, physically degenerated, self-hating, and so forth. Eli Valley also touches on this subject. A piece from Ben Lorber mentions this topic: "This Zionist “negation of the diaspora” internalized European antisemitic stereotypes of Jewish men as weak, effeminate, and passive, fashioning the “new Jew” in shame-ridden rejection of this image. In many ways, today’s Israeli “Punishers” and Proud Boys are again gazing longingly at the nationalist, antisemitic West, this time assimilating motifs of military hypermasculinity from the American white supremacist vanguard." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is a mass of material this article hasn't used yet, and when and if I get time I will certainly try to add sources like those you mention, esp. Boyarin who is always illumninating about anything he writes about. The urgency for the moment is to reorganize the article along the standard expository model, background history etc. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

This article is filled with misinformation about what Zionism is & is promoting hate. Zionism is NOT anti-Semitic.

It’s anti-Semitic to call a Jewish person a “Zionist” in a negative way.

Zion was a hill in Jerusalem & Zionism is a political movement named from that. A movement for the re-establishment and the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

As with any political movement, sub sects will emerge that may differ & act on that from what it’s main goal is/was.

It DOES NOT represent the organization as a whole.

In 1975 Palestinian leaders passed a policy that “Zionism” was a form of racism AGAINST Palestinian people. It was overturned in 1991 because having a policy like that was, in fact, anti-Semitic as it implies that Jewish people didn’t have the right to exist or have a homeland (because this is what Zionism was about). It was called “Resolution 3379.” Accuratefacts19 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the above is relevant to improvement of the article. Actually it appears to be based on misconceptions about the scope of the article and what it contains. Zero^talk 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What I said is fact so how is it “not relevant?”

The article should be deleted. There’s too much disinformation even within the very first paragraph.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism

https://www.ajc.org/news/the-zionism-racism-lie-isnt-over

https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/zionism

https://www.britannica.com/place/Zion-hill-Jerusalem Accuratefacts19 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The article still has not stated that Zionism is inherently antiSemitic nor has it stated that most Zionists are antisemitic 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:3D15:51A6:CD35:44C3 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

There are self proclaimed zionists who espouse anti-Semitism 2600:8801:FB13:6B00:3D15:51A6:CD35:44C3 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Says who? I don't think such a movement exists. 69.113.233.201 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I could get on a soapbox,but without my input, it's not difficult to find cases,including this article about Zionists that get called out on antisemitism.2600:8801:FB00:422:F961:8487:B182:BD0F (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I could give you plenty of sources but not here because we're supposed to attempt neutrality—albeit some articles get biased 2600:8801:FB00:422:F961:8487:B182:BD0F (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence. 2600:480A:3091:3000:695F:6F7D:2112:812D (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Candidates for the See Also section

I think there should be a link in the see also section to Nietzschean Zionism, as there is a significant amount of overlap here. Nietzsche wasn’t an antisemite per se, but he did hold a dim view of Judaism and the culture of diaspora Jews. It followed that the latter could only become free if they “reinvented” themselves in a more assertive and muscular fashion. Many of the early Zionist leaders were heavily influenced by Nietzsche, as his ideas were in vogue in Germany at the time. Costin Alamariu (aka Bronze Age Pervert), a contemporary example of a Jewish Nietzschean, would be another possible link since he has described the history of Zionism similarly. I believe Alamariu has gone so far as to say that Zionism was indeed antisemitic, but in a “good” (for the Jews) way.

I also wonder about possible non-Jewish analogues. Perhaps there should be a link to the New Negro article, since the Harlem Renaissance writers had a similar outlook (as many of them held the “old”, rural Black culture in contempt, which could be seen as a form of internalized racial prejudice on the part of post-Great Migration, urbanized, academically-minded Black people). Consider all the flak Zora Neale Hurston took for her more sympathetic look at the older Black culture, for instance; she was accused of internalized racism, but one could easily argue it was her critics who were actually the ones displaying it. It’s really just the ever-present respectability politics or cultural cringe debate, just in different contexts. The Zionist vs. diaspora Jewish rivalry is just one more example of that, it seems.2600:1014:B072:E984:A06A:7823:15CC:5190 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of the introduction and sourcing

Can you help me understand the article? The introduction begins by defining Zionist antisemitism as a phenomenon among anti-semites. In the 2nd paragraph, a link between Zionist movement and anti-semites is being made. This is done with an out of context quote of Herzl by Joseph Massad as well as refering to Karl Kraus idea of the "essence" of zionism. Yet, the source is Paul Reitter and there is simply no way to glean from that source what Karl Kraus meant by this and what his idea about it was. So the 2nd paragraph and the connection of Zionist to antisemites appears wholy unsourced.

To be clear, I don't want to dispute the idea of Zionist leaders, for their own goals, using and exploiting antisemites. Yet the essence of the paragraph appears to point to an entirely different connection. A connection with the same goals and the same "essence". If that is indeed at the heart of this wikipedia article, wouldn't we require more sourcing and explanations? So far it appears that the body of the article merely points to some quotes and ideas and isn't fleshed out whatsoever to be making that kind of connection.

I'm asking because it appears to me that the antisemites to zionism connection, the first part, is a lot more clear and fleshed connection in the body of the article. Yet both connections (antisemites->zionism and zionism->antiseimtes) are featured prominently in the introduction 2003:F3:172F:6E5F:718A:5854:45BA:9A6C (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)