Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Zionism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

"Far right" anti-Zionism

Quote: 'Western far right anti-Zionists see the state of Israel as something Jewish, therefore evil. From late 1990s, most of far-right parties looking for political presence had to abandon anti-Zionism platform to distinguish themselves from far-left and even moderate left parties that took this platform over.'

This sentence is ungrammatical and logically pernicious. It presumes a) The far right is racist, and supposedly used to be anti-Zionist out of hatred of the Jews b) The far right is capricious, and supposedly is now pro-Zionist to spite the left. Does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. ralian 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Equal citizens

A question to the editor who pushes the word "equal" in one-state solution: is this equality guaranteed? The history of dhimmitude, the UN Arab Human evelopment Report and the Covenant of HAMAS are not convincing precedents of equality in the Arab world. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Definition

Look, that quoted paragraph in the "Definition" section really has to go. It comes from a totally biased source and doesn't merely define, but also casts aspersions upon so called "anti-zionists." By talking about "existence," the cited paragraph taints "anti-zionists" by association with the Holocaust.

Moreover, we should not be using a definition provided by such an unapologetically zionist website, let alone featuring it so prominently.

Example: When discussing anti-free trade advocates, we don't define them by pasting an extract from a pro-free trade website characterizing them as, say, "leftists hostile to economic liberty who would like to see our right of absolute free enterprise cease to exist." Now it is possible that some anti-free traders are indeed opposed to the very existence of free enterprise, but that is a special case. More generally, an opponent of free trade opposes the existence of international free enterprise IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

Can anyone really defend this defintion or its high position in the text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hazel Rah (talk • contribs).

The source (which looks fine to me) doesn't matter in this case: we are not taking their side. Do you have anything to say on the subject? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I summed up my thoughts fairly well. But of course you are taking "the side" of the people from the yahoodi website by the very fact that you present their unabashedly politicized CHARACTERAZATION of "anti-zionism" as so very authoritative.

Example: Should Wikipeda define the word "pornography" by copying and pasting the partisan perspectives of a Feminist or Evangelical Christian website? Especially if the definition were blatently baised? Do you really think it would be NPOV for Wikipedia to define pornography as "sexual exploitation," for example?

All I'm asking is that you at least attempt to defend this definiton of "anti-zionism." Just because it "looks fine to you," doesn't mean it's NPOV. That isn't a valid defence. Do you belive that your point of view subsumes everybody elses? Clearly the definition provided does not look "fine to me." If you to want keep that section, you need to give real reasons. Hazel Rah 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For this particular def. we honestly provide the source and say that this is one possible way to define it, without taking sides. You are saying you don't like the source; it seems you simply don't like the text. Let's keep on-topic: what exactly do you object to? Do you have an alternative definition in mind? Without a good explanation your personal preference is not a reason enough to change or remove it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But your selective choice of an admitedly biassed source does reveal a POV when you ignor the other equally biased "sides" who define/characterize "anti-zionism" in a positive light. I agree that the page looks better after someone apparently rearranged that section so that the quote is featured less prominently. Don't you agree? I think it's just more productive to get rid of this paragraph rather than starting a tit-for-tat war between two "sides." That's just my opinion though.

At any rate, this section shouldn't stand in it's current incarnation. ````

Still nothing specific on topic... You may check the article's edit history: I've moved that quote down a bit in the spirit of good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with Hazal Ra. Either:

) We put up a definition from an unbiased source or
) We put up a definition from a Zionist source AND one from an Anti-Zionist source.Loodog 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On the first option, how are you going to judge the neutrality of that source? On the second, I don't have a problem with an alternative encyclopedic def. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Loodog. I have taken the initiative and deleted that reference. Humus won't address any of my points, so I feel he has no relevance in this debate. Hazel Rah 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any of your points other that you don't like the source. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you fail to address any of my points.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hazel Rah (talk • contribs).

Hazel Rah, other than your personal dislike I don't see any "points". Banning a sourced definition will not work. Also, please watch WP:3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish anti-Zionism

The section on Jewish anti-Zionism duplicates the article Jewish Anti-Zionism. I do not object to the content, but unless there is a good reason for duplication, I am planning to shorten the section here. Please help making this consistent with other WP articles/subartcles. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the reference to the Satmars as the largest Hassidic group - the Lubavatchers have probably about 200,000 adherents and are widely cosidered the largest Hassidic group. Incorrect 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Peace encyclopedia"

I removed the following from the definitions section for the time being:

According to the Peace Encyclopedia, "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's "secure and defensible borders" should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation." [1]

The website this is taken from, yahoodi.com[2], has a quite right-wing pro-zionist agenda and is is obviously pretty POV. There's nothing wrong with this in and of itself - but in order to balance it out we would instead end up getting into explaining this bias. Succinctly, there are better ways of "defining" anti-zionism without getting bogged down in explaining POV stuff.

TreveX^talk 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I'll have to disagree. There were complaints earlier that we are defining Zionism here instead of anti-Zionism. Now that we are defining anti-Zionism, one of the definitions gets removed because some deem its source as "right-wing pro-Zionist". Even if this is true, surely it is only fair for "pro-zionists" to have a word in an article on Anti-Zionism. I think Peace Encyclopedia qualifies as a reputable source: it claims to be (no affiliation here) a collective effort by technocrats who have "a doctorate in the sciences, have belonged to a recognized skeptics organization, have submitted a patent application...", etc., and we mention their definition attributed, without embracing their position. As for "better ways of "defining" anti-zionism", removing a definition just because some personally don't like it (or its source) won't work. Let's keep in mind, this is a very polarizing conflict in general. If you see any error in the definition itself, please discuss it. If you find an alternative encyclopedic definition, feel free to add it. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that the title 'peace encyclopedia' is misleading as this website bears a greater likeness to a blog entry, rather than some authoratitive and balanced work. I didn't remove it because of some personal dislike but because it wasn't qualified in any way and thought doing so would drag the whole section off-topic. I have now re-contextualised this quote. Is this something we can both live with? :-) TreveX^talk 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Some Zionists" - I don't know their affiliation with specific political movement/ideology. I am going to change this to "The Peace Encyclopedia" contends on its website...

"all anti-Zionism repudiates Israel's right to exist" - why would we rephrase their definition? Also, where did "all" come from? I don't want to misrepresent them or anyone else. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

An alternative could be "The Society for Rational Peace" contends that... ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "The zionist Society for Rational Peace contends that..."? TreveX^talk 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who qualified them so? See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Just look at their website. Any resonable person can see that they are Zionists. They even have a page defending Zionism against common criticisms[3]. Also the links to pro-Israel HonestReporting.com and accusing CNN of a pro-Palestinian bias. TreveX^talk 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, "Any resonable person can see that..." the UK, the USSR, and the UN "... are Zionists": the 1st ran the British Mandate of Palestine whose stated goal was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", the 2nd vocally supported the establishment of the State of Israel, and the 3rd passed the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Of course it would be wrong to qualify any of them Zionist. Anyway, I saw your edit and hope we're reached a compromise. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have reached a compromise. However, how you can't see that the "Peace Encyclpedia" is ideologically Zionist is completely beyond me. Furthermore WP:NOR has absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with qualifying sources, in contrast to WP:RS.TreveX^talk 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, I appreciate you being reasonable. I think we should not characterize our sources on ideological basis. If they do it themselves, or if someone else does it, that woudn't be a poroblem. My opinion (or yours, with all due respect) doesn't matter. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If an article is about an ideology, then stating the perpective a source has on this ideology seems basic good practice. This seems to be standard throughout Wikipedia. If, for example, the Cato Institute was quoted in an article about the free market, then the article would state that the organisation is in favour of free trade etc. The Society for Rational Peace are obviously Zionists and I believe this would be held up in a WP:RFC, of course now we have settled the wording this won't be necessary. TreveX^talk 22:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus & TreveX. I don't want to stir up anything, now that you've reached a compromise. :) I just have a question, as a new Wikipedian: Why even cite a website? I realize that this is in a section about various definitions (of a hot topic, to boot), and that there is another section on dictionary definitions. But I thought it was preferable to stick to "authoritative" sources like scholarly (peer-reviewed) books & journal articles. Z Wylld 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That was part of my original point - that the so-called "Peace Encyclopedia" is a glorified blog. The title, however, may mislead people into believing that this definition carries some scholarly weight, which it clearly does not.TreveX^talk 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Z Wylld, welcome to the project. TreveX, I don't think it is fair to dismiss them as "a glorified blog", but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I guess their def. is not in the section Dictionary definitions exactly because it is not a dic. def., but if someone moves it there I won't object.

Re: citing, please see WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers.←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep refering me to policy pages like you are trying to invoke some kind of authority. I am well aware of the rules around citing sources. Perhaps you should take a second look at WP:RS -- "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." TreveX^talk 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Z Wylld's question/suggestion - sorry I didn't make it clear. I do not deny that the SRP has some bias (I doubt it's possible to find a party/observer commonly accepted as neutral). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

clarification needed: Anti-Zionism in Japan

From main article: Antisemitism in Japan

"Originally Japan, with no Jewish population, had no anti-Semitism but Nazi ideology and propaganda left an influence on Japan during World War II, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were translated into Japanese."-I can see the validity of that statement, but one must realize that not all books published in Japan are as the result of Nazi ideology.

In the early Imperial Japan, Japanese scholars have studies cultures comparatively by discussing things in binary manner. 1)"Japan vs China" 2)"The West" vs "The East" 3)"polytheism" vs "monotheism"

Just like the way Western anthropologists/sociologists/psychologists are fascinated by the foreign culture of "animism", It is natural for the Japanese scholars to objectify, "what is monotheism". Japan,a polytheistic country which never had history of being a Christian empire/state, is particularly interested in the shift from a polytheistic community to a monotheistic community. In order to theorize this question, they take the example of Mozes initiating monotheism.

Japan, which fought the Russo-Japanese war with a American Jewish sponsors who were against Russia (and as the result Japan won) knows what the economical status of the Jews can affect the political game.

I would like the following points to be clearly: -Japanese culture "others" monotheism. -Japan had its own understanding of "Jewish gold" before the Nazi influence.

Thanks for reading

I currently do not have a wiki account, but I am wondering if somebody is willing to reflect some of my perspectives to the main page.

~~s~~

Re: the Defining anti-Zionism section

The second to last paragraph of the Defining Anti-Zionism section states that: The Society for Rational Peace contends on its website that "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation."

I believe that this statement should be followed by something like this paragraph (an edited sample from the Western anti-Zionism section further down the page): Most Western anti-Zionism advocates coexistence rather than expulsion: very few western intellectuals actively desire the physical destruction of Israel, and most would welcome any settlement if it was acceptable to the Palestinians.

As it now stands, I think that the Defining anti-Zionism section leans too far toward radical anti-Zionism. Any thoughts? --(Mingus ah um 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Mignus, I completely agree. I just deleted that part for like the millionth time. But this one user just wont' give up and no matter how often you give your reasons, he just ignors then and won't adress your comments. He himself never offers any justification for why the paragraph should be included. I think it's pretty aparent that that paragraph comes from an openly zionist website, and is really just an underhanded attempt to slander people opposesd to zionism and/ or nationalism in general. Hazel Rah 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add verifiable and reputable definition but do not remove a referenced quote. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who are you to tell me what to do?

Hazel Rah 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

False anti-zionism

This section completely begs the question as written. As written it assumes there is a distinction between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. I'm rephrasing to remove the POV Jbolden1517 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a distinction in fact between the two concepts is open to debate; however, the essence of each is distinct: disagreement with the state of Israel's current existence vs. discrimination against Jews. They may be the same thing, as many will argue, but the underlying concepts from which each is derived are different. Additionally, for it to be "begging the question" it would have to making logical argument based on fact, when an encyclopedic article is merely (in theory) stating fact with minimal accompanying judgement. The article shouldn't be taking sides as to whether anti-zionism and anti-semitism are distince, anyway. Define book as "a set of written pieces of material" is not begging the question. Loodog 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

defintion

The definition of anti-zionism:

In addition to a conventional definition of anti-Semitism ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), the unabridged edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, originally published in 1961 and reprinted in 2002, gives a controversial second and third definition to anti-Semitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel".

I don't mean to start up a whole debate on whether there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, but as an encyclopedia, when concept A is defined, the writing doesn't abruptly jump to defining concept B without providing transition. (e.g. Define electron: the definition of electricity is ...) Without a transition sentence (e.g. "Because little distinction is made between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, it is convenient to instead define anti-semitism" would be such a sentence, not that I agree with it), the defintion part of the article fails to make sense to the reader seeking information.Loodog 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

Is it racism or not? By the categories it is, but by the article it's not (Anti-Zionism#Jewish anti-Zionism). I myself don't consider anti-Zionism as racism, though many anti-Zionists are anti-Semetic. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody remotely mainstream considers anti-zionism to be anti-semitic in of itself, however anti-zionism is often used as a more "respectable" front for anti-semitism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But does plain anti-Zionism means for racism? I think the answer is no, although it is popular in anti-Semetic circles, being anti-Zionist does not make you racist as Zionism is an ideology and not a race\religion. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Both Zionism and anti-Zionism can be racist or anti-racist depending on the context. In large part it depends on which theory of international relations the writer endorses. --Ian Pitchford 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Socialist Anti-Zionism"?

I wonder why the section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" was removed... that, more than any other opposition to Zionism, is the key to what's going on in the modern world. Darth Sidious 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed....the LARGEST Jewish organization in Eastern Europe between the turn of the century and WWII was the Jewish Socialist Bund, an ideologically anti-Zionist orgazation. Indeed, the majority of Jews prior to the German occupation of the Eastern Europe and Russia were not Zionists were opposed to Zionism. The Bund piece needs to be put back.--DavidMIA 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA

Soviet Anti-Zionism

I do not believe that this should be included in the Anti-Zionsim section, as it draws influences from anti-semitism. For years now Israel has claimed that any opposition to zionism is infact anti-semitism, and I think it is time westarted distinguishing between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss501hm (talk • contribs)

Many reputable historians (not only Israeli historians or Israeli officials) agree that it had indeed strong antisemitic undertones. Believe it or not, the fact is that the Soviets insisted it to be Anti-Zionism and not Antisemitism, so it surely belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"...Soviet government liquidated almost all Jewish organizations, and placed synagogues under police surveillance, both openly and through the use of informers. "

The Soviet government liquidated ALL relgious organizations and placed ALL places of worship under police surveillence. The USSR was an anti-Religious state, and this quotation needs to be put into that context.Crocodilicus 00:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Crocodilicus, this is false: "The Soviet government liquidated ALL relgious organizations". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, everyone caught in a ... Who is that Russian guy walking around the cathedral in Moscow in black robes, the janitor? The Russian church is and always has been doing quite well - bigger attedance that the US and certainly Europe. Anti-religious, no, they just didn't invite Billy Graham to bless their wars - the politicians blessed them themselves. Liquidated Jewish organizations - this may be recently true not historically. They, Putin, is probably trying to trace their GNP losses. Putin is hot on the trail of recapturing Russia's assets that seemed to have been sold ( stolen? - who had the authority to sell Russian oil wells to the US, etc ) by people who left for NYC and ........let's say elsewhere. Neat trick.

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and the Left

The author wrote that the Kaplan and Small article stated that "Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe's newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties"

However this is not in the article (see also <http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/jcr_antisemitism.pdf>).

In <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism> there is proper documentation on the combination of Left and Anti-Zionism. Perhaps that section could be used for improvement of this article?:

In fact, the statement is a plagiarized from one Diana Muir (references: <http://www.think-israel.org/jul06bloged.html> <http://hnn.us/articles/28503.html>). This appears to be her summary/interpretation of the article. I myself admit that I have not digested the whole of the Kaplan article and I am not well-versed in statistics, so whether this is a valid conclusion based upon the evidence eludes me. Nevertheless I shall attribute it to her shortly, since A) It is her opinion and B) To plug it without citing her is plagiarism.

On another note, the Kaplan paper's methodology seems somewhat questionable. The questions purported to gauge Anti-Zionism are skewed in such a way as to correlate more strongly with Anti-Semitism. For example, (paraphrase) "Do you think Israeli soldiers intentionally target civilians," is but, "Do you think that the IDF are butchers?" writ large, and the question about whether you think Palestinian suicide bombings are OK is even worse. But then again, this depends on your opinion of what Anti-Zionism is, and in my estimation Kaplan et al. believes that it is the desire for the destruction of the Israeli state (and is thus identical, or nearly identical, to Anti-Seminitism), or else he would have asked different questions. Perhaps this should be stated? Emoticon 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this links should be studies

I assure everyone that this is not biased or racist and almost all the information given I have looked at independently. These views add an extra dimenstion to Zionism and show how it victimized Jews and non-Jews alike.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary

This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...

http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm

69.196.164.190

I don't think videos of machine-read conspiracy theories (or even their texts), written by non-notable anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and hosted on anti-Semitic websites, are really helpful to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Long list of Rabbis

Recently a long list of Rabbis who support Anti-Zionism has been added to the article. Could references to this claim from reliable sources (i.e. not personal websites leading to P.O. boxes or home addresses) be provided? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuous Anti-Zionism

I have reworded the following sentence for grammar, but it seems to me that it either needs a) references (which will be hard to find), b) more weasel words (which are to be avoided), or c) to be removed. It's not a completely worthless point, but it needs support.

"Other states, including those such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Syria that do not formally recognise Israel, as well as Egypt, which has recognised Israel, may be more interested in a perpetual fight against Israel as a decoy for public anger, rather than its destruction."

Gandhi

I've removed the statement on Gandhi from the intro. It seems like a violation of WP:NOR to point to a bunch of excerpts from Gandhis comments about the Jews and conclude that he was anti-zionist. He certainly didn't support the actions Zionists took in the thirties but I also get the impression that he would have supported a binational state had such a thing been feasible. The point, however, is that looking at primary sources and drawing a conclusion is OR, a wikipedian can't do that, there has to be a reliable source that does that job. Of course a secondary argument is whether statements made before Israel's creation are relevant to a discussion of Anti-Zionism. Zionism after all changed dramatically after the war of independence and listing a guy who stated his opinions mostly before the 48 war in an introduction to anti-zionism doesn't seem like the best idea. Regardless, lets keep the discussion here at the talk page rather than descend into an edit war. GabrielF 18:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will this do?

My sympathies are all with the Jews. I have known them intimately in South Africa. Some of them became life-long companions. Through these friends I came to learn much of their age-long persecution. They have been the untouchables of Christianity. The parallel between their treatment by Christians and the treatment of untouchables by Hindus is very close. Religious sanction has been invoked in both cases for the justification of the inhuman treatment meted out to them. Apart from the friendships, therefore, there is the more common universal reason for my sympathy for the Jews.

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

- Gandhi, in 'The Jews,' Harijan, November 26, 1938, emphasis added.

BrerRabbit 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'd like you to state, quite simply, that you deny that Gandhi was an anti-Zionist, and then we can argue that. I will state quite simply that he was an anti-Zionist, that his contemporaries recognized it, that his writings reflected it, etc., etc., etc. If there is no denial of the claim that he was an anti-Zionist, then I think it is appropriate to balance the introduction's accusation from Martin Luther King with a comment that another important civil rights leader stood on the opposite side of the question.

I dislike, I have to say, the tone of your "secondary arguments" sentence. It gives the impression that you have decided, regardless of what is appropriate, that you want the reference to Gandhi suppressed, and that you will make whatever argument you feel you need to make in order to accomplish that goal. Can we not decide before we discuss facts how exactly the matter of including the reference should be decided? I'm sorry if it leans toward failing to assume good faith, but I don't want to have the rules repeatedly changed on me in discussing this matter, and your "secondary arguments" sentence gave me a bad impression.

Again, and more clearly this time, I think the determining matter should be whether or not Gandhi was by any reasonable interpretation an anti-Zionist. If he was, then the statement from MLK to the effect that all anti-Zionists are really anti-Semites should be balanced with this information.

BrerRabbit 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

See if you like my rewording. BrerRabbit 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

First, don't accuse me of suppressing information when I was the one who asked to discuss it on the talk page. Second, the rewording is better since it doesn't claim something the citation can't back up (that Gandhi was one of the moral leaders of anti-zionism) but it still needs to date Gandhi's statement. (Although I would prefer a link to a scholarly source on Gandhi's anti-zionism) I will date the MLK statement as well. GabrielF 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be clear about what the original wording said: that Gandhi was a moral leader, and that he was an anti-Zionist. Not that he was a moral leader of anti-Zionism. Gandhi's statements opposing Zionism covered a period of 27 years, but I'll put something in to date them. Also, I wrote that your sentence had given the impression that you wanted to suppress information for the reasons I gave. BrerRabbit 19:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Suppress Ganhdi's comments - you don't think Zionists only want the world to think that nuts think that way do you? That piece from Gandhi sounds like the President of Iran - just done by a better speaker. Attention watchlist!!! Go make AHmendddwhatever look good - he has Gandhi's support!!! Wiki scores one for the opposition again - guys your goal is at the other end.

Martin Luther King quote

The alleged Dr Martin Luther King quote "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism” is a well-known hoax. I've taken the liberty to remove it.MeteorMaker 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You confused a hoax letter that was not cited here with true quote. I hope that the provided reference helps. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the required provenance for a quote? Is it enough that one of the person's colleagues is said to claim to remember a chat with the audience after a speech 40 years ago, when the words were supposedly uttered? MeteorMaker 23:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I see someone else noticed this, before I did. I checked the reference and as far as I can see there is no such quote. Its stems from that notorious faked speech and letter. MLK never said that. The other problem was that it gives too much prominence of that controversial fringe POV that equates Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism by putting it in the introduction. It should be kept in its own section under New Anti-Semitism where this POV can be extressed--not in the intro. If you are not convinced think about the Zionsims article having mention of the POV that Zionism is regarded as a form of racism, in the intro! Ofcourse that would not be correct. For the same reasons this fringe POV should not be part of the intro.Giovanni33 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Giovanni33 wikistalked me here. What "the reference" did you check: Encounter magazine, December 1969? Since there are complaints that MLK quote is too prominent in the intro, I am moving it, together with ref to Gandhi (we're all for NPOV, right?) to their respective sections. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The word "interview" seems misleading, it appears as if the alleged words were spoken in a meeting with media and became recorded on the occasion. The truth (if the sole person who claims to remember to have heard Dr King speak them 36 years earlier is to be trusted) is that the words were in response to a question from the audience. From the reference (named "Letter by Martin Luther King a Hoax"): "During an appearance at Harvard University shortly before his death, a student stood up and asked King to address himself to the issue of Zionism. The question was clearly hostile. King responded, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism.”

I know all of Jesus' alleged words are recollections by colleagues, written down decades after the fact, but hasn't fact checking evolved a bit since? MeteorMaker 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[4] is not a reliable source, and neither is Lee Green. Please use a more reliable source for the quote to prove it was actually said.--Sefringle 04:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your source provides a link to a letter identified as a hoax. See above. Reverted. Please find a better source. --Uncle Bungle 05:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA is not a reliable source. We should have a link to a letter taht does not say the quote was a hoax.--Sefringle 21:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The letter is a hoax though. We should have a reference from the publication in question. CAMERA is a lousy source. --Uncle Bungle 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The letter is not a hoax. Anyone can say it is a hoax to better suit a political agenda. That doesn't mean it really is.--Sefringle 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhmmm, it really is a hoax. read on. I said CAMERA is a lousy source because I would prefer a publication from around the time of the alleged statement. However, read on, and you'll find that it is infact fradulent. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It does feel like Congressman Lewis' story comes from the hoax letter's language, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Defining Anti-Zionism - The Society for Rational Peace

Who is the Society for Rational Peace? What individual at the SRP' offered the definition below? In what capacity is that individual qualified to define Anti-Zionism? I call into question the reliability of this definition.

Update October 9: Removed source for statement Some supporters of Zionism go so far as to say that all expressions of anti-Zionism qualify as anti-Semitism. and replaced it with {{fact}} as even as a secondary source, "The Peace Encyclopedia" will remain dubious until the above questions are answered. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Society for Rational Peace contends on its website that "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation.

I was the one who added it. I am not affiliated with them. Their website (AKA The Peace Encyclopedia) says who they are. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus sapiens thank you for replying. Please answer the very reasonable questions above as I was unable to locate any of that information on the website. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I did not find much info about SRP, I won't insist on leaving them out. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-organize introductory paragraphs

I re-organized the introductory sections in an effort to eliminate repetitive content. The old version had two explanations of a binational solution, had types under defining, definition under types, and was generally a mess. As far as I know, no information was removed, and it still doesn't flow very well, but at least it's a little more orderly. Comments welcome. --Uncle Bungle 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Bungle. As you requested, I'm here to try to help. Can you be a little more explicit about what you want to fix, and why? That would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg, thank you. The introduction has two nearly identical explanations of a bi-national solution. There is a short description of muslim anti-Zionism under defining, and a longer one under types. Also, the two sections, defining and types, seem to basically serv the same purpose of, generally, explaning what anti-Zionism is. There is also some history under defining. There is a hacked up version on my user page which explains basically what I want to do with it. All I want to do is cover muslim anti-Zionism together in one place, bi-national anti-Zionism in another, and eliminate reptitive comments. I have no interest in changing the intent of the content, just straighten it up. What do you think? Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If I understand your version correctly, the first and third paragraphs are essentially repetitive. In addition, the old version gave context and definition first, then delved into specific examples, whereas your version did the opposite. The former would seem preferable for understanding. It seems to me your purpose would be better served by simply removing the phrase for instance by those who advocate a binational state comprising the territories of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which both Jews and Palestinians would be citizens. Other "Anti-Zionists", such as some Palestinian militant groups, call for the total elimination (by whatever means) of the Jewish presence in the region of Palestine, which includes the territory of the State of Israel. from the introduction, and removing the section header "Anti-Zionism dictionary definitions". I'll show you what I mean in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jayjg. It looks great, thank you for your help. The only other thing I would like considered is mentioning the AAADC opposition to the definition of anti-Semitism, and the ADL response to it. It seems irrelevant to me since neither organization actually publishes a dictionary of their own, or has exclusive rights to represent the feelings of a particular ethnic group. In my opinion, both statements could be removed and the article would lose nothing. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just as a quick follow up, there are two statements in there about Miriam webster reps caling the definition a "relic". Only one is necessary, I think. I'll let you decide how to best re-work it. Thanks again. --Uncle Bungle 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)