Talk:Anti-Zionism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal:Israel
 Israel Portal
Anti-Zionism is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu):
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Zionism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7

Contents

[edit] Reinhart quote

Several days ago I removed the following quote, to general consensus:

According to Tanya Reinhardt, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University who said she was speaking as one who loves the country and its people, "Being against Israel is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have. ... The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."[1]

The quote itself has been placed in the Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section, yet does not refer to either anti-Zionism or antisemitism. Rather, it is original research intended to refute other points made about anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Please make sure quotes are on relevant, on-topic, and not original research. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We are freely mixing the concepts of anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Zionism. Do we know they're the same? Any source linking them? --Abenyosef 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Where are we "freely mixing" them? Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In citing Kaplan and Small, who never say "anti-Zionism" in their paper. --Abenyosef 12:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Reinhardt quote is extremely relevant (having put in there in the first place). Zionism as an ideology supports the estbliahment of a Jewish state in Palestine; i.e. Israel. Reinhardt directly challenges that notion by questioning whether or not Israel serves the needs of Jewish people. Additionally, there are a number of quotes throughout the article that seem to designed to drive home the idea that anti-Zionists are Jew-haters. Reinhardt, a Jewish Israeli, directly refutes these ideas in the quote provided. It is there for purposes of balance considering the overwhelmingly Zionist POV saturating this article. I think it should stay. Tiamut 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you reviewed original research, which forbids addition of material if "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"? That is exactly what you are doing here. Reinhardt is not talking about the linkage between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, which is the subject of the section. Indeed, she's not even talking about anti-Zionism. If you wish to "balance" the "overwhelmingly Zionist POV saturating this article", you'll need to do it with sources discussing anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Jayjg (talk) 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If that is not the right place for it (directly after a strong POV accusing anti-Zionists of anti-Semitism), where would you suggest? I noticed that the section on anti-Zionist Jews lacks a thorough discussion of secular Jewish opposition to Zionism. I am willing to write it and it should definitely include this quote. Will post my suggestion for that section here. Would appreciate any help in constructing it.Tiamut 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why must there be a place for it? Why not include more relevant material instead? Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is a broad topic, which includes criticism of Israeli policies. Reinhardt's quote strikes me as obviously relevant. Would we otherwise have to stick to people who specifically say they're defending or attacking "anti-Zionism" by name? I don't think this is there to advance an opinion either, but to provide a balanced discussion of the topic. Mackan79 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty of balance in the article, and on top of being a linguist, not an expert on Zionism or antisemitism, Reinhardt refers to criticizing Israel, which Zionists do every day, and not to anti-Zionism nor antisemitism. The claim that she is referring to anti-Zionism is pure OR. Jayjg (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Your intellectual dishonesty knows no limits. Muir, a historian, is entitled to talk about statistics, but Reinhardt, a linguist, is not entitled to talk about Zionism?
Also, Reinhardt is to be excluded, because she talks about criticism of Israel, not anti-Zionism, but Kaplan and Small are to be included, although their survey is about attitudes toward Israel, not about anti-Zionism?
I support the inclusion of the Reinhardt quote. It's relevant and on-topic, given the general tone of the section in which the concepts of anti-Israel attitudes and anti-Zionism are freely mixed. It isn't true that Reinhardt has no consensus.--Abenyosef 16:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Speaking of bad sources, why have Anindya Bhattacharyy of The Socialist Worker and Michael Rosen, and author of children's books, been quoted here? In what way are their opinions reliable or notable? Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Clearly Zionism and Anti-Zionism are topics which relate to Israel and criticism of Israel at a fundamental and primary level. The connection here is not original research any more than the inclusion of Bauer's statement in the immediately previous paragraph which does not use the word "Zionism" either. Both discuss being against Israel. If there is better material, I would be happy to substitute it, but I also think it should be kept until that time, as the response to the previous statement is otherwise lost. Mackan79 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Added: we can't have three people in a row talking about why anti-Zionism is antisemitism without a response. Reinhardt's statement is directly on point to Bauer's, and thus fits appropriately there. There's much we could clean up, but it shouldn't be by simply deleting disfavored voices. Mackan79 18:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that an opposing opinion would be appropriate here, but the Reinhardt quote isn't addressing the same issue as the paragraph its responding to. There are many better quotes out there. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss Natan Sharansky's criteria for when anti-Zionism constitutes anti-semitism and see if someone has responded to him. GabrielF 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think balance of some sort is needed, then get a better source. Most of the sources inserted recently have been terrible; unknowns writing for The Socialist Worker, authors of children books! Jayjg (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mackan that there should be a response (which I though Roland's Klug passage was...), but the Reinhardt quote doesn't refer to anti-Zionism. Lets do better. TewfikTalk 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but why was the quote removed? The issue here, I'm pretty sure, is whether the material is relevant or not, not whether it addresses the exact point made by the previous author. Pro-Life and Pro-Choice don't address the exact same point either, but we also recognize that they're discussing the same issue. Alternatively, you could consider the claim that Democrats just want to raise taxes. If responding, someone had said "What Democrats acknowledge that Republicans don't is that the government has to pay for certain services like healthcare and education, and this actually costs money," would we say that wasn't relevant because it didn't address whether Democrats want to raise taxes? The problem, of course, is that you're suggesting the one side should entirely frame the debate in the other's terms, by arguing that anybody who fails to use their terms is not relevant. This clearly violates NPOV, while serving no apparent purpose. I'd ask, if you think that other material would better fit here, that you find that material, not simply keep deleting what we have, which creates a clear NPOV problem which everybody seems to acknowledge.Mackan79 22:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the WP:NOR policy? You can't do original research to make your arguments. If someone notable has made this argument in the context of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, that's fine, but you can't make the argument for them, no matter how good or valid an argument you think it is. Also, please respond regarding the various non-notables being quoted here. Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, until fairly recently, The Socialist Worker was specifically mentioned by WP:RS as a non-reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I just said I think you're misusing NOR to require that all material be framed in the terms used by one side. That's not enforcing NOR; that's simply enforcing a single POV. Indeed, it seems the only way you'd admit relevance to this section is if an opponent started their sentence "Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism because [quote till end of sentence]." But according to this standard, Bauer's statement doesn't qualify either. Where does he say he's talking about anti-Zionism? If you can explain why Bauer's statement is not OR but Reinhardt's is, I'll rethink. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to wikilawyer disfavored information out of the article. Regarding the other questions, I'll have to go back and check. Mackan79 23:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
But the Reinhardt quote isn't about abolishing Israel, it's about criticism of Israel. Criticism of Israel isn't anti-Zionism either. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Jay, I think the two quotes could hardly even be more on point. Bauer says if you're against the existense of Malaysia, you're anti-Malay. Reinhart says that "Being against Israel is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." She says "A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel." I would call that directly related. In any case, who said wanting to abolish Israel is anti-Zionism? I'd suggest we need to take a little step back here. Bauer is presenting an argument, and Reinhart is addressing that argument. If two quotes should ever go together, I think it might be these two... Mackan79 00:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
"who said wanting to abolish Israel is anti-Zionism?" If that's not anti-Zionism, it's hard to imagine what is. You're just playing games now. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha, well, what's your source? The connection from Reinhart is hardly less obvious, while you just got done saying obviousness isn't even the issue. I'm not playing games; I think both statements are relevant. I'm just not sure how you're saying one is and the other isn't. If you're wanting to exclude things as irrelevant, it seems you ought to be able to explain this.Mackan79 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Opposition to the existence of Israel is the very definition of Anti-Zionism. Criticism of Israel is something Zionists do every day; read the Israeli newspapers, or listen to the debates in the Knesset. Jayjg
If you're demanding sources for absolutely everything, you can't refuse to provide them yourself. I'd like to know what standard you're using. Are you saying that anti-Zionism refers only to the effort to destroy Israel? I think it's substantially broader. I'll offer another quote from Reinhart below. Mackan79 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to insist that if we're going to use only those materials specifically related to the purported link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, then neither Kaplan and Small nor Muir's review of their survey belong in this article. To use Jayjg's expression, none of K&S's questions are about abolishing Israel. They ask, rather, whether interviewees think that Israel intentionally targets civilians. Is anyone responding "yes" necessarily anti-Zionist? I don't think so. A person may support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish country, yet believe the present Israeli government to be very wrong.
If Kaplan, Small, and Muir belong in the article, then Reinhart also belongs in it.--Abenyosef 02:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your argument about Reinhardt, please see Ignoratio_elenchi#Tu_quoque. I still haven't heard your argument for inserting the quotes from authors of childrens' books and unknowns writing in extremist unreliable sources. I'll give you a few more hours to come up with something. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting all of this material should be removed? Mackan79 03:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that claiming "but there's other original research in there too" is not a good argument for including material that is obvious original research, as the Reinhardt quote clearly is. Jayjg (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the non-notables, I'd be fine with substituting in better authors; just so we aren't leaving large gaps. If we're going to take on an issue, I think we need to make sure we can do it some justice with the best sources we have. Mackan79 03:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

One cannot add stuff from unreliable sources simply because there are "large gaps". Please use only material that can be properly attributed. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can show the sources violate policy, they should be removed. If it's borderline, though, I think we should look for better material rather than simply deleting it.Mackan79 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, if the material cannot be properly attributed, it should not be entered in the first place, and should be removed if entered. That's policy. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Which material wasn't attributed? Could you add fact tags? Mackan79 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT insists that material must come from reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The material is properly attributed. You claim that "until fairly recently, The Socialist Worker was specifically mentioned by WP:RS as a non-reliable source." Well, that was until fairly recently. Now things have changed and the Worker is reliable, unless you have proof to the contrary.
Michael Rosen is as good a source about anti-Zionism as, say, Diana Muir is about statistics. He's a well-known poet and recently published his first book for adults on Jewish and socialist themes. He's a very good source for both Jewish and leftist non-antisemitic anti-Zionism. --Abenyosef 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Just because specific examples were removed from the guideline, it doesn't make extremist sources suddenly "reliable". Unknowns who publish in extremist sources are not reliable sources on this topic, nor are poets and authors of children's books. And I'm not going to argue more nonsense with you; use reliable sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't bully me; it just doesn't work. Remember that the last time you claimed I was talking nonsense, you were forced to remove the King quote. I expect better behavior from and admin, especially when he's already been proven wrong once. --Abenyosef 04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wasn't "forced" to remove any quote at all, I explicitly replaced it with a better one; you should follow that example. And I'm not "bullying you", nor have I been "proven wrong once", I'm just telling you I won't be trolled. That starts now. Jayjg (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interview with Reinhart, where I think she makes the point pretty clearly[2]:

Elmer: I want to talk to you about the political uses of anti-Semitism. Tel Aviv University has published a report entitled Anti-Semitism Worldwide wherein it claims: "The barriers between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have been lifted and the two merged." What are your thoughts on conflating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism?
Reinhart: I haven't seen the specific report, but the claim is of course very widespread. Usually the source of this claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is Israeli propaganda, and its very well-oiled branches of the pro-Israel lobby across the world.
The supposition in this claim is that if you look at Israel's behaviour, it is essentially alright: it is a country defending itself, and it is doing what is necessary to defend itself - there isn't anything peculiar about it. Therefore there must be some hidden reason why people criticize Israel and object to Israel's acts in the Territories, and what could that reason be if not anti-Semitism? The reason that it is picked on is because it can work - given that there was, and is, anti-Semitism, given the horrible history of the Jewish people, people do have fears of anti-Semitism.
But I don't like the term anti-Zionism to define opposition to Israeli policies, because Zionism - the way it is perceived by most Israelis - is that Jews are entitled to a State of their own. It is the liberation and self-determination of the Jewish people motivated by the Holocaust and their fate in exile.

So would we say she's talking about the alleged connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism here? Indeed, she does say at the end that she likes to avoid the term anti-Zionism. So does that make it irrelevant? I actually think it lays out the complexity of the issue perfectly, and why we can't artificially require that people refer to the word "anti-Zionism" in order to be considered relevant to this debate. It violates WP's fundamental policy, WP:NPOV ("The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly").Mackan79 04:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten an answer yet as to why we should retain Kaplan and Small's survey, which doesn't even mention anti-Zionism, or Muir's review of it. The questions in K&S's survey are not related to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. --Abenyosef 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced Reinhart per the above interview where she makes entirely clear what she's talking about (if this were necessary). Here are books she's written.[3] I also fixed the wikilink to her page Tanya Reinhart (no "d"). It's a common sentiment in response to Bauer's prevalent argument, and really needs to be there. If another source for the argument could also be found that would be good; I can't use the word "synthesis," but this whole section is kind of a jumble of views... Mackan79 15:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Perhaps when we have agreement on the balance of views to be represented in that section, we could begin reqriting for better flow between the opposing views. Tiamut 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to use a Reinhardt quote, you'd have to quote her commenting specifically on the topic, not quote her commenting on some other topic, claiming that it was relevant based on her comments in yet another place, or other things she's written. Jayjg (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Reinhardt has been there for months without anyone objecting. There's no consensus for removing her and the claim that she doesn't belong in the section is simply an opinion of yours. In this section we're freely mixing the concepts of "anti-Israel sentiment" and "anti-Zionism," as I have conclusively proved, and in that context retaining Reinhart is fully justified. --Abenyosef 16:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Jay, what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. Relating to the Bauer quote, what you're saying is that we'd have to take the quote about destroying Israel, and then another souce (potentially a dictionary, although you haven't provided one), and then engage in original research to decide that the one was talking about the other. This is not what NORprohibits. As editors, we have to be able to look at different sources and make basic decisions about which topics are relevant, based on what those sources and other sources say. Please consider your own advice that we shouldn't play games with the policy. Mackan79 18:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mackan and Abenyosef. Many compromises have been offered and given to accomodate Jayjg's objections. The last formulation before he reverted was very balanced. Tiamut 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reinhart is a linguist, and you have a direct quote from her on the subject already: "I haven't seen the specific report, but the claim is of course very widespread. Usually the source of this claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is Israeli propaganda, and its very well-oiled branches of the pro-Israel lobby across the world." Why on earth would you insist on including a quote from Reinhart to begin with, and all the more so, why a that mentions neither anti-Zionism nor antisemitism? Why wouldn't you be fighting to include an actually relevant statement she has made? Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Reinhart quote is a very appropriate other-side to Bauer's. Bauer's is an important theoretical point, that opposing a country means opposing its citizens, and even the members of that ethnic/religious group. This, of course, is the basis for many of the subsequent arguments that anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic. The quote from Reinhart, then, makes the direct response: no, opposing Israel can in fact be done in support for Jews in Israel and around the world. This is extremely apropos to the question. The other quote you mention is an attack on motives, which may also be relevant, but doesn't really address Bauer's statement. Basically, Bauer's is a theoretical argument, which I think deserves the theoretical response. Ideally Reinhart could be fleshed out with others so we didn't have to quote her so much (doing so might also clarify that Reinhart does not speak for all anti-Zionism) but I think the response as a starting point is actually pretty good. Mackan79 17:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, you think Reinhart's statement is a good counter-argument to Bauer's. The problem is, it's original research; that's why most original research is included, as a counter-argument to something else in an article. Please find a counter-argument to Bauer that is actually talking about anti-Zionism and antisemitism, ideally from a better source as well. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked why I thought this section was appropriate, and I told you. If you're going back to the OR argument, I again strongly disagree. As I noted, your standard would not allow the Bauer quote either, since that requires an evaluation of Bauer's statement to decide that it is in fact on topic. Moreover, the second quote you just suggested unequivocally establishes that this is not original synthesis, but well-established synthesis endorsed by the author herself. Did you look at Tanya Reinhart's WP page, incidentally? You seem to initially have had her name wrong. It appears she is well-published on the issue. The possibility that others could be more published is not a reason to remove her, unless you find such an individual to replace her. Mackan79 18:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't take two different quotes from the author made at separate times, to separate audiences, synthesize them, and then claim the first is about the same thing as the second. Quote her talking about antisemitism or anti-Zionism, please. Also, please stop quoting letters to the editor from poets/authors of childrens books. Let's take this article seriously. Jayjg (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be taking the article or the discussion seriously when you continuously raise issues only to receive an answer and then ignore it as if it never happened. You're now saying that we can't put two sources together in a paragraph? We can't combine thoughts via use of reliable sources? Can you please clarify what you mean? How do we decide what Bauer is talking about if we can't look at other sources?
Personally, I would be willing to remove the Rosen quote, as I am not familiar with his notability, if the Reinhart quote is retained. Reinhart has written a number of books and articles on the subject, and is responding directly to the issue and to Bauer's argument. I'll try this compromise, pending opposition by others. Mackan79 22:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're now saying that we can't put two sources together in a paragraph? We can't combine thoughts via use of reliable sources? Material counts as original research if it "introduces an analysis or synthesis of published facts, opinions, or arguments in a way that advances a position favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." WP:ATT#No_original_research. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Except that this material does not advance any position that I hold, and even so, you are taking this into complete absurdity. When you put the Bauer and the Reinhart quotes together, you get an issue, with two major sides represented. You get the "Opposing Israel is opposing Israelis" view, and then you get the "Opposing Israel is supporting Israelis" view. This is the discussion we're giving: does opposing Israel mean opposing Israelis? The thing is, if we can't present both sides of this argument, then we simply can't present the argument at all, since it then could never be NPOV.
What NOR is saying, one has to think, is that you can't synthesize material in a way that promotes one viewpoint over others. It cannot prohibit the inclusion of a particular viewpoint in a paragraph because doing so would allegedly synthesize and "promote" that viewpoint simply by including it. The question would necessarily be if you're promoting it in a non-NPOV manner, not simply promoting it to a state of equality with other positions. Otherwise, a paragraph on any contentious issue would be impossible, since you could never decide that two people were talking about the same thing, unless they used exactly the same words in exactly that sentence.
You must realize that one could cripple WP by taking the concept of "no original synthesis" to a logical extreme. In any instance, you could simply say "Your decision to include that is synthesis that promotes your view point." How does one disprove this? Perhaps if you can answer that, I'll see where you're coming from. Otherwise, you still haven't explained how Bauer is relevant by Reinhart isn't. Mackan79 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
How and why does the following = Original research?
Conversely, some Jews and even Israelis reject this opinion. According to Tanya Reinhart, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University, opposition to Israel "is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." Reinhart elaborates, "The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."[2]Yas121 00:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "opposition to Zionist ideology"

I've removed the recently inserted claim that anti-Zionism is "opposition to Zionist ideology" from the lead. This phrase, complete with red-link, is unsourced and meaningless. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to put it back unless there is consensus, but how do you figure it is meaningless? Red links do not denote meaning. Isn't it sensible and just common sense that Zionist ideology is the ideology of Zionism? Mind you, poorly phrased so it should go, but just some thoughts. Vassyana 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How does "opposition to Zionist ideology" differ from "opposition to Zionism"? What exactly is the "ideology of Zionism" that people would object to it independently of their objections to Zionism? Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe in the context it was in, it refers to a political opposition. This would be distinct from a refusal to recognize Israel and religious opposition. One does not have to do either to politically oppose Zionism and its accompanying ideology, no? Of course, that's just my take, feel free to use a grain of salt or two.Vassyana 10:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't religious opposition object "Zionist ideology", whatever that is? I'm just not getting what it means. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My dear fellow, it means simply what it says. One can have opposition to the Zionist idiology without having opposition to the Jewish state (Israel), just like you can object to Communism/Socialism/Fascism without objecting to the extience of xyz countries. The lead clearly seems to lable/mean/indicate that anti-zionism can only equal anti-Israel, which is total rubbish. Yas121 19:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is the difference between opposition to Zionism and opposition to "Zionist ideology"? Is there a difference between opposition to Communism and opposition to "Communist ideology"? Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claim

There is an unsourced claim in the Anti-Semitism section to the effect that "support and defense of Israel in a central focus to many Jews". I have placed a fact needed citation there. The information I have does not support that view. For example, this Ha'aretz writer states that: “The fact is that Israel has rarely been the focal concern of Jews in the diaspora, especially America's Jews.” [4]. The Jeruslaem Post reported that “…a recent AJC-sponsored survey, of young American Jewish adults, found that only about one third said caring about Israel was an important part of their Jewish identity” … “In a wider survey taken in 2000, supporting Israel was ranked 11th in a series of 15 significant values for American Jews.“ [5] and in “A survey two years ago by Steven M. Cohen, a sociologist at New York's Hebrew Union College, found that just 17% of American Jews called themselves Zionists.” … “In Mr Cohen's survey, only 57% of American Jews said that ‘caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish’, down from 73% in a similar survey in 1989.” [6] Could we come up with a better formulation that better represents the wide diversity of Diaspora opinion on Israel.? Tiamut 13:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-zionism and antisemitism section is a quotefarm

This section is completely quotes. I have tagged it with {{quotefarm}}.--Sefringle 03:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

These are notable opinions, so I don't think simply removing the quotes would benefit the article. Perhaps if the edit wars and excessive requests for citations stop, we could develop a narrative and maybe use some quotes as refs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle, I agree with you. Some materials are clearly redundant. If we have Laqueur claiming that singling out Israel for criticism is antisemitic, why do we need Friedman making the same claim? If we quote from Kaplan and Small's survey, complete with their conclusions, why do we need to quote from Diana Muir's review of the same survey, which clearly misrepresents it? The problem here is we have too many people with different axes to grind.
There are two clear viewpoints to be expressed: Some sources, especially Zionist, claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic; some other sources, especially leftwing and Jewish anti-Zionist, vehemently reject that claim. We have failed to clearly present and properly source these 2 positions.
Further complicating matters is the fact that it is unclear whether anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Israel sentiment as expressed in the belief that Israel intentionally targets civilians, for instance. We have no source arguing for that kind of connection.
If we want to work this out, we should commit ourselves to cooperate, rather than try to have our own viewpoint prevail.--Abenyosef 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War??

Hi, have I stepped in the middle of some ongoing edit war here? Why is the following text repeatadly being Rev without any explanation. As far as I can see, it is relevant and well sourced...

"...Conversely, some Jews and even Israelis reject this opinion. According to Tanya Reinhart, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University, opposition to Israel "is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have." Reinhart elaborates, "The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel."[3]
In a letter to the London daily The Guardian, Michael Rosen claimed that "it is false logic to argue that because some anti-Zionists are anti-semitic therefore anti-Zionism is anti-semitic," and that:

The anti-Zionists I know wish for solutions in the Middle East that encompass notions of secularism, multiculturalism and federalism. However, many Zionists do indeed call these ideas "suicide" and anti-semitism, because they demand something that very few nations demand in the world today: a nation state that must always rule in favour of one self-defined ethnic or religious or racial group. And that is precisely where that nice-sounding phrase "self-determination" turns into something else, isn't it?[4]..."

Yas121 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a dispute about those sections, discussed at great length on the Talk: page. Please read the Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Yas, the discussion is here Talk:Anti-Zionism#Reinhart_quote, and appears to be ongoing. Best, Mackan79 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote farm

An editor recently added the quote farm tag. Are there any objections to limiting these quotes to their main points, through the use of paraphrase and limited quotes? —Viriditas | Talk 00:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds dicey, but I agree in principle. Mackan79 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am for synthesizin the section, but only once we settle the debate on which sources will be included (re:the reinhart/muir debate above). Tiamut 10:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I am in the process of moving the large quotations into footnotes. This allows for a more smooth flow of text, but gives the reader both the pertinent quotation on the page (at the bottom) as well as access to the entire source via hyperlink. -- Avi 21:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not tottally completed the process, but as of now the section no longer looks like a linkfarm, so I have removed the tag. There actually is more quote content, for all positions, in the article, but it is now placed in footnotes. Further, the footnotes are better linked to the various articles, in that author names are now wikilinked where possible, editors, translators, and authors are properly represented, LCCN's, ISBN's, DOI's, ISSN's, and OCLS's are correct and link to the proper sources for ease in tracking down the relative books and/or journals, and citatinos now follow standard wikipedia format. -- Avi 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There are still too many quotes. I have restored the tag.--Sefringle 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The majority of the text is prose; there are only a few quotes. -- Avi 00:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The Thomas Friedman and Yehuda Bauer quotes need to remain in the text, as one is actually a transcript of an audio file and the other cannot be accessed without pay. -- Avi 01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article looks quite more readable indeed. I'm beginning to like this Avraham fellow. --Abenyosef 03:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kaplan and Small study

http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/antisemitism/2005-06/kaplan.pdf Specifically states that this cannot be quoted without permission of the authors. Pending permission, I will comment out that entire section, but update the cites. Do we already have permission for this? -- Avi 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we need permission? I would think not; everything, after all, is copyrighted. I'd guess it would be more of an issue of reliable sources/accurate attribution if we don't mention their disclaimer. In the U.S., though, I'd be pretty sure that a person can't publish something and then prevent others from fair-use citing it. Mackan79 21:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. The final draft was published in the JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION,and I found a pdf of that, so we don't need permission. Give me a few, and I'll have it up again without a problem. -- Avi 21:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Done. Interestingl, the last of the threee blockquotes was changed slightly in the final, published, version. I updated the quote accordingly, and all major quotes are in the footnotes, for flow. -- Avi 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs More Sources

I was going to put some fact tags on the article but there are too many instances and would thus be disruptive. Quite a few sentences have no citation, so I think an effort should be made to find sources for these statements. .V. [Talk|Email] 08:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • no arguments there :) {{Unreferenced|section}} tags would be more appropriate as there are a few large sections entirely o r. tho last time i put them on, they were repeatedly removed.
  • unrelated: should the "World anti-Zionism" section (all 2 sentences) go? it seems to (badly) replicated what's in the 'types' section, so even if it were expanded, would still be superfluous.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed stuff in wrong section

Most western anti-Zionists deny vehemently that they are anti-Semites or that anti-Zionism can be equated with antisemitism. Israelis and Zionists outside Israel often respond that a demand to destroy or abolish the state of Israel is intrinsically anti-Semitic, however. One problem in this conflict arises from the absence of an agreed definition of key terms such as "antisemitism" and "Zionism," and the fact that many western anti-Zionists either do not accept the concept of a right to national self-determination (for any nation, not just a Jewish nation) or do not accept that Israel represents its fulfillment. This debate is complicated by two further factors: the habit of genuine anti-Semites of using the term "Zionist" as a synonym and/or euphemism for "Jew," and the tendency for radical Islamist elements to use the rhetoric of traditional European antisemitism. These rhetorical cross-currents make it nearly impossible for Zionists and anti-Zionists to converse across the gulf of hostility and incomprehension which has grown up over the past decades. The distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is, however, recognised by a wide range of Jewish commentators. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, said in 2002: "I see three distinct positions: legitimate criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition."[5]However, in 2003 he said "Today's anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism."[6] In a major essay in The Nation in January 2004, historian Brian Klug took issue with the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism, arguing that this actually emptied the term "antisemitism" of any content. He concluded "when anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing--the concept of anti-Semitism loses its significance."[7]

This was in the wrong section. Much of it is redundant with what is already in the Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism section already. I removed it. Please integrate parts of it into the appropriate section if you think it has valuable, non-redundant info to contribute.--Urthogie 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Urthogie, please don't altogether remove sourced materials. If you think they're in the wrong section, bring them to the right sections. Editors are expected to improve articles, rather than indiscriminately axe them.--Abenyosef 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/t/Talk%7EAnti-Zionism_1ce1.html"