Talk:Zionism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Discussion on the Ben-Gurion paragraph

So here is my justifcation for removing RK's paragraph.

I removed RK's addition because it is extremely contentious, which is not surprising considering that it comes from one of the most right-wing commentators on this issue. There is lots of evidence that Ben-Gurion's actual position was quite different from what he said in public and semi-public forums. This includes testimony as well as documents. Besides that, his behaviour did not match the claims here and there is plenty of evidence for that. For example one could quote from several Hagana leaders to the effect that BG encouraged them to remove as many Arabs as possible. One could also note that his treatment of the Arabs who remained was nothing like these quotes would suggest. BG kept them under military authority (essentially martial law) for his whole period as prime-minister. They even needed permits to travel from one village to another, and all sorts of tricks of doubtful legality were used to expropriate land from them. BG also prevented the emergence of any substantial Arab participation in the political process (for example attempts to establish Arab parties were squashed). I'm not planning to write any of this into the article because I don't think it belongs here, but neither should we include Karsh's dubious version. What is there now is very middle-of-the-road and we should not open this article to a debate which will inevitably destroy it.

Although I am not relying solely on Benny Morris for these opinions, he is one of the main writers on this subject so I'll quote from his reply to Karsh on exactly this issue. You can believe Morris or believe Karsh, but at the minimum this proves that Karsh's views are not uniformly accepted.

... Karsh maintains that far from supporting transfer or expulsion of the Arabs, Ben-Gurion in the 1930s and 1940s looked forward to a "Jewish-Arab Semitic alliance" and "true partnership among equal citizens" (p. 68). (Needless to say, he devotes no space to describing how this "fraternal" outlook translated into action vis-a-vis Palestine's Arabs in 1948 and 1949-56.)
The author reaches this conclusion by quoting extensively from a number of Ben-Gurion's speeches and memoranda. But Karsh appears unaware of the fact that politicians say different things to different audiences at different times and that what distinguishes good from bad historians is the ability to sort out the (heartfelt) wheat from the (propagandistic) chaff. Karsh also fails to take note of that fundamental rule that what statesmen, politicians, and generals do is far more telling than what they say and a more certain indicator of their real desires and intentions. Ben-Gurion was both more devious and more straightforward than Karsh gives him credit for. He often rolled his eyes to heaven and spoke of the vision of the prophets and of justice for all. And it is true that Ben-Gurion did occasionally say that the Zionist movement must be careful not to go on public record in support of transfer, because doing so could cause the movement political harm, and occasionally expressed doubt whether the idea was practicable.
But at no point during the 1930s and 1940s did Ben-Gurion ever go on record against the idea or policy of transfer. On the contrary, Ben-Gurion left a paper trail a mile long as to his actual thinking, and no amount of ignoring, twisting and turning, manipulation, contortion, and distortion can blow it away.
-- B. Morris, Refabricating 1948, J. Palestine Studies, Vol 27, 1998, p85. (original emphasis italic)
So what? A quote is a quote, even if it does not describe his real position. Malbi 10:44, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero, are you saying the Ben-Gurion quote is false? Or just that he didn't mean what he said? In either case, the full argument belongs at David Ben Gurion, not here. Adam 11:32, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is probably not false, but neither is the well-known quotation "The Arabs of Eretz Israel have but one function - to run away.", nor is Yitzhak Rabin's account of how BG ordered him to expel the Arabs of Lidda and Ramle by force (almost 10% of the total all at once), nor probably is Yosef Weitz's claim that BG gave his "transfer committees" a quiet wink and a nod. BG was a politician and like most politicians (your boss excepted, I'm sure) said one thing and did another. He announced that the Arabs were welcome to stay while instructing his generals to make sure they didn't. (Ok, that's an oversimplification, but not so far off.) I don't think David Ben-Gurion is the right place for this either as he was one player of many. More like Palestinian Exodus or Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Zero 12:08, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
We should not only approve of quotes from Jews that make them look intolerant. When you see quotes from Jews that make them look tolerant, you delete them. That is an offensive double-standard. Worse, when many people here write about Arabs, they (including you) have the opposite double-standard. You as a group always accept as valid their statements of peace and love, yet deny the value of mentioning their quotes in which they preach destruction of the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. Your deletion is a violation of NPOV. JeMa
If I had the bias you suggest, I would try to add material like I mentioned above into the article. I have an infinite amount of it. Since I am not attempting to do so, it is clear that I am defending NPOV and not violating it. --Zero 00:23, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Zero, I am sure you have an "infinite amount" of quotes that you would like to use to demonize Zionists. You are ruthlessly violating NPOV by refusing to show the range of Jewish and Israeli points of view; instead, you only allow one view to be shown, and you hide the rest. JeMa thinks this is evidence of a double-standard? Technically, yes, but there is more to it. Your edits seem malicious. (This is also made clear by the fact that you rely on sources that demonize Zionists as untrustworthy villans.) In line with the above multiple rejections of your view, it is reasonable to restore the deleted point of view. RK 01:57, Dec 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation to an edit war, RK aka JeMa, but someone else can try to save the article this time. I have no time to argue with fanatics who simply have no interest in the facts. I added an NPOV dispute header though, it's the least I could do. --Zero 11:10, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Zero you can't put a "neutrality disputed" tag on this article just because you and RK detest each other: its neutrality is not disputed by anyone except you. As you know I (and others) put a lot of work getting this article into shape and I resent have it brought into disrepute again by this childish feud. I don't see that the paragraph with the Ben Gurion quote adds nothing of substance to the article and I cannot see how it is worth arguing about. The pair of you should grow up. Adam 14:29, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Adam, this is not childish; it is an important point. People sometimes change their minds, or offer more than one point of view; even Zero admits this. So, there is nothing wrong with an article pointing this out, nor is there anything wrong with discussing how historians interpret varying statements. The problem is that instead of discussing this issue, Zero tried to hide it. I am all for open NPOV discussion; nothing bad or childish about this! RK

Anonymous claims: the phrase "Judea and Samaria" is a propaganda term to describe a region of "Palestine" invoking biblical imagery; linking "Judea" and "Samaria" separately implies agreeing with.

No, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. That's unjustified. Judea and Samaria are merely names of places. If we rewrote all of our articles to use only the names Judea and Samaria instead of ever using the word "West Bank", then one could argue that we are adopting a pro-Israeli-settler POV. If we rewrote all of our articles to mention only the occupied West Bank, then one could argue that we are adopting a pro-Palestinian POV. But in practice we do neither of these things. Chill out. (Disclaimer: I am against using the terms Judea and Samaria simply because most people have no idea what these words mean.) RK

Adam, there is nothing childish about adding an NPOV tag to an article which contains a lie. I am entitled to do it and I did it. I understand that you don't like it, but you have the option of trying to fix the point that is disputed. You are not enititled to simply delete the tag, that is a clear violation of Wikipedia procedures. And, no, I am not the only person to dispute it. The bulk of historical opinion on this issue disputes it. RK is the one bringing this article into disrepute by adding right-wing garbage to it. And in case you didn't wake up to it yet, RK and JeMa are almost certainly one and the same person. --Zero 23:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sure. And you and Danny are also the same person. After all, you write on many of the same topics, and have very similar points of view. However, we aren't accusing you of this, because you probably really aren't Danny. Frankly, if I was JeMa, then he\I would spend time helping me on the anti-science and pro-quackery attitudes here at Wikipedia, and he\I would also be commenting on about a dozen other articles which I feel are rife with anti-Zionism POV. RK 02:02, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

The NPOV TAG

First, Zero, could you point out what you view as a lie within the article and provide some evidence for that accusation? Second, the fact is that if the vast majority does not agree that the article should be labeled POV, it's not reasonable to label it as such. Why not take a vote on it? I think we should take the tag off, as I think the majority disagrees with it. I don't propose we do anything until a vote is taken, however. Is that reasonable to you people? Leumi 23:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

    • Remove Tag Leumi 23:11, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Remove Tag. RK 02:02, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that "the bulk of historical opinion" is a Wikipedia user. So far as I know Zero is the only person who has disputed the neutrality of the article, and his decision to add a tag is unilateral. I also wasn't aware that tags can be added unilaterally but only deleted by consensus. That seems a recipe for vandalism to me. Anyway, I want Zero to tell us exactly what he currently find objectionable about the article (as opposed to what he finds objectionable about RK), so we can discuss something substantive rather than trade insults. Adam 23:24, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Respectfully, without a detailed and specific reason for the NPOV tag, the claim that the article contains a lie is only so much weasel words. I think the best manner of dealing with this is taking a vote on the matter, as I have suggested above. Leumi 23:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am trying to protect the article from destruction. RK inserted an extremely contentious paragraph into an article which is otherwise well-written and balanced. It can't be allowed to stand on its own like that, but what are the options? I could add some counter-information (such as the things I alluded to above) to show that RK's paragraph is not the median opinion. If I don't, then someone else will before long. Then someone like RK or Leumi will try to revert me or add more stuff from Karsh, and so on. In no time at all the article will look like Israel-Palestinian conflict and all our effort will have been wasted. In order to head off this disaster, I removed RK's paragraph and spent a long time explaining why. The only way for this article to survive is to avoid the most heated issue, which is the 1948 exodus of the Palestinians. RK's addition jumps directly into the middle of it and one way or the other will lead to the demise of the article. --Zero 23:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me, are we talking about the same subject here? The Ben Gurion quote paragraph? If not, please say what you are talking about. If yes, then unless you are alleging that BG didn't actually say those words, you can't call it a lie, as you did earlier. You might call it off-topic or unhelpful or whatever, and I might agree with you, but that isn't a lie, and doesn't justify the language you are using. Adam 23:59, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First Zero, could you please specify what supposedly "extremely contentious paragraph" RK entered? That might help. Thanks. :) If it's in reference to the Ben-Gurion quote, I can't imagine how it qualifies as a "lie", as you call it. Are you disputing whether or not Ben-Gurion, who was the main political voice in Israel at the time, made the quote? Furthermore, simply because something is not your opinion, does not make it not the median mainstream opinion. An article can include viewpoints that are not yours. As a matter of fact, it is essential to include all viewpoints, rather than limit them only to those of one faction or perspective. We should give our readers credit for being intelligent enough to make their own decisions without indoctrination. Leumi 00:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

First of all, we need to archive. Having said that, let's try and clarify the debate over POV here. To do that, though, we first have to clarify how POV can be violated. A neutral POV is not only obtained by presenting all of the statements and arguments of each side. NPOV also includes the way these facts are positioned and presented. I will therefore try to understand both sides to the debate. It seems as if RK/JeMa is saying that yes, Ben Gurion made the earlier statement, which seems racist, but that there was a change in his attitude as evidenced by the 1947 quote he brings. It seems as if Zero is saying that yes, the 1947 quote is genuine, but it is hardly a true reflection of Ben Gurion's attitude or the Zionist attitude in general. In fact, he says, he can bring other quotes that counter that quote.

Now, back to what I said about NPOV and positioning. The way the quote stands now seems to imply that in 1937, Ben Gurion supported the forced removal of the Arab population from some potential Jewish state but that in 1947 he changed his mind and called on Jews and Arabs to work together. This is misleading, since it fails to consider what happened in 1948-1949, once statehood was declared, and B-G, as supreme commander of the nascent Israeli forces, stood behind at least some forced expulsions (and I am not saying that all Palestinians were forcibly expelled). In other words, in the debate leading to statehood, B-G adopted a more conciliatory attitude toward the Palestinian population, but in the reality of statehood and war, his stated objective of 1947 was ignored.

It would not seem fair to end the discussion of this topic with the 1947 quote. It is misleading. It is not the end of the debate. (Personally, I find the quote in 1947 somewhat racist, but that is besides the point.)

There are two possible solutions: either Zero and RK continue tossing quotes and sources at each other, until this article comes to resemble the protocol of the recent peace talks--volumes and volumes with very little achieved. Alternately, the new text is removed and placed somewhere else, i.e., Palestinian refugees, Palestinian Exodus, or whatever you wanna call it. Until then, the way it is placed now does seem to violate POV. At least in my opinion it does. Danny 00:10, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Zero\Danny. Its good to know who you really are! RK


I disagree. As someone stated in Wikipedia, I don't recall who, it doesn't seem fair to give the "prosecution" the last word. Furthermore, the quote is very relevant, and only including one perspective in this section is misleading. If we're going to deal with this issue elsewhere, then we shouldn't deal with it here at all. If we are going to deal with the issue here, then both sides should be represented. Furthermore, Zero's removal of the quote without valid discussion represents what I think qualifies as extreme POV. I'm not going to re-add it in myself for fear of getting into an edit war (although I don't discourage someone else from taking that action, if they feel it wise), I think it should remain within the article, or the entire section of Zionism and the Arabs should be removed. We can't only represent one point of view here. Leumi 00:17, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think quotes undermining a person's own position is more informative (and thus worth mentioning here) than anything which can be chalked up to diplomatic rhetoric. -- 213.73.231.245 00:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have written a new paragraph which avoids this stupid war of quotations. An encyclopaedia article is supposed to be a work of synthesis, not a collection of undigested primary source materials. Adam 02:40, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You didn't remove any quotations. I did that. What you did was to delete a very vanilla description that hardly any Israeli historians disagree with. For example, the right-of-center Shabtai Teveth (one of Morris' main opponents from the right) was one of the first to synthesise the primary material that this description is based on. It is miles away from the standard Arab historiography. What you replaced it by is the Israeli picturebook version.
The attitude of the socialist leaders of the Zionist movement was also ambiguous. During the 1920s and '30s they argued that the Arabs would eventually come to accept Jewish settlement in Palestine provided this was done along socialist lines and the Arabs were treated in a spirit of socialist fraternity.
They argued that in public, and some did in private too. Ben-Gurion was not one of the latter...
David Ben-Gurion, the leading socialist Zionist, made a number of statements to this effect.
... so choosing him as your example is an error. Actually, Ben-Gurion was one of the first to acknowledge Arab opposition as a true nationalist movement. Even before 1920 he was saying this, to his credit. Your words make him look ignorant.
By the 1940s, however, as it became evident that the Arabs were inplacably opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, these notions were abandoned.
Translation: The good-hearted Zionists wanted nothing more than to live in peace with the Arabs but they were forced to change their minds when the evil Arabs rejected their love.
Ben-Gurion and the other socialist Zionist leaders came to agree with other Zionists that a Jewish-majority state would have to be created and the Arabs excluded by one means or another -
Hang on! The need for a Jewish majority was one of the most commonly held tenets of Zionism from the beginning of the Zionist movement. Now you want us to believe that it was forced upon the Zionists in the 1940s?
Moreover, the public stance of the socialist Zionists did not change much in this time frame at all, so what could you be meaning?
--Zero 04:03, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what has come over you this week Zero, but I am not interested in debating with you while you adopt this tone of aggressive sarcasm. If you disagree with what I have written, suggest an alternative. Adam 05:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What you deleted is more accurate and more middle-ground than what you replaced it by. It had no "undigested primary source materials" at all and its "synthesis" was in line (actually, somewhat to the conservative side) of the mainstream that I read in the academic journals. Perhaps if you had critiqued it rather than just junking it (something I have never done to your work) I might have been a little less annoyed. Now, since I really do care about the quality of the article, I am going to put it back. You are more than welcome to suggest how it can be improved. --Zero 08:02, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Danny, If Ben Gurion's public statements and actions over time haven't been perfectly consistent, then maybe we should chronicle them in the Ben Gurion article. Something like:

  • At first, BG said let's go in nicely.
  • Later he said, let's go in and kick everyone else out.
  • But soon went, oops, I mean let's work together.

Isn't it common for politicians to change their stances on major issues? Wesley Clark and John Kerry used to support the US decision to oust Saddam militarily; after Bush did so, Clark and Kerry both said the US decision was wrong. Kind of like the tide coming in and going out. --Uncle Ed 14:58, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ed, you are right. But Zero is hell bent on making Jews out look to be intolerant ethnic cleansers, and is infuriated whenever he finds Jewish words about peaceful co-existence. It is his moral blind spot. RK 02:08, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Ed. I think that this is precisely the point that Zero and I were trying to make. To use a single statement outside of the historical context of when and why it was made is misleading. To place so that it seems to imply that this is the person's final position on an issue is also misleading. I have no problem finding somewhere else to put this particular quote, however, it should be placed in context. Danny 15:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree. RK 02:08, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness)."

This sentence need some elaboration. I always thought Zionism was a strictly secular movement and didn't deal with religion at all. BL 18:20, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. I always thought it was a religiously-inspired political movement which has drifted considerably from its religious roots as Israel has become increasingly secularized. But what do I know? I'm only half-Jewish (mother's side). --Uncle Ed 19:33, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ed, if your mother is Jewish then you are Jewish. No halves about it.

Actually, it's the exact opposite; the revisionist religious connotations only came later. -- 213.73.231.245 00:51, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The concept of "return to Zion" is deeply rooted in Jewish religious beliefs (i.e: the custom of saying "Next Year in Jerusalem" at passover seders etc), however the actual political movement began as a secular creation, also largely socialist. It was originally opposed by religious Judiasm, but since the creation of Israel most of even the religious community has joined the Zionism movement. Leumi 01:00, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi is correct. The anonymous claim is an anti-Zionist, if not anti-Semitic, fabrication. There is no way that anyone could possibly make such a claim out of ignorance; it had to be done deliberately. This is really sad; Zero0000's sarcastic badgering on these issues may be bringing out the Wiki-cranks who want to troll Judaism, even if Zero himself doesn't intend this. RK 02:08, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)
For your information, what Leumi said is not in contradiction with what I said.
BTW, may I remind you that you're on probation? So COOL IT! -- 213.73.231.245 02:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Leumi is correct and RK is tiresome. --Zero 02:34, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this whole debate has been pretty tiresome recently, which is a pity since I think we (Danny, Zero, RK and I) had managed to collaborate reasonably harmoniously in constructing both this article and Anti-Zionism until this current dispute.

My proposal:

  • drop all discussion about who is being more tiresome than whom.
  • delete all reference to Ben-Gurion in the paragraph in question - he is only there for illustrative purposes after all.
  • all participants submit drafts for a replacement paragraph. Topic: Attitudes of socialist Zionists towards the Arabs 1917-47. Word limit: 250 words. Marks will be awarded for conciseness and objectivity of tone. Adam 03:57, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No marks for accuracy? My submission is the current text which so far nobody has shown a fault with. Ben-Gurion is not there for illustrative purposes; he is there because he was the leader and got his way on almost every issue, so his opinion was more important than anyone else's opinion. --Zero 05:35, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article in Haaretz is too personal to link to the article, but is neverthess interesting with respect to the binational idea. The number of Israeli intellectuals who think this way is still very small but the trickle is growing. They aren't all on the far-left either, as in this example. --Zero 09:54, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On the contrary, as someone who actually knows people in Israel on the left, the right and the center in political opinion I know that the concept of a binational state is not one that is considered mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. As a matter of fact, the very concept of one is viewed with derision and in some cases fear if it is ever taken seriously within mainstream Israeli circles. Leumi 01:02, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing Israeli politics, which will only lead to further pointless argument. Zero's paragraph will stand until someone suggests an alternative. Adam 02:21, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Folks: I'd do this myself but am in Japan and unable to get ahold of my uncle Arthur (he is my mom's cousin -- but the closer relatives got killed in the holocaust) myself. How can someone write an article about Zionism and not have a bio of the author of the Zionist Idea really boggles. This Hertzberg Interview may help. - Sparky 03:19, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)