Talk:Zionism/Archive 5

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.

JeMa: I added the info to show how early these other locations were catagorically rejected (sixth zionist conference). the page appeared to imply that Zionism and Zion (the location) are not linked. rather strange idea that the two are not inextracably linked. the page also failed to indicate where that "national homeland" might be. as if Palestine was a consolation prize. OneVoice 20:44, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changed "30 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict" to "70 years of Arab-Israeli conflict".

30 years of Palestintian-Israeli conflict indicates that one of the following is true:

  1. there have been only 30 years of conflict (which 30 years?)
  2. the Palestinians did not exist till prior to 30 years ago
  3. the Palestinians existed as a people for no more than 30 years.

30 years would be 1970. Surely, we agree that that conflict has lasted more than 30 years. Palestinians claims that their peoplehood is older than 30 years. "30 years of Palestinian-Israeli conflict" is factually incorrect. "more than 30 years...." would be a significant improvement yet hide the duration, similiarly one could write truthfully: "more than two years....".

The surrounding Arab states have played a significant role in the conflict. One could argue that they have played a larger role in the conflict than the Palestinians. The conflict began in 1948 at the latest. Hence, "more than 50 years of Arab-Israeli conflict". I would argue that the conflict can be reasonably dated from the Arab Revolt of 1936 or from the Massacres of 1929. Hence 70 years. OneVoice 13:13, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • Sigh* 1. Israel didn't exist 70 years ago. 2. The article is about Zionism, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict. 3. The Palestinian-Israel conflict in its present form dates from the beginning of the PLO's terrorist campaigns against Israel, in about 1969. This is the relevent point in the context of the article. Please stop trying to stuff the article full of irrelevant (and usually inaccurate) material. Adam 14:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Adam, lets take your points one by one.

1. "Israel didn't exist 70 years ago." Correct, Israel was founded in 1948. This page is about Zionism. Zionism preceded the founding of the State of Israel. The conflict began before the founding of the State of Israel. This makes 50 years a minimal number. No one has claimed that the State of Israel preceded 1948. We agree.

2. "The article is about Zionism, not about the Israel-Palestine conflict." Agreed again. The article mentions the Israel-Palestine conflict nonetheless, perhaps it should not? Deleting the clause is fine.

3. "The Palestinian-Israel conflict in its present form dates from the beginning of the PLO's terrorist campaigns against Israel, in about 1969". (Ah, 1969, this explains why is page says 30 years.) Here is where we disagree. If we are to date the conflict from the onset of terrorism. Terrorist campaigns against Israel began already in the 1950's, which led to conflicts in Gaza and in Jordan (Samua for example: a terrorist attack by Fatah against three Israeli soldiers prompted an Israeli reprisal. A large Israeli force entered the Jordanian-occupied West Bank village of Samua, and encountered a battalion of Jordanian soldiers, leading to a firefight that left 15 Jordanian soldiers dead.[1]). The conflict between the Jewish inhabitants of the area that would become Israel and the Arab inhabitants predates the founding of the State of Israel by at least half a year (since the UN resolution ending the Mandate). One might well argue that the conflict goes back to either the Arab Revolt 1936 and its attacks upon Jewish communities or to the Massacres of 1928. Others would argue that the conflict goes back to the events that resulted in the formation of the first Jewish armed defense organizations (example the Haganah formed in June 1920 [2]. I should have written 80 years rather than 70.

The Arab states have played a major role in the conflict. Currently their role is limited to some limited funding of the PA/PLO, diplomatic support for the PA/PLO, economic boycott is Israel, continuing state of war (except for Egypt and Jordan (others with peace treaties?)), etc.

"30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict, " does not mention in its present form even assuming that the present form is materially different than the previous form(s).

Hence I argue for a change to "80 years of Arab-Israeli" conflict.

More than 50 years after the founding of Israel, and after more than 30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict, the great majority of Jews in all countries continue to regard themselves as Zionists and to support Israel in all circumstances, although many have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some liberal or socialist Jews outside Israel still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle.

One could rewrite this as:

The great majority of Jews in all countries continue to regard themselves as Zionists and to support Israel. Some Jews have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some Jews oppose Zionism as a matter of principle.

Liberal or Socialst misses the religious Jews that are opponents of Zionism.

Its not unequivically clear to me the meaning to be conveyed by "More than 50 years after the founding of Israel, and after more than 30 years of Israel-Palestinian conflict....continue to regard themselves as Zionists". Are they Zionists in spite of the passage of time and the conflict or because of it? Not clear to me. OneVoice 15:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Calm, nonpartisan issue - translation in caption

Could we have a translation of that poster in its caption? I would if I spoke Romanian... :) --Spikey 03:05, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The first line says "Toward a New Life" in Romanian, and the second line says "The Promised Land" in Hungarian. The fine print says something in both Romanian and Hungarian but I'm not sure what that something is. I guess "Unique Palestinian talking movie" but it needs someone fluent in one of those languages to say for sure. --Zero 11:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The fine print in Romanian says "The first Palestinian talking movie" --IulianU 09:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Small, minor issue

Made a small correction. The article says the IDF took western Jerusalem in 1967. Uh, no...it was the EASTERN sector. Let's try not to make the compass political?:-) --Penta 04:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Socialist Zionism and Labor Zionism

There really should be some mention of Moses Hess, Syrkin and the whole socialist zionist and labor zionist tradition particularly given its influence in the kibbutzim movement, the haganah and the labor party. AndyL 05:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

feel free. Adam 05:47, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't have time! AndyL 18:58, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"among Jews"

Why the self-contradictory definition? Why not:

"This article examines Zionism as a political movement among Jews, although the term Zionist can be applied to any supporter of Zionism. Some Christians support Zionism for religious reasons: See Christian Zionism.)" - Mustafaa 06:23, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, the recent addition of "among Jews" makes it even more self-contradictory... Mustafaa 06:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was founded as a political movement among Jews, and remains so today. Non-Jews can sympathise with and support Zionism, but that does not alter the fact that it is a movement among Jews. Christian Zionism has entirely different motivations, as the article on it shows. Adam 07:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was founded by Jews but from the beginning there were Zionists who were not Jews and now there are more than ever. The motivations of Zionists vary but there is no clean partition of motivation between Jews and non-Jews. I can't see the logic in your position. --Zero 12:12, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Zionism was, is and remains a political movement among and for Jews. Go ask the World Zionist Organization or the American Zionist Organization. The latter group's website says: "The American Zionist Movement is a coalition of organizations and individuals devoted to the unity of the Jewish people and eternally connected to our homeland, Israel." That is to say, it is an organization of and for Jews.

There are of course non-Jews who support Zionism (although almost none outside the US these days), but that doesn't alter the truth of the above statement. Non-Jewish support for Zionism takes three forms:

  • the traditional support from the left for the Jews as an oppressed people (now almost entirely lost as the left has shifted its sympathy to the Palestinians) and for Israel as a semi-socialist state (now also lost).
  • newfound support from conservatives (nearly all in the US, though some such as Thatcher elsewhere), which is really support for Israel as a pro-Western state rather than support for Zionism per se, and is also strongly motivated by US domestic politics.
  • "Christian Zionism", which is in fact a form of anti-Semitism since it postulates the conversion of the Jews as a prelude to the second coming of Christ and has in reality nothing to do with Jewish Zionism.

To take an analogy, feminism is a political movement among and for women. Many men support the objectives of feminism, but that doesn't alter the truth of the preceding sentence. Adam 13:20, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about "feminism" too. The fact that most feminists are women is a fact about the feminist movement, not a defining characteristic of the movement. Male feminists are real feminists, not just sympathetic outsiders. I think such political movements encompass everyone of like mind, such as for communism, or fascism. It doesn't make a difference as to who it was that first formed fascist organizations or developed fascist theory; anyone who supports the fascist ideology is a fascist. Same with Zionist and feminist. --Zero 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree. I can see no good reason to deny the label "feminist" to men who support feminism (except possibly bias against men.) Similarly, plenty of North African pan-Arabists have in fact been Berbers - and Wilfrid Blunt, though Christian, was a pan-Islamist. - Mustafaa 21:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Fascism and communism are universalist ideologies. Anyone can be a communist if they believe in the doctrines of communism. Zionism is a particularist ideology, a doctrine about the nature and destiny of the Jewish people and its relationship with the land of Israel. It is impossible for anyone who is not Jewish to fully participate in that ideology, no matter how sincerely they may believe its tenets. However, as I said, I think the great majority of non-Jewish support for Zionism is self-serving and not based in genuine philo-Semitism (a point you have not addressed). In any case, none of this alters the objective truth of the original statement, which is that "Zionism is a political movement among Jews." Look at the websites I cited and you will see that this is a simple statement of fact. It may be possible for a non-Jew to join the American Zionist Movement, but the website clearly assumes that all its members are Jews. Adam 00:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism and Pan-Islamism are both particularist in the most obvious way, yet non-Arabs and non-Muslims have advocated both. Nor is the American Zionist Movement's usage proof that "true" Zionism is a movement among Jews only, any more than the existence of Christian Zionism is proof that "true" Zionism is only among Christians. And why does it matter whether non-Jewish Zionists are philo-Semitic or not? Where does it say that Zionists have to be philo-Semitic? - Mustafaa 02:15, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

"Nor is the American Zionist Movement's usage proof that "true" Zionism is a movement among Jews only." - Yes it is. Adam 02:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see your reasoning. By the same logic, the Rastafarians' usage of the term "Zion" would prove that that term should be restricted to Jamaicans. - Mustafaa 03:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, note that some of the earliest Zionists mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article were Christian (eg Hollingsworth.) - Mustafaa 03:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the frist section (after the introduction) reads:

"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)."

I disagree with this sentence. The author(s) categorizes the "Jewish identity" into two categories: religious and "national or ethnic." I, however, feel the "jewish identity" to have a poly not dual meaning: religious, national, ethinic, culutral.... National and ethnic need to be seperate categories.

  • Please put comments at the end of the talk-page.
  • Please sign your comments, no-one likes talking to anonymous people.
  • Perhaps you can explain what you see as the difference between "national" and "ethnic" in this context. Most people would see them as almost synonymous.
  • This is in any case not an article about Jewish identity. It is an article about Zionism, and the sentence you quote is only there to illustrate a point about Zionism.

Adam 09:08, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

"so-called"

Why "so-called" atrocities? They are well documented. I don't see "so-called" everywhere in the Holocaust article. If you are questioning the atroctities, it have to be substantiated. Zw

Protection

This is today's featured article. I'm going to protect it--the last thing we need is an edit war, or a total dispute message, on what's supposed to be our best work. Meelar 06:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. I strongly disagree with this. We can handle POV warriors and vandals without resorting to protection. →Raul654 06:16, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well, unprotect if you will, but to have {{totallydisputed}} on the featured article is quite embarassing. Meelar 06:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I know... we're given the choice between protection or constant vandalism - bad and worse, and I can't really decide which is which. →Raul654 06:40, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Is it too late to take this off the main page? Meelar 06:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to. "This article is a POV warrior magnet" is not suffecient reason to remove it. →Raul654 06:53, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I'll unprotect it, figuring someone else can always protect it later...right now I'm going to bed. Tomorrow's featured article ought to be History of the English penny, or something similarly noncontroversial. Meelar 06:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think this article should remain protected until it moves out of "Featured" status. In fact, as a matter of policy, I think every day's featured article should be protected for the day of its featuring, even if it's about puppies wagging their tails, to keep from showing new readers just how immature some Wikipedians can be. -- Cecropia | Talk 07:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I completely disagree. All of our featured articles are improved as a result of the time they spend on the main page - I cannot think of a single exception. It's just that this case (and only this case, that I know of) is proving to have a particular difficulty with vandalism, but that does not mean it should not be featured, nor that it should be protected. I know that this article has been cited elsewhere as an an example of a truely NPOV article. ZW's complaints are groundless - one look at his talk page shows you that he is an unapologetic POV warrior. →Raul654 07:12, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

dispute notice

Please reinsert the dispute notice now. It has to be indicated that the current extremist and zionist propagandist version, where all opposition views are removed, is strongly disputed. This is Wikipedia, not us-israel.org. Zw

I removed the notice because this is not a genuine neutrality or accuracy dispute, it is just Zw (a notorious crank) making his regular attempt to insert his illiterate propaganda into this article. If every article under attack from people like Zw had to have a neutrality notice Wikpedia would have no credibility at all. There is always someone who disagrees with every article, but genuine disputes must be distinguished from attacks by cranks. Adam 06:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling. It says alot more about you than me. This article is not intended to be a defence for a right-wing and extremist political view, but in a neutral way present the views on zionism of both those supporting and of those opposing it. You have deleted all references to the opposing view of zionism, a view which is more common than the supportive, I think, at least outside Israel and the US. Thus, the article is purely zionist propaganda. It is ridiculous to feature such junk, but at least the readers should be aware that this is the result of POV pushers managed to get the page proctected on their version, and that it is a disputed version. Remember also that this encyclopedia is not written only for Ku Klux Klan from Texas or occupied Palestine, but also for Arabs, Europeans and others. People who come across and see this article might be shocked, believe this is just another zionist (or nazi for that sake) propaganda site and decide never to come back. Zw

I think Zw's little rant proves my point very nicely. For the record there is an article Anti-Zionism, most of which I wrote, which describes the various forms of opposition to Zionism. Zw has no right to characterise my personal views about Zionism, about which he knows nothing. Adam 07:10, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given your extensive contributions to the Zionism/anti-Zionism articles , and your very strong position in the present dispute, maybe one could ask you to declare what your personal views on Zionism and anti-Zionism are? pir 16:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Revert war

I don't much care who's right, but I don't like revert wars. This page is protected for the time being. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please reinsert the dispute notice. It is unacceptable to remove the dispute notice from a disputed page. Zw 07:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There's people that dispute that the Earth is round, but that doesn't justify shoving {{totallydisputed}} on the article. You're going to have to come up with something more convincing than "I dispute the article!"
If you want to get any sympathy from me, you're going to have to make a good faith effort here on the talk page. Here's a hint, calling a featured article junk and comparing Wikipedia to a propaganda site are generally not components of a productive dicussion. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your comparison is ridiculous and you know it. Even the UN have stated that zionism is racism, so this view is definitely worth a mention, in a neutral way, of course. Also the zionist point of view need to be presented as the zionist point of view, and not the truth. This is simply about NPOV or not NPOV. It is User:Adam Carr who is reverting a bunch of other other people, and it is him who need to talk. I have proposed other wordings to him, which he has rejected. It's up to him, not me. As it has been all the time. In any event, Carr's personal POV version of the article have been disputed before by numerous contributors. Zw 08:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The UN resolution is already in the article. Treatment of arabs as lower life forms (donkeys, even) is already in the article. Perpectives of arabs are already in the article. Most of your edits are just plain redundant, regardless of POV/NOPV issues. Please re-read the article. Ronabop 08:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zw is a liar as well as a crank. He knows that the UN has rescinded the resolution he refers to, which is in any case fully discussed at Anti-Zionism. He knows that I have reverted only him, and not "a bunch of people." And he knows that this article has been stable and generally accepted as a fair account of Zionism for months, until he decided to attack it with his propagandistic (and poorly-expressed) edits. Adam 08:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The crank Adam is a liar. Other views on zionism shall not be mentioned because of a UN resolution, which I am fully aware was withdrawn after American pressure, but because this is actually a common view, in the Arab world the dominating view, on zionism. The current introduction is a long tirade of zionist propaganda and POVs presented as the sole and only truth with no opposition. It is completely ridiculous and hair-raising.

As for reversions, from my last edit to your first revert to your old version, there had been 18 edits by a large number of other people, which you all reverted. This is bordering on vandalism. Zw 08:40, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Zw - Even though we allow anybody to edit we also require that those edits follow the will of those interested in the matter. That means you can add a dispute notice but if you are overruled by a supermajority of interested users, then you are overrulled and must accept the decision. So please vote in the below poll. --mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Zionist is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew." This was also a common practice in the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland, before their collapse in 1991. See Zionist Occupied Government for an example of the current use of the term Zionist in this way."

AFAIK, "euphemism" depicts a nice word for something bad, so I think it's clearly the wrong word here. Eike

Yes I agree. "Synonym" is the correct word. Adam 11:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Poll started on 13 June and will end on 20 June.

Should there be a dispute notice on this article?

Yes

  1. Bk0 17:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Clearly there is a dispute. Writing off opposition as 'cranks' is offensive.

No

  1. mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. Neutrality 05:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this article apologetic to Zionists or otherwise not NPOV?

Yes

  1. pir 16:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC). I hesitated for a long time before voting, because I think that for the most part this article is absolutely excellent, very informative, one of the best at Wikipedia, mostly fair and NPOV. However it is not NPOV in the choice of what is omitted, most importantly the question of wether or not, or to what extent, Zionism is racist. Those Zionists who equate Jewish nationality with a particular ethnic group are clearly very close to a racist position - for example it is analogous to the view that a black or Asian person cannot be British or French. I am also struck by how closely Zionist immigration policies (granting all ethnic Jews the right to Israeli nationality and residence, while promoting resettlement of Arabs, with the general aim of creating/preserving a particular Jewish ethnic and cultural identity) mirror for example the immigration policies advocated by modern fascist European parties, like the French Front National or the British National Party ("right of return" e.g. for white Zimbaweans and others "of European stock", "resettlement" of non-white British citizens/residents, with the aim of creating/preserving a particular British ethnic and cultural identity [3],[4]). The question of how racist Zionism may or may not be is legitimate and important and needs to be adressed in this article if it is to be NPOV. Referring readers to anti-Zionism is not acceptable because this question is integral to Zionism, like other forms of nationalism (e.g. white nationalism), and because the anti-Zionism article constantly questions the nature of anti-Zionism in the light of anti-Semitism (esp. picture in article).
  2. Bk0 17:16, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) - I've been watching this debate and it seems clear to me that while this article in its current state isn't explicitly anti-Arab, it does present the sympathetic pro-Zionist view in a much more comprehensive way than the opposing view. The reader isn't presented with even a hint of the massive international controversy over this issue until the fourth section, which many casual readers may not even get to.


No

  1. mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should Zw's edits be restored after the article is unprotected?

Yes

No

  1. mav 10:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  2. pir 16:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Zw's edits are too POV and unbalanced
  3. Bk0 17:24, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) Both Zw and Adam should refrain from editing after the page is unprotected.

Matters of historical truth and falsehood cannot be determined by majority vote. If Zw's edits are restored I will delete them, regardless of polls. Adam 11:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Supermajority, not majority. This poll is designed to show everybody where everybody else stands as far as this dispute is concerned so that it can be resolved. It is not a referendum on the truth - whatever that is. Note the use of the word "article" instead of value judgements on the topic. --mav 11:35, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we are having a "dispute" over content. We (or I anyway) are dealing with a crank and a pest. The best way to do that is to revert his edits until he goes away, not conduct polls. Adam 13:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the Village Pump

The main page of Wikipedia displays an article about Zionism with a link to an article about Kingdom of Israel. The article about the Kingdom of Israel is based too much on Old Testament lore taken at face-value. For one thing, archaeology has shown that Jerusalem did not exist as a city in the period circa 1000 B.C. when Solomon was suppsoed to have ruled there, so the reference to Solomon as a king of Israel is pure fantasy. The story of Solomon is actually based on a king Sulayman who ruled in Arabia Felix.

I am especially sensitive to the inclusion of this kind of myth because I just read an argument about whether the dubious information about the Merovingians from Holy Blood, Holy Grail should even be mentioned in the article about them. Clearly, the myth about the ancient Kingdom of Israel has to be mentioned, because the myth is a powerful influence in Zionism, but at the same time the dubiousness of the Biblical account of the Kingdom of Israel should be discussed as well. Indeed, if fact is to be emphasized more than myth here as in the case of the Merovingians, the entry on the Kingdom of Israel should contain a high proportion of debunking. User:64.12.116.134----------------------------------------------------------------------

You might care to look at The Bible and history, which points out that your statement "archaeology has shown" is probably a bit tentative. Of course there is discussion whether the Bible is historical, and whether the Jews can support it to advance claims on

the present Israel. An authority like William Albright has been quoted to say that archaeology supports the bible rather than disproving it.

For one thing, the myth of the Kingdom of Israel surely motivated the Zionists, whether it was true or not. JFW | T@lk 11:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)----------------------------------------------------------------------

I was not quibbling with the article about Zionism but with the article about the Kingdom of Israel referenced therein. Solomon and David, the most famous putative kings of the mythical Kingdom of Israel, are supposed to have ruled at Jerusalem circa 1000 BC. Archaeology has indeed shown that there was no city on the site of Jerusalem at that time. This fact was punlished in Biblical Archaeology Review in the 1990s. It is not tentative at all.

To counter my specific point you cite a vague, general statement by evangelical Methodist archaeologist William Albright, who died in 1971 at a ripe old age. A great deal of work in Near-Eastern archaeology has been done since 1971, so a vague, general statement on the subject from a biased party who died 33 years ago is hardly worth consideration. The article on the Bible and History that you link confines itself to decribing various views of the question without mentioning specific archaeological evidence, so it is not relevant either.

We know nothing of a "Kingdom of Israel," only the Kingdom of Judea that was ruled by Roman clients like Herod the Great. The Biblical claim that there was a Kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon is demonstrably false. In the period when those kings were supposed to be ruling at Jerusalem, there was an Egyptian temple on the site and very little else, and the historical Sulayman is known to have been a king somewhere else.

You are agreeing with me when you say that the mythical Kingdom of Israel should be mentioned in an article about Zionism, but one ought not to pretend or imply that this mythical Kingdom is historical. In particular one ought not to invoke the name of Solomon.

Simply saying that 'we know nothing of a "Kingdom of Israel"' is an argument from silence. It does nothing to discredit the existing accounts in the biblical literature.

In the 1990's people may have claimed that there were no ruins from the 10th century BC in Jerusalem, but that situation has changed. Perhaps they were just looking in the wrong place? Eilat Mazar, an Israeli archaeologist, discovered ruins of a huge public building dating from the 10th century B.C. which she believes to be the remains of King David's palace. That was reported in the New York Times last year, King David's Palace Is Found, Archaeologist Says. A .pdf file with photos and an interview is available here: Did I Find King David's Palace?

Statement

I take note of my previous calls on Adam Carr to refrain from name calling, and strongly deplore his continued personal attacks. I condemn his failure to cooperate with other contributors and his acts to silence, hide and obscure opposition to zionism from the article in question, as well as his refusal to accept that he do not own the article. I declare it imperative that dissenting views on zionism are also mentioned in the introduction, including the view that zionism is a form of racism and Jewish nationalism, and that the word "controversial" before "political movement" is re-added. Zw 22:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You have a wordy way of saying "I hate the Jews". Why not just say it outright? Its not like we don't understand what you are really saying. RK 22:34, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
You didn't get it, right? The article is discussing Zionism, not Judaism. Just like Nazism is discussing Nazism, not christianity. If I say that nazism is a form of racism, do I have a wordy way of saying "I hate the Germans"? Is the UN, Amnesty International and others hating the Jews as well? Don't make yourself ridiculous. Zw 22:42, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
But, seriously, this is Nazipedia ;-) Zw 23:31, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Possibly amongst other things, it should also be mentioned somewhere in the article that some people consider zionism to be oppressive to women, which the international women's conference in Mexico City in 1975 decided. Zw 01:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I would like to cite [RK]: "It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority views, are censored and deleted." [5]

I have to most sincerest agree with him. In this article, not only Palestinian, but roughly the views of most of the world outside Israel and the US are censored and deleted.

Another [RK] quote: "Stop the censorship, and stop the explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy."

Zw 01:29, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User ZW must be banned IMMEDIATELY

User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a flame war. I already have received a death threat from EntmootsOfTrolls (verified by other members of the Wiki-En discussion list); I also received what many interpreted as a threat from John Goode, aka Mr. Natural Health, who explicitly stated that he knew I was Jewish, lived in NY, and that he was a Nazi who also lived in NY. The threat was clear. I am not willing to allow more such threats to be made. Wikipedia must not allow death threats, nor must it ever allow private personal information to be put online. Wikipedia Sysops must purge this article's records so that such personal information is permanently removed. RK 00:25, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

That's absurd. There's no need to be ridiculously dramatic, I've seen no personal information posted here. If you have proof of illegal death threats, present them to the relevant authorities. Otherwise stop diverting attention away from the real issues here and lets figure out a way to get this article NPOV. --Bk0 01:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, sysops can not remove individual revisions from page history. Secondly, you've used your name on the Wikipedia mailing list, so he wasn't telling people anything that you hadn't told the Wikipedia community yourself. Angela. 02:11, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More discussions

--Clearly this article has been hijacked by people absolutely intent upon preserving their POV while slandering anybody that dares mention that this article is biased. Adam's behaviour on this page has been shameful and it seems obvious that he isn't interested in rational, productive discussion. This article needs to have the antizionist perspective mentioned in as neutral a way as is possible and no amount of name-calling will change that. --Bk0 08:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree to an extent. He has been reverting good material from the Anti-Zionist page as well, which is annoying because I've tried to carefully balance the discussion from both extremes, only to see my edits lost because he disagrees with edits that came before mine. If only he took the care to remove what he specifically disagreed with an why, it would be so much better. Instead, he's just cut off everything, simply calling it propaganda. Either way, I think his outstanding abilitly to contribute to the wikipedia might be better served with him taking time-off from these articles for a while. MShonle 09:16, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The purpose of an encyclopaedia article on Zionism (or anything else), is to describe it and to give its history. An encyclopaedia article consists of statements of fact. The statement "Zionism is a political movement among Jews" is a statement of fact. The statement "Zionism is a form of racism," is an opinion, and cannot appear in an encyclopaedia article.
  • The statement "Professor X says that Zionism is a form of racism" is, however, a statement of fact, and therefore can appear. The question then is whether it should appear in this article.
  • I removed all critical commentary about Zionism from this article and transferred it (in a re-written form) to Anti-Zionism because (a) this article was getting too long, and (b) that material was causing endless arguments here. If Zw takes the trouble to read Anti-Zionism he will find that all his favourite anti-Zionist slogans are reported there.
  • Both this article and Anti-Zionism have been worked on by many people, representing various points of view but sharing a common view on how to write an encyclopaedia article. This is why both articles have been fairly settled for some months and are acceptable to most people whatever their opinions about Zionism.
  • Zw seeks to disrupt this because (a) he has no understanding of how to write an encyclopaedia article and (b) he is an anti-Zionist obsessive. I remain undecided about whether he is also an anti-Semite, as suggested above by K.
  • I deleted the word "controversial" because it is a meaningless cliche. All political are movements are controversial. Adam 02:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
--Wrong. Universal suffrage cannot be reasonably described as "controversial". Civil rights are no longer particularly controversial. The right to not be burned at the stake is no longer controversial. At any given time, certain political issues are controversial while others are not. Zionism is controversial. --Bk0 08:03, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Universal suffrage is indeed controversial in certain countries and cultures; Saudi Arabia comes to mind. So too with civil rights; China would be a good example. The bottom line is that Adam is right, all political movements are controversial. Jayjg 16:12, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


However, "Zionism is a political movement among Jews holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland" and "Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel" are not facts, but zionist POVs. When you insist on including zionist POVs in the introduction, dissenting point of views have also to be mentioned, given that zionism is an extremely controversial issue. Also, it should be done in a neutral way (se below). It's done in this way in every other article related to controversial issues. Both nazism and anti-zionism are critical articles, neither of them are written solely from the nazi- og anti-zionist POV. Also, while some stuff can be dealt with in the anti-zionism article, the zionism article itself should present an outline of what zionism is, and adress the major controversy and various viewpoints. It would be silly to move all criticism of nazism to anti-nazism, wouldn't it? I feel you are trying to hide the criticism. I note also that the link to your anti-zionism article is placed only at the bottom of the zionism article right after "Zionist Occupation Government" and such obscurities.

This was my last version:

"Zionism is a controversial political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) according to the zionists themselves holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focussed on the establishment of a Jewish homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. However, it has also been connected with Israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Zionism is often considered a form of Jewish nationalism. Some people, particularly in the Arab world and increasingly in Europe, also see it as racism. This is rejected by the zionists."

I tried to avoid any POVs, from any sides. I've also already made it clear that I would agree to a different wording than "atrocities" (although they are facts), for example "the much criticized Israeli policies in regard to the Palestinian people" (note: "much criticized" (by both the UN, a large number of governments and human rights organisations) is a fact, not a POV). As for "Jewish nationalism", I cannot imagine that anyone would dispute this. Kofi Annan recently stated that zionism is a legitimate form of nationalism. But, "is often considered" does not mean the same as "is". Zw 03:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Atrocities" is as much a matter of opinion as anything else, and certainly not NPOV. In any event, the initial definition should be kept at straightforward as possible, and simply explain what Zionism is. It should not be loaded down with all the political baggage that comes later in the article, in particular all of its alleged faults.. Jayjg 17:13, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Atrocities are, by definition, atrocious. That's a clear subjective term if there ever was one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:30, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Too narrow

"Some liberal or socialist Jews outside Israel, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities, still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."

I don't agree with the above wording. I've met Jews from Israel who oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Further, it is more than just liberals or socialist Jews who oppose Zionism. I think it would be less POV if it became:

"Ethnic, Reformed, Conservative, as well as some Orthodox Jews oppose Zionism as a matter of principle."

While it's true that some liberal or socialist Jews feel that way, it's a much wider community than just that that holds such a belief. To only tell of one side is to not tell the Whole Truth. MShonle 07:20, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While the community that holds such beliefs is wide, it is also extremely shallow; the vast majority of Jews of all stripes and persuasions are still Zionist. Jayjg 16:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Origins of the term

When did this term first appear? Isn't it much older than the political movement that the article describes? I've learned a lot from the article, but I have these vague memories of "Zionist" being applied to Jewish rebels in the first few centuries, umm, "A.D.", and I was expecting an explanation here. Nathan 18:46, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

The term "Zionism" was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890 and was defined as the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, or Zion. The First Zionist Congress led by Theodore Herzl adopted this idea as the Basel Program in 1897. [6], [7]
In his 1969 book Beware! Zionism, leading Soviet Zionologist Yuri Ivanov defines it as the "ideology of loosely linked organizations and political practice of Jewish bourgeoisie, fused with monopolistic spheres in the USA. Zionism sets off militant chauvinism and anti-communism." ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:41, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you! Reading that forced me to think back harder, and I now remember that the term my high school teacher was talking about was not not "zionist" but "zealot." Perhaps you can work your info into the article when it's unprotected, as it's always useful to know when a term (especially a controversial one) was coined. Nathan 10:15, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
The Ivanov's def went to Anti-Zionism, but the original one definitely belongs here. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added part of Humus sapiens's text to the article. Nathan 14:15, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

What issues are currently under dispute at this article? What steps are being taken to resolve them? If there are no currently active disputes, when will the article be unprotected? Adam 22:28, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Given that things have calmed down, I'm going to unprotect the page. But should that situation change... -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Palestine = Kingdom of Israel?

What empirical evidence is there that the territory of Palestine is definitively the site of the historical kingdom of Israel? Other than the highly suspicious "holy" books it seems to me that there is a lot more legend and religious opinion than scientific fact in this regard. This should be mentioned, yet my edits are continuously reverted. --Bk0 17:55, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Because archeological materials recovered in the area do not support your thesis.

Please ignore Bk0's anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theories. The entry on Bible conspiracy theories explains where he comes from, and it isn't anyplace historically respectable. (Note that there is currently an edit war on that article. Zero and Mustafa find the info their inconvinent, so they keep deleting it all. Sadly, Zero censors significant amounts of verified information from many article, solely for the "sin" of presenting viewpoints he does not agree with. He has done this here, and on articles like Israeli West Bank barrier, and Israel Shahak. RK 04:40, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Land of Israel

The early Zionists and many later ones use this term extensively. It also avoids issues of boundaries imposed by Britain. The boundaries of the Land of Israel changed over time.