Talk:Zionism/Archive 6

message: The article has reverted to being a polemic justifying Zionism rather than a description of what zionism is. The first section in particular talking about arab invasion is just a toilet. There isn't even at attempt at NPOV - or even relevance to the topic.
:I agree, it is long past time for the disputed neutrality tag to return to this article.  It's become little more than a set of zionist talking points. Dacian
::Yeah, note the first paragraph of the Islamism article:
::"Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Islamist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Sharia. [1] Islamists regard themselves as Muslims rather than Islamists, while moderate Muslims reject this notion."
::The Zionism article might similarly start with:
::"Zionism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various conservative religious views of Jewish fundamentalists, which hold that Judaism is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Zionist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Torah. Zionists regard themselves as Jews rather than Zionists, while moderate Jews reject this notion."
Sorry but your definition and indeed your entire notion of Zionism is mistaken.  Zionism has few if any parallel with Islamism.  Also today virtually all moderate Jewish groups and individuals support Zionism.  In fact the only Jewish group where there is some disagreement with Zionism is Hasidism and a few very small Orthodox groups, and even here they are an increasingly small minority.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemic nature 

message: From errors of comission (such as calling Israel's ethnical cleansing a "civil war") to errors of omission (such as omitting the pogroms of non-Jews and occupation of Palestine), this is largely a piece of propaganda minimizing negative acts and consequences of Zionism.
HistoryBuffEr 00:01, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
:I agree. Simply segregating cricism of Zionism in the anti-zionism article and using that as a rationale to let this article be blatent pro-Israel propaganda is not acceptable and reflects negatively, I think, on Wikipedia. Bk0 04:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of this called a "civil war" by either side until this article, regardless of whether your opinion calls it "ethnic cleansing" or not. Hundreds of thousands of troops from neighboring Arab countries were involved in the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli war, which is hardly just "Civil war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine." AriP 21:52, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is totally disputed 

message: How come the article fails to mention the purchase of land from arabs mainly with Rothschild's help? Am I missing something? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 14:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Land Purchase 

message: Is it true that Madagascar was briefly considered as a Jewish homeland?  And how could anyone come up with such a dumb idea?  Mjklin 21:51, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)
*Before Hitler decided on his 'Final solution', he considered other ways of dealing with the 'Jewish problem' by exiling them to some remote land.  First he considered Siberia, but fearing the harsh climate would turn the Jews into 'Supermen', he later considered mild Madagascar.--Pharos 11:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth is stranger than fiction...
*Wikipedia is amazing.  In the last month a new article has been written on the Madagascar Plan.--Pharos 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madagascar 

message: I see there is a "factual dispute" label, can anybody specify what are the disputed facts? MathKnight 20:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been there for four months.  I've removed it, there don't appear to be any current disputes. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 20:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual dispute 

message: Do you know where I can find free (public domain or GNU) Zionist posters (to encourage Aliya and boost the moral of the Zionist settlers in Israel)? MathKnight 20:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist posters 

message: 95% Arab population in 1880 is false. Ottomon census gives total Muslim population of 141 000 Jewish population at the same time is estimated at 40 000. In addition estimated 75% Muslim population was Ottoman, remaining 25% were a mix of Arab (mainly from Egypt), Circassian, Bushnaks and others. No evidence of Arab population going back further than the the early 19th century, let alone being there for 1000s of years! Kuratowski's Ghost 14:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't help, one side will say Jewish historian Ernst Frankenstein who wrote in the 1940s and the other will say someone like Arab historian Edward Said and then both sides will claim the other side is discredited. :P  Kuratowski's Ghost 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And that in itself is useful information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Good question, one that is often ignored. Earlier census 1878 gives under 44 000 Christians in Palestine including southern Lebenon. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionism and Arabs

message: The most recent edit goes into some detail about Herzl's feelings regarding the Dreyfuss affair. Is that really at all relevant for here (as opposed to either Herzl's or Dreyfuss' own articles)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was not. I've removed it.  I'm not sure it's even relevant there, aside from the problems that it smack of original research, and is uncited. Jayjg (talk) 16:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreyfuss & Herzl 

message: We have a POV dispute between "settlement in" and "collonisation of". Adding tag. 62.253.64.14 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Dispute 

message: In response to Molly and Jayjg I really think the article on Zionism really needs to have an equally strong anti-zionist side but it shouldn't have an anti-semetic side to. The reason I oppose Zionism is because it is a racist idealogy but so are anti-semitic ideologies like white "nationalism" (more accurately called chauvinism) and nazism. 
In opposing Zionism I don't think any left-wing (I'm a Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyist by the way) activist should block with people like the Nazis, Pat Buchanan etc. The reasons are a) its unprincipled and b) they don't oppose Zionism for persecuting and oppressing Palestinians they oppose it because they oppose Jews.
One thing really needs to be made clear that Judaism, the Jewish culture and the Jewish people are completely different from Zionism. The Jews are a race just like chinese, japanese, english, french, blacks, arabs, persians etc. 
I think if you were to parralel the Israel-Palestine conflict with WW2 the Zionists would be most like the Nazis, the Palestians the Jews and the Jews the Germans. The Zionists have committed the same type of atrocities on the Palestians that the Nazis had committed on the Jews. The Palestinians the Jews because they both were/are persecuted in the same types of ways. And finally, the Jews would be like the Germans in the sense that they happen to be the same race as the Zionists (who committing the atrocities) but don't necessarily support Zionism. Some Jews support Zionism, others are opposed and others are neutral. Just like the Germans in Germany.
Another point to make is that not only is there the Zionist state of Israel persecuted and opressing Palestinians their is also Non-Palestian Arabs oppressing Palestians (ie the Hashimite dynasty in Jordan) as well the Israeli Bourgeoisie (ruling class and owners of capital, the means of production) oppressing the Israeli Proletariet (working class and producer of commodities). Leon Trotsky 09:32, 22 July 2005
*This is completely biased and deeply offensive. Several points need to be clarified:
*1. Judaism is not a race. It is a religion. Jews come in all colours, ethnicities, and nationalities, as well as political beliefs. They are NOT a race 'like chinese, japanese, english, french, blacks, arabs, persians etc.' Jews are bonded not by ethnicity, but by religion. After all, when the last time you could convert to being chinese? As well, the Jews are not distinct from Zionism. The idea of Zionism without Jews is ludicrous, as Zionism in its essence is a movement working for the establishment of a "Jewish" homeland. While I appreciate all the non-Jews who support a Jewish homeland, I believe Zionism was always intended to be a Jewish movement.
*2. It never fails to disgust me to have the Israel-Palestine conflict equated with the Holocaust, as they are two completely opposite struggles. You say:
*'The Zionists have committed the same type of atrocities on the Palestians that the Nazis had committed on the Jews.'
*The 'Zionists' have never herded innocent Palestinians into cattle cars and shipped them off to death camps, where they were gassed by the thousands, as was done to the Jews. The Zionists do not use the Palestinians for horrible and cruel experiments, with sterilization, live operations, mutilation, and other atrocities (that were committed by the aptly named Nazi 'doctor' Dr. Mengele). Nor do the Zionists line up the innocent women and children of the Palestinians outside ditches in the forests and shoot them all, leaving the dead bodies and still living ones in the ditches as a mass grave.
* As well, the Holocaust is a case of when the ruling government (the Nazis) wanted to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth. They were implementing a policy of cleansing throughout their entire empire (the Third Reich) and they planned to do the same for the entire world. HOWEVER, the Israeli government is not trying to kill every single Palestinian and rid the world of their presence. The acts of aggression towards Palestinians, which are undeniably regretful, are measure to prevent them trying to murder innocent innocent Israelis. If the Palestinians (and I use the term here to mean the miscellaneous collection of Arabs kicked out of other countries, Muslims fleeing persecution in other Muslim countries, and descendants of Arabs who left Israel during the Six Day War who have banded together and given themselves the name of Palestinians; I suppose they are trying to legitimize themselves as the 'true' inhabitants of Israel by identifying themsleves as descendants of the Philistines and Sea Peoples who settled in Judea and Samaria after the Jews were expelled by the Romans, which they are not.) would stop blowing themelves up in the midst of civilians, then we would stop killing the people who make the bombs and the poeple who smuggle them, as they would be out of a job. Now I know that not all Palestinians are anti-Israel, but obviously there are enough of them who hate Israel enough to disguise themselves as Orthodox Jews to infiltrate buses and malls, and to place bombs under pregnant women giving birth so that they could blow up patients in the hospitals. You cannot compare the Jews to the Nazis and the Palestinians to the Jews, as the Jews in the Holocaust did not undertake a campaign to kill thousands of Germans and destroy the existance of Germany, as the Palestinians have done to the Jews.
*The Palestinians are not being persecuted in the same way as the Jews in the Holocaust, and that statement in my opinion is deeply offensive as well as historically inaccurate. Sputnikcccp 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Opposition to Zionism and Anti-Semitism

message: I agree with the previous posters about NPOV and I am going to try putting up an expanded NPOV flag.  One example can of bias can be seen in describing the PLO, the Haganah, and the Irgun. Compare the two: 
"The Palestine Liberation Organisation, created in 1965 as an Egyptian-controlled propaganda device, took on new life as an autonomous movement led by Yasser Arafat, and soon turned to terrorism as its principal means of struggle."
and
"Two military movements were founded, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun. The latter group did not hesitate to take military action against the Arab population."
So not only was the PLO started as 'propoganda' (clearly a negative connotation) it uses 'terrorism' (again very negative connotation) for its struggle.  However, the Irgun 'did not hesitate' (a positive connotation, in fact almost heroic) to use 'military action' (neutral, but in contrast to the terrorism of the PLO it seems rather positive).  
So, I know there clearly others who believe the article to be a POV and I would like them to add other references.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.141.57 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 August 2005  (UTC)
*And this is why you made this purely pro-Holocaust denial edit? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: (Deletions within braces; additions italicized.)
:Zionism [did not initially receive universal support from] was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was [occasionally] actively opposed by [other] many [factions within the Jewish community] Jewish organizations.
(This, I strongly believe, is far more accurate than the original, and it improves the wording.)Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is better if you change "Zionism" to "Political Zionism". Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not make sense to me -- Zionism is by its nature political.  The beginning of the entire article is, "Zionism is a Jewish political movement ..."  What distinction did you want to make, and is there a better way to make it?Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Political Zionism is by its nature political.  Religious Zionism, the kind that existed for thousands of years before Political Zionism, is not. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be looking for a distinction to be made between the "let's do something about it" variety of Zionism and the "soon the Messiah will come" variety.  Is that accurate?  I'm inclined to think that in normal use "Zionism" refers only to the former, sort of in the way that "socialist" means someone who believes that the government should control the means of production, and not someone who is concerned with social matters.  I think that whatever clarity might be added by using "Political Zionism" would be more than offset by the impression given that there is something called "Political Zionism" that is possibly just a small subset of what the rest of the article has been calling "Zionism," which -- if you look even at the first sentence of the article -- is clearly not the case.  If the distinction you want is made, the entire article ought to be rewritten.Marsden 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the distinction is between Political and Religious Zionism. All Jews were encouraged/commended to "do something about it" if they could; the catch was that most did not have the wherewithal to do so, and were therefore forced to wait until the coming of the Messiah.  That said, replacing "Zionism" with "The Zionist movement" would make it clear, and would be more accurate. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "the Zionist movement" works for me!Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: While many [R]religious Jews believed that [since] the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable, most groups held either that the messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, or that an allegorical interpretation of Biblical references to Israel was more appropriate.
(This removes the categorical description of religious Jews and more clearly indicates that Zionism was opposed by most Jewish religious factions.  Also, it introduces the small matter of messianism that most groups attached to the Israel matter as well as the "religion of ideas" track of the more liberal groups.)Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The position was categorical and universal among religious Jews, and I don't understand what you mean by the "allegorical" part. Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What qualifies you to speak on behalf of all religious Jews?  Maybe if you softened (a lot!) the words "permanent and inalienable" it would not seem so obviously wrong to me -- surely many of the Orthodox, anti-Zionist groups believe that "God's exile" has alienated Jews from the right to the land.  I am not wedded to the term "allegorical," but I was refering to positions such as some of those expressed in the Jewish Encyclopedia link I provided earlier, such as "that Israel has been since the Dispersion a purely religious community, a leader of peoples;" or (for American Jews), "that America was the Jews' Jerusalem and Washington their Zion;" or, "its highest traditional ideal is undoubtedly national, but it is not the nation of a kept principality but the holy nation of a kingdom of priests."Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the tiny number of Orthodox anti-Zionist groups do not think that Jews will eventually be restored to ownership of the land.  As for the other, "Religious Jews" should be changed to "Traditional Jewish belief held that..."; the positions you cite were  Reform innovations which only gained some traction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to have either one too many or one too few "nots" in your first sentence here.  Can you rephrase?  I'm not sure what you were refering to with your remark on "Traditional Jewish belief"  -- was it the messianism belief?  Please clarify.  As to the reform innovations, the paragraph addresses how Zionism was initially received, which puts the period of concern in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, does it not?Marsden 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the tiny number of Orthodox anti-Zionist groups believe that Jews will eventually be restored to ownership of the land.  The other sentence should read Traditional Jewish belief held that the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're at least very close here.  I'm thinking I'll do the entire proposed paragraph at the end, and you can note if there's anything that you don't think has been reflected accurately.Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: [To generations of diaspora Jews, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies.]  Still, return to the Land of Israel remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, which traditionally conclude with, "Next year in Jerusalem." (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism)
(This is more descriptive than the original, and I think it accurately captures the underlying Zionist-ic sentiment of diaspora Judaism without suggesting that very many Jews were actively planning on living in Israel any time soon.)
I'll give you an opportunity, Jay, to complain about my proposed changes to the first paragraph before I continue.Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've responded. And please sign your posts with four tilde signs (~~~~). Jayjg (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it was fine. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The Zionism movement was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was actively opposed by many Jewish organizations.  While traditional Jewish belief held that the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable, most Orthodox groups held that the messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, and Reform Judaism (prior to the Holocaust) explicitly rejected a return to the Land of Israel.  Still, return to the Land of Israel had remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, which traditionally conclude with, "Next year in Jerusalem." (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism.)
How does that look to you? Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Support for the Zionist movement was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was actively opposed by many Jewish organizations.  While traditional Jewish belief held that Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable, most Orthodox groups held that the Messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, and Reform Judaism (prior to the Holocaust) explicitly rejected a return to the Land of Israel.  Still, imminent return to the Land of Israel had remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers which traditionally concluded with, "Next year in Jerusalem".
Thoughts? Jayjg (talk) 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good to me.  I'd like to nail down a response to Yodakii's comment, but I don't think it should be necessary to change the wording.Marsden 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Jay -- at a second look, I'd rather not include the word "imminent."  The exact words are there; readers can decide for themselves what they mean.  The separate use of the word "imminent" gives the suggestion that active planning for return was going on, which, until the modern Zionist era, was not generally the case.Marsden 15:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The hope was certainly that it would be imminent; some people even kept packed suitcases. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the text refers to "generations of diaspora Jews":  that some kept their bags packed does not warrant, in my opinion, reiterating a sense ably conveyed by the words from the prayers.  The second paragraph of the section, which we haven't addressed at all yet, deals with actual aliyah.  Can we leave the matter of "imminence" to that or a later paragraph?  The words of the prayers are fact; the use of the term "imminent" is a characterization.  I think that there will be ample opportunity elsewhere to provide facts that readers can use to obtain their own opinions without any help from the wording of the article.  I think a fairly accurate sense can be conveyed by some history of aliyah and of the various historical claimants to being the Messiah and reactions to them.  What is added, Jay, by including the word "imminent?"  I really don't think it is necessary, nor that it belongs.  Marsden 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: "Jerusalem" in the prayers isn't Jerusalem the modern city. Even people in Jerusalem today say "Next year in Jerusalem". Are diaspora Jews confused or just Jewish Jerusalemites? --Yodakii 09:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, many Orthodox groups (at least) regard Israel as a "state of the Jewish people," as opposed to a "Jewish state," the difference being (something like) rule completely according to religious beliefs, and generally still requiring the Messiah to make an entrance.  In that sense, I don't see a contradiction between an attachment to the land/idea and the prayer form.Marsden 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: The deleted text was:
:'...and even fewer have suggested viable alternatives for the resettlement of Jewish Israeli population (of over 5 million) in this eventuality, since the overwhelming majority refuse to live under Arab rule.'
It is already acknowledged that "few" (and certainly none of the people mentioned in the paragraph) are arguing for the "eventuality" (resettlement of the existing Jewish population of modern-day Israel).  So the question of "viable alternatives" does not arise.Brian Tvedt 11:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 'resettlement' strawman