Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 6

message: Quote:
'Western far right anti-Zionists see the state of Israel as something Jewish, therefore evil. From late 1990s, most of far-right parties looking for political presence had to abandon anti-Zionism platform to distinguish themselves from far-left and even moderate left parties that took this platform over.'
This sentence is ungrammatical and logically pernicious. It presumes a) The far right is racist, and supposedly used to be anti-Zionist out of hatred of the Jews b) The far right is capricious, and supposedly is now pro-Zionist to spite the left. Does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. ralian 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Far right" anti-Zionism 

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

message: The section on Jewish anti-Zionism duplicates the article Jewish Anti-Zionism. I do not object to the content, but unless there is a good reason for duplication, I am planning to shorten the section here. Please help making this consistent with other WP articles/subartcles. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the reference to the Satmars as the largest Hassidic group - the Lubavatchers have probably about 200,000 adherents and are widely cosidered the largest Hassidic group.  Incorrect 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish anti-Zionism 

message: The second to last paragraph of the Defining Anti-Zionism section states that: The Society for Rational Peace contends on its website that "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation."
I believe that this statement should be followed by something like this paragraph (an edited sample from the Western anti-Zionism section further down the page): Most Western anti-Zionism advocates coexistence rather than expulsion: very few western intellectuals actively desire the physical destruction of Israel, and most would welcome any settlement if it was acceptable to the Palestinians.
As it now stands, I think that the Defining anti-Zionism section leans too far toward radical anti-Zionism.  Any thoughts? --(Mingus ah um 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mignus, I completely agree. I just deleted that part for like the millionth time. But this one user just wont' give up and no matter how often you give your reasons, he just ignors then and won't adress your comments. He himself never offers any justification for why the paragraph should be included. I think it's pretty aparent that that paragraph comes from an openly zionist website, and is really just an underhanded attempt to slander people opposesd to zionism and/ or nationalism in general. Hazel Rah 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to add verifiable and reputable definition but do not remove a referenced quote. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, but who are you to tell me what to do?
Hazel Rah 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: the ''Defining anti-Zionism'' section

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

message: The definition of anti-zionism:
In addition to a conventional definition of anti-Semitism ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), the unabridged edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, originally published in 1961 and reprinted in 2002, gives a controversial second and third definition to anti-Semitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel". 
''
I don't mean to start up a whole debate on whether there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, but as an encyclopedia, when concept A is defined, the writing doesn't abruptly jump to defining concept B without providing transition.  (e.g.  Define electron: the definition of electricity is ...)  Without a transition sentence (e.g. "Because little distinction is made between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, it is convenient to instead define anti-semitism" would be such a sentence, not that I agree with it), the defintion part of the article fails to make sense to the reader seeking information.Loodog 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  defintion 

message: Is it racism or not? By the categories it is, but by the article it's not (Anti-Zionism#Jewish anti-Zionism). I myself don't consider anti-Zionism as racism, though many anti-Zionists are anti-Semetic. Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But does plain anti-Zionism means for racism? I think the answer is no, although it is popular in anti-Semetic circles, being anti-Zionist does not make you racist as Zionism is an ideology and not a race\religion. Psychomelodic (people think  edit) 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Zionism and anti-Zionism can be racist or anti-racist depending on the context. In large part it depends on which theory of international relations the writer endorses. --Ian Pitchford 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm confused 

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

message: I do not believe that this should be included in the Anti-Zionsim section, as it draws influences from anti-semitism. For years now Israel has claimed that any opposition to zionism is infact anti-semitism, and I think it is time westarted distinguishing between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss501hm (talk • contribs) 
: Many reputable historians (not only Israeli historians or Israeli officials) agree that it had indeed strong antisemitic undertones. Believe it or not, the fact is that the Soviets insisted it to be Anti-Zionism and not Antisemitism, so it surely belongs here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Crocodilicus, this is false: "The Soviet government liquidated ALL relgious organizations". ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Anti-Zionism 

message: The author wrote that the Kaplan and Small article stated that "Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe's newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties"
However this is not in the article (see also <http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/jcr_antisemitism.pdf>).
In <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism>  there is proper documentation on the combination of Left and Anti-Zionism. Perhaps that section could be used for improvement of this article?:
:In fact, the statement is a plagiarized from one Diana Muir (references: <http://www.think-israel.org/jul06bloged.html> <http://hnn.us/articles/28503.html>). This appears to be her summary/interpretation of the article. I myself admit that I have not digested the whole of the Kaplan article and I am not well-versed in statistics, so whether this is a valid conclusion based upon the evidence eludes me. Nevertheless I shall attribute it to her shortly, since A) It is her opinion and B) To plug it without citing her is plagiarism. 
:On another note, the Kaplan paper's methodology seems somewhat questionable. The questions purported to gauge Anti-Zionism are skewed in such a way as to correlate more strongly with Anti-Semitism. For example, (paraphrase) "Do you think Israeli soldiers intentionally target civilians," is but, "Do you think that the IDF are butchers?" writ large, and the question about whether you think Palestinian suicide bombings are OK is even worse. But then again, this depends on your opinion of what Anti-Zionism is, and in my estimation Kaplan et al. believes that it is the desire for the destruction of the Israeli state (and is thus identical, or nearly identical, to Anti-Seminitism), or else he would have asked different questions. Perhaps this should be stated? Emoticon 19:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and the Left 

message: I assure everyone that this is not biased or racist and almost all the information given I have looked at independently. These views add an extra dimenstion to Zionism and show how it victimized Jews and non-Jews alike.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary
This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...
http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm 
69.196.164.190
:I don't think videos of machine-read conspiracy theories (or even their texts), written by non-notable anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, and hosted on anti-Semitic websites, are really helpful to the article. Jayjg (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I think this links should be studies

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

message: The alleged Dr Martin Luther King quote "When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism” is a well-known hoax. I've taken the liberty to remove it.MeteorMaker 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You confused a hoax letter that was not cited here with true quote. I hope that the provided reference helps. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:V. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone else noticed this, before I did. I checked the reference and as far as I can see there is no such quote. Its stems from that notorious faked speech and letter. MLK never said that. The other problem was that it gives too much prominence of that controversial fringe POV that equates Anti-Zionism with Anti-Semitism by putting it in the introduction. It should be kept in its own section under New Anti-Semitism where this POV can be extressed--not in the intro. If you are not convinced think about the Zionsims article having mention of the POV that Zionism is regarded as a form of racism, in the intro! Ofcourse that would not be correct. For the same reasons this fringe POV should not be part of the intro.Giovanni33 03:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that Giovanni33 wikistalked me here. What "the reference" did you check: Encounter magazine, December 1969? Since there are complaints that MLK quote is too prominent in the intro, I am moving it, together with ref to Gandhi (we're all for NPOV, right?) to their respective sections. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

text: The letter is a hoax though. We should have a reference from the publication in question. CAMERA is a lousy source. --Uncle Bungle 00:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter is not a hoax. Anyone can say it is a hoax to better suit a political agenda. That doesn't mean it really is.--Sefringle 04:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Who is the Society for Rational Peace? What individual at the SRP' offered the definition below? In what capacity is that individual qualified to define Anti-Zionism? I call into question the  reliability of this definition.
Update October 9: Removed source for statement Some supporters of Zionism go so far as to say that all expressions of anti-Zionism qualify as anti-Semitism. and replaced it with  as even as a secondary source, "The Peace Encyclopedia" will remain dubious until the above questions are answered. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 02:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added it. I am not affiliated with them. Their website (AKA The Peace Encyclopedia) says who they are. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Humus sapiens thank you for replying. Please answer the very reasonable questions above as I was unable to locate any of that information on the website. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I did not find much info about SRP, I won't insist on leaving them out. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Anti-Zionism - The Society for Rational Peace 

message: I re-organized the introductory sections in an effort to eliminate repetitive content. The old version had two explanations of a binational solution, had types under defining, definition under types, and was generally a mess. As far as I know, no information was removed, and it still doesn't flow very well, but at least it's a little more orderly. Comments welcome. --Uncle Bungle 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Uncle Bungle. As you requested, I'm here to try to help. Can you be a little more explicit about what you want to fix, and why? That would be helpful. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jayjg, thank you. The introduction has two nearly identical explanations of a bi-national solution. There is a short description of muslim anti-Zionism under defining, and a longer one under types. Also, the two sections, defining and types, seem to basically serv the same purpose of, generally, explaning what anti-Zionism is. There is also some history under defining. There is a hacked up version on my user page which explains basically what I want to do with it. All I want to do is cover muslim anti-Zionism together in one place, bi-national anti-Zionism in another, and eliminate reptitive comments. I have no interest in changing the intent of the content, just straighten it up. What do you think? Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If I understand your version correctly, the first and third paragraphs are essentially repetitive. In addition, the old version gave context and definition first, then delved into specific examples, whereas your version did the opposite. The former would seem preferable for understanding. It seems to me your purpose would be better served by simply removing the phrase for instance by those who advocate a binational state comprising the territories of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which both Jews and Palestinians would be citizens. Other "Anti-Zionists", such as some Palestinian militant groups, call for the total elimination (by whatever means) of the Jewish presence in the region of Palestine, which includes the territory of the State of Israel. from the introduction, and removing the section header "Anti-Zionism dictionary definitions". I'll show you what I mean in the article. Jayjg (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jayjg. It looks great, thank you for your help. The only other thing I would like considered is mentioning the AAADC opposition to the definition of anti-Semitism, and the ADL response to it. It seems irrelevant to me since neither organization actually publishes a dictionary of their own, or has exclusive rights to represent the feelings of a particular ethnic group. In my opinion, both statements could be removed and the article would lose nothing. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 22:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a quick follow up, there are two statements in there about Miriam webster reps caling the definition a "relic". Only one is necessary, I think. I'll let you decide how to best re-work it. Thanks again. --Uncle Bungle 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-organize introductory paragraphs