Talk:Neo-Zionism

message: What is the exact point in adding "Antisemitism in the Arab world", "New antisemitism" and "Blood Libel at Deir Yassin (book)" in the 'see also' section of this article where these themes are not mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoygan!! (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I think there also need to be a Seculer Neo-Zionism artical. (IP)
:Indeed. But we need references... Ceedjee (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: This source - http://www.jewishpress.com/tag/arutz-sheva/  -  "We Need To Put The Spirit Back Into The People: An Interview with Arutz Sheva’s Yishai Fleisher  - is repeatedly being inserted into the article as the basis for the claim that ' In the media, Arutz Sheva defends the Neo-Zionist ideology by opposition to Post-Zionism.' , beyond teh obvious original research involved in making that interpretation (which is not explicitly made in the source), the problem is that in the source, the statements related to organizations opposing Post-zionism  is referring to a different organization - Kumah, not to Arutz 7. Some reading comprehension would work better than edit warring. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arutz 7 

message: 1. The entire neologism "neo-zionist" and article about this made-up "movement" is very unbalanced POV -- because there are literally ZERO Jews noted in the article who define THEMSELVES as "neo-Zionist".  It is a term created by Leftists (and the article does not properly clarify that ONLY Leftists are using this neologism, as I'll detail examples of below). These Leftist authors then call themselves "post-zionist" Leftists -- which is fine by Wikipedia's rules to do a "post-Zionism" article about them -- to demean The Right by contending part of today's Right are championing a completely FABRICATED enemy "movement," which is a Straw Man fallacy (VIOLATION...Sophistry) of Aristotle's 2,600-year old Logic.  Where it VIOLATES WP POLICIES will be denoted in the next few e.g.'s; before I get to that: 1. The article should denote in the lede the fact of WHO made-up the term "neo-zionism" or use an = = Origins = = section or "Etymology" section as the 1st section (but no spaces between the "=" signs).
2. Notice that a book wasn't written asserting that such an ideology even EXISTS until 1993 -- 20 years after they SUPPOSEDLY originated in "1973".  i.e. These "scholars" have resorted to REVISIONIST HISTORY: congrats, Orwell warned us about you.  As a 2nd, and SEPARATE Logical Fallacy (not just "Revisionist History" -- however, e.g.: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO RELY SOLELY UPON SECONDARY SOURCES, AND YOU HAVE CITED ZERO PRIMARY SOURCES (i.e. sources in 1974-1977 when this movement ALLEGEDLY took its roots, calling themSELVES "neo-zionist," AND WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A COMBINATION OF PRIMARY SOURCES (with these secondary, 21st century authors) SPECIFICALLY TO AVOID REVISIONIST HISTORIANS SUCH AS THESE JOHNNY-COME-LATELY SHYSTERS CALLING THEMSELVES "post-zionists" and creating a Straw Man enemy they'd like to define as a 1970's "neo-zionist" movement, of which they -- and this article -- presented and named ZERO leaders & ZERO adherents. i.e. a Straw Man (scapegoating again reminiscent of 1930's Orwellian propagandists, which this article & the Leftist "post-zionist" scholars (but then again, what sort of "scholar" relies upon Logical Fallacies?) is the basis of this ENTIRE article, such as relying upon:
e.g. "Neo-Zionists consider "secular Zionism"..." is unencyclopedic, because you CANNOT CITE ANYONE (who) is calling HIMSELF a leader of any "neo-zionist" movement.  What it DOES cite -- instead of ACTUAL rightwingers calling their own movement "neo-zionism" -- is a source of... URI RAM AGAIN, the Leftist.  By WP:RS, it should read, "Uri Ram contends that those whom he defines as Neo-zionists consider "secular zionism" to be..."  Who?  NAME any individuals that lead any faction that calls ITSELF "neo-zionists" (who) consider secular zionism..." as being weak, etc?
e.g. "Neo-Zionism ideology was promoted by the banned Kach and Kahane Chai or the Jewish Defense League.[citation needed]"  CITATION NEEDED says it all...  and e.g. FIRST SENTENCE of the whole article: "...appeared in Israel following the Six-Day War in 1967 and the capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip" also should be -- by WP:RS standards: "Neo-Zionism is a term created by Uri Ram which he alleges is an embodiment of right-wing, nationalistic and religious ideology..."
When you are losing a debate (and public opinion polls in the entire Western world, such as Pew's questions to Westerners RE: Israel...), all the greats -- Goebbels, the Strasserist brothers (far-left Nazis), Lenin, Stain, Marx, Mao, Pol Pot... (as ORWELL captured in his twin tomes, 1984 & Animal Farm after he was a member of BOTH Nazi&Commie org's -- and saw ZERO contradictions between the 2, like most of his era including G Bernard Shaw (another "liberal" ON FILM supporting Hitler and espousing eugenics, or Hillary Clinton's "hero" (directly quoting Hillary) Margaret Sanger, another who was 1920's "progressive liberal" who supported Hitler and eugenics -- but after Orwell realized he'd been brainwashed by them, he decided to write back-to-back books showing how the Strasserists (the ORIGINAL Nazis) and Marx were OF THE SAME IDEOLOGICAL ROOT) all advised to use neologisms (NEWSPEAK) to MAKE UP an ideology that nobody WP:noteworthy has even defined as his OWN ideology.  Interesting to see Uri is recycling this same far-left 1920's tactic; will he next call his enemies "volksverrater" (a concept the far-left ORIGINALLY used, but then Strassserists borrowed) or perhaps use "Gleichschaltung" as most of today's far-left is doing in university & journalism?  Create a Straw man that you can then easily knock down.  George ORWELL, ARISTOTLE, PLATO, and many more greats (who withstood the test of time, unlike this "Uri Ram" ...who???) warned us about such pseudo-intellectuals.
3. WP:OR (last issue, finally...) When quoting Im Tirtzu, notice IM TIRTZU ITSELF has used the word "zionism," they NEVER spoke of nor called themSELVES "NEO-zionism" yet again.  So now you -- not the authors you cited, just a Wikipedian himself, which is WP:OR -- are trying to set THEM (Im Tirtzu) up as your Straw Man, by WP:coatracking the issues of original zionism (which they DO espouse) into this NON-EXISTENT "neo-zionism" movement that is a FIGMENT CREATED IN URI'S MIND, THEN PARROTED BY HIS FELLOW IDEOLOGUES SEEKING A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT -- your AUTHORS CITED are not even trying to set up Im Tirtzu as this Strawman Fallacy of Logic, but rather a Wikipedian editor using WP:synthesis, a form of WP:OR.  One-sided arguments like this ENTIRE article violating WP:RS so that casual readers may not notice the SOURCING is ALL left-wingers -- even when the Wikipedians try to make it sound like rightwingers themselves (Im Tirtzu) are being cited FALSELY on "neo-zionism" and never claimed they THEMSELVES are "neo-zionist" nor even COMMENTED AT ALL on the "NEO-zionism" topic are why I left Wikipedia and no longer believe most of it serves intellectual discourse i.e. meeting standards of THE RULES OF LOGIC and EMPIRICAL SCIENCE (as EXACT scientists such as Gilbert et al, and Anderson et al, showed: 40% to 80% of papers in SOCIAL(ist) SCIENCES now in peer-reviewed (the "gold standard") journals NO LONGER EVEN MEET THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD -- and this is thanks to PhD's like Uri, Ilan Pappe, et al -- and every archaeology and "exact" science professor or even frosh high school teacher whom I know do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source because of articles so CONSISTENTLY disingenuous, and one-sidedly violative of WP's own rules & even of Aristotlean Logic itself, like this.
97.98.86.66 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  TAG this article: WP:OR, WP:RS, lack of Primary Sources, and improper attribution of the sources (locked article) 

message: The QUOTE of Dana Eyal shows she claimed "racists" exist (well DUH, they do in every nation...) but SHE never used the words "neo-zionism" as those she identified with racist beliefs -- so it is MORE WP:OR and now libel trying to associate HER views with a "neo-zionism" movement that SHE HERSELF never mentions as even EXISTING in HER worldview. (libel in AT LEAST Israeli legal system; I didn't pass the bar in Western nations such as WP's corporate HQ, nor necessarily where the editors who added the libelresie, but I can guarantee HaMossad has ways of finding out, and penalizing those who support Nazi movements (PLO's founding family, Arafat's uncle Mufti Hussayni who CREATED the Palestinian Nationalist movement, were Nazi allies who never were systematically de-nazified after WW2 as their German allies were).)
She and Im Tirtzu both said "zionists" exist, not that "neo-zionists" even EXIST, so what are BOTH these quotes still in this article for???  That's WP:OR and WP:coatracking those 2 sources into an article on a topic (NEOz'ism) that THEY NEVER EVEN SPOKE THE NAME OF nor AGREED even EXISTS within those snippets.  Im Tirtzu NEVER used nor advocated "neo-zionism," only "zionism".  So it is LIBEL to list them under the "representation" section, unless you can show us a DIFFERENT quote where they do "Represent" themselves as being "neo-zionism" not the older more traditional "zionism."
97.98.86.66 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel laws 

message: Hello, I just wanted to make one small, but extremely important edit. Your article states that Neo-Zionism is a right wing ideology. This is not a right wing ideology, and is understood by Jews both in Israel and around the world much more often as an issue not about left or right wing politics. If anything, Neo-Zionism is a progressive cause. As many of us already know, Jews were some of the most oppressed and continuously targeted groups throughout history. Zionism was originally created as a solution for global systemic oppression against Jews, again making Zionism and therefore neo-Zionism technically a progressive cause, not very much related to right wing ideologies, that value conservation of already in place systems and don’t often center around social justice causes. Furthermore the word “Jew” is derived from the ancient nation of Judea, located in modern Israel, Palestine, parts of Egypt, and parts of Lebanon. The Arabic Palestinian people came to the land 1,500 years after the Roman Empire colonized the area, defeating the Judean Empire naming it Syria-Palestina. This makes both Jews and Palestinians indigenous communities to the nation, which therefore makes Zionism and Neo-Zionism technically an indigenous land-back movement. Under the British mandate of Palestine, pre-Israel, Jews were not allowed to speak Hebrew, bear arms in self defense, or even testify in court. Zionism, and Neo-Zionism is not a left or right wing issue, but if anything it falls under a center/moderate left or otherwise progressive idealogy. This mis-portrayal is a very serious issue because of the common and false antisemitic conspiracy that Jews are right wing oppressors who are white supremecist nationalists, along with an alarming increase of hate crimes against Jewish people in Neo/modern times, so the connotation that Neo-Zionism is a right wing ideology validates this conspiracy and therefore feeds very directly into the violence of the Jewish people and the Israeli citizens not otherwise associated with the government and conflict. 2600:6C50:7AF0:170:5158:6A25:B316:7419 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: This is a contentious edit, or this has already been discussed, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. If there is an existing discussion on the talk page please contribute to that section. If there is no existing discussion you may explain why this edit should be made in this section, or start a new section on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2022 

message: The redirect Israeli ultranationalism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 14:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Israeli ultranationalism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]