Talk:Zionism/Archive 11

message: If your mother's mother's mother was "Jewish" then you are "Jewish".
Even if you never heard of "Jews" you are "Jewish" according to WP and fundie Judaism and fundiXianity.
And Zionism is Jewish supremacy - ask any Nazi - they will recognize the similarity.
I've been thinking of writing an article on ethnic/racial/religious/nationalist/supremacist movements, but these articles seem to get deleted by people who are uncomfortable with the obvious comparisons.
:you have a very wrong view of jew identity, the idea that jewishness is not an ethnicity is a reform(as the reform judaism article states:"Early Reform Judaism, in order to assimilate more into European culture, held that Judaism was no more a peoplehood, but was only a religion"). and take your anti-zionist bull**** elsewhere. Varcety 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jewishness" is a religious concept 

message: BrandonYusufToropov keeps trying to introduce, without discussion, a lengthy quote into the Anti-Zionism section:
---------------------------
In the modern period, certain elements within Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, some vehemently so. Yakov M. Rabin, a professor of history at the University of Montreal, argues in his book ‘’A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism,’’ that Haredi Jews who publicly criticize Zionism do so for two religiously-based reasons:</blockquote>
:“The first of these is to prevent desecration of the name of God. And since the State of Israel often claims to be acting on behalf of all the world's Jews, and even in the name of Judaism, these Jews feel they must explain to the public, and primarily to non-Jews, the falsehood of this pretension. The second commandment is to preserve human life. By exposing the Judaic rejection of Zionism, they hope to protect Jews from the outrage they believe the State of Israel has generated among the nations of the world.”  A Threat Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, from Fernwood Publishing, January 2006, 262 pages, $24.95. .
---------------------------
BYT is well aware of how controversial any additions to this article are, and particularly, given the history of his lengthy and sustained disruption here in the past, how controversial his additions in particular are bound to be. More specifically, as has been explained to him numerous times in the past, the Anti-Zionism section is merely a summary of the lengthy Anti-Zionism article; as such, it should not contain quotes from any individuals, much less one-sided quotes like that. Please keep in mind the section should be a brief summary of the other article; the quote does not add any specific knowledge not already summarized in that section. BYT, it's quite disappointing that you tried to slip this in without any discussion, and then continued to revert it; if you would like to insert it, please explain why, and then get consensus. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone interested in actually reading the archives (or perhaps re-reading them) will conclude that the quote was in fact discussed here, at length.   [[User:BrandonYusufToropov|BYT] 21:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, it was August of '06. See this diff. . As a direct result of the discussions on talk page that I cited. People asked me to come up with a cited reference from an authoritative source, remember? Not sure why it's so important to you to roll back the clock here. The quote is not "lengthy" by my lights. Do you have some philosophical problem with the content? BYT 22:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I know that's where you want it to go. I disagree. Could you clarify for me -- what WP policy compels us to segregate properly documented, reputably sourced criticism of this political philosophy to another article? BYT 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Respectfully, the fact that you've dodged this question for months without answering it directly (and are dodging it now) does no great credit to your position. On your other points, I'd like to direct you to WP:OWN. You may benefit from taking a break for a while here. Signed, Editor Distinctly in the Minority Here.  BYT 12:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jayjg. I have no objection to the quote being on wikipedia, but the section should be a short summary of a longer article, Anti-Zionism, where the quote can usefully sit. BobFromBrockley 10:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy quote in the Anti-Zionism section 

message: An editor as recently added a large number of  (almost every sentence). That tag is not a "weapon" to assert a POV. An  tag at the top of the article, and endeavoring to find sources (there are many, by the way...) is the preferred approach. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't trying to assurt a POV. I added the tags, because many of the historical statements are unsourced. I just wanted to clarify which statements were unsourced.--Sefringle 23:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of {{tl|fact}} 

message: In the section Zionism#Opposition_or_ambivalence, I added two  templates.  Can someone please get references.  I'll give ya'll at least two weeks.--Urthogie 02:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added these. BYT 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  two references needed 

message: I'm happy to see that WikiProject Palestine appears to be getting off its feet. However, I am not sure this article belongs in WikiProject Palestine. While Zionism undoubtedly had a massive effect on the lives of Palestinians. It is a Jewish (Israeli) ideology not a Palestinian one. I feel that including Zionism as part WP: Palestine is the equivalent of including the articles about arab nationalism or Fatah in WP: Israel. Perhaps this discussion should be continued on another page so that all issues over jurisdiction can be ironed out. Oneworld25 06:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think an article about Apartheid would belong in a WikiProject South Africa? BYT 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The post above is an example of the kind of "scholarship" that articles related to Jews and Israel attract. WikiProject Palestine seems to be ambiguously covering both the geographic region of Palestine (which includes territory of Israel) and Palestinian politics (which includes fighters against racism such as Hamas). ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure article belongs wikiproject Palestine 

message: Okay, this is probably as good as we'll get without quite a bit more research.
This is a translation from the Hebrew of Arthur Ruppin's speech as reported by Joseph Heller.
This is translated into English from Heller, Yosef. Bama'vak Lemedinah, Hamediniyut Hatzionit Bashanim 1936-1948 (The Struggle for the State: The Zionist Policy 1936-1948), Jerusalem, 1984, p.140, quoting the protocol of Arthur Ruppin's speech to the Jewish Agency Executive, May 20, 1936.
Ruppin's speech was made in German, and the original is in the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem. I am going to try to get it, but it may take some time. Weizmann may have spoken to him in Hebrew, English, or German; we don't know.
Joseph Heller's reporting of the speech in his 1984 book was in Hebrew. I don't know who first translated it into Hebrew. The English above is Heller's translation of the Hebrew, plus some copyediting tweaks (punctuation fixes, or text added in square brackets). This is as faithful a rendering as we can hope to find without reading the original German text.
As to whether we should include it, I think we should. This is an important part of early Zionist and Israeli history. Ruppin and Weizmann were both pivotal, as was the British government, and this quote sheds some light on all three. If we use it, we can leave out the other secondary sources (AN Wilson etc): Heller is the secondary source they all quote, and we now have a translation of the text directly from him. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you think it should be included? What wording would be appropriate? Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that we have a reliable translation, I'd leave out AN Wilson entirely, and would probably write something like this. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for this research. I am yet to be convinced this quote belongs to this article. Also, I don't understand why Jabotisky is so prominently quoted there: AFAIK, he did not represent the mainstream of the Zionist movement. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If SlimVirgin wants to put it in, I'm fine with it. Jayjg (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto, but I do think that Jabo is important. He certainly was not the mainstream in his time, in any sense; he was quite a marginal figure. But his views incerasingly became/have become the mainstream - or very influential on the mainstream - after 1948. BobFromBrockley 12:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't defend the way the rest of the section is written. It seems a bit disjointed, and very short considering its importance. All I did was a copy edit of the material that was there, then I worked in the Weizmann quote. If I insert it, please feel free to edit it as you see fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, do you have a source for that last paragraph of your proposal?--sefringleTalk 21:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Research results

message: Jewish nationalism currently redirects to Zionism. Shouldn't there be a seperate page on Jewish nationalism which briefly introduces the different sorts of Jewish nationalism, of which Zionism has been the most significant but not the only one? (For example, Territorialism, Bundism, Simon Dubnow's Folkism, Jewish autonomism are all also forms of Jewish nationalism. BobFromBrockley 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those other movements were far less massive (in both time and popularity), and/or not sufficiently nationalist. E.g. the main motive in Bundism was Socialist Revolutionary movt., in Territorialism - urgent need for a refuge, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This territory is probably covered by Jewish political movements.--Pharos 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say that the fact that Jewish nationalism is discussed in Jewish political movements isn't a strong enough argument as, for example, Jewish left is both there and has its own article. But then I looked at what links to Jewish nationalism, and found that there are almost no links: Jewish left says: "There were non-Zionist left-wing forms of Jewish nationalism, such as territorialism (which called for a Jewish national homeland, but not necessarily in Palestine), autonomism (which called for non-territorial national rights for Jews in multinational empires) and the folkism, advocated by Simon Dubnow, (which celebrated the Jewish culture of the Yiddish-speaking masses)." Apart from that, most of the links could go to Zionism. BobFromBrockley 11:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it make sense to just shift the redirect of Jewish nationalism to Jewish political movements?  After all, ethnic political movements are all somewhat "national" in scope, no?  Otherwise "Jewish nationalism" as an article would just be a vaguely defined subset of almost all currents of "Jewish political movements", with the possible exception of Jewish Anarchism (depending on what definition of "nationalism" you are using).--Pharos 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected the redirect for now, because the topic of Jewish nationalism is at least broader than Zionism.  If there is ever a desire to write a separate article on the topic, we're still open to that possibility.--Pharos 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish nationalism 

message: I just had a quick look at this article. Does the article says that at the beginning of the movement, the majority of Rabbis rejected the idea but it was gradually accepted for various reasons (which the article should explain)? It might be already there but I couldn't find it. --Aminz 09:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure this point is adequately covered. BYT 13:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see this statement in the article. --Redaktor 19:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Why does the sentance "This has led to a loss of support for Zionism among the political left, especially in Europe" link to a page about anti-semitism? they arent one and the same thing.Fennessy 22:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left wing support for Zionism 

message: In the section "New Jewish mentality" in the sentence: "One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov..."
As far as I know the word "ideologue" is generally used as a pejorative.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ideologue
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology
Why is that word used in this sentence?
216.87.87.19 01:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the previously anonymous user. Why is that specific word being used? Thanks!WacoJacko 12:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there is a clear bias in this sentence which should be addressed and probably changed in order to conform to wikipedia standards. 216.87.87.19 03:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Changed. BobFromBrockley 14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why use the word "ideologue?" 

message: Quote from the article page: Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs, many of whom view ....
That sounds a bit bias. Critics are made to look like a sort of ignorant vox pop. 
I would think it would soun better if first where mentioned the usual critics. Scolars etc. Then mention that critism has a large popular support in arab countries ( btw are all Palestinians Arabs? )
Something like:
Opposition to Zionism comes from various sources. Academics like Chomski, X, and Y are opposing Zionism on various grounds. There is also Jewish opposition from groups like A and B. A opposes on religious grounds, B opposes on filosophical grounds. Political opposition comes primairily from nations surrounding Israel. This is opposition has a large popular support. 
 
I feel this sounds more balanced. But considering the accuracy of the debate I feel I do not know enough details to modify the front page.
Aixroot 11:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I half agree. I have changed the opening sentence. I am also unhappy with phrase "Some of the most vocal critics of Zionism have tended to be Palestinians and other Arabs" because it is hard to verify or falsify. BobFromBrockley 12:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly bias sounding discribing anti-zionism 

message: How much information should this article (which should be about Zionism) give to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast? This has been the subject of something close to a revert war, instead of being discussed here. Personally, I think roughly this amount of information is appropriate:
 In 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast in the Russian Far East but the effort failed to meet expectations and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population.
Whereas this much seems too much, when the topic is Zionism:
n 1928, the Soviet Union established a Jewish Autonomous Oblast, a project now over 70 years old. Chief Rabbi Mordechai Scheiner, also the Chabad Lubavitch representative to the region, said "one can enjoy the benefits of the Yiddish culture and not be afraid to return to their Jewish traditions." It is estimated that at least 3,000 Jews live today in the city. The Birobidzhan Synagogue opened in 2004. The Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia estimates the number of Jews in Russia at about 1 million, or 0.7 percent of the country's 143 million population. Sheiner says there are 4,000 Jews in Birobidzhan -- just over 5 percent of the town's 75,000 population.  Concerning the Jewish community of the oblast, Govenor Nikolai Volkov has stated that he intends to, "support every valuable initiative maintained by our local Jewish organizations." 
If the short version does not strike the right tone, perhaps an alternative could be given, but surely not of more than one or two sentences. BobFromBrockley 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bobfrombrockley. What "Nikolay Mikhaylovich Volkov has stated..." or when Birobidzhan Synagogue was opened has nothing to do with Zionism. This belongs to JAO and perhaps to Jewish history in USSR/Russia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think CulturalRevival you are proposing too much. That is more than the article has about Nachman Syrkin, similar to what it has about Ber Borokhov or Ahad Ha-am - this article shouldn't go into too much detail. There are plenty other articles where such information is useful. If there was more than one sentence here, it should say something about relationship of JAO to Zionism. (By the way, cultural autonomy currently redirects to minority rights. Anyone with an interest in Jewish nationalism or Soviet Jewry feel like creating a cultural autonomy article?) BobFromBrockley 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there is some mention of the topic, I guess... Culturalrevival 02:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Autonomous Oblast 

message: I have no strong opinion on many of the issues here, because I am not highly knowledgeable, but I did get the page protected so maybe I should be the one to try and open discussion. Let's try and keep it calm and reasoned. Thus far, I have seen the following objections to the current (protected) version:
* New Historians cannot be used without attribution
* factual material cannot be replaced with POV invective
And the following defenses:
* Material is very well sourced, so just saying "POV" is inadequate
* No such standard exists for New Historians, and in any case we can just add attribution
* No substantive arguments have been made against this version, and the other version contains provable lies, like "no Arabs on the coastal plain"
That last one was me. Just to elaborate; I think it's safe to say that Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, etc etc were not empty ghost towns before European Jews showed up, and a quick read of Jezreel Valley reveals that its settlement was accomplished through the eviction of some 8,000 fellahin. Well, hope that gets the ball rolling. Eleland 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about the New Historians baffled me the most. I guess attribution can be used, but it implies that the sources are somehow incredulous and subsequently "open to interpretation." How does a direct quote leave room for interpretation? Alyoshenka 18:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, especially when we're talking about Benny Morris, whose findings have basically become the mainstream Israeli view (and have been harshly criticized by other New Historians and some foreign leftists as too flattering to Israel). I can see wanting attribution for someone like Ilan Pappé, who is legitimately controversial, but not Morris. < eleland // talkedits > 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, I have no idea whether that's true, but it's irrelevant. The revision said that Zionists settled in areas devoid of Arab population, not that they bought from absentee landlords, evicted the landless peasants, and then maybe made "efforts" to help them. < eleland // talkedits > 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes leading to protection 

message: I am removing the sentence "Formally organized in eastern and central Europe in the late 19th century, the movement was then composed mainly of Russian Jews with leadership provided by Austrian and German Jews.[2] Vienna was the original centre of Zionism.[2] " 
Not only is it not true, it is also not supported by the reference it provides.  The Zionist movemet was based in Switzerland ("In Basel I created the Jewish state" - Herzl).
Telaviv1 10:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: It seems to me that this page is doing two things at once, on the one hand its providing a summary of Zionism as an ideology and, on the other a history of Zionism. 
I think it might be helpful to create a seperate history of Zionism (nto to be confused with the history of Israel) and then one could remove most of the history stuff. It would make this page more digestible (and shorter).
What do you think?
Telaviv1 14:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Yahel Guhan 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be sensible, as article is long. Analogies would be Socialism and History of socialism, for example. BobFromBrockley 14:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Zionism 

message: Is "New Jewish mentality" the right title for this section? How about "Cultural Zionism" or "Zionist culture"?BobFromBrockley 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Jewish mentality 

message: I see nothing to justify this claim "the Holocaust accelerated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel.". The peaks of immigration to Palestine were 1925 34,386, 1933 37,337, 1934 45,267, 1935 66,472, 1939 31,195 (eg this site). The post-war figures seem to be these: 1945 1,036, 1946 21,710, 1947 25,503 (though these are by ship, maybe a few more arrived overland). PRtalk 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. It could better state: the Holocaust increased the support for Jewish immigragtion. --87.208.1.240 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error. 

message: what I haven't seen addressed yet is, the distinction between: zionism = a homeland for the Jewish people, versus the new definition of "Zionism equals racism," that Zionism means the homeland must remain distinctly Jewish, and so citizenship in a Zionist homeland is banned based on a person's background and/or religion. Can that be expounded on in the article? thx
Alextheblade 21:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have question about what "is" zionism 

message: because the history takes up so much of this page at this point, I am giong to move much of the content to History of Zionism per WP:SUMMARY. In the mean time, it would be helpful if someone can create a summary for this article. Yahel Guhan 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted the removal, which amounted to about 80 percent of the text of the article..  I don't necessarily object in theory to summarizing what is at History of Zionism, but I think the summary should appear simultaneously with the removal of the material.  In other words, if you want there to be a summary, please write it.  But I think in this case, the summary would have to be fairly lengthy.    6SJ7 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fine. We can remove parts of the sections slowly based on importance. For now, I won't re-revert you. Yahel Guhan 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Zionism' 

message: The article doesn't say enough about non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine before the twentieth century. It points out that there were Jews living in Palestine both before and after the Jewish rebellions against Rome, but it doesn't give us a good idea of just WHO those others were. Also, I'd like to see some discussion of how those Jews who were indigenous to Palestine before Zionism happened (Palestinian Jews, if you will) responded to Zionism. Tom129.93.17.229 (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might borrow a book from your library, e.g. by Kimmerling (Palestinians: The Making of a People / The Palestinian People: A History) or Porath, if you prefer the zionist view. Than you can add stuff yourself. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we get some verification of the most recent Biltmore edit. What moderate Arab plans agreed to continuing Jewish immigration? TewfikTalk 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine 

message: I have removed this from the lead:
:"Rival Islamic, Arab and Palestinian claims to the Holy Land as well as the deep roots of antisemitism in European culture have meant that Zionism has aroused powerful opposition. Widespread reverence for the old-testament, ancient prophecies of a Jewish return and persecution of the Jews have helped it garner international support."
Please, instead of engaging further in edit warring, let's work here on talk to find a sourced, reliable version that we can all agree upon. The article will be ok without this (or the Chomsky) paragraph for the time being. That paragraph is problematic because of the large number of unsourced assumptions. By using the term "Holy Land" it suggests that the only Islamic/Arab/Palestinian claims to the land are based on conflicting religious notions with the Jews. Then there is the assumptiont hat there is deep roots of antisemitism in Europe. While there clearly is a history of antisemitism in parts of Europe, this blanket statement is simply not accurate, and clearly unsourced. There is no source that there is "Widespread reverence" for old testament prophecies, outside of early 20th Brittish pressure references in the WWI section.
I also dispute that it is improper (POV) to cite Noam Chomsky. While the sentence may need some qualification, it is fine to get the opinion of someone who represents a POV. I'd suggest something along the lines of the following:
:Linguist and political commentator Noam Chomsky summarized opposition to Zionism, stating it has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical.[fact] Other commentators state that opposition to Zionism is related to anti-semitism and conflicting Islamic claims to the Holy Land.[fact] International support of Zionism is often based on belief in Old Testament prophecies.[fact]
What we need to do is present both sides of the conflict. We cannot state that the only reason people oppose Zionism is because they are anti-semitic. We can state that some people say that, as long as we attribute those claims to a source, and we make it clear that is just one of many views, as opposed to The Truth. What do others think? Is it a bad idea to try to include multiple POVs (including Chomsky's) in the lead? Is it a bad idea to call for sources for bold, controversial claims? I think not. -Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing opposition in the lead