Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 5

message: I am not sure why 209.etc (aka Lance6Wins) continues to insert this material; the statement is not nearly as important as he makes it out to be, and the quotation he gives is different to that in the official declaration. First, the declaration was not a solemn doctrine or an ex cathedra pronouncement (i.e. not a required article of Catholic belief), but a statement by the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (see Christian-Jewish reconciliation), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce dogma. What the committee said is just its considered opinion, and the article already says that both Jews and non-Jews (the committee includes both) equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; so why does this instance deserve highlighting? Second, the exact wording (as published on the Vatican's website), in context, is this (emphasis mine):
:As we approach the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate - the ground-breaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected anti-Semitism - we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship with the Jewish People. These past forty years of our fraternal dialogue stand in stark contrast to almost two millennia of a "teaching of contempt" and all its painful consequences. We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism. 
HTH. —No-One Jones 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "View of the Catholic Church"

message: *When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews, You are talking anti-Semitism". Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in a speech at Harvard University shortly before his assassination in 1968, from "The Socialism of Fools" The Left, the Jews and Israel by Seymour Martin Lipset; in Encounter, (December 1969), p. 24.
*The older type of anti-Semitism, based on outright racial prejudice, is unfashionable today, and the modern anti-Zionist, whether by calculation or because he is a product of his times, tends to avoid it. He has therefore invented a neo-anti-Semitism, the logical inconsistencies of which are to some extent masked by ambiguity. Jacques Givet, "The Anti-Zionist Complex"
*Today the boundary between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is often indistinct. It is clear, too, that the anti-Semitism proclaimed by a good many Arab governments is a veil designed to hide the negligence and corruption of the governing classes, and to divert attention from poverty and unemployment by focusing it on an external foe. G. Chaliand, The Palestinian Resistance, Penguin, London, 1972
* Zionism, even as a code word, is the litmus test with respect to anti-Semitism throughout the world, even in America. The facile rhetorical linkage of Zionism with imperialism and racism is little more than an admission that Jews are uniquely not entitled to be like everyone else and live as citizens as part of a majority in a nation, for better or for worse. Zionism, as mirrored in the State of Israel, has proven the point that Jews are in fact just human. Israel has displayed a full range of human achievement and weakness and of decency and its absence common to all nations. Comparatively speaking, one can make the case that Israel has behaved better, given its circumstances. The anti-Zionist, like the anti-Semite a century ago, does not allow the Jew the privilege of normalcy. Leon Botstein, The New Republic, September 8, 1997
* Looking back now over nearly 50 years, I have to say - regretfully - that I believe history has proved me right. The establishment of the State of Israel has merely provided a more "politically correct" name "Anti-Zionism" in place of "Anti-Semitism." If anything,the virulence has increased. Derek Prince, Canadian Friends of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem
* In short, "anti-Israeli" sentiment at the UN is often a surrogate for two other predilections: anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. John R. Bolton, Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute, July 14, 1999
* During the 1970's, an especially blatant and vulgar brand of anti-Semitism became a unifying global ideology of the totalitarian Left. Couched in the language of opposition to Zionism, this anti-Semitism became the preferred vehicle of the Soviet Union and its clients in international forums for political assaults against democratic nations - most obviously Israel, but ultimately all the West, and especially the United States. Ambassador/Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
* There is no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal right of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination. Abba Eban, New York Times, November 3, 1975 
*Our disappointment is not in Zionism, but in anti-Zionism, the adjustment that anti-Semitism made when the Jews moved into modern statehood. Ruth R. Wisse, The New Republic, September 8, 1997
:Thank you. Please pick one of these and place it in the body of the text of the article. Now we don't have to say "Many jews" we can say "According to: insert name", or, alternatively: "According to a host of (human rights?) activists, Anti-Zionism == Anti-Semitism" or something to that effect. This is only acceptable if a website listing these individuals, their statements, and sources is provided. Judging by the body of this text, I imagine there is such a site. --Uncle Bungle 03:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why pick one at all?  Dozens of people have written about the same thing, there's no one preferred person.  We don't have to find a single "definer" of commonly used terms. Jayjg 03:32, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your question. Jayjg 04:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some definitions of anti-Zionism 

message: Im going to pull this to remove clutter in a few days.
According to the wikipedia article lingustics:
Contextual and independent -- Contextual linguistics is concerned with how language fits into the world: its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived.
Since Chomsky is a professor in the field of linguistics, he is certainly qualified to comment on the word anti-zionsim and its social function, how it is acquired, how it is produced and perceived. --Uncle Bungle 03:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky hasn't been a linguist for years, he's a political activist.  And as Chomsky is an anti-Israel activist his views on this matter are hardly neutral.  And as he has defined himself as a "Zionist", though his definition differs from almost all other Zionists, he is responsible for trying to create the confusion and meaningless that he claim exists for the term. Jayjg 03:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Noam Chomsky is currently a professor in linguistics at MIT. As everybody he has political views, but he does not lose his own competence for that.Orzetto 14:52, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If Chomsky had published that statement (it's not a definition by any means) in, say, the Cambridge Journal of Linguistics, rather than a political magazine like ZMag, this argument might hold some water. Since he didn't, it's rather disingenuous to quote this as the opinion of a professional linguist, rather than that of a political activist. Chomsky is both; if we were quoting his published opinions on generative grammar, it would be appropriate to quote his opinions as a linguist; here it is more appropriate to quote him as a political activist. —No-One Jones (m) 03:44, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: If a judge writes from the bench that abortion is wrong, then his opinion is that of a judge. If he writes in National Right to Life News that abortion is wrong, then his opinion is that of an anti-abortion activist. And the earliest reference I could find to "anti-Zionism" in the OED is from 1962, so it's hardly a neologism. —No-One Jones (m) 03:57, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: There is a difference in a comment made in one's professional capacity, and a polotical opinion.  As Mirv has clearly pointed out, Chomsky was making a political comment in a political magazine, not a professional comment in a professional journal. Jayjg 04:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Chomsky appears to turn off his mental abilities and make all sorts of far-fetched remarks; a book was recently written about it. Regardless, Chomsky was making a policy recommendation, not a linguistic analysis. Jayjg 04:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Nearly everything Chomsky says these days is propaganda masquerading as political analysis, and not particularly good or honest political analysis at that.  As for my comments, this is the Talk: page, POV is allowed here.  Please remember to sign your posts. Jayjg 05:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: What's the difference?  He is quoting significant linguists who criticize Chomsky's linquistics. Jayjg 16:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: He's respected by nonlinguists.  "Much of the lavish praise heaped on his work is, we believe, driven by uncritical acceptance (often by nonlinguists) of claims and promises made during the early years of his academic activity; the claims have by now largely proved to be wrong or without real content, and the promises have gone unfulfilled." Jayjg 16:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making the case for Chomsky 

message: I have two very different propsals for the future of this article, which should put an end to the NPOV dispute. I like to think of it as a roadmap to peace.
The first is to totally disband the page, moving the content to the appropriate realated articles. For example, anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism could be covered as a section in anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be covered as a subsection of that article. Historic opposition to Zionism (especially pre-Holocaust) could be covered in the main Zionism article. This article could then be used as a disambiguation page. I think it is a good idea because it would let readers consider the concept of anti-Zionism in the larger context of the related articles.
----
I favour the first solution but expect massive opposition to it, and as such have a second proposal. It can be broken down as follows:
*massive footnoting: back every statement that is attributed to "some, many, few, most, etc" with some sort of reliable example of the demographic. The list of people who consider anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism is an excellent example of this
*removal of unsubstantiated claims: anything that could not be backed up with someone elses research should then be removed, under the terms of original research.
*balancing of points of view: once we have established sources for the many points of view we can work towards including oppoising points of view, so long as they are also appropriately backed.
During the first phase of this process it would be best to not add any new information or points of view. Take what we have and document it. During the second phase, resorting to edit wars is likely. I propose that before anything is removed, the idea be discussed in the talk page. Finally, the third phase is also likely to incur angry talk pages and edit wars. It is important to remember that even if you disagree with a point of view, so long as it comes from a reliable source it deserves inclusion.
I think this is a good idea because as long as the statement is nonspecific enough to fit withing the context of its supporting material, it can ultimately be left up to the reader to decide if the statement is specific enough and the source reliable enough for their intellectual needs. This should hopefully put an end to neutrality and factuality disputes, since a source for the point will be included inline.
I would appriciate any comments on these proposals, or alternatives. Constructive work is almost impossible with endless editwars, so lets prove it, all of it, and go from there.
--Uncle Bungle 16:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article isn't about anti-Semitism, it's about anti-Zionism; you're just focussed on its anti-Semitic manifestations.  As for the suggestions, claims should be referenced, counter-views provided, and any controversial edits should be brought to Talk: first for discussion.  That is standard Wikipedia practice. Jayjg 17:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: You didn't, but you seemed focussed on anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. Jayjg 21:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A vision for the future of this article. 

message: Who has identified these "types of anti-Zionists"? --Uncle Bungle 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate on your question, please?  Is your issue that you don't think these kinds of anti-Zionists exist? Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: So you don't think anti-Zionists should be classified this way? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I'm not getting your point here.  What is the issue you have with the contents? Jayjg (talk) 21:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: So, if I understand you correctly, you're not saying the contents are false, but merely that you'd like a reference for this specific categorization into different types? Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can find, the paragraph was created by User:Adam Carr in mid-November 2003, and inserted into the article in December 2003, as part of a complete re-write.  Without sources for these statements, it does appear to be original research.  I've re-written the section to remove the "typology", leaving the simple facts, and removed some other related POV. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I've tried to clarify what I think the text means. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of anti zionism - says who? 

message: I would like to know, the people who removed my references to the Ethiopian Jews, are they disputing the facts or their mentioning in this article? 
since the accusation of Zionism as racist gets a fair mention here, it is imperative to mention some totally neutral facts in relation to it- that the Jews are not only white,
there are also black Jews and Oriental Jews who are closer racially to the Palestinians than to Europeans. Any opposing view has to explain itself. If Zionism is racism,
which race is it, and which races does it oppose? the accusers seldom mention this. 
Are the jews a race? are the palestinians a race?
Jews from Ethiopia I mean I would understand it if such an accuser believed that there are only white (Aryan...;) Jews, then such an accusation is at least not logically problematic. But to agree that peoples from the same race can be racist against each other, how can that be?  
if you are so sure of yourself, aren't you supposed to be only too eager to explain?
User:Unlessimwrong
:The argument is not made in this article that Zionism is racism, so the counter-argument does not belong either.  The relevant information is in Zionism and racism, where you have already inserted this point. Jayjg (talk) 18:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Ethiopian Jews

message: Mizrahi, please explain how a clearly anti-semitic caricature is "specifically" anti Zionist? According to this article: 
:"The defining characteristic of anti-Zionism is therefore opposition to the existence of the State of Israel (or at least opposition to the legitimization of its existence on the basis that the Jews had "the right to return to their homeland"), a state which was created as a result of the activities of the Zionism movement between 1897 and 1948." 
How is this caricature related to anything but vile hatred towards Jews in general regardless of Zionism and Israel?  Also, how can you say that it is "not necessarily anti-semitist? Hell yes it is anti-semitic. Ramallite (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Ramallite on this. The :Image:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1943 Poland Poznan.gif is clearly anti-semitic. I am not convinced it has anything to do with Zionism. If anyone knowns where's the original image came from (author, date, etc.), this info would be useful to have in the description. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a disturbing example of anti-Zionism because it wants to display Zionist world domination in the scariest way possible.  I want to show the level of hatred that exists against us and is directed at us from every angle.  Please do not remove the image, it plays and important role.  Mizrahi 04:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wants to display Jewish world domination, and therefore is anti-semitic because of its vile nature. It does not indicate "Zionist" world domination. It looks like this image was drawn even before Zionism became a major force. This article is not about hating Jews, it is about opposition to the right to a Jewish homeland or to the State of Israel. Hatred of Jews is one reason for this, but not the only reason, so this image is not appropriate here, because there are many people who oppose Zionism who do not hate Jews, and some are Jewish themselves. Since this image clearly illustrates hatred of Jews as Jews, it belongs in anti-semitism, not here. Ramallite (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, like Ramallite and Humus sapiens, I don't see how this image relates to Zionism.  It clearly represents a negative caricature of Jews, but there's a gap in connecting it specifically to Zionism.  Mizrahi, I honestly don't think you have a case here to support the inclusion of this picture in this article, although it certainly would be appropriate for the anti-semitism article. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with Ramllites, Humus Sapiens, and MPerel. Jayjg (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is that caricature about? 

message: I have searched the EUMC reports published in 2005 and earlier reports and couldn't find the definition displayed in the article. Could someone please cite the publication and, if possible, the page where the EUMC defines anti-Semitism? If this definition can't be confirmed then it should be removed from the article. Yodakii 16:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, the publication is cited in the link provided. In fact, the link goes directly to the paper in question. Jayjg (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, sorry, my mistake. I didn't notice the link at the end of the quote. I'll be more careful. Yodakii 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, the link wasn't there when you first commented it; I added it when I uncommented it. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EUMC definition 

message: The paragraph I changed did not conform to NPOV. As it currently reads, it presents two sides of the Anti-Zionism debate: the idea that Anti-Zionism is prima facie antisemitism, and the idea that tarring all Anti-Zionists with the brush of antisemitism is meant to stifle debate. The section on Hasidic (please note single "s") anti-Zionism is interesting and useful, but needs to go elsewhere, preferably in its own article if it isn't already. IronDuke 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Antisemitism vs. Anti-Zionism 

message: The  flag has been removed because of the lack of a clear definition of what the complaints are, and how they can be fixed. If they are in the archives, that does no good to newer editors coming to this article. Please list them below, and then restore the tag as needed.
Remember. Suspected policy violations should be specificly deliniated with atleast the slightest bit of a clue of how they can be fixed--Tznkai 15:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article [[WP:NPOV]] violations