Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 4

message: Would someone please explain how the following in the article makes sense:
A distinction also needs to be drawn between the anti-Zionism of those who actively seek the physical destruction of Israel and the death or expulsion of its Jewish inhabitants, and the anti-Zionism of those who argue that Israel ought to be voluntarily transformed into a state in which Jews and Palestinians live together as equals. While committed Zionists may see little validity to this distinction, it is a real one.
How is it anti-Zionist to support the expansion of Israel to occupy all of Palestine in a state incorporating both Jews and Arabs? That appears to be an objective of at least some Zionist groups, including the pre-independence groups which wanted all of Palestine for Israel, and it seems odd to describe as an anti-Zionist position something which includes those clearly pro-Zionist views.
Is it the policy of Israel today that Jews and Arabs are NOT equal within Israel? If it isn't, the equality portion also seems not to be useful, since it would be describing the official policy of Israel as anti-Zionist. Jamesday 10:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A shared state

message: :"Thursday, 15 May, 2003: Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi renewed his calls Wednesday for establishing an Israeli-Palestinian state under the name of "Israteen" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Qadhafi said the solution was plausible on condition of allowing the repatriation of Palestinian refugees from wherever they were. Qadhafi first made his proposal at the Arab summit held in Amman in 2001. It was since made part of his "White Book" published on his private internet Web site. His suggestion "guaranteed the settlement of the Middle East conflict as the new Israteen state would become member of the Arab League," Qadhafi said.[UPI]"[1] 
"Israteen", by the way, is a combination of "Israel" and "Filasteen". I suppose some would still interpret this as calling for the "destruction" of Israel, but clearly not for, as the article put it, the "physical destruction" of it. - Mustafaa 08:14, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Qaddafi, Israteen

message: How are they not ultra-Orthodox?  That goes against everything else I've read about them. - Mustafaa 18:19, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They are "orthodox" all right, in the sense "radical". It is wrong to present them as a mainstream of Ultra-Orthodox Judaism though. --Humus sapiens|Talk 18:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Neturei Karta

message: Since zionism is dealing only with the zionist POV, this article should be dealing only with the anti-zionist POV.
How about an introduction like this
Anti-Zionism is a term that has been used to describe several very different political and religious points of view, both historically and in current debates. All these points of view have in common some form of opposition to Zionism.
Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination. It follows that anti-zionism is a form of anti-racism."
This is of course not NPOV, but it states the POV of the anti-zionists, just like zionism simply presents the POV of the zionists as the only truth with no opposition. Should this be a fair solution to the problem? Zw 22:37, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually not. Zw 04:03, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: But the reality is that the articles are from certain point of views. They are moderate point of views, but we haven't reached the encyclopedia ideal just yet. For example, you can list nothing but objective truths, but even truth reporting can be "spun" and biased in one way or the other. Or perhaps you're in objectivism land and believe your article ideal is actually achievable? MShonle 00:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Could you be a little more specific? You don't know what spin is? You don't know what facts are? You don't know how the presentation of certain facts can generate bias? Have you ever taken a social science course? Give me some clues here. MShonle 05:24, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: So don't have a philosophical debate about truth, then. Anyway, you seem to have conveniently missed my "specific issue" I raised about the Zionism article acting like only socialist liberals hold anti-Zionists views. Perhaps you could change that, as you seem to be neutral enough. MShonle 07:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I put something about this issue on the Zionism discussion, with the specific quote, so let's pick up our discussion there. MShonle 08:44, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: LOL - yes, as you are heavily announcing it, we've noticed that. So what? I have blue eyes and like Italian opera. Zw 11:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  should this article only present anti-zionism from the anti-zionist point of view? 

message: This important point has been lost in all the edits.  The reasons Jews see anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic has less to do with seeing "attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic", and more to do with the fact that anti-Semites use the rhetoric of anti-Zionism to attack Jews, and the term "Zionist" as a code word for Jew.  This fact inevitably muddies the waters in any pro-Zionism/anti-Zionism debate. Jayjg 14:47, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zionist used interchangeably or as a code word for Jew 

message: Changed "Israelis and Zionist Jews outside Israel" to "Israelis and Zionists outside Israel".  The position stated was a Zionist position, not one held solely by Zionist Jews.  It is worth remembering that there are more Zionist non-Jews outside Israel than Zionist Jews, particularly Zionist Christians, but also Zionists of all faiths and none, including even Muslims. Jayjg 21:42, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Zionist Jews" inaccurate 

message: I think Mustafaa's recent edits to this article have improved it considerably. I don't always agree with Mustafaa but his presentation here of Arab attitudes to Zionism seems to me to be accurate and fair. I notice however that we are still waiting for a proposed alternative to the paragraph which Zero claims to find so offensive. I have given up waiting for Zero to act on his repeated promises to propose an alternative. Perhaps Mustafaa could have a go. Adam 18:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think most of Mustafaa's additions are a valuable addition to the article as well; I just want to make sure they are factual and NPOV. Jayjg 20:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I might try and rewrite that paragraph, but - as Zero points out - this needs a lot of work just to disentangle the two stages and the Palestinian vs non-Palestinian aspects of it.  I'd be quite interested to see Zero's version, actually; he seems extremely knowledgeable on the details of the conflict. - Mustafaa 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Um, why was this article protected? Jayjg 03:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of a revert war. —No-One Jones 05:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What revert war? Jayjg 05:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on FOX News—I protected this article to prevent spillover. —No-One Jones 06:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking or serious?  I don't know what is going on on FOX News, and there is no revert war going on here. The cavalry has arrived too late.  Jayjg 06:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't see a reason for protection at the moment. --Zero 11:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The edit summary should have indicated that I was joking. However, if Jayjg and Simonides have agreed on how to word the sentence or sentences dealing with who uses "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew" (that is what was at issue in the last set of reverts, yes?), I will happily unprotect the article. —No-One Jones 13:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's often hard to tell when people are joking on the internet, especially if you don't know them, or they come from other cultures.  I've seen enough bizarre things said in all seriousness on the internet to be wary of assuming something is an attempt as humour.  As for the "revert war", if you look above at the end of the "Is the neutrality of this article still disputed?" section you will note that Simonides and I came to agreement at 20:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected?