Talk:Zionism/Archive 7

message: I restored the link to Palestinian territories entry.  There really should be a disambiguated "Occupied Territories" entry refering specifically to the territories occupied by Israel, which is what the term almost always means in common use, but the actual "occupied territries" entry is thoroughly general and almost misleading.  The entry on "Palestinian territories" has some verbage about which of the Occupied Territories are not "Palestinian."  To just vaguely refer to "territories under Israel's control" without a link essentially raises an obvious question without answering it.
I also removed the link to the Balfour Declaration.  The Declaration is discussed and linked later in the article; the passage in the text where the link had been was from the Mandate document.
I'd also eventually like to move the link to "Jewish political movements" to somewhere probably in the "Establishment of ..." section.
Marsden 00:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the link again, as its far too restrictive.  The "territories" referred to in that sentence include Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula.  "Palestinian territories" refers only to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and possibly East Jerusalem. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remopved the link again. Until now, there was no reason to call it "Palestninian territory". "Referring to the lands Israel would evacuate in Gaza Strip, President Abbas said that 97.5 percent of these lands were state-owned lands..."  - and pre-1967 these territories were under Egyptian / British / Ottoman control. Also let's not forget the fact that Israel won the territory in defensive wars (hello, Kaliningrad!) ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Humus, just reading what you wrote, you seem to imply that now -- as opposed to "until now" -- there is a reason to call it "Palestinian territory."  I understand Jay's objection; I don't understand yours.  It is very clear to me that using the phrase "territories under Israel's control" demands explanation:  this is not some hypothetical matter, but rather the real situation.  Because of problems elsewhere in Wikipedia, there is no good, clean link to be made to explain exactly what is meant -- "Occupied Territories" would be the obvious link, but the article on that is nonsensical and people seem intent on keeping it that way.  While Jay's objection to the use of a link to "Palestinian territories" is correct, I continue to believe that such a link, while flawed, is preferable to no link at all.  Jay, I'm going to give you a couple days to respond before I make the change.  Marsden 14:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed only later that my edit can be considered a revert to Jay's version. By "until now" I meant that only after Israel gave Gaza away to the PNA it can be called a "Palestinian territory", before that it was a disputed territory. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe the issue is that we have different ideas of what the sentence actually means.  Does it mean Israel, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula?  In other words, are we saying that, for this usage in the second paragraph, Zionism = support for settlers? Or Zionism = support for inside the green line Israelis + settlers? Or Zionism = support for extremists who believe that the whole historical land of Israel should be part of the state?  --Goodoldpolonius2 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first, because it has, at times, and according to some, meant support for a Jewish presence in all of those territories.  The statement is intended to be as inclusive as possible. Jayjg (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And yet, the Golan Heights are not commonly considered to be part of the "Occupied territories", at least in the minds of the press and most readers, precisely because they do not consider them to be "Palestinian".  As well, Zionism can mean the encouragement of Jewish settlement in any territory under Israeli control, which at one point included the Sinai Peninsula, though it doesn't any more, and which certainly include Israel itself.  For this reason, any link to Palestinian territories is inappropriate, which, in any event, you've admitted yourself. Jayjg (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from recharacterizing my position.  As I think I have clearly stated previously, a link to Palestinian territories is flawed but preferable to no link at all.  This is not at all the same as admitting that any such link is inappropriate.  I asked you elsewhere to provide a link that you believe would be acceptable to put for the "territories under Israel's control" phrase in the opening paragraph; please consider that request to be repeated here.  In the absence of you providing such a link, your protestations about the Palestinian territories link being incomplete rings rather flat.  Marsden 23:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A flawed Easter egg link is actually worse than no link at all, especially when there is no pressing need for any link. Jayjg (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always understood "Occupied Territories" to include the Golan Heights (which is part of Syria, of course).  The Palestinian territories article is specifically about areas once part of Palestine, so Jay has a point.  I think what's needed is an article precisely on the territories Israel seized in 1967.  The Sinai should be included for historical purposes.  I would call it Israeli-occupied territories, but that would raise the inevitable objections over the word "occupied".  The term "disputed territories" to refer just to those areas is no good, as it unfairly counts the land on only one side of the 1949 armistice lines as "disputed".  I think Territories under Israeli military control is OK, as long as it is explained in the article that most countries in the world, the UN, human rights organizations, and the vast majority of the people who live in the territories themselves consider them "occupied". Brian Tvedt 01:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Brian.  My preference is to have a disambiguation page for "occupied territories," with "(general)" and "(Israeli)" as the separate pages.  Do you think that, until some other solution is available, it would be better to have no link at all or a link to "Palestinian territories" or "West Bank" (the latter may in fact be preferable because Gaza is no longer Israeli controlled)?  I note that the main issue is that the link would be incomplete because it doesn't include the Golan Heights, and not that the link doesn't give an example of territory controlled by Israel. Marsden 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is not only that it doesn't include the Golan Heights, but that it doesn't include Israel itself.  An article that deals with all of these issues, but is quite poorly written and titled, is Occupation of the Palestinian territories.  That article talks of Palestinian territories, but, somewhat bizarrely, also mentions the Golan Heights, Sinai Peninsula, Israel, and even Lebanon. It's not an appropriate link either, for that reason, and because it's just an argument about whether or not the territories are occupied. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the referring sentence, Jay:  "... to refer to efforts to encourage Jewish immigration to Israel and to expand the Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control."  Israel proper is mentioned separately, and isn't really germaine to the phrase where the link is to appear.  Marsden 17:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Encouraging Jewish immigration and expanding Jewish population in the territories under Israel's control are different actions; one is not solely dependant on the other. Jayjg (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your new article appears to be a POV fork of Occupation of the Palestinian territories.  I've suggested they be merged back together here: Occupation of the Palestinian territories#Merge from Occupied Territories (Israeli). Jayjg (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually.  I agreed with your assessment that the "Occupation of ..." article wasn't very good, so I wrote a new one.  It is not a fork.  I wouldn't disagree with an opinion that the "Occupation of ..." article should be deleted, because I did cover some of the same territory ... so to speak.  If you think my Occupied Territories (Israeli) article is POV, you should of course post a warning and make whatever edits you think are appropriate, but I think I've been pretty careful about keeping to the facts, so please have a care in this:  my faith is good, whatever you may think.  Marsden 23:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think Marsden's article is a good start.  We should keep that one, and merge whatever is sensible in the "Occupation of the PTs" into the new one.Brian Tvedt 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think an article is poorly written, you should re-write it, not create a fork of it.  Please continue this discussion in the proper discussion page. Jayjg (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jay, as I have mentioned to you before, it is rather counterproductive for you to make comments and even edits when you're not really paying attention to what is going on.  I wrote a new article.   I did not fork anything.  My article was on the territories occupied by Israel.  If anything, the "Occupation of the Palestinian territories" article should be merged with "Palestinian territories."  As you yourself have noted, the Palestinian territories do not include the Golan Heights or the Sinai Peninsula (pre-1979).  My article is also not about the occupation so much as about the territories; it is more concerned with geography than with the politics of occupation.  You have my consent to move this comment and my 23:42, 15 September 2005 comment to whatever discussion page you think is proper.  Marsden 19:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Marsden, as I've mentioned to you before, you need to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and stop making belligerent comments.  I've previously explained that Wikipedia already has articles covering these subjects, it doesn't need a dozen articles covering the same topic, each a personal divergent version. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes said that the first time a person hurled an insult instead of a punch, that was the beginning of civilization.  You don't like my "belligerent comments;" I don't like your belligerent edits, reverts, and redirects, nor your drawing of other people into your belligerence to get around Wikipedia rules.  And yes, you have explained to me and to Dear Liza and to everyone else why you can't fix the hole in the bucket and why you won't let anyone else fix it either.  It's one thing to assume good faith, Jay; it's another thing to ignore evidence to the contrary. Marsden 22:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please start with existing articles and work to improve them; don't create POV forks.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did.  See Occupied Territories - Revision as of 16:38, 13 September 2005.  You reverted it.  Any  other thoughts? Marsden 13:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: No, you tried to change the subject and the focus of the article.  There was already an article which dealt with the topic of interest to you, which I brought to your attention.  Rather than working with that, you created a POV fork. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Territories" Link 

message: I believe that this section is unprofessionally written, incomplete, and in some parts innacurate. I propose that we,
*Expand context about Hebrew Labor.
*Explain influence of Pan Arabism. 
*Provide divergent viewpoints and more context about the views of Zionist leaders toward Arabs (for example where is Benny Morris in regards to Ben Gurion's view of the Arab population?). 
*Provide a factual basis for Palestinian nationalism as opposed to Pan Arabism. 
I believe that this subarticle has too little information, could potentially become its own article if expanded correctly. Guy Montag 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, its current form is a compromise wording of an earlier anti-Zionist diatribe Kuratowski's Ghost 00:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zionism and Arabs (2) 

message: Let's come up with some language that neither minimizes the plight of the millions of refugees nor makes their status seem solely like a consequence of Zionism. If I recall correctly, part of the reason many are still refugees is the refusal of the countries they are in to grant them citizenship (in my opinion, for the purpose of continuing their status as pawns in the greater Arab-Israeli conflict.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.N.'s final estimate of the total number was 711,000 according to the General Progress Report and Supplementary Report of the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine, Covering the Period from 11 December 1949 to 23 October 1950, published by the United Nations Concilation Commission, October 23, 1950. (U.N. General Assembly Official Records, 5th Session, Supplement No. 18, Document A/1367/Rev. 1)  64.173.42.209, please stop putting "millions" in the article, this is simply a misreprentation.  Also, you appear to be about to violate the WP:3RR, for which you can be blocked. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The refugees in Jordan who have citizenship are also still registered as refugees with UNRWA, even though they and their parents have never lived anywhere else, so I'd lay some blame there too. It's a bit complicated and off-topic for this page. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not difficult to understand why more refugees registered than actually left - the U.N. itself was quite clear on the reasons; initially it was due to  "duplication of ration cards, addition of persons who have been displaced from area other than Israel-held areas and of persons who, although not displaced, are destitute", and in subsequent years it was due to the fact that "all births are eagerly announced, the deaths wherever possible are passed over in silence" and a birthrate that was "high in any case", contributing to "a net addition of 30,000 names a year."  According the U.N., the refugee lists also contained "many false and duplicate registrations." . Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *So, is the proper range closer to one million than two? If it's closer to two, then "millions" is correct; if it's closer to one, "around a million" would be correct; if it's something under 750,000, "hundreds of thousands" would be correct. (We use "hundreds of thousands" to describe the number of Jewish refugees (or DPs) a couple paragraphs earlier; what was the actual range?) Regardless -- right now the language is, hundreds of thousands of Arabs being made refugees; millions of Arab refugees (taking out "being made") might be a good compromise, if indeed there were enough to say "millions". (Ramallite and I  had a bit of a edit conflict here; he's not responding to me.)  --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *The proper number is 711,000.  That is how many refugees were created by the conflict, according to the UN agency created specifically to deal with the issue. Jayjg (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Otherwise stateless families of refugees are still refugees -- especially since the conflict has continued for half a century. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Whether or not they are is actually matter of debate, and in any event one cannot lay the blame for their remaining as refugees at the feet of the original War of Independence.  Can you name another similar group of "refugees" - that is, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of refugees, still considered refugees 60 years after a war? Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Of course it's a matter of debate. That's why we're debating it. And no, I can't really think of another such group. But there are a lot of unique aspects to the whole situation; can you think of another case of a people reclaiming land their ancestors were ejected from two millenia previously? Perhaps we need to elide any actual attempt at enumeration in order to present NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *How about if we just give exact numbers and references instead? See my latest edit. Jayjg (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Be that as it may, there is still currently a "very large number" of individuals who, under international law, are entitled to some kind of compensation. The displaced Palestinians left behind what would amount to 10-20 billion dollars worth (in today's money) in property, bank accounts, etc. These are not gingerbread cookies, they are actual people who had their homes, schools, parks, places of business, and things everybody else takes for granted, and they lost all of that (fleeing war or being forced at gunpoint amounts to the same result in the end when you're not allowed to return because you're the wrong religion). What citizenship they have (or don't have) now, and arguing who to blame for calling them refugees is ignoring their true plight. Furthermore, there are other reasons for denying citizenship other than the 'pawn' argument, Palestinians have never really been liked in Arab countries, we seem to be much more entrepreneurial and financially successful than most natives, and that pisses a lot of people off. So denying citizenship is a form of discrimination (not that I personally care, I'd rather be stateless than a citizen of one of those dictatorships ;) ) Ramallite (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In some ways the Jews and the Palestinians have a lot in common, clearly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of the things they have in common is that each side had a similar number of refugees, though the Jewish refugees are rarely recognized, and certainly were not treated in the same way (i.e. kept as perpetual pawns by their brethren, and as perpetual welfare recipients by the UNRWA). Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be interested in seeing you quote the specific international law which states that refugees are entitled to compensation.  Be that as it may, the number of still-living displaced Palestinians is estimated in the tens of thousands at most, though their left-behind wealth does seem to grow almost exponentially with each passing year - perhaps it has to do with the continual mistaking of government property (e.g. "parks") for private land.  And, of course, your analysis does not take into account similar numbers of Jewish refugees displaced from Arab lands, who left behind significantly larger amounts of wealth and have never been compensated. Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A google search of ("compensation for refugees" and "international law") will provide a list of sites that refer to the IL / Geneva Conventions on the compensation of refugees in general, as well as arguments as to whether Palestinians fit those requirements or not (which to me is like a stabbing victim negotiating the size of his wound with his attacker). Although I don't have any data, I'm not sure the majority of Palestinians in Palestine would consider other Arab nations as "brethren", that is debatable, but the treatment of Palestinians by these regimes is a testament to their quality, not ours. I'd be interested to see where you found that actual refugees are "tens of thousands at most", because if that's the case then the worst case scenario of the Palestinian Right of Return isn't harmful to Israel. Even those (government property) parks that you refer to may very well have been built on (Absentee Law) seized land to which non-Jews held title deeds before 1948 - heck even Ben Gurion Airport is built on such land. "Arab home" in Israel is a euphemism for historical and more expensive dwellings, the wealth does grow each year because property values go up. Finally I did not discuss Jewish refugees for the same reason I didn't discuss the fashion tastes of Margaret Thatcher, it's not relevant to my argument. However, on that topic, there have been increasing movements of late by Jews to reclaim lost property, especially in Iraq right now. Personally, I'm all for that. Ramallite (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the number of actual refugees still alive, I read it in an article in Ha'aretz from a couple of years ago, though I don't have it handy.  It makes sense, in any event, as the events occured almost 60 years ago.  However, as you know, the claimed "Right of Return" does not just refer to the actual refugees, but to their millions of descendants as well.  Regarding "parks", the fact remains that 70% of the land of what is now Israel was government property, not individual land-holdings of various Arabs.  Another 7.5% was owned by Jews, and another 3% by Arabs who stayed in Israel and retained ownership of their land.  As for the the value going up, I think the increase has more to do with memory inflation than with monetary inflation. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see how is the "definition of a refugee" issue relevant to the subject of the article. Of course one can attempt to criticize "bloodthirsty Zionists" for this unique definition and its consequesnces. OTOH, one can attempt to criticize them for spots on the Sun. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Zionism is not an abstract philosophy unaffected by the material world. The refugee issue, like anti-Jewish hostility, plays in an important part in Zionism's development. Anyway, if the exact number of refugees is causing an edit war how about just calling it "a large number" and citing sources? --Yodakii 10:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We are talking about a bigger issue than the number. Let's take a look at this news: Resettlement ends 16 years in limbo (PDF, link from . We read: "1989: U.N. stops recognizing refugees from Vietnam..." The Palestinian refugees alone are not going to follow the same path as 100+ millions of other refugees in the last 60 years. Those others were resettled, stopped being recognized as refugees and now lead more or less decent life. Uniquely, all of descendents of the Palestinian refugees are also being counted as refugees. Whoever is saying that the reason for this difference is Zionism, please explain. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 03:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of refugees 

message: Those who regard Jews and Arabs as racially distinct thus condemn Zionism as racist... There is a whole disputed article dealing with this issue. There is no need to bring the dispute here. I'm replacing it with something shorter and clearer.
:I don't think this pro/contra discussion belongs here: there is an article Arab-Israeli conflict dedicated to these arguments. There is also Zionism and racism and Anti-Zionism, etc. That said, sorry but I am going to revert your edits because you unfairly removed arguments of one side only, including some vital details like "Zionist groups differ widely from each other". ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that seperating pro/contra discussions makes a cleaner article. Anyway, I've reworded the paragraph to include details I carelessly removed. (Sorry about that.) --Yodakii 10:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Why is this "part of the straw-man argument that Palestinians and Jews are racially distinct"?  It rather looks like an argument that Zionism is not inherently racist. Jayjg (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it implies that such an argument (that Jews and Palestinians are racially distinct) is made by critics of Zionism when it isn't. --Yodakii 06:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who accuses Zionism of being "racism" makes that argument. Jayjg (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may seem that way to some people because there is a more basic difference between Zionists and their critics: The definition of racism. This is what I wanted to clarify in that paragraph. People who define racism as including ethnic/cultural discrimination regard Zionism as a form of racism, while those who don't include ethnic/cultural discrimination into the definition don't consider Zionism as racism. Both conclusions are correct depending on the definition of racism. The basic issue is not whether or not Zionism is racism, but whether ethnic/cultural discrimination is racism or not. Without recognising this difference Zionists and their critics see the other's conclusion as irrational. --Yodakii 07:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Racism is discrimination based on race; that's why it's called racism.  If you discriminate based on something other than race (e.g. gender, class, religion, height, weight, eye colour), then it's discrimination, but not racism. Jayjg (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree here. For all purposes, the institution of today's Zionism (as opposed to the context in which it was founded yesteryear in Europe) cannot in all honestly be classified as racism. That there exists racism from Israeli Jews against Israeli non-Jews is not an edict enshrined in the manifestos of today's Zionism. Don't get me wrong, Zionism is still a blatantly discriminatory ideology on a par with racism, but it is not based on race. One Israeli Jew is also quite capable of being just as racist against another Israeli Jew, and that latter Israeli Jew to yet another Israeli Jew despite the principles of today's Zionism. If we are to properly examine Israel's racism and non-race-based discrimination enshrined in Zionism, it must be done independently. Only in the context of "Jew on Jew racism" should Zionism come into play. It is in "Jew on Jew racism" that early Zionism's European Nationalist foundation (and the unofficial legacies of it today) is intimately intertwined with. Al-Andalus 07:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who regard Jews and Arabs as racially distinct 

message: I have changed the references in the article to the Balfour Declaration so that the references exactly mirrors the Declaration. Balfour uses the word home, never homeland. Huldra 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Home" vs "Homeland"

message: People should consider more the need to recognise how much of an impact the Christian Zionist movement has played in the Jewish Zionist movement. Along with the many other good resources from both secular, Jewish, Christian and Muslim views, the following books should be consulted all of which are written by accredited academians (Stephen Sizer got an MA from Oxford) and cite primary sources of documents (not just the opinions of other academics). These books are available at good academic libraries in Universities with Political science or History departments.
My urging to point out the impact of Christian Zionists in the Jewish Zionist movement is not to portray Jewish people or the Jewish Zionist movement as weak or somehow dependent but rather to portray the catalytic impact of the Christian Zionist impact on an already formidable and committed group of Jewish political activists. It is not even to create some crank pot conspiracy theory but rather to bring to light lesser discussed information often clouded over by the widespread of secular views of the Arab Israeli conflict on one hand and  Dispensational ones on the other from the Christian right.
Anyone who is serious about researching and creating a more academically viable and balanced article ought to consider putting in the hard yards and following academic links such as these listed and other books people cite as references before simply deleting them:
- Stephen Sizer. Christian Zionism: Road map to Armageddon? (InterVarsity Press: 2004) - Very indepth analysis of the historical, theological and political claims and influences of the movement. 
- Lawrence Jeffrey Epstein. Zion’s call: Christian contributions to the origins and development of Israel (Lanham : University Press of America, 1984) 
- Michael J. Pragai. Faith and fulfilment: Christians and the return to the Promised Land (London, England : Vallentine, Mitchell, 1985) 
- Irvine H. Anderson. Biblical interpretation and Middle East policy : the promised land, America, and Israel, 1917-2002 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005) 
- Paul Charles Merkley. The Politics of Christian Zionism 1891 – 1948 (London: Frank Cass, 1998) 
- Gorenberg, Gershom. The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount (New York: The Free Press, 2000). 
- Boyer, Paul. "John Darby Meets Saddam Hussein: Foreign Policy and Bible Prophecy," Chronicle of Higher Education, supplement, February 14, 2003, pp. B 10-B11. 
See also sources concerning US-Israeli economic alliances such as those given at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ustoc.html which site Library of Congress data on economic and military contributions by US Administrations to Israel.
Arcan 14:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Zionism a significant feature 

message: This article needs to remain disputed because the level of truth claims made by political ideologies and relgious views are just so significant, therefore the presentation of them in an NPOV is even more significant. Ideological and Relgious views define right and wrong, natural and unnatural and what is important and what is unimportant. Presentation of the facts is never just as simple as it sounds, it is always presented through somebody's lense. According to some people, some facts are not worth mentioning and are seen as irrelevant - and vice versa. Making the article disputed is important most of all because when someone who doesn't know much about the subject (a junior high school student for example) is looking for information they should know that the such truth claims are very contested. To present the page as if it is a mostly finished and objective presentation of the facts is partly misleading. Even when the article is closer to objectivity than subjectivity it should still retain the disputed tag. If think the fact that the article has 5 archives of talk pages as well as the fact that most of the disputes are over content rather than style is evidence enough of this.
Arcan 07:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should remain disputed 

message: FYI, I just moved 128 kB of talks into Archive6. The last edit I saw was dated Sep 3. This page is still too long, feel free to adjust the move as you see fit. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive6 

message: Goodoldpolonius2, I found err in your introductory paragraph and chose to make a very simple edit to correct it, but you have asked me to come here to give reason to it despite giving the explanation in my edit summer. So here goes.
In regards to the Land of Israel, the paragraph refers to it as the land "where the Jewish nation originated". I will in all sincerety be very disappointed if I honestly need educate you as to where the Jews originated. That land was the land promised to the Jews (aka Hebrews, Israelites) as descentandts of Abraham Avinu, Yitzchak v'Ya'akov in the devine promise that was made. None of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel, and so nor do the Jews if our descent from the patriarchs is true. What use is it to suggest we originated in Israel when saying so delegitimises our descent from the patriachs and negates the existace of the Jewish people in the first place.
With "where the Jewish nation originated and where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states existed at various times in history" it is just more accurate to say "where Jewish kingdoms and self-governing states had come to exist at various times in history." Al-Andalus 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed this somehow - apologies. Your argument is problematic, even sticking to the Biblical account of the birth of the Jewish people. For example, you are wrong when you say that "none of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel". According to the Bible, Isaac was born after Abraham reached Canaan (Mamre, which was thought to be near Hebron), and Jacob was born in Moilahhi, outside of Beer Sheba, and given the name Israel in Mahanaim, across the Jordan (but still in the historical Land of Israel). This leaves  the fact that Abraham was born in Ur, I guess, as the counterexample, but even Biblically, that is sketchy, as Abraham was promised to be made a great nation in the "land I will show you," there was no nation until Canaan.  And even leaving aside the textual analysis, it seems to be a stretch to say that the Jewish nation originated in Ur of the Chaldees, as I don't think anyone has ever made that argument.  Additionally, the earliest available actual, historical evidence places the origins of the Jewish nation in the Land of Israel from around 1200 BCE. So, I think arguing that because the Biblical Abraham was born Ur means that the Jewish nation did not originate in the land of Israel, even despite the fact that the existing historical account says otherwise, is really pushing a point. It is like saying that the Jewish nation originated in the Rift Valley in Africa. --Goodoldpolonius2 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ur of the Chaldees is most commonly identified with Sumerian Ur which lies west of the Euphrates and therefore within the borders of Israel defined in Genesis 15:18. Don't confuse Land of Canaan with Land of Israel. But this is beside the point, the Jews as a nation originated with the area of modern Israel regardless of where Abraham was born. Kuratowski's Ghost 00:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that your desire not to use the term "originated" is driving your arguments, and I am not sure why the term is objectionable.  I believe this is really overcomplicating matters - first you said that the patriarchs were not from the Land of Israel, so the Jewish nation did not originate there, but this is clearly not right, as both historical and Biblical accounts show.  Now, you are saying that perhaps the matriarchs did not come from there, and that converts were not always from the Land of Israel, but I am not sure why that matters. In both Biblical and historical accounts, the Jewish nation originated in the Land of Israel - that does not mean that every Jew was born there, or that each Jew can trace their roots there, but in every sense of national origin - spiritual, physical, historical, and national conciousness, then the Jewish nation certainly came from there as much as any nation every originated in a location (the Mongols from the steppes of Asia, the Swedes from Scandanavia, the Arabs from the tribes of the Arabian pennisula, etc.).  Also, replacing "the Jewish nation originated in..." with "the Jewish nation reached its fulfillment as a political entity..." seems quite tortured. Perhaps the most convincing thing would be for you to provide some sources. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I actually know the answers to the questions you ask regarding why Al-Andalus finds the term "objectionable", but they're not particularly relevant for this page.  The bottom line is that the historial record finds the origins of the Jewish nation in Israel, not Iraq, or Egypt, or elsewhere. Jayjg (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I know all that. Notice I did not say that the patriarchs were not born in Israel (apart from Abraham, who was born in Ur). What I said is that they did not "originate" there. I was born in Australia, that does not mean the origins of my family or people are there. As for Jayjg, please enlighten us all, for what higher reason do I find the term "objectinable". Don't be shy now. You're hardly the type not to post "irrelevencies".  Al-Andalus 21:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Al-Andalus, that is my point, I am not sure what purpose your extreme precision serves, especially as I am not sure it is accurate. For example you said "None of the patriarchs originated in the Land of Israel, and so nor do the Jews if our descent from the patriarchs is true," but you say now that two of the patriarches were indeed born there -- it seems to be odd to say that they were born there, but did not originate there, I am not sure I understand the distinction in this case, wouldn't it mean that Abraham's origin is whervever Abraham's father is from, and so forth, ad infinitum? That pretty much means that the only meaningful statement is that everyone originated in east Africa, which is needlessly reductionist.  Similarly, given all of the info presented on how the Jewish nation's first archaelogical, political, and religious appearance was in the Land of Israel, and, indeed, the centrality of that belief in both secular and religious thought, you really do need to provide a reputable source if you are going to argue to the contrary. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to address my problem with "originate" as briefly as posible. Maybe it's just me, but the word "originate" to me brings up the notion of a people that sprung up in the land miraculously and out of thin air, or from a people previously there (neither of which is how it happened). In saying the Hebrews originated in the Land of Israel, rather than saying that it was the place of destination as devinely promised to be settled by us, the chosen people of origins distinct from the people already in that land (the Canaanites, Moabites, etc.), puts us in the same boat as them, ambiguating our distinct origins. I don't know if I've gotten my point across. Al-Andalus 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is where the Jews became a nation, just like England is where the English became a nation, even though they emigrated to England from German lands, and quite possibly from Asia before that. Jayjg (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh please what garbage. The three forefathers of the Jewish people were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham was born in Ur, most commonly identified with the Sumerian Ur lying west of the Euphrates and therefore within the borders of Israel defined in Genesis 15:18. Isaac and Jacob were not only born in the Land of Israel but in fact in Canaan lying west of Jordan more or less the area of modern Israel. Kuratowski's Ghost 17:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Originate

message: :Doright: for the record: I object to your caracterization of me/my edits in your edit line: .....even if, as you claim, a Jew says it. ... I have never made such a "claim". Please do not ascribe to me something I have not said/done. What I have done is to point out that the source you used; www.palestinefacts.org, is not a NPOV source, this according to themselves:</br>
:My edit summary was: Dorights source does not even claim to be neutral (see hidden text) </br> 
:My insert was:   </br>
:In other words; if a source itself states that it presents facts with  a pro-Israel point-of-view, I think it should be noted. Regards, Huldra 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Good edits on the whole -- much cleaner. I'm not sure about a couple of the capitalization changes: post-Zionism and prime minister. Also, I think the "territory now known as Israel" is more accurate as well as more assonant, since 80 years ago, there wasn't conflict over Israel; there was conflict over the territory that became Israel. Oh, also -- the last part, about the defenders of Zionism, the change from "inherant" to "inevitable consequence" -- that's a real meaning change, I think. Since it's a "they argue" paragraph, I guess we need a cite to what they really argue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 09:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pintele Yid|Pintele Yid]]'s changes 

message: My edit summary got truncated (my slip of the finger).  As the article states, "Zion" is an old name for Jerusalem.  It is not derived from an ideological or historical fact about the Jewish people.  --Zero 03:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zion

message: FYI, I've reintroduced subsections in that section. In addition to the existing religious and secular ones, this could possibly include: 
*League of Nations and the United Nations: (both the 1922 Mandate and the 1947 plan included at least partial endorsement of Zionism) 
*Conservative Zionism. 
Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two issues: 1) What is conservative Zionism? If we mean recent support for Israel as a ally of the West among conservatives, that seems a bit dubious, as it really isn't Zionism in the regular sense. 2) The Muslim Zionism section is bad, and needs to either be expanded or go.  We have one guy "pointing out" a presumably controversal religious view (which he does not call Muslim Zionism), yet it has its own header on par with Christian Zionism, or non-Jewish socialist Zionism.  I tried to comment this out, but was reverted.  I then tried to qualify it, but that was reverted as well.  What is the justification for keeping the "Muslim Zionism" section? --Goodoldpolonius2 02:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe it needs to be rewritten, but I disagree that it should go. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. It doesn't matter how many people brought the quote: it is from the Qur'an, which, AFAIK, most Muslims take literally. These days, many people (including some Muslims) say that Islam has been hijacked and over-politicized in the 20th century. This looks like an evidence of that. Perhaps the subsection[s] need some renaming/rearranging, but the text stayed here for months without serious objections. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries about toe-stepping!  I still think there needs to be a notability standard here in terms of "Muslim Zionism" -- the Quran also says things about hunting down Jews behind trees (or at least the Hamas charter quotes something to that effect), so I would want to make sure that the interpretation of these passages is actually shared by some number of Muslims.  I similarly would object to one guy's quote from the Talmud, religious books are tricky, there are lots of nuts willing to interpret, and to claim that such a thing as "Muslim Zionism" exists requires some standard of evidence.  Believe me, I'd love some evidence that it exists, but it really seems to be stretching the point to just quote the Quran and say that some Muslims are Zionists.  If you really disagree, I'll let it drop, so no worries. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you prefer the section title Zionist motives in the Quran or perhaps The Land of Israel and the Jews in the Quran? ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Jewish Zionism 

message: This is an article written expressly by individuals with a purely Zionist point of view. Any editing of this article by anyone else is not permitted, as any facts or any THING stated would simply be deleted shortly after entry by the original author. This is censorship and is very wrong.
The main theme of Zionism stems from deep rooted Jewish philosophy which links the Jewish people to what Jews call the Land of Israel. Though this is the origin, the modern definition of Zionism is far more more secular than religious, a contemporary political movement among the Jewish population and other non-Jewish supporters. The term Jewish in itself, is no longer used to indicate a religious philosophy (see jew). 
For that reason especially, this new, ethnic Zionism is viewed very controversially by the rest of the world, and is often regarded as a form of racism. This is because it asserts that; Those of Jewish bloodline, regardless of their religious philosophy, should have sovereign ownership of this region as citizens of the State of Israel. 
These citizens are to be granted higher status and have rights over any of the native inhabitants of the region prior to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, referred to as Palestinians.
This article also fails to mention the most striking fact about Zionism which is, the current conflict in the Middle East, and the bloodshed involved in the establishment of a Zionist state. It would seem that no user is permitted to mention these facts lest they be deleted, and the user blocked. That is illicit censorship, and borderline fascism.
Another concept of dispute is whether those currently residing as Israeli citizens ARE of the bloodline of the original Israelites. The supposed lineage they share and vagueness with which this research was done (see khazar) conclude that perhaps, your average Nigerian may share an equal amount of original Israelite blood as does a modern Israeli citizen.
These are facts that need to be mentioned in this article, and Wikipedia is not a fireum of personal bias and political sponsorship. It should be an open encyclopedia where any facts (provided that they are facts and not fabrications) can be openly added. The preceding content was originally added by Tezcore.
:There is an entire article dedicated to expressing Your arguments. It's called anti-Zionism.--Chodorkovskiy 19:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV discussion

message: What exactly is the problem here? Whoever put in the dispute tag needs to explain exactly what is wrong with the article as it stands. You need to be more specific. AucamanTalk 04:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: The article says "Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism."  However the wikilink for Jewish homeland forwards to the article on Israel, which I don't think reflects what Chomsky is calling for. Could someone who is more familiar with the subject look at this.  Paulleake 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky and Jewish Homeland (wl)

message: I've turned this article's refs into the new <refs> format and couldn't resist from making some copy-edits in the process: . 
I was surprised to find that Hibbat Zion was "Larry Mohr's". Any clue what's that about? Also I've added 1947 Gromyko's statement, gave credit to Lord Shaftesbury, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & copy-edits