Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Tanzania protest and so-called "Islamic Human Rights Commission"

RolandR said "That's how the photographer described it on Commons." However, the image doesn't mention "Protest against the Gaza war" anywhere. In fact, the title says "File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania8.JPG". Besides, I don't think we should use an extremely POV opinion article written by a nobody of dubious origin and published in an unreliable source like the Islamic Human Rights Commission to state facts like "Other commentators state that Zionists feed anti-Semitism worldwide in order to attract more immigrants in Israel" or "many religious Jews and Jewish organisations..." (without even proper citation). Just for the record, the Naturei Karta sect is a small minority among religious Jews (5,000 people worldwide at best).--Wlglunight93 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why the "so-called"? The Islamic Human Rights Commission is a perfectly responsible and well-respected body, which enjoys UN consultative status. If you challenge its reliability, take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. In any case, the reliability of the IHRC has nothing to do with the description of the photo. The photographer himself stated, in his description at Wikipedia Commons, that this was "Tanzanians protesting the 2008-2009 Gaza bombardment by Israel". This is certainly a reliable source (indeed, the best source) for where the picture was taken, and contradicting this on the basis of your own interpretation of what you see in the photo is clearly unacceptable original research. RolandR (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some people believe that Zionism and Judaism are almost synonyms, some people believe Zionism is in contradiction with Judaism. Neutrality requires that both views be present in the article. Anti-Zionist religious Jews were not always the minority, they were the majority at the turn of the 20th century and progressively rallied Zionism in the course of the century. On the other hand, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was atheist, had contempt for religious Jews and did not oppose antisemitism to achieve his goals. I understand your point of view, Wlglunight93: "Zionism is the realization of Judaism, Antizionist religious Jews are wackos". But it's a bit more complicate than that. Blaue Max (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The material has been challenged. Is there a reliable source to back up that this is a noteworthy opinion, represented fairly and of due relevance and weight? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes; it is cited to Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, who are both notable, and reliable sources for their own opinions. It is one sentence in the intro, which is hardly untrueundue. RolandR (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Exernal link to an anti-zionism documentary

• Anti-Zionism documentary

80.217.201.113 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an "anti-Zionist documentary"; it is a piece of antisemitic conspiracy filth, which has no place in Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism And Anti-Zionism section

The Antisemitism And Anti-Zionism section is mostly just a unnecessarily bunch of quotes from Zionists, many of which are to long, arbitrary and many border on the ridiculous. I don't advocate removing the entire section but large parts of it are not really of much worth, there is some good stuff in there though. TURTLOS (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

An important study still deserves inclusion

Since, it's now archived, I think this chart and study remain relevant to this page, and I wish to include them in it. I recognise there is dissent about the relevance of this to Anti-Zionism. I also recognise there are proud Jews with strong objections to Israel's policies and its existence, however myopic.

Chart of Odds Ratio of extreme Antisemitic views (>5 ADL index) with varying strength of anti-Israel views, derived from Ed Kaplan study 2006 http://intl-jcr.sagepub.com/content/50/4/548.abstract

For detailed discussion of this please see [2]. Cpsoper (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying that a Jew criticizing Zionism is myopic is a completely ridiculous claim, just because someone doesn't agree that returning to an already unstable part of the world and trying to remove some of it's inhabitants to make way for colonizers from around the world just because some of those colonizers had some distant ancestry in this land and because their holy scriptures say they must return there does not mean they are myopic. The only semi-legitimate claim to this land is as a refuge against racism that Jews experienced in Europe which is itself a myopic claim.. Destabilizing a large part of the world for half a century to get away from a dying attitude that probably would've died out by now is myopic, don't get me wrong getting out of Europe during the rise of groups like the Nazis was completely necessary and not in the slightest bit myopic but going to the middle east as opposed to going to north or south america or under populated Australia is.

Now on top of all this mass migration and short sighted ideology, the establishment of a Jewish nation state in areas already promised to Arabs for their nation state is even more myopic, because moving to an already unstable area is one thing but trying to take over the region is another. If Zionists weren't myopic then there would be and multicultural state in the area, this would be difficult but it would have been fairer. So next time you refer to anti-Zionist Jews as myopic take a second to seriously think about it. TURTLOS (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I am an anti-Zionist Jew. I am also myopic. I don't think that using physical disabilities or handicaps to stigmatise political beliefs which you do not share is acceptable; please be more careful in your choice of language. RolandR (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear RR, as a longstanding fellow member of the myope community, and as keen to escape it as any other here, I had no intention to stigmatise the physically disabled, and apologise for any offence caused to such. All other comments noted with thanks. Myopia it seems is in the eye of the beholder, at least for now. Cpsoper (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

How do physical disabilities and handicaps fit in the conversation? TURTLOS (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "myopic" as a term of political disparagement could be offensive to people who suffer from this condition. As I stated, I am myself myopic, but this does not in any way affect or influence my intellectual ability or political understanding. I was merely asking for greater sensitivity in people's choice of terminology. RolandR (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Short sighted then. Um, fuzzy? Blurred? Unclear? I think we will have to use "unicorns and rainbows" instead of any term that equates human thought to human perception. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And some of my best friends are high myopes... Cpsoper (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2015

Fix |accessdate=2014-06-029 in reference #45. 85.245.212.103 (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Done -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lausanne Movement

Have added a small referenced section on recent Lausanne Movement statements. Cpsoper (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015

The photograph of the Iranian mural in the article is captioned as depicting Ayatollah Khomeini when it is in fact a depiction of Ali Khamenei. The source of the photograph confirms this, please change for accuracy as not to confuse readers. Alijadd (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: The caption says 'a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini which says: "Israel must be destroyed."' As I read it, that's accurate - the quote is attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini. The portrait is of Ali Khamenei, but the caption doesn't say anything about the portrait, just the quote. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

 Partly done I have reworded the caption to fully explain who is in the picture and what the caption actually says. - Arjayay (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Source reference for insertion

Introductory paragraph; " Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, argue that supporters of Israel often try to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, to silence opposition to Israel's policies.[7][page needed][8][full citation needed][not in citation given][self-published source?]"

ref = 'The Essential Chomsky' Ed.Anthony Amove. Published by The Bodeley Head Group/Random House England in 2008. Chapter = The origins of the special relationship.page 205 onwards. ISBN:9781847920645 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.109.140 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I am glad that somebody came up with a nice literary source for this -- but I would have thought it so obvious as to not need sourcing. The phenomenon is like Chickenman, "He's everywhere, he's everywhere."

There are antisemites who pose as merely anti-Zionist, but they are not, in my experience, supporters of Israel, the group referred to in the discussion.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Crazed Right-Wing Slander of J Street

"Modern American groups such as J Street are taken as evidence of an "anomalous pattern of internal defection" created as a result of anti-Zionism.[153]"

I think the folks at Commentary have been sniffing too much of Huntington Hartford's cocaine again. This is another of those 180-degree fabrications with which the "liberals are fasicts" rightwing have become infatuated in the post Reagan decades, and has no place in Wikpedia, imho.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I have attributed it directly to its author, with a little context. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

3rd sentence is biased and against wiki's own policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

There are also many people, including many Jewish people, who reject the notion that anti-Zionism {i.e. opposing Jewish nationalism and its policies in Palestine, it's ongoing occupation and oppression of another people, etc.} is either equivalent to, or merely a mask for anti-Jewish racism {hostility based on race/culture with no connection to the Israeli state or Jewish nationalism.

The fact that the 3rd sentence is devoted to one p.o.v. is yet more proof that Wikipedia's articles touching on Israel/Palestine, and clearly some of the editors, are Zionists and Israeli apologists VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA'S OWN RULES to propagandize what is supposed to be a neutral, balanced article.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=47391

By the logic of hasbara trolls, objecting to Jewish "settlers" burning Palestinian homes and crops because of their racist beliefs isn't humanism or anti-Zionism, it's hatred of Jews for being Jews.

Give us a break.

38.97.64.130 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)jpt75

The third sentence is carefully phrased to express a widely held and well referenced opinion, one which has received considerable validation in practice, as these references substantiate. This is perfectly compatible with WP:NPOV.Cpsoper (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2015

The introduction is very biased. Anti-Zionism should not be referred to as antisemitism. 68.180.64.22 (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: At first I saw your point, but if you read more closely, it seems to actually be pretty neutral. "The term is used to describe various religious, moral and political points of view, but their diversity of motivation and expression is sufficiently different that "anti-Zionism" cannot be seen as having a single ideology or source. Many notable Jewish and non-Jewish sources, including French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, have claimed that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism." The whole thing in a nutshell seems to be "lots of people have different meanings for this, some think it is antisemitic". I don't think it's framed in a way that the article is saying anti-zionism = anti-semitism. It's just pointing out that there are a number of people who do think that. Mww113 (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Change the "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism" section.

Hello, the paragraph of "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism" need to be reorganized, I propose:

" In recent years, many commentators have argued that contemporary anti-Zionism have become a cover for antisemitism; and advocates of this concept argue that much of what purports to be criticism of Zionism is demonization.[115] Critics of the concept (as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, Tariq Ali and the member of many organisations like NKUSA) have argue that the characterization of anti-Zionism as antisemitic is inaccurate, and used to obscures legitimate criticism of Israel.[116]

Professor Kenneth L. Marcus, former staff director at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, identifies four main views on the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, at least in North America:[117]

• anti-Zionism and antisemitic remain distinct;
• anti-Zionism and antisemitism are both analytically and historically distinct, but the two ideologies have merged since 1948 (foundation of Israel);
• anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from antisemitism, but much apparent criticism Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of antisemitism;
• anti-Zionism is antisemitic in its essence and in most of its manifestations.

Dina Porat (head of the Institute for Study of Antisemitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University) contends that anti-Zionism is antisemitic because it is discriminatory: "Antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own".[118]
Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini maintains that anti-Zionism is "politically correct antisemitism" and argues that the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is demonized, the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for Self-determination is denied from Israel, the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world.[119]

Some critics of Israeli policy argue that Israeli propagandists and supporters often try to equate anti-Zionism and criticism of Israeli policy, with antisemitism, to silence opposition to Israeli policies.
Noam Chomsky for example argues: "There have long been efforts to identify antisemitism and anti-Zionism in an effort to exploit anti-racist sentiment for political ends [...] United States and Israel have ever opposed the two state solution and they've killed anyone opposed them".[120]
According to Norman Finkelstein: "Every time Israel comes under international pressure, as it did recently because of the war crimes committed in Lebanon, it steps up the claim of antisemitism, and all of Israel's critics are antisemitic".[121] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuele1709 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need to be reorganised? In what way is your suggestion an improvement on the existing text? How do you justify removing such a large amount of sourced text? RolandR (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As reorganized it is more clear and succinct, perhaps. Per WP:PRESERVE I don't think that necessarily means removing the longer section with different viewpoints, but perhaps that could be organized as a separate subsection, or in some other way with more structure. Just a thought. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@RolandR: The section is very long and disorganized. There was a template that asked to remove some citations, and it's what I did.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuele1709 (talk • contribs)

I generally agree that the section contains too many blockquotes. Many, if not all, can be eliminated without much loss of precision. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas quote

Why is Mahmoud Abbas quoted in the conspiracy theories section, his argument doesn't seem to be too illogical or invalid..?Makeandtoss (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Some notes

• I have removed on WP:OR grounds

(a)*1828 – In London Edward Swaine published a Biblical exposition, Objections to the Doctrines of Israel's Future Restoration to Palestine, national pre-eminence, etc.

(b) 1879 – Kapper Society founded in Austria.

(c)* 1891 – The Jewish Colonization Association was set up to facilitate settlement of Russian and Eastern European Jews in North and South America, then later in Palestine.

In the case of Swaine (whose work is in some bibliographies dated even to 1821, not 1828) you need a secondary source to state that this is the first opposition to 'Zionism'. In the case of Kapper, this was a clear case of WP:OR since the source (unpaginated) given turns out to refer not to 1879, except as the date of his demise, and notes that the Kapper society in his name was established some time later.

In the case of the Jewish Colonization Association, that is dated 1891. The association's declaration of principles is not Zionist:'"To assist and promote the emigration of Jews from any parts of Europe or Asia, and principally from countries in which they may for the time being be subjected to any special taxes or political or other disabilities, to any other parts of the world, and to form and establish colonies in various parts of North and South America and other countries for agricultural, commercial, and other purposes." and the investments in land in Palestine long postdate 1891. Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1903 – British Uganda Programme offered to the World Zionist Organization. This drew support from Theodor Herzl, as a temporary means of refuge for Russian Jews facing antisemitism.

Someone should explain what secondary source classifies this as an example of anti-Zionism, esp. since Herzl himself took Chaamblerain's proposal seriously, and it was debated in Zionist conferences and discussion groups for 3 years.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The removal of Swaine's reference which relates to Jewish national restoration to Palestine seems quite inappropriate, it does not need a secondary reference. On what precise grounds do you claim it is OR? There is no claim to it being the earliest reference in the text, there may well be others. If the date of publication is inaccurate correct it, please don't remove valuable sourced material. There may be other concerns about other material you have removed here too.Cpsoper (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Zionism Lead:'Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement, called Hovevei Tziyon.'

-ism means a doctrine, here specified as a modern secular ideology of return. So where is your policy justification for introducing a religious text that discusses the merits from an Anglican perspective on the concept of redemption through a return to the land. This goes back to Protestant ideas in the 16th century, that the precondition for the Advent of the Messiah was working for the return of Jews to the 'Holy Land', have them converted, so Jesus would pop up and Bob's yer Uncle, Utopia. The Ferench Revolution excited in conservative Christians a sense that the End of Days was near, and when Napoleon made his 1799 Jerusalem declaration:

'Israélites, Nation unique que les conquêtes et la tyrannie ont pu, pendant des milliers d’années, priver de leur terre ancestrale, mais ni de leur nom, ni de leur existence nationale ! . .Maint enant, cette nation se venge de deux mille ans l’ignominie. Bien que l’époque et les circonstances semblent peu favorables à l’affirmation ou même à l’expression de vos demandes, cette guerre vous offer aujourd’hui, contrairement à toute attente, le patrimoine israélien. . .Héritiers légitimes de la Palestine !'

many evangelicals thought this was a 'sign' of the end of the world, and others did theologically what Sydney Smith did with his naval cannons at Acre, aided ironically by Haim Farhi, stopped the foundation of Zion, ergo anti-Zionist. There's no end to the way one could do original research and extend this humongously.

As I said, you can't just stack up the page with stuff that is not mentioned in the standard works on the history of Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Philosopher Michael Marder argues: "To deconstruct Zionism is [...] to demand justice for its victims – not only for the Palestinians, who are suffering from it, but also for the anti-Zionist Jews, "erased" from the officially consecrated account of Zionist history. By deconstructing its ideology, we shed light on the context it strives to repress and on the violence it legitimises with a mix of theological or metaphysical reasoning and affective appeals to historical guilt for the undeniably horrific persecution of Jewish people in Europe and elsewhere."[3][4]

This seems totally unfocused, and I can't see what service it poiposes.Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• In addition The Protocols still enjoy popularity among anti-Semitic groups.

Again, it is not enough to scour for anti-Semitic references and then add them to the article. We need material that focuses on the anti-Zionism. The procedure in this section appears to be that anything anti-Semitic is anti-Zionist,, whether Zionism is mentioned or not.Nishidani (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anita Shapira argues that much of the inspiration for European Zionism the '-ism' came from Evangelicals, who she says 'passed this notion on to Jewish circles'. It was common among the Puritans to anticipate and frequently to pray for a Jewish return to their homeland.' You write somewhat crassly about this, but one only needs to skim the history of Restorationism (or what is now usually called Christian Zionism if you prefer) to see how deep, serious and how well organised politically this expectation has been from before Cromwell till now amongst many Protestant groups, including the Puritans, the early Methodists, many continental reformed groups, the early Brethren, Baptists, Congregationalists, Anglicans and Presbyterians among others. You can read just a very shallow skimming of this thinking in the article Christian Zionism. Evangelical Lord Shaftesbury's later lobbying of Palmerston lead to the appointment of a Consul and then a Jewish Episcopal Bishop in Jerusalem in 1842, in anticipation of an imminent national return Michael Alexander (bishop) - read his writings, which breathe expectation of an imminent return. Evangelicals have played a prominent role in Zionism, secular or otherwise from roots that antedate the most prolific activity in the later 19th century,, Merkley claims Blackstone for example as 'one of a handful of the most influential American actors' in the later establishment of the State of Israel. It was no surprise either that according to Herzl's biographers the Anglican clergyman William Hechler was one of [his] most faithful and vigorous supporters (25th anniversary memorial volume for Herzl, cited in Merkley). Most of this was before Herzl, much of it also well before Hovevei Tziyon It's no surprise at all that early theological opposition arose to this in the form of Swaine's letters and there are many other later examples too. This is an significant opposition to a national return movement to Palestine, not a quaint devotional. It may seem early, but Christians were debating this vigorously in the early 19th C, as this reference alone reveals. It would be deprive the reader of valuable encyclopaedic information to remove it. Cpsoper (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is all in the relevant wiki articles. But the problem is to find books specifically discussing anti-Zionism in the modern sense of that word. I can't see the Zionism discussing Baruch Spinoza's advocacy of a Ist Temple return to Israel in the background of Zionism, because sources on Zionism don't mention it. In the same way, sources on anti-Zionism don't mention Swaine. To make the connection is WP:OR. One deals with a topic by looking at books and articles that specifically mention it, and unless Swaine crops up in one dealing with anti-Zionism, Swaine will have to be left out. I am taking out Lenni Brenner's 1990 Committee Against Zionism and Racism established with Stokely Carmichael in 1990 for the same reason. It is simply ignored by all reputable sources.Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Early restorationists are now widely called 'Christian Zionists', and these include figures long before the early standard bearers for Jewish Zionism. Their opponents are called anti-restorationists, or anti-Zionists, and Swaine is described as the former by Eitan Bar Yosef for example. It is stretching WP:OR so to describe this inclusion, or require it from the mouth of other anti-Zionists, when mainstream writers use the description. Swaine opposed Christian Zionism. Spinoza and the Temple are irrelevancies.Cpsoper (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This article does not deal with Christian Zionism. It deals with the Jewish movement called Zionism and those who oppose it. The article as I found it was full or WP:OR, much of which remains and that is what I am cleaning up. The issue re Swaine is immensely trivial WP:Fringe, since I can see no standard work on the history of Zionism which mentions it. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Swaine is not even mentioned in the only book I know which deals systematically with the subject, Regina Sharif's Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History (Zed Press, 1983). RolandR (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have already cited one work that does specifically refer to Swaine as being opposed to the encouragement of this national movement. It may be a small matter, though that's not the same as being fringe, given its antiquity, but the removal of this sourced material does not seem appropriate. Cpsoper (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New edits to lead

1: I do not agree with the new lead which defines anti-Zionism very broadly and Zionism very narrowly.

2: I do not think you can just take the way Gianni Vattimo and Michael Marder defines these terms at face value and have any hope for clarity when they snidely write.

“solidarity here means a critical embrace of Jewish history and contemporary Jews with the hope that the end of the violence of the Jewish state will bring Jews back to an ethical path”

3: The line “where Palestinians are subject to control” is original research. It implies military occupation or worse which is not in the source.

4: Zionism calls for Jewish self-determination and a state. Right wing Jews often points out that the conflict is not about borders, anti-Zionism does not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in any borders! At least not in the Land of Israel maybe in Germany.

Jonney2000 (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the 9 march 2016, apparently stable version. I agree that the changes were bad…in so many ways I don't know where to begin. Hats off to the WP:BOLD edits, but I don't think these fly.They need to be discussed a piece at a time. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'where Palestinians are subject to control”' is not WP:OR. It is in the source, since erased. The rest of your objections ignores the evidence of the page in favour of a simplified cliché of what Zionism's ostensible essence is.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead restored provides us with the standard historic Zionist definition of Zionism, which is like having the standard Catholic definition of Catholicism, or Marxist definition of Communism. The way the word anti-Zionist is used does not broadly refer to opposition to Israel's establishment.

opposition to the ethnonationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports' the establishment of a Jewish state as a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel

Just reminding you both that the state of Israel was established in 1948, 68 years ago, and that Zionism, whatever it became afterwards, no longer 'supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Canaan'/Land of Israel. A large part of the page documents things that are in opposition, not to the establishment of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, but the state beyond its borders. Chomsky and Finkelstein in 'Zionist' lit. are 'anti-Zionists', but nowhere in their writings do they challenge the legitimacy of the state of Israel in 1948. Nishidani (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition of the varieties of Zionism in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has come to include the movement for the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defense Forces.Disagreements in philosophy has led to rifts in the Zionist movement of the years and a number of separate forms have emerged, notably: Political Zionism; Religious Zionism; Socialist Zionism and Territorial Zionism.

Anti-Zionism cannot, as the editors so far have tried to assert, be reduced to Anti-Semitism. Anti-Zion ist positions range from anti-Semitism, opposition to the IDSF's behavior, opposition to Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, opposition to religious Zionism (strong in Israel's secular community), opposition to moves to destroy the socialist roots of Zionism, opposition to Greater Israel Zionist developments.

The revert of the lead adjustment, which takes into account the various definitions of what Zionism and opposition to it involved, all lacking in the old version, ignores WP:LEAD which says the lead must summarize the content of its respective sections. The page surveys Jewish opposition to Zionism, and this has been erased from the lead; it gives many examples of the different varieties of Zionism, noted by scholars both pro- and anti-Zionist, and this has been erased; it noted that the primary concept of Zionism, to establish a Jewish state, is glossed as outdated since the establishment of that state in 1948, and that opposition to Zionism thenceforth can either be opposition to the State of Israel or to the elements in Zionism that seek a 'greater Israel', this was erased. It added the 'other' definition, not internal to Zionism, but common among both post 1967 Zionists and anti-Zionist critics, that Zionism in practice extends to occupation and territorial expansion,a and this, violating WP:NPOV has been erased. To say that a lead which reflected one definition, and ignored several others, is encyclopedic, whereas a lead which encompasses all definitions, is unencyclopedic, is silly. The revert simply means that the Jewish Encyclopedia's extended definition is not appropriate to Wikipedia. So I am waiting for explanations, particularly since the page was a -ignored disaster, and I can't see evidence that those who want the old outdated lead have been active in fixing anything here, as opposed to protests and drive-by reverting.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring or asserting anything, but rather saying that the proposed new lead is unencyclopedic and has far too many issues to enumerate quickly. Starting with the first one, it describes anti-zionism as " a term that is difficult to deconstruct." — whether it is hard to deconstruct or not is a matter of opinion, and implies that there is a reason to do some deconstruction. Deconstruction is not a function of the encyclopedia, nor is commenting on the difficulty of the task. The article is expressly about a phenomenon, not a word or a concept. Next, "Walter Laqueur argues that the history of Zionism ended in 1948" and goes onto an obscure term he apparently coined called "Philisraelism" — why on earth should we care what Walter Laquer argues? The article is not about his argument, either. Even if it were, phrasing things about what somebody "has argued" is an academic tone from within certain social disciplines, it is not a presentation of encyclopedia content. Then it goes into something about definitions, with a "however" (a term that in general is not an encyclopedic presentation). On and on. That's why I suggest that if there is a proposed change we need to go over it piece by piece. Any changes in the body of the article, and perhaps the existing body, probably have similar issues. Too much of this and the article will be beyond repair and will need a complete rewrite. For a somewhat better but not great article on political ideology movements, take a look at Manifest destiny, Liberation theology, or others on the project - Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

'a term difficult to deconstruct'.

It is noted throughout the literature that both the term Zionism and anti-Zionism are abusive labels as often as not, and that saying what constitutes either is difficult. I won't cite more than one of a dozen sources on the 'conceptual confusions' surrounding the terms, something frequently remarked on, save one, from a wise man (Dom Peretz Professor Emeritus, State University of New York, Binghamton, where he was Director of the Middle East Program).

‘attempts to use labels like ‘Zionist’ and ‘anti-Zionist’ are distortions of reality; they are crude, unsatisfactory classifications that often explain the intent or purpose of the labeller more than the identity or outlook of the labeled.’ (Don Peretz, "The Semantics of Zionism, Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism." in Judaism or Zionism? What Difference for the Middle East? , pp.76-87 in Eaford and Ajaz, (eds.),Judaism or Zionism:What Difference for the Middle East?, Zed Books 1986 p.77.)

The word 'deconstruct' in that text means 'unpack', which is what all semantic analysis does. Though Vattimo was a collaborator with Derrida, he is not using deconstructive techniques in the section I quote from.

It is accepted as the baseline for all scholarly work that 'describing a phenomenon' requires that you define your terms, a practice which, bizarrely, you dismiss as 'unencyclopedic'. Encyclopedias sum up and distil what scholarship does.

My problem in looking at this mess created over the year was to figure out what in the fuck these terms mean to the people who label the other side 'Zionist' or 'anti-Zionist'. Unlike newspaper opeds, and hacks writing quickie books, scholarship carefully defines its terms, and the definition you restored is an official cliché, not an analytic category.

Walter Laqueur is not in the text, but a note. Laqueur is both a distinguished Zionist and a historian of Zionism, opposition to which is what this article is about.

'And so on'. Do you realize that your defense of the revert has no policy basis? That the lead you prefer violates the obligation per WP:LEAD to summarize the contents, meaning that it cannot state just one of many meanings of Zionism ignoring the rest, or anti-Zionism, and then only add that many believe the latter is anti-Semitic? That violates lead obligations and WP:NPOV. The lead must summarize what the sections say, as I was doing, i.e. that anti-Zionism has deep roots in Jewish theological and secular opposition, for example. Your remarks show no familiarity with a topic that has hundreds of books and articles about it. Have you read anything on this subject and its numerous controversies? Nishidani (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's something fundamental about Wikipedia articles. We are not a scholarly work, and our articles do not take that tone or approach. There's nothing bizarre about that. An encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge: we describe the things and phenomena of the world, based on the published sources about those things. We do not principally cover the scholarship about things. In some fields like philosophy or the sciences, we do indeed give treatment to what academics have to say, but even there, well written articles are about the thing itself, not about the scholarship regarding the thing. In fields that are farther removed like the politics of nations, articles give less weight to scholarly opinions. I doubt there is any scholarship about the subject that is significant enough to be in the lede, but if so it would be a separate sentence or paragraph beginning with something like this: "The view of scholars on the matter has been [describe]". That makes clear that we are covering scholarship as a topic, not pretending to summarize a subject in an academic voice. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, I must register and protest the refusal to indicate what policy justifies your deletion of relevant material. You are writing an essay about 'we'. I've worked a decade here, on the basis of the following policy recommendation, and you are the first editor to question the method endorsed at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which reads:

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

You are opinionizing. You disliked the word 'deconstruct'? or an 'academic tone'? Well, since this is a subject which is poorly represented by the huge barrage of partisan newspaper coverage, and highly controversial, it is almost obligatory to look at what scholarly experts analyse with the retrospective intelligence of time under peer-review processes, rather than, as the second half of the page does, confusing several distinct discourses (Soviet anti-Zionism, and its Russian heir, is predominantly anti-Semitic; Middle Eastern anti-Zionism is, depending on context and region, both political and grievance, and often coloured with anti-Semitic elements; African anti-Zionism is frequently grounded in perceptions of apartheid and colonization; etc). This is what the critical literature says, and what is wholly absent from the page, because editors read newspapers, not books. Nishidani (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what I like or dislike. Wikipedia articles are written in matter-of-fact, encyclopedic tone, not an academic voice. The policy you're pointing to regards reliable sourcing of facts, not subject matter or tone. For example, if we wanted to support the [uncited] statement in Peloponnesian War that "Roughly one-third to two-thirds of the Athenian population died" in the Plague of Athens we would choose the International Journal of Infectious Diseases[5] over Time Magazine[6] as a source. However, we would not adopt the medical journal's writing style, or attention to process and methodology, which is irrelevant to the topic: "Many archaeologists have wondered at the absence of archaeological evidence related to the victims of the plague. Yet, one should not have expected to find such burial grounds related to the epidemic since, in most cases…". A variant of that, which you proposed in your edits, that academic A argues this or that. Academic discourse, particularly in the liberal arts and social science, often has a different focus than simply uncovering facts. A single scholar's position that zionism ceased after the founding of Israel and that we should invent a new word for it is, frankly, not terribly relevant to an article about post-1948 zionism. That opinion is certainly not a reliably sourced fact, academic source or no. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can come up with policy based statements and suggestions to improve the style of the revised lead I proposed, your revert has no policy-based rationale, and is invalid. I am talking about (which so far, though raised, you have studiously refused to answer):-

(a)WP:LEAD summary of sections. This is not observed in the old lead.

(b)WP:NPOV, which does not permit that one narrative alone constitute a lead when the relevant literature has several. This is violated in the old lead.

(c)WP:RS -- WP:Identifying reliable sources says: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

So far you are giving extensive generic opinions having nothing to do with fixing concrete editorial issues, in the face of the recommendations at WP:NOTFORUM. Please focus. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you taking insult? Sorry if my critique sounded harsh, but if you can bear with me please try to listen instead of arguing. There are some serious and obvious quality and relevancy issues with the proposed content. You asked for specifics and I gave a few. My suggestion is that we go over them incrementally. Avoiding policy violations is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for including prose in a given article. If you've been around here long enough, you surely realize that nobody has ever succeeded in reaching consensus on a content inclusion policy. Quality — things like encyclopedic WP:TONE and voice — generally falls under WP:MOS, not WP:V. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I never feel insulted. I don't like to waste time on things that have obvious fixes. You have no policy objections: you have a stylistic objection. Well, be positive and constructive, and give me a list of points you think require emendation. It's as simple as that. I've written several dozen articles from top to bottom. You are the first to object, so you should collegially offer concrete advice, not sermonize of vague general feelings that my approach is not 'encyclopedic', particularly since my CV includes contributing to a high quality encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing vague, sermonizing, or anything else about my objection. It is a principled objection to form and content. I haven't checked your other articles, but this lede proposal has serious quality issues, and is unacceptable from start to finish. You can call it a policy objection if you wish, or refuse to do so if you wish, no matter. As I said, we can go through it piece by piece and work it through. I'm here, if you'd care to engage. Would you care to start on the first sentence? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, since you keep repeating yourself without any cognizance we work here strictly in terms of policy guidelines. Don't blah blah blah. Be specific. In 10 years you are the only editor who has found my work problematical in this sense. You're alone, in this vague, generic objection, and the only way to clarify what the problem you have is is for you to actually do some work. I.e. take the proposed lead, and parse it, or rewrite it, on the work page here, or whatever. Read the whole page, and tell me, for example, what per WP:LEAD's summary style is lacking in the lead as we have it. What has failed to be summarized? Nishidani (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you have repeated a few times. You're not listening to my objections, which is fine but dismissing them out of hand will not further a consensus solution. I'm not going to speculate on your statement that you have never met them before, but I am offering to consider any language you wish to propose for the lede, and suggesting that doing it in manageable pieces would be most efficient. Personally, I would improve the body of the article first, and then see what material there is for a lede. Perusing the article I see a number of issues. I'll try to address some through editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

All I can see is someone trying to tell granny how to suck eggs, so far.

List your objections by bullets. The primary point is this: in order to write an article on a topic, you have to define that topic. The topic is 'anti-Zionism'. We are not given an autonomous definition except as the opposite of Zionism, which is then defined. Compare Anti-Americanism (which does not define what Americanism is); anti-Communism does not define what Communism was;Anti-imperialism does not define what Imperialism is;Anti-fascism does not state what Fascism was;Anti-nationalism does not state what Nationalism is;Anti-patriotism does not define what Patriotism is, etc.

In this article we have 1.Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, and then Zionism is given one of its numerous definitions, implying that anti-Zionism consists simply of opposition to what Zionism is said to be:an 'ethnonationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the establishment of a Jewish state as a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (also referred to as Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land) or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State.' The definition we have is a copy-and-paste cliché that performs the same kind of error one would make were one to define a black person as someone who is the opposite of a white person, and then proceed to define white person, or vice-versa.

Worse, it is contrafactual, since as abundant sources note (a) opposition to Zionism does not necessarily entail opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel'. Anti-Zionism as numerous sources attest is many things, from pure anti-Semitism to opposition to the policies of the State of Israel with regard to Palestinians. Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein defend the legitimacy of the state of Israel, are opposed to many of its policies, and are almost universally decried as 'anti-Zionists' because the policies they object to are often defended by people who call themselves Zionists, and at the same time , their views are, no paradox, often endorsed by Zionists like Uri Avnery. Many Zionists who think the establishment of Israel was wholly legitimate, and who support that state, do not underwrite policies that are often defended as 'Zionist'. The literature on these terms is toxically muddied by polemics from all sides, and it is no simple matter to write a neutral set of definitions that meets its obligations to all parties.

This conceptual mess is what I am endeavouring to fix (and it means accepting what sources say, that these terms are difficult to define). If you can't see the problem, then this is quite pointless continuing.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alan Hart

Nishidani has added a section about Alan Hart to the article. I have my own disagreements with Hart, with whom I have polemicised both in public and in writing; but I really do not think that the sources Nishidani uses are appropriate or reliable for any characterisation of him or his views. Of course Algemeiner Journal, Emanuele Ottolenghi and Paul Bogdanor will be hostile to anyone even slightly critical of Israel, and they should never be cited in Wikipedia's voice in such a context. The section requires rewriting. And incidentally, neither should we regard Hart's own book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews as a reliable source; I have identified three glaring factual errors on the first page alone. RolandR (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Roland. I found this entry, along with numerous others, marked with a 6 month old citation needed tag, and went through systematically finding RS to that end, without asking myself other questions, since these are all provisory edits. As you can see from the page as it stood before I began editing it, Alan Hart was already mentioned and tagged. I certainly did not add that section.

I don't personally regard Ottolenghi, whose arguments are predictable, and who has been, for political ends (when he was executive director of the Transatlantic Institute in Brussels), been harping on this identification since at least 2003 in order to convince the EU to legislate on the basis of this ridiculous assertion (Emanuele Ottolenghi, 'Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism:Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews,' The Guardian 29 November 29, 2003). But he does make a huge amount of noise, and editors of RS do print his 'stuff'. So he probably passes muster, even if all he is doing is trotting out a piece of hasbara engineered to make people shut up, rather than analyse the problems Israel has with its occupation policies.

I don't think the Algeminer Journal anything but a POV-pushing outlet. Anything Paul Bogdanor writes is trash. Unfortunately, Rosenfeld's book is RS and the editor included his junk.

I know nothing of Hart either.

Generally, most people who write for newspapers, and even scholars who write articles or books on the subject, are so careless that even though they qualify as RS at times, the material is just blather.

All I did was to find something that might arguably support Hart's books for inclusion in this article. I would add that a huge volume on editorializing on this subject is totally unfit for Wikipedia. This is particularly true of the lower half of the page, with its tiny categories and snippy journalistic gossip sourcing. It for other editors to decide whether it qualifies as notable, and have no objections if Hart is taken out. After all, the 3 books were self-published. Nishidani (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course I don't dissent from your characterisation of these sources. My point was that, if using them in this article, their unreliability and bias should be pointed out.

And I agree with you that Hart is superfluous here, as well as fringe and unreliable. But given my previous interaction with him, I would be reluctant to remove this section myself. RolandR (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Then I'll do it, of course. I'll wait an hour for objections, if there are any, as a matter of courtesy to other editors here.Nishidani (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not an objection, I plead ignorance of Hart, but an hour is a blink, not everyone hangs on every talk edit. How about a day or so, having taken the plunge? Cpsoper (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually waited 5 hours before removing it. If anyone has serious objections, suffice it to lay them out on the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored it. It's properly sourced and not a single reason to remove it has been provided here as far as I can see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Section headings a mess

We now have "Not the same", "Not necessarily mutually exclusive" and "Interlinked" and then a bunch of names. The section headings may or may not be correct but they seem OR and unhelpful. Why Shulamit Aloni's section has someone else in is beyond me as I pointed that out when I reverted, and it was simply reinstated. Tariq Ali's section has 'others' in it, a word which usually don't mean others but means someone, in this case Andy Markovits, who doesn't get named.

Of course we end up with overquoting, no surprise there espcially with the block quoting.

I'm not changing this right now because I'd like other comments. I reported Knowledgebattle to 3RR - he was blocked in October for editwarring. His response was " Whoopdeedoo." and a justification. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole article is a fucking mess. The problem is, people are so het up about this kind of topic, that any attempt to fix it collegially ends up in edit-warring from sheer antipathy. All of the headings listing individual positions are stupid. This goes for Marcus, Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Finkelstein, Ottolenghi (if he's still there) etc. Encyclopedias are synthetic. Each of them should get one or two sentences, under Defense of Anti-Zionism/Critiques of Anti-Zionism or something like that.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well I've gotten rid of the subsection problem, without rolling back or reverting, but by specific edits. You know, the concept which would have prevented this, to begin with. I just spent too much time organizing the article, and I'm not going to have my time wasted. "Section headings a mess" no longer applies. I have fixed it.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

French Prime Minister's opinion in the introduction - Israeli Minister of Education's opinion is not

CC: User:Doug Weller, User:Galassi

At the request of another editor, I've brought this to the talk page.

I have put the French Prime Minister's quote back into the introduction, as it was, though that carries undue weight – especially coming from a Frenchman, advocating one political view, instead of any Israelis, and no equal, balanced view. Since the French Prime Minister's opinion is featured, right there in the introduction advocating his view, I added the view of Shulamit Aloni, Israeli Minister of Education's view, balancing out the view. In fact, I even placed her view under his, so that his view came first (even though she was an Israeli, and he's French).

Now, it seems undue WP:WEIGHT to me, that his view is advocated in the introduction, instead of merely giving an introduction and a description in the introduction. Not only do opinions on topics not really belong in the introductions (IMO), but why give him that special place? I could provide a clearly obvious example of someone who would echo exactly the same sentiment, and who is an Israeli – Benjamin Netanyahu. It would just take a quick Google search to find an equivalent statement made by him. Propping Manuel Valls's opinion at the top is downright silly, and advocating only one view in the introduction – on a topic which has been debated since the 1890s – is disingenuous and unencylopedic. I'm related to them (being Ashkenaz), but I'm an atheist, and yet, just like Shulamit Aloni, I know I wouldn't exclusively classify anti-Zionism as antisemitism, as is advocated by Manuel, in the introduction.

Others have made clear to me that antisemites often use the terms "Zionist" and "Jew" interchangeably (I don't face that, since I don't identify as a "Jew"), but as an ex-linguist, I can't find myself willing to accept Manuel's position (and therefore, the introduction) as worthy of receiving any distinguished place. Really, the only view which should be distinguished is someone who gives the literal historical and/or etymological explanations of the terms "anti-Zionism" versus "antisemitism".

To conclude: I feel that Manuel Vall's opinion should be demoted (perhaps to the "Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism" subsection), and replaced with a factual introduction, rather than one which appeals to emotion.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 10:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted you again. Aloni was not Prime Minister, as you know, yet you still label her such. She was a Cabinet minister. There have been 34 governments and this one has 21 ministers, and ministers can change during a government, so there have been many many ministers and one minister's views aren't particularly significant.

Your new section headings were inappropriate and confusing. The second paragraph of Aloni's section was about someone else entirely. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Doug, can I be frank with you? Reverting that whole thing, when you could have simply edited her position title, was a pussy move. Seriously, quit being obtuse. When I previously edited her title, it was for the quote in the Introduction area. You're intentionally being stupid now, when you know very well that you could've just edited the title.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 13:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As for 'Manuel' by whom I presume you mean French PM Vallis, he doesn't, and the introduction doesn't, "exclusively classify anti-Zionism as antisemitism." I don't know what you mean by ex-linguist, but "anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism" has a different meaning to me, it doesn't mean exclusively classify. We could drop Vallis's name, and perhaps we should, but that shouldn't affect the statement, which already has a number of sources. You seem to be suggesting there are others you might want to use. I don't know what you mean by "appeal to emotion". Doug Weller talk 11:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The idea that it has "become a cover for modern-day antisemitism" is true – absolutely. And it's even fine to point that out, and credit him with pointing that out. However, as the former Minister of Education, Shulamit Aloni stated, calling people "antisemetic" for being anti-Zionist is also a guilt trick. It doesn't seem sensible to only state the fact that anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism, without following that up with the fact that the label "antisemite" is used to curb anti-Zionist speech.

You could very well state: "Anti-Zionism has become a cover for modern-day antisemitism;<ref>1)Manuel</ref> though it's also often used as a means of curbing criticism.<ref>2)Shulamit</ref>" It would seem fair to include that, since many, very well-meaning anti-Zionists (people who BDS, in response to Israeli occupation, Civil Rights abuses and war crimes) are not anti-Semites, and should not be labeled as such. There are people at my college who BDS (who ironically don't think about/know US crimes), and they're well-meaning people. They call themselves anti-Zionists (the ideology), but they're not anti-anyone. It's an undue implication, leaning towards accusation, which Manuel's description does not fit.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 13:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DomocracyNow is an unreliable (not to say rabid) source. No go.--Galassi (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Galassi: "Unreliable"? According to whom? First of all, it was an interview with the former Minister of Education, herself. You can't get a more reliable opinion from someone than by directly interviewing them, which is what it was. Also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/democracy-now/ http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/democracynow.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Now!#Notable_guests.2C_interviews.2C_and_on-air_debates And they're independent media. Are they any more or less reliable than ... Wikipedia? Especially when the source is a video interview, with the lady, herself? I'm not actually asking for your permission, I'm just hearing out your opinion. It's a video interview, and your consent is not required, especially since you appear to get into lots of dumb fights with people.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 14:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That the lead was and still is flawed, since it utterly fails WP:LEDE's advice to summarize the whole content of the article, is obvious. That Valls should not be singled out is again obvious. His political opinion could be equally documented by any number of other big names. The last lead para had a strong coverage of the (a) bruited equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, without adjustment for the fact that the other side of the argument, that (b) positions asserting the interchangeability of the two terms are forms of discursive confusion with a political aim, wasn't represented. One has multi-sourcing for (a) and (b) is not mentioned though it could be sourced, from the text below, with great facility. In short, as it stands, saying anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are widely regarded as identical, while not adding that arguments that conflate anti-Semnitism and anti-Zionism are often seen as techniques to silence criticism of Israel's policies means you have a gross NPOV problem, leaving the lead espousing the anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism equation.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge Battle. You are screwing up standard wiki procedures and edit-warring. This page should be under the 1 revert rule, and I have now pasted on the talk page the appropriate indication for that policy, since this concerns both Israel and Palestine. You may not have known that, but you are egregiously edit-warring. I suggest you revert to the last version by Doug Weller or Galassi to avoid a report against you, which I would support, even though (I haven't checked) you may just be inside the technical 3 revert limit on a page which failed to notify editors about the previsions of ARBPIA3. I happen to agree with some of your remarks, but edit controversies are not fixed in a few minutes, between talk page arguments and reverting. They require patience. Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Damn User:Nishidaani, I must be suffering from sleep deprivation (cursed leaking CPAP mask and up at 5:15). I should have thought of that. I have reported Knowledgebattle, he's been blocked before and with a name like that... I shall stay away from editing this article for a while now. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC) @Nishidani: - typo problem. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(For record's sake, the response I gave Nishidani on my talk page): Hey. It wasn't my intention to rollback over your edits, but Galassi had rolled back my edits, just prior to your edits. Now, if you look at the page revert differences, I had made some large, substantive edits aimed at reorganizing a whole section, which was previously all jumbled and mixed together. Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism. To figure out how to classify them, and then to ensure that views were accurately classified, I followed up on all of their sources.

I was doing them pieces at a time, at first; but because Galassi didn't approve of the very last contribution – the quote by Shulamit Aloni – he went ahead and rolled back the entire thing. All of my edits. Since his rollback was bundled into one action, I was able to revert it. And frankly, after spending all that time and effort to accurately label their positions, I'm not okay with him going in and messing it up. That's why I rolled back. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I moved this to the body,[7] as it was not even mentioned there — the lede is not supposed to have content other than a summary of the body. So many people equate AZ with AS that it's undue to choose on particular commentator to present their opinion in the lede. Similarly, the list of names challenging the claim also belonged in the body. The lede as it now stands I think is a very good, to-the-point, balanced summary of the topic as explained in the article. It fulfills the purpose of a lede, a micro-article to quickly inform the reader what the subject is about and summarize the content. Too short probably, but not unusually so. It is not a long article. We ought to resist the temptation to turn the lede into an essay, whether our own or a summary of other people's essays. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: Exactly! The right move, but if you make the right move on here, shit gets reverted by Galassi and Doug Weener or whatever. ^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Doug Weener"? That's the best you can do? I reverted you because you were still calling Aloni Prime Minister, I still didn't think her comment was significant enough (note that it was virtually ignored by the major news media) and because your section headings were inappropriate - original research as another editor has said below. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

DemocracyNow doesn't meet the RS criteria. Period.--Galassi (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Typology of views on the relation between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

Yesterday, the following typology of views on the relation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism was introduced, subsuming widely diverging views on the nature of this relation under the following three headings:

1. Not the same
2. Not necessarily mutually exclusive
3. Interlinked

Note that this typology doesn't only constitute WP:OR – it is outright nonsense. Noone would reasonably consider the two (exactly) the same, while everyone would acknowledge that they are not mutually exclusive, and in one way or other interlinked. So all of the personalities cited here would fall in all of the three categories, which however wouldn't clarify their real perspective at all. Also, the reworded heading "Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism" already suggests a non-relation, while the nature of the relation is what the section is all about.
So, while I'm not going to revert this nonsense within the next 24h again, others might do so. Note that I'm not against giving this article a better structure. But clearly, if an edit is WP:BOLD, and if a number of contributors consider it too bold, then we need to discuss it here trying to find a consensus. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

For several decades, anti-Zionism was predominantly unrelated to anti-Semitism, being in the Western world overwhelming a position associated with Jewish criticisms of the project, and, in Palestine and further east, related to a political struggle for that land not primarily motivated by hostility to Jews qua Jews. Unless the article has a history section (everytime I try to begin to write one it gets wiped off the page) showing the diversity of meanings associated with both Zionism and anti-Zionism, and the shifts through time, the page will remain a meaningless jumble, because we don't know, in each case, what aspect of either is being referred to. Noam Chomsky and Uri Avnery are, for example, opposed to Territorial Zionism, but strong supporters of the state of Israel. Israel Shahak was a Political Zionist opposed to Religious Zionism,etc.etc,etc. Attempts to make an essence of either Zionism or opposition to it and then make them face off, as though they were two simple antagonists, are flawed in principle.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Nishidani, you are mistaken here. Israel Shahak, who I was privileged to know, was explicitly anti-Zionist. Noam Chomsky, on the other hand, calls himself a Zionist even when promoting a position (a unitary bi-national state) which most people would consider anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that Shahak was opposed to the foundation of Israel in 1948? I was using the term 'Zionist' in that sense, in the historic sense used by Laqueur that Zionism as a project finished in 1948, when its fundamental aim was accomplished.Nishidani (talk) 07:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No. I am saying that, whatever his views may have been forty years earlier, by the late 1980s Shahak was opposed to the policies and practices of the then-existing Zionist movement. I fundamentally disagree, as do all anti-Zionists that I know and work with (and that is a very large number) with Laquer's definition. In fact, many Zionists would also disagree with this, seeing the state of Israel as a tool to achieve the Zionist aims, rather than as the goal itself. There has been extensive discussion of this in Zionist circles for the past fifty years or more. (In using the term "Zionist aims", I am not referring to or implying some sort of nonsensical Jewish global conspiracy, but rather the stated aims of many Zionists: the "normalisation" of the Jewish people, "inverting the pyramid" of diaspora Jewish class structure, creating a spiritual centre for the world's Jews and other explicit positions).RolandR (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Roland, I actually agree with you on what you are saying. But, at the same time, as an editor, I have to follow what the numerous sources on Zionism in all its shades, state. My problem is that I see, not specifically in those anti-Zionists who have a profound and articulate mastery of that discursive tradition, but in the representation of anti-Zionism by its adversaries (in Israel and the diaspora), an utter conceptual confusion, a reflex boiling down of 'Zionism' with all of its internal contradictions and meanings, to one thing, which, if opposed, means the anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic (when not proof of the so-called "self-hating Jew"), because Israel is putatively the quintessence of Judaism, instead of being, as I think it is, perhaps the most parlous threat to its great tradition since the Holocaust. Playing the anti-Semitic card to defend whatever Israel as a state does, will, unless opposed vigorously, undermine Israel, as it encourages a recrudescence of anti-Semitism in the old sense.Nishidani (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't wish to add more smoke than light, but many of the authors cited would completely disagree with this claim and assert that Anti-Zionism has always involved (even sometimes from Jewish commentators) a distinctive element of prejudice and malice against Jews primarily because it is the Jewish state. As for the suggestion that NC and UA are 'strong supporters of the state of Israel', why has Israel banned the former entry since 2010?[8] There is value in distinguishing between those who see little overlap and those who see the two phenomena as inseparably joined at the hip. Cpsoper (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The failure to distinguish the two is often a matter of deliberate political choice, to make a case that, for example, people who oppose Israel's colonial project in the West Bank are, ipso facto, antisemites. Thus the ADL comes up with the laughable idea that the most anti-Semitic country in the world is the West Bank, where, they assert, 93% of Palestinians hate Jews as Jews, not because in their daily lives, a system engineered to make life a hardscrabble struggle to get water to wash oneself, or permission to cultivate more than 12 tomato plants, or visit one's family a few miles away through detours that make the trip a 3 hour negotiation through checkpoints, or struggle to have one's Fulbright scholarship award implemented, is run by people with guns who justify the intricate machinery of prejudice against the occupied, as necessary to secure, and those wonderful settlements flush with water, schools and modern conveniences over the road, a homeland for Jews in a world that persecutes them. If the 200 million Christians in the world (10%) who face daily restrictions and humiliations in 60 countries, used that logic and their "brethren", reading day in day out detailed coverage of every instance of such persecution, rallied to the idea they all had to be gathered into a Christian homeland, at whatever cost to other secular, ethnic communities there, you'd get the development of a similar pattern. Yield to the strong pressures to think from within one specific ethnic or religious identity at what happens to any one of "us" anywhere, and you will get, as a general result, a sense of panic at being a member of a 'uniquely' targeted group which would muffle any discourse, like that the Chomskys of this world, articulate, for the indispensability of universal values in secular states.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Short remark: I don't think this polemic is helpful. We should focus on our agreements, not celebrate our disagreements – otherwise we'll never come up with a halfway viable consensus. --PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that there was a time when anti-Zionism used to be predominantly associated with Jewish anti-Zionism, while Zionist ideas were mainly discussed within Jewish circles. This however already started to change with the early opposition against the first settlements in the 1880s and 1890s. From then on, a second strand of non-Jewish anti-Zionism evolved that more often than not overlapped with some of the forms of Antisemitism. With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe. From then on, it was no longer possible to easily distinguish the two.
Things got even more complicated with the foundation of the state of Israel, with different interpretations of whether the Zionist project had been completed or remains a continuing struggle for Jewish self-determination. It is hard to uphold that Jewish anti-Zionism wasn't ever tainted by one or the other form of antisemitism – undoubtedly a number of anti-Zionist, European Jews were influenced by the general population's antisemitic prejudices. Other Jewish anti-Zionists however managed to draw a clear line, as did a few non-Jewish anti-Zionists.
Now as @Nishidani: stated, the anti-Zionist authors cited in this section are referring to very different aspects or framings of Zionism and, accordingly, of anti-Zionism. Many of them try to establish their own definitions of what exactly the Zionism they're opposing actually constitutes. While many of these definitions may be legitimate – finally there is no single authoritative definition – this matter of fact needs to be carefully taken into consideration by us. Thus, we need to be very careful with typologies or oversimplified characterizations. I think it is possibly and I agree with Cpsoper that there is value in distinguishing different strands of criticism. But what we may not do is establishing an WP:OR typology ourselves. Nishidani might be right that in order to be remotely able to put these quotes in a meaningful context, we'd really better start with writing a really good history section, possibly even a background article History of anti-Zionism. Our easiest starting point might be improving and expanding Jewish Anti-Zionism and condensing the respective section anti-Zionism#Jewish Anti-Zionism to a comprehensive summary. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

With the wide dissemination of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" starting in the 1900s, this non-Jewish anti-Zionism increasingly became a cover or actually a projection for the widespread antisemitism in both the Arab world and Europe

That's way out of focus. The protocols only began to have a minor diffusion in partial translations in into Arabic in the mid-20s, mostly written by Lebanese Christians. You have to distinguish opposition to policy from the way it is spun, i.e. the British army, experienced in handling the concrete effects of government policy on native populations, thought Balfour's plan a prescription for chaos - they were correct- and opposed it for practical reasons: the Zionists responded by spinning this as reflecting traditional British anti-Semitism (cf.Richard Meinertzhagen), this as early as the 20s, while the influx of East European Jews after WW1, many from areas like the Ukraine where savage pogroms had devastated their communities, produced, in local Jewish newspapers, a rhetoric that native Arab opposition to the takeover of Palestine by immigrants, was just 'antisemitic', since the template through which they perceived persecution was from their experience of the traditional, if by then protocols-influenced murderous anti-Semitism implemented by Symon Petliura and Anton Denikin, and the White Volunteer Army. The older Yishuv, thoroughly at home there, were hostile to these new Zionists: they were disruptive of traditional arrangements between Jewish and Islamic communities, in their ignorance of the local culture and inability to understand Arabic. They could see that the anti-Semitic charge laid by these newcomers had nothing to do with it.

All wiki articles ignore this strain between the Yishuv and the Zionist project, reflecting the Zionist spin. Many classic anti-Semites were pro-Zionist, precisely because Zionism offered to 'fix' the 'problem' of Jews in Europe by getting them shipped off and out to Palestine, something well documented which makes statements identifying anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism farcical. By the same logic, one could argue, gentile pro-Zionism is anti-Semitic (which among American evangelicals it often is,-just as it was with Balfour, but that is, in newspaper coverage, mostly swept under the carpete),etc.etc.etc.

The only way to handle this is to refer to specialist studies for everything, written by historians who are not directly involved in polemics. Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion bizarre, and a digression. There is a body called the World Zionist Organisation. It has its own structures and policies, and it has quasi-governmental powers in the state of Israel and territories it occupies, while not being answerable, even nominally, to the citizens or residents of that state. Anti-Zionism today means opposition to the policies and practices of this body. If neither Zionists nor anti-Zionists accept that the Zionist movement and project came to an end in 1948, it would be presumptuous of us to claim that it did.

I agree entirely with Nishidani about Balfour, I have written articles about this[9], and I will be writing more towards the centenary of the Balfour Declaration next year; but I doubt that this can be considered a reliable source. RolandR (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I agree with everything in that analysis (though surprised, but then I'm not an expert, at the dating of Storrs' Jewish Ulster remark to 1917. I'd always thought that was something he wrote retrospectively in his 1937 memoir). I apologize for any annoyance in the above. My problem is that here (a)I am obliged to work under wiki procedures (which do not oblige editors to actually understand a subject before contributing to it), that (b) the article has only one pointy version, the major one now, of a dozen interpretations of Zionism, and anti-Zionism is simply, by implication, the opposite (c) that good sources say both terms are used imprecisely (d) that a lot of sources, from Wistrich to Ottolenghi make frankly silly definitions of anti-Zionism, which however are by wiki rules, to be admitted, and therefore, I feel obliged to sort out the conceptual mess, via RS. An article cannot be written well unless one defines the topic precisely. Comprehensive sources on anti-Zionism, other than Yakov M. Rabkin's, which has predominantly a religious focus, don't appear to exist, and much of what we have is hostile and muddle-headed, even by reputable scholars.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Storrs, the remark is indeed first noted in his memoirs, published in 1937; but he there uses the phrase, in quotes, as the belief in British circles in Jerusalem in 1917. It is not clear that he is quoting himself, but he is certainly quoting something said at the time, not twenty years later. There are some other comprehensive works on anti-Zionism. Apart from several collections of essays and articles (notably in Khamsin magazine and the related anthology Hidden Agendas), there is Ran Greenstein's Zionism and Its Discontents, Gabriel Pitterberg's The Returns of Zionism, Laurence J Silberstein's The Postzionism Debates, and Ilan Pappé's recent The Idea of Israel. Those are just the titles that come to mind immediately; I could produce a much longer list given a couple of days. I agree with much of your criticism of the article; my problem is that I am too closely involved, and could be considered to have a conflict of interest, so I try to limit my editing here. RolandR (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful, and I'll look into those bibliographical indications today. Precisely because you have an intimate knowledge from the inside, your close supervision of the work here would be indispensable, even if only as a corrective overseer (to avoid, as you say, WP:COI). As to the Storrs thing, given my background - though most of us have roots in the south, we had 'refugees' from Ulster fleeing the kind of madness you saw in later times with Ian Paisley and I naturally thought 1917 was too early to make a natural Ulster Protestant enclave-Jewish Palestine enclave analogy, since this wasn't juridically formulated until around 1920, then consolidated in 1922 (from memory). I guess however that it might well have been what top British military echelons would have thought in the wake of the Easter Uprising in 1916 of what was necessary and then would reemerge when the Balfour plan was announced in late 1917. I've always been interested in the analogy given the seminal impact the Irish tactics in their rebellion against the British had on the Lehi/Irgun school of 'thinking'. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have looked further into this, and the phrase "a little loyal Jewish Ulster" was apparently quoted in an article in the Daily Mail in 1923 by journalist Joseph Jeffries. He notes the phrase as having been used by a "mirthless Zionist propagandist" in 1917. I don't have access to a reference archive in which I can check the Daily Mail from then, but I'll keep looking. RolandR (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Now this is really interesting! Just the sort of thing Zero0000 loves to ferret out and track down. here are some notes that might help.

• J. M. N. Jeffries, The Palestine Deception 1915-1923:: The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, the Balfour Declaration, and the Jewish National Home , (ed.) William M. Mathew Institute for Palestine Studies (USA), Inc. 2015 would have the article but it doesn't seem to be searchable to pin down the page and context.
• It must have been in wide circulation since then because the Australian historian Keith Hancock, who visited Palestine in the summer of 1936 (and was philosemitic: when he was fronted by Nazi youths in Marburg in 1934 he famously turned on their anti-Semitic haranguing by telling them that he was an Australian Jew, that General John Monash was an Australian Jew who beat the shit out of Germans in WW1,a and that all Australians were Jewish, one of the lost tribes. His experiences in Palestine however made him change his views, to adopt sympathy for Palestinians. he wrote to his friend Charles Hawker that 'The British govt. has lost control in Palestine –it just takes the bumps from both sides . .Arab cities are the only ones we blow up . .The Mandate is a shadow: the reality is the exodus of terrified Hebrew from Poland and this invasion of Palestine behind our tanks..And our realists not knowing whether to make a Jewish Ulster in the Arab world or to permit a Smyrna massacre.’ (Contextually that must be around December 1936-Jan 1937, before Storrs' book was published). The details are in Jim Davidson, Three-Cornered Life: The Historian W.K. Hancock, University of New South Wales Press, 2010 p.164.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is unusual, in a way, coming from Hancock. His sympathies were English, his paternal grandfather had married a Mary Higgins from Londonderry, etc. I gather in any case that in his contribution, Keith Hancock ‘The Medicine of the Body Politic’ in Keith Hancock, Richard Thomas, Edwin Latham,Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs vol.1:Problems of Nationality, 1918-1936, Oxford 1937 p.482 he notes that analogy once more:'He envisages the Jewish community as a majority in Palestine and Trans-Jordan, but as a minority in the larger Arab world. ... It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East ; it will be an imperial mission like that of the European settlers in Kenya.'

Mathew's website has a variant on this:'As a minority community in the larger Arab world, it would, in W.K. Hancock`s paraphrasing at the time, `be bound by necessity, no less than by gratitude, to uphold British interests in the Arab world. It will, in short, be an Ulster in the Near East` (this, as may be recalled, being Herbert Asquith`s nightmare).'

Aside from the “principled” objections to Zionism currently advanced by the left. You have many practical objections often based on fear, confusing the two is not helpful.

1: Could a Jewish state defend itself

2: Could it develop and maintain an economic base.

3: Would diaspora Jews be forced to move to said Jewish state.

4: Would a Jewish state negatively affect diaspora Jews. Still a sore point among Jews in certain career fields such as American and other countries military, security service and foreign policy establishments who feel that their loyalty is questioned.Jonney2000 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Read Rabkin's book. This has nothing to do with the 'left'. Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ultra-Orthodox Jews are so detached from public life outside of Israel that their religious ideologies both pro and anti-Zionist have little baring on the Jewish question. Frankly rehashing that history by some on the left is very damaging.Jonney2000 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As I implied, everything I have said in comments above, comes from arguments within the Jewish anti-Zionist tradition. Our function here is transcribal, reformulating what sources regarding a topic say about that topic. Since our job is to write the topic per sources, the point of the talk page is to clarify what sources are saying. Familiarizing yourself with the history of the topic would be useful.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? I am very familiarized with this topic. Jonney2000 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The one history on the topic of this article is by Rabkin. From your remarks, it appears you are unfamiliar with it. If so, read it, since it is indispensable for writing the history section.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting from:'The Judaic opponents of Zionism are thus often absent from Israeli historiography. Aside from a few monographs and collections of texts devoted specifically to the history of the relations between Zionism and Judaism, the great majority of histories of the country written in Israel and elsewhere make no reference to the rabbinic resistance. .. The opponents of Zionism hailing from liberal Judaism are even less visible in the historiography both of Zionism and of Israel.' p.11 Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jonney2000: Interjecting here... I would have to agree with Nishidani here – "This has nothing to do with the 'left'." – I am "left", and I support the State of Israel. The alternative to Israeli rule would be Shari'a rule by Hamas – which is entirely unacceptable. However, just because some who are perceived as being "left" are anti-Zionist, doesn't mean that it's a leftist view. There are also some on the "right" who are anti-Zionist (different types of Conservative evangelical Christians, who criticize Jews for not being Christians). The whole point of organizing this section is simply to clarify what the different views are – some people view anti-Zionism and antisemitism as being the same thing, and some people don't. If they were the same thing, then the page "Anti-Zionism" would have to simply #REDIRECT to "antisemitism". That's why it's organized.

^Knowledge_Battle | ^Talk_Page | ^Godless_Infidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 00:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nishidani for agreeing about the value of categorising commentators by view, as long as the categories are widely acknowledged. I haven't yet had the pleasure of reading Rabkin, the article comments that his history 'has also been criticised for its "combative writing style and a selective use of history." One critic wrote that: "Rabkin can't resist from widely citing people who name-call and painting all Zionists as evil" and that this style of writing "diminishes the credibility of his argument'. The work may be detailed, but it sounds tendentious and in the round we'd need care re WP:RS/AC. He too seems part of the fray, and this is corroborated by his political activities. Per, RR, the WZO's platform does seem to serve as useful focus for the definition of opposition to Zionism. Cpsoper (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't take any notice of the opinions of reviewers, critics etc. who can't get beyond dismissive generalizations, particularly if they are added to pages by editors unfamiliar with the books or work of authors involved. I read 50 pages of the French edition last night and can see no trace whatsoever of evidence supporting that kind of mechanical disparagement. To the contrary Joseph Agassi and rabbi Baruch Horovitz testify to the quality of the scholarship. They seem to underline what he documents, the intense pressure, financial and otherwise put on any Jewish critics of Zionism, which include withholding financial support and even shutting down Talmudic centres whenever one of their members came out with criticisms of that ideology (for me, Zionism is just another ideology, nothing else. it has no relationship to the way modernity understands social practices, being grounded in religious myths, imposed by sheer force, and defended in its contemporary colonial ambitions by cynical prevarication). As to 'tendentious' that would apply to everything written on the subject (Wistrich, Ottolenghi, Marcus etc.etc.), depending on your perspective. In any case, we don't make, as editors, metacritiques of RS. It is totally irrelevant, once the RS status has been determined, which is self-evidently the case for Rabkin's work.Nishidani (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know the "Jewish Ulster" phrase from the memoirs of Ronald Storrs, see here but the way he puts it in quotes indicates an earlier origin. I didn't find it in a quick search of the British Newspaper Archive and I don't have much time. For what it's worth (probably not much), here is my theory why historians are still arguing over the reasons why the Balfour Declaration was made: because they are unwilling to admit that those hard-headed British politicians might do something out of religious conviction. Zero^talk 23:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Position, Fascist, and Right-Wing

These sources of anti-Zionism may be disreputable, but they are significant and influential. The citations documenting their position are solid, the material is encyclopaedic and belongs here. I have reverted the deletion of well sourced material. Cpsoper (talk) 11:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2016

I asked Google the question: Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitic? The Wiki quote came up first in the list in bold type:

'To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate.'

The Anti-Zionism page however shows various views from well known speakers on whether or not Anti Zionism can be equated with Anti-Semitism. Some are for and some are against. The headline view quoted above in the google search quotes is a one sided position stating Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism are always separate. However, it is known and accepted that A-S and A-Z are not always separate when the issues are understood. Please can you therefore show in the headline google search quote that there are two positions in disagreement on this matter. - The other view being:

A call to remove the State of Israel(the definition of Anti- Zionism)is against an Israel that was founded for specific Jewish purpose- (to protect and nurture an identified people) therefore the call is Anti-Semitic. Being against a Jewish presence on neighbouring land for purely that reason is Anti-Semitic. Israel is defined by its Jewish identity.

As a people, the Jews have a right to self determination, denying them the right is Anti-Semitic when viewing Israel's purpose as a protector and sanctuary (from the recorded international history of scape-goating Jews- an integral part of anti-Semitism itself).

The Jewish religion carries the bible which focuses on a homeland story in Israel- an embedded ancient connection over 2000 years where there has always been a Jewish presence. 'A people'- in terms of history, culture, language and original providence- All these definitions fit the Jews as a people- to deny this identity and to call to take away the Jewish homeland is therefore an Anti- Semitic act- that which thrives on ignorance regarding Jewish identity.

The majority of Jews (especially those in Israel) would consider -the taking away of their right to self determination as against them regardless of whether or not all Jews themselves agree.

If there had never been a Jewish people, there would be no Zionism (a movement for a homeland for the Jewish people) and therefore no State of Israel. Being against actions of the Israeli Government is not necessarily Anti Zionism or Anti Semitic. Not all Zionists are Jews and some Anti- Zionists are Jews.

Palestinian Arabs identify themselves as Arabs who lay claim to this same land. The International decisions that paved the way for a homeland for the Jews were made after much Jewish suffering due to Anti Semitism itself and the upheaval of the 2 world wars. Many peoples were displaced in the Middle East due to various Imperial rule. Palestinian Arabs rejected the UN Partition plan in 1948. There have been numerous attempts since that time to destroy Israel by Palestinians with their neighbours. Jordan is a majority Palestinian country. Removing Israel means that the Jewish people are without a homeland- such a move is therefore Anti- Semitic.

Martin Usiskin (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Allow me to illustrate by amending your initial quote:

"'To argue that hostility to Palestine and hostility to Muslims are one and the same thing is to conflate the Palestinian state with the Islamic people. In fact, Palestine is one thing, Islam another. Accordingly, anti-Palestinian bigotry is one thing, Islamophobia another. They are separate"

This is a statement of fact. As is the initial quote you raised. Sure, many anti-Palestinian bigots are also Islamophobes. You might even know some people that qualify for both labels. But they are separate. It is a simple Venn diagram. Anti-Zionism is much more nuanced than your blinkered analysis above suggests, and most interpretations of it lie far outside Anti-Semitism.

As an aside, the "other view" you provided, with your summary of the conflict, is factually incorrect or lacking crucial context in almost every sentence. It is regurgitated propaganda, with no consideration for balance or facts. I recommend you reflect on where you got that information from, and if you are truly passionate about this topic, spend the time to learn about this topic more broadly. Otherwise you will go through life with hatred in your heart driven solely by your own ignorance.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

In any case, this is Wikipedia, not Google. We are not responsible for Google's algorithms or editorial practices, and cannot determine what they select and highlight from a Wikipedia article. If you have a complaint about what appears on a Google search you should write to Google, not to Wikipedia. RolandR (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Anti-Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226024643/http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com to http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2014/1/21/presbyterian-network-opens-new-dialogue-zionism/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2014/6/27/zionism-unsettled-no-longer-sold-pcusa-website/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2016/2/29/pcusa-policy-committee-issues-new-report-israel-pa/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kab7a5y1mq12utgo2g3l9t19.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PFJP-Two-State-2016.02-.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pfmep.org/images/stories/PDFs/TwoStatesforTwoPeoples.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/cos.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wesley-fellowship.org.uk/Zionist_Hymn.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384039/why-anti-zionism-modern-anti-semitism-benjamin-weinthal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207122412/http://www.counterpunch.org/ali03042004.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/ali03042004.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613014726/http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf to http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

this link is not working good: Torah Jews Against Zionism Sol lemon (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Zero^talk 02:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Anti-Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
• Added archive https://swap.stanford.edu/20091120000830/http%3A//www%2Eijsn%2Enet/home/ to http://www.ijsn.net/home/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629133837/http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann0604.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501032449/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853564.html to http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853564.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2014/1/21/presbyterian-network-opens-new-dialogue-zionism/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2014/6/27/zionism-unsettled-no-longer-sold-pcusa-website/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcusa.org/news/2016/2/29/pcusa-policy-committee-issues-new-report-israel-pa/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kab7a5y1mq12utgo2g3l9t19.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/PFJP-Two-State-2016.02-.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pfmep.org/images/stories/PDFs/TwoStatesforTwoPeoples.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=8776547&ct=14489867
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scojec.org/news/2013/13v_cos/cos.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wesley-fellowship.org.uk/Zionist_Hymn.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384039/why-anti-zionism-modern-anti-semitism-benjamin-weinthal
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310213751/http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01503 to http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Area=sr&ID=SR01503
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113061841/http://www.pmw.org.il/holocaust.htm to http://www.pmw.org.il/holocaust.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Zionism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125135118/http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=42&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656 to http://ccarnet.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=42&pge_prg_id=4687&pge_id=1656
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ijsn.net/about_us/charter/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403165405/http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm to http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

"Whether it's David Duke ..."

This sentence needs rewriting with more encyclopedic language. Possibly a simple change to "Whether it be David Duke ..." I have no disagreement with the point being made, but it needs tidying. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Small edit

In the section 'Jewish anti-Zionism' there is a typo saying World War 11 instead of II and the lack of a space after the citation.

"widespread support in the Jewish community until World War 11.[9]The Jewish"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 016bells (talk • contribs) 13:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC) 

 Fixed. Thanks for reporting the error here. Deli nk (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

3D Test of Antisemitism

3D Test of Antisemitism already has its own article but should be included on here in some reduced form with a "main article" link particularly as the Anti-zionism/anti-semtiism section is far too heavily loaded in favour of those who dispute such a link. Also the three D's formulation or variants thereof such as that created by Irwin Cotler are the general standard argument in favour of the AZ/AS link and as such need better representation in the article. It is the formula used by most mainstream Israel supporters (myself included) and is also generally used to refute the claim made by opponents of Israel that any and all criticism of Israel gets labelled as anti semitic. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, quite a lot of material from the New antisemitism article should be incorporated into this article in precis.62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sharansky's dumbed-down slogan may have some political use, but it hasn't had, as far as I know, any traction in serious studies, for the simple reason that the 3 D's apply to a nation, not to a people. It's identical to saying any criticism of American policies is tantamount to demonization of Americans, the standard failure to distinguish state institutions from the collectivity they govern, with never more than just over half the electorate voting for one executive party or another. From any remarks that can be taken to be delegitimizing that state, demonizing that state, using double standards in judging that state, you get the, not inference, but empirical proof, that the person whose views regarding Israel can be categorized thus is an anti-Semite. That translates as meaning huge number of Jews are antisemitic. It doesn't rise to any value as a cognitive instrument, and remains a polemical bludgeon by the usual pseudos, who see anti-Semitism everywhere, and, in doing so, destroy the force of the concept of anti-Semitism by reducing it to a omnipresent rthetorical stock-inh-trade. Anti-Zionism, like it or not, is a deep tradition within infra-Jewish polemics, and, whatever the drongos and dingbats in political office are persuaded to adopt, it is obvious that such jejunely sophormoric lexically-embedded demonization protocols as Sharanky's are offensive to history, and amount to a form of coercion towards a hyper watch-your-p's-and-q's-whenever-Israel-is discussed that doesn't fall far short of newspeak or tabuing.Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The three D's are all about distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. The basic gist of them is that it's fine to criticize Israel so long as you don't:
(1)single Jews out of all the peoples of the earth as ineligible for nationalist aspirations
(2)single Israel out for special disproportionate criticism not directed at other nations with far worse track records in the relevant field.
(3)invoke classical antisemitic tropes/imagery in the critcism.
So your point about "them being identical to saying any criticism of American policies is tantamount to demonization of Americans" is just plan absurd for a start. It's precisely the opposite of what Sharansky is saying.62.190.148.115 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

(Correction on point 3 - Sharansky actually gives a broader definition of "demonization" which covers anything where "when Israeli actions are blown so far out of proportion that the account paints Israel as the embodiment of all evil." Personally I think most of that is already covered by #2, the Double Standard D, but hey, it's Sharansky's view that's notable, not mine, so it's his version that should be included in the article) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And who is delegated to 'distinguish'? Look, this vein of language is utterly infantile. Please examine what you are implying by underwriting this boilerplate jargon. Since when does any country have a right to set up a tribunal, stacked by whom (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?) to determine what is 'legitimate' and what is 'illegitimate' about criticism directed at it. It's only a rhetorical recipe for newspaper blather to shout down argument. Insane the way language is contaminated endlessly by thoughtless clichés. In free societies, there is no such thing as 'illegitimate criticism' - that is the exclusive hallmark of totalitarian regimes, or premodern states. There is 'criticism', stupid, wrong, illogical; insightful, on target, cogent, etc. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What on earth is all this about "delegating" someone to distinguish and "setting up a tribunal"? Look it's a simple three-point guide for ANYONE - even you - to tell the difference between antisemitism and legit criticism of Israeli government policy (which, by the way, is not even anti-Israel never mind antisemitic, indeed most Israelis do it all the time!) I really don't see what you're complaining about. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

And in any case Nishidani, just because you disagree with a viewpoint doesn't mean it shouldn't be documented in the relevant Wikipedia page. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It is, unless 3D whatever is documented in strong sources on Anti-Zionism, WP:Undue or WP:OR. Otherwise it's a marginal 'theory' that isn't worth jemmying into the article.

Let me remind you of an elementary principle of grammar. When anyone/ you state(s):

The three D's are all about distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism.

The word 'distinguish' generally refers to a cognitive act by a human subject. However, in the present instance, there are 2 ways to take this. (a) Someone will make a distinction, which, like all distinctions, is not an objective judgement, but a personal take, logically grounded or otherwise, which enunciates a point of view. (b) or a 'distinction' emerges like a rabbit out of a hat, by a mechanical application of Dr Sharanky's brilliantly magical formula, which will, when applied cursively to any text bearing on the topic of 'Israel', automatically generate a conclusion of the type: 'anti-Semitic/not anti-Semitic.'

Since in the history of thought, no hermeneutic device has yet been invented to nail down unambiguously the emotional state of the person who enunciates a thought, Sharansky's 'formula' is a piece of cognitive fraudulence. So, faute de mieux, we must assume that (a) applies. Someone or some body, applying Sharansky's formula to any text re Israel can faultlessly determine whether it is 'antisemitic' or not. Hence, that person or body will presume to arrive at an 'empirical' 'objective' judgement by, however, using the very method, that of Sharansky which, on its own, can tell us nothing. Thus you are left with some 'authoritative tribunal' which arrogates to itself the power to legislate a verdict on the 'truth' of a criticism via the assessment of the emotional prejudices assumed to have prompted its enunciator. That clear? It's kindergarten idiocy, but, while anyone with a tertiary degree in logic or language can see it is nonsensical wishful thinking, politicians and ideologues will love it, for the empowerment it speciously lends to their messing about with just one more complex culture war.Nishidani (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The "emotional state" of a person making an argument is quite irrelevant to all this. This is about dealing with an argument at face value, not the context of who is making the argument. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary, to be anti-Semitic is to have by definition an attitude/state of mind about Jews, allo Jews, which is then shown by behavior regarding Jews. Israel has nothing to do with it. It's obscene to confuse the two. Evangelical Christian Zionists in my experience and reading are anti-Semitic, and yet strongly pro-Israel. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A person doesn't have to be an antisemite themselves to be trotting out an antisemitic line of argument. There can be other explanations, naivety for example. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Give me an example of someone proposing an anti-Semitic line of argument, while not being anti-Semitic, and I might believe you.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

For example, a person might mistakenly and genuninely believe that the traditional caricature of the long-nosed Jew is based on actual statistical evidence on nose-lengths among Jewish communities and therefore in all innocence claim that Jewish people "have long noses" - even though in fact studies have disproved the nose claim as utter nonsense.62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Very few scholars of racism would have any time for the idea that there are "racist people" and nobody other than them could say something racist. Look at articles such as institutional racism, microaggression or unconscious bias. Antisemitism is no different. There are antisemitic discourses and tropes, which operate without necessarily having antisemitic intent, used out of ignorance for example. But that's irrelevant to whether or not the 3D thing should be included in this article. I don't agree with Sharansky myself, but his checklist is very widely used, clearly notable, and clearly relevant to this topic, so I see no reason to not include a concise mention of it here, regardless of whether individual editors agree with it or not.BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Suitable template

Anyway, there's quite a good section on precisely all this at Criticism of the Israeli government#Distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from_antisemitism. I reckon it should be duplicated on this page, possibly as the main body of a "Proponents" subsection in the AZ vs AS section. 15:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. You don't copy and paste from one page to another. You study the quality literature on anti-Zionism and harvest what you find there regarding criticism of the Israeli government. One can criticize a government like Israel's without being anti-Zionist.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Information regarding the difference between X and Y is clearly relevant to the Wikipedia pages on both X and Y, so should be included, in some form, on each one. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don't 'duplicate' information on encyclopedias, and secondly this article already has extensive coverage of the Anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism debate. You are, by the looks of it, trying to overegg the pud. These are already quite stupid articles, without aggravating the poor quality by copying and pasting still more 'stuff.'Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is plenty of material which is duplicated on Wikipedia in precisely that way, for example the articles on leopards and jaguars both contain information on the differences between the two.62.190.148.115 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The protocols of Wikipedia state that it should be developed using the best available sources. That is more or less how academic training informs one to work. Anyone doing academic work (our basic sources) caught just copying and pasting from one paper to another would not have a promising future. What is on one article is not a source for any other article (that's a widespread rule: Wikipedia is not a source). You simply cannot trust anything here, unless you systematically comb the original to see if flaws are there, or not. It's fucking lazy, above all. One owes it to our readers to write everything, over and again, from the available sources, even if these are used elsewhere. That is our only safeguard against meme reproduction.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I said "duplicate", not specifically "copy and paste." But since you mention it, where exactly in Wikipedia's policies does it demand a complete from scratch rewrite when adding material already in another wiki article, as long as the original was acceptable, fully sourced etc and the sources are all included in the transplant? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it should be reproduced here. Criticism of the Israeli government should be included in the See also, but to put all of that material here would be overcluttering the page. However, I don't think there is any WP policy against duplication of material, although attribution needs to be clearly traced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I take your point about overcluttering, but I think part of the problem is the imbalance in that section overall - one little preamble paragraph about individuals who have supported the case for the AZ=AS link versus a whole great section for opponents of the link, with each example quoted in full and given their own personal subheading.

Perhaps the answer might be a pruning of the Opposing section down to size. It also occurs to be that some of the examples in the Alternate theories and Interlinked sections are as close to proposing AZ=AS as to make no odds (Martin Luther King's views, for example) and should therefore be relocated to the opening supporting section. Perhaps a brief mention of 3D and similar could then be included in the resulting Supporting section as examples of reasoning behind/greater articulation of AZ=AS. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I've had a look in the edit history and most of what is now in the Alternate and Interlinked sections was once in a Comparison section which served as a section for supporters of AZ=AS. Perhaps this structure should be restored. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Nazi anti-Zionism

Please add "Nazi" paragraph. Source: [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.114.145 (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Anti Israel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Culturally inferior"

I reverted an edit by GHcool, which stated that "Jeremy Corbyn, was caught on video accusing "Zionists" of lacking a sense of irony that made them culturally inferior to other British citizens". Ignoring the snide "caught on camera", the phrase "culturally inferior" does not appear in the source cited, and appears to be the editor's own assertion. My reversion was itself reverted by Yaniv Horon. I believe this edit to be not ionly unjustified, but potentially a breach of BLP, in that it appears to ascribe a clearly bigoted assertion to a living person. However, bearing in mind the vagaries of arbitration enforcement, I am loth to risk re-reverting and claiming a BLP exemption. Would I be justified in removing this false claim about Corbyn's views? RolandR (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I revised the "culturally inferior" clause. There's no need to spell out what Corbyn thinks of British Jews. Those with the Jewish sense of irony will know what he means. --GHcool (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Bret Stevens

Why have the opinions of this journalist been given such prominence? Would it be OK if I dug out some statements from an anti-zionist journalist such as - ooh - Jonathan Cook, say - to balance this guy's definition of anti-zionism as opposition to the existence of Israel?

Bret Stevens was for four years editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post. He's not a neutral commentator - he's a zionist, and evidently a supporter of the controversial narrative that opposition to zionism is the same as opposition to the existence of Israel. It's perfectly possible to imagine an Israel that exists, but is not zionist; that is exactly what the One-state solution envisages, and many people believe that a one-state solution is now the only way forward.

Whatever Stevens says, anti-zionism is simply a special case of anti-racism. Defining anti-zionism as opposition to the existence of the state of Israel is simply Israeli propaganda. Are they offering us another term to refer to "opposition to the settler-colonial occupation of the West Bank and the treatment of Israeli Arabs as second-class citizens"? I'd settle for "anti-apartheid", but I think that term gets the same treatment as "anti-zionist". MrDemeanour (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Many sources equate much of modern anti-Zionist discourse with anti-Semitic discourse. Your suggestion to strike sources on the basis if an unsourced "zionist" assertion has no merit - we do not strike sources on the basis of them being Jewish. Stevens is employed by the New York Times, and clearly is appropriate for inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Of course 'many sources' conflate anti-zionism with anti-semitism; that conflation is a central plank of the Israeli government's propaganda programme. The fact remains that the claim is highly controversial - few anti-zionists would accept that they are anti-semites. The idea that anti-zionism is the same as anti-semitism is a position taken only by zionists.

I did not suggest to strike; I suggested adding balance. I did not suggest that Stevens was a zionist because he was Jewish; I suggested that he was a zionist because for four years he was the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post. You can't get that job unless you are a zionist.

If Stevens is indeed a zionist, then his opinions about the proper definition of anti-zionism need to be balanced by those of an anti-zionist such as Jonathan Cook. Cook is a freelance journalist whose articles are regularly published in the Independent, and is clearly appropriate for inclusion. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

False balance, and we have a whole multitude of anti-Zionist opinions in the article - probably too much so. Stephens personal beliefs really have little to do with sourcing. The assertion on JPost is odious - and is incorrect - JPost does not list zionism as a job requirement. Multiple high quality sources conflate between modern antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and we should take care not to promote antisemitic views on Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Stephens is a journalist who is an expert in matters relating to Israel. His political beliefs about Zionism do not disqualify him from being an expert on the subject. To suggest otherwise, is to prove his point that anti-Zionism is a form of bigotry. --GHcool (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It is absurd to suggest that one can become editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post as a non-zionist. Are you seriously claiming that? Can you produce anything written by a present or former editor of the JPost that suggests they are not a zionist? That is not "odious", it is obvious.

I have not claimed that Stephens should be disqualified. Consequently your accusation of bigotry amounts to a personal attack on me, that I bitterly resent. I am no bigot, and it was only when you pointed out to me that Stephens was Jewish that I learned he was Jewish (and I am relying on your word on the matter). His name is not obviously Jewish. I was not interested in his ethnic or religious background, and I didn't try to research them; the point I made concerned his political biases.

I have only claimed that his inclusion should also qualify for inclusion an anti-zionist journalist such as Jonathan Cook. His political beliefs about Zionism do not disqualify him from being an expert on the subject (hey, he lives in Nazareth - not in New York).

BTW This expression "modern antisemitism" crops up whenever supporters of Israel's discriminatory and racist policies in the occupied territories want to smear anti-zionists. It's a term invented by Israel's propagandists, to make it seem that criticism of the policies of the Israeli state is tantamount to support for Hitler's genocidal policies. Well, that doesn't wash with me. If you open the door to the argument that criticising Israeli government policy is anti-semitic (and "odious"), then you are also opening the door in the reverse direction; for the epithet "anti-semitic" to come to have no more bite than to say that someone opposes the policies of some particular Israeli government. Is that what you are trying to achieve? I mean, if that's all "anti-semitic" means, why should people be afraid of being accused of anti-semitism? You are equating "anti-semitism" to a completely conventional political position on a matter of international affairs.

Kindly withdraw your accusation of bigotry, I'm sure you know that's an unacceptable personal attack on a fellow Wikipedia editor. MrDemeanour (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that you accept Stephens and the New York Times as a legitimate source. As for Cook, perhaps we should wait until he is a columnist for the New York Times before we make a judgment on his suitability.

I did not accuse anybody of bigotry. What I said was that it is a form of bigotry to suggest that Stephens's political beliefs disqualify him from being a reliable source. Since you are saying that you are not suggesting anything so bigoted, you can be feel comfortable knowing that nobody called you a bigot. --GHcool (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Cook is a columnist for The Independent. He's not staff, but his column appears regularly. Are you seriously saying that the New York Times has some kind of privileged position among reliable sources? Is The Independent less reliable than that Murdoch rag? Am I to understand that only those columnists whose column appears in the NYT can have their views included in politically-controversial articles?

Stephens is a writer; not a source, reliable or otherwise. The source is NYT, and WP considers it to be reliable - just like the Indy. So could you explain again your objection to balancing Stephens' zionist perspective with that of a reporter who lives among Palestinians in the occupied territories? Thanks. MrDemeanour (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Besides being a journalist, Jonathan Cook([11][12][13][14]), who lives in Nazareth, is the author of three books on Palestine-Israel.     ←   ZScarpia   23:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Since Stephens is only cited for his opinion, and not on matters of fact, his reliability is irrelevant. The real question is whether Stephens' opinion passes WEIGHT. Zero^talk 02:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Which his position at The New York Times and NBC News provides. His former position at The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post - as well as his commentary winning the Pulitzer Prize - helps in terms of gravitas here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph Zionist bias

The second sentence says, "(Zionism) is broadly defined in the modern era to denote opposition to the political movement of Jews to self-determination within the territory of the historic Land of Israel." The word choice, "self-determination", is an interesting contrast to that of the article on Zionism, which says "Zionism ... is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel". Re-establishment of a Jewish homeland seems much less biased than Jewish self-determination. Many Anti-Zionists don't oppose any Jewish self-determination, but just the way and/or location in which it was done. Re-establishment of a Jewish homeland is a far better term. Wiki user wiki (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki user wiki's unstated major premise is that "anti-Zionism" is opposition to "Zionism." It isn't. Anti-Zionists are not just opposed to the early 20th century movement for re-establishing a Jewish state. They are also opposed to the Jewish state as it exists in the 21st century (i.e. Israel). --GHcool (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The second part of the first paragraph is ridiculous, using two sources opposed to anti-Zionism (the ADL: "Anti-Zionism is a prejudice against the Jewish movement for self-determination and the right of the Jewish people to a homeland in the State of Israel.") to inject a definition of anti-Zionism very much from a Zionist point of view, implying that Zionist claims and justifications are unquestionable and making a mess of straightforward content obtained from more neutral sources. Rather than using a simple description such as the BBC's region in the "Middle East, roughly corresponding to the historical land of Israel," the paragraph ends with an unnecessary, straggly list of names by which parts of the region have been known and which is not even comprehensive (many Zionists express a grievance, the more vocally the further rightwards in the political spectrum, that they were cheated out of Jordan/Transjordan).     ←   ZScarpia   09:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

AMCHA Initiative

@GHcool:, I don't see how AMCHA Initiative is a reliable source for an unattributed claim. If that material is to be included it should be a. cited to a more reliable source, and b. attributed to the people making the claim. nableezy - 21:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll implement Option B when I have a moment. --GHcool (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I was asking for a and b. nableezy - 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Both A and B would be ideal. I'll implement Option B. You can work on Option A. --GHcool (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit Suggestion: Adam Langleben

In the 'Others' subsection of 'Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism', Adam Langleben is referred to as a "British socialist" and as having campaigned actively in favour the UK Labour Party in the lead-up to his resignation from it (announced in conjunction with his public allegations of antisemitism against Jeremy Corbyn and UK Labour). In searching Langleben's name, I found an article from the Jewish Voice for Labour, an official Labour-affiliation, discussing internal Labour politics reporting the opposite of this last assertion, and arguing that instead of a socialist, Langleben belongs to an "unrepresentative ultra-Zionist sect." The link is below. I investigated this paragraph because it seemed misleading, and so it seems to be. The repetition of an astroturfed opposition campaign is not conducive to NPV, and it should be removed.

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/what-is-happening-to-jlm-the-case-of-adam-langleben/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.27.211 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The information is cited to The Atlantic. It should stay. --GHcool (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended protection edit request

The quote from David Cameron "there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism." is not in the source given next to the quote. Could a source be found or- failing that- could the quote be removed?--HalMartin (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The statement, though nonsense, is indeed in the source cited. RolandR (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I found it now.--HalMartin (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In the section here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Third_Position,_fascist,_and_right-wing, there's no full-stop on the last sentence. Can that be fixed by someone who's account is extended confirmed?--HalMartin (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

David Cameron is no longer the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Would someone be able to edit the text here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#View_that_anti-Zionism_leads_to_antisemitism) to reflect that David Cameron is a former Prime Minister.

Thanks Momobrika (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

DONE. Y --GHcool (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Neturei Karta

Given the small number of followers Neturei Karta has, I don't think it is fair to include them as the top image, which implies a level of preeminence. Even among anti-Zionist Jews, they are an extremely small minority, so I don't think they are strongly representative of Jews, anti-Zionism, or Jewish anti-Zionism. 2607:FEA8:545F:FBF4:D937:95A1:70F7:9153 (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DONE. Y --GHcool (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Opposition to the State of Israel

Many people who identify as anti-zionists would reject the claim in the lede that they are "opposed to the state of Israel". What those people are opposed to is the policies of the state of Israel, regarding both it's Palestinian inhabitants, and it's policies regarding the West Bank and Gaza.

That claim in the lede is cited to Merriam Webster, which I can't challenge directly. But the fact is that there are anti-zionist jews, living in Israel, who have no desire to dismantle the state they are living in.

Some Israeli nationalists, and most overseas lobbyists for Israel, would support MW's definition. But that definition denies the world a convenient term for those who are opposed to Zionism but not to the state of Israel. I personally find it really annoying when words get redefined, whether by lazy journalists ("exponential" is particularly annoying) or boosters of rightwing Israeli government policies.

Is it possible to oppose Israeli government policies without opposing the existence of the Israeli state? If it isn't, then those who oppose the policies are forced to conclude that they must also be oppoosed to the state itself, or else to give up their principles. This, it seems to me, is an unhelpful state of affairs for everyone.

MrDemeanour (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but we will continue to use the cited, reliable sources. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: Stating your opinion here won't help, as GHcool is correct that we must rely on published reliable sources. So, if you feel that the article does not properly cover the topic, the correct approach is to locate sources that provide alternative viewpoints and propose them for inclusion. Zero^talk 05:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to expand the historical perspective

Maybe I am a little old school, but the socialist perspective about national states if I remember properly has always been deeply focused on the progressive dismanteling of it, and I'm feeling very old in not finding, while reading, enough sources about an orthodox marxist perspective, just modern talking about "Left" and "Leftis". Out of fashion I guess. Even if for some anti-zionism was a cover for blatant antisemitism (far right mainly), the palestinian cause was always supported in the broader scheme of the cold-war era, in which Israel was mainly considered as an ally of USA in a peripheral war (thus the support for ALL the anti-american entities in peripheral conflicts, from Venezuela to Iran). I'm surprised there are not deep and serious references to it, because the well-known political strategy was to support the most promising enemies of the USA in the perspective of expanding its efforts and increase its waste of money and time, to weaken it. So the ideology at the time was to delegitimize the state of Israel, which was possible also because the arab war was not yet polarized by the islamist strategies of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and it was considered possible (Ataturk was a sort of an example of it, for its relations with Lenin and the possibility for the URSS to influence through money and goods a muslim state) to convert the arabs to the socialist movement. I think that for an enciclopedia we could spend a few words about the socialist perspective, should be plenty of historical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leakipediano (talk • contribs) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

To continue describing those ideologies that seem common in your opinion to Jews, there should be a counter argument for those Jews who support anti Zionism as acts that don’t support the religion simultaneously the creation of a state of Israel from the Torah that God curses.

On the other hand, such state creation for the Jews, as witnessed since the past 73 years and can be even sensed more sensitively the past several weeks in uprising of the Palestinians involve many implication such as acts by the state of Israel of ethnic cleansing, occupation of lands, apartheid, and even discrimination/ racism towards minorities within the state itself, particularly those of Arab origins, yet Israeli citizens.

The evident recent events yet the mere history ever since the occupation of Palestine can be seen in examples such as

Immigration form of former Israeli President

Palestinians coins/ currency . 83.110.96.250 (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ezlev_tlk/ctrbs 20:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite error

There is a cite error in the middle of the View that the two are not interlinked section, caused by this edit. The partial removal of the second ref has left a redundant <ref> directly after Tariq Ali's name.
Could someone remove the <ref> to resolve the cite error?
Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 89.241.33.89 (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

You guys can fix it

The lack of organization which was in the subsection "Anti-Zionism versus antisemitism" is written like some Freshman didn't know how to formulate his own English paper, so he threw all his papers into a soup bowl and poured hot sauce on it, and ate his own homework. If that sounds absurd, it's because that's how crappy the article was organized, before I fixed it. So here's the source. You guys can fix it, because you did such a good job at it, before. :-\ Not really. I'm lying. You people can't write. But here you go, here's the source. You can fix it.

It appears as if you have forgotten to sign your post.--Proletarian Banner (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Conflation of the two as a pretext

The construal of anti-Zionism as intrinsically anti-Semitic is an old one. In 1943, when a British military court in Mandatory Palestine implicated Zionists in arms trafficking, Ben-Gurion criticized the decision by asserting the judgement was influenced by anti-Semitism. According to Christopher Sykes this meant that "henceforth to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic; to disapprove of Jewish territorial nationalism was to be a Nazi". In 1973 Abba Eban stated that "one of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all.". In 2002, former Minister of Education Shulamit Aloni in a Democracy Now! interview stated that the anti-Semitic accusation was a trick used to curb criticism.

Noam Chomsky has cited the Ben-Gurion and Eban precedents to argue that they contain a premise, that Israel's interests are Jewish interests, and thus any defender of Palestinian rights against a rejectionist Greater Israel is made out to be "objectively antisemitic".

In response to a working draft Statement of Principles Against Intolerance at UCLA which contained the claim that 'historic manifestations of anti‐Semitism have changed and that expressions of anti‐Semitism are more coded and difficult to identify', that opposition to Zionism often asserts prejudice and intolerance towards Jews, and that 'anti‐Semitism, anti‐Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California,' Rabbi Brant Rosen, an alumnus of UCLA replied that while some anti-Semites lurk behind the label of anti-Zionism, 'it is incorrect and even disingenuous of the report to make the unsupported claim that anti-Zionism is “often expressed (as) assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture,” and blithely conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism as a “form of discrimination”.'

Neturei Karta, anti-Zionist Jewish organization

Rabbi Ahron Cohen, a member of Neturei Karta, states that Zionists feed antisemitism worldwide in order to attract more immigrants to Israel. Neturei Karta, which opposes Zionism and considers it to be in total opposition with Judaism, is a fringe sect of Haredi Judaism. Rabbi Cohen admits that this view is currently not widely accepted among Jews, but intends to spread the message to the non-Jewish world in order to remove the "stain" on Judaism and the Jewish people.

Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani historian

Tariq Ali, a British-Pakistani historian and political activist, argues that the concept of new antisemitism amounts to an attempt to subvert the language in the interests of the State of Israel. He writes that the campaign against "the supposed new 'anti-semitism'" in modern Europe is a "cynical ploy on the part of the Israeli Government to seal off the Zionist state from any criticism of its regular and consistent brutality against the Palestinians ... Criticism of Israel can not and should not be equated with anti-semitism." He argues that most pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist groups that emerged after the Six-Day War were careful to observe the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Others go the other way and claim "anti-Zionism" has become a requisite proof of progressive conviction today, and is similar to Jews converting to Christianity a century ago.

Norman Finkelstein

According to Norman Finkelstein: "Every time Israel comes under international pressure, as it did recently because of the war crimes committed in Lebanon, it steps up the claim of anti-Semitism, and all of Israel's critics are anti-Semitic."

Finkelstein argues that anti-Zionism and often just criticism of Israeli policies have been conflated with antisemitism, sometimes called new antisemitism for political gain: "Whenever Israel faces a public relations débâcle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.' The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It's to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It's a role reversal — the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians. So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It's no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it's the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism."

1. anti-Zionism is antisemitic in its essence and in most, if not all, of its manifestations;
2. anti-Zionism and antisemitism are both analytically and historically distinct, but the two ideologies have merged since 1948;
3. anti-Zionism and antisemitism remain distinct, but anti-Zionism occasionally crosses the line into "outright anti-Semitism," while antisemitism often pollutes anti-Zionist discourse; and/or
4. anti-Zionism is analytically distinct from antisemitism, but much apparent criticism of Israel or Zionism is in fact a thinly veiled expression of antisemitism.

Brian Klug

Brian Klug argues that equating anti-Zionism to antisemitism poisoned the debate regarding Israel and their policies, stating,

"We should unite in rejecting racism in all its forms: the Islamophobia that demonises Muslims, as well as the anti-semitic discourse that can infect anti-Zionism and poison the political debate. However, people of goodwill can disagree politically - even to the extent of arguing over Israel's future as a Jewish state. Equating anti-Zionism with anti-semitism can also, in its own way, poison the political debate."

On January 15, 2004, Klug wrote:

Nonetheless, the inference is invalid. To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people. In fact, Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another. They are separate. To say they are separate is not to say that they are never connected. But they are independent variables that can be connected in different ways.

Further discussion

In the early 21st century, it was also claimed that a "new antisemitism" had emerged which was rooted in anti-Zionism. Advocates of this concept argue that much of what purports to be criticism of Israel and Zionism is demonization, and has led to an international resurgence of attacks on Jews and Jewish symbols and an increased acceptance of antisemitic beliefs in public discourse. Critics of the concept as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Marder, and Tariq Ali have suggested that the characterization of anti-Zionism as antisemitic is inaccurate, sometimes obscures legitimate criticism of Israel's policies and actions and trivializes antisemitism.

Not necessarily mutually exclusive

David Cameron, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

According to David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, "there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism."

Joschka Fischer, German Foreign Minister

In July 2001, the Simon Wiesenthal Center reported that during a visit there, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated that "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism." In 2015, the Center observed in a newsletter introducing its report on North American campus life, that 'virulent anti-Zionism is often a thinly-veiled disguise for virulent anti-Semitism'.

Interlinked

Robert S. Wistrich, Israeli professor

Professor Robert S. Wistrich, head of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is the originator of Marcus's second view of anti-Zionism (that anti-Zionism and antisemitism merged post-1948) argues that much contemporary anti-Zionism, particularly forms that compare Zionism and Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, has become a form of antisemitism:

Anti-Zionism has become the most dangerous and effective form of anti-Semitism in our time, through its systematic delegitimization, defamation, and demonization of Israel. Although not a priori anti-Semitic, the calls to dismantle the Jewish state, whether they come from Muslims, the Left, or the radical Right, increasingly rely on an anti-Semitic stereotypization of classic themes, such as the manipulative "Jewish lobby," the Jewish/Zionist "world conspiracy," and Jewish/Israeli "warmongers."

Ben-Dror Yemini, Israeli journalist

Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini maintains that anti-Zionism is "politically correct antisemitism" and argues that the same way Jews were demonized, Israel is demonized, the same way the right of Jews to exist was denied, the right for Self-determination is denied from Israel, the same way Jews were presented as a menace to the world, Israel is presented as a menace to the world.

Germany

In the 2015, a German court in Essen ruled that anti-Zionism and antisemitism were equivalent. "'Zionist’ in the language of anti-Semites is a code for Jew," Judge Gauri Sastry said in a groundbreaking legal decision. Taylan Can, a German citizen of Turkish origin, yelled "death and hate to Zionists" at an anti-Israel rally in Essen in July 2014, and was convicted for hate crime. In contrast, in February 2015, a court in Wuppertal convicted two German Palestinians of an arson attack on a synagogue, but denied that the crime was motivated by antisemitism.

Dina Porat, head of ISAR

Dina Porat (head of the Institute for Study of Antisemitism and Racism at Tel-Aviv University) contends that anti-Zionism is antisemitic because it is discriminatory:

...antisemitism is involved when the belief is articulated that of all the peoples on the globe (including the Palestinians), only the Jews should not have the right to self-determination in a land of their own. Or, to quote noted human rights lawyer David Matas: One form of antisemitism denies access of Jews to goods and services because they are Jewish. Another form of antisemitism denies the right of the Jewish people to exist as a people because they are Jewish. Antizionists distinguish between the two, claiming the first is antisemitism, but the second is not. To the antizionist, the Jew can exist as an individual as long as Jews do not exist as a people.

Allegations stated as fact

Very odd language is used in the lede, alleging that anti-Zionism is the opposition of "the political movement of Jews to self-determination", with four Zionist sources voicing that allegation to conflate anti-colonialist views with bigoted/antisemitic ones. The sources are (ADL, JLC, this book, and this article), all Zionist sources, contrary to SoaringLL's revert comment. IMO, this sentence shouldn't even be in the opening paragraph, and can be mentioned in the Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section, as denying Jews (just because they're Jews) the right of self-determination is antisemitism, but it should be clearly stated as opinion and not as fact. --Fjmustak (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but we will continue to use the reliably sourced definitions in the lead. --GHcool (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

An opinion doesn't become a fact just because it appears in a reliable source. It only becomes a reliably sourced opinion. Zero^talk 03:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

And stop piling on sources. It looks stupid when simple statements are cited multiple times. Zero^talk 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If that sentence must stay in the opening paragraph, it should at the very least be qualified with "Some also consider it to be...". DominateEye (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"other views"

We have a collection of primary sources, columns by non-experts, in the other views section. I intend to remove Bret Stephens, Ben-Dror Yemini, and Liel Leibovitz for starters. This is not a platform to promote views one agrees with, views need to have secondary coverage to be included, not an opinion piece in a newspaper. nableezy - 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A few questions:

1. It is unclear to me why Nableezy believes that Stephens, Yemini, and Leibovitz are primary sources. Which of the six listed categories in WP:PRIMARY categories do these articles represent?
2. It is unclear to me why Nableezy believes that Stephens is not experts as defined by WP:RSEDITORIAL. As it is currently written, the article follows the guidance of WP:RSEDITORIAL: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact." Stephens has a masters degree in comparative politics and a storied career in foreign affairs journalism). I will stipulate that Leibovitz's and Yemini's expertise are borderline cases, but ones that I believe are consistent with WP:RSEDITORIAL.
3. It is unclear why Nableezy complains of citing opinion pieces in only one section. --GHcool (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

For our purposes, where their reliability is only for their own opinion, the opinion piece is the primary source of that opinion. There are no reliable secondary sources showing those unqualified opinions have any weight to be given any weight here. A masters degree is not sufficient to claim one to be a reliable source, Bret Stephens is only reliable for his own opinion. And as his opinion is not treated seriously in any coverage of anti-Zionism by secondary sources his opinion lacks the weight required to be included. This is not a repository of quotes you agree with. You have that in your userspace already. A recognized expert would have academic publications in peer-reviewed journals or books published by well regarded academic presses. Bret Stephens is an opinion writer, and this is not a repository of opinions that secondary reliable sources have not treated as though merit any consideration. As far as 3, that was just the section I started on. You wont find me supporting the use of opinion pieces that are not written by actual experts though. nableezy - 00:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

GHcool, youve seemed to have decided to remove anything cited to an editorial that is opposed to the idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Ive helped you in fixing that retention elsewhere. Will of course need to add some additional secondary sourcing to fix this absurd disproportionate imbalance here, but will do that in due time. nableezy - 02:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

First para lead.A disgrace

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism. The term is broadly defined in the modern era as opposition to the State of Israel or, prior to 1948, the Jewish community in the Land of Israel, as well as to the political movement of Jews to self-determination.[2][3][4][5][6]

• Some pointers. I have never read in all my days that Zionists before 1948 were hostile to the Jews in Palestine. Of course whoever gamed this played deftly on the distinction between the Old Yishuv/New Yishuv, defining unilaterally the Yishuv as 'the Jewish community in the Land of Israel' when that term itself shouldn't be used for the pre-1948 period (as theological and geographically ill-defined). Whatever the text is asserting that, from its beginnings, anti-Zionism was hostile to Jews there, or those performing aliyah. Factually untrue, or one would need several very good specialist sources to back that POV statement.Zionism was before '48 opposition to the Zionist project of creating a Jewish state there, and afterwards, criticism of the Jewish state/Israel. A political position has been spun as an intrinsic hostility to Jews qua people in that area. Nishidani (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)*
• Sources using advocacy organs hostile to anti-Zionism should be removed from a definition. A definition must be neutral, not formulated by its adversaries. It would be totally unacceptable for Wikipedia to define 'capitalism' in terms of the communist definition. Since Zionism is, confessedly, an ideology , supporters of that ideology should not be invoked for a definition of the movement opposing it.This is all part of the ABC of NPOV. Ergo, no ADL et al.Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Our text says "or, prior to 1948, the Jewish community in the Land of Israel" but the source for it says "opposition to the establishment or support of the state of Israel : opposition to Zionism". So the text is not supported by the source. I also agree that the opinion of hostile parties must not be used as a definition. With a due nod to balance, weight, etc, such opinions can appear later. Zero^talk 08:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, the Cambridge Dictionary says "beliefs or activities that are opposed to Zionism (= a political movement that aimed to create a country for Jewish people and now supports the state of Israel)". The OED does not have a separate definition. Zero^talk 08:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I've kept some of the recent edits, but reverted others. The ADL is a reliable source on the subject of anti-Zionism. Not only that, but all of the other sources cited are also reliable sources on the topic, some of which are peer reviewed and/or "neutral" news organizations (such as the BBC). If you would like other reliable sources, feel free to add them, but it is not ok to censor information cited to reliable sources that you don't like. The "capitalism defined by communists" simile is inappropriate; it reminds me of those bigots who told religious scholar Reza Aslan that a Muslim is unqualified to write a biography if Jesus. --GHcool (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Address the point. The ADL is certainly not reliable since it is an organization closely identified I n IP matters with Zionism and has a vested interest in skewing those who are opposed to that movement. I don't censor anything. Reread what you wrote. I stated a well-grounded view, noted a flaw, and Zero remarked on the source falsification. All you have said above is. 'No, I disagree'. I.e. opinionizing. There is no logic or source control. The revised text is fine, neutral and accurate. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry but that faux outrage about bigots who told religious scholar ... is completely inappropriate. You would be objecting if anybody used say American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee to define Zionism. You cant use the political opponents of a group to define them as though that were a neutral objective source. This monumental double standard wont fly, the ADL is fine for attributed views in the area it is widely cited, defining opponents of its publicly stated political positions is however not acceptable. The ADL is not an academic source, it is not an objective source on the topic. nableezy - 16:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

GHcool, please review WP:ONUS, challenged material requires consensus to be reinserted. Numerous policy justifications for each of the removals have been offered, you may not simply disregard them and edit-war your favored narrative back in to the article. nableezy - 16:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoever invented that moronic phase, 'the Jewish right to self-determination', which Cool has just re-added? That's worth studying. Because the use of this slogan always embodies a tacit premise : 'the Palestinians have no right to self-determination' (something that you meet with throughout Zionist and religious Zionist 'thinking'). This is not about some 'Jewish' right, as anti-Zionists point out. It is about the right of a people, under an ideology that is ostensibly 'Jewish' to expropriate another country and dispossess its people. Object to that ongoing behaviour (object to Avri Ran robbing Yanun of its land and calling its historic inhabitants an 'invasive species' a form of 'Arab dust' to cite one of a zillion examples) and you are thereby painted as an 'antisemite' denying all Jews of whatever description a natural right. That is the 'Jewish' and 'anti-Zionist' objection in historic substance, and is focused now not on Israel, an accomplished reality, but Israel's colonial project. Anti-Zionism is primarily hostile to the latter. The rhetoric in your sources, GHCool, is designed to throw sand into those distinctions, by rolling up Israel proper and Israel's colonial adventurism in the West Bank as 'Jewish self-determination'. Crap, even if widely reported crap. Or let's say, partisan spinning of the rhetorical web that poisons virtually everything one reads, even in mainstream sources, regarding this area.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, short version: 'the right of Jewish self-determination' is a rhetorical meme that throws no light, and much (bull)dust on the historical realities, and should be recognized as inappropriate to definitions of the phenomenon we are writing up.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We really do need an article on the history of that rhetorical phrasing.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

A response and a few questions:

• I'm willing to drop the subject of the ADL's expertise on anti-Zionism if you're willing to accept the BBC's definition here: "Zionism refers to the movement to create a Jewish state in the Middle East ... and thus support for the modern state of Israel. Anti-Zionism opposes that."
• Why was the sentence beginning "Campus research in 2016" removed?
• Why was the sentence beginning "According to the December 1969 issue of Encounter" removed?
• Anti-Zionists opposing the "Jewish right to self-determination" is not something the ADL made up. If you don't like the ADL, that's ok. We can cite these sources instead: [15] [16] --GHcool (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I answered much of the above in the section below, as that wasnt really related to the lead. nableezy - 17:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)