Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:55, 28 November 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Zionism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Addition to lead

Given the seriousness of the topic I am dismayed by the lack of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The following sentence was just added to close out the lead, after I had removed a less detailed sentence yesterday:

The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism—whether it is an example of, cover for, or overlaps with antisemitism—is debated.

The primary issue here gets back to the purpose of this article: is this an article to cover opposition to Zionism as variously understood, or is it an article solely on the concept of "anti-Zionism"? If these were distinguished, then possibly an article on "Anti-Zionism" should focus heavily on the controversy of the term. However, if it is simply a "criticism" article to match the article on Zionism, then this is less clear, as seen in the Zionism article itself which does not discuss criticism in its lead paragraphs. This gets to perhaps the underlying point, that it's difficult to see how Zionism should avoid any discussion of controversy, but then the article on Anti-Zionism, would immediately make central issue of a relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the lead. This should presumably find some balance.

Aside from that, this sentence suggests only three options that all concede a relationship; it doesn't note any who contest the relationship, or who challenge claims to that effect (see the lead of New antisemitism, for example). However, I think the first issue should probably be resolved first. Mackan79 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the sentence replaced this unsourced statement, which had been in the article for many months:

Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial.

The new sentence is more accurate and properly sourced. Now, regarding your first objection, the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is one of its most salient controversies; please review WP:LEAD. Regarding your second objection, please note that you will have a hard time finding reliable sources that say that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Rather, they all say things like Zipperstein: "Such prejudice against Israel is not antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist" or European Jews for a Just Peace: "This is not to deny that there are circumstances in which criticisms of the state of Israel might indeed be antisemitic. But the presumption should not be that they are. This requires demonstration on a case by case basis." Jayjg 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How odd. CJCurrie just deleted all the sources that say there is a link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while leaving all the sources that dispute it. Even more oddly, he claimed in his edit summary that I hadn't included any "anti" links, which is quite obviously false. Even more oddly, he hasn't commented here on the Talk: page. Ah well, I'm sure he'll remedy all of that soon enough. Jayjg 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to restore the links to the end of the sentence, once the rather leading aside that you've added is removed. Your current wording makes it appear that the dispute only concerns how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are inherently linked, and leaves out the rather important point that some have questioned an inherent linkage.

Btw, you're currently in violation of the 3RR. CJCurrie (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sources indicate that there is no linkage? Jayjg 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed he said "inherent linkage," Jayjg; this is the same point you quote Zipperstein making above. However, if you think the article should state in the lead that people only debate how anti-Zionism relates with antisemitism, this would seem a rather extraordinary position to support, considering the debates over all aspects of this issue are so well known. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're being required to prove a negative - particularly when the linkage being made is very disputed indeed. eg Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". The main perpetrators of such "mute" anti-Semitism are alleged to be "radical anti-Zionists" ... is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded "objective" abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly.

Needless to say, "Beyond Chutzpah" alone is loaded with such examples - if I knew exactly what we're being asked for, I'm sure I can find it. It seems extraordinary that, when at least six out of the first seven references appear to imply antisemitism of anti-Zionists, that such a prominent anti-Zionist as Finkelstein, with a well regarded book (cited a respectable 17 times) specifically on the topic of mis-use of antisemitism gets such a small and misleading mention and his book isn't mentioned atall. What's going on here? And there is no mention of accusations of Holocaust Denial - I'm sure many sources would consider these accusations, almost invariably false, the very most prominent feature of any and every debate about anti-Zionism. Why don't we link to any article we have on it, or don't we have such an article? PR 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to the last part, PR, I think it's better if you have material you'd like to add that you simply put together the material that you'd like to see. At least in my experience, that's much more time-efficient, and helps discussions stay on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the estimate made that there are 150,000 Orthodox anti-Zionists, and around a million "non-Zionist" Orthodox. (What %age this is of the Zionist Orthodox, I don't know). Unfortunately, I'm told that the source is "extremist" - and, even though I've been denied any evidence for this whatsoever, I cannot use it. (And there is a lot more I would like to add, all of it from sources unimpeachably knowledgeable and likely very reliable). PR 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that discussion on this page? I'm just thinking it's perhaps better placed in another section than here, in order to keep each section on track. Mackan79 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This section concerns the insertion into the lead of a statement that hi-jacks the entire article with a narrative that attacks all anti-Zionists as antisemitic (as largely runs through the article).

The truth of this assertion is not simply debatable - it's almost certainly false. As can more-or-less be "proved" just by the highly credible information I'd like to insert from people who would appear to be gentle and knowledgeable. Except that .... the source has been smeared as being so extreme that it's a blocking offense to use them as a reference. No evidence provided or available on request. PR 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing about why you're not allowed to use extremist, anonymous, personal websites as reliable sources. If you're unwilling to abide by WP:V then you need to find a project that doesn't have it as a policy. Jayjg 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps you'll explain another mystery - the book of "extremists who cannot be referenced in articles" appears not to include the Neturei Karta. And yet, six of those people stood with Ahmadinejad at his "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" - and I'm told that they celebrate the death of Israeli soldiers (cries of "extreme" anyone?) Why is that the apparently gentle people running the world-famous Jews Against Zionism web-site (claiming to be the "True Torah Jews") are more of a problem than the NK? PR 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that people will avoid simple reverts over this. In reply to Jayjg, the problem of course isn't whether these views exist, but whether it is a neutral way to frame the issue. For example, I think it's fairly clear that covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is "overlap" is to rather widely miss their position. I think a shorter version is one option; otherwise we would need a larger discussion of the issue, but I'm not convinced that would improve the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think a WP article needs to frame an issue? "Framing" is, by its very nature, never neutral . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please note that I had removed the text, not replaced it; or can you say that the text you have replaced removes the framing? You'll see several specific points on this above, relating to the manner in which your text states that people only discuss the manner in which anti-Zionism and antisemitism relate, as if the primary disputes over this issue don't exist or are not relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, my concern is that you have stated an intention to frame the discussion. I do not consider that statement of your intention to be a positive indicator. Please reconsider your editing goals. The intention of my own edit was to restore content which you removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A "positive indicator"? Malcolm, if you read WP:AGF, I think you'll see one important part is trying to make sense out of what people say rather than doing the opposite. I'm not sure how you looked at my comment and my edit and decided I was arguing for framing of any type, let alone the type you have in mind, but all the same, you've currently made two simple reverts to the page without any response to the issues raised here that I can see. If you think this material is appropriate, please do consider addressing those points. Mackan79 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, we are still at that strange impasse, where I accurately summarize the sources in the lede, and you complain that its not NPOV to do so, but fail to explain what would make it NPOV. Are there sources that insist there is never a relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Or, as seems to be the case, are there various sources that debate the relationship between the two, with some saying it is strong, others saying it is weak, but none saying it doesn't exist? Jayjg 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I find it frustrating that you come back to the page reverting, after violating 3RR last time, and without any intervening attempt to discuss the issue, especially as you continue to ask the same question that has already been addressed while claiming that it hasn't. As I said immediately above, one problem with your text is that "covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is 'overlap' is to rather widely miss their position." You quote Steven Zipperstein, for instance, but rather than relying on his main argument, you rely on his caveat beginning "his is not to deny...." Writing an encyclopedia article isn't about going "Ah ha! So you admit..."; it's about accurately and fairly representing the coverage of an issue. The material you have included very clearly fails in this regard, which again is why I removed it as violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I hope you can respond more specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I'm failing to see your point. Every source I see says there is some sort of relationship, but the nature of the relationship is hotly debated. Zipperstein notes this relationship, even as he disputes the claims of others that is inherently a form of antisemitism. That's not a "Ah ha! So you admit..." point. I'm willing to work with you to flesh out the con view, but there's no reason to remove the pro view, which, after all, is a significant one, and one that should be mentioned, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wish I had a quarter for every time you didn't see my point, Jay. As far as expanding the discussion, I'm pretty sure that would only work if the entire lead were expanded to the three or four paragraph standard. I've tried in the past, but haven't found myself able, largely because the whole concept seems to be so poorly defined. In any case I know you see my point, since we've discussed this before. If we're looking for an analogy, please consider G-Dett's below, which I think illustrates the problem... about equally to the text proposed here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what information regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel is missing from the lead sentence I inserted? Jayjg 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, the sentence you're edit-warring into the article is a grammatical mess, and its summary of the sources is tendentious and inaccurate. I'll hold off copy-editing your work til you've come around to accepting a neutral approach to the matter at hand. Suffice to say that what you're adding is analogous (both in terms of stylistic solecisms and substantive distortions) to saying that The relationship between opposition to affirmative action and racism – whether it is an example of, cover for, or overlaps with racism — is debated. When we have something that isn't utter crap on the table, I'll be happy to proofread it.--G-Dett (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:STALK. Jayjg 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sentence is unacceptable because (a) it misrepresents the debate about an alleged relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and (b) it is ungrammatical.--G-Dett (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is useless. Suggest changing it to something along the following lines: "The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear. This has led to a trading of accusations between Zionists and anti-Zionists with some Zionists arguing that anti-Zionists are influenced by anti-semitism, and some anti-Zionists claiming that Zionists use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to stifle debate." Telaviv1 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A little wordy as such, but substantively an excellent summary, Telaviv1.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how you would make it less wordy? To me one issue is saying that it is "unclear," as the first comment on this point. This may be reasonable, but seems potentially to leave behind the reader who may not initially have considered a relationship (this is a general reference work, after all). Otherwise, the question is whether this does not get rather heavily into one aspect of the article, in what is otherwise a very short lead. I'd find this reasonable for a third or fourth paragraph, for instance, but that assumes a second or third that we don't currently have. This is also why I raised the point that this article has generally been treated as a general article on "opposition to Zionism," and not simply the issue of "anti-Zionism" as that term is used. Mackan79 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, might I prevail upon you to stop adding an ungrammatical, tendentious, and misleading sentence to the lead?

G-Dett, I do not need your advice on how to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, how about something neutral and succinct like Allegations of a necessary link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have generated ongoing controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Mackan, you raise an excellent point re "anti-Zionism" vs. "opposition to Zionism." The phrase "anti-Zionist" has become something of a catch-all, applied to a whole range of totally distinct positions, ranging from fundamental opposition to the idea of a Jewish state to activist opposition to state apologetics for the occupation. To take an obvious example: Noam Chomsky is not opposed to Zionism, but his political writings are generally described as "anti-Zionist." He is hardly alone in this regard. Another, perhaps even more striking example would be the work of Benny Morris. He is certainly not opposed to Zionism – far from it. And yet his work is often described as "anti-Zionist," not because of readerly incompetence but because his work dismantles certain state myths about the founding of Israel – and the term's range of meanings has come to include that. --G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that seems pretty similar to what CJCurrie reduced, and is fine with me. Actually, I would probably use "link" instead of "necessary connection"; I could see someone saying this would wrongly imply that a link is disputed, but in truth I don't think it would imply that or anything beyond what it should. I don't know if there could be other minor improvements. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you have now reverted three times without addressing any of the issues raised on this page. This is along with Jayjg who has now on subsequent occasions jumped immediately to exhausting all of his "three reverts" while also failing to engage the other editors on this talk page. I don't know your history with G-Dett, but that's known as WP:Revert waring, and is very unhelpful toward improving the page. Please consider a more collaborative approach on this page so that we can come up with something that addresses everyone's concerns. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, please restrict your comments to discussions of article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that the problem with your version is that you removed content. Also, I made changes with every edit trying to improve the disputed sentence. All you have done is revert multiple times to the same useless version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the content gives a choice of three positions all of which posit a link. To properly nuance the situation requires more than one sentence. Therefore the Lede should just draw people's attention to the issue and elave the reader to find the more detailed explanation in the body.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think something extra is needed, add it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, as several people have now explained, the material has been removed because it violates WP:NPOV and falsely suggests that the only discussion is about how anti-Zionism relates to antisemitism. I assume you understand that content needs to comply with Misplaced Pages's policies or it should be removed. As has also been discussed, the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead. You've now added it again with cosmetic changes that don't address these problems, and violating the three revert rule in the process, which as I recall would provide that your account be blocked. Please revert yourself, as it is impossible to collaborate with someone who edits in this way (I haven't followed the Israel-Palestine arbitration case enough to know whether it applies or you've been notified about it). Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what additional POVs regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel must be added to make the paragraph NPOV? Jayjg 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, hasn't Mackan made clear, in the very post you're "responding" to, that the problem here has not to do with what needs to be added ("the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead") but rather what needs to be altered in the misleading sentence to make it NPOV?--G-Dett (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I have addressed this now several times. Mackan79 (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you're "re-edited" the misleading and ungrammatical sentence four times now. Here are your versions:

1. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if is an example of, cover for, overlaps with – has been much debated.
2. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if it is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism , or overlaps with antisemitism – has been much debated.
3. It remains a much debated issue if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.
4. It is a much debated, and still unresolved issue, if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.

My favorite here is #2, for the way it manages to repeat the word "antisemitism" four times. The tone gets looser and more colloquial as you go on (e.g. "or just overlaps antisemitism") and the writing asymptotically approaches grammatical correctness – but honestly, I do not see any substantive difference whatsoever between any of these iterations, and your tinkerings appear to be entirely unrelated to the objections that have been patiently elaborated on this talk page. May I ask what it is you're doing?--G-Dett (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw, has anyone else noticed that Malcolm is in violation of the 3RR? I've informed him that he should self-revert, or risk being reported. CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to improve a disputed sentence. All you have done is revert every change back to the same meaningless sentence: "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated." Really? What is the nature of the debate? The version you keep reverting back to is meaningless without an explanation, and you keep removing the explanation. Then, to top it off, you accuse me of edit warring. Hutzpa. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the single word, 'debated' is sufficient weight in the lede. Just passing thru. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it frames the issue broadly and neutrally as any lead should. On a passing visit the versions above read as suggesting that the only debate is about to what extent every anti-Zionist position, or anti-Zionism as a whole, is rooted in or based on antisemitism. While of course you would indeed have your work cut out to find any reliable source that says anti-Zionism is never linked to antisemitism in individual cases, that's a very different point. --Nickhh (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite. If asked "Are there antisemitic anti-Zionists?" my answer would be "Yes, quite obviously." Similarly on "Do some anti-Zionists become anti-Semitic?", this is most obvious with Arab and Islamic anti-Zionism with all the Holocaust-denial etc., and "Do anti-Semites adopt anti-Zionism as a cover?" then, yes, a lot of Western right-wingers fall into that camp and the new AS theorists also see that wuth left-wingers. But the version being pushed talks about the -isms not the -ites and the -ists, and implying a choice where "overlap" of the -isms is the weakest possibility implies a necessary connection between the -isms.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm has now been blocked for 3rr violation. Do people want to use the 48-hour breather to try to find a more elegant version of Telaviv1's proposal? Or could Jay, who seems to agree with Malcolm on this, explain why this would not be satisfactory?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd stand by the current version, or some variation which simply acknowledges that there is a debate or dispute as to the nature of any linkage between the two, without going into any details. I know it's hyper-woolly, but I can't see how else you're going to get a neutral wording into the lead that isn't going to be incessantly fought over from every side. More specifically, I can see a couple of problems with TA's version - i) it says that the "difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear", when in principle and as a matter of simple definition of course it is very clear; and ii) as acknowledged it comes over as somewhat convoluted, with too much of a claim & counter-claim structure to it. The "he said, she said" stuff is better left to the body of the article in my view, with proper sourcing and attribution.--Nickhh (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

so Nick, what is the difference between antisemitism and antizionism? Telaviv1 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That question is rhetorical, isn't it? But, for a start, anti-nationalists oppose Zionism. Zionism is just one manifestation of romantic 19th-century nationalism that, ignoring the Middle-East for now, has also led to the whole problem of Balkanisation that still goes on today, led to Alsace-Lorraine changing hands between different nationalisms several times, provided a non-religious rationale for German antisemitism that eventually led to the Holocaust (in which not just c6M Jews died but also other "inferior" races such as Slavs and Roma." And umpteen modern dictators use nationalism as a screen for their crimes.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to this question is so self-evident, that it can only have been posed rhetorically. "Antisemitism" is the word commonly used for racism directed at Jews. There are arguments that it is a misleading term, and I have reservations about its use; but the meaning is clear. "Anti-Zionism" is opposition to the practice and ideology of the Zionist movement, as embodied in the state of Israel. There are of course nuances and variations within these, but the basic difference is surely undeniable. There are countless anti-Zionists who are not antisemitic. I count myself among these, and know many hundreds more; we have articles in Misplaced Pages about many of them, including Uri Davis, Mike Marqusee, Michel Warschawski, Edward Said and lots more. There are indeed antisemites who are not anti-Zionists; I would count, for instance, Arthur Balfour and John Hagee among these.

And, unfortunately, there are also those who are both anti-Zionist and antisemitic -- people who have falsely generalised from their opposition to Israel's practices and Zionist ideology, to asctibe this to something in immanent in the genetics of Jews, or in what they see as an essential Jewish character. Prominent among these currently are Gilad Atzmon and Israel Shamir.

Surely this indicates that there is no more linkage between antisemitism and anti-Zionism than there is between either of these and left-handedness or vegetarianism? A correlation is not a cause or explanation. RolandR (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry TA I decided not to answer that myself even though the question was addressed to me. As for the lead now, I'm kind of OK with it, but I can see someone legitimately asking for balance now so that it follows on with ".. however some anti-Zionists believe that unfounded allegations of anti-semitism are used to suppress anti-Zionist arguments" or whatever. That's what I meant when saying that as soon as you start pushing in some detail, someone else is going to come in and ask for some form of counter-point, and then someone else will want a counter to that point. Etc etc. Hence why just a vague reference to the issue might be better. We'll see I guess. --Nickhh (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Roland--you are omitting the class that is probably the most significant in terms of making this such a contentious issue--those who are fundamentally anti-semitic who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views, in the same manner that many American racists--guided fundamentally by a hostility towards African Americans (or other persons of color) have used affirmative action, states rights, anti-immigration etc as a justification (even while there may be non-racists who hold to those views). It is this latching on to anti-Zionism by bonafide (and largely non-Jewish) antisemites that has taken what was once a debate within the Jewish community (Zionism vs a myriad of other Jewish world views) into the current raging mess that exists today. And of course it cuts both ways--the rabid anti-semites of Poland's late 1930's government adopted a pro-Zionist position based solely on their despising of Poland's Jews (as did any number of Jew haters and fascists throughout Europe, and a phenomenon not without it's American analogues). And this did not go undebated within Poland's lively Jewish political factional squabbles.

So the issue is not for us to decide if there is a causal, correlative or explanatory relationship between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism, but how to present that relationship in a NPOV manner. Best of luck! :) Boodlesthecat 16:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are these fundamentally anti-semitic people who have latched on to anti-Zionism as a justification for their essentially anti-Jewish views? I can think of about one (a Israeli) in the whole of the Western World. This is not a rhetorical question, I think we need to be told. PR 16:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're asking about major pundits and analysts in the public arena, I agree with you that it's pretty hard to find ones that fit this description. On the other hand, antisemitic fringe figures like David Duke (and David Irving, if I'm not mistaken) certainly have latched on to anti-Zionism, and even pro-Palestinian talking points, though their resumés show no interest whatsoever in human rights or anti-colonialism more generally. And at the grassroots level, I think this is something pro-Palestinian activists encounter often enough – fringe cranks latching on to the cause for the wrong reasons. In Europe perhaps more than in America, but anyway.--G-Dett (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A list of names (other than Duke et al, per G-Dett) would be a bit opening a can of worms, BLP and otherwise. Suffice it to say the phenomenon appears to exist, how prevalent is of course subject to debate. And the phenomenon of anti-semitic scapegoating of Jews for political purposes under the guise of "anti-Zionism" has a long pedigree, and is well documented in the case of the anti-semitic purges in Poland, in 1968, not to mention hints of it in the 1956 version. Boodlesthecat 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the grassroots level as well as that of fringe commentators, but forgot to mention statesmen. I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to say that Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Ahmadinejad, and others have latched on to anti-Zionism for reasons that have little to do with their strong support for human rights and self-determination. With groups like Hezbollah, with their weird mix of democratic populism and retrograde authoritarianism, I suppose things get more complicated. A can of worms, as Boodles says.--G-Dett (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Break

I don't so much disagree with the new sentence, as I wonder if it actually improves what is otherwise an extremely generalized lead paragraph. In order to be clearer now, we're still jumping over the whole point that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism, in order to address much more subtle issues regarding why that's the case (also therefore necessarily offering a very incomplete picture; no matter what position you take, the only reason isn't that anti-Zionists sometimes use antisemitic imagery). To me the important point in the lead is solely that anti-Zionism is sometimes associated with antisemitism; that's a big and important point. However, I'm skeptical that any attempt to capture the entire discussion in a sentence will actually be an improvement. Mackan79 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Its not a perfect sentence, but judging from the comments here I would say that people are more or less OK with it and we can move on to the next problem. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I find the sentence cumbersome, agree with Mackan than it's a bit deep in the weeds for the lede as it's currently written, and creates an UNDUE problem. For the life of me I can't figure out what was wrong with something simple and summative like "connections between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have been both alleged and disputed."--G-Dett (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that sentence is completely devoid of content. For those of us who consider that there is a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism (even if it is occasional) it causes annoyance (and therefore sparks controversy). The current sentence provides a warning that anti-zionists need to be careful about the materials and arguments they use without offending the anti-Zionists who are sensitive about being called antisemites.

The problem was to find a sentence that was acceptable to both sides. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, proper consensus-building is not mere horse-trading between those who want the lead to include a succinct and neutral summary of a controversy and those who want the lead to "provide a warning" to one party in that controversy.

I agree with you that anti-Zionists would do well to be careful about their materials etc. But Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a manual of political etiquette.

The succinct and neutral summaries put forth by CJCurrie, Mackan, myself, and others have not been "devoid of content." They are less specific than what you've written, because it is in the nature of lede summaries to be less specific.

At any rate, what you've written is more specific only with regard to the Zionist complaints about anti-Zionists. It is still "devoid of content" regarding the anti-Zionist counterclaim, that complaints of antisemitism are often ill-founded and serve to stifle debate.

So you've got an NPOV problem. And yet if you flesh out the anti-Zionist position within the dispute, you'll have an UNDUE problem. This is one reason (not by any means the only) why Misplaced Pages leads stick to the sort of summary statements you wrongly describe as devoid of content.--G-Dett (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of complaining try and put the addition you want into text. This is not horse-trading, it is reaching a consensus (as you say). I tried to be succinct and to express the problem. I don't think trying to reduce antisemitism should be offensive to anti-zionists (unless they are anti-semites) or POV (except to anitsemites) but even if you do find it offensive it was a by-product of the sentence not its principal aim. Telaviv1 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not offended by any of this; I'm just doing my (small) bit to help build an encyclopedia. What's required for that is a succinct and neutral lead. If you want to write a manual of political etiquette, I'd say go ahead and warn would-be anti-Zionists of the rhetorical and ideological pitfalls of AZ discourse. Nor do I want to "add" anything to what you wrote, for reasons I explained clearly in my post, which I think you should read again.--G-Dett (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the current version fails to improve the simple statement, and on the problem of undue weight. This is the entire article on opposition to Zionism, and yet we now have the second of two paragraphs devoted completely to the claimed connection to antisemitism. In my view there are many issues that should be given much more space before doing this. By way of comparison, we don't discuss any of the reasons people would be "anti-Zionist," but simply note the categories in which they fall. Our explanation here now does provide such reasoning, although reasoning that is misleading for ignoring the criticism of the argument, but also for ignoring the probably more significant argument that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic by nature of what it is (a different idea from "systemic" antisemitism). I also agree with G-Dett that the previous sentence provides important content; some seem to be presuming that everyone already knows anti-Zionism can be connected with antisemitism, but I don't think it's an accurate or right presumption to make. In terms of alerting the reader, I can agree partially, but that's also the primary benefit of the shorter sentence, that it alerts the reader without trying to do more than it really can.

I will say the current version doesn't bother me that much, because it seems fair enough. In terms of accuracy and style, though, I think the previous version was better. Mackan79 (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Malcolm has asked me to further explain my objection to his changes, I believe they are inaccurate in suggesting a consensus that anti-Zionism is "frequently a disguised form of antisemitism; but it is, nevertheless, not always antisemitism." First, the cited sources do not show a consensus on this point. Second, in fact both of these points are disputed, first whether anti-Zionism is frequently a disguised form of antisemitism, and second whether anti-Zionism is nevertheless sometimes not antisemitism. Third, saying that one is a "form" of the other, or that it "is" the other, seems to me a rather oversimplified and unclear way of discussing the issue, which removes rather than adds meaning to the last version. These are why I replaced the previous version, even though I do not totally agree with it for the reasons immediately above. Mackan79 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not strictly necessary to support statements in the introduction with sources, because the body of the article should expand upon, and support, everything in the introduction. I have to admit that may not yet the case for that particular change, so I will leave you preferred version of that sentence as is....for now. But the version you reverted to is not well written, and needs be made more intelligible. Please do something to improve it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here. I'm not sure I can improve it, since as I said I'm not fond of either approach. To me the shorter sentence was very much better, for not attempting to get into these issues, but simply noting that they're there (incidentally I believe this was the assessment of most people who have commented). My view of all of these other approaches so far also remains that they're overly familiar with and overly drawn in to this issue, jumping into the controversy and somewhat beating up on the reader. If you'd like to keep trying, though, I guess the question is more whether you can prove me wrong by coming up with a summary that works. Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

To briefly explain my comment: one approach to an article is to jump on the most difficult or controversial issues, and another is to take things one step at a time. Saying that anti-Zionism includes "violent rejection of Israel's right to exist in any form," as we do, clearly denotes that it includes extremist positions. Having done that, the additional attempts to explain the anti-Zionism/antisemitism issue in the lead strike me as failing to help the article, so I removed them. Mackan79 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, the proper way to deal with sourced material which you consider unbalanced is to add more material that balances it. The improper way to deal with perceived imbalance in content is to delete sourced material. Please do not, again, resort to sledge hammer deletions, followed with the enforcement of your handiwork by tag team reverts. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Malcolm. I didn't remove the statement because it was imbalanced; I simply returned it to its prior state where it acknowledged the debate on this issue. I then removed it for the reason immediately above, that our attempts to summarize this issue in my opinion detract from the article. You've now replaced what I considered the "balanced" version that acknowledges the debate, though I still don't believe it helps the article. I'm not sure this involved anything hammer-like, but I'm pretty sure nobody backed me up, let alone that I "tagged" them... in fact the person I reverted, if anyone, was someone I've generally agreed with. I admit I didn't think my last edit would stick, though, but since I think it's the correct one I figured I may as well try. Mackan79 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, if you do not think that the sourced material was imbalanced, just what other rational reason was there for your reverts? My objection to your reverts is based on logical guidelines : "If the edit you are considering reverting can instead be improved (for example, to avoid weasel words, or to re-phrase in a more neutral way), then try to reword, rather than reverting." That is a better approach. Otherwise, I might get the wrong impression that your actions were really an attempt at WP:OWN....God forbid! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You can see about four posts above, at 10:17, where I explained why I removed the material. The problem is that a.) it attempts to summarize too large an issue in a couple of sentences, and b.) massively expanding the lead to discuss this issue would not improve what we have. The many obvious problems with the versions that have been offered are in my view a symptom of these problems, not just small mistakes that can be fixed. You can disagree if you like; unless there's another proposal or others weigh in, the point seems to be moot. Mackan79 (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that improvement to the article is much more likely to come from balancing material for NPOV, than by deletions of sourced material. That is not exactly a revolutionary editing concept on WP, nor is it difficult to understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

When I asked for actual examples of the antisemitic preaching anti-Zionism (above) the only western example I heard of is (one branch?) of the US white nationalists (and it's not clear they're opposed to Israel, only to their tax-money funding it). The archypal antisemitic, the Holocaust Deniers (at least, judging by their WP articles) don't appear to concern themselves with Israel. Under these circumstances, and given the AGF-damaging nature of alleging the connection, the obvious solution is to take it out completely. PR 17:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, are you denying that the problem exists? If so you are in disagreement with U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Here is their report . Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about PR; but, from what I have just read of it, I certainly do disagree with this tendentious report. It is base on a false equation of antisemitism with what they call "anti-Israelism". Of course, if you start from the premise that any criticism of Israeli policy not approved by the Zionist Organization of America -- whose director was one of the panellists that produced the report -- is ipso facto antisemitic, then you will certainly find the evidence you are looking for. I'm not impressed by the report, and will not allow it to intimidate me. RolandR (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, the source is a WP:reliable source, which your personal opinion is not. You could also, if it interests you, also check out this source www.thecst.org.uk/docs Incidents_Report_07.pdf (cant get it to form a hyperlink). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm; I know the CST and their report, and I disagree with that one too. I also know what is considered a reliable source, and I recognise that we are concerned here with verifiability rather than truth. As it happens, I am also aware of several reliable sources which challenge or contradict the CST report, the EU Parliament report, and the British Parliamentary report. So, if it becomes necessary or appropriate, I will introduce additional sources to provide an alternative view.

If you want to include a hyperlink, you need to include the entire url, including http, as in Incidents_Report_07.pdf, or A Commentary on the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. RolandR (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RolandR, you wrote: "...if it becomes necessary or appropriate, I will introduce additional sources to provide an alternative view." I agree with that approach, which is much to be preferred over deleting sourced material. (Thanks for explaining my problem with the hyperlink. In a more perfect world someone with as little computer understanding as I have would not be allowed to edit WP.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs to make clear two things (1) many Zionists think that any opposition to Zionism is inherently and inescapably anti-Semitic; (2) others (whatever their individual opinions on Zionism may be) deny claim (1) -- they certainly agree that some, or even many, cases of anti-Zionism are justified by anti-Semitism, but at the same time argue that some are not or need not be. Let me give two examples: (1) Zionism is a form of nationalism, and there is a school of thought that views all forms of nationalism as inherently racist and immoral. It is logical for adherents of this view to view both Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism as equally unpleasant, both being forms of nationalism, and thus reject them both. But, even though this view is anti-Zionist, I fail to see how it is anti-Semitic -- its very basis in rejecting racism/nationalism is to oppose anti-Semitism. (2) One can imagine that some anti-Semites might strongly favour Zionism. To those who hate Jews, the idea of sending them all away to live in a far away land must seem attractive. Obviously, this is not a Zionist position, since Zionism is by definition a Jewish movement -- so by definition an anti-Semite cannot be a Zionist. That said, even though an anti-Semite cannot be a Zionist, it seems clearly possible that they might be a pro-Zionist. Thus, based on the above reasoning, I think the current lead, to wit, "The relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism is disputed. Some commentators argue that all or most contemporary anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Others disagree with this interpretation.", while imperfect, is probably the best way of capturing the complexity of this debate in a short sentence. --SJK (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Anti-Zionism and antisemitism

This section does need to be edited down to improve it; but CJCurrie's edit was too heavy handed, so I restored the previous version. I probably will not have time to do any work on it today (43rd anniversary). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope someone puts some more work into improving the section. Mackan79 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly belated esponse to Malcolm: I don't believe that my edits were heavy-handed, and I welcome discussion on any particular objections you may choose to raise. I've chosen to constructively engage with the recent changes you've made to this article (as regards the merger of two sections), and would request that you do the same for me. CJCurrie (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, if there is something you do not understand about the changes I made, just ask. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, could you please explain why you disagree with the changes I've made?

Regarding the "logical position" of the disputed section, I might note that (i) our article already references the discussions involving anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism in the introduction (and therefore alerts the reader to this important point very early on), and (ii) if we're to keep a generally chronological approach to the article, it should be positioned somewhat further down. I would be interested in hearing your counter-argument, of course. CJCurrie (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, a "chronological approach to the article" is fine with me, but only after some explanation of the issues that are involved in the subject of anti-Zionism. That is the purpose of the Anti-Zionism and antisemitism section, and why it is located where it is. Without that discussion of the issues, the history is rather meaningless. If you concern is that the present form of that explanation is not sufficiently balanced, please explain and we should be able to resolve the issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an explanation of why we even mention antisemitism. Historical examples suggest that (in the West, anyway), the linkage is almost non-existent - unlike the substantial linkage between Zionism and antisemitism (Churchill, Mark Twain, many Christian Zionists etc etc). PR 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in a previous edit (above) that if there is a WP:reliable source for your opinion, you should put it in the article. Beyond that, I have no interest in discussing your objections to material in the article that is supported by reliable sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Soapboxing removed.

No, what I'm seeking is evidence from you linking Zionism to antisemitsm, I'm sure you can provide something at least as strong as the above this other linkage you tell us should be in the article. Otherwise, your RS is bound to look like a conspiracy theory. PR 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if you have WP:reliable sources saying there is no link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, there is no reason to withhold that from the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, please review references 2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 in this article, which all discuss the link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and please stop soapboxing. Jayjg 02:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's time you explained policy to us - because contributors will be astonished you've removed the names of two very famous antisemites. Like my examples earlier, they're not anti-Zionists but Zionists.

Or is it policy that no Zionist, no matter what they're guilty of (up to and including convictions for holocaust denial) can be named and shamed and you don't need any policy to block such editors? PR 08:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NOR, and please stop soapboxing. Is there a specific change to the article you wish to propose? Jayjg 13:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are specific changes I wish to make to this article - I'd like it to be an NPOV discussion of the subject. That's impossible as long as the article is totally dominated by a factor that is provably fairly trivial. You cannot possibly justify 7 of the first 8 references to buttress this smear on one party to a highly significant debate - particularly not with their by-lines filling 1500 words in the reference list! The article on Zionism doesn't even mention the far larger number of Zionists who were (are?) antisemitic - making this imbalance even more obvious. How can you justify your position as an administrator, tasked to protect articles, while you allow and defend and impose this happening? PR 11:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Malcolm's preferred edit

Malcolm's preferred edit begins with this paragraph:

In recent years there has been a controversy concerning the use of the term Anti-Zionism as a cover for a new manifestation of antisemitism, which has been named the New Antisemitism. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism; and whether it is an example of, cover for, or just happens to overlap with antisemitism, is debated. This concept, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, states that much of the criticism of Zionism by individuals and groups is in fact the kind of demonization of Jews that is typical of antisemitism. These verbal attacks, combined with the increase in actual physical attacks on Jews in Europe, are considered unpromising indicators of a real resurgence of antisemitism, even if disguised by other terms.

The problems with this paragraph are as follows:

• "New antisemitism" is a disputed concept. It is not appropriate for us to identify it as "a new manifestation of antisemitism", as doing so effectively favours one side in this dispute.
• The sentence which begins with the words "The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism" adds nothing of value to the article. The complex and disputed relationship between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is already covered in the introduction, and Malcolm's preferred wording revives Jayjg's contentious definition (which was met with considerable opposition from other editors).
• It is not entirely accurate to say that the concept of "new antisemitism" equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. A few authors make this claim, but most who have written about the concept of "new antisemitism" are somewhat more equivocal.
• "much of the criticism of Zionism by individuals and groups" can be better written as "much criticism of Zionism".
• While the basic thrust of the final sentence may be accurate, the sentence itself is (i) polemical, (ii) skewed, (iii) awkwardly written, and (iv) not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Comments welcome. CJCurrie (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, you are correct to say that the subject of New Antisemitism is disputed. That dispute is discussed in the New Antisemitism article. The problem is that, by removing the link to that article, you are taking the side of those who deny such a link exists, rather than allow readers to decide after reading the article. You appear to be doing all you can to hide the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Certainly it is true that the connection is not universally agreed upon, but it is supported by reliable sources and needs to be in the article. In other words, you seem to be trying to exclude from the article WP: reliable sourced content that you personally oppose -- which is a violation WP:NPOV. And, no matter how many users you get to support you, it will still violated WP:NPOV. But, if you think it will do any good, I would agree with initiating an RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for you to deal with the evidence that antisemitism is linked to Zionism, not to anti-Zionism. I'm aware you have sources that make this link, and hence needs mention - but it's currently overwhelming the article and making a mockery of NPOV. PR 16:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if there is reliably sourced material you think would be helpful for NPOV, you should add that to the article. But, NB: I am here to edit the anti-Zionism article with the goal of an article that is informative on the subject based on WP:reliable sources. I have no interest at all in a debate about what you what you happen to consider the truth. Your opinions do not interest me because your opinions are not relevant to writing the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy with the lead suggesting either all anti-zionism is anti-semitic or none. There is a middle position that some or much of anti-zionism is antisemitic. This issue is very important and deserves careful treatment. I agree that Malcolm's edit is problematic but unless serious consideration is given to the relationship between anti-semitism and anti-zionism we shall continue to argue over it. I suggest removing the section you object to but raising the anti-semitism section to the top of the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Telaviv1, if you see something wrong with my edit, you are welcome to fix it. Otherwise, you will be living with CJCurrie's version of the article that hides all discussion of context at the bottom of a long article, that few people will ever read to the bottom. What CJCurrie is arguing for is an article that hides all the context needed to give meaning to the article. (It is as though the article about the American Revolution did not mention the issues that caused the Revolution until the last section of the article, which would be absurd.) I have no interest in preserving my edit, but I do think it important to the quality of the article not to allow CJCurrie to hide the issues, while using complaints about the details of my edits as an excuse. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My choice, if it is one or the other, is CJ’s, rather than M’s for many of the same reasons. I also must agree with TA1’s middle-ground preference; it is not all or nothing, either way. Both sides love their sweeping generalizations; NPOV should include both, explained.

For me, Freidman’s quote hits the nail on the head, simply and succinctly, with many of the other refs expounding on either side of his phrasing. That, along with the EUMC blurb should be moved to the top. They properly acknowledge the situation neutrally and set the tone.

To discuss the issue fairly, it should be noted that anti-Semitism in Europe was the driving force (with nationalism) behind the Zionist movement initially, as well as specifically, the impetus behind the timing and support of Israel’s founding. Anti-Semitism is a known, feared and sensitive subject, with a history to prove it. On the other side however, ample RSs (e.g. M&W) note the subject’s use as a rhetorical club wielded against opponents; this currently is not included in this section and should be, for balance.

I have some objections to specific examples, which are worded currently to imply support for one side, for example:

Some scholars believe that while Anti-Zionism may not be inherently antisemitic, it very often either becomes antisemitism or is used to hide antisemitism. Robert S. Wistrich argues that although several types of anti-Zionism are not intrinsically antisemitic, much of contemporary radical anti-Zionism has become a form of antisemitism.

This is better.

Some scholars believe that Anti-Zionism may not be inherently antisemitic, but can either become antisemitism or be used to hide antisemitism. Robert S. Wistrich argues that some contemporary radical anti-Zionism, which compares Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich, has become a form of antisemitism.

I believe that is more neutral, explains a specific, valid example and better supports the ref. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• To Malcolm: I haven't removed the link to "new antisemitism". It's still there, just in a different (and less sensationalistic) spot. Since the entire argument of your previous post (from 14:24 yesterday) appears to be based on this factual error, I don't believe that I'm out of line in restoring my preferred version.
• To TelAviv and CasualObserver: I would support rewording the introductory remarks about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism to include a more nuanced middle position.
• Regarding the position of the disputed section: I've moved the "antisemitism" section near the bottom of the article because it's more appropriate there in terms of the article's general chronological flow. I'm willing to compromise on this point if everyone else believes it should be moved.
• To CasualObserver: I would not object to the choice of wording you've recommended, and I would welcome similar adjustments. CJCurrie (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie, I have explained a number of times why it is necessary to discuss the issues involved with Anti-Zionism at the beginning of the article, rather than at the end. Please make edits based on that order. To explaine once again: without presenting the discussion of the issues at the beginning, readers will have no way to understand the information in any of the other sections of the article. Discussion of the controversy over anti-Zionism needs to be first so readers will have a bases to understand information in all the other sections of the article. Please do not, again, remove that necessary discussion that I placed at the beginning. However, while leaving it where it is; I do invite other editors to make edits that will improve that first section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see no reason to put this "controversy" first - no other articles are written in this fashion. PR 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As an example, the American Civil War article. It starts out by discussing the causes, because what occurred makes no sense without readers first understanding the causes of what occurred. Likewise in the Anti-Zionism article, there is no point in mentioning internal Jewish objections to Zionism, or Palestinian rioting against Jewish settlers, without explaining to readers the issues that caused the events. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. The article on the American Civil War concerns a very real controversy, which still reverberates 140 years later. But there is no mention of "controversy" or "dispute" or anything similar in the lead. Nor does the lead seek to smear the proponents of one side of the debate as this one does - despite the fact that one side was "beaten" and has never seriously threatened to come back. (This in addition to the most astounding UNDUE in this article, completely swamping the real meat of what "anti-Zionism" is about).

Observers of this discussion will not only be astounded at the feebleness of this example of an equivalent article - they'll note this comes on top of the complete failure to provide examples of antisemitic anti-Zionists in an earlier TalkPage section. May I add to my table of examples, or is there something wrong with the views of those keen Zionists, Churchill and Mark Twain? PR 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It is standard in writing articles (and logical) to explain the issues involved in a conflict before describing the particulars of the conflict. I do not think that is difficult to understand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support a larger explanation of the details of anti-Zionism if we're able, before going into the various types, even though I think the other approach is fine as well. However, I don't accept your view that if someone adds any part of such a section, others are then obligated to leave it and write the appropriate surrounding section in full. If you are intent to have a particular format of the article, explaining as you said the "issues involved in conflict," then I suggest coming up with something that does this more effectively, to show that it can work. Mackan79 (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think CJCurrie's points above are all well explained. Adding two, I see that with the last edit, the second paragraph of the "history" starts: "In recent years there has been a controversy concerning the use of the term Anti-Zionism as a cover for a new manifestation of antisemitism, which has been named the New Antisemitism." I see it then continues with discussion of this controversy, approximately twice the size of the previous paragraph on history. First, this is not a good chronology, to jump in the second paragraph to the issue of New antisemitism as if that is the currently the entire relevance of "anti-Zionism." Second, the sentence is indeed polemical and poorly written, in suggesting that the primary controversy is about the "use" of the term "as a cover," as opposed to over what extent a.) anti-Zionist views are an expression of antisemitism, and whether b.) claims to this effect go too far and stifle fair discussion of the conflict. This is not unlike an article saying that there is "controversy regarding the use of overt racism by the Republican party," as if the use is fully conceded, and the controversy is only about whether they should maintain this course. A look at the other version suggests that is has been much more carefully done. Mackan79 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, why is it that you have no hesitation to delete several paragraphs that are well sourced; but, instead of adding material where you say balance is lacking, you just complain? Where did I ever write that my edits can not be altered with good faith edits to create NPOV? The advantage of having a number of editors with different views on the subject of the article is that gives a possibility of a balance that editors who are in total agreement could not create -- assuming there is good faith. So if you want to edit for balance, please do. But, if you plane on another tag team effort to force your POV, it will not go well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, please consider reading my comments more carefully. 1.) You did not respond to any of the points that I raised. 2.) I did not say the material lacked "balance" or anything like it. 3.) Your comments about "tag teaming" are bizarre when I did not even edit the article, but raised two points on the talk page. If you'll try to respond more specifically, I promise to do the same. (Also, please see that I left a second comment, as it's unclear whether you read it.)Mackan79 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

These reverts were, as far as I know, the only edits you ever made to this article . (I can list the other editors in your team revert effort also, if you do not recall.) There, too, you could have edited the disputed material, instead of just reverting.

As for replying to your comments, I did reply, and I will say it again for you: If you see problems with the edits that we are currently discussing, make improvements, ie so fix it. Stop complaining and do something positive for the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this article for over two years, Malcolm, whereas your first edit to the page appears to have been arriving to revert me on October 26. Should I not raise that you were then blocked for violating 3RR? It's just a little odd to me that you keep raising the issue of reverting.

In any case, I did not intend to complain, but was explaining why I find CJCurrie's version to be much more responsibly done than yours. I agree with his reasons, but also offered two more. I also listed some problems with your version if you want to work around them. Ordering me to improve your version, when I have explained why the other is better, doesn't seem to me a useful way to go about it. To be clear, I think CJCurrie's version is much better, for the reasons given above; however I'm holding off editing for now so you can respond. Of course you can also "fix" his version where you think it is wrong. Mackan79 (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Mackan79, you wrote: "Ordering me to improve your version, when I have explained..."

I do not recall "ordering" you to do anything. Just what are you referring to? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't your intention; I read some of your last two posts here as orders to improve your version, but I'm glad otherwise. Regardless, my point is that to me, CJCurrie's version is fine. I'm posting here to try to clarify any problems with it so we can work around them. Without that it's unclear to me what to improve, at least on this issue. Mackan79 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What I said was that, if you were not happy with my edit, show me what you would prefer by re-writing it. Sorry if you think that is an order. My understanding is that is how WP is suppose to work. Shows how little I understand. At this point, I would be happy to leave that section as it is for a while and go on to other problems in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To CJCurrie, I'm not seeing how the section as written can go at the outset of the article. Certainly there are multiple ways this could be done -- one I've mentioned is to expand the overview so that it covers this and more before going into the various types of anti-Zionism -- but the current format is clearly to describe anti-Zionism by going through the various types. There's also logic to that approach, since the types are so different. If that's the approach, however, then this kind of debates section really should go after. How can a section on anti-Zionism and antisemitism be considered meaningful to the reader who has not yet even learned about the different types? The section then has the major failings of a "controversy" section, by assembling all of this together in one section, when everything else is in one narrative. If sections are going to be moved around, I would think a basic structure should still be followed. Mackan79 (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree. As I said in my edit, I only moved the section in a bid for a compromise (more specifically, in the hope that Malcolm might cease reverting to a version that no-one else has endorsed). I made this decision against my better judgement and, on reflection, I agree that following through with it would be a mistake. Moving the section closer to the top of the article serves no purpose other than to sensationalize the issue, and disrupts the current structure of the piece. CJCurrie (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Folkspartei

I have not seen anything to support that Folkspartei was anti-Zionist, as is claimed in the article. The organization does seem to have been non-Zionist, but anti-Zionist and non-Zionist are obviously not the same thing. The article about Simon Dubnow (the organization's leader) says only that "Dubnow was ambivalent toward Zionism, and completely rejected assimilation." Unless it is shown that Folkspartei really was anti-Zionist, I will remove that from the article in a few days. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, these guys offered an alternative approach rather then an opposition. Perhaps they should be moved to the Zionism article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Liberal opposition

"Liberal opposition" seems too general a term, and in fact it is not made clear if it was liberal anti-Zionism, or just liberal disinterest in Zionism. There were, certainly, some liberal intellectuals who disliked the Zionist Movement, but nothing that I know of what was active opposition and denunciations, such as come from the Satmar Chassidim (The Satmars, interestingly, all voted for John McCain because they fear Obama will support a land for peace deal, and they consider it forbidden to return "Jewish" land to non-Jews....clearly showing they have a conflicted approach to anti-Zionism.) In a few days I will remove the material under "Liberal opposition", unless something is done to justify its existence in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Imbalance in handling quotations in antisemitism section

The way that the section is currently presented needs addressing. Quotes by those who support the thesis that AZ is AS appear in the main text, those of critics are relegated to footnotes. Given that many readers might not follow the footnotes, there needs to be greater equity in handling the quotes in order to maintin NPOV.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the quote from Briain Klug which hopefully provides a better balance. I will see what else I can find.

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouuld still appreciate the Said quote or one form the European anti-Zionist Jewish peace group elevated. BTW the stuff on the Webster's dictionary business shoulod probably be a subsection of this section, if it merits an inclusion at all.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Webster's Third New International Dictionary controversy section two or three times, but it got restored in reverts focused on other issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh! That sort of indiscriminate rollback is poor practice and so annoying. I'll go and remove it now as two people on opposite sides of the fence seem to agree it isn't important enough to merit inclusion.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The dismemberment of Freidman's quote, one of the most neutral and succinct previously included, to substantiate only one side of the debate is disgusting. Good work, real nice. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedman neutral? You must be kidding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Freidman, by his notability, is a reliable source. The quote acknowledges both sides of the debate (i.e. neutral). What he says belongs in Misplaced Pages, not just the half with which you agree. WP:NPOV suggests that these quotes be included in their entirety, not be gutted to indicate some non-existent support for one side, as has been done. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he is a WP:reliable source, otherwise I would have deleted the quote from him. However, I will not agree with your statement (above) that he is a neutral source.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I frankly don't think that matters; I believe following wiki-policy on the use of WP:RSs does matter. Please review this policy. I have also edited my comment immediately above to better state my 'neutral' point. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friedman is a fine source. CasualObserver, please do not jump to conclusions about the intention behind my edits as that is offensive. Your comments could be made in a less antagonistic way. I suggest you read the article. If you do, you will find that the original quote was misleading whereas the shorter version better reflects the content of the article and the intention of the author.

Incidentally after re-reading the article I wonder if we don't need to make a distinction between criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism.

Telaviv1 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Telaviv1, there seems to be some sort of peculiar communication problem here.

I wrote, above, that Freidman is a WP: reliable source. To me that means that the source is good for the article. However, reliable sources are not the same as neutral sources. Sources are never neutral, but by balancing sources we get (hopefully) a neutral article. My whole point to CasualObserver is that no source, including Freidman, is neutral. However, if you, and CasualObserver, want to call Freidman neutral, I will not spend more time explaining the difference between reliable and and neutral. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Point Taken. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

TA1, you are probably right that the comment could have been made in a less antagonistic way, but the considerable section edits in the last few days moved the section thrust too far away from NPOV. Edits, previously included only in the notes, needlessly included considerable bile, while completely dropping Freidman’s “vile.”

The symmetric construction of Freidman’s article, discussing both sides of the topic, with the subject quote (a two-sentence paragraph counter-pointed in the middle), strongly indicates his acknowledgment of both sides of the debate. So, I totally disagree with your assertion that using only half better reflects his intent. You should read the whole article. I feel strongly about this, and will WP:3O it shortly, if we can not agree on this.

I further believe that it (and the EUMC quote) should be moved to near the top of the section specifically because he includes both sides. To me, that is neutral, others may differ. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made some significant changes to this section. I now believe it to be balanced, though I recognize that others may disagree. Discussion is welcome; blanket reverting is discouraged. CJCurrie (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresented the content of the Wistrich article and I corrected it. I think removal of the Friedman quote was ok as it is not really about anti-Zionism per-se and it serves a better purpose at the top of the article. In my experience those who complain most loudly about POV pushing are those with a well established POV. Its better to discuss the issues even if we disagree on fundamentals. European Jews fur a Just Peace or whatever they are called is not a significant organization, they just have a fancy name. If anything Engage http://www.engageonline.org.uk/about/ is more serious. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Telaviv1 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

EJJP is a significant enough organisation to merit an article in Misplaced Pages. Despite Telaviv1's disparaging comment in an edit summary, it has far more than five members. In fact, on its website, it lists eleven affiliated groups in ten European countries. Many of these group themselves have entries in Misplaced Pages, either in English or the language of their home countries. They have a combined membership of several hundred if not more, and attract widespread support for their various initiatives. I am not claiming it is "representative of Jewish public opinion" , but rather that it represents a significant tendency within Jewish opinion. No justification has been offered for removing the comments of EJJP, which are unarguably notable. This removal feels like censorship. I am restoring the comments; if you think they have no place in this article, please present a cogent case here, don't just revert. RolandR (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my disparaging remarks. EJJP may represent a trend, though it is impossible to tell from the website how many members they have. A lot of organizations, but how many jews?. There is an old joke about two jews having three synagogues and I recall that the last two Jews in Kabul didn't talk (one has since died).

Anyway I suggest giving them a mention further down, in the anti-Zionist Jews section (are they anti-Zionist? they don't say so). I feel that the letter they wrote is not important enough in itself to be placed in the article unless they have some kind of official status.

EJJP and its constituent groups are not anti-Zionist, and would not accept such a description. Individual members may themselves be anti-Zionist. Their voew is important precisely because they are not anti-Zionist. RolandR (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally there is a House of Commons report similar to the EU report. Perhaps that should be mentioned too. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are using non-zionism as a criteria then the EU is a far more august non-zionist organization. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EJJP is a Jewish organisaiton and its comments on the issue of Israel and Zionism being essential to the concption fo Jewish peoplehood are relevant for that reason. The EU is not a Jewish organisation (though no doubt some conspiracist or other has claimed it is).--Peter cohen (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of that when I changed the section title but it seems worthy enough to keep. I have since explored the EJJP website and can find no evidence that such a letter was addressed to the EUMJP: what I found was a press release. I therefore suggest moving their statement to a separate line and removing the misleading and possibly untruthful sentence.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on Jonathan, that's a silly comment! It's clear, since this is on their own website, that this is indeed the view of EJJP. Why on earth should they lie about who it was sent to? As it happens, it is on the site not just as a press release, but also in .doc form, as a copy of the letter. A copy of the letter was sent to Engage, who discuss it critically.What more evidence do you require? RolandR (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

European Jews for a Just Peace

I have nominated European Jews for a Just Peace for deletion. Since that supposed organization is used as a source in this article, interested users might want to comment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Webster's section

Both Malcolm and I have tried removing this. It was mosy recently restored by an anon account who considered it important. I still think it isn't important enough to the topic of anti-Zionism to justify our coverage here. However, if there is no consensus, could we at least shove it in wiht the other stuff on AZ and antidemitism?--Peter cohen (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather it was deleted. Its an irrelevant sidetrack. Telaviv1 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli occupation of the west-bank

I suggest creating a sub-section discussing whether opposition to this is anti-Zionism. I believe that some think it is and some don't.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as a peculiar position to take. But if you can find WP:RSs as opposed to fringe ones that argue that opposing the occupation of the territories is in itself anti-Zionist, then you'lll be within policy to go ahead.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionists of course oppose the occupation of the West Bank; but so do many people who would describe themselves as Zionists. To look no further than mainstream Israeli politics, Meretz is a Zionist party which opposes the occupation. Uri Avnery, who certainly opposes the occupation, has won a libel action against a critic who "accused" him of anti-Zionism. RolandR (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK if everyone agrees then perhaps a line to that effect would be a good idea. Telaviv1 (talk)

Support for living dangerously

I could easily support this bold edit and agree that it would take work. Not the least of which is some apparent confusion between refs used in the lede and in the ‘Contemporary Jewish discussions’ section, to wit:

The relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism is disputed. Some commentators argue that all or most contemporary anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Others disagree with this interpretation.

And

In recent years, several commentators have argued that contemporary manifestations of anti-Zionism are often used as a cover for antisemitism, and that a "new antisemitism" rooted in anti-Zionism has emerged.

Are these refs saying two things? If so, it is considerably less dangerous.

A second bit of work, IMO, would be needed to remove ‘Jewish’ from ‘Contemporary discussions’ and include some Western non-Jewish povs. The article seems unduly Judeo-centric for NPOV. This includes much in the ‘Jewish opposition to Zionism’ section, which as currently stated, has no relevance to anti-Zionism, but much to do with Zionism. The same general thought seems valid for other sections. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because I foresaw problems: some forms of anti-zionism are widely regarded as antisemitic (I agree with this), so one would have to distinguish between different types of anti-Zionism to make it effective and it would probably be too controversial. Also I am busy now and don't have the time to devote to the subject. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell us which forms of anti-Zionism are "widely regarded as antisemitic"? There is at least one form of Zionism that is antisemitic, along with some/many examples of practitioners which I've listed here. But, at least in developed nations, I can think of almost nothing that would justify your claim. PR 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually quite like TA's edit. Whilst I was surfing for information on my friends and yours the JIDF, I did come across some distintly unpleasant anti-Semitic material, for example in reader comments on an Aljazeera page that copied a Haaretz (I think) article on Israeli fascism. Just as I don't think that the fight against anti-Semitism should not involve keeping quiet about some of the unpleasant groups that use this fight as a banner to attract recruits to the less savoury aspects of their movement, I also don't think that words should be minced about their being a nasty anti-Semitic whiff among a lot of the groups that present as anti-Zionist. I've previously amended one of TA's edits thus . We need to identify WP:RSs which distinguish between branches of AZ infested by AS and those not so infested and, in so doing, try and finds ones that aren't using the issue to advance their own views on Israel/Palestine Our own personal views and our own personal analyses are not material we can insert.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too, and we are here. You make an interesting point.

The ‘infested’ certainly describes a common pov concerning the congruence that may occur between aZ and aS. My choice is just congruence, as in: We need to identify which RSs recognize congruence between AZ and AS (several existing non-partisan ones do, e.g.EUMC), and which don’t. These are two distinctly different words and concepts with their own distinct histories; but one birthed the other, again, congruence. The history of a mother is inherited in a child. How should a child wave that now-national flag?

We also need to identify those areas/sources not so congruent, and try to find ones that aren't using one issue to advance the other, and which are. Israel/Palestine is one of those, not yet discussed; EJJP is a prime example and a litmus test of sorts. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I woke up in the middle of the night with a definition in my head... Should I seek treatment? I think if we find a formula that both Zionists and anti-Zionists can live with we will have made a small contribution to world peace.

At some point I am going to clean up the references in the lead because I think they make it hard to edit.

Telaviv1 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

In my view what you say in your edit amounts to saying that, since cobalt blue is a particular type of blue, it is not actually blue. I understand that you are trying to accommodate the protests of some antisemitic schmucks, and that is nice of you, but is it really worth the effort? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Now is not the best for me, but I should awake fresh after some time to think. You made one edit, I don't particularly like because it writes my pov out of the article; namely pre-and post-'67 defining line, but I will think on it. I will dangerously continue support for you, feeling that there is plenty of common ground among editors willing to accept, if not agree with NPOV. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please let us know who these "antisemitic schmucks" are, Malcolm? I have only seen protests by bona-fide good faith editors. RolandR (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the author of this edit fits Malcolm's description but I don't think that is who he had in mind.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly unacceptably offensive. But in what way is it antisemitic? RolandR (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The selection of the Nazi insult when arguing mainly with Jews. Elsewhere I've commented on the use of "pig" as an insult when arguing with Moslem Arabs.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, it's offensive, but I don't see how it is necessarily antisemitic. The epithet "Nazi" is commonly used in Israeli political argument; mainly by the right against the left. Would you argue that the vandal(s) regularly describing me as a Nazi are also antisemitic?RolandR (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

@Peter - please tell us more about this. I'm seeing a lot of Israelis called Nazis in Israel - and it seems to be home to many of them. Eight were convicted last week - from a smallish age-cohort in a modest sized town, Petah Tikva. The secrecy (delays?) surrounding their arrest gives little confidence that Israel is actually fighting the menace - in fact these 32 articles claim that serious antisemitic violence has been simply swept under the carpet for years now. PR 18:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you tell him about it, make sure it is someplace other than this article's talk page. This is not an e-forum discussion group. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(Pace Malcolm) The star of David, in a variety of colours, has been a symbol of Judaism and of the Jewish people since medieval times. Israel has adopted the symbol, but before Israel existed Jews over the centuries were forced to wear the symbol of the hexagram by a number of regimes, most notoriously the Nazis. People are still alive who lived under the threat of the Nazis and will rightly see graffiti such as I described as equating Jews in general with Nazis. There are plenty of anti-Zionists who are also antisemitic. There are also plenty of people who are critical of both antisemites and of Zionists. Misplaced Pages has editors, who for political reasons want either to exaggerate or minimise this relationship between AZ or AS and the NPOV polcy says that we should find a statement that refelects reliable sources that aren't pushing their own agendas.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Check the link I gave you above, where you'll see the defaced inside of an Israeli synagogue. This descration wasn't carried out by antisemitic natives (who are extremely anti-Zionist, but have never done such a thing that I know of), it was carried out by members of a gang who've taken up Israeli citizenship under the "Right of Return". This on top of all the other examples where there is no link between the anti-Zionist and the antisemitic. Where are these "plenty of anti-Zionists who are also antisemitic"? PR 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Russian Israelis who have recently been jailed for such acts. But the graffiti I described was in South London. The graffiti is intended to equate Jews/Israel/Zionism with Naziism and therefore is not the product of neo-Nazi anti-Semites. British law defines the discriminatory elements of various crimes as being defined by how the victim perceives it, and most Jews will perceive this as anti-Semitic. And thayt graffiti is an example of the plenty of people I was mentioning. Misplaced Pages policy is not that this article should reflect your, my or Malcolm's analysis, it is that it reflects mainstream analyses published in reliable sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NPA notice number one, Malcolm, and everyone keeps track, one way or another. (Edit conflict, or I'd be ahead of Roland) CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One might say that these are two separate concepts with plenty of overlap.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

deleting reliably sourced and relevant material

Just to let you know Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a mystery why this content dispute was taken to ANI. The clip in question is not reliably sourced and could well be false. While Joschka Fischer (once hard-line left "The last rock'n'roller of German politics"), now once a minister because his Green party holds held the balance of power) has swung from being sharply critical of Israel to being very supportive of it, there is no indication anywhere (other than the non-RS Wiesenthal Centre) that Fischer believes "anti-Zionism inevitably leads to antisemitism." or that he ever said it. Part of the clip (if we trust the translation) we've seen from him seemingly denies this attitude: "To be clear: one's attitude towards the U.S. and towards Israel, as far as I am concerned, is always the acid test. You can use it to detect attitudes and emotions in domestic German politics that are not anti-Semitic so much as they are anti-Western and nationalist, cloaked in the garb of both the left and the right." Earlier he says: "I have personal experience of how anti-Zionism defaulted to anti-Semitism" but nothing to indicate he thinks that others have taken this path.

In addition Fischer is not a "former terrorist" - and this had been agreed earlier. I request that other editors cease interfering with the proper content of TalkPages. PR 18:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The Washington Post, Denis MacShane, The New Anti-Semitism
2. Cite error: The named reference Bauer2005 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference Laqueur2006p55 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference Wist2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference EUMC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference NLR1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Cite error: The named reference Zipp60 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
8. Cite error: The named reference Feiler was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles