Revision as of 19:23, 27 August 2004 editMirv (talk | contribs)16,966 edits =="View of the Catholic Church"==← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:34, 19 December 2024 edit undoM.Bitton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,146 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024: Edit request not done. (Edit Request Tool) | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} | |||
Older text is archived here: | |||
{{Talk header}} | |||
{{controversial}} | |||
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} | |||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=High}} | |||
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}} | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive index | |||
|mask=Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive <#> | |||
|leading_zeros=0 | |||
|indexhere=yes}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
|maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
|counter = 14 | |||
|algo = old(21d) | |||
|archive = Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
}} | |||
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} | |||
== Possible content fork == | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
The article ] may be a fork of this article ]. Both articles cover opposing Israel's right to exist. Please give your opinion here and at ].''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 08:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
----- | |||
:These are two separate concepts. Unfortunately, the meaning of "anti-Zionism" in today's political discourse has been bastardized. ] is destructive: the elimination or annihilation of the State of Israel as a political entity. Anti-Zionism, in the non-politicized definition, is the opposition to Zionism, the self-determination of the Jewish people or the creation of the State of Israel. ] (]) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extremists; Anti-Semitism == | |||
::A defines anti-zionism as "the elimination of Israel as the sovereign homeland of the Jews". How is that different from calling for the destruction of Israel? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The ] "Today, Zionism refers to support for the continued existence of Israel, in the face of regular calls for its destruction or dissolution. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Jews having a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland." The AJC uses anti-Zionism interchangeably with "calls for its destruction". ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::There's no difference between opposing the Jewish people's right to self-determination and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. It's just two different sets of words to describe the same thing. ] (]) 08:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::There's a pretty huge difference. The right to self-determination and the right to have a racist ethnostate in a specific location are not the same concept. Perhaps more importantly, Israel doesn't speak on behalf of all Jewish people, and doesn't get to define what satisfactory self-determination for the Jewish people constitutes. There are a wide range of definitions as to what constitutes self-determination. The State of Israel is an institution, so statements about its destruction can likewise mean a variety of different things. At the extreme end of the spectrum, such statements could potentially be genocidal if taken to imply harm to its people. At the opposite end, it could simply mean an end to the current form of the institution of government – if, for example, the governmental regime is identified as being institutionally corrupt, such as in the case of an apartheid regime, and presumably unfixable, e.g. by simply excising certain laws. ] (]) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Garbage, Jews that don't live in Israel, the US say, have self determination there, in the modern understanding of self determination, you don't need to have a state to self determine. Btw, equating Israel with Jews is considered antisemitic. ] (]) 16:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Requesting input from {{Ping group|everyone who has contributed to this page in the past 12 months|Longhornsg|MathewMunro|ElasticSnake|Dimadick|Tollens|RolandR|Ballincat43|Zero0000|Solun12|Selfstudier}}, {{ping group|more|Basedpalestine|SkyWarrior|Sorindc|Rosguill|TetrahedronX8|Nishidani|Lightoil|Jurteggenn|Avraham}}.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 03:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Longhornsg is correct. Anti-Zionism and Calls for the destruction of Israel are two different things historically, whatever fuckwit sources may say about the former. 'fuckwit' sources because anti-Zionism preceded the creation of the state of Israel and therefore cannot have called for the destruction of what did not exist. 'Calls for the destruction of Israel', a title that discourages me from reading it and subjecting my boredom threshold to any more stresses than reading the newspapers every day causes, seems to collapse everything - as if calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel were identical to calls for the physical destruction of that state. This is not an area where logical clarity and verbal finesse ever find much of a toehold.] (]) 04:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] but would you consider "calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel" to be synonymous with post-1949 anti-Zionism? Even if they are different topics, knowing the exact difference helps define the scope of each article. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I wouldn't, because Haredi anti-Zionism for the most part does not call for that. Chabad-Lubavitch's position is that there should be no Jewish state until the Moshiach (messiah) comes to establish it, but since it exists, they support it because it is where millions of Jews live. ] (]) 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The phrase "Israel's right to exist" is a propagandistic slogan. On the one hand, the right to national sovereignty or self-determination is a legitimate right, and the Jews of Palestine, certainly by 1946, and arguably as early as 1930, were an embryonic nation. However, there is no such thing as the right to occupy or annex another state or ethnic group's land. Nor is there any such thing as the right to establish an ethnostate or apartheid state. Nor does a genocidal war criminal state have a right to exist. Apartheid South Africa didn't have a right to exist. Nazi Germany didn't have a right to exist. And Israel doesn't have a right to exist *in its current form*. | |||
::Nevertheless, regardless of the fallacy of Israel's "right to exist" as a genocidal expansionist ethnostate on territory that was recently Arab-majority land, and territory that was assigned to the Palestinian Arabs under the UN-approved 1947 partition plan, even the most radical elements of the Palestinian national liberation movement, such as Hamas, have expressed a pragmatic willingness to accept a Jewish state on all of historic Palestine except for Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, if there is a national consensus or a referendum among Palestinians backing the decision. For example, see https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf, a 2017 document titled 'A Document of General Principles & Policies', which was effectively an updated Hamas Charter, specifically point 20: | |||
::'... without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.' | |||
::I suggest reviewing this article (https://theirantiimperialismandours.com/2023/11/11/in-defence-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free), which really teases out the nuances and evolution of the Palestinian national liberation movement's position on a one-state vs a two-state solution. ] (]) 04:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::@] Ok but what's your opinion on the question I asked at the top? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Calls to abolish Israel are a subset of broader anti-Zionism. All those who call for the abolition of Israel are anti-Zionists, but not all those who are/were anti-Zionists call/called-for the abolition of Israel, and there's diversity of opinion regarding in what way Israel should be "abolished", or if instead, it should be transformed, democratised, secularised, shrunk/borders-modified, and/or somewhat-disarmed, and indeed, there's a somewhat blurred line between some forms of transformation and abolition - it can be kind of subjective and contextual as to whether one considers it one or the other, what might be considered "transformation" by Arabs might be considered "abolishing Israel" by the vast majority of Israeli Jews and international Zionists. | |||
::::And yes, I think the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article is a closely related article, and I think it would be fine to Wikilink to the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article or even use the "Main article" tag under the subsection 'Jewish right to a state' of this article, or some similar, new or renamed subsection, or to include it under the See Also section (under which it's already listed). ] (]) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::As Nishidani says above, obviously pre-1948 anti-Zionism couldn't have wanted to abolish or destroy Israel since Israel didn't exist back then. So I wonder if we have an article on "Calls for the destruction of Israel", then it should just be renamed ]. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 07:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::No. There are significant numbers of anti-Zionists or people branded as such who have never ever called for the 'destruction of Israel', from Chomsky and Uri David to ]. The hasbara attempt to repackage anti-Zionism as interchangeable with calls for Israel's destruction (usually just the standard, vapid Arab /Iranian political rhetoric, devoid of any other function than to throw a sop to the respective masses) aspires to impress the public 'mind' with the idea that any opposition to a racist state or its apartheid and ethnocidal policies is a camouflaged reproduction of a Holocaust threat and confuses a very significant, predominantly Jewish intellectual tradition that repudiates nationalism as part of Jewish identity, with the cheap memes of political sloganeering often encouraged in Arab media. All these articles lend themselves to dumbdowning and caricature, and if you want to know what anti-Zionism is you go to the Timeline link, which embodies everything the article we have was manicured to obscure.] (]) 09:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Agree on the merits of what Nishidani says (though I disagree with the characterization that groups like the ADL are claiming anti-Zionism = calls for Israel's destruction), and I'll hold up the example of the ], the exemplar of ultra-Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism. To the Satmars, any Jewish state -- especially a secular one -- prior to the messianic age–by the very nature of its human, natural, mundane provenance–undermines and denies the Torah and is against Jewish law. The Satmars do not seek to bring an end to the state of Israel (of course, they know what the alternative would mean for their fellow Satmars in Bnei Brak, Mea Shearim, and Meron). By comparison, a group like ] seeking the "dismantling" of Israel and actively meets with entities like PIJ, Hamas, and the Iranian government that have the same goal, to the point that the Satmar Rebbe himself has even condemned NK for going too far (). Good piece by ] in Tablet explaining this: ] (]) 10:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::@] So what do the Satmars seek? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 06:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Nishidani put it very well - the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article should not be renamed 'Anti-Zionism (1949-present)', because many prominent anti-Zionists have never called for the destruction of Israel. There are other reasons, but that alone is more than enough reason. | |||
::::::The pre-Israel anti-Zionists, which included most Arabs both inside and outside of Palestine, and a significant portion of pre-Zionist Jews of Palestine and their descendents undoubtedly mostly never imagined the full scale of the horrors Zionists had in store for the Palestinian Arabs until after the Zionists won the 29 Nov 1947 UN partition vote and no longer needed to pretend they weren't a threat to Palestinian Arabs. | |||
::::::The Arab states presented a number of arguments against the 1947 partition plan - one of them was self-determination - they argued that the majority of residents of Palestine - Jews, Arabs and Christians, did not want to partition Palestine, therefore it should not be partitioned, period, and I think most anti-Zionists would still agree that the UN had no right to partition Palestine against the will of the majority of residents. But with every defeat of the Arab states by Israel, it became ever more fanciful and even counterproductive to talk of abolishing Israel, even if morally, there's a case for it. | |||
::::::I'm probably just one of a few who think partition could've been OK for most Palestinians if adherence to partition borders and the security of those who remained on the wrong side of the border had been internationally guaranteed, for as long as it takes to find or build a house for everyone who ended up on the wrong side of the border after the partition, and if far fewer people were put on the wrong side of the partition in the first place, and if the land had been divided proportionally rather than giving the Jews roughly 2.5 times the per land given to the Palestinian Arabs, and if they hadn't put a ridiculously unfair ~50 times as many Arab homes on the Jewish side of the partition as the number of Jewish homes on the Arab side of the partition, and if there had been more cross-roads to better facilitate internal trade & travel, and shared access to the Gulf of Aqaba, and longer-term internationally administered & defended zones around shared sacred sites and large mixed and adjacent ethnic communities such as Jerusalem. I think partition could've been like pulling a bad tooth, reducing ongoing conflict by keeping the antagonists separated, but instead of being a relatively painless affair, it was butchered without anaesthetic. ] (]) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::IMO there's no reason for "Calls for the destruction of Israel" to be a separate page. The page itself is pretty slanted toward the Zionist/pro-Israel POV. I can't see how "calling for the destruction of Israel" is possible to do without being anti-Zionist as well, so I'd say it's a subset of anti-Zionism. But the title "calls for the destruction of Israel" is itself misleading. "Destruction" is a term that evokes strong emotions and can mean anything from killing all Israelis to replacing the State of Israel with a democratic, binational state that does not grant special status to any ethnic group. Both of these would result in the "destruction" of Israel as a Jewish state, which is a core part of its identity. ] (]) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I would consider people who call for Israel's destruction to be a subset of opponents of ]. But there are people who have opposed Zionism and its racist ideas for other reasons and through other ways. ] (]) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Well, it's just my personal view but I think proposals for the destruction of Israel as a topic is logically a subset or a fork of antisemitism, which is quite distinct from anti-Zionism ] (]) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think that's right, the desire to equate AZ = AS is the cause of a lot of the confusion. ] (]) 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I think that probably depends on whether the sources are talking about institutional abolition in the revolutionary sense or explicitly "destruction", i.e. disassembly of power structures or something altogether different in intent. ] (]) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::The word 'destruction' cannot avoid entailing the notion of obliteration, annihilation. Most if not all sources, being polemical, will comfortably play on that ambiguity in order to imply that any call for the destruction of Israel in revolutionary terms, the disassembly of its nature as an ethnic state, is tantamount to a demand Israel be wiped off the map, to urge a second Holocaust. That is why so much was made of the ] statement in various farcical translations. Sources generally don't make that distinction surely. (Of course there are numerous sources referring to this, as many perhaps as prominent sources referring to its obverse: statements that a state for the Palestinian people will never exist. The parallel would be a page of the type, ''Calls for the non-existence of a Palestinian state.'':) ] (]) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
] and ] are quite right - these are clearly distinct topics and require different articles. I have been an active anti-Zionist for half a century now, and have never called for "the destruction of Israel". Indeed, I am on record as opposing this both as a slogan and as a goal. What I, and most anti-Zionists I know or have worked with (including many Israeli Jews living in Israel), have called for is dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the Israeli state. Whether you agree or disagree with this formulation and aspiration, it should be evident that it is not a call for the destruction of Israel any more than the demand to end apartheid was a call for the destruction of South Africa. | |||
Two points: | |||
Those calling for "the destruction of Israel" are not a subset of anti-Zionists. I suspect that many of them have no idea what anti-Zionism means, and just use the term as part of a propaganda rhetoric. Our article does not fall into this error, and I wish that some of those who bandy the term around would read it to get a better understanding of the issues involved. It would be a serious mistake to compromise the article by throwing into it the often ignorant or ill-informed comments of those who have no understanding of what Zionism means and why it should be opposed. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 00:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
# Is it really an ''extreme'' view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism? Whatever the merits (or lack thereof) of the view, I'd thought it to be rather common. | |||
# Wouldn't the section entitled "Extremists" be more appropriately labeled "Anti-Semitism" or "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism" or something similar, since that's what it's really about? | |||
: Well said. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
--] 04:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
:@] @], @] you seem to be implying that anti-zionism is distinct from "calling for the destruction of Israel" because the latter necessarily entails something very violent, "a second Holocaust" as Nishidani puts it. But that's not how ] defines it. For example, that article lists Iran, yet Iran has not only never called for a Holocaust, it has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East (outside of Israel). Iran has of course called for a ], which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. But that's also effectively what anti-zionists advocate, right? ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 06:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Who cares for what that shabby and incompetent wiki article states? The point is that there is a huge polemical output that, obedient to a smudging of distinctions pushed by the hasbara bandwagon, will tell anyone careless in their reading that anti-Zionism and the 'destruction of Israel' physically or otherwise, are coterminous or interchangeable. The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel. That shoddy sequences of entailed cross-premises is so embedded in the flatulent polemics of our times that no argument or analysis can get anywhere unless (a) the premises are examined (b) the historicity of each grasped and (c) the patent use of the manufacture of these confusions to blindside lucid discussion is brought out. All these things have been done in the academic literature (which in turn has been challenged by a number of prominent scholars who deny the confusion and insist on the overlap) and all one need do is (i) familiarize oneself with the literature, and on wikipedia neatly draw out the distinctions and confusions as described in these sources. | |||
::The only way to save that article from its own inanity would be to examine and rewrite the article strictly in terms of the extensive scholarly literature (which also has both the distinction and the denial of a distinction) and exclude rigorously all use of cheap newspaper or internet sources that more or less muddle this discourse.] (]) 06:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::"The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel." | |||
:::All of this is correct. ] (]) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Oh and the article ] also considers "From the River to the Sea" as an exemplifying the "destruction of Israel". So it is clear that that article is using "destruction of Israel" to mean opposition to Israel as a Jewish-majority state. ''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 06:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
:"dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the Israeli state." | |||
:What does that even mean? ] (]) 08:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024 == | |||
:Well thats not what its about. Its about extremists on the zionist side who call all opponenets anti-semites (quite an extreme and offensive opinion, I might ad, however common in some communities), and anti-semite extremists on the other side, who (at least in the non-muslim, non-arab world) largely actually ''prefer'' zionism (anything that sends jews out of their nation is usually seen as a good thing by these guys), but object to it because they object to all things jewish, and because they have a growing affection for muslim extremists, who please them w intense, violent anti-semitism. Those last would be yet another group of extremists this section is about. ] ] 04:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
{{edit extended-protected|Anti-Zionism|answered=yes}} | |||
::Most anti-Zionists are in fact anti-Semites, so Wclark is correct. It is not extreme for someone to view anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Most Jews I know view anti-Zionism as anti-Zionism. (The views of the early anti-Zionist Reform and Orthodox movements are so far from what most people today call anti-Zionism that they don't usually enter into the equation.) ] | |||
add discrimination sidebar and discrimination template (articles is mentioned in the series on discrimination) ] (]) 03:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 13:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
== RM of interest == | |||
This is Adam's remark on his most recent edit: "since most Israelis think that anti-Zionism is just another word for anti-Semitism, it cannot be classed as an "extremist" view - this is always a subjective term anyway." When I essentially suggested something similar, ie that many Israeli politicians and right-wing groups have promoted such views, I started being labelled an "anti-Semite" by RK and was harassed at various points for "anti-Semitic views" or making "straw man attacks on Jews." Can the non-Zionophobes (Zionophobes being Adam's euphemism for people who lean towards disapproval of Israeli actions in disputed territory) get their act together and decide who or what is an extremist, and who or what is an anti-Semite for expressing commonly acknowledged views, before making arbitrary judgements on article contents and contributors? -- ] 05:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
There is currently ] to move "]" to "]". It may be of interest.''']''' <sub>(Please ] on reply)</sub> 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Don't you understand, the label is based on who is being labeled, not on what their saying at that particular juncture. ] ] 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Include a sentence explaining why anti-Zionism is considered antisemtisim == | |||
Google search results for: | |||
*"anti-zionism" "anti-semitism" — 20,000 | |||
*"anti-zionism" -"anti-semitism" — 10,100 | |||
Change: The relationship between Zionism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism, while others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a form of weaponization of antisemitism in order to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip. | |||
Looks like it's actually the majority view, to me. --] 05:09, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
to | |||
:Thats the worst excuse for a survey I've ever seen. ] ] 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
The relationship between Zionism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism. | |||
::No, '''this''' is the worst excuse for a survey you've ever seen: | |||
:::My neighbor thinks anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. | |||
::Anyway, what do you expect for a couple minutes? It's just a first-approximation, and it's so overwhelmingly in support of the "non-extremist" interpretation of the view that I don't see much need to look into it further (although I'm probably going to do so anyway). --] 05:15, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
'''The ADL, an NGO dedicated to combatting antisemitism, views anti-zionism as antisemitic because anti-Zionism invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states." | |||
:::Very silly, but you made me smile :) ] ] 05:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
Others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a form of weaponization of antisemitism in order to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip. | |||
This is a very silly argument. The view that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism is a completely mainstream view among Israeli Jews, probably the majority view, and is also common among Jews outside Israel. Most of the Jews I know, even those who dislike Sharon and think Israel should withdraw from all the territories, hold this view. It therefore cannot be classed as "extremist." The word "extremist" is in any case a very subjective term and should only be used when there is clear agreement that a person or opinion is "extreme". That is not the case here. ] 05:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/anti-zionism ] (]) 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with Adam. ] | |||
:Not done. Per ], ADL is an unreliable source. ] (]) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::It's difficult to think of a way that the word "extremist" would be used that would be NPOV. As for anti-Zionism (at least some forms of it) being anti-Semitism, I think it is held by the majority of Jews worldwide, not just in Israel. And, as we have recently seen, it also appears to be a position of the Catholic Church. Even if one could come to an agreement about the meaning of the word "extremist", I don't see how it would apply in this case. ] 16:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024 == | |||
'''Please do not make edits on this topic until we've discussed it more first.''' | |||
{{Edit extended-protected|Anti-Zionism|answered=yes}} | |||
I didn't mean to incite an edit war, and I'm sorry. I should probably explain why I picked out this section in particular. I think that many people hold the opinion that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism, and that they'll be looking for this POV to be represented in the article (and will consider it biased if they don't find it). Therefore, I think the comparison should be ''visibly'' made near the beginning of the article, with appropriate links to distract them and hopefully get them off the page and looking elsewhere (probably at the ] article). I made a similar point recently regarding the ] article and how it should ''visibly'' mention the controversy surrounding Zionism (and provide a link to ] to draw off the attention of people who'd otherwise complain about ''that'' article). (Thanks to Adam, by the way, for coming up with a very good new intro that accomplishes this goal.) | |||
Change "movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." to "movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region coinciding with part of the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." | |||
The way it is currently phrased is denying Jewish history and inaccurately explains the historical maps. Israel's territory is only part of the biblical land, which included much of modern Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. ] (]) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
That said, I think these sentences still need work: | |||
:Other editors will handle this, but for interest, I don't see a difference between 'a region partly coinciding with' and 'a region coinciding with part of'. They seem to be the same spatial relationship, an overlap between 2 spatial objects, although I think you version is clearer. ] (]) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> this is neither an uncontroversial improvement nor one that has consensus. Please see ] for more information of what an uncontroversial improvement is. ] (]) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Many Jews (and some non-Jews) argue that anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews as Jews. While the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life in all countries since 1948, it is widely seen as reprehensible that Jews should see attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. Moreover, some anti-Semites use the term "Zionist" interchangeably with Jew, leading to a further blurring of the distinction. | |||
I find "reprehensible" too harsh a word, and I think that point could be made more effectively if the (overly long) sentence were restructured and rephrased. There are two distinct points being made, regarding anti-Semitism: | |||
# Some people consider anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitic because ''any'' attack on Israel is anti-Semitism. | |||
# Some people consider anti-Zionism to be anti-Semitic because "Zionist" is sometimes used as a synonym for "Jew". | |||
I think this distinction should be made as clear as possible, since only the first point could really be considered reprehensible. Also, I think perhaps the information on anti-Semitism ''should'' be in its own section, with "Anti-Semitism" displayed prominently in the title, so that it will catch the eye of those looking for such comparisons and draw their attention to that section (and away from the rest of the article). | |||
I'd suggest we come up with some proposals for changes here on the talk page, come to some sort of agreement, and ''then'' make the agreed-upon changes to the article itself. --] 05:41, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
:I don't think your points are correct. As I see it, the two main issues are really as follows: | |||
:# Some people consider certain kinds of attack on Israel/Zionism to be anti-Semitic because they are uniquely applied to Israel, and because they mirror similar anti-Semitic attacks historically made on Jews. | |||
:# Some people consider attacks on Israel/Zionism to be anti-Semitic because anti-Semites are now often masking their anti-Jewish efforts as (or chanelling their anti-Jewish efforts towards) anti-Zionism, which they perceive as more socially acceptable. | |||
:This becomes even more confusing because of a third point, that some anti-Semites (and, to be frank, some Islamists as well) use the term "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangably. ] 17:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
How about: | |||
:While the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life in all countries since 1948, the view that any attacks on Israel are inherently anti-Semitic has been widely criticized. | |||
..or is that even more confusing? --] 05:58, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
:Thats the best so far. Crimmeny, you guys have so much POV I could practically cut it w a butter knife. Jews are not most people, most Jews are not Zionists, and your average person is pretty well pissed off at Israel. Anyhow that last sentance should be added to the article. ] ] 06:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
::It's actually terrible, because ''no Zionists or Israel supporters'' have said that ''any attacks on Israel are inherently anti-Semitic''. In fact, as I've shown in earlier Talk: pages, this is a ] argument, and one which is never used by Zionists (and in, fact, which has been specifically and clearly repudiated by many Zionists). As for your other statments, Sam, they show a profound misunderstanding of Jews and the arguments being made here. Most Jews are in fact Zionists. Regarding your claim that "your average person is pretty well pissed of at Israel", this may reflect your own POV, but has nothing to do with the issue of whether some forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. ] 17:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
::While it may not be a widespread position, it's certainly one that ''some'' supporters of Israel have taken. For example, from : | |||
:::Rabbi Sacks himself draws this parallel in an article in the Guardian: "At times has been directed against Jews as individuals. Today it is directed against Jews as a sovereign people." In the same vein, Dershowitz argues that Israel has become "the Jew among Nations." | |||
::I can find more quotes if you like, or if you disagree that the above is an accurate representation of the view being debated. --] 17:39, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
::::I think you have misunderstood what both people are saying. In fact, Dershowitz has specifically said "Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies." And Sacks has said "I see three distinct positions: legitimate criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition." (it's in this article). Clearly they view the idea that Jews do not have a right to their own state as anti-Semitic; but unless you define anti-Zionism as "the belief that Jews should not have a state of their own" (and this article certainly doesn't), then they are not saying all anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. And they clearly do not think any attack on Israel is anti-Semitism (they make this point explicitly). ] 18:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
:::Actually, Jayjg, is your problem more with the term "''inherently''" than the rest? Even among those who seem to profess the view that attacks on Israel are anti-Semitism, the underlying argument isn't that such attacks are ''inherently'' anti-Semitic, but rather that they ''happen to be'' anti-Semitic. There's a fine line there, and as the article on The Nation points out, it's not entirely clear where everyone stands on the issue. (It's a really good article, by the way, I'd suggest reading it in its entirety, since it addresses this issue pretty directly.) --] 17:59, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
::::No, my issue is with the idea that Zionists believe '''any''' or '''all''' attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, which is what your summary clearly states, and which no Zionists actually believe. ] 18:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
==Those who are said to be deserving of no consideration== | |||
Anyone who can write that "most Jews are not Zionists" is clearly either totally ignorant or malicious, and in either case disqualifies himself from serious consideration in this discussion. ] 06:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
:I am sorry to say that you have long ago disqualified yourself from serious consideration by being a boor. That said, I find your whimsical rants rather droll, and don't have much hope for the quality of this, or any israeli/palistinian conflict articles on the wiki. I think we'd be better off waiting for it to sort itself out than expecting to solve anything here, other than which group of internet nerds cares more about biasing the article on the subject. So far you seem to winning that last, three cheers. I would like to see a quality article on this subject, but I admit I have no intention of getting my blood pressure up over it. Cheers, ] ] 06:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
::These attacks on Adam's behaviour and knowledge are way out of line. He knows far more about the subject than you, and he has shown considerable tolerance. His recent edits have been excellent. ] | |||
:::Well that settles it, our learned elder and bastion of neutrality has spoken. ] ] 16:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
==deserved scoldings for naughty editors== | |||
It doesn't accomplish anything to declare each other "ignorant", "malicious", a "boor" (or even "whimsical"). Nor does it accomplish anything to assert that one person knows more than another, or to make sarcastic comments. (There, I think I've covered everybody now.) Think to yourself before you post something (even to this talk page) "''What do I hope to accomplish by posting this, and is this the most effective way to do that?''" Please? --] 17:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
:I agree, and compliment you for maintaining the high ground. Rudeness never accomplished anything intellectually honest. ] ] 17:08, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
::Sam Spade, unless you intended to include yourself in the "naughty editors" category, that section title isn't very nice (and some people don't even consider self-deprication a good excuse for namecalling anyway). Sarcastically calling other editors "our learned elders" can be just as bad as more direct insults, in that it's still likely to upset the other parties involved. I didn't necessarily mean to ''scold'' anybody, I was just trying to remind everyone here that we're all very capable of behaving very civilly, when we want to (and that doing so often gets better results). --] 18:07, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC) | |||
== =="View of the Catholic Church"== == | |||
I am not sure why 209.etc (aka ]) continues to insert this material; the statement is not nearly as important as he makes it out to be, and the quotation he gives is different to that in the official declaration. First, the declaration was not a solemn doctrine or an ''ex cathedra'' pronouncement (i.e. not a required article of Catholic belief), but a statement by the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee (see ]), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce ]. What the committee said is just its considered opinion, and the article already says that both Jews and non-Jews (the committee includes both) equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; so why does this instance deserve highlighting? Second, the exact wording (as published on ), in context, is this (emphasis mine): | |||
:As we approach the 40th anniversary of ''Nostra Aetate'' - the ground-breaking declaration of the Second Vatican Council which repudiated the deicide charge against Jews, reaffirmed the Jewish roots of Christianity and rejected anti-Semitism - we take note of the many positive changes within the Catholic Church with respect to her relationship with the Jewish People. These past forty years of our fraternal dialogue stand in stark contrast to almost two millennia of a "teaching of contempt" and all its painful consequences. '''We draw encouragement from the fruits of our collective strivings which include the recognition of the unique and unbroken covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish People and the total rejection of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including anti-Zionism as a more recent manifestation of anti-Semitism.''' | |||
HTH. ]] 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 12:34, 19 December 2024
Skip to table of contents |
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. |
|
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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Possible content fork
The article Calls for the destruction of Israel may be a fork of this article Anti-Zionism. Both articles cover opposing Israel's right to exist. Please give your opinion here and at the AfD.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- These are two separate concepts. Unfortunately, the meaning of "anti-Zionism" in today's political discourse has been bastardized. Calls for the destruction of Israel is destructive: the elimination or annihilation of the State of Israel as a political entity. Anti-Zionism, in the non-politicized definition, is the opposition to Zionism, the self-determination of the Jewish people or the creation of the State of Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- A New York Times article defines anti-zionism as "the elimination of Israel as the sovereign homeland of the Jews". How is that different from calling for the destruction of Israel? VR (Please ping on reply) 03:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The American Jewish Committee says "Today, Zionism refers to support for the continued existence of Israel, in the face of regular calls for its destruction or dissolution. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Jews having a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland." The AJC uses anti-Zionism interchangeably with "calls for its destruction". VR (Please ping on reply) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- There's no difference between opposing the Jewish people's right to self-determination and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. It's just two different sets of words to describe the same thing. KronosAlight (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a pretty huge difference. The right to self-determination and the right to have a racist ethnostate in a specific location are not the same concept. Perhaps more importantly, Israel doesn't speak on behalf of all Jewish people, and doesn't get to define what satisfactory self-determination for the Jewish people constitutes. There are a wide range of definitions as to what constitutes self-determination. The State of Israel is an institution, so statements about its destruction can likewise mean a variety of different things. At the extreme end of the spectrum, such statements could potentially be genocidal if taken to imply harm to its people. At the opposite end, it could simply mean an end to the current form of the institution of government – if, for example, the governmental regime is identified as being institutionally corrupt, such as in the case of an apartheid regime, and presumably unfixable, e.g. by simply excising certain laws. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Garbage, Jews that don't live in Israel, the US say, have self determination there, in the modern understanding of self determination, you don't need to have a state to self determine. Btw, equating Israel with Jews is considered antisemitic. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Requesting input from everyone who has contributed to this page in the past 12 months (Longhornsg—MathewMunro—ElasticSnake—Dimadick—Tollens—RolandR—Ballincat43—Zero0000—Solun12—Selfstudier), more (Basedpalestine—SkyWarrior—Sorindc—Rosguill—TetrahedronX8—Nishidani—Lightoil—Jurteggenn—Avraham).VR (Please ping on reply) 03:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Longhornsg is correct. Anti-Zionism and Calls for the destruction of Israel are two different things historically, whatever fuckwit sources may say about the former. 'fuckwit' sources because anti-Zionism preceded the creation of the state of Israel and therefore cannot have called for the destruction of what did not exist. 'Calls for the destruction of Israel', a title that discourages me from reading it and subjecting my boredom threshold to any more stresses than reading the newspapers every day causes, seems to collapse everything - as if calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel were identical to calls for the physical destruction of that state. This is not an area where logical clarity and verbal finesse ever find much of a toehold.Nishidani (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Nishidani but would you consider "calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel" to be synonymous with post-1949 anti-Zionism? Even if they are different topics, knowing the exact difference helps define the scope of each article. VR (Please ping on reply) 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, because Haredi anti-Zionism for the most part does not call for that. Chabad-Lubavitch's position is that there should be no Jewish state until the Moshiach (messiah) comes to establish it, but since it exists, they support it because it is where millions of Jews live. ElasticSnake (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nishidani but would you consider "calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel" to be synonymous with post-1949 anti-Zionism? Even if they are different topics, knowing the exact difference helps define the scope of each article. VR (Please ping on reply) 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The phrase "Israel's right to exist" is a propagandistic slogan. On the one hand, the right to national sovereignty or self-determination is a legitimate right, and the Jews of Palestine, certainly by 1946, and arguably as early as 1930, were an embryonic nation. However, there is no such thing as the right to occupy or annex another state or ethnic group's land. Nor is there any such thing as the right to establish an ethnostate or apartheid state. Nor does a genocidal war criminal state have a right to exist. Apartheid South Africa didn't have a right to exist. Nazi Germany didn't have a right to exist. And Israel doesn't have a right to exist *in its current form*.
- Nevertheless, regardless of the fallacy of Israel's "right to exist" as a genocidal expansionist ethnostate on territory that was recently Arab-majority land, and territory that was assigned to the Palestinian Arabs under the UN-approved 1947 partition plan, even the most radical elements of the Palestinian national liberation movement, such as Hamas, have expressed a pragmatic willingness to accept a Jewish state on all of historic Palestine except for Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, if there is a national consensus or a referendum among Palestinians backing the decision. For example, see https://irp.fas.org/world/para/docs/hamas-2017.pdf, a 2017 document titled 'A Document of General Principles & Policies', which was effectively an updated Hamas Charter, specifically point 20:
- '... without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.'
- I suggest reviewing this article (https://theirantiimperialismandours.com/2023/11/11/in-defence-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea-palestine-will-be-free), which really teases out the nuances and evolution of the Palestinian national liberation movement's position on a one-state vs a two-state solution. MathewMunro (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MathewMunro Ok but what's your opinion on the question I asked at the top? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Calls to abolish Israel are a subset of broader anti-Zionism. All those who call for the abolition of Israel are anti-Zionists, but not all those who are/were anti-Zionists call/called-for the abolition of Israel, and there's diversity of opinion regarding in what way Israel should be "abolished", or if instead, it should be transformed, democratised, secularised, shrunk/borders-modified, and/or somewhat-disarmed, and indeed, there's a somewhat blurred line between some forms of transformation and abolition - it can be kind of subjective and contextual as to whether one considers it one or the other, what might be considered "transformation" by Arabs might be considered "abolishing Israel" by the vast majority of Israeli Jews and international Zionists.
- And yes, I think the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article is a closely related article, and I think it would be fine to Wikilink to the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article or even use the "Main article" tag under the subsection 'Jewish right to a state' of this article, or some similar, new or renamed subsection, or to include it under the See Also section (under which it's already listed). MathewMunro (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- As Nishidani says above, obviously pre-1948 anti-Zionism couldn't have wanted to abolish or destroy Israel since Israel didn't exist back then. So I wonder if we have an article on "Calls for the destruction of Israel", then it should just be renamed Anti-Zionism (1949-present). VR (Please ping on reply) 07:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- No. There are significant numbers of anti-Zionists or people branded as such who have never ever called for the 'destruction of Israel', from Chomsky and Uri David to Brant Rosen. The hasbara attempt to repackage anti-Zionism as interchangeable with calls for Israel's destruction (usually just the standard, vapid Arab /Iranian political rhetoric, devoid of any other function than to throw a sop to the respective masses) aspires to impress the public 'mind' with the idea that any opposition to a racist state or its apartheid and ethnocidal policies is a camouflaged reproduction of a Holocaust threat and confuses a very significant, predominantly Jewish intellectual tradition that repudiates nationalism as part of Jewish identity, with the cheap memes of political sloganeering often encouraged in Arab media. All these articles lend themselves to dumbdowning and caricature, and if you want to know what anti-Zionism is you go to the Timeline link, which embodies everything the article we have was manicured to obscure.Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on the merits of what Nishidani says (though I disagree with the characterization that groups like the ADL are claiming anti-Zionism = calls for Israel's destruction), and I'll hold up the example of the Satmars, the exemplar of ultra-Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionism. To the Satmars, any Jewish state -- especially a secular one -- prior to the messianic age–by the very nature of its human, natural, mundane provenance–undermines and denies the Torah and is against Jewish law. The Satmars do not seek to bring an end to the state of Israel (of course, they know what the alternative would mean for their fellow Satmars in Bnei Brak, Mea Shearim, and Meron). By comparison, a group like Neturei Karta seeking the "dismantling" of Israel and actively meets with entities like PIJ, Hamas, and the Iranian government that have the same goal, to the point that the Satmar Rebbe himself has even condemned NK for going too far (). Good piece by Shaul Magid in Tablet explaining this: Longhornsg (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Longhornsg So what do the Satmars seek? VR (Please ping on reply) 06:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nishidani put it very well - the 'Calls for the destruction of Israel' article should not be renamed 'Anti-Zionism (1949-present)', because many prominent anti-Zionists have never called for the destruction of Israel. There are other reasons, but that alone is more than enough reason.
- The pre-Israel anti-Zionists, which included most Arabs both inside and outside of Palestine, and a significant portion of pre-Zionist Jews of Palestine and their descendents undoubtedly mostly never imagined the full scale of the horrors Zionists had in store for the Palestinian Arabs until after the Zionists won the 29 Nov 1947 UN partition vote and no longer needed to pretend they weren't a threat to Palestinian Arabs.
- The Arab states presented a number of arguments against the 1947 partition plan - one of them was self-determination - they argued that the majority of residents of Palestine - Jews, Arabs and Christians, did not want to partition Palestine, therefore it should not be partitioned, period, and I think most anti-Zionists would still agree that the UN had no right to partition Palestine against the will of the majority of residents. But with every defeat of the Arab states by Israel, it became ever more fanciful and even counterproductive to talk of abolishing Israel, even if morally, there's a case for it.
- I'm probably just one of a few who think partition could've been OK for most Palestinians if adherence to partition borders and the security of those who remained on the wrong side of the border had been internationally guaranteed, for as long as it takes to find or build a house for everyone who ended up on the wrong side of the border after the partition, and if far fewer people were put on the wrong side of the partition in the first place, and if the land had been divided proportionally rather than giving the Jews roughly 2.5 times the per land given to the Palestinian Arabs, and if they hadn't put a ridiculously unfair ~50 times as many Arab homes on the Jewish side of the partition as the number of Jewish homes on the Arab side of the partition, and if there had been more cross-roads to better facilitate internal trade & travel, and shared access to the Gulf of Aqaba, and longer-term internationally administered & defended zones around shared sacred sites and large mixed and adjacent ethnic communities such as Jerusalem. I think partition could've been like pulling a bad tooth, reducing ongoing conflict by keeping the antagonists separated, but instead of being a relatively painless affair, it was butchered without anaesthetic. MathewMunro (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- As Nishidani says above, obviously pre-1948 anti-Zionism couldn't have wanted to abolish or destroy Israel since Israel didn't exist back then. So I wonder if we have an article on "Calls for the destruction of Israel", then it should just be renamed Anti-Zionism (1949-present). VR (Please ping on reply) 07:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- @MathewMunro Ok but what's your opinion on the question I asked at the top? VR (Please ping on reply) 07:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- IMO there's no reason for "Calls for the destruction of Israel" to be a separate page. The page itself is pretty slanted toward the Zionist/pro-Israel POV. I can't see how "calling for the destruction of Israel" is possible to do without being anti-Zionist as well, so I'd say it's a subset of anti-Zionism. But the title "calls for the destruction of Israel" is itself misleading. "Destruction" is a term that evokes strong emotions and can mean anything from killing all Israelis to replacing the State of Israel with a democratic, binational state that does not grant special status to any ethnic group. Both of these would result in the "destruction" of Israel as a Jewish state, which is a core part of its identity. ElasticSnake (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Longhornsg is correct. Anti-Zionism and Calls for the destruction of Israel are two different things historically, whatever fuckwit sources may say about the former. 'fuckwit' sources because anti-Zionism preceded the creation of the state of Israel and therefore cannot have called for the destruction of what did not exist. 'Calls for the destruction of Israel', a title that discourages me from reading it and subjecting my boredom threshold to any more stresses than reading the newspapers every day causes, seems to collapse everything - as if calls to overthrow the Jewish ethnocracy that is Israel were identical to calls for the physical destruction of that state. This is not an area where logical clarity and verbal finesse ever find much of a toehold.Nishidani (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would consider people who call for Israel's destruction to be a subset of opponents of Zionism. But there are people who have opposed Zionism and its racist ideas for other reasons and through other ways. Dimadick (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's just my personal view but I think proposals for the destruction of Israel as a topic is logically a subset or a fork of antisemitism, which is quite distinct from anti-Zionism Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's right, the desire to equate AZ = AS is the cause of a lot of the confusion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that probably depends on whether the sources are talking about institutional abolition in the revolutionary sense or explicitly "destruction", i.e. disassembly of power structures or something altogether different in intent. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- The word 'destruction' cannot avoid entailing the notion of obliteration, annihilation. Most if not all sources, being polemical, will comfortably play on that ambiguity in order to imply that any call for the destruction of Israel in revolutionary terms, the disassembly of its nature as an ethnic state, is tantamount to a demand Israel be wiped off the map, to urge a second Holocaust. That is why so much was made of the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement in various farcical translations. Sources generally don't make that distinction surely. (Of course there are numerous sources referring to this, as many perhaps as prominent sources referring to its obverse: statements that a state for the Palestinian people will never exist. The parallel would be a page of the type, Calls for the non-existence of a Palestinian state.:) Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it's just my personal view but I think proposals for the destruction of Israel as a topic is logically a subset or a fork of antisemitism, which is quite distinct from anti-Zionism Nishidani (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Longhornsg and Nishidani are quite right - these are clearly distinct topics and require different articles. I have been an active anti-Zionist for half a century now, and have never called for "the destruction of Israel". Indeed, I am on record as opposing this both as a slogan and as a goal. What I, and most anti-Zionists I know or have worked with (including many Israeli Jews living in Israel), have called for is dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the Israeli state. Whether you agree or disagree with this formulation and aspiration, it should be evident that it is not a call for the destruction of Israel any more than the demand to end apartheid was a call for the destruction of South Africa.
Those calling for "the destruction of Israel" are not a subset of anti-Zionists. I suspect that many of them have no idea what anti-Zionism means, and just use the term as part of a propaganda rhetoric. Our article does not fall into this error, and I wish that some of those who bandy the term around would read it to get a better understanding of the issues involved. It would be a serious mistake to compromise the article by throwing into it the often ignorant or ill-informed comments of those who have no understanding of what Zionism means and why it should be opposed. RolandR (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well said. Zero 03:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- @RolandR @Zero0000, @Nishidani you seem to be implying that anti-zionism is distinct from "calling for the destruction of Israel" because the latter necessarily entails something very violent, "a second Holocaust" as Nishidani puts it. But that's not how Calls for the destruction of Israel defines it. For example, that article lists Iran, yet Iran has not only never called for a Holocaust, it has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East (outside of Israel). Iran has of course called for a one-state solution, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish-majority state. But that's also effectively what anti-zionists advocate, right? VR (Please ping on reply) 06:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Who cares for what that shabby and incompetent wiki article states? The point is that there is a huge polemical output that, obedient to a smudging of distinctions pushed by the hasbara bandwagon, will tell anyone careless in their reading that anti-Zionism and the 'destruction of Israel' physically or otherwise, are coterminous or interchangeable. The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel. That shoddy sequences of entailed cross-premises is so embedded in the flatulent polemics of our times that no argument or analysis can get anywhere unless (a) the premises are examined (b) the historicity of each grasped and (c) the patent use of the manufacture of these confusions to blindside lucid discussion is brought out. All these things have been done in the academic literature (which in turn has been challenged by a number of prominent scholars who deny the confusion and insist on the overlap) and all one need do is (i) familiarize oneself with the literature, and on wikipedia neatly draw out the distinctions and confusions as described in these sources.
- The only way to save that article from its own inanity would be to examine and rewrite the article strictly in terms of the extensive scholarly literature (which also has both the distinction and the denial of a distinction) and exclude rigorously all use of cheap newspaper or internet sources that more or less muddle this discourse.Nishidani (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel."
- All of this is correct. KronosAlight (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh and the article Calls for the destruction of Israel also considers "From the River to the Sea" as an exemplifying the "destruction of Israel". So it is clear that that article is using "destruction of Israel" to mean opposition to Israel as a Jewish-majority state. VR (Please ping on reply) 06:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- "dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the Israeli state."
- What does that even mean? KronosAlight (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add discrimination sidebar and discrimination template (articles is mentioned in the series on discrimination) Atakes Ris (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
RM of interest
There is currently a proposal to move "Zio (pejorative)" to "Zionist as a pejorative". It may be of interest.VR (Please ping on reply) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Include a sentence explaining why anti-Zionism is considered antisemtisim
Change: The relationship between Zionism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism, while others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a form of weaponization of antisemitism in order to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip.
to
The relationship between Zionism, anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism.
The ADL, an NGO dedicated to combatting antisemitism, views anti-zionism as antisemitic because anti-Zionism invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states."
Others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a form of weaponization of antisemitism in order to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Source: https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/anti-zionism SECschol (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done. Per WP:ADLPIA, ADL is an unreliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region partly coinciding with the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." to "movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the region of Palestine—a region coinciding with part of the biblical Land of Israel—was flawed or unjust in some way." The way it is currently phrased is denying Jewish history and inaccurately explains the historical maps. Israel's territory is only part of the biblical land, which included much of modern Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. 96.57.87.242 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Other editors will handle this, but for interest, I don't see a difference between 'a region partly coinciding with' and 'a region coinciding with part of'. They seem to be the same spatial relationship, an overlap between 2 spatial objects, although I think you version is clearer. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: this is neither an uncontroversial improvement nor one that has consensus. Please see WP:EDITXY for more information of what an uncontroversial improvement is. M.Bitton (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- C-Class Judaism articles
- High-importance Judaism articles
- C-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- High-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- High-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles