Talk:Anti-Zionism - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.253.203.31 (talk) at 17:59, 11 September 2004 (re: edits by 195.70.48.242). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:59, 11 September 2004 by 128.253.203.31 (talk) (re: edits by 195.70.48.242)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Older text is archived here:

Extremists; Anti-Semitism

Two points:

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?

--Wclark 04:40, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

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. Sam 04:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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.) RK

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? -- Simonides 05:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't you understand, the label is based on who is being labeled, not on what their saying at that particular juncture. Sam 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Google search results for:

"anti-zionism" "anti-semitism" — 20,000
"anti-zionism" -"anti-semitism" — 10,100

Looks like it's actually the majority view, to me. --Wclark 05:09, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Thats the worst excuse for a survey I've ever seen. Sam 05:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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). --Wclark 05:15, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Very silly, but you made me smile :) Sam 05:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. Adam 05:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. RK

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. Jayjg 16:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do not make edits on this topic until we've discussed it more first.

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 Anti-Semitism article). I made a similar point recently regarding the Zionism article and how it should visibly mention the controversy surrounding Zionism (and provide a link to Anti-Zionism 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.)

That said, I think these sentences still need work:

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. --Wclark 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. Jayjg 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? --Wclark 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. Sam 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 Strawman 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. Jayjg 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 The Nation:

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. --Wclark 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). Jayjg 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.) --Wclark 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. Jayjg 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. Adam 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, Sam 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. RK

Well that settles it, our learned elder and bastion of neutrality has spoken. Sam 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? --Wclark 17:04, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I agree, and compliment you for maintaining the high ground. Rudeness never accomplished anything intellectually honest. Sam 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). --Wclark 18:07, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

"View of the Catholic Church"

I am not sure why 209.etc (aka Lance6Wins) 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 Christian-Jewish reconciliation), which does not have the authority to define, promulgate, or enforce dogma. 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 the Vatican's website), 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. —No-One Jones 19:23, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Propagandistic

I find this formulation propagandistic: "Palestinian leadership formally recognised Israel as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords, although that recognition has been rendered inoperative in practice since the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000." This is some editor's POV masquerading as scholarly analysis. Also, I think it is propagandistic to say that "Other Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Syria may still desire the destruction of Israel but no longer say so openly," since the Saudis put forward a rather reasonable peace proposal that involved recognition of Israel, but the proposal was never taken up. I think that was in 2002. --C Colden 12:06, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first statement is not "propagandistic." Since 2000 the Palestinians have reverted to the position that a settlement must include the Right of Return, which amounts to a repudiation of the 1993 recognition of Israel, since the "return" of 5 to 8 million Palestinians would effectively destroy Israel. The second statement may or may not be true, and it may be that the Saudis would be prepared to recognise Israel under certain circumstances, but it is not "propagandistic." It would be better of your disagreements with other editors were not framed in such an abusive tone. Adam 12:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved with this muddy issue by editing the page, but the recent edit by 195.70.48.242 seems highly POV and should be heavily modified or deleted altogether. Livajo 17:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by 195.70.48.242. They didn't add any relevant information, and they were very POV. 128.253.203.31 17:59, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)