Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.196.164.190 (talk) at 04:36, 9 August 2006 (→Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and the Left). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Older text is archived here:

• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 1
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 2
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 3
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 4
• Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 5

"Far right" anti-Zionism

Quote: 'Western far right anti-Zionists see the state of Israel as something Jewish, therefore evil. From late 1990s, most of far-right parties looking for political presence had to abandon anti-Zionism platform to distinguish themselves from far-left and even moderate left parties that took this platform over.'

This sentence is ungrammatical and logically pernicious. It presumes a) The far right is racist, and supposedly used to be anti-Zionist out of hatred of the Jews b) The far right is capricious, and supposedly is now pro-Zionist to spite the left. Does not deserve to be in Misplaced Pages. ralian 06:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Equal citizens

A question to the editor who pushes the word "equal" in one-state solution: is this equality guaranteed? The history of dhimmitude, the UN Arab Human evelopment Report and the Covenant of HAMAS are not convincing precedents of equality in the Arab world. ←Humus sapiens 07:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Biased Definition

Look, that quoted paragraph in the "Definition" section really has to go. It comes from a totally biased source and doesn't merely define, but also casts aspersions upon so called "anti-zionists." By talking about "existence," the cited paragraph taints "anti-zionists" by association with the Holocaust.

Moreover, we should not be using a definition provided by such an unapologetically zionist website, let alone featuring it so prominently.

Example: When discussing anti-free trade advocates, we don't define them by pasting an extract from a pro-free trade website characterizing them as, say, "leftists hostile to economic liberty who would like to see our right of absolute free enterprise cease to exist." Now it is possible that some anti-free traders are indeed opposed to the very existence of free enterprise, but that is a special case. More generally, an opponent of free trade opposes the existence of international free enterprise IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

Can anyone really defend this defintion or its high position in the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazel Rah (talk • contribs)

The source (which looks fine to me) doesn't matter in this case: we are not taking their side. Do you have anything to say on the subject? ←Humus sapiens 10:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I summed up my thoughts fairly well. But of course you are taking "the side" of the people from the yahoodi website by the very fact that you present their unabashedly politicized CHARACTERAZATION of "anti-zionism" as so very authoritative.

Example: Should Wikipeda define the word "pornography" by copying and pasting the partisan perspectives of a Feminist or Evangelical Christian website? Especially if the definition were blatently baised? Do you really think it would be NPOV for Misplaced Pages to define pornography as "sexual exploitation," for example?

All I'm asking is that you at least attempt to defend this definiton of "anti-zionism." Just because it "looks fine to you," doesn't mean it's NPOV. That isn't a valid defence. Do you belive that your point of view subsumes everybody elses? Clearly the definition provided does not look "fine to me." If you to want keep that section, you need to give real reasons. Hazel Rah 01:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For this particular def. we honestly provide the source and say that this is one possible way to define it, without taking sides. You are saying you don't like the source; it seems you simply don't like the text. Let's keep on-topic: what exactly do you object to? Do you have an alternative definition in mind? Without a good explanation your personal preference is not a reason enough to change or remove it. ←Humus sapiens 02:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But your selective choice of an admitedly biassed source does reveal a POV when you ignor the other equally biased "sides" who define/characterize "anti-zionism" in a positive light. I agree that the page looks better after someone apparently rearranged that section so that the quote is featured less prominently. Don't you agree? I think it's just more productive to get rid of this paragraph rather than starting a tit-for-tat war between two "sides." That's just my opinion though.

At any rate, this section shouldn't stand in it's current incarnation. ````

Still nothing specific on topic... You may check the article's edit history: I've moved that quote down a bit in the spirit of good faith. ←Humus sapiens 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with Hazal Ra. Either:

• ) We put up a definition from an unbiased source or
• ) We put up a definition from a Zionist source AND one from an Anti-Zionist source.Loodog 23:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

On the first option, how are you going to judge the neutrality of that source? On the second, I don't have a problem with an alternative encyclopedic def. ←Humus sapiens 03:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Loodog. I have taken the initiative and deleted that reference. Humus won't address any of my points, so I feel he has no relevance in this debate. Hazel Rah 00:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see any of your points other that you don't like the source. ←Humus sapiens 00:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you fail to address any of my points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazel Rah (talk • contribs)

Hazel Rah, other than your personal dislike I don't see any "points". Banning a sourced definition will not work. Also, please watch 3RR. ←Humus sapiens 07:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish anti-Zionism

The section on Jewish anti-Zionism duplicates the article Jewish Anti-Zionism. I do not object to the content, but unless there is a good reason for duplication, I am planning to shorten the section here. Please help making this consistent with other WP articles/subartcles. ←Humus sapiens 10:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the reference to the Satmars as the largest Hassidic group - the Lubavatchers have probably about 200,000 adherents and are widely cosidered the largest Hassidic group. Incorrect 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Peace encyclopedia"

I removed the following from the definitions section for the time being:

According to the Peace Encyclopedia, "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's "secure and defensible borders" should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation."

The website this is taken from, yahoodi.com, has a quite right-wing pro-zionist agenda and is is obviously pretty POV. There's nothing wrong with this in and of itself - but in order to balance it out we would instead end up getting into explaining this bias. Succinctly, there are better ways of "defining" anti-zionism without getting bogged down in explaining POV stuff.

TreveX 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect I'll have to disagree. There were complaints earlier that we are defining Zionism here instead of anti-Zionism. Now that we are defining anti-Zionism, one of the definitions gets removed because some deem its source as "right-wing pro-Zionist". Even if this is true, surely it is only fair for "pro-zionists" to have a word in an article on Anti-Zionism. I think Peace Encyclopedia qualifies as a reputable source: it claims to be (no affiliation here) a collective effort by technocrats who have "a doctorate in the sciences, have belonged to a recognized skeptics organization, have submitted a patent application...", etc., and we mention their definition attributed, without embracing their position. As for "better ways of "defining" anti-zionism", removing a definition just because some personally don't like it (or its source) won't work. Let's keep in mind, this is a very polarizing conflict in general. If you see any error in the definition itself, please discuss it. If you find an alternative encyclopedic definition, feel free to add it. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My problem is that the title 'peace encyclopedia' is misleading as this website bears a greater likeness to a blog entry, rather than some authoratitive and balanced work. I didn't remove it because of some personal dislike but because it wasn't qualified in any way and thought doing so would drag the whole section off-topic. I have now re-contextualised this quote. Is this something we can both live with? :-) TreveX 23:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Some Zionists" - I don't know their affiliation with specific political movement/ideology. I am going to change this to "The Peace Encyclopedia" contends on its website...

"all anti-Zionism repudiates Israel's right to exist" - why would we rephrase their definition? Also, where did "all" come from? I don't want to misrepresent them or anyone else. ←Humus sapiens 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

An alternative could be "The Society for Rational Peace" contends that... ←Humus sapiens 23:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "The zionist Society for Rational Peace contends that..."? TreveX 00:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Who qualified them so? See WP:NOR. ←Humus sapiens 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Just look at their website. Any resonable person can see that they are Zionists. They even have a page defending Zionism against common criticisms. Also the links to pro-Israel HonestReporting.com and accusing CNN of a pro-Palestinian bias. TreveX 12:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, "Any resonable person can see that..." the UK, the USSR, and the UN "... are Zionists": the 1st ran the British Mandate of Palestine whose stated goal was "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", the 2nd vocally supported the establishment of the State of Israel, and the 3rd passed the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Of course it would be wrong to qualify any of them Zionist. Anyway, I saw your edit and hope we're reached a compromise. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we have reached a compromise. However, how you can't see that the "Peace Encyclpedia" is ideologically Zionist is completely beyond me. Furthermore WP:NOR has absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with qualifying sources, in contrast to WP:RS.TreveX 13:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

TreveX, I appreciate you being reasonable. I think we should not characterize our sources on ideological basis. If they do it themselves, or if someone else does it, that woudn't be a poroblem. My opinion (or yours, with all due respect) doesn't matter. ←Humus sapiens 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If an article is about an ideology, then stating the perpective a source has on this ideology seems basic good practice. This seems to be standard throughout Misplaced Pages. If, for example, the Cato Institute was quoted in an article about the free market, then the article would state that the organisation is in favour of free trade etc. The Society for Rational Peace are obviously Zionists and I believe this would be held up in a WP:RFC, of course now we have settled the wording this won't be necessary. TreveX 22:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus & TreveX. I don't want to stir up anything, now that you've reached a compromise. :) I just have a question, as a new Wikipedian: Why even cite a website? I realize that this is in a section about various definitions (of a hot topic, to boot), and that there is another section on dictionary definitions. But I thought it was preferable to stick to "authoritative" sources like scholarly (peer-reviewed) books & journal articles. Z Wylld 23:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That was part of my original point - that the so-called "Peace Encyclopedia" is a glorified blog. The title, however, may mislead people into believing that this definition carries some scholarly weight, which it clearly does not.TreveX 23:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Z Wylld, welcome to the project. TreveX, I don't think it is fair to dismiss them as "a glorified blog", but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I guess their def. is not in the section Dictionary definitions exactly because it is not a dic. def., but if someone moves it there I won't object.

Re: citing, please see WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:V. Cheers.←Humus sapiens 23:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You keep refering me to policy pages like you are trying to invoke some kind of authority. I am well aware of the rules around citing sources. Perhaps you should take a second look at WP:RS -- "Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident." TreveX 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Z Wylld's question/suggestion - sorry I didn't make it clear. I do not deny that the SRP has some bias (I doubt it's possible to find a party/observer commonly accepted as neutral). ←Humus sapiens 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

clarification needed: Anti-Zionism in Japan

From main article: Antisemitism in Japan

"Originally Japan, with no Jewish population, had no anti-Semitism but Nazi ideology and propaganda left an influence on Japan during World War II, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were translated into Japanese."-I can see the validity of that statement, but one must realize that not all books published in Japan are as the result of Nazi ideology.

In the early Imperial Japan, Japanese scholars have studies cultures comparatively by discussing things in binary manner. 1)"Japan vs China" 2)"The West" vs "The East" 3)"polytheism" vs "monotheism"

Just like the way Western anthropologists/sociologists/psychologists are fascinated by the foreign culture of "animism", It is natural for the Japanese scholars to objectify, "what is monotheism". Japan,a polytheistic country which never had history of being a Christian empire/state, is particularly interested in the shift from a polytheistic community to a monotheistic community. In order to theorize this question, they take the example of Mozes initiating monotheism.

Japan, which fought the Russo-Japanese war with a American Jewish sponsors who were against Russia (and as the result Japan won) knows what the economical status of the Jews can affect the political game.

I would like the following points to be clearly: -Japanese culture "others" monotheism. -Japan had its own understanding of "Jewish gold" before the Nazi influence.

Thanks for reading

I currently do not have a wiki account, but I am wondering if somebody is willing to reflect some of my perspectives to the main page.

~~s~~

Re: the Defining anti-Zionism section

The second to last paragraph of the Defining Anti-Zionism section states that: The Society for Rational Peace contends on its website that "Anti-Zionism is the conviction that Israel, of all the world's countries, does not have the right to exist. It is the conviction that the determination of what constitutes Israel's 'secure and defensible borders' should not be made by the Israeli people, either directly or via representation."

I believe that this statement should be followed by something like this paragraph (an edited sample from the Western anti-Zionism section further down the page): Most Western anti-Zionism advocates coexistence rather than expulsion: very few western intellectuals actively desire the physical destruction of Israel, and most would welcome any settlement if it was acceptable to the Palestinians.

As it now stands, I think that the Defining anti-Zionism section leans too far toward radical anti-Zionism. Any thoughts? --(Mingus ah um 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Mignus, I completely agree. I just deleted that part for like the millionth time. But this one user just wont' give up and no matter how often you give your reasons, he just ignors then and won't adress your comments. He himself never offers any justification for why the paragraph should be included. I think it's pretty aparent that that paragraph comes from an openly zionist website, and is really just an underhanded attempt to slander people opposesd to zionism and/ or nationalism in general. Hazel Rah 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add verifiable and reputable definition but do not remove a referenced quote. ←Humus sapiens 02:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who are you to tell me what to do?

Hazel Rah 03:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

False anti-zionism

This section completely begs the question as written. As written it assumes there is a distinction between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. I'm rephrasing to remove the POV Jbolden1517 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not there is a distinction in fact between the two concepts is open to debate; however, the essence of each is distinct: disagreement with the state of Israel's current existence vs. discrimination against Jews. They may be the same thing, as many will argue, but the underlying concepts from which each is derived are different. Additionally, for it to be "begging the question" it would have to making logical argument based on fact, when an encyclopedic article is merely (in theory) stating fact with minimal accompanying judgement. The article shouldn't be taking sides as to whether anti-zionism and anti-semitism are distince, anyway. Define book as "a set of written pieces of material" is not begging the question. Loodog 21:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

defintion

The definition of anti-zionism:

In addition to a conventional definition of anti-Semitism ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), the unabridged edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, originally published in 1961 and reprinted in 2002, gives a controversial second and third definition to anti-Semitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel".

I don't mean to start up a whole debate on whether there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, but as an encyclopedia, when concept A is defined, the writing doesn't abruptly jump to defining concept B without providing transition. (e.g. Define electron: the definition of electricity is ...) Without a transition sentence (e.g. "Because little distinction is made between anti-semitism and anti-zionism, it is convenient to instead define anti-semitism" would be such a sentence, not that I agree with it), the defintion part of the article fails to make sense to the reader seeking information.Loodog 21:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

Is it racism or not? By the categories it is, but by the article it's not (Anti-Zionism#Jewish anti-Zionism). I myself don't consider anti-Zionism as racism, though many anti-Zionists are anti-Semetic. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ) 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody remotely mainstream considers anti-zionism to be anti-semitic in of itself, however anti-zionism is often used as a more "respectable" front for anti-semitism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

But does plain anti-Zionism means for racism? I think the answer is no, although it is popular in anti-Semetic circles, being anti-Zionist does not make you racist as Zionism is an ideology and not a race\religion. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ) 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Both Zionism and anti-Zionism can be racist or anti-racist depending on the context. In large part it depends on which theory of international relations the writer endorses. --Ian Pitchford 12:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Socialist Anti-Zionism"?

I wonder why the section "Socialist Anti-Zionism" was removed... that, more than any other opposition to Zionism, is the key to what's going on in the modern world. Darth Sidious 21:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Anti-Zionism

I do not believe that this should be included in the Anti-Zionsim section, as it draws influences from anti-semitism. For years now Israel has claimed that any opposition to zionism is infact anti-semitism, and I think it is time westarted distinguishing between the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss501hm (talk • contribs)

Many reputable historians (not only Israeli historians or Israeli officials) agree that it had indeed strong antisemitic undertones. Believe it or not, the fact is that the Soviets insisted it to be Anti-Zionism and not Antisemitism, so it surely belongs here. ←Humus sapiens 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism and the Left

The author wrote that the Kaplan and Small article stated that "Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe's newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties"

However this is not in the article (see also <http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/jcr_antisemitism.pdf>).

In <http://en.wikipedia.org/New_anti-Semitism#The_left_and_anti-Zionism> there is proper documentation on the combination of Left and Anti-Zionism. Perhaps that section could be used for improvement of this article?

I think this links should be studies

I assure everyone that this is not biased or racist and almost all the information given I have looked at independently. These views add an extra dimenstion to Zionism and show how it victimized Jews and non-Jews alike.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary

This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...

http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm

69.196.164.190