Talk:Zionism

Numbered archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

terrorism and violence

using the word terrorism to describe the PLO seems to take a pro Zionist view. I recomend using violence because it is more neutral than the word terror and basically is the same thing.I will change it for now but discuss it on the discussion page if I am wrong. Thank You! (Ssd175 06:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

The Zionist plan (well documented) to ethnically cleanse the natives is by definition "terrorism". --Fourtildas on 9 February 2007.

There is no Zionist plan to ethnically cleanse anybody and even if there were, it is not the definition of terrorism. Don't make up bullshit facts please. GHcool 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Plan DaletEggball (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Get real. The article doesn't even mention the evil terrorism commited by Zionists against the British military in Palestine (Zionists funded and trained mainly by Nazi Germany if truth be told). This is a puff piece for Ashkenazi extremism. Don't cover up reality. Mixino1 03:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't Terrorism, and there is no Palestine. Palestine is defined as a stateless nation, and you can hardly blame the Jews for wanting they're land back, they've been shunted from corner of the globe to corner of the globe. Zionism is not terrorism, Zionism is basically the Jews saying "No, were not going to give you our land." Also, It is impossible for people of our background to understand the causes behind Zionism, as we haven't been shunted around, persecuted, and generally treated like s@#$ for our existence(thats only been happening since we got involved in the middle east!). The Jewish society is much older, and when it comes to the middle east, theres a lot of history that goes undocumented by our so called neutral historians, but is still remembered and well known by the people. These ancient feuds between religions, nations, and ideals has been going since before the first Pharaoh sat on the throne, and it is not our place to judge the acts of Zionism as "Acts of Terror" because A). We do not fully understand the motives and reasons for these actions, and B) a good deal of violence in the Middle East has been the West's Fault. We've stirred the pot and added fuel to the fire so many times that its a wonder ANYONE in the Middle East still talks to us. And people wonder why so many of the Middle Eastern Peoples hate us and want us dead. I want you to think on that next time you want to make wild generalizations about Zionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.117.27 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Palestine. It's the place at the far eastern end of the Mediterranean where the People who call themselves Palestinian have lived for thousands of years, as recent DNA profiling has shown. They have been there much longer than the Zionists because they never left. They weren't keeping the place warm for Zionists for when they decided to wander back. It's thier country. It wasn't an empty land when the Zionists arrived. The Zionists knew that they couldn't play the victim if they were perceived to be doing what they were doing, namely stealing other peoples land, so they lied. Do you see how that works?Eggball (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee's reversals

Ceedjee has been reverting several of my edits. This is not warranted by wikipedia policy.

Dear Ceedjee, my edits are all relevant and from reliable sources. Therefore they should be in the article and there's no excuse for deleting them. Of course I understand that they don't coincide with your pov, but then either:

• your pov cannot be found in reliable sources (since I tend not to read Zionist historians (except Morris) I don't know whether these sources support your pov), in which case my edits are NPOV, i.e. neutral, or
• your pov can be found in reliable sources, in which case you are free to find them and add them to the article, but not to remove my edits. Wikipedia policy states: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[1]].

I am putting my edits back in and are willing to discuss each of them with you. --JaapBoBo (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think omeone who doesn't read "zionist" historians shold be contributing to a page on zionism. thats like editing the page on Africa and boasting that you do't read African historians.

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I have read the NPOV policy page, and it says the we must show all significant points of view in an article. If you only accept or read one point of view, then you will not be able to follow policy. Also, I think material written by Anti-Zionists might be better suited to the Anti-Zionism article. David Sher (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. NPOV requires all pov's to be present. Someone can add pov's from one side, another can add pov's from another side. Together, we make a good article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm wrong. The policy says all significant points of view must be presented. If you only read one-sided material, you can't make a proper presentation of all sides, and it is your responsibility to ensure that your additions do not unbalance the article and violate the NPOV policy. David Sher (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the sources I read and use are quite balanced, unlike some Zionist works that contain a lot of apologetics, like Morris' or the quote from Shapira in the article, on Zionist attitudes towards Palestinians: 'Yet at that particular juncture in the movement such deliberations [...] had about the same importance as the learned disputations customarily held in the courtyards of Hassidic rebbes regarding what would happen after the coming of the messiah' , which some editors even see fit to add to this article. Also, dismissing books that are more critical on Zionism, like you seem to do, will surely make this article POV.

Besides, wikipedia policy says this: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.. [[2]]

That is not a policy page, and it appears it was written in January 2004, when Wikipedia was quite young. This is a mature article, and your additions from only one point of view are unbalancing it. You've admitted yourself you only use non-Zionist sources along with Morris. In this article you are using anti-Zionists and politicians. This is not acceptable. Please take responsibility for your edits, and the effect they have on the whole. David Sher (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The page I'm referring to is a page with an explanation of official Wikipedia policy. If it were obsolete, as you claim, it would not still be there. The sources I use are reliable. Even if they are anti-Zionist, as you claim (I say they're quite neutral), that would not be the relevant criterium for a disqualification. Reliability is the issue! In fact you are acting irresponsible by removing relevant and sourced material.

Concerning NPOV, Wikipedia policy requires all pov's to be represented. The Zionist pov is already there, and my additions make this article more NPOV and more mature. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The page you are referring to does not say it is a policy page in any way. I checked it carefully, and looked in its history to see who wrote it, which is how I also saw that that advice was written in January 2004. I'm not surprised that you say writers like Khalidi and Finkelstein and Flapan and Sternhall are neutral, but that's because you choose writers writing from a very specific and strong bias. Writing an article about Zionism using only non-Zionist and anti-Zionist sources is like writing an article about American history using only non-American and Communist Soviet sources. Concerning NPOV, that is right, NPOV policy requires all points of view to be represented, but you are only putting information from writers who write from one point of view. I don't know what "Zionist pov" you are talking about, but your additions from strongly opinionated writers, many of whom aren't even historians, violates the NPOV policy and the Verifiability policy. David Sher (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

JaapBoBo pov pushing

I asked you to discuss any edit here before modyfing the article.

If somebody adds 1 entire book from Pappe and 2 lines from Morris, he doesn't respect npov.

If somebody adds all possible details on a topic in a general article, he doesn't respect wp:due weight.

This is what you do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceedjee (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You answered on my talk page you agreed but you came here and throw personnal attacks.

This just after 1 week of absence where you were convinced of manipulating Morris quote.

There is no disagreement of pov between us. I don't have pov concering this stuff but I cannot agree your manipulation.

So, just write here below *ONE* of the section you want to add and let's discuss this.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not say on your talk page that I was not planning to reverse you.

Please if you think one of my deletions was unwarrented you are free to adress that particular deletion. What you are doing now is usually called vandalism. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am not pov-pushing. I explained above what I did. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yes. What you do on wikipedia is pov pushing and manipulation.

Add here below what you want to add in the article and let's discuss this.

But go step by step and paragraph by paragraph. Ceedjee (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You can see all the changes I made yesterday on the history page of the article, so if there is anyone particular you don't agree with you can bring it up here. --JaapBoBo (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the stuff japbobo added because it was repetious and some of it was stupid. to say that weizmann opposed one view while supporting it in the back of his mind is just dumb. It doesn't really matter what the source is. In addition the article is already too long. The POV that Bobo is pushing (and it is a POV) is represented in the article. If there is a particular aspect of Zionism you (Jaapbobo) feel is not being discussed I wil be happy to hear about it and discuss it with a view to improving the article but it seems to me that at the moment youare just trying to put in quotes from Flapan et al with little more intnetion that making Zionist leaders look bad and the result is miles of text and quotes that are not paricularly relevant, interesting nor do they meet decent standards of English writing. Thanks Telaviv1 (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Telaviv, if you have remarks on my edits, please state them more particular below.

I understand your concern about the length of the article, but I am concerned with NPOV, which I think is more important. Maybe in some cases my edits can be made shorter, but please, lets consider this for each edit separately.

In case you don't agree with some pov's wikipedia policy says it's better to add other pov's than to delete: see [[3]] --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann

Weizmann rejected the idea that population transfer of Palestinians to other Arab countries was immoral (Under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, Turks and Greeks had agreed a mutual transfer arrangement). According to Flapan this idea was in the back of his mind, although he didn't say this in public. In 1930 he did however urge the British to consider transfer of Palestinians to Transjordan.

Of this Telaviv says: weizmann opposed one view while supporting it in the back of his mind is just dumb. The idea in the back of Weizmann's mind was of course that he rejected the idea that transfer was immoral. Maybe it should be stated clearer.--JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away recently. First of all Weizmann was involved in the zionist movement for over 50 years and this does not really deal with his views across the period. It focuses on two moments which are given out of context and meant to give a negative impression of Weizmann. I don't think you can really read Weizmann's mind and in this context only official positions should be referred to. Also this does not really provide an effective summary of what Weizmann stood for. As I understand it Weizmann was a democrat who was willing to talk to the Arabs and to make a lot of compromises. However he opposed creating an elected assembly in Palestine when there was an Arab majority as this would have enabled the Arabs to prevent Jewish migration, which was an issue he would not compromise on. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that Weizmann was a democrat, ... except when the Palestinians were concerned...!?!

In fact what Flapan says is not very different from that. If Weizmann could get rid of some Palestinians by transfer, he would do it. It appears that according to Flapan, who has studied the subject extensively, including the unofficial side, thinks that Weizmann was willing to go a little bit further than you think. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have studied the period quite extensively too and am currently reading a biogrpahy of Weizmann. I'm up to 1918 and will try to amke some progress in the next week or so. I agree that Zionism ahd a problem with the fact that its "nation" was not in the right place. What the Zionists wanted was a period of grace under British control where they could increase their numbers so that they became the majority and they were willing, during this phase to deny certain Arab rights. Any transfer on the cards would have been at the hands of the British and not the Jews. I am nearly at San Remo so I'll soon learn more... You should also examine the conditions of Jews in Eastern Europe. The writers you refer to don't discuss what was pushing the Jews out of Europe. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious what you'll read. Who's the biographer?

By the way, with Weizmann almost all Zionists rejected the idea that population transfer of Palestinians to other Arab countries was immoral. Read e.g. Masalha's 'Expulsion of the Palestinians'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not completely correct.

There was a debate among zionists as well as among british because at that time it was not clear to people if population transfer was morale or not. It was another time than today.

So, they debated this and some were opposed (minority) and some others see this as a good solution (the majority).

You read Morris, did you ? You can also read Segev, 'One Palestine, complete'.

When the Peel Commission proposed the transfer in 1936, they didn't oppose but were very pleased by this who was one of the way to solve the unmanageable problem of the demographic outcome and the mutual hatred between Arabs and Jews in Palestine.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The moral side of the problem was not a part of the discussion. According to Masalha the ones that did not support transfer did not do that for moral reasons, but because they feared the Palestinians would resist forced transfer (the Peel proposal did not require the Palestinian population to be transfered to agree with transfer, for them it was 'in the last resort compulsory'). The Peel proposal was rejected because the Zionists wanted more than the 20% of PAlestine it granted them. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

As written here above, the morale part of the problem was a part of the discussion among some of the Zionists and they were aware of the negative morale aspect of a transfer given they feared defending this "solution" openly would be negative for the sympathy accorded to the Zionist project.

We don't mind the reason why [some] Zionists rejected Peel proposal (Ben Gurion and Weizman defended this). They were happy that British proposed themselves the transfer in the Peel report. Note that British adminisration finally rejected this solution because it was not morale ! (this is explained eg in Tom Segev, One Palestine, complete).

Finally, the last morale aspect I see is described by Morris who points out that they tried to justify this solution by comparison with what happened between Greece and Turkey in the 20ies.

What could seem strange (UK proposing an immorale solution; Zionists defending this but not openly; ...) is due to the fact that morale values at that time were not the same as us today and that only a part of the population understood at the time the potential immorality around this.

Note also, as Pappe reminds that ethnic cleansing is a recent concepts.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're falling for a propaganda trick - despite what some might want you to think, the Peel Commission is a footnote in history, just one of a whole series of reports. It went to Palestine in 1936 and was boycotted by the Arab side (who were at last in serious revolt). Peel wrote something that might have kicked off a new state - not the "national home" of Balfour and the Mandate. The British had always been opposed to transfer and were bound to reject it. I think the proposal involved ethnically cleansing 225,000 Arabs and 1,250 of the immigrants - it was clearly an outrage. 3 years later, the British finally took the obvious decision and attempted to stop immigration, but by then it was too late. PR^talk 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ben-Gurion

According to Flapan Ben-Gurions assesment of Arab feelings led him to an even more militant line on the need to build up Jewish military strength: 'I believe in our power, in our power which will grow, and if it will grow agreement will come...'.

This text is very relevant and from a reliable source. Why should it not be in?

Maybe we should not include the remaining part I added about Ben-Gurion. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

yes try ot keep it short and to the point. I have no poblem with this particular statement but don't think you need to make the same point twice. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew labor

According to Flapan 'The struggle for "100 per cent of Jewish labour" in the Jewish sector of the Palestine economy occupied the energies of the labour movement for most of the Mandatory years and contributed more than any other factor to the crystallisation of the concept of territorial, economic and social separation between Jews and Arabs.'

This is relevant, and according to Flapan one of the core policies of the Zionists. Now its only mentioned (without the importance Flapan ascribes to it) in the Arab attitudes (such as the "Hebrew labor" movement which, in an effort to prevent Zionist settlements turning into a standard colonial enterprise and to secure the creation of a Jewish proletariat, campaigned against the employment of cheap Arab labour.), but it was a central Zionist attitude and should be mentioned as part of the Zionist attitudes. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I combined this with 'Flapan's overview' (see below) to:

According to Flapan one of the basic concepts of mainstream Zionism with regard to the Arab Palestinians was economic, social and cultural segregation as a means to create a Jewish national life. Especially the struggle for "100 per cent of Jewish labour" in the Jewish sector of the economy occupied the energies of the labour movement for most of the Mandatory years and contributed more than any other factor to the territorial, economic and social separation between Jews and Arabs.'

--JaapBoBo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical right

According to Finkelstein the establishment of a Jewish majority and a Jewish state in Palestine was fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of the indigenous Arab inhabitants of Palestine. They would either have to move or become a minority in their own country. Nonetheless mainstream Zionism never doubted its historical right to establish a Jewish majority on the indigenous Arab population of Palestine. Zionism justified this with two 'facts': the bond of the Jewish nation with Palestine, as derived from its history, was unique, while the Arabs of Palestine were part of the Arab nation and therefore had no special bond with Palestine. Therefore the Jews had a preemptive right to Palestine. For example Aaron David Gordon, whose teachings formed the main intellectual inspiration of the labor leaders, wrote in 1921:

'For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.'

This is the core of Zionist attitudes towards the Palestinians and is supported by several reliable sources. I understand that many Zionist scholars have not paid attention to this, but more neutral sources have. To delete this from the article is to make it pov. --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not about the Arab population of Palestine, nor about historical rights. 1. Historical land rights are rights that by definition do not apply to Jews and therefore to claim them is to say Jews are second class human beings. 2. How many generations does one have to live somewhere to acquire historical rights? how many generations do you have to be outside it to lose them?

The article does not suggest the Palestinians have no rights or connection to Palestine, it is about Zionism and what Zionists claim. The biblical origins of Zionism are mentioned in the introduction. If you want to mention it then it needs ot be no more then a line. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to argue with Finkelstein's pov that Zionism claims a historical right. Maybe you should read his book, in order to understand his point better. Gorny and Sternhell agree with Finkelstein on this point. E.g. Sternhell quotes Zionism's most important ideologue Aaron David Gordon, who wrote in 1921:

For Eretz Israel, we have a charter that has been valid until now and that will always be valid, and that is the Bible [... including the Gospels and the New Testament ...] It all came from us; it was created among us. [...] And what did the Arabs produce in all the years they lived in the country? Such creations, or even the creation of the Bible alone, give us a perpetual right over the land in which we were so creative, especially since the people that came after us did not create such works in this country, or did not create anything at all.

According to Zeev Sternhell 'this was the ultimate Zionist argument', so there's no doubt about this historical right which Zionism claimed. Also maybe you are not aware that Gordon is the nationalist ideologue who by 1920 eclipsed all nationalist socialist ideologues. Socialism did not suit Zionism because it was based on class struggle. Instead Zionism needed class cooperation to conquer the Land. The Histradut treated its workers not different than a large European company treated it's workers.

This is more important and relevant than you appear to think. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I accepted your point about Zinism claiming a historical right too. However I think the issue is addressed in the article's discussion of the religious origins of Zionism and should not result in more then a sentence. The socialist movement dominated the Zionism movement, so to say it was not socialist is wrong. I understand that the authors you have read are claiming it was not 'proper' socialism however that depends on a very narrow definition of socialism and it seems to me to be the result of POV determining theory. You could eaqually say the British LAbour PArty was/is not socialist. It owuld be more accurate to say it was social-democrat or something like that. You also should take into account that Marx "On the Jewish Question" had a lot of influence and is an anti-semitic text which calls for a ban on judaism (he says it is not the Jews who should be emancipated but Europe which needs to be emancipated FROM the Jews. How you consider the Histadrut treated its workers depends on the Eruopean company you are comparing it to. The Histadrut did a lot more then provide jobs - it provided helath care, sports facilities and also trade union services for workers in other sectors. Workers employed b the histadrut usually had very good conditions, certainly by british standards (woith which I am familar). Telaviv1 (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're wrong about the socialist chracter of labour zionism. In the first half of the 20th century most socialist parties were not yet called social democrats. Socialists fought a class struggle. Zionism abhorred class struggle. Sternhell writes (p5. of 'The Founding Myths of Israel') that in 1977, after more than 40 years of Zionist 'labour' in power Israels social policies lagged far behind those of France and Britain, and (p.6) that the Yishuv became in the 1930s a typical bourgeois society with significant social and economic discrepancies, etc..

The point is whether Finkelstein's and Sternhell's pov are relevant enough to be mentioned.

I think it is. Two major facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Finkelstein's pov is relevant for both, but very relevant for the second. If Zionism had not believed in their preemptive right to the Land of Israel it would probably not have succeeded.

The sources also find it very relevant. Finkelstein says that this is the justification given for Zionism by Zionism. Sternhell says it was their 'ultimate argument'. Apparently both find it very relevant for Zionism. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In going on only reading one pov there is no risk you can get a reasonnable picture of the situation.

An exemple is Histadrout organised commons strikes where Arabs and Jews were together.

Another example is Brit Shalom, with Magnes, the director of the Hebrew University who militated for a binational state.

But these movement were minoritary. Jews ans Arabs didn't want a binational solution and as soon as 1920 they started clashing with more and more violence and developed a mutual fear and hatred.

Two major facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem

This is a nationalist point of view far from any humanist consideration. What scholar wrote that ? You should not refer to him.

Tom Segev describes in One Palestine, complete many other "facts created by Zionism". It also developed an educational system (with numerous new school and a University - access to education is the basis of social equity, particularly just after WWI), they developed a parlementary system where they could debate and discuss the different topics of interest; they were one of the first political system to give equal rights to men and women (with some practical limits but in rejecting Arabs); On the political side, their diplomacy was extremely efficient and respected, particularly at Londonon; on the economical point of view, they develop the communist system of Moshav and Kibbutz while on the liberal side, they modernized Palestine, developed Haifa and other cities and build a new harbor at Tel-Aviv (in the context of an economical war, it is true)... There are also dark facts, such as the development of a more and more segregationnist system where Arabs were rejected and their will to be majoritary in the country (ie another country) but that are explanations that also deserve to be given. Ceedjee (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, also from a humanist pov: Two major facts were created by Zionism: the State of Israel and the Palestinian Refugee Problem. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says those are the "major facts created by Zionism"? Many factors led to the Palestinian refugee problem. History is not as simple as one-sided analysts would have you believe. David Sher (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, JaapBoBo.

This illustrates once more the way you (wrongly) understand NPoV.

It is exactly the same that in this exemple : when Morris writes there were numerous causes to the first and second waves of the Palestinian exodus and that you create a table titled the main cause of the exodus according to Morris.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think one could say that Zionism as a movement was not socialist, however to describe socialist Zionism as non-socialist is a highly contrived argument. First how do you define socialist? Class struggle is a feature of Marxist theory which is not necessarily the same thing. Egalitarianism is the key and the Kibbutz is arguably the most outstanding socialist society to have been built in the twentieth century. Before the war the British labour party was actually more socialist then it is today. I think you will also find that Rosa Luxembourg led the SPD in germany. Given the prominence of Jews in so many socialist movements across Europe (and the Middle East!) it seems unlikely the Socialist Zionists did not have a very good understanding of what socialism was about. The authors you quote are Marxists and keen to attack zionism yet while they force Zionists and other liberals to address their failings they fail to address their own serious moral failings. Marxist thinking led to the worst genocides of the 20th century - Stalin and Mao were arguably worse then Hitler and that ignores Pol Pot and Kim (incidnetally my uncle did 5 years in Siberia and my grandmother died in Auschwitz). As for the "humanism" which you mention - well that is a product of Liberal thought. Marxist thinking disavows the concept of individual human rights and recognizes only collective rights. That is why it is possible for it to ignore its own contribution to so much suffering. As for racism, I have already noted that Marxism is an anti-semitic philopsphy at its core, unfortunately its prime exponenets also fail to tackle this issue. If you look hard enough you will find flaws in anyone. A key factor in racism (I speak from expereince) is that people will examine you with a microscope for your flaws and then amplify them. That is how anti-semitism and anti-Zionism combine. If Marxism was subject to the kind of close ananlysis it gives others it would not emerge unscathed. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, zionism is not socialism. But in zionism there were socialist (Mapai) and marxist (Mapam) movements. If the principle of kibboutz and the organisation of Palmach are not exemples of the application of the marxist model, what is a marxist model ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this: 'I think one could say that Zionism as a movement was not socialist, however to describe socialist Zionism as non-socialist is a highly contrived argument.' . In practice Zionsim was not socialist, except for the Kibbutz movement. Sternhell says the first Kibbutzes (or Kvutza's) were established to solve practical problems, not because of an ideal. The policy of the Zionist leaders in the cities was however not socialist, but they used the Kibbutz movement to appear socialist. --JaapBoBo (talk) 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical right

Back to the 'real' discussion:

I think Finkelstein's pov here is well founded. E.g. Gorny cites a host of Zionists claiming a preemptive right. The cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am 'saw the historical rights of the Jews as outweighing the Arabs' residential rights in Palestine'. Max Nordau declared that Palestine was the 'legal and historical inheritance' of the Jewish nation, and that the Palestinian Arabs had only 'possession rights'. Ben Gurion held that the Jewish people had a superior right to Palestine, that Palestine was important to the Jews as a nation and to the Arabs as individuals, and hence the right of the Jewish people to concentrate in Palestine, a right which was not due to the Arabs. A few Zionists thought different, e.g. Bergmann, a member of Brit-Shalom in 1929: 'our opponents [mainstream Zionism] hold different views. When they speak of Palestine, of our country, they mean "our country", that is to say "not their country" [... this belief is based on the concept that in a State] one people, among the people residing there, should be granted the majority right.' --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ypu constatnly use the word "zionist" when you mean "jewish". that and your tendency to remove any references to Palestinian antisemitism can be construed as antisemitic behaviour. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no 'tendency to remove any references to Palestinian antisemitism', I simply question unsourced references to Palestinian antisemitism. As far as I know there are many anti-zionist Jews, so on this page on 'Zionism', I prefer to talk about Zionists when I mean Zionists, and Jews when I mean Jews. I think your speculation about 'construed as antisemitic behaviour' is disgusting! --JaapBoBo (talk) 10:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Flapan's overview

Flapan distinguishes some basic concepts of mainstream Zionism with regard to the Arab Palestinians:

1 non-recognition of the existence of the Palestinians as a separate nation

2 Zionism's civilising mission in an undeveloped area

3 economic, social and cultural segregation as a means to create a Jewish national life

4 the concept of 'peace from strength'

This is a fine summary, by a reliable source, of Zionist attitudes. Why should we take it out? --JaapBoBo (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you rely solely on Flapan and Finkelstein? This is unbalanced. Flapan was mostly a politician, and Finkelstein is not a historian, he is a former assistant professor of political science with a well-known and very strong bias. You should use works from non-political historians, or at least show differing points of view, as the NPOV says, not just everything from one fairly extreme side. David Sher (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also read Morris, Sternhell, R. Khalidi. Flapan was a historian. Finkelstein is a political scientist, but he wrote his PhD thesis on Zionism. They are also not extreme, only some Zionist sources call them extreme because they debunk Zionist myths. E.g. Finkelstein is in fact very nuanced. In 'Image and Reality' he attacks Morris' conclusions, but he acknowledges Morris research of sources. To cite from 'Image and Reality' (p.86,87): 'Morris has indisputably produced landmark studies', '[Morris answer to Shabtai Teveth is] a virtuoso performance' and 'Morris's research will serve as a benchmark for all future scholarship on the topic'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't quoted any of those other authors, and Flapan was primarily a politician. Abba Eban also wrote histories of Israel, would you call him a historian? Regarding Finkelstein, Morris is indeed the benchmark when it comes to Israeli history, but Finkelstein's opinion of Morris it not as important as Morris's opinion of Finkelstein, which is decidedly negative. This is what he has to say about Finkelstein: "Finkelstein and Nur Masalha share a method: they selectively quote from [my books] what suits their purposes while ignoring, and in Finkelstein's case, ridiculing what doesn't. Neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books and neither marshals sources or material from elsewhere that could serve to contradict my findings". Finkelstein doesn't do actual historical research, but instead reads the works of real historians (primarily Morris) and then puts his own political slant on things. Your editing of this article in order to add only one point of view is irresponsible and against policy. Please stop. David Sher (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with Morris criticism of Finkelstein. In your quote of Morris he grossly overcharges the actual content of his criticism. Finkelstein's criticism is that Morris's conclusions in 'The Birth of the Palestinian Refigee Problem' were not supported by the evidence he gave. In fact to prove this Finkelstein only needed Morris' book. Morris distorts this into: 'neither seems to know anything about 1948 beyond what is to be found in my books'. In fact Finkelstein is very familiar with other sources on this subject, e.g. in 'Image and Reality' he also criticises a book by Anita Shapira and one by Joan Peters. Furthermore he wrote his thesis 'from the Jewish Question to the Jewish state' on the political history of Zionism. He is indeed an expert. What stands out the most is that not one criticism of his work has stuck -- only personal attacks! In fact, here you can read more about Finkelstein's criticism of Morris and Morris answer. In fact the two are just having a professional disagreement about the interpretation of historical evidence. Morris accuses Finkelstein of bias, but in fact if you want to know who puts a political slant on things read this: it's Morris! In Finkelstein's book 'Image and Reality' you can read more examples. So there's nothing wrong with Finkelsteins reliability, and in fact Morris reliability is at stake here. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Morris is a groundbreaking, actual historian, who went though much primary material to discover all sorts of new things unknown to history. Finkelstein is a former associate professor of political science who writes heavily political works. He is in no way a historian, he merely comments on the work of actual historians. David Sher (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did quote Sternhell and Khalidi in the stuff you deleted! This proves you are behaving irresponsible, because you haven't even read what you deleted! Please stop this behavior. Thx. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you really think that Sternhall and Khalidi's point of view is in any way significantly different from Finkelstein's? Please stop adding material from only one, highly biased, point of view, you are unbalancing the article and violating Wikipedia policy when you do this. David Sher (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Zionism recognizes the Palestinians are a seperate nation, while historically the Zionists were quite willing to allow a Palestinian state in Palestine so long as they had a Jewish one along side it. The Palestinians refused to recognize the Jews as a naitona with rights to Palestine. Maybe we should mention that? What do you think? I think Morriss is fine as a historian and I am optimistic that despite our differences we can work out a way to co-exist. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right the Palestinians didn't recognise Jewish rights to Palestine. Please mention it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And why would not you try to mention *by yourself* different pov's on the same subject when you edit wikipedia ?

When you add one relatively low significant pov we are not there to add all the other ones.

They are not editors who edit with a pro-israeli bias and others who edit with a pro-palestinian bias. Wikipedia this is : editors who give the different pov's on a matter whatever their own mind on the matter. Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

denial of Palestinians as a nation

Thus from the beginning Zionism ignored the Palestinians as a nation but chose to see the them as part of the larger Arab nation. This supported the Zionists' claim of a preemptive right to the Palestinian territory.

This is a very relevant part of the Zionist attitude. It's also from reliable sources. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. The fact that the Zionists saw the Pals as part of a larger Arab nation does not mean that beleived the Arabs had no rights to Palestine. They recongized Arab rights, just did not perceive them as being particularly distinct. I don't think that had they seen the Pals as a seperate nation it owuld have affected their views. Telaviv1 (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, even the Palestinians didn't see themselves as a nation at the begining of the 20th century and the Zionist movement was born at the late 19th century. The Palestinian national movement born only after the British occupied the Land of Israel from the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, it is wrong to call the Land of Israel "Palestinian territory" because it was never belong to the Pals and POVly gives the Pals ownership on the entire territory known as Israel\Palestine. Therefore, the above paragraph isn't true and should be removed. Thirdly, Norman Finkelstein is not quite a reliable source, he is the author of the book "The Holocaust Industry" and considered by many as a sort of Holocaust denier. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 18:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer your three point:

• According to R. Khalidi, by the early 1920s the Palestinians had a highly developed sense of national identity.
• If you think 'Palestinian territory' is a pov term you can substitu e.g 'Mandatory Palestine'
• Finkelstein is a reliable source. If you read the book you'll see he's not a Holocaust denier, even though extremists might call him that. The opinion of other scholars of Finkelstein's work is much more important, and he is well regarded by them. A lot of pro-Israeli authors have criticised him of course (or tried to), but his arguments are well founded, so the criticism is not very serious. Certainly it does not affect his reliability. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is not a historian of any sort, he writes political works. David Sher (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein is a scholar. Note the high number of references he gets at Google Scholar [[4]]. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill Clinton gets 80 times as many references at Google Scholar[5]. Does that mean he is 80 times the scholar that Finkelstein is? Anyway, and back to the point, I said he is not a historian, which he is not. Expertise in one field does not give you expertise in another. David Sher (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein garners far more citations than many other authors on Israel/Palestine (some of them are so poor that "historian" seems like a mis-nomer). And Finkelstein's ground-breaking work on "The Holocaust Industry" is now being proved in court, with a conviction of an Israel attorney for stealing millions from Holocaust survivors. Finkelstein's problem is that he appears to have proved a Harvard lawyer and high-profile supporter of Israel an unreliable champion (refusing to pay out $10,000 on a challenge) and a dubious author (crediting or not crediting the fraudulent work of another supporter of Israel, contradicting himself over Israeli torture etc.) PR^talk 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what is a "highly developed sense of naitonal identity" and how it is measured? Which other scholars are you referring to? You keep making a diferentiation between what you define as "pro-Israeli" authors or "zionist" historians. That is a POV way of looking at things. You expect others to judge historians objectively (which is reasonable) while yourself failing to take an objective approach. Telaviv1 (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what Khalidi means exactly with "highly developed sense of naitonal identity", but he is a scholar who studied the subject.

Recognising that some scholars are pov-ed is not POV, it's the truth. I think many Zionist and pro-Israeli writers are pov-ed. The same holds for many 'pro-Palestinian' writers. Probably the authors I read are also pov-ed, but in my opinion they are quite neutral. What is more important however is that I think that most pov-ed sources can still be reliable sources. Wikipedia does not say biased sources are unreliable, and bias is not a criterium for reliability. I don't ask other people things that I don't ask of myself. In fact I ask everybody, including myself, simply to comply with Wikipedia policy. This means that if somebody doesn't agree with one of my edits, or finds it pov, I ask him or her to make it NPOV by adding the other pov from a reliable source. [[6]] --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But working that way, you don't comply to wp:policy.

Wikipedia doesn't just ask editors to give all pov's. It also requires to give them their due:weight !

What we ask you is to comply with that policy and not desequilibrate articles neutrality by adding minority pov's, sometimes even without giving the majority view !

You ask others to correct your pov's [if they can]. But we are not here to equilibrate your edits or to correct you. You are not a "particular editor" who gives the "line of edition".

To fulfil wp:policy you have to give the pov you add their due:weight. It means you *alone* have to gather all pov's on a subject and to give the different minds their due weight.

Finally, in an article that doesn't respect NPoV, eg because a minority pov is over-represented, there are *4 ways* of dealing with this :

• adding the complementary pov's (the best)
• requiring this on the talk page
• adding a tag
• removing the information

Personnaly, I have started to discuss with you -without success-; I added complementary information on some of your edits asking you to try to work that way by yourself -without success-; after I added tags -without success-; now I remove the unbalance information.

And many others proceeded that way with you too.

After all the discussions and the warnings that you received, the fact you still defend the way of working you describe just here above makes me think you pov-push : ie you push some pov's without trying to get neutral articles but having in mind to defend the presence of some precise pov's in them, which is againt wikipedia policy.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all I don't give pov's that I don't have references of. Second, it's only in your view that I give minority povs. If another majority pov exists it would be very easy for you or other editors to find it and add it. Actually adding is not only the best, but also the only way. Additionaly you may ask this on the talk page and/or add a tag (see also [[7]]). If you can't find the other pov it makes me think you don't know whether it exists, but just assume it exists.

Additionaly I have a question for you: Can you point out the WP-policy page supporting this: 'It means you *alone* have to gather all pov's on a subject and to give the different minds their due weight.' ? --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the Neutral point of view policy states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It specifically says "of all article editors". When you add material from only one fairly extreme point of view you are violating this basic rule. David Sher (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And just as a reminder, there is also : writing for the enemy and undue weight that answer to JaapBoBo questions.

If you can't find the other pov it makes me think you don't know whether it exists, but just assume it exists

No. I did give you other pov's in other discussions but when it is done you disappered. You keep going on with your attitude.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

@Ceedjee: indeed, in other discussions you did, and I accepted their inclusion.

@David Sher: According to wikipedia policy all editors are expected to work together to reach NPOV. That is what I am doing. Note that 'reliable sources' are required and that I'm adding from the reliable sources that I read. When I think another pov exists besides the one I'm adding I usually start my edit with 'According to ...'. Besides, the pov's I add are not 'fairly extreme'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I already pointed out to you that the policy applies to each individual editor; don't slough your responsibility to edit according to policy on me. I'm not responsible for fixing your edits, you're responsible for ensuring they abide by the policy. You've admitted yourself your sources are all from one POV, and when it comes to Zionism, Finkelstein etc. are pretty extreme (not to mention not historians). If you want to add material find mainstream centrist historians please. David Sher (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure my edits are in line with wikipedia policy.

You think many sources I use are biased (I don't agree), I think many Zionist sources are biased (you probably don't agree) . The end result is a more NPOV article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been explained you in what you don't respect wikipedia policy.

In wikipedia, there are not people who defend one pov and others who defend another. And this is not, as you wrote before a matter of negociation. Wikipedia is not a political tribune or a room for debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and each editor is expected to respect NPoV so each editor is exepcted to give all pov's he can have.

You are aware you systematically introduce only one pov and don't try to write a neutral way (in the sense of wikipedia).

Ceedjee (talk) 11:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken about NPOV - adding (or improving on) the substantiation for one POV is not a violation of policy. It's a violation when you remove evidence for one particular POV, or mis-characterise it. Attempting to claim that policy is meant to be something else is WikiLawyering. PR^talk 20:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. I have read the policy carefully, and it says in the second paragraph "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." It specifically says "of all article editors". When you add material from only one fairly extreme point of view you are violating this basic rule. I'm not sure what "WikiLawyering" is, but attempts to get around the plain meaning and wording of this policy that "all editors" must write from a neutral point of view probably fall under that label. David Sher (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or's reversals

Dear Beit Or,

Please don't reverse just like that, without even adressing the issues on the talk page. The points are already noted above, so it is very simple for you to add your pov for each item.

Note also that you make the article pov by deleting stuff from more critical sources. Wikipedia policy says: An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it. [[8]] So if there are reliable sources that don't agree with the sources I quote, then you can add their pov. If those sources don't exist, the pov I give is the only one. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This argumentation has already been answered to you.

• There is also : writing for the enemy and undue weight
• More, it is written sometimes, not always. It is not written that this could become an habit or a way of working only to add a very precise point or extremely oriented pov's.
• that doens't prevent you to try to improve your edit by yourself, working more in the mind of a collaborative project and to find by yourself the other pov's you say you don't know, particularly on "hot topics" and to have balanced articles.

Finally, the only rule concerning revert is 3RR. So, if Beit Or, wants to revert you; he can. When there are 4-5 editors who revert you; you should wonder who is the problematic editor. Ceedjee (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't complain that editors revert, I complain that they revert without taking part in the discussion. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

He should not. But why do you care ? In the same situation you answer : what is the wikipedia policy that prevents him from working that way ? Ceedjee (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In cases of dispute Wikipedia policy expects editors to try to reach consensus, preferably on the talk page. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like you tried to force your views on the article first, and only tried to reach consensus when enough editors got fed up with your edits that they all started reverting you. David Sher (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I unfortunately share this point of view. Ceedjee (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that I'm adding relevant material from reliable sources. You don't agree with the pov of these sources, so you can add pov's from other sources. Why are you not doing that? Why don't you stop claiming and start showing me that the pov you (want to) support exists? --JaapBoBo (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The remark was : "It looks to me like you tried to force your views on the article first, and only tried to reach consensus when enough editors got fed up with your edits that they all started reverting you.". I wrote I agree.

I already answered your last comment several times at other places on this talk page.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is wiki-lawyering - we're here to write articles, not to hamstring others attempting to add good information to the encyclopedia. In many cases there are two or more POVs to be added, working on one of them is not harmful to the project - whereas deleting the material of others (the subject of this section) is (often) very harmful. Considering the mass of material linking Zionism to violent extremism and universally condemned International crimes, this article is badly POV in favour of the subject already. The inclusion of Husseini into this article is just one example of the ludicrously irrelevant. It's apparently included with POV determination to smear the victims of this movement. PR^talk 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

PR, I remember your comments from the other discussion page, and they are as extreme as ever. Zionism is not a "universally condemned International crime", and all editors must write from a neutral point of view - neither you nor JaapBoBo are exempt from this. Inserting the extreme views from only one side of the issue, particularly when many of the sources are not even historians, is a violation of clearly written policy, and your claim that deleting bad material is somehow "very harmful", but inserting it is good, is ludicrous. David Sher (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Only proponents view?

The introduction of the article cite only proponents definition of Zionism. I think to be neutral we have to tell the reader the other's POV on Zionism exists (and from very important organizations and thinkers). This is needed because the "introduction" have to provide and overview of the topic, the reader do not have to read the full content of the article. We all know that there are controversies around Zionism and this is important to note also. I tried to add the United Nation view on Zionism which considers it "a racist movement" (someone has undone my edit; I hope for structures reasons and not for bias: he/she is User:Jaakobou). I hope he will answer why? Bestofmed (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You're out of date. the UN general assembly retracted the resolution several years ago. The resolution is mentioned in the article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the introductions of the Communism, Socialism, Marxism, and Capitalism articles. These movements all have "controversies" around them, yet all the articles have "only the proponents definition", none are defined by their opponents. I also looked at the Palestinian nationalism article; not only is there nothing in the introduction about how its opponents view it, but nothing at all in the entire article. David Sher (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• David -- Re: whether there is precedent for the prominent inclusion of opposing views. I believe there is.

• Islamism describes a complex labyrinth of "internal" controversies about that movement from its second paragraph onward. The article then goes on to detail the reservations of "external" critics of "Islamism" by both referencing, via quotes and footnotes, people who hold such reservations, (i.e,, Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis) and by mentioning such people by name within the article (i.e., Fred Halliday and John Esposito).

• The Islamism article features such eyebrow-raising headings as "Shelter of the mosque" (and then quotes Lewis, a vocal opponent, about the danger of providing same) and "Attacks on civilians" (at which point one begins to wonder, purely for the sake of argument, whether "Zionists" have ever "attacked civilians"). The article includes photographs of attacks by people the article labels as "Islamists", and features, in the upper right-hand corner, a helpful template connecting the whole vast, messy topic to the portal "Controversies related to Islam and Muslims."

• Now, then. Some people (not you) have been known to get hot and bothered when an editor wonders out loud about questions such as whether "Zionists," like "Islamists," have ever attacked civilians, or whether there may, very occasionally, actually be disputes that fall into the category of "Controversies related to Israel and Zionism." So I'll make everyone who is reading this a deal: I definitely won't wonder any further about anything like that, or advocate for such photos in this article, or suggest a new template, because I believe those would be errors that would degrade article quality. Perhaps I could point out, however, that contentious ideologies like Zionism do make waves, too, from time to time, and that WP:NPOV is still supposed to be our policy, There really are points of view other than "pro-Zionism" that are relevant to the opening section here, and precedent exists, in Islamism and elsewhere, for the practice of prominently mentioning those points of view. BYT (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Space for 'Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs' and 'Zionist ideology'

In general I'd like to add more lengthy texts to this article on these subjects. I discovered there exists a page on the History of Zionism, which is a copy of 80% of this article as it was one month ago (only it was not developed since then). We could create a lot of space here by moving the history to that article.

Alternatively we could start an article on Zionist attitudes toward the Arabs'. --JaapBoBo (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann edits

Kazem

I have a problem with this:

At this meeting Kazem produced an English copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (brought to Palestine by British officers who had fought the Bolsheviks alongside the anti-semitic White Movement) and asked if the Zionist commission was connected to the Elders of Zion.

It's nice to know this but is it relevant and is it neutral? I think it rather indicates ignorance than anti-semitism on the part of Kazem. However it suggests anti-semitism and is pov. I removed it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Flapan vs. Reinharz, NPOV

If sources disagree wikipedia NPOV-policy requires both pov's to be given. --JaapBoBo (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure there are 2 pov's expressed but rather they share the same pov. I reformulated in keeping the same ideas.

Nevertheless I wonder if it should not be pointed out there was no palestinian natioalist at that time (ie before 1920 !!!). Husseini and the others fought for a pan-arab nationalism. They called Palestine South Syria.

It is only in 1920, after Fayçal was chased from Damas by the French and that the pan-arab ambition died that an arab palestinian nationalism appeared among palestinian arab leaders.

Both Benny Morris (Righteous Victims) and Tom Segev (One Palestine, Complete) describe this nationism that way. I gonna check for Sachar and Laqueur to have the tradionnal israeli pov. I don't know where to check arab pov concerning this. Nevertheless I don't think there is any controversy around this matter. Ceedjee (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Laqueur doesn't write exactly the same. He focuses more on the rise of a strong opposition to zionism as soon as 1919.

Nevertheless, I think the structure of this section is not appropriate.

The attitude towards the Arabs should not be described leader by leader but chronologically (as do historians on that topic) because it is linked with the events in Palestine.

Ceedjee (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the whole thing be moved out of the article as it is problematic and takes up a lot of space. JaapBobo says that ignorance excuses antisemitism. I think that is not a justifiable reason for deleting the reference I provided. As for Palestinian Nationalism, I have explained in the past that it was only after about 1920 thatthe Palestinains turned to Palestinian-Arab naitonalism but JaapBobo who is obviously fairly ingnorant about eh subject (and therefore cannot be an antisemite) deleted it. Apparently Flapan says Weizmann opposed meeting the Palestinians but no emprical evidence was supplied to support that point. I provided emiprical evidence that not only did he not oppose meeting with them - he met them himself, and so I deleted the obviously errnoeous piece. JaapBobo's stuff on Weizmann is either misleading or wrong. Telaviv1 (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC) It might be necessary to create an article "Zionism and the Arabs", which would be of interest to a lot of people. We could move a large chunk of material to that section. Telaviv1 (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that JaapBoBo edits could be misleading.

At least, I don't see why to focus that much on what Weizmann did in 1917-1919 in Palestine. It is anecdotical concerning the relationships between Zionists and Palestinian arab nationalists. Ceedjee (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of having an article dedicated to this topic could be useful.

Ceedjee (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I protest, I am not saying that 'ignorance excuses antisemitism', I'am saying that from the text on Kasem I conclude that Kasem was ignorant. How else would you describe somebody who 'asked if the Zionist commission was connected to the Elders of Zion'? In fact this says nothing about whether Kasem was an anti-semite or not.

As to what TelAviv says about Flapan:

• meeting and negotiating for s political solution are not the same.
• You are engaging in original reserach WP:OR
• I can cite an example Flapan gave (p. 70): 'Weizmann came out vehemently against the attempts of Dr. Judah L. Magnes, [...] to mediate with the Arabs.'

--JaapBoBo (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We are slipping in the direction of interpretation.

At that time, Arabs were antisemite, as well as British. But that was a normal behaviour.

And at that time, assuming the Jews were controlling the world was not shocking but sincerly considered as a relevant and viable hypothesis.

Note this is not my interpretation. Tom Segev gives numerous exemples of this antisemitism and he doesn't refrain from taging each british officier as antisemite, anti-Zionist, pro-Zionist, pro-Arab or pro-British. For Arabs, I don't know why, he prefers writing they made antisemite comments. And for Jews, he refrains from commenting. Just giving facts associated with people.

Tom Segev (and Benny Morris by the way) make several references to the Protocole of the Elder of Zion used several times by Arab leaders. And they were not ignorant. They were convinced it was truth. Tom Segev refers to the Anwar Nusseibeh diary who writes that he is aware that the Protocol is claimed to be a forgery but that he thinks it is not and it is truth because they are too many mysterious connections.

So, what I mean is that Arabs were antisemite but they were antisemite as everybody was at that time, because it was simply normal (in the sense as everybody does or as everybody thinks, not in the sense as things should be...).

Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

nb: this makes me think : you wrote that one of the two main achievement of Zionism was the 1948 exodus. You could also have written that one of the main achievemnt of antisemitism was Zionism and so... Things are not that simple. Ceedjee (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's distorting to introduce the subject of anti-semitism. Some of the immigrants, from as early as 1881/82 were set on armed dispossession of the Palestinians. 1908 is sometimes given as the date when the Yishuv (if it was called that then?) set about a seperatist intent. Shortly after the Balfour Declaration, their threatening intentions became very obvious, and in 1920, despite still only being 10% of the population, they practically seized control. Fear and hatred of them didn't come from some kind of illogical racism, but from a direct and personal knowledge of their violent ways and intentions.

Let me put it another way - if I develop an aversion to Islamic dress and mosques based on reading Robert Spencer or the Daily Mail, then it's reasonable to call me Islamophobic. If I live in an inner-city area and rub shoulders with armed racists every day, then calling my fears phobic is unreasonable - even hatred on my part becomes a sensible and valid response. PR^talk 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The Accusation: "Some of the immigrants, from as early as 1881/82 were set on armed dispossession of the Palestinians." - PalestineRemembered. 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).

The Reality: PalestineRemembered's claim that the goal of the Jewish immigrants to Palestine has been to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs since the 1880s is simply fallacious and PalestineRemembered's alleged two-stage plan for domination of the land amounts to a bogus conspiracy theory. The Russian immigrants of the First Aliyah escaping oppression from the czar and settling in the Galilee could not possibly have imagined the events of 1948 and certainly not the events of 1967! The Zionists had not even collectively agreed upon which region of the planet to focus their dreams of Jewish statehood until 1905 (Uganda was still an option before the time). As far as I know, the Jewish population of Palestine had no arms to speak of until at least 1920 (when the Haganah was established), and even those arms were not nearly enough to be able to "seize control" as PalestineRemembered is alleging. I already corrected him this week on this very allegation to which he admitted to it as being a "historical falsehood."[9] It is a shame he still feels the need to tell it even though he already knows and admits that it is false. --GHcool (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I've seen the same thing posted - as I said before, if I'm ever guilty of posting historical falsehoods, I'm sure I'll be reminded. PR^talk 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann

• "I can cite an example Flapan gave (p. 70): 'Weizmann came out vehemently against the attempts of Dr. Judah L. Magnes, [...] to mediate with the Arabs."

Yes but when and why ? And were there other occasions where he would have acted exactly the other way. Ceedjee (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I know of Weizmann, he would have been annoyed by Magnes "mediating" when he was not authorized to do so. Magnes was the head of the Hebrew U while Weizmann was the head of the Zionist movement. what do you mean by "mediate"? Weizmann did meet with Palestinian arabs and held talks with them so the statement is inaccurate. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Weizmann's views on Palestine and the Palestinians are well known: "...not only the place with a spiritual bond between God and the Jewish people, but also as an essentially unused, unappreciated territory which was inhabited not by an advanced population but by a backward, dishonest, uneducated and ignorant Arab people." Letter of 30 May 1918 to Lord Balfour. He is quoted by Dr. A Rupin (in German) as saying "with regard to the Arab question - the British told us that there are several hundred thousand Negroes there but this is a matter of no consequence." PR^talk 22:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this picture quite properly the 'majority' view the Zionists had concering Arabs.

A neutral formulation would require to state if this is a fact or a point of view of Weizmann.

From what I have read, I think before the arrival of the British, Palestine was "inhabited not by an advanced population but by a backward, dishonest (?), uneducated and ignorant Arab people".

Ceedjee (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Flapan apparently says that Weizmann was opposed to attempts to mediate with the Arabs. Since we know and deplore Weizmann's attitude to the Arabs, the statement is so unsuprising as not to need any discussion. When there are so many other, startling (not to say "wildly mis-guided"), statements in this article it seems odd to examine/question one which is so completely unsurprising.

I'll give you another example of an area that needs urgent re-writing - the Exodus (c.1400BCE?!) is introduced as if it is history - when modern archaeology suggests that the "first Israelis" arose only in the 8th C BCE. If David and Jonathan ever existed, they were no more than tribal chieftains. Let's deal with serious problems first! PR^talk 19:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Biltmore Programm

The Biltmore Program called for "Palestine [to] be established as a Jewish Commonwealth". David Ben-Gurion, who dominated the conference, formulated the Zionists' demand 'not as a Jewish state in Palestine but as Palestine as a Jewish state'. It was significant in that all US Jewish organizations were now united in agreement on the need for a Jewish state in Palestine.

From the beginning of the forties the Zionist movement stopped paying attention to the 'Arab question'. The reason is that it was expected that any solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by force, because of their refusal to compromise.

Somebody removed this text without giving a reason, but it's relevant and properly sourced (the second part is by the pro-Israeli historian Gorny), so it should stay in.

To illustrate the relevance: according to Teveth a war was 'made inevitable after the Biltmore Plan of 1942 declared Zionism's explicit aim to be a Jewish state, which the Arabs were determined to oppose by force.'

--JaapBoBo (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it could not stay in the article. Ceedjee (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

History of Zionism (3)

I wrote a small History of Zionism and copied the History of Zionism from this article to the History of Zionism article. Please see the discussion here: [10], which actually proposes what I just performed.

I tried to write a neutral history, but feel free to improve it. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Article size

From guideline: "this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles now exist which are over 32 KB of total text size." We're at 31. Pages "significantly larger" than 32K are "not recommended." When we get significantly larger than 32K, let's re-examine this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonYusufToropov (talk • contribs) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good action. I forgot to remove that. --JaapBoBo (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Negation of the Diaspora

On second thougths I found the section a bit long for the article, so I made a summary and a new article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruppin quote

BrandonYusufToropov, while you might have made an argument that the Ruppin quote belonged in the article when it was over 90k, there is obviously no justification whatsoever for inserting it now that the article is down to 30k. Did you notice that there are no other quotes in the "History of Zionism" section? That's because it is now an overview. Inserting this one dubious quote into a brief summary is the rankest sort of POV-pushing. The quote is already in the History of Zionism, you got your way; please stop trying to push it into brief summaries of the article too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jay -- hello again, and nice to hear from you after your long whatever it was.

For the record, the various objections from various parties have gone from "the quote was fraudulent" (meaning I was accused of being a liar, but that's water under the bridge), to "the quote hasn't been properly sourced" to "the quote isn't something you, BYT, actually read by physically holding the book in your hand," to "the quote hasn't been translated properly," to "the quote doesn't connect to the book you said it connects to," to "the quote can't be right because you, BYT, can't read Hebrew" to "the quote doesn't belong because we are now featuring no quotes in the section."

Next time around I will be expecting "The quote violates national security objectives." (Which nation, though?)

Since you've decided to engage here, I'd like to get your comments, please, on the following seemingly direct advice from WP:Quote:

• Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.

• When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when ... <snip> dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.'" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice.")

Also of interest is this guideline page's advice on when not to use quotes, and none of it seems to apply. You're saying we shouldn't use quotes because the article is short. The guideline page says you should eliminate or condense quotes when the article is too long.

Perhaps at this stage we should consider mediation. BYT (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Brandon. Regarding the quote, when there was a 65K section on the History of Zionism in this article, then you could have argued that an obscure and likely misconstrued quote like that had a place - not a good argument, but an argument. However, now that the History section is down to seven short paragraphs, it's almost a textbook case of WP:UNDUE to try to include a full K on that single quote. According to whom (besides BrandonYusufToropov) is that quote such a seminal quote in the history of Zionism that it is the only thing worth quoting in the entire summary section? As for mediation, I certainly wouldn't object, but I'm hoping you'll abide by policy without it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jay. According to whom are only "seminal quotes in the history of Zionism" allowed in the article? No one's saying there shouldn't be other quotes in that section; not sure I see the "policy" mandating that.

Since you raise the issue of "policy," though, and the importance of abiding by it -- why no comment on these two bullet points? I did ask you what you thought of them.

• Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight. A brief excerpt can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to do so ourselves.

• When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when ... <snip> dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.'" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice.")

Peace, BYT (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT, can you provide another secondary source attesting to the quote's importance? Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Stay tuned. I've done a lot of this work already, but what's worth doing well is worth doing again. BYT (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

BYT, WP:QUOTE is an essay; it has no significance whatsoever on Wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:UNDUE is policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks for the distinction. It's not WP:UNDUE if we work together to give it the context we need. Are you up for that? BYT (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The context needed is already there, in History of Zionism. In reality, even that article doesn't provide context, but your persistence in inserting this POV and out-of-context quote has essentially worn people down. That, however, will not apply to the brief summary of the history of Zionism present found in this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting ready to add a NPOV TAG

I just reverted this [11], a two word 'against Islam' snippet at the end of the lede section. I didn't do it because it was necessarily wrong, but it was not RS'd and in the lede. Sorry Aswany4life (I also, just now noticed that your name and talk are now blue.)

I looked at this page earlier in the week, but noted that it had been a former FA candidate, so I went there [12] instead and read it. Not bad, actually for Dec'03. It has some holes in it, but also notes some things that the current version does not (e.g. 'Jewish labour' to use the term of the time, which constitutes a big factual hole in #Labor Zionism.) From a 'for the benefit of the readers' point of view, it reads a whole lot better than the current version. This [[13]] is my post at the ArbCom Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop, which brought this on.

When I returned to the current article, I couldn't get past the lede sentence that ends w/ the Land of Israel; what happened to Palestine. That is absolutely POV, zealous POV; that is NOT what Zionism is or was, and certainly not in an encyclopedia which claims NPOV. That is only how some people see it. The current article gives very little for a reader to understand that the definition has changed over time. What is stated now is a third (whatever) generational dream, by those who consider the reasons for the creation of '48 Israel, can be recycled and repeated to get the remaining West Bank. Things have changed since '48, when the world accepted those reasons as valid and Israel was created and defended itself. There are several generations of Israelis to prove it. The source is not a reliable source to define what Zionism is, unless it is included in a section called 'Zionism today'. Oh, gee, in Dec'03 that section existed. This Eretz Israel definition of Zionism by the maximalists has much to do with why the Palestinians so despise post-'67 Zionism in particular and why many Israelis think that hating Zionism means denying Israel.

The two are very different. The legitimate Zionist dreams for world decisions made to recognize the Jewish people's need and the creation of Israel at that time are no longer as valid now. The general problem now is the lack of a similar nation for Palestinians. You see, we live in a 'modern world' that recognizes self-determination, human rights equality of peoples, it didn't do that then; it also has some more facts upon which to make a different judgment, like UN242, and 338, Oslo Accords and the PA. What is seen by most of the world and recognized in this encyclopedia is NPOV.

I see a lot of indications that what Aswany added might be valid, but he has to RS it, but I still don't think it belongs in the lede. But it may sometime be a defining parameter of what Zionism is today. I must give the active editors time to work this out and I will, but that lede is pure POV unless some historical perspective is added. It is so POV it should not stand long. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent points for discussion, and the POV problems here have bothered me for years.

No, really. Years.

Strongly support the addition of the NPOV tag.

All the same, my 2c is: What Aswany added was fundamentally unencyclopedic. Can't imagine even the most carefully sourced passage in Zionism passing the smell test if it tries to incorporate language like this. Not even Islamism, as biased as that article currently is, features such partisan, point-scoring, swagger. BYT (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Purposful out-dent. BTY, Thank you for your support. But as an old fart, I appreciate your views (which appear to agree with mine) similarly as much as I must give credence (Clearwater) to those who give my post the necessary initial 'sniff test' and decide, based on their olfactory first impressions, that my posts stink. No problem for me; I will likely die sooner than you-all, but what I have decided is that if I am to document that fact that I have lived, then I must document the fact that I died a Wikipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualObserver'48 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Due to an edit conflict, I will live with what the electronic gods have decided what the ether has absorbed. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

CasualObserver48, I'm not really understanding what specifically you feel is inappropriate with the current lead, beyond your claims that it is POV. Are there specific sentences which you feel are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate? Regardless, I must express dismay that you would state that you see "a lot of indications that" the claim that Zionism is "the dominant Jewish political movement against Islam" "might be valid". Zionism, in reality, has little if anything to do with Islam; it is a movement of Jewish national liberation, and a movement in support of the State of Israel, and your statement makes me seriously question whether you can edit these kinds of articles in a way that conforms with WP:NPOV. What would you do if someone had entered into the Palestinian nationalism article the claim that "Palestinian nationalism is the dominant Muslim political movement against Judaism"? Would you also say that there are "a lot of indications that it might be valid", and encourage the person to find reliable sourcing for the claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, read what I said again about my objection to the lede sentence. I see that you took up real fast, tho, on what else I said (re: Islam), and then proceeded to discuss that and skip the definition of Zionism, which was the reason for my post. I believe there is a word for that, it slips my mind, but G- would know what that is. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You went on at great length about Aswany's insertion, and expressed an alarming viewpoint regards to it; don't be surprised when someone responds. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Lede is contradicted by the very reference it purports to use. From that reference:"Zionism is not about borders - Zionism was never about borders. Some Zionist programs envisioned a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine". While in modern contexts, currently Zionism is *mostly* about that strip of land, it is somewhat inaccurate for the very first sentence to be contradicted by the source it references. Uganda's nowhere *near* palestine, but was one proposed destination. Ronabop (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why that particular source is used, it doesn't look overwhelmingly reliable to me. In any event, as is quite clear from both history books and the History of Zionism article itself, Zionism was almost exclusively about Palestine. The very First Zionist Congress, in 1897, resolved that "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law." Yes, in 1903 the British Colonial Secretary did propose a Jewish homeland in Uganda (actually modern-day Kenya), and after the Kishinev pogroms Herzl introduced a motion at the 6th Zionist congress to study it as a temporary measure. However, even then, the Russian delegation walked out in protest, and nothing really came of the proposal, which was dismissed in the 7th congress of 1905. For that matter, the Nazis proposed a Jewish homeland in Madagascar; needless to say, nothing came of that either. NPOV, particularly regarding the lede, does not require us to list every minor or aberrant idea that ever crossed someone's mind; on the contrary. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I much prefer your 'Palestine' definition of Zionism (i.e., the lede sentence), as will most editors and I would be very happy for you to change it, as you see fit; I appreciate your historical perspective. I note that the majority of your post entails discussion of an evolutionary dead end of Zionism Territorialism, and again, you avoid discussing the highly POV lede. Very frankly, you of all people, very well know the difference between "Palestine', 'Israel', and 'Land of Israel'. For those who might not know, it is a certain political view of the past, the present, and if those POV-pushers gain their dream, the future, respectively. You very well know what this problem is, it comes right down to, well, Zion-ishness. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, got caught in an edit conflict...I added it where it was written to go at the time

Not sure what's so "aberrant" about it, but I changed the first sentence to reflect that Zionism was about making a state, without getting into all the details, and how that state wound up. Ronabop (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The change you made made the sentence awkward. I also don't think it solved the problem you were trying to solve. It might be better to remove "in the land of Israel", as that is mentioned later in the article. Andareed (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "aberrant" in that non-"Land of Israel" proposals were extreme minority views that gained no traction; the vast majority of Zionist thought and effort centered on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel. Your removal violated WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the unreliable source, and substituted more reliable ones. Currently used are the following:

• "An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." ("Zionism," Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary).
• "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”)," "Zionism", Encyclopedia Britannica,
• ""A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

That should do for neutral and reliable definitions. Anything else? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, these are all relatively valid, current, RS’d definitions (which, however, loose historical perspective), and I appreciate your suggestions; I also note that none of these include Land of Israel or Eretz Israel (except by a translation from Hebrew and back to English, fancy footwork). These latter ones, according to Wikipedia’s included maps, indicate rather nebulous borders, and tend to cause legitimate emotive responses among Israel’s neighbors and neighboring peoples. Which of these do you really think that Wiki should blue-link with Zionism? - Israel’s borders or with those nebulous borders related to ‘Land of Israel’ and/or ‘Eretz Israel’. I am not asking what you think/hope/pray, I am asking what you, being an experienced editor, think Wikipedia should do. Like I said, do as you see fit; but note that only with documentation of that changing definition can any reader truly understand the meaning of Zionism from both sides of the border, in an NPOV presentation. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the wording with Palestine, as used by the sources, and re-worded to better fit what the sources say. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your greatly improved NPOV edit to the lede, thank you. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Serbian example

The Serbian example is given undue weight. It is only one aspect of proto-Zionism, and proto-Zionism is hardly mentioned in this article. The Serbian stuff would be better placed in another article or a new article. I removed it from this article. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Reworking of history section

The history section lacked numerous important historical events and wikilinks. It also lacked, in my opinion, an appreciation of the emotional importance of these events. I reworked the section; I hope you like it. Can anyone find references to the Jews' response to the Balfour declaration? Can anyone find a source documenting the celebrations on May 14th 1948? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Ceedjee (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Muslims opposing Zionism

Jews and Jewish groups opposing Zionism = fringe groups, "not mainstream," and not worthy of extended discussion or identification in this article.

Muslims who support Zionism = exceptional and therefore interesting and worthy of a subsection. [14]

Inconsistency here, perhaps? We are getting, at various points throughout the article, gauzy, flatteringly lighted close-ups of people who think this political philosophy is a great idea.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. -- WP:NPOV

BYT (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Brandon, did you notice that there is, in the article, a chapter about anti-zionism? It is kept short, with a link to the anti-zionism main article, as per the WP:SS guideline. What more do you want?

I will grant you that the co-existence of these two article is against the WP:NPOV and WP:FORK policies. Wikipedia:Criticism states: Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has ... its own Wikipedia article. But I also think that Zionism is an example of a topic where the NPOV policy simply cannot be applied because of the high emotional charge on both sides of the issue. The current situation is the best that can be realistically achieved. Sounds a lot like Israel & Palestine, right? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the chapter about anti-Zionism. I noticed that it broadly describes all opposition, "ranging from Jewish anti-Zionists to pro-Palestinian activist." I also noticed that there is not, for instance, a chapter called "Jewish Opposition to Zionism."

Your suggestion that this is an area "where the NPOV policy simply cannot be applied" leads me to believe you haven't really gotten the spirit of this project.

Unless we want to give citations of prominent Muslims who oppose Zionism ... and something tells me that's not the direction editors here want to go -- the "Muslims Supporting Zionism" section fails both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. BYT (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This chapter is kept short as per the WP:SUMMARY guideline. The policies you mention apply to the main article on this subject, again as per WP:SUMMARY; please move your criticisms to that talk page. Did I mention WP:SUMMARY? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the History of Zionism you will see material on Jewish opposition to Zionism. you can also find stuff on it in Anti-Zionism. This article is about Zionism and not about opposition to it. If you look at Marxism you will find not much about anti-Marxism but there is a link to an article about it. The same goes for Islamism. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Telaviv1. Re: "The same goes for islamism" -- I draw a different conclusion from the content there, and suggest that you study the article a little more closely. I certainly agree, though, that the analogue you draw between Zionism and Islamism is significant.

If you look here[15] you'll see that that article quotes, among other skeptical voices, that of Daniel Pipes, easily one of the most vocal opponents of Islamist political philosophies, and perhaps the most likely to lump them all together into a single, seemingly megalithic movement.

I see a possibility for some common ground here. You are suggesting, if I follow this correctly, that we follow the template in Islamism. By extension, that means incorporating a quote from a similarly prominent opponent of Zionism here. Whom do you suggest? BYT (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting proposal BYT. Give me a day or two and I will read the article on Islamism. I had a quick look and didn't see the reference that bothers you. I found this: "Criticism

Islamism has no shortage of critics and has been attacked on many fronts, for repression of free expression, rigidity, hypocrisy, lack of true understanding of Islam, and misinterpreting the Quran and Sunna, and for innovations (Bid‘ah) to Islam notwithstanding their proclaimed opposition to the innovation. Despite this it remains very popular."

In principle, I don't think the two movements are comparable or that one sould serve as a template for the other (why not do that in reverse?) but a comparison might be educational. Incidently why not use the Marxism article as a template? Do you think Islamism might have more in common with Marxism then with Zionism?

Telaviv1 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, is a religiously driven political doctrine.
• Zionism, like Islamism and unilike Marxism, is a contemporary political force in the Middle East.
• Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, envisions an enduring nation-state.
• Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, sees human beings in an ethical and religious context first and foremost, and rejects defining them narrowly as economic functionaries.
• Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, is firmly rooted to a historical sense of place as a touchstone for its nationalism. (Jerusalem and Mecca, respectively.)
• Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, emphasizes establishing one's personal and civic identities by means of a direct embrace of monotheism.

I didn't say there was anything in the Islamism article that "bothered" me. What I said was that I had NPOV concerns about this article.

I said that Pipes, and others skeptical of the Islamist movement and likely to make broad, unflattering generalizations about it, are quoted in Islamism. I said this, not because the quote "bothered" me, but because you cited Islamism as a parallel for this article, and implied that no such skeptical perspective existed in Islamism.

I disagreed, and still do. No objective observer would ever imagine that an Islamist had composed the present Islamism. By contrast it seems possible to me that an objective observer might possibly be persuaded to believe that a Zionist had composed the present Zionism.

To remedy the imbalance, and to follow through on your suggestion that we look closely at Islamism, I'm suggesting that we find some common ground by quoting a prominent contemporary figure skeptical of Zionism. Who do you think would be the best candidate? BYT (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. firstly I apologize for the tone of the "bothered me" line.

• Islamism and Marxism are both universal doctrines aimed at the whole world, where as Zionism is a movement concerned exclusively with Jews.<REPLY -- agree -- BYT>
• Both Islamism and Marxism have strong currents engaged in revolutionalry activity and state overthrow. Neither of which are particularly relevant for Zionism. <REPLY: Secular Islamists in, for instance, Turkey, would be surprised to learn about this. -- BYT>
• Both Islamism and Marxism place a strong emphasis on rejection of personal wealth. <REPLY: With respect, I don't buy this. Precedent for accepting lifestyles that include (legal) ample, even jaw-dropping wealth go back 1400 years in Islam. No vow of poverty, certainly no lack of wealthy Islamists. -- BYT>
• both Islamism and Marxism reject (classical) Liberal values, which most Zionists embrace. <REPLY: Huh? Necessity of rational inquiry? Tradition of acceptance of the scientific method? Respect for, and perpetuation of, teachings of great "classical" teachings -- say, Artistotle's? Acknowledging that females have a soul? Not sure which values you're referring to here. -- BYT>
• Both Islamism and Marxism place a strong emphasis on anti-colonialism. Zionism worked with colonialism. <REPLY: We agree here. BYT">

I accept your point about Islamism having a strong nationalist current. I don't agree with your final point "Zionism, like Islamism and unlike Marxism, emphasizes establishing one's personal and civic identities by means of a direct embrace of monotheism." Although religious Zionism does, much of Zionism is secular. The movement was in part about finding a path for secular Jews to an identity which did not require an active embrace of monotheism. However I accept that there was a religious content to the movement. In this aspect Zionism may have more in common with Marxism then with Islamism.

As for a critical view of Zionism. I have to go now so I will get back to you on that one. Do you have someone in mind or do you prefer it to come from me?

Shalom...

Telaviv1 (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Telaviv1, and for the apology (which wasn't necessary). Actually, I'd prefer to hear your ideas. BYT (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In the article Islamism, Pipes is not used to quote critics but to quote the rejection of Islam by the West... Critics section is 3 lines long...

I don't see what could be added in the section summarizing the criticisms of Zionism. There are too much of them coming from too many different areas.

Finding a "quote" will not be easy because Anti-zionism is not well-defined and can refer to several different things.

Ceedjee (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Islamism, a monolithic, well-defined, perpetually unanimous movement with no dissenting internal voices? :)

I wasn't saying that Pipes was quoting critics, or summarizing them. I was saying that he is himself a notable critic of Islamists (however one defines them) and that he is, among other anti-Islamists, quoted prominently as an authority in the article. Telaviv was suggesting that that anti-Islamist perspective was missing from Islamism, and I disagreed.

My question -- given that Telaviv1 raised the parallel with Islamism -- is this: what prominent critic of Zionism could we quote or make direct reference to within this article, in order to do a better job of adhering to WP:NPOV? BYT (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

But this article is neutral. It would even be more if the information concerning the support of some Muslims to Zionism would be put in back... (even if this is not very relevant and certainly a little bit undue:weight).

I don't see any quote that would improve its NPoV. On the contrary, choosing one among the different anti-zionist authors will generate debates. Ceedjee (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well ... you can't quote anyone, on any topic, without running at least the risk of generating controversy, especially when the subject itself is controversial, as this one is. Articles like Islamism, as I have shown, somehow manage to include quotes from many skeptical contemporary voices. This one doesn't.

It sounds like you're suggesting that our goal as editors should be to present material in the article only when we are certain that the material we are adding is unlikely to generate debate among readers. Is that what you mean to say? BYT (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I say that if you want to add a quote, suggest which one :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I just lost a long edit... Most of this article was written by user:JaapBoBo who doesn't like Zionism. If you check the references, you will find many critics in the list including Joseph Massad who says Zionism is racist. There are several Arab authors quoted and the Arab league is quoted quite unfavourably. If we put in a quote from a critic of Zionism such as Chomsky (already quoted in the article) will you put a section in the article on Islamism on Islamic racism and antisemitism? There is nothing about it in the Islamism article yet antisemitism is very prominent among Islamists. Today Bin Laden called on his followers to attack Jews. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Always back to Bin Laden. (sigh). Baruch Goldstein wouldn't be our best article source on Islamism. Osama, a parallel idiot, may not be our best source on Zionism.

With regard to "liking" or "not liking" Zionism, that really isn't the point. The guiding principle is neutral point of view, and it's supposed to be non-negotiable. Here it is again. I'm really not sure now whether people are actually familiar with this policy, so forgive the repetition, because it's important to our discussion:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

What downside, starting from the vantage point of WP:NPOV, would there be to the encyclopedia if we were to introduce an actual quote from a skeptic of the movement in the "Criticism of Zionism" section?

With all respect, could I ask you to look at that section of the article now?

As it stands, we've got a passage from an evocative poem (!) that purports to address the "potential of the Jewish people." (Huh?) I don't even know what that subsection is doing there.

Then there's a paragraph making the vaguest reference to historical and contemporary opposition, an assurance that "some or all of the most vocal" opposition has come from Palestinians or Arabs (Chomsky? Gandhi?), a summary of some of Massad's ideas, and a largely detail-free fast-forward through the landscape of Jewish opposition, omitting, for instance, published authors such as Norman Finkelstein[16], clearly notable.

Then a helpful paragraph assuring us that "Zionists" (go to the footnotes if you want to know which ones) reject the charge of racism, and why they (all, presumably) reject that charge. Last word: Massad and the (unnamed) rest of the critics are simply wrong.

This is neutral? This is "as far as possible without bias"? When we close the article with the comforting (and historically unsuccessful) Garvey analogue, and the ringing affirmations of the Zionist cause from the governments of France and China? Heaven help the reader who wonders: "Are there any governments that oppose Zionism?" There must not be -- this is the Wikipedia article about it, and there's no reference to such opposition, but there are glowing quotes from governments that actively support the movement!

Yes, there is another article about opposition to Zionism. No, the existence of that article does not relieve us of our duty to comply with WP:NPOV.

May I ask you to consider this issue more closely?

• The wistful, aspirational poem that leads, incomprehensibly, the section called "Criticism of Zionism" ...
• ... the cherry-picking of the French and Chinese quotes ...
• ... the omission of direct reference to notable figures like Chomsky and Finkelstein, or indeed to any meaningful detail connected to the active, vocal opposition to Zionism of perhaps a fifth of the world's present population ...

...It all leads me to believe that the article may yet have a way to go before it can be said to adhere to WP:NPOV. With this issue in mind, I want to suggest that we try to fix the problem by adding some balance to the article, by means of a quote from a contemporary critic. Have you got any ideas about whom we could quote?BYT (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite neutral (and already long) concerning the criticisms but if you have a quote to illustrate one of the point, why not to add this. Maybe one from Qu'ran should be good. Is there any in this book ? Ceedjee (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee --re, above, I don't know what you mean by "considering the criticisms." Whose?

On the rest of your message -- let me clarify what I'm proposing. What I'm suggesting is that we work together to identify a quote from a contemporary critic who would add balance to the article. I think the collaborative process would have more of a chance of working here if the idea for the quote came from someone other than me. I'm sure you're not under the impression that quoting someone in an article like this is the same as agreeing with the person you're quoting. To the contrary, we are obliged to present multiple views in Wikipedia articles, regardless of our own feelings on an issue:

If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization. WP:NPOV

With this policy duty in mind, who would your nominee of a contemporary (i.e., post-1948) critic be? BYT (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Why post-48 ? Ceedjee (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because 1948 was the year of the founding of the State of Israel, and the point at which criticism of Zionism became a matter of practical international interest. If you'd like to propose a second quote from someone who was critical of the Zionist movement before that year, we could also talk about that. BYT (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is already over "balanced" with criticism; further "criticism" will not do the opposite of "present[ing] competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone." You keep mistaking this article for the Anti-Zionism article; however, it is not, and there is a whole big playground for you there to add your criticisms. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The material about Muslims who support Zionism belongs somewhere, and quite obviously, that somewhere is in this article. As for the Anti-Zionism section, there's a whole article devoted to Anti-Zionism, and this article itself is quite long enough as it is. The summary is quite long enough, about the same size as most other sections. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to produce something on a Zionism related topic that people will consider NPOV. There simply is no neutral ground in this case. If this article has a problem, it is not its POV but its poor writing quality. I agree that the Bialik poem (the poem incidentally is about a pogrom and was highly influential) does not belong under criticisms but the tone of the second section fits in, my opinion, with NPOV and I saw nothing in the Islamism article that could match it in tone.

In that light I will make changes to the criticism section and remove the poem. I agree that negation of the diaspora is hardly a criticism of Zionism. It could be construed as praise.

I would like to point out that I refrain from going to Islamic or Palestinian sections of Wikpedia and demanding that they change the content to be more "NPOV". I appreciate that many, like you, want to hear Zionim criticized and that option is available and clearly linked from this article. I didn't hear you volunteering to add a section about Islamist antisemitism.

I will consider removing the little pieces at the end which are of dubious relevance.

As-Salāmu `Alayka. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Shalom -- thanks for listening, look forward to working with you. BYT (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite what appeared to be quitting 8 days ago, BYT removed yesterday this paragraph, as "per talk page". From my quick reading of this wildly disorganized discussion, he is the only one who thinks so, thus I reverted the deletion. But I admit that you guys are far from clear on this issue. Keeping in mind that a poll is not the ideal tool to resolve a dispute, I think it will be useful. Please answer the following: Do you want a paragraph called "Muslims supporting Zionism" in the article, yes or no?

• Yes. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Yes for crying out loud. Gzuckier (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• if not, I would have removed this, like all others. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism in the lead

I notice that the leads of Socialism, Capitalism, Marxism, Communism, Palestinian nationalism, Arab socialism, Arab nationalism, pan-Islamism, to name but a few, have no statements about "Opposition" to the movements, despite the fact that all of them have been quite vociferously opposed. Why is the Zionism article singled out for this seemingly unique treatment? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because these other articles are not respecting NPoV. :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

hmmm neither do Feminism, Nationalism, Pan-Arabism, Fascism, militarism, totalitarianism, populism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, Arab nationalism, black nationalism, serbian nationalism and ethno centrism.

Nazism and Ethnic-nationalism do.

Telaviv1 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We could go a step farther and not restricting to the lead but looking at which articles talk about the "Opposition" or "critics" in their core... Not Fascism, Arab nationalism, militarism, serbian nationalism, ... But Communism, Capitalism and feminism do. Ceedjee (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jay. Glad you've joined the discussion, and I'm looking forward to working with you on this. Hope we can keep things polite and make direct attempts to address each other's questions and comments. This last point is important, because in the past I feel we have not always done a good job of addressing each other's concerns directly.

1) I'm not sure whether you've discussed yet whether you feel WP:UNDUE connects to the material about the tiny fraction of the world's Muslims who support Zionism. You and I have had many discussions concerning Jewish groups opposing Zionism, and, as I recall, WP:UNDUE was an important part of your reason for excluding quotes from them, detailed discussions of their motivations, the names of their prominent members, etc.

2) Regarding the opening, I'm not wedded to specific "oppose" language there-- I'm not wedded to anything in this article -- and I think the narrow question of whether one actually uses the word "opposition" or a synonymous phrase in the opening of the piece is a bit of a red herring. I do think that any opening that implies that Zionism is somehow uncontroversial in academic circles, or in the region, is deeply troubling.

I know people have cited all kinds of WP articles (above) about various political systems, and examined the leads of those articles for parallels; it seems helpful to consider, in addition to the articles mentioned, Islamism. This opening does not reference specific "opposition" to the movement as much as to the term, but it does cite historical facts (Hezbollah's militarism) and organizations (al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad) likely to make it evident to virtually any reader that the movement has drawn its share of opposition and criticism. One may, of course, argue that this opposition is fully justified.

My point is not about the merit of the content, but rather that Islamism takes a diverse umbrella movement (like Zionism) and quickly, for the sake of context, draws attention to elements within that movement that most readers would find troubling. Without asking you for a moment to edit that article -- I'm asking you to work with me to edit this article -- I want to suggest that a precedent on an important article exists for acknowledging, early on, the manifest controversy that has attached to Zionism for most of the past century and all of this one. It's quite possible that an explicit acknowledgment of "opponents" or "critics" of Zionism in the lead is not the best way to give readers a sense of the controversial nature of Zionism.

There is another important parallel for us to consider. Unionism in Ireland makes direct reference, in the opening, to the home rule movement that has opposed this political movement since 1920, and acknowledges the belief that there is a "fundamental difference in perspective, beliefs, definition and culture between Irish Nationalists and Unionists." This article represents, I think, a model for a more nuanced and balanced approach to the opening of Zionism that we all may wish to consider closely.

3) I'm wondering if you can comment on the guidelines below, and share your understanding of how they might guide our approach to improving this article:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. WP:NPOV (emphasis added)

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article. WP:CFORK (emphasis added) BYT (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

1) Regarding whether mentioning Muslims who support Zionism is WP:UNDUE, they do appear to be a very small number of people, so far as we know, but the individuals themselves appear to be notable. They certainly should be mentioned, and deleting any reference to them at all seems entirely outside of policy. Regarding Haredi anti-Zionists, they actually are mentioned in a number of places, and seem to have entire articles devoted to their views (see Anti-Zionism, Neturei Karta, Haredim and Zionism as examples). As for other Jewish anti-Zionists, well, for the past few months you've inserted their views into the very lead of this article.

2) Regarding the "oppose" language in the lead, as has been pointed out, this seems to be almost unique among "ism" articles - certainly one doesn't find it in Palestinian nationalism or Arab nationalism etc. And, regarding the "manifest controversy that has attached to Zionism for most of the past century and all of this one", it certainly is no greater than the "manifest controversy that has attached to Communism and Marxism and Capitalism for most of the past century and all of this one" - yet those articles escape an "opponents" view in the lead.

3) Regarding the guideline you mention, this article does indeed summarize the Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism articles, so I'm not sure why you raise it. I hope you're not arguing that we should include those articles in this one; as has already been pointed out a number of times, those articles are far too large to include here, and in any event can be considered sub-articles of this one, just as History of Zionism, Labor Zionism, Christian Zionism, etc. are. Also, if you're really concerned about WP:NPOV and all, rather than editing this article solely for the purpose of inserting negative information, why don't you head over to the Palestinian nationalism article, which, to this day, does not contain even one tiny bit of criticism in it - surely a more pressing concern. P.S. see also Anti-communism. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could start the lead by explaining the opposition to Zionism and then, anecdotically, explain what it is ?

Zionism is a doctrine that gathered a huge opposition against it since its birth. It nevertheless succeeded in imposing its views in Palestine with the proclamation of Israel (also called Zionist entity) in 1948. Most analysts nevertheless agree that this can only be temporar and that Zionism is condemned to disappear, like fascim and communism before it.

BYT, would this satisfy WP:NPOV ?

Isn't there something such as Lashon Hara in Muslim culture ?

You should think about this.

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC) <REPLY: Thanks for the good note -- let me think about these points ... BYT (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)>

Jayjg -- thanks for your quick reply. I think we've got the start of a good collaborative dialogue going. With regard to other articles we could be working on together, I agree that it would be a good idea for us to look at Palestinian nationalism as a team once we've established a working process here, and I commit to working on that article with you if you'll make the same commitment to working with me here.

In the meantime, could I ask you to address the following directly?

1) a) Are any Jewish religious figures who are or were associated with the anti-Zionist position "notable"? If so, are they, by definition, therefore worthy of mention by name in the body of the main text of Zionism, as you are suggesting that Muslims who support Zionism are worthy of mention by name in the body of the article? b) I assume you don't mean to propose a standard whereby an individual's "notability" equates 100% of the time with his or her willingness to avoid criticizing Zionism. Having agreed on that much, can we identify someone whom you consider to be a "notable" figure from Judaism, past or present, who has opposed this movement?

2) With all respect, it seems as though you are simply restating your position here -- could I ask you to comment directly on the Islamism and Unionism in Ireland models I discussed in response to your last post, the parallels I drew, and the way these articles approach their opening sections?

3) a) Does Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism appear in Anti-Zionism? b) Is it summarized here? c) Would Gandhi's opposition constitute a "major point of view" that according to WP:NPOV should be "treated in one article?" BYT (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BYT. In response to your numbered points:

1) a) Joel Teitelbaum, the late Satmar Rebbe, was probably the most notable Jewish religious anti-Zionist. He could certainly be mentioned in the article. b) I have no idea what you are saying; please don't hypothesize straw men on my behalf, it's at best unhelpful, and often insulting.

2) Neither Islamism nor Unionism in Ireland have an "Opponents" section in the lede. What exactly are you proposing?

3) a) I don't know - this is the Zionism article, not the Anti-Zionism one. b) Please don't ask rhetorical questions, they're also unhelpful. c) Not particularly, for several reasons. First, his statements about Zionism mostly advocating non-violence, and in general rejecting territorial partitions in favor of religious unity - they were an outgrowth of his vision for India. Second, his statements regarding Zionism were not particularly influential. Third, his views on Zionism were an insignificant part of his thought and speech. Fourth, he died before the creation of the State of Israel.

And finally, in response to your first point, you've been editing the Zionism article since August 4, 2006, and are currently the fourth most prolific editor of this article. Your edits during this time have been solely and exclusively for the purpose of introducing negative information about Zionism or Zionists. In contrast, you have made 0 edits to the Palestinian nationalism article. It's time for you to focus your efforts on other articles that are clearly more in need of your editing abilities than this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

You wanted a quote after '48. Now you would like to see Gandhi quoted ? What is the matter at the end ?

Could you please write exactly the sentence you would expect to see added in the article ? It doens't seem you contribute to wikipedia to make article evolve but rather to win pilpul against alleged Zionist opponents...

Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he knows what "pilpul" means. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry : "bilbul".

Ceedjee (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Broader POV concerns

Hi Jayjg -- thanks for your note, above. I think we're definitely headed in the right direction. There are just a couple of places where I feel it would help us to get the discussion to reconnect to some of the issues that were originally raised, and that led me to flag the article. Note that this is a broad discussion about multiple POV issues in Zionism, not a proposed edit on any single section. We have larger issues to address, I think. Obviously, I am trying to work toward specific edits that can attract consensus here, but my sense is we may not be there yet.

1) I am hoping we can recall that this one started out as a query to you regarding "whether you feel WP:UNDUE connects to the material about the tiny fraction of the world's Muslims who support Zionism." You answered that "they do appear to be a very small number of people, so far as we know, but the individuals themselves appear to be notable." I then asked specifically which Jewish religious leaders who opposed Zionism you considered notable, and you identified Joel Teitelbaum. What I'm trying to get at here can be expressed in two questions -- A) You seem to feel that it's important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Muslims who support Zionism, some for religious reasons -- do you feel it's equally important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons? If not, why not? B) In past discussions, when I have tried to introduce direct references to, or quotes from, religious Jews who have opposed Zionism at various points in history, or include a separate section about such people, you've cited WP:UNDUE as a reason not to do these things. Is that still how you feel, and if so, why wouldn't the same principle you have cited in the past apply to the section about Muslim support for Zionism?

2) I think I may be to blame for the miscommunication on this one. There really isn't specific language I'm proposing for the opening -- not yet, at any rate, because I know we need proposals that editors will find reasonable, and I don't think we know enough yet about what constitutes "reasonable" in other articles to make that a likely outcome. What I am asking you to consider -- and comment on, perhaps at length -- are the articles Islamism and Unionism in Ireland. To me, they represent possible models for the work we could do together here. They are both about major topics, and each article manages to incorporate direct or indirect acknowledgment that political controversy is part of the history of the topic in question. In other words, Islamism's lead isn't simply a couple of sentences proclaiming, "This is a broad descriptor that connects to the belief that Islamic values should guide society" -- and then on we go into the main article. No. We learn about some of the extremists within that (umbrella) grouping, and we get a sense -- indirect, of course -- that some people consider this system of thought controversial or even objectionable. Similarly, in the Unionism article, we get a sense of who the players are, what kinds of conflicts have arisen, and what gulfs still exist between them. Forgive me for quoting again, but the opening acknowledges ""fundamental difference in perspective, beliefs, definition and culture between Irish Nationalists and Unionists." Again, please accept that I am not talking here about adding or subtracting a sentence from the opening, but trying instead to open a dialogue with you about these articles. I guess if I had a question for you about the issues we've discussed here in 2), it would be this: A) Given these ways of approaching what appear to be analagous topics, what ideas do you have for structural (not single-edit) changes that would let readers get a better sense of the reasons Zionism, like Islamism and Unionism, is deeply controversial in some quarters?

3) Have to admit it: This last response of yours really confused me. Honestly, I think we may have lost track of the topic somehow, because of the complexity of many people posting, which I realize can be confusing. I apologize for this, and acknowledge that I am a contributor, quite often, to extremely disorganized conversations with multiple players on this page (and other pages, of course). Please forgive the repetition as I try to get us back on track. I cited these two guidelines:

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. WP:NPOV (emphasis added)

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ..." article. WP:CFORK (emphasis added)

I then asked for your comments on how those guidelines "might guide our approach to improving this article." You responded, so far as I can see, by discussing WP:CFORK, but not WP:NPOV, and suggested that Anti-Zionism was summarized here. I challenged this, by pointing out that Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism was not mentioned here, and I cited WP:NPOV's "generally accepted policy" that "all facts and major Points of View" must be treated in a single article.

Here's where I got confused. There we are, discussing whether Zionism conforms to these two guidelines, and specifically whether it "contain(s) a summary" of Anti-Zionism, which WP:CFORK says it should. I then asked you whether Gandhi was covered in Anti-Zionism, the article we are supposedly summarizing here responsibly, and you answered that you didn't know whether he was mentioned in the article! I think we must have gone off line somewhere, because you had just acknowledged our responsibility as editors to summarize Anti-Zionism, and had just claimed that we had done so in accordance with the guidelines ... and now you were claiming that you had not even read Anti-Zionism!

I feel certain this isn't what you meant to say.

I guess I was equally confused by your response to my question about whether Gandhi's position was summarized here in Zionism, because you referred to that as a "rhetorical question." With all respect, I certainly didn't intend this as a rhetorical question, but as a question designed to elicit an answer. He's covered in Anti-Zionism, and would be seen by most editors and readers as manifestly notable (inasmuch as he was, to use only one benchmark, in line to be named as a Nobel Peace Prize winner at the time of his death -- and, to use another benchmark, was identified by Time magazine as one of the most influential people of the 20th century.) [17]. A) Since we don't want to violate WP:NPOV and/or WP:CFORK, wouldn't his views have to be considered be relevant inclusions in any summary of Anti-Zionism, regardless of whether his thoughts were "an outgrowth of his vision for India," and regardless of when he expressed them? After all, we have John Adams in the article as a notable authority on the subject, and his views were certainly expressed before the creation of the State of Israel. BYT (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BYT. A couple of points to start; please do not revert to your previous habit of starting new sections for each of your comments, thus divorcing them of any context. Also, please strive for concision; it is unreasonable to expect editors to read and respond to 1,300 word comments, like your most recent. Now, in response to your numbered points:

1) a) This is the article about Zionism - therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted. b) The Anti-Zionism article is where detail about opponents of Zionism belong. See also Anti-Communism.

2) Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland seem very much the odd men out for Wikipedia's "isms" articles. Socialism, Capitalism, Marxism, Communism, Palestinian nationalism, Arab socialism, Arab nationalism, pan-Islamism, Feminism, Pan-Arabism, Populism, Classical liberalism, Libertarianism, etc. seem much more the Wikipedia standard. Zionism should follow Wikipedia standards.

3) a) The Anti-Zionism article is indeed summarized here in the Zionism article. I never said I hadn't read the Anti-Zionism article; do not attribute anything to me that I have not explicitly stated in this specific context - this has been a constant issue in the past. Move on from what I might or might not be thinking or believe or know, etc. Instead discuss only article content. b) You asked "Does Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to Zionism appear in Anti-Zionism?" and "Is it summarized here?"; you knew the answers, therefore the questions were rhetorical. Please don't ask rhetorical questions, they aren't helpful. As to why Gandhi's view might be appropriate for the Anti-Zionism article, but not the summary given here, please re-read my previous comments. Gandhi was a very well-known and influential figure in general, but that certainly didn't extend to every word he said on every topic. And, in general, a summary of a sub-article like Anti-Zionism will not provide any direct quotes (as that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE), but will instead give a broad overview of the material in the sub-article.

Finally, regarding your concerns about WP:NPOV, you are the fourth most prolific editor on this article, and for the past 2 years you have striven solely to add negative material about Zionism to it. That does not comply with WP:NPOV. Focus on other articles that are in far worse shape than this one; I recommend Palestinian nationalism, which has neither a single solitary criticism of the movement, nor even a single footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay -- I realize this is a controversial high-traffic article, and I can understand how easy it is to get editors mixed up. It happens to me all the time. When you write, above, "regarding your concerns about WP:NPOV ... for the past 2 years you have striven solely to add negative material about Zionism to it" -- this is simply not true, and I would appreciate it if you would consult these diffs and confirm as much for yourself: [18] [19] [20] [21] Many thanks, BYT (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in this or any other similar cesspool of incivility in this battleground area, but "this is the article on Zionism therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted. b) The Anti-Zionism article is where detail about opponents of Zionism belong" is quite incorrect. In an article on Zionism, we should discuss and paraphrase historical studies of the movement; to the extent that they discuss opposition to and criticism of the movement, it should be represented here, in neutral language, with perhaps one or two representative references to primary sources. In an article on Criticism of Zionism, we should quote similar studies of organised opposition to the movement. Neither article should descend into quote-farming, and neither article is "the place where" supporters or critics "will be quoted". This attitude is partly why articles in this section of Wikipedia are among the worst in the encyclopaedia, the enormous amount of attention they receive notwithstanding. Relata refero (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section. If so, which one ? Ceedjee (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Zionism article is a sub-article of this one, just as the History of Zionism, Labor Zionism, Christian Zionism etc. articles are. Detail goes in the sub-articles, summaries go here. As to why articles in this area are "among the worst in the encyclopaedia" - well, they aren't, actually. Israel and Jerusalem, for example, are Featured Articles, though they regularly suffer from people who feel they need to make some political point, and this one isn't terrible. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I watched the Israel FA, so pardon me if I say that it wasn't precisely regular. And as for articles like this and related, even more controversial ones, given that half of them are structured according to partisan quotefarms, they fairly accurately reflect that sort of source in their tone and level of encyclopedic value. Frankly, anyone who actually studies political science would think them laughable. At least some of the other battlegrounds look obviously amateurish. Here the finish is professional and the quality's - well, never mind. Not winning any converts on this talkpage, I don't think. 'Bye all. Remember what I said about "place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted" stuff. Not how we write non-terrible articles. Relata refero (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section. If so, which one ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg -- thanks for your comments, above, and I will try to keep this concise, as you request. You're quite right, I do ramble sometimes. In the spirit of keeping a good dialogue going, let's keep this brief, and keep on making the good headway we seem to be making.

I still am not sure, from your response above, what your specific take on the question below is. Maybe my long post made it tough to tease out my main points, and if so, we may be better off if I frame them one at a time. Of questions 1a, 1b, 2a, and 3a, I want to re-engage now with 1a (we'll get to the others later), and ask you to address 1a directly, so we can discuss it and start to edit collaboratively.

Your response above, "This is the article about Zionism - therefore it is the place where supporters of Zionism will be quoted," seems like it's open to discussion from a number of angles, but I'm still not sure about your specific response to the query below. Remember, one of the issues that started this was the reinsertion of the "Muslims who support Zionism" content, and your defense of that reinsertion, even after we had appeared to have reached some kind of (unspoken, I suppose) consensus some months back that deleting such a section made sense.

1A)' You seem to feel that it's important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Muslims who support Zionism, some for religious reasons -- do you feel it's equally important to have a section within the article whose headline points readers toward the fact that there are Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons? If not, why not? BYT (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section. If so, which one ? Ceedjee (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)?)

What Ceedjee said. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And what happens to those who are NOT Zionists and are also NOT anti-Zionists. Are there only pro- and anti- sides?,- absolutely NOT. One word resting in the middle, somewhere in NPOV-land that editors should consider, but seem too entrenched to recognize, is the word 'NON-Zionist'. If you can see that side of the other 'sides', there might be progress. You know what I mean, it is that neverneverland where discussion of the difference between Eretz Israel and Medinet Israel takes place openly and honestly; it is that land where a post-Zionist can live in peace with a smile on his (her) face, with no worries of being a Gentile new-anti-Semite or a Jewish self-hating Jew. If Zionism could, or would, define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts, one would find that there is no reason for those neologisms in particular. But, then, we do not live in a perfect world. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

alternately, if folks would stop erecting goalposts such as "zionism is racism" then zionists might not feel forced to move them. Gzuckier (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Zionism can't or won't "define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts"? What on earth are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Did you forget that we have already had this discussion higher on the page? Well I’ll be! Just because I only watch the edits, doesn’t mean that I am not here. I sadly note that the existing lede, which is a fine, fine piece of history-lacking POV, has again lost Palestine; the current lede is what the missing Zionism today section should be. That Zionism, the Zionism you seem to be POV-pushing, can very well have a full section describing all its glories and never mention Palestine, because it doesn’t exist to those minds. That is OK with me, that is inclusive, NPOV, and true.

But, it is not that Zionism that goes in the lede on Wikipedia. Zionism is tied-at-the-hip, or maybe foot, or maybe trod upon Palestine. Now, Jay, Palestine can either go righteously at the top in the first sentence, or go unrighteously at the end, where we must note the second diaspora, which was created; the loss of that same self-determination and; the development of other national liberation movements of the Palestinian people. Which of these would you prefer?- your choice, I’m easy. And while you are thinking about it, please see if you can fit in Greater Israel or Eretz Israel HaShlema and Movement for Greater Israel. Tivnan's quote, that you keep deleting from another page is highly illustrative of what I am talking about. This is not an April Fools thing. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CO48, I hardly know what your speech means. If you're concerned that the lead sentence has deteriorated from a previous verions, then just say so, rather than using bizarre circumlocutions like "If Zionism could, or would, define itself in a fair, open and honest manner, and quit moving the goal posts, one would find that there is no reason for those neologisms in particular." I hadn't noticed the mess a bunch of editors had made with that sentence, but I've restored it to the factual, NPOV, and sourced version. In the future, please speak straightforwardly, rather than elliptically, and assume good faith. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am just reading Yoav Gelber, History of Zionist Historiography. He explains the History of Zionism has evolved during time and was explained differently according to circumstances. The messanic vision of Zionism was just one of them and introduced in 1920-30. Other (Zionist !) historians saw Zionism as a political enterprise, a jewish cultural aspiration, a jewish liberation movement (in front of anti-zemitism), ...

Answering CO'48, I would suggest we replace Promised land in the lead by Palestine not even to respect any Palestinian pov but to reflect these zionist pov's where the messianic vision is not the only one.

I can understand that many people could give a bad interpretation of the word Palestine (that the land would have been stolen by Zionism) but historically, that were the name given to the region and the land to settle in was Palestine. These are the words that were used when Weizmann, Balfour and the British establishment negociated.

The optimum would be to add a few words explaining here Palestine refers to the historical area and not at all to the potential future state for the Palestinians but I don't have a solution...

Ceedjee (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good, up front, simple and factual, just the way it is in NPOV, but I prefer to let Jay do it himself, since he seems to hold the article so dearly. Concerning a solution..., they have a simple one strewn all over Wikipedia..., it doesnt exist. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead got turned into sludge again; references removed, sentences no longer matched what their citations said, and a bizarre link to National Liberation was inserted. I've restored sanity to it once again. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PoV tag

Hi,
Given the comments given here above, it seems there is a consensus on wp not to discuss about the oppositions in the lead of articles dealing with political ideologies. I removed this. I expect this solves the pov-issue.

"Opposition to Zionism has arisen on a number of grounds, ranging from religious objections to competing claims of nationalism to political dissent that considers the ideology either immoral or impractical. Some critics believe that opposition to Zionism is a contemporary expression of antisemitism."

Ceedjee (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Having discussed some of this earlier, I think the question is whether you want a very dry introduction, or if you want one that gets into commentary of one kind or another. Talking about whether to include opposition isn't exactly right in my view; the question per WP:Lead is whether to include "notable controversies," as exist. These could be controversies about the term, or opposition, depending on the case. The other problem is the coverage of proponents that currently remains in the lead, which would also need to be removed if the idea is not to have positive or negative commentary. I think these are the main concerns with simply getting rid of the material on opposition. Mackan79 (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right.

After recent correction, I don't have reason to keep the pov tag. Ceedjee (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A shorter lead would improve the article. Removing pro- and contra- perception of Zionism and leaving polemics for the core of the article better.

This lead is too long (from my point of view). Ceedjee (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:RFCpol Does this inclusion of a section on Muslim Zionists raise problems with WP:UNDUE and/or WP:NPOV? Broad range of views concerning Zionism among the world's Muslims, only a tiny fraction accounted for here. BYT (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandon, there is a poll on this issue, above in this page. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but polls are evil. Quoting: "Don't vote on everything, and if you can help it, don't vote on anything. Or, rather, polling isn't evil in itself, but when you try to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single phrase, that's the sort of oversimplified, divisive statement that happens. A bit like trying to distill an essay's worth of thought into a single "yea" or "nay". (Although Wikipedia has a Neutral point of view policy, this article seems to have the general consensus of the Wikipedia community.)"

This sort of situation is what WP:RFC is for. BYT (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Halas! enough empty arguments, here is my opinion/comment/poll answer: The chapter "Muslims supporting Zionism" belongs in the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you feel that way? And how do you think WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV should be applied here? BYT (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would pilpul go on ? Do you think a quote should be added in the criticism of Zionism section ? If so, which one ? Ceedjee (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee, could you please take a clear position on this simple issue?

Brandon, this point has already been discussed ad nauseum earlier. Now is not the time for further sterile arguments, it is the time to state clearly our opinion, something you have not done yet. In the meantime, stop deleting the paragraph until a clear trend emerges from this RFC. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are they notable as supporters of Zionism? Do most studies of Zionism mention them? Do we have a reliable source saying "these are notable supporters of Zionism" (not "notable Muslim Zionists", as this is not a Muslim Zionism article)? Do we have a reliable source saying "Muslim Zionism is a notable component of Zionism"? That is the only question you should all be asking yourselves. Relata refero (disp.) 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the paragraph starts by stating "rare are the supporters of Zionism in the Muslim world : yes. In fact, I am happy to learn there can be nuance in that world - You don't need a source that state this is notable. You need a source that states it is true. Notability is our concern - You don't need a source stating that Muslim Zionist is notable. cfr just above. Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's necessarily any problem with a section on Muslims supporting Zionism, if you can find material in a reliable source or two discussing the issue in reasonable depth. FrontPageMagazine, however, is not a reliable source. Neither is "Islam-watch.org" (citations 30 and 32 respectively). So the sources need replacing, and if that's not possible, the content should be removed. I know Abdul Hadi Palazzi is a well known proponent of Zionism, so you should replace FPM with a credible source. If the issue of Muslims supporting Zionism is even significant, then I'd probably expect some reliable sources to be discussing it. Just my thoughts. ITAQALLAH 19:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Emmanuelm -- obviously, as you've just reinserted the text, you've got an opinion on this. Since we're trying to generate discussion here, could you comment on Itaqallah's points above regarding reliable sourcing? Can you please directly address Relato's question above: Do we have a reliable source saying "Muslim Zionism is a notable component of Zionism?" Also, again, why do you feel this needs a separate section (as opposed to, for instance, a well-sourced reference elsewhere in the article)? BYT (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not needed. The information is source and this is notable because rare are the Muslims who support Zionism.

Note you don't answer to question, so there is no reason you are answered.

Cheers, Ceedjee (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the quotations to the footnotes, to deal with concerns about undue weight. It's now just three brief sentences. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with including a section on muslims who support Zionism, however rare it may be, they do exist. Yahel Guhan 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I modified the title of the chapter to include Nonie Darwish and Magdi Allam, both Christian Arabs. As for the notability of this group, two points. First, the "weight" of this paragraph, only five lines in a large article, is proportional. Second, the difference between a "tiny" and a "significant" minority is clarified in WP:NPOV as such: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents. I easily found six contemporary imams and professional writers; it ought to be enough. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is good that way. Ceedjee (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, thanks for re-engaging. The page has gotten hectic, so I don't know if you missed my question above (1a). If you did, here's a quick summary of my concerns -- that query to you arose from curiosity over whether we may be inadvertently using the structure of the article to spotlight religiously justified support, and minimize any discussion of religiously justified opposition. And this leads me to a deeper question I wanted to share with you that connects with 1a), above. I am still uncertain as to why we have to divide the whole article into "pro-" and "anti-" chunks in the first place. Some of the positions worthy of discussion don't fall easily into either category. Is there a downside, in your view, to reorganizing all of this "responses to Zionism" material under a broader heading of some kind? What kind of heading would you suggest? BYT (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article merely summarizes the Anti-Zionism sub-section, just like it summarizes all the other sub-sections. Anti-Zionism is a specific sub-section. Is there something you feel needs to be added to this article? If so, what, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick recap department, compressed for the sake of conciseness, and updated to include points recently raised on this page: 1A: Do Jews who oppose Zionism, some for religious reasons, merit a separate section or subsection? 1B:Are we following WP:UNDUE in descriptions and discussions of people, movements, and organizations that have other religious responses to Zionism, and are the people, movements, and organizations notable? 1C: (adding this because it is implied in my question above:) What structural changes to the article would allow us to incorporate a broader range of responses to Zionism, rather than simply assuming the discussion must be about "pro" and "con" camps? 2A:) What changes, structural or otherwise, would make it more apparent to readers that notable people regard Zionism as controversial (compare Islamism and Unionism in Ireland)? 3A: Why would we exclude (for instance) the views of the notable figure Mahatma Gandhi in our summary of Anti-Zionism? 3B: (I'm adding this explicity to the discussion now, but it has been implied all along:) What other major Points of View do we have a duty to describe responsibly when summarizing Anti-Zionism, per WP:NPOV and WP:CFORK?

(We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming ... thanks for your patience. I just wanted to make it easier to keep track of everything.)

Hi Jay. Thanks for your question -- it's a good one. I guess at this point, I'm more curious about addressing larger questions of (re)organization than I am about adding or subtracting individual sentences to the existing structure. Following through on 1A 1B and 1C above, could you see an advantage to incorporating the summary of "Anti-Zionism" as a subsection within a larger section called (just for the sake of argument) "Responses to Zionism"? This could, in theory, allow us to avoid the whole problem of spotlighting one group of (religiously driven) proponents, some of which may not represent notable movements within Zionism -- and at the same time inadvertently de-emphasizing another group of (religiously driven) opponents. We'd still summarize "Anti-Zionism" (and I have some comments on the best ways to do that collaboratively that connect to 3A and 3B above'), but we would be able to do so as part of a larger discussion of the varied, notable responses to the movement. BYT (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Byron and Jay, you are off topic. I understand from this that the discussion on the Muslims & Arab chapter is closed; Mazal tov! I removed the RFC template. Now, Byron, stop deleting the paragraph. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposition to x is a standard kind of section, and Anti-Zionism is a sub-article of that section. "Responses to Zionism" doesn't really mean anything, as it could include anyone who has ever said anything about it. Is there something you feel needs to be added to this article? If so, what, and why? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism / Criticisms of Zionism

I think Anti-Zionism is only one of the form of the criticisms to Zionism. And it is a wide subject. There is also Post-Zionism and Non-Zionism (whereas not described in the article). In this section is also described the "allegations of racism against Zionism", which is not an consensual anti-zionism position... So I suggest that the section is titled : "Opposition to Zionism". Ceedjee (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Does somebody disagree ? And better : would somebody agree ? Ceedjee (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)