Talk:Zionism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Polemic nature

The article has reverted to being a polemic justifying Zionism rather than a description of what zionism is. The first section in particular talking about arab invasion is just a toilet. There isn't even at attempt at NPOV - or even relevance to the topic.

I agree, it is long past time for the disputed neutrality tag to return to this article. It's become little more than a set of zionist talking points. Dacian

Yeah, note the first paragraph of the Islamism article:

"Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Islamist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Sharia. [1] Islamists regard themselves as Muslims rather than Islamists, while moderate Muslims reject this notion."

The Zionism article might similarly start with:

"Zionism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various conservative religious views of Jewish fundamentalists, which hold that Judaism is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Zionist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Torah. Zionists regard themselves as Jews rather than Zionists, while moderate Jews reject this notion."

Sorry but your definition and indeed your entire notion of Zionism is mistaken. Zionism has few if any parallel with Islamism. Also today virtually all moderate Jewish groups and individuals support Zionism. In fact the only Jewish group where there is some disagreement with Zionism is Hasidism and a few very small Orthodox groups, and even here they are an increasingly small minority.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 00:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Zionism as a "controversial" political movement

I've added the following qualifications, which I think strike a fair compromise between some of the competing POV regarding this article:

"sometimes controversial political movement"

Zionism is more controversial than most political movements, so labelling it as such is accurate and informative. However, recognizing that the term "controversial" itself can be treated pejoratively, I qualified it as "sometimes controversial"

"the location commonly believed to be the site of the ancient Kingdom of Israel"

There is some dispute as to the historical accuracy in this case. Rather than get into that in any detail, I thought this was a suitable way of qualifying the claim while still emphasizing the most common POV.

There is no dispute among serious historians and archeologists regarding the historical accuracy of this "claim"; those who promote this view have agendas which do not coincide with historical accuracy. Jayjg 17:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find any major issues I could address, other than the "Zionism == Racism" argument. I really think that deserves at least a mention here, since it is such a widespread view -- but I'm not sure how to do that. I don't think mention on Anti-Zionism is sufficient, since I'd like to understand more of the Zionist reaction and defense as well.

--Wclark 15:43, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

I agree, the accusation of racism deserves at least one paragraph of discussion since it has such a large popularity. Both sides of the arguments can be discussed: the view that the Jews represent the evil white colonialists and an apartheid regime, on one hand (the law of return etc), and factual information on the other: that half of Israel's Jewry comes from Oriental and/or black races, and that these people are much racially closer to the Palestinians to Europeans, this is a totally different reality than the situation in South Africa was, where the base of the conflict was indeed racial. Here it is not, it is a Cultural conflict. A culture is not the same as the biological race of a person, unless you agree that a person can switch races at will, merely by switching cultures, religions and/or marriage. A ridiculous notion, in my view. A person has a right to select their cultural identity. However racial identity has nothing to do with his or her beliefs, and cannot be chosen. I'm a Jewish Israeli, and I'm confused, which race am I, and which race am I supposed to hate? please help me to properly represent your reality. Its tough being a proper racist without knowing these things, I mean you can't leave us to be ostracized by racists and anti-racists alike.

--User:unlessimwrong

The issue is mentioned here, and discussed in the appropriate article anti-Zionism; a link is provided. Jayjg 17:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE ONGOING EDIT WAR Please stop reverting articles, and discuss here instead. I'd thought my most recent changes were a suitable compromise between competing POV, but apparently you disagree -- yet you did not read my comments here. Please make an attempt to discuss the issue, rather than revert without thinking. --Wclark 16:33, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

"yet you did not read my comments here". I didn't know you had access to tracking tools to see what I'm reading on Wikipedia. I reverted your edit because I disagree with your premise that "Zionism is more controversial than most political movements" -- you are right that all political movements are controversial, that's almost inherent (if not completely inherent) in being political. So until you think that editing the democracy article by putting in the very first line before anything else that "Democracry is a sometimes controversial form of government" is a good idea, please don't riddle the introduction of Zionism with this POV. Saying that "Zionism is a political movement" is not POV already and all the manners in which Zionism is controversial are discussed thoroughly in this article.

P.S. What does "sometimes" mean in terms of being controversial? When has Zionism not been controversial? Jewbacca 16:40, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

How about you get agreement on any changes you want to make first, then (if they're agreed to) put them in. That makes more sense to me. Jayjg 17:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My point is that Zionism is probably best known (among non-Jews in particular) for the controversy surrounding it, than for any other characteristic. The controversy – much of which centers around the argument that Zionism is a form of racism – isn't even mentioned in the article. Perhaps a better way to bring it up would be to have a section that brings together various opposition points (including those of some orthodox jews et al. which could be moved from their current locations). It just strikes me as particularly odd that a subject that most people probably first encounter in the context of controversy doesn't make any mention of that. I realize that "controversial" can be used as a slight, which is why I attempted to qualify it -- but surely there is some way of mentioning this that isn't pejorative? --Wclark 16:51, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

As has been pointed out many times before, all political movements are "controversial" or "sometimes controversial", thus the phrase adds nothing to the description of the movement. And adding this qualifier to this article alone, and not to the descriptions of all other political movements, is not NPOV. Jayjg 17:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not all political movements are known primarily for the controversy surrounding them. I'd argue that most people who have heard the term "Zionism" heard it in the context of the "Zionism is racism" argument (or simply in the context of general non-specific dispute). Many people know nothing else about Zionism other than the controversy. Your objection seems to be that labelling Zionism "controversial" is an attempt to subtly discredit it, and I agree wholeheartedly that it can be taken that way -- but the fact remains that the controversy needs to be mentioned somewhere in the article, and pretty prominently, since for many people it's the most important aspect. How would you suggest accomplishing this, if not through something akin to my original suggestion? --Wclark 17:29, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Hmm, what are Communism and Fascism and Capitalism known for, non-controversy? And have you taken a poll to see how "most" people think of Zionism? No, you haven't, and in any event it wouldn't be relevant. My objection to labelling Zionism "controversial" is that it is meaningless, irrelevant, POV, and does not follow Wikipedia standard. The controversy is indeed mentioned "somewhere" in the article, in the exact same general area that controversies about other topics are mentioned. You know, "most" people have a view of "Jew" as controversial as well, perhaps as Zionist Arab killers, secret world dominators, big nosed bankers, Christ killers, communists, etc. Should that view be mentioned "pretty prominently" in the Jew article, since that's what "most" people think of when they think of Jews? Jayjg 19:45, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

De-indenting because it's getting too deep.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I have taken such polls (though not anything approaching a representative sample, since they were conducted on a University campus years ago) – but as you point out (and I agree) that's not relevant. The point is that a significant number of people only know about the controversy surrounding Zionism, and practically nothing of the other details. The article as it stands does an excellent job of explaining those other details – but it mentions the controversy only briefly and in a disorganized manner. I apologize for missing this reference to the "Zionism is Racism" argument:

In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said 
that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991.
This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism.

However, it's nowhere near the other mentions of opposing views (in particular, those of orthodox Jews) and in general the opposing positions aren't clearly represented. I want to state that I do not support those opposing views. I simply think they should be clearly presented to the reader, since they represent the only thing many people know about Zionism, and if they are hard to find in the text then it gives the impression of bias. I think they should perhaps be organized into a common section, or else a reference and link to Anti-Zionism should be made closer to the beginning of the article. Do you have other suggestions? --Wclark 20:58, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Maybe the same type of phrasing could be used to describe Zionism as is used here (from Right of return):

The Palestinian Arab right of return is a hotly disputed topic in Middle East politics

Is "hotly disputed topic" preferable to "controversial"? --Wclark 21:46, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

No. The only relevant, necessary and NPOV thing to say about Zionism in the opening sentence is that it is a political movement. Saying that it is "controversial" or "hotly disputed" political movement is (a) tautological, because all political movements by definition are controversial and hotly disputed, and (b) POV, because it seeks to place Zionism in a category seperate from all other political movements, namely "hotly disputed ones." What this really means is "movements with which the majority of right-thinking Wikipedians have no sympathy." The opening sentence should be left as it is. Adam 10:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's not what "controversy" officially means (whatever that means!), and it's certainly not what I meant by it. However, it seems to be a common misunderstanding so I'll concede the point (see Controversy and the discussion on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Controversy for more on the popular misconceptions about this term). However, if the term is going to be invariably taken in a pejorative manner, then it should really be removed from all articles on the Wikipedia. I'm going to raise a discussion on the Village pump about this, to see what others think about it in general. --Wclark 16:19, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I agree with Adam. User:Zero0000 12:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with Adam; highlighting the "controversy" is un-Wiki for all sorts of reasons, most of them relating to POV. And the point of an encyclopedia article is not to reflect the ignorance or prejudice of "most readers", but to educate them on the facts about the subject. Jayjg 15:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, that isn't what I agreed to. The question was whether it is right to call Zionism "controversial" in the introductory sentence. I agree with Adam's argument that it is not right, and I think even putting it in the opening paragraph is doubtful. That doesn't prevent controversies from being aired elsewhere in the article (although one would assume that anti-Zionism is where most of such material would go). --Zero 15:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Which is what I've been saying all along as well. The controversy is aired elsewhere in the article, and a link provided to anti-Zionism where the main discussion takes place. Jayjg 16:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the controversies should be aired in the article at all – I was suggesting they be more clearly mentioned (and that perhaps a link to Anti-Zionism should be more prominently placed near the open). The fact of the matter is that Zionism is a more controversial political movement than most (in the sense that there is more controversy surrounding it than most, regardless of whether this controversy is justified in any way). The vast majority of college students at Rutgers University in the early 1990's were only aware that there was some sort of heated dispute regarding Zionism and knew practically nothing else about the topic (based on a poll I helped conduct for a research paper), and I'd argue that the same is most likely true for the majority of non-Jews in general. If a topic is widely known to be hotly disputed, yet this dispute is barely mentioned in the article, that's going to come across as white-washing. That's my motivation here (to avoid the appearance of bias in the article) and surely there must be some way of achieving that goal without using any offensive terms or without giving undue importance to opposing views. Can anyone here suggest something that might work? --Wclark 16:29, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Zionism is not "a more controversial political movement than most", your tiny and unrepresentative straw poll notwithstanding. I'm sure if you asked the average American what they knew of Marxism, their responses would be equally poorly informed. And as I said above, the purpose of an article is not to reflect the ignorance of the reader, but to enlighten the reader. Injecting bias to avoid the appearance of bias is self defeating. What is currently there works just fine. Jayjg 16:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Zionism is more controversial than most other political movements. Simply do a search for "controversial+zionism" and you'll find plenty of agreement on that point, from all across the political spectrum. Your complaint seems to be with the term "controversial", and you need to realize it's not always pejorative (and wasn't originally meant as such, until the media started abusing it). Would "divisive" better suit your tastes? "Frequently and emotionally debated"? Yes, Marxism, Feminism, and countless others fit into this category as well. For the most part topics like child labor are not (although in certain areas of the world they are no doubt still considered controversial topics). The purpose of an article is to provide information in as neutral a manner as possible -- PERIOD. The fact that Zionism is a "hot topic" in international discourse is important and warrants a mention. That's not bias. Now, would you please stop getting so hung up on terminology and help come up with a reasonable way of making this point? --Wclark 17:05, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Your arguments re: controversial have already been refuted; see Adam et al above. The "controversial" nature of the movement has already been recognized in this page, and discussed at length in the anti-Zionism. I understand you see a need to make it more prominent; however, as I said earlier, introducing bias to avoid the appearance of bias is self defeating. Jayjg 17:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

De-indented again because it got too deep

*sigh*

Nobody refuted anything above. Adam's (implied) definition of "political movement" is wrong, as is his interpretation of what "controversial" means. I agreed that people misunderstand that term to be purely pejorative, so it's not a point worth pursuing. The fact remains that Zionism is a topic about which a great many people frequently enter into emotional debate, and that this happens more when discussing Zionism than with most (not all) other political topics. I can't understand why you won't acknowledge this blatantly obvious point. It doesn't reflect poorly on Zionism in any way, shape, or form, and is not a biased viewpoint – in fact, the same exact point applies to Anti-Zionism so it couldn't possibly reflect poorly upon Zionism. Would you consider it biased to say that abortion is a highly divisive issue? I simply consider it a neutral fact. It doesn't say anything about which side in the debate is right, only that the debate itself tends to get rather intense (and moreso than with other topics). I agree that adding bias to counter another bias is a bad idea, but that's not what I'm suggesting here. --Wclark 18:19, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Tell you what, why don't you work on beefing up the In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991. This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. sentence in some way to reflect the current controversy that is going on, and present it here. Jayjg 18:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that sentence, I was just looking it over again. I don't think it necessarily needs to be "beefed up" since it already says enough (and provides a link where the interested reader can find out more). It's more that I think it should be moved from its current location, since it's hard to find (and I wouldn't have expected it at the tail end of a section that outlines the history of Israel). Since I don't see where else it could really go (and upon further review of the article, I no longer think that moving the information on opposing views from orthodox Jews makes sense) but since I really do think the link to Anti-Zionism needs to be more prominantly placed than at the end of an inappropriate section, how about this: Dropping the mention of the UN resolution (which really belongs entirely in Anti-Zionism, I think) and placing some other mention and link to Anti-Zionism closer to the opening of the article? That way we don't necessarily have to mention the (controversial) controversy directly, but can accomplish the same effect by directing readers to the Anti-Zionism page if what they're really looking for is information on the debate. --Wclark 18:57, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

I'm game, but what specifically do you think should be done? Jayjg 19:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about something like this (second sentence added):

Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. This characterization of Zionism is questioned by some (but not all) anti-Zionists, although few competing definitions have any widespread acceptance in the international community. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there.

I don't like the phrasing, but I can't figure out how to improve it without introducing too much bias one way or the other. I'd drop the original sentence (mentioning the UN resolution) entirely, since I don't think it really belongs in the section on the history of Israel anyway. --Wclark 19:58, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The first section is for explaining what it is, not what talking about various controversies related to it. You can put more wording in about the controversy, and move it to a "better" place in the article, but it certainly does not belong in the first section. Jayjg 20:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The anti-Zionist response to Zionism is arguably one of the best-known aspects, and therefore warrants a mention early in the article. I've posted some research to back up this claim at User:Wclark/Zionism (in the interest of saving space here). --Wclark 03:18, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

Early in the article? Perhaps. In the first paragraph? Absolutely not. Jayjg 03:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you'd like how early in the article I'm thinking (as in, the first section following the opening, in a section entitled "anti-Zionism" or something similar). I really think the controversy surrounding Zionism needs to be made clear almost immediately, and making mention of anti-Zionism (with a link) is probably the most NPOV way of doing so (since terms like "controversial" "disputed" etc. are so problematic). I'm not going to compromise on this if the only thing you have to say in response is "absoultely not." I spent a good amount of time compiling some research to back up my position, and if you expect me to accept your argument that mentioning anti-Zionism in the opening portion of the article is either unnecessary (or even detrimental) then I expect you to do the same. --Wclark 03:42, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

That Zionism is controversial was never in question. Nor is the fact that there is a propaganda war going on against Israel and Zionism on the Internet (and elsewhere), and that this propaganda war is far more visible and well known than most. The point is that this is an article about Zionism, not about anti-Zionism, which has a whole big article devoted to it. The Wikipedia standard is to mention related topics, and then link to them in other articles. This article has done so. Jayjg 05:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion

I suggest that new paragraphs be installed in the introductory section as follows:

Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish National Homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there.

  ---REPLY:
  ---I removed the words "ethnic nationalism" which is inaccurate and
  ---even Anti-Semitic. This is because Jews are not an ethnic group
  ---nor a race but a people. Instead, I used this wording "Zionism
  ---though originally a secular movement is today a religious
  ---movement to establish a State based on Halacha." which is
  ---much more better.

Since the establishment of Israel, and particularly since the Six Day War of 1967, which placed Israel in occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the objectives and methods of the Zionist movement and its major achievement, the State of Israel, have come under increasing criticism. The Arab world opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset, but during the course of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 1967, the legitimacy of Israel, and thus of Zionism, has been increasingly questioned in the wider world. Since the failure of the Oslo Accords and the launching of the second intifada in 2001, attacks on Zionism in media, intellectual and political circles, particularly in Europe, have reached new levels of intensity.

This article is intended to be a survey of the history and objectives of the Zionist movement, not a history of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict. The history of the various forms of opposition to Zionism is discussed at the article anti-Zionism.

Adam 04:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 05:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not sure whether that third paragraph is something you're suggesting go into the article, or whether it's your own commentary. I agree with the sentiment, but I find it somewhat jarring when articles go all meta on themselves. Also, I think that second paragraph might be a bit of overkill. I think it would be fine to chop it after the first sentence, and follow up with something that mentions and links to Anti-Zionism. However, if you think the added detail is useful, I'm not opposed to it. --Wclark 05:44, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

I'm confused as well; Adam, were you proposing that new intro, or opposing it? Jayjg 07:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am proposing all three paragraphs as a new intro section. I don't see anything wrong with an article commenting on itself as the 3rd para does. If the 2nd para is thought to be too detailed, it can be edited back. But I think we need to acknowledge that this article will be endlessly attacked unless it gives the reader an immediate link to anti-Zionism to show that the topic as a whole is being treated in a balanced way across two articles.

I'll accept the third paragraph, since I completely acknowledge it's just my personal preference for articles not to refer to themselves. I wish I'd been able to express your last point as clearly as you just did, since that's basically why I've been so hung up on seeing some mention of the opposing views/controversy (I tend to think there are a lot of people who would be expecting some mention of anti-Zionism, and who would likely consider the article biased otherwise). I'll leave it to Jayjg (and any other concerned parties) to trim your proposed second paragraph. --Wclark 08:08, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

I think it is fine. I added a comma. --Zero 13:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the second paragraph is at all necessary, but if Zero and Adam like it, I won't object. Jayjg 16:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is not "necessary" for the integrity of this article, which is why I resisted the idea previously, but I have been persuaded that it is "necessary" if the article is ever to achieve stability. And if it is necessary I would rather do it myself than allow various Zionophobes to do it for me.

at most only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide

"at most only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide"; where do these numbers come from? Jayjg 16:30, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I've qualified it somewhat, until somebody can track down a more concrete source for the figure. --Wclark 16:48, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Ideological vs political movement

Definition of ideology:

The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

Definition of political:

Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.

To me, it appears that a more precise description of Zionism is as an ideological movement than a political movement; "political" is too narrow.

Style 10:57, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC)

I agree, Zionism is about ideology as well. --Bk0 22:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where did that definition of ideology come from? Crude Marxism for Beginners? Adam 08:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. But don't bother to state your case or argue the point, just revert... -- style 14:36, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Adam, why do you think "political" is more accurate than "ideological"? Jayjg 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't "nationalist" be more precise and accurate than either? —No-One Jones 18:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't been following the whole history of this thread. But I will say this: Zionism is not any ONE thing. It is at once ideological, political, nationalist, religious-nationalist and more.

This article is totally disputed

From errors of comission (such as calling Israel's ethnical cleansing a "civil war") to errors of omission (such as omitting the pogroms of non-Jews and occupation of Palestine), this is largely a piece of propaganda minimizing negative acts and consequences of Zionism. HistoryBuffEr 00:01, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I agree. Simply segregating cricism of Zionism in the anti-zionism article and using that as a rationale to let this article be blatent pro-Israel propaganda is not acceptable and reflects negatively, I think, on Wikipedia. Bk0 04:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of this called a "civil war" by either side until this article, regardless of whether your opinion calls it "ethnic cleansing" or not. Hundreds of thousands of troops from neighboring Arab countries were involved in the 1947-1949 Arab-Israeli war, which is hardly just "Civil war between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine." AriP 21:52, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)

True. Here are some examples

1

I quote from the main article as of 26/Oct/2004: "(...) and to encourage Jews to settle there as they see it as their God given perogative."

Not at all. Zionism is not a monolithic body of ideas. What is called "right wing" supports this position. What is called "the peace camp" does not. Both are Zionists. (Yes, you could say that the first group is the majority nowadays.)

2.

The popular world opinion opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset (...)

POV Central. Actually, the United Nations voted in 1947 for partition.

Zionism doesn't change meaning depending on the speaker

Some extremists apparently wish to define "Zionism" by who is using the word: " 'Zionist' is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew." This was also a common practice in the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland, before their collapse in 1991. See Zionist Occupied Government for an example of the current use of the term Zionist in this way. " So what does this mean? If a Zionist uses the word, it is legitimate. If a critic of Zionism uses it, it is a euphemism and an anti-Semitic attack? This is ridiculous. Where do Tikkun's or Noam Chomsky's critiques of Zionism fall in this scheme, legitimate or euphemistic? Who decides? This POV application needs to be deleted.--Alberuni 04:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It correct. There are people who equate Zionists with all Jews.--Josiah 06:04, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People use the word in different ways, as sometimes happens with English words. One of the ways anti-Semites use it is as a euphemism for Jew. This causes some confusion, as the article relates. Jayjg 06:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone said that all Jews were Zionists, yearning for their ancient feudal overlordships. Was that you? I can't find the quote - perhaps you could point me to it?24.64.166.191 07:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question, as usual.Where do Tikkun's or Noam Chomsky's critiques of Zionism fall in this scheme, legitimate or euphemistic? Who decides? This POV application needs to be deleted. This is another POV attempt to discredit legitimate criticism of Zionism as illegitimate anti-Semitism. It is a POV description that should be NPOVed in the article.--Alberuni 19:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the difference where they fall? The question is not relevant. The fact that some people use the term that way doesn't mean that others do not. The article is also very clear that this is a minority usage by anti-Semites, and not the majority usage. Jayjg 21:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's completely subjective and POV. Not encyclopedia material.--Alberuni 03:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now come on. It is of course true that pro-Zionist groups often falsely accuse anti-Zionist groups of being anti-Semitic (a point, come to think of it, that might be worth covering in the article); it is equally true, though, that when some white supremacist talks about the "Zionist Occupied Government", he doesn't mean "Zionist" though he says "Zionist". - Mustafaa 03:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg 03:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. First of all, we can't assume we know who is a white supremacist. Second, we can't claim to know what a white supremacist is thinking when he talks about ZOG. He may well be talking about Jews and Zionists interchangeably or he may have legitimate criticisms about Zionist influence in the US government. Third, it is a logical fallacy to judge the merits of an issue based on the speaker rather than the issue. Fourth, this is an encyclopedia. What are we going to say? "Zionism is the political ideology that Jews are a distinct race that deserves a homeland in Palestine unless the word is used by people who are Arab or white supremacists or Russian or Iranian in which case it is an anti-Semitic euphemism for 'Jew'". This gives the Zionists a tool to label anyone who criticizes them, "an anti-Semite". And it is a tool they frequently use to bludgeon legitimate critics. --Alberuni 03:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The motivations of people who use "Jew" and "Zionist" interchangeably are not what is central here; the fact that they do so is enough to point out the issue. Jayjg 16:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about discussing the Zionists who use Zionism and Judaism interchangeably? As in those who claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism? --Alberuni 16:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting and provocative topics. Jayjg 17:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It must be pointed out that the word "Anti-Semite" does NOT mean anti-Jew. It has come to mean that, but at a very strange and convoluted eliding of history and culture. The group of Semitic people and languages includes a LOT more than just Jews and Hebrew. In fact, I'm not even sure if Jews are the largest Semitic group.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.9.131.52 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Anti-Semite means "anti-Jew". See the etymology section of that article. This talk page needs archiving. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• A lot of words are technically misnomers, but just because the name should or shouldn't mean something else it doesn't mean it automatically does, I don't understand where you are going with this anyways but you are mistaken.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article status

I have requested that this article's featured status be removed because of it being the centre of frequent edit wars and having its factual accuracy and neutral point of view disputed. Vacuum | tcw 02:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Land Purchase

How come the article fails to mention the purchase of land from arabs mainly with Rothschild's help? Am I missing something? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 14:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While it would definitely belong in articles about the history and development of Israel, the topic is not essential for a page about Zionism. This page is more about the ideology and the political movements relating to Zionism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Madagascar

Is it true that Madagascar was briefly considered as a Jewish homeland? And how could anyone come up with such a dumb idea? Mjklin 21:51, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

• Before Hitler decided on his 'Final solution', he considered other ways of dealing with the 'Jewish problem' by exiling them to some remote land. First he considered Siberia, but fearing the harsh climate would turn the Jews into 'Supermen', he later considered mild Madagascar.--Pharos 11:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Truth is stranger than fiction...

• Wikipedia is amazing. In the last month a new article has been written on the Madagascar Plan.--Pharos 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and Zionism

The undertones of this article are not just outrageous, but inflamatory at times. Most Christians believe (those who practice and accept an orthodox [not Eastern Orthodoxy but rather a plain meaning in this context] interpretation of the Bible) that Israel should exist as a matter of biblical prophecy in numerous Old Testament books (Isaiah, Daniel) as well as the New Testament.

But it is the following that is disturbing in this article: "Christian Zionists also believe that most Jews will be killed and will "burn" in Hell..." As a matter of fact, the Bible states that all non-believers will burn(as a matter of fact the bible also mentions jews will see the christ and fall on their knees and worship him at first sight) in a lake of fire, not hell (gehenna or hades). Hell is distinct, and since this is an encyclopedia, it behooves the author(s) to write with accuracy.

It is appalling that the article insinuates that Christian "Zionists" support Israel with the hope of inheriting it someday, which is preposterous. The Bible explicity states in the final book of Revelation (sometimes known as the Apocolypse) that God will rule the Earth from Jerusalem, and that all "believers" of any origin will dwell both there and in all of the Earth and Heaven.

_____ Given the innacurate and clearly biased nature of the section entitled non-Jewish zionism, I have proposed the following replacement. I have posted it in the past, only to have it deleted, presumably under the auspice of it being vandalism. Nothing could be further from the truth; I am simply trying to repair tghe article of its original bias. An encyclopedic entry should not have to use the word 'burn' in quotes to show a colloquial. In addition to having a tone of bitterness and self-pity, the article misses the point entirely of non-Jewish zionism in Christians. Please note that the last section is the only one that I have edited.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Non-Jewish Zionism

The question of whether a non-Jew can be a Zionist is a largely semantic one, akin to the question of whether a man can be a feminist. The websites of major Zionist organisations make it clear these are entirely Jewish organisations. The website of the American Zionist Organization, for example says: "The American Zionist Movement is a coalition of organizations and individuals devoted to the unity of the Jewish people and eternally connected to our homeland, Israel." (emphasis added)

There are nevertheless many non-Jews who support the State of Israel, and some of these may choose to define themselves as Zionists.

Non-Jewish support for Zionism takes three forms:

• The traditional support from the political left for the Jews as an oppressed people and for Israel as a semi-socialist state. Since the 1970s the first of these has been almost entirely lost as the left has shifted its sympathy to the Palestinians, while the second has been lost since the Israeli Labor Party lost its hold on power in 1977. In the United States, Israel continues to find support from most political liberals, but outside the U.S. this has largely evaporated. However, some of the strongest critics of Zionism in the US include prominent progressives like Ralph Nader.
• Support from some political conservatives, mainly in the United States and to a lesser extent in other countries such as the United Kingdom. Much of this is really support for Israel as a pro-Western state rather than support for Zionism per se, and is also strongly motivated by domestic politics, particularly in the U.S. However, some of the strongest critics of Zionism have also been political conservatives like Pat Buchanan.
• "Christian Zionism", a movement among evangelical Christians in the United States which sees the return of the Jews to the Holy Land as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. Christian Zionists believe that the second coming of Jesus can only happen after the re-establishement of the nation of Israel. They also hold that apocolyptic events will cause great numbers of Jews to convert to Christianity and see Jerusalem as the center of Jesus's rule on earth; thus their ultimate goals differ greatly from those of Jewish Zionists. Lobbying by Christian groups in the United States on behalf of Israel has influenced U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Resolution for the Editing Wars

Why not create specific sections of this article to deal with pro-zionist arguements and anti-zionist arguements? -Isaiah R, 15 December

That all you are saying, believing and fighting for are plain false. Muslim will dwell all the Earth, even Qudus, that you call jerusalem! But we will not distroy the world, we will just keep it out of the problems.

Who wrote that post? It would be much appreciated if people identified themselves. Also, I belive it would be much more appropriate for the article on Islam, and what Muslims believe. -Isaiah R, 12/18/04

Zionism and Non-Jews

I have added quotes from two Pro-Zionist Jews, Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich and Israel Cohen, that relate to the true concept of Zionism, and the role it has played in 20th century race relations. There may be some controversy surrounding this addition, as both quotes are, I should say, "sensitive" in nature. However, they exsist, and shall be included in this article as they shine light on the true nature of Zionism. Please check refs before debating /editing. Thank you.

FYI, this was written by User_talk:Molloy who attempts to insert false quotes here. I left a note on his/her talk page. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Humus sapiens claims falsification of these quotes, that is not the case. I have provided reputable citations for my quotes, one being a book: Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr, pages 105-106. and the other an addition to the Congressional Record (Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957). - Molloy

• • Though this was an old comment, I couldn't help but notice William Guy Carr being referred to as reputable source. That's pretty funny. Carr was one of the mid-20th-centuries Illuminati conspiracy theorists. But his loony theories do seem to have spread into the neo-nazi and general anti-semitic spheres. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

--

My post has been vandalised once again, I have proven & verified my quotes and sources as accurate and true, and you still claim falsification?!? I am still waiting for a counter-arguement. Stop deleting my additions because it violates your personal Point of View. - Molloy

The supposed quotation from Israel Cohen is a product of Eustace Mullins's imagination. I found the full story on pp. 355–356 of the book Quotemanship: The Use and Abuse of Quotations for Polemical and Other Purposes, by Paul F. Boller Jr. In brief, a Mississippian Congressman found the quotation in a letter to the Washington Star and read it during a debate over a civil rights bill in 1957 in order to prove that the U.S. civil rights movement was a Communist plot. This accounts for its appearance in the Congressional Record, which has lent it an undeserved veneer of authenticity. What the racist websites that propagate the quotation don't tell you is:

• That there was no Communist party in Britain in 1912
• That no book entitled A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century can be found in the catalogues of the Library of Congress or the British Museum Catalogue of Printed Books
• That there is no record of a Communist named Israel Cohen ever having lived in England
• Finally, that on February 18, 1958, the Washington Star published an article entitled "Story of a Phony Quotation--A Futile Effort to Pin It Down--'A Racial Program for the 20th Century' Seems to Exist Only in Somebody's Imagination", which both apologized for carrying the quotation and named Mullins as the originator.

All of this was read into the Congressional Record on August 30, 1958, by Rep. Abraham Multer of New York. Look it up if you like.

Multer further noted that "Mullins has, apparently, a marked propensity for phony claims and counterfeit creations. Some of his counterfeits include a speech by a nonexistent Hungarian rabbi. . .", which I suspect accounts for the supposed quotation from Rabbi Rabinovich (whose existence, curiously, is attested only on many of the same racist websites that carry the forged Cohen quotation. . .). My suspicion is corroborated by which names the Rabinovich quotation as one of Mullins' inventions. (I'll see if I can find a better source.)

Some of this could probably go in our article on Eustace Mullins, which would be the right place for the quotations as well. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:06, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Check it out: A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century. As far as I can tell that's the only thorough debunking of the quotation now available on the interweb; it ought to make up for the unfortunate fact that Google crawled this article while the nonsense was still in it. Now to deal with the equally-spurious Rabinovich story. . . —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 14:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Factual dispute

I see there is a "factual dispute" label, can anybody specify what are the disputed facts? MathKnight 20:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been there for four months. I've removed it, there don't appear to be any current disputes. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anti Semitism versus Anti Zionism

I am a Semite

As a Semite and a Muslim, I do not consider myself Anti-Semite, however I'm a Anti-Zionist ! What is the reason that Anti-Semitism is linked to Arabs continously !?

Semite is a language group. Anti-Semitism was a term created to name Jew-hatred; therefore, other "Semitic" people (although there are no such things) could ostensibly be anti-Semitic. I do not think that anti-Semitism is or should be linked to Arabs. One, there are Arab Jews!

Anti Semitic insertions

Could we please make sure that no more neo nazis post excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or imaginary speeches by non existant rabbis called Emmanuel Rabinovich or Israel Cohen? This is an embarrassment.

Thanks,

--Guy Montag

Insertions by neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are inevitable on pages relating to Jews and Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:46, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is it also inevitable that one person asks that dubious sources don't find their way into an article, and that another follows up by replying about dubious people? Try and remember the two aren't even remotely the same. Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites have every right to make insertions to any article at all, and this is an entirely separate issue from "the protocols" and whatnot. Your error is amusing and telling Jayjg.

Um, what are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zionist posters

Do you know where I can find free (public domain or GNU) Zionist posters (to encourage Aliya and boost the moral of the Zionist settlers in Israel)? MathKnight 20:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zionism and Arabs

95% Arab population in 1880 is false. Ottomon census gives total Muslim population of 141 000 Jewish population at the same time is estimated at 40 000. In addition estimated 75% Muslim population was Ottoman, remaining 25% were a mix of Arab (mainly from Egypt), Circassian, Bushnaks and others. No evidence of Arab population going back further than the the early 19th century, let alone being there for 1000s of years! Kuratowski's Ghost 14:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I think it would be useful if the two parties disagreeing on the numbers here provide some sources for their information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Won't help, one side will say Jewish historian Ernst Frankenstein who wrote in the 1940s and the other will say someone like Arab historian Edward Said and then both sides will claim the other side is discredited. :P Kuratowski's Ghost 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that in itself is useful information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am curious, what does the Ottoman census referenced above, say about the Christian population of Palestine at the time? Dabbler 21:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good question, one that is often ignored. Earlier census 1878 gives under 44 000 Christians in Palestine including southern Lebenon. Kuratowski's Ghost 21:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dreyfuss & Herzl

The most recent edit goes into some detail about Herzl's feelings regarding the Dreyfuss affair. Is that really at all relevant for here (as opposed to either Herzl's or Dreyfuss' own articles)? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it was not. I've removed it. I'm not sure it's even relevant there, aside from the problems that it smack of original research, and is uncited. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is racism!

I thought that the whole article was Pro-Zionist Propaganda! I strongly doubt that the Jewish population is overwhelmingly Pro-Zionist. I think that it is more accurate to say that they are overwhelmingly Anti-Zionist! Zionism just has a strong presence in the Jewish community. I have a pretty good understanding that it is a very racist ideology that regard Jews as THE "people of god" and Palestineans having no rights! There are documented cases, according to two books, Zionist Relations Within Nazi Germany and Dossier on Palestine, that the Zionists during World War 2 negotiated with the Nazis! Not that they agreed with the Nazi about the extermination of the Jews but that the two used eachother to meet their own ends (the Zionists wanted to use the holocaust to justify forming the state of Israel). I strongly believe that these arguments should be used to present the other, missing side of the argument. This article is FAR from nuetral.≈ 154.20.71.90|15:00, 14 May 2005

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that does not mean that anon trolls deserve a response. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I can see what anon is coming from, as a lot of wiki admins and editors are Jews (No offence intended) their point of view is obviously going to be very biased when it comes to articles such as Zionism, the ADL, Six Day War, Iraq, White Nationalists etc. A lot of this bias is reflected rather substantially in these articles as a result. - Molloy

If only more Wiki admins and editors were anti-Semites, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis; then Wikipedia could finally become a respected source of unbiased information on these topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is not about racism, or about the "children of God" concept. It was a secular movement who intented to create a country for the jewish people, at a time they had no country. After the state of Israel as founded, Zionism became the term for "Israeli Patriotism". In no Zionist document was it ever stated that jews or israelies are superior to anyone else, or that other nations/people are in any way inferior. Most jews refer to the statement that "Zionsim is Racism" as a racist remark in itself.

The Palestinian Perspective

What I think that really need to have are in this section is the Arab, Muslim and Palestinean on Zionism as well as the perspectives of Jews that are anti-Zionist. Besides most white racism is now is directed toward Arabs and Muslims and no longer Jews. Leon Trotsky 20:00, 16 May 2005

I thought the Stormfront putzim were putting together their own Nazipedia! Wonder what ever became of it... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I suspect they couldn't find any literate contributors. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a defamatory statement to me. Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks does it not? - Molloy

Yeah, but Nazis are fair game here as well as everywhere else decent people congregate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is in season right now, so please, keep the shotguns in the lockers. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't need shotguns. Words suffice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, save your bullets for the palestinian kids. - Molloy

Now now Molloy, that was not needed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the OK Corral. Settle down, everyone. A damp handkerchief on the neck can help in these situations. -Willmcw 11:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

in case anyones interested, the Lehi article discusses the attempted collaboration between nazi's and Zionists. oh, and Nazi's arn't fair game, any more than communists or satanists or Jews are. As soon as there becomes an "official POV" instead of a NPOV policy, I'll find another encyclopedia to read. Sam Spade 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

So are we done discussing this nonsense now?

Guy Montag 21:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

user:Molloy has it half right. The Zionist poster is propaganda. However it certainly belongs. And, to provide an illustration for the anti-Zionist section, it is NPOV to reproduce one of the many anti-Zionist cartoons and posters that have been created, which are also propaganda. However the cartoon that Molloy was adding depicts the supposed bias of the U.N. in the Middle East, or perhaps even regarding the Intifada in particular, rather than Zionism per se. If we can obtain a cartoon which directly and clearly pertains to Zionism (such as the many that have commented on the U.N. Assembly's "Zionism is racism" resolution) and which isn't in bad taste then I think we should include it. (Most political cartoons over the last half-century are copyrighted, so I don't know where we can get one). -Willmcw 07:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

The problem (aside from the copyvio issue) is that it's not clear whether this picture is commenting on Zionism or on the Arab-Israeli conflict. To me, it clearly looks like the latter. If you can find the kind of cartoon you describe, then I'm all for including it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The poster is a call for Jews to immigrate to Israel and be Zionists, it is more like an advertise than propoganda. Put in proper historical context, it should stay. MathKnight 17:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Advertising's purpose is to sell a specific good or service. On the other hand, propaganda is:

The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.[1]

Because the poster promotes a cause, it is propaganda. -Willmcw 05:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is there other posters we can use that shows less of a propoganda tone, but still encourages Jews to immigrate to Israel? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, if your refering to this photo: http://www.inminds.co.uk/un-zionist.jpg, I seen it on the Net, twice. I see no copyright information, since the site does not provide it. I also seen it on a website just full of pictures. No copyright either. I know I debated this photo on my talk page at length, but based on that, and based on a email I saw, I think we cannot keep the picture due to the copyvio issues. Plus, if there were no copyvio issues with the photo, it would have been a little bit better suited at an article that discusses the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

POV Dispute

We have a POV dispute between "settlement in" and "collonisation of". Adding tag. 62.253.64.14 23:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• A tag is hardly necessary for an argument over one word. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

In Opposition to Zionism and Anti-Semitism

In response to Molly and Jayjg I really think the article on Zionism really needs to have an equally strong anti-zionist side but it shouldn't have an anti-semetic side to. The reason I oppose Zionism is because it is a racist idealogy but so are anti-semitic ideologies like white "nationalism" (more accurately called chauvinism) and nazism.

In opposing Zionism I don't think any left-wing (I'm a Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyist by the way) activist should block with people like the Nazis, Pat Buchanan etc. The reasons are a) its unprincipled and b) they don't oppose Zionism for persecuting and oppressing Palestinians they oppose it because they oppose Jews.

One thing really needs to be made clear that Judaism, the Jewish culture and the Jewish people are completely different from Zionism. The Jews are a race just like chinese, japanese, english, french, blacks, arabs, persians etc.

I think if you were to parralel the Israel-Palestine conflict with WW2 the Zionists would be most like the Nazis, the Palestians the Jews and the Jews the Germans. The Zionists have committed the same type of atrocities on the Palestians that the Nazis had committed on the Jews. The Palestinians the Jews because they both were/are persecuted in the same types of ways. And finally, the Jews would be like the Germans in the sense that they happen to be the same race as the Zionists (who committing the atrocities) but don't necessarily support Zionism. Some Jews support Zionism, others are opposed and others are neutral. Just like the Germans in Germany.

Another point to make is that not only is there the Zionist state of Israel persecuted and opressing Palestinians their is also Non-Palestian Arabs oppressing Palestians (ie the Hashimite dynasty in Jordan) as well the Israeli Bourgeoisie (ruling class and owners of capital, the means of production) oppressing the Israeli Proletariet (working class and producer of commodities). Leon Trotsky 09:32, 22 July 2005

• This is completely biased and deeply offensive. Several points need to be clarified:
• 1. Judaism is not a race. It is a religion. Jews come in all colours, ethnicities, and nationalities, as well as political beliefs. They are NOT a race 'like chinese, japanese, english, french, blacks, arabs, persians etc.' Jews are bonded not by ethnicity, but by religion. After all, when the last time you could convert to being chinese? As well, the Jews are not distinct from Zionism. The idea of Zionism without Jews is ludicrous, as Zionism in its essence is a movement working for the establishment of a "Jewish" homeland. While I appreciate all the non-Jews who support a Jewish homeland, I believe Zionism was always intended to be a Jewish movement.

• 2. It never fails to disgust me to have the Israel-Palestine conflict equated with the Holocaust, as they are two completely opposite struggles. You say:
• 'The Zionists have committed the same type of atrocities on the Palestians that the Nazis had committed on the Jews.'
• The 'Zionists' have never herded innocent Palestinians into cattle cars and shipped them off to death camps, where they were gassed by the thousands, as was done to the Jews. The Zionists do not use the Palestinians for horrible and cruel experiments, with sterilization, live operations, mutilation, and other atrocities (that were committed by the aptly named Nazi 'doctor' Dr. Mengele). Nor do the Zionists line up the innocent women and children of the Palestinians outside ditches in the forests and shoot them all, leaving the dead bodies and still living ones in the ditches as a mass grave.
• As well, the Holocaust is a case of when the ruling government (the Nazis) wanted to wipe the Jewish people off the face of the earth. They were implementing a policy of cleansing throughout their entire empire (the Third Reich) and they planned to do the same for the entire world. HOWEVER, the Israeli government is not trying to kill every single Palestinian and rid the world of their presence. The acts of aggression towards Palestinians, which are undeniably regretful, are measure to prevent them trying to murder innocent innocent Israelis. If the Palestinians (and I use the term here to mean the miscellaneous collection of Arabs kicked out of other countries, Muslims fleeing persecution in other Muslim countries, and descendants of Arabs who left Israel during the Six Day War who have banded together and given themselves the name of Palestinians; I suppose they are trying to legitimize themselves as the 'true' inhabitants of Israel by identifying themsleves as descendants of the Philistines and Sea Peoples who settled in Judea and Samaria after the Jews were expelled by the Romans, which they are not.) would stop blowing themelves up in the midst of civilians, then we would stop killing the people who make the bombs and the poeple who smuggle them, as they would be out of a job. Now I know that not all Palestinians are anti-Israel, but obviously there are enough of them who hate Israel enough to disguise themselves as Orthodox Jews to infiltrate buses and malls, and to place bombs under pregnant women giving birth so that they could blow up patients in the hospitals. You cannot compare the Jews to the Nazis and the Palestinians to the Jews, as the Jews in the Holocaust did not undertake a campaign to kill thousands of Germans and destroy the existance of Germany, as the Palestinians have done to the Jews.
• The Palestinians are not being persecuted in the same way as the Jews in the Holocaust, and that statement in my opinion is deeply offensive as well as historically inaccurate. Sputnikcccp 17:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"I really think the article on Zionism really needs to have an equally strong anti-zionist side" with that logic, the an article on France needs to have an "equally strong" anti-French prespective. Umm... no. It's an off topic attempt to introduce a POV. There IS an anti-Zionism article for that and it IS linked.

In addition the attempt to link to anti-Zionist sources is out of line. I removed the section on "anti-Zionist links" and I see the links have now been put back under the "Jewish denominations' view of Zionism" section. I will now remove them again. The webpage of political anti-Zionist groups are not Jewish denominations. In fact it's only one group, who regularly try to promote themselves using three different websites. In any case they are not denomination but part of the "Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jews"... in general Ultra-Orthadox Jews are still Zionists. Can these people please stop trying to link the Zionism article to their anti-Zionist website! Oboler 18:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I agree with the previous posters about NPOV and I am going to try putting up an expanded NPOV flag. One example can of bias can be seen in describing the PLO, the Haganah, and the Irgun. Compare the two:

"The Palestine Liberation Organisation, created in 1965 as an Egyptian-controlled propaganda device, took on new life as an autonomous movement led by Yasser Arafat, and soon turned to terrorism as its principal means of struggle."

and

"Two military movements were founded, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun. The latter group did not hesitate to take military action against the Arab population."

So not only was the PLO started as 'propoganda' (clearly a negative connotation) it uses 'terrorism' (again very negative connotation) for its struggle. However, the Irgun 'did not hesitate' (a positive connotation, in fact almost heroic) to use 'military action' (neutral, but in contrast to the terrorism of the PLO it seems rather positive).

So, I know there clearly others who believe the article to be a POV and I would like them to add other references.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.141.57 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• And this is why you made this purely pro-Holocaust denial edit? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The six million number is, and has, been in dispute which is the reference to 'supposed' because it is not completely accurate (it is not denial of the holocaust to merely deny a number as accurate). As well if you refer to the Holocaust entry you will see that of the six million number 2.9 million are to have died within the camps. Hence they were not actively 'killed' and they therefore 'died'. So, in effect, the edit is not to deny the Holocaust but rather for neutrality. As saying that a supposed (perhaps estimated would be better) six million died is actually making a neutral statement, because although some were killed others died. I feel the entry that was in question was put in that way on purpose so as to garner sympathy for Zionism, but then again so is alot of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.141.57 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not too suprising that the POV dispute was deleted within minutes. Thanks Wikipedia for being so objective, i'm glad you will never actually be regarded as a legitimate source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.90.141.57 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism

I am not sure why Zionism is constantly beign called "ethnic nationalism." This is not a common differentiation in the academic community. In fact, in the 19th century, all nationalism was based on ethnicity, and Zionism was clearly a nationialistic movement, in the 19th century sense. Can someone give a source about "ethnic nationalism"? --Goodoldpolonius2 14:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's ethnic nationalism inasmuch as it's on behalf of an ethnicity (which Jews are, conversion notwithstanding). Compare this with, for instance, Scottish nationalism, which is on behalf of those who live in a particular land regardless of ethnicity. —Ashley Y 02:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Well, Scottish nationalism (or Greek nationalism) in the 19th and early 20th century sense is very similar to Zionism, in that it was the hope to establish a nation for Scots or Greeks where none existed, rather than as an effort to incorporate all the people of a territory into a nation. The idea of the nation-state that rose in the 19th century was due to the changing definition from ethnicity to nationhood, although European states are increasingly multi-ethnic states today. Besides, even the Journal of Palestine Studies (Winter, 1972), pp. 35-51, states "Zionism first emerged as a doctrine of Jewish nationalism." Again unless you can cite sources about ethnic nationalism, there doesn't seem to be a strong defense for not just calling it nationalism. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well said. Those who claim Zionism is ethnic nationalism are actually having a hidden agenda of calling Israel a racist State, which it is not. Israel is in fact a multi-racial and multi-ethnic State whose citizens comprise of Whites, Blacks, Browns, Russians, Ethiopians, and Arabs. Moreover this claim that Jews are an ethnicity is considered by many to be Anti-Semitism because most of the participants on the Usenet newsgroup named soc.culture.jewish.moderated reject the claim Jews are a race or ethnicity and yes, vast majority of them are Jews from various movements, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. So, I support the user, Goodoldpolonius2 who has suggested changing the words ethnic nationalism to simply nationalism for nationalism can be both ethnic like Russians or Arabs, or religious like Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus. --[email protected] 04:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Scottish nationalism may once have been ethnic nationalism. Today it largely is not, and seeks independence for Scotland, and is not concerned with who is and is not a Scot beyond their living in the land. In the 19th century, Zionism, perhaps like Scottish nationalism, was a form of ethnic nationalism. But today it still is. Zionism is on behalf of a Jews, and Jews are an ethnicity. It is true that Israel today includes other ethnicities, and that their presence may be tolerated by most forms of Zionism. But Zionism is concerned with creating and maintaining a specifically Jewish state, where Jews hold a majority. Thus it is a categorically different form of nationalism, today, from Scottish nationalism. On the other hand, British nationalism is a good example of ethnic nationalism in Britain.

The argument that Jews are not an ethnicity disregards the obvious fact that almost all Jews are Jews for only ethnic reasons. According to ethnic group, "ethnic" includes "racial, cultural, linguistic, economic, religious, political", which seems to encompass Judaism, and as the article Who is a Jew? points out, "Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture", and I would argue that if you look at the historical secular roots of Zionism, it has been the ethnicity part that has been significant. —Ashley Y 05:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a matter of terminology? Since there is no simple definition of who is a Jew and the Jewish nation includes groups as diverse as those listed in Jewish ethnic divisions, I also object to that unnecessary qualification. Even according to the quote "Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture", it would be wrong to narrow it down to a single characteristic out of the list. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That an ethnicity may not itself be monolithic is hardly surprising. We might speak of white and black Brazilians, for instance. In any case, we already have an article that defines ethnic nationalism, and it clearly applies to Zionism.

As for the single characteristic of the list, firstly, ethnicity actually encompasses the others according to ethnic group, and secondly, the "culture" and especially "religion" parts were not so relevant to the roots of Zionism, which were secular. —Ashley Y 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

First, thank you for being reasonable, Ashley. Second, it definintely had some religious undercurrents for some (not for all: even then they were very diverse). Otherwise, why there was such a strong opposition to Uganda, Madagaskar, etc. at the times of violent pogroms? Why did they focused distinctively on Zion? Note very peculiar names that those socialists chose: Mikveh Israel - a quotation from the Book of Jeremiah, Bilu - an abbreviation of a verse from the Book of Isaiah, Rehovot - one of many named after Biblical towns, etc. And let's not forget many Teimanim who immigrated at about the same time as early Ashkenazim. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There are two issues here, the first is that the nature of Zionism has changed, quite dramatically, over the past 100+ years. The second is that the definition of ethnic nationalism, as opposed to other kinds of nationalism, is not well defined. Let me address each.

Zionism itself is currently a variety of things. Originally, it had elements of religious and romantic nationalism as founding principles in response to Haskalah, and was just one of a number of competing political ideas among Jews. However, between the events of 1881-1883, 1903-1905, and certainly the Holocaust and the Kielce pogrom, Zionism became something different from other kinds of nationalism in that it became a movement about survival, rather than merely one of self-determination. The Holocaust proved to the doubting masses of Jews that you were indeed doomed by your Jewishness, even in civilized Europe and even if you assimilated, which is why Zionism suddenly took on such universal importance outside of nationalistic yearnings. Zionism changed again after 1948, where it became synonymous with civic nationalism or patriotism towards Israel, whether the individual's belief was inclusionary (multi-ethnic state) or exclusionary. Calling it ethnic nationalism doesn't make sense in this context.

The second issue is ethnic nationalism itself. Ethnic nationalism is an imprecise term, and has no one scholarly definition, even the article on the topic says "often simply referred to as "nationalism".". The approach in wikipedia, however, seems to be to tie ethnic nationalism tightly with facism and exclusionism, as in the ethnic nationalism article and in your comments that it is related to English nationalism, a right-wing ideology. As explained above, this makes little sense in the case of Israel, where non-Jews also have citizenship, and can pass that citizenship onwards, and in that Zionism today generally means support for Israel, not for Israel-without-Arabs. Without a more precise definition of why Scottish nationalism is just "nationalism" (therefore not exclusionary, though it seems odd to think that it is divorced from Scottish identity) and Zionism is "ethnic nationalism," the label seems dubious.

--Goodoldpolonius2 06:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I daresay it makes more sense in the case of Israel than you suppose. It is true that the state of Israel includes other ethnicities, and that that is acceptable to many Zionists. But Zionism is not merely support for the continuation of Israel in some form, it is specifically support for a Jewish state, where Jews predominate. Indeed, there are Zionists who favour an Israel without Arabs. There are no Zionists who favour an Israel without Jews, or even I believe an Israel with less than a majority of Jews. This is what makes Zionism a specifically ethnic nationalism.

Scottish nationalism is not divorced from Scottish ethnic identity. But the difference is in the aim of the movement. All forms of Zionism wish to ensure a Jewish majority in Israel, whereas you do not hear anything similar for Scottish nationalism (though one might argue that it's not necessary).

If is not appropriate to consider Zionism to be ethnic nationalism, how would you categorise it according to nationalism#Forms of nationalism? You wrote there that Zionism was "based on culture and ethnicity" in mainstream at least. —Ashley Y 08:19, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, for the majority of Jews, Zionism is no different than Scottish nationalism, its just that it is subject to different terms of debate, since there is no doubt of a continued Scottish state (with a Scottish majority, thanks to immigration laws), yet the idea of a Jewish state is subject to challenge. Fill in the blanks in your sentence "There are no Zionists who favour an Israel without Jews, or even I believe an Israel with less than a majority of Jews" with any other ethnicity: "There are no Scottish nationalists who favour a Scotland without Scots, or even I believe a Scotland with less than a majority of Scots," and you would still be right (or try Irish, or Russian, or any other majority in a nation-state). Do you see my issue with your catagorization? As for what catagory of nationalism specifically, as I wrote above, the catagories are messy things, and not accepted by political theorists in general, making this exercise entirely arbitrary. Even ignoring that, I would not place Zionism in one bucket, as it has characteristics of many of them. Goodoldpolonius2 14:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, you are confusing "Jews" with "Israelis". If Zionism was Israeli nationalism then you would have a point. And logically all those people who are calling for Israel to give Arab refugees citizenship are also Zionists. But that isn't the case, and there isn't an Israeli nationality. Israel is the Jewish state. Sovereignty belongs to the Jews only, by law. That is what Israel was created for. That is what a Zionist today supports. That is why calling for an Israeli nationality to include other ethnicities is considered anti-Zionism. If Zionism is civic-nationalism and patriotism then why don't Arab-Israelis celebrate Israel's independence day? And why don't Zionists celebrate the Arabs' Land Day?
But, talking about categories, it should be clear that there are also several forms of Zionism. You can talk about a religious Jewish Zionism, a cultural Hebrew Zionism, and also a secular ethnic Jewish Zionism, which have not always agreed. The article confuses these different currents of thought. (I notice Martin Buber is only mentioned in the Anti-Zionism section!)
My point is, to avoid confusion, the article should distinguish between ethnic Zionism and religious/cultural Zionism. --Yodakii 11:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Historical Jewish attitudes

I changed some wording in the "Jewish reaction" section to clarify and correct the portrayal of the historical attitude of religious Jews. The previous wording was, at the very least, internally inconsistent in that it claimed that religious Jews held both that aliyah was a commandment and that it was a blasphemy.

It was internally consistent. Aliyah itself was a commandment, but Jewish rule was considered blasphemy; your edits introduced inaccurate statements into the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

A clarification would be useful, then, distinguishing between the individual nature of Aliyah and the political nature of Zionism.

It's not of an "individual" nature. The difference has to do with Jewish political rule, and the section is clear about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, respectfully, the entire discussion of aliyah as a religious commandment in the Zionism entry is misleading -- wouldn't it, in fact, create a more accurate perception of the actual situation to remark that "barely any" prominent Jews and groups emigrated to Israel from the Middle Ages until the modern Zionist movement began, as opposed to "a number of?" What is that "number?" Is it even a thousand individuals, over hundreds of years? In any case, isn't it insignificant? And the claim that aliyah is listed as a commandment in "many" versions of the 613 mitzvot -- is it Maimonides' list, which I believe is the most widely adhered to? Which versions include it, and how many people have ever followed these versions? I think that you are tainting the article with your POV -- you may rationalize that nothing that is untrue, in a strict sense, is included in this section, but that does not preclude it from being misleading, which I believe it is.

Given the relatively small numbers of Jews, their generally impoverished state, and the huge difficulties and dangers in getting to Israel, not to mention the high likelihood of starving to death if you managed to get there, the number of people who did make aliyah (generally religious leaders) is surprisingly high. As for the lists of 613 mitzvot, there is no one list that is considered authoritative, and I believe that the only one in which it is not explicit is Maimonides', though many argue (based on his other laws elsewhere) that it is implicit in it. I think the section is quite accurate; aliyah was considered a praiseworthy (and obligatory where possible) act for every Jew, at all times. It was political rule of the land which was more controversial, and once the atheist-socialist Zionists came to dominate the Jewish populations there, other factors came into play as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Jay --

There have been on the order of 10 million Jews throughout the world over most of the period from the fall of the Second Temple to the beginning of modern Zionism; many of these Jews lived in the Middle East in areas (Yemen, e.g.) at least as inhospitable as the Israel region; most of the rest lived in Europe, where they were expelled en masse from different countries dozens of times. And over several hundred years, a few thousands made their way to Israel, with probably a majority of those doing so in relation to messianic movements that came to naught. This is a "surprisingly high" rate of aliyah? I would say that it would be more surprising that an act that was "obligatory when possible," as you claim aliyah was considered, would so broadly be avoided!

The whole section is written in a biased way -- "Zionism did not initially receive universal support from the world Jewish community...?" In fact, Zionism coes not currently receive universal support from the world Jewish community, and it never has! Initially, Zionism was broadly -- not "occasionally!" -- actively opposed by almost all religious Jewish groups. And yet this section is written as though Zionism has always been a mainstream Jewish position.

"Religious Jews believe ..." -- who has the authority to declare what religious Jews believe? This needs to be qualified in some way; it is very similar to the pronouncements from Neturei Karta that truly observant Jews oppose the existence of the State of Israel.

"... many religious Jews were not enthusiastic about Zionism before the 1930s ..." That's really not true in many ways, Jay -- most religious Jews were enthusiastic about Zionism: they were enthusiastically opposed to it! You may look to the online Jewish Encyclopedia to get a flavor of the early rabbinical attitude to Zionism.

I am going to use this space to suggest some fairly broad changes to the section, Jay, in order to give you a chance to comment. I hope we can agree on appropriate wording and emphasis. Right now, I think the section is profoundly misleading.

Proposed changes

(Deletions within braces; additions italicized.)

Zionism [did not initially receive universal support from] was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was [occasionally] actively opposed by [other] many [factions within the Jewish community] Jewish organizations.

(This, I strongly believe, is far more accurate than the original, and it improves the wording.)Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree it is better if you change "Zionism" to "Political Zionism". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This does not make sense to me -- Zionism is by its nature political. The beginning of the entire article is, "Zionism is a Jewish political movement ..." What distinction did you want to make, and is there a better way to make it?Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Political Zionism is by its nature political. Religious Zionism, the kind that existed for thousands of years before Political Zionism, is not. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be looking for a distinction to be made between the "let's do something about it" variety of Zionism and the "soon the Messiah will come" variety. Is that accurate? I'm inclined to think that in normal use "Zionism" refers only to the former, sort of in the way that "socialist" means someone who believes that the government should control the means of production, and not someone who is concerned with social matters. I think that whatever clarity might be added by using "Political Zionism" would be more than offset by the impression given that there is something called "Political Zionism" that is possibly just a small subset of what the rest of the article has been calling "Zionism," which -- if you look even at the first sentence of the article -- is clearly not the case. If the distinction you want is made, the entire article ought to be rewritten.Marsden 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction is between Political and Religious Zionism. All Jews were encouraged/commended to "do something about it" if they could; the catch was that most did not have the wherewithal to do so, and were therefore forced to wait until the coming of the Messiah. That said, replacing "Zionism" with "The Zionist movement" would make it clear, and would be more accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)\

Using "the Zionist movement" works for me!Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While many [R]religious Jews believed that [since] the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable, most groups held either that the messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, or that an allegorical interpretation of Biblical references to Israel was more appropriate.

(This removes the categorical description of religious Jews and more clearly indicates that Zionism was opposed by most Jewish religious factions. Also, it introduces the small matter of messianism that most groups attached to the Israel matter as well as the "religion of ideas" track of the more liberal groups.)Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The position was categorical and universal among religious Jews, and I don't understand what you mean by the "allegorical" part. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What qualifies you to speak on behalf of all religious Jews? Maybe if you softened (a lot!) the words "permanent and inalienable" it would not seem so obviously wrong to me -- surely many of the Orthodox, anti-Zionist groups believe that "God's exile" has alienated Jews from the right to the land. I am not wedded to the term "allegorical," but I was refering to positions such as some of those expressed in the Jewish Encyclopedia link I provided earlier, such as "that Israel has been since the Dispersion a purely religious community, a leader of peoples;" or (for American Jews), "that America was the Jews' Jerusalem and Washington their Zion;" or, "its highest traditional ideal is undoubtedly national, but it is not the nation of a kept principality but the holy nation of a kingdom of priests."Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the tiny number of Orthodox anti-Zionist groups do not think that Jews will eventually be restored to ownership of the land. As for the other, "Religious Jews" should be changed to "Traditional Jewish belief held that..."; the positions you cite were Reform innovations which only gained some traction in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have either one too many or one too few "nots" in your first sentence here. Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you were refering to with your remark on "Traditional Jewish belief" -- was it the messianism belief? Please clarify. As to the reform innovations, the paragraph addresses how Zionism was initially received, which puts the period of concern in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, does it not?Marsden 20:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Even the tiny number of Orthodox anti-Zionist groups believe that Jews will eventually be restored to ownership of the land. The other sentence should read Traditional Jewish belief held that the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we're at least very close here. I'm thinking I'll do the entire proposed paragraph at the end, and you can note if there's anything that you don't think has been reflected accurately.Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[To generations of diaspora Jews, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies.] Still, return to the Land of Israel remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, which traditionally conclude with, "Next year in Jerusalem." (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism)

(This is more descriptive than the original, and I think it accurately captures the underlying Zionist-ic sentiment of diaspora Judaism without suggesting that very many Jews were actively planning on living in Israel any time soon.)

I'll give you an opportunity, Jay, to complain about my proposed changes to the first paragraph before I continue.Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've responded. And please sign your posts with four tilde signs (~~~~). Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Do I dare infer that the last sentence was agreeable?Marsden 18:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Where I think we stand:

The Zionism movement was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was actively opposed by many Jewish organizations. While traditional Jewish belief held that the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable, most Orthodox groups held that the messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, and Reform Judaism (prior to the Holocaust) explicitly rejected a return to the Land of Israel. Still, return to the Land of Israel had remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, which traditionally conclude with, "Next year in Jerusalem." (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism.)

How does that look to you? Marsden 00:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

Support for the Zionist movement was not initially a mainstream position in the world Jewish community, and it was actively opposed by many Jewish organizations. While traditional Jewish belief held that Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and that therefore the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable, most Orthodox groups held that the Messiah must appear before Israel could return to Jewish control, and Reform Judaism (prior to the Holocaust) explicitly rejected a return to the Land of Israel. Still, imminent return to the Land of Israel had remained a recurring theme among generations of diaspora Jews, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers which traditionally concluded with, "Next year in Jerusalem".

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I'd like to nail down a response to Yodakii's comment, but I don't think it should be necessary to change the wording.Marsden 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Jay -- at a second look, I'd rather not include the word "imminent." The exact words are there; readers can decide for themselves what they mean. The separate use of the word "imminent" gives the suggestion that active planning for return was going on, which, until the modern Zionist era, was not generally the case.Marsden 15:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The hope was certainly that it would be imminent; some people even kept packed suitcases. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Still, the text refers to "generations of diaspora Jews": that some kept their bags packed does not warrant, in my opinion, reiterating a sense ably conveyed by the words from the prayers. The second paragraph of the section, which we haven't addressed at all yet, deals with actual aliyah. Can we leave the matter of "imminence" to that or a later paragraph? The words of the prayers are fact; the use of the term "imminent" is a characterization. I think that there will be ample opportunity elsewhere to provide facts that readers can use to obtain their own opinions without any help from the wording of the article. I think a fairly accurate sense can be conveyed by some history of aliyah and of the various historical claimants to being the Messiah and reactions to them. What is added, Jay, by including the word "imminent?" I really don't think it is necessary, nor that it belongs. Marsden 16:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Jerusalem" in the prayers isn't Jerusalem the modern city. Even people in Jerusalem today say "Next year in Jerusalem". Are diaspora Jews confused or just Jewish Jerusalemites? --Yodakii 09:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, many Orthodox groups (at least) regard Israel as a "state of the Jewish people," as opposed to a "Jewish state," the difference being (something like) rule completely according to religious beliefs, and generally still requiring the Messiah to make an entrance. In that sense, I don't see a contradiction between an attachment to the land/idea and the prayer form.Marsden 14:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the paragraph with Jay's version, less the word "imminent." We can further haggle from there. A lot of this article seems to have been ruined by editing -- the first sentence frankly sucks, not so much for content but because it is such an outrageous run-on sentence that it is painful to read. I think I will make re-writing the whole thing a side project for myself. Marsden 14:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed 'resettlement' strawman

The deleted text was:

'...and even fewer have suggested viable alternatives for the resettlement of Jewish Israeli population (of over 5 million) in this eventuality, since the overwhelming majority refuse to live under Arab rule.'

It is already acknowledged that "few" (and certainly none of the people mentioned in the paragraph) are arguing for the "eventuality" (resettlement of the existing Jewish population of modern-day Israel). So the question of "viable alternatives" does not arise.Brian Tvedt 11:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of terms for major re-write

Something -- probably a series of editing wars -- has turned a lot of this article to crap. I mean, above and beyond any content issues, a lot of it has become ill-legible. I am stupid enough to take it upon myself to do a major clean-up.

However, there are immediately things that stick in my craw. Number one, Zionism is not a "Jewish political movement;" it is a point of view. Specifically, it is a point of view that supports political control of part or all of the historical Land of Israel by the Jewish people. Many of the people holding this point of view are Jewish, and many of them have organized into various political movements aimed at realizing the goal of Zionism. But first and foremost, and tautologically, it is a point of view.

I propose that the term "Zionism" be used always to mean a point of view; if political movements in the direction of Zionism are to be discussed, they can be refered to collectively as "the Zionist Movement," or individually as "Zionist organizations."

I would also like to use this space to hash out an outline of what should be included in the re-written article, and (as importantly) what should be excluded.

Comments? Marsden 00:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You are incorrect in asserting the Zionism is a point of view. Zionism certainly has historically been a Jewish political movement or a national liberation movement, and might now be considered an ideology as well but a "point of view"? I wouldn't call socialism, Scottish nationalism, or communism a "point of view" - they are political movements, even through there are many different submovements within them. Can you offer any support for your viewpoint? There are plenty of definitions of Zionism, without the need to create a new one (especially a tautology). --Goodoldpolonius2 00:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there an International Zionist Party? No. Is one not a Zionist if he does not organize with other people to promote Zionism, but merely sits at home thinking that the Jewish people ought to control the historical Land of Israel? I think such a person is a Zionist -- what do you call his viewpoint if not "Zionism?" Can one be a Zionist without being Jewish? Why not? And what is "Christian Zionism," if that is the case? Do we have to make up another term for it? What is important in language, Polonius, is clarity; I have very briefly outlined terms that I think are quite clear in their meaning, and I have pointed out a lot of very confusing aspects of the terminology that you propose. The greatest support for my viewpoint is that the alternative proposed is obfuscating -- can you offer any support for your viewpoint?

If you're the sort who prefers evidence to reason, look here: WordNet: "Zionism"

And you are absolutely, unequivacably wrong about your "isms" being movements. They are points of view. If a primitive tribesman in New Guineau came up with na argument that government ought to control the means of production, we would call that idea "socialism," without his ever having been to a meeting of the International. Wouldn't we? Virtually all of the "isms" in the world are points of view, and the exceptions are things that refer to ongoing organizations that determine the nature of the "ism" that refers to them, such as Catholicism.

I have just concluded a discussion with Jayjg in which he proposed making a distinction between "Political" and "Religious" Zionism, and we settled on using "the Zionist movement" to distinguish the political movement beginning in the late 19th century from the ages-old longing of Jews to return to Israel (also a sort of Zionism to me and I think to Jayjg. He wrote: "Religious Zionism, the kind that existed for thousands of years before Political Zionism ..." Was his meaning unclear? Absolutely not. Are you going to pretend that it was anyway??). Seems to me that that is a lot clearer than talking about some unnamed affliction that made Jews want to return to Israel prior to the late 19th century, and then calling the-same-thing-plus-money-collection-boxes-and-the-occasional-meeting "Zionism" beginning after that.

Can you tell that I'm not inclined in the least to back down on this? I have plenty more if that point's not getting through. Marsden 01:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, you may not want to back down, but you are just not right, Zionism refers to a political movement and ideology starting in the 19th centry, not to a "longing to return to Zion" or a "point of view". Jayjg is not a source, lets stick with actual authorities. Lets start with the Wordnet definitions you quote, which are "a movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine" and "a policy for establishing and developing a national homeland for Jews in Palestine," both of which refer to organized movements, not a general longing for Zion or a point of view, which seems to undermine, and not support your point. But there is no reason to be limited to WordNet, there are plenty of scholars that have studied Zionism, and they support Zionism as a Jewish political movement or ideology, as the article states. There is no support for it being a point of view that I could find:

• Calvin Goldscheider and Alan S. Zuckerman in their work "The Formation of Jewish Political Movements in Europe" identifies three main Jewish "political movements" that arose in the 19th century: Zionism, Jewish Liberalism (as exemplified by the German Central Association), and Jewish socialism (The Bund). [Modern Judaism, Vol. 4, No. 1. (Feb., 1984), pp. 83-104]
• The Oxford English Dictionary definition: "A movement among modern Jews having for its object the assured settlement of their race upon a national basis in Palestine; after 1948, concerned chiefly with the development of the State of Israel"
• David Vital, one of the best-regarded scholars of Zionism, explicitly identifies it as a political and ideological movement, one rejected by orthodoxy and opposed to it, and to the status quo of Jewish life in the diaspora (which, incidentally, should challenge the previous assertion about Zionism as a long-supported movement predating the 19th century): "Few aspects of the Jewish social landscape in the final decades of the nineteenth century and the first few decades of the twentieth are as instructive as the rejection of Zionism by the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people: actively by some, passively by others, instinctively by most, as a matter of deliberate calculation by a few, but in virtually all cases, out of hand and as a matter of course...On what was once known as shelilat ha-golak—the negation (or repudiation) of the Exile—all Zionists, in principle at any rate, were (once upon a time) agreed. And it was the arch-thesis that Galut was commensurate neither with national survival nor individual dignity that finally and definitively set the Zionists apart from every other significant movement in contemporary Jewry. It served as the sharpest and most painful weapon in their ideological armory." ("Zionism as Revolution? Zionism as Rebellion?" David Vital)

Also, I think most political scientists would differ on your definition of socialism as a point of view, rather than a political movement, by the way - the New Zealander might be a living in an anarchic communitarian society, but he is not a socialist. Your definitions and boundaries are about what is a point of view and what is a movement seem rather arbitrary (does the WZO count as a central body? Does the Knesset?) and seem to be original research. Please provide some sources if you want to press your point. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Goldscheider and Zuckerman: irrelevant. That a political movement takes the name of an ideology for its own does not preclude there also being an ideology of the same name: one can have democratic principles without being in the Democratic Party.

OED: Nathan Birnbaum coined the term "Zionism" in 1890; Herzl published "Der Judenstadt" in 1896, motivated in part by witnessing the Dreyfuss trial in 1894; the First Zionist Congress was held in 1897. How can a term be held to be synonymous with a movement that didn't even exist when the term was first used? Do you also think that "Beatlemania" refers only to a cover band?

I'm pretty sure that most economists and political scientists would agree completely with my definition of socialism as a point of view or ideology rather than a political movement, and that they would agree that the New Guinean was a socialist. My "source" is the English language -- "-ism" connotes ideology, not necessarily movement.

In any case, Zionism is at the very least dozens of movements rather than one: some accept partition; others don't; some insist on religion being the ultimate authority; others don't; some think only the Orthodox are truly Jewish; etc. The members of many of them, I am pretty sure, make a point of not talking to each other -- this is a single movement? Why are they all called "Zionist?" Because they all accept, Polonius, a particular ideology. I think we can all agree, generally, on what the basic tenets of that ideology are, and I even know a name for it. Do you know a name for it? You shouldn't post another word here, Polonius, until you can tell me a word for that ideology that, when we use it, everyone familiar with the topic will have a pretty good idea what we mean. Can you think of such a word? Take your time.

And here is some reading for you:

"THE Zionist movement dates from A.D. 70, the year of the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish State. The Zionist Organization dates from 1897, the year of the first Zionist Congress. The Zionist movement is a longing and striving to restore to the Jewish people normal national life. The Zionist Organization is a particular instrumentality for achieving that end. The Zionist movement will continue until the Jewish people are once more living a normal national life, when it will be transformed into the active expression of that normal national life. The Zionist Organization, when the particular phase of Jewish national life which called into being this special instrumentality has passed, will merge into some other instrumentality." "A Jewish Palestine," Atlantic Monthly, July 1919

Marsden 04:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Marsden, I really appreciate the condescending attitude without any basis whatsoever except that you seem to have no sources to cite. Right out of the box, you make discussions very unpleasant, and you are not winning any points on Wikipedia.

On to the meat of the matter, you ignore my point about the very WordNet definition you invoked, you dismiss the OED definition out of hand, you don't address Vital, and you call Goldscheider and Zuckerman "irrelevant" for no good reason. I appreciate your Atlantic Monthly article from 1919 attacking Zionism as being transitory, and the fact that your "source is the English language" (folk entymology is rarely a good basis for a definition) but I am not sure how that addresses any of the modern, scholarly definitions I have given you. Your work is simply original research unless you have some sort of reputable source. Zionism is an Jewish political movement that contains within it many different competing factions and ideologies about how its goal (the establishment of a Jewish homeland in at least part of Zion) would be achieved, and which continues today in support of Israel, and it is not at all unusual for movements to have many factions (take a look at the Democrats, Republicans, or Likud) Of course a longing for return to the lands of Zion existed before Zionism, but Zionism has a specific name and meaning, a history, organizations, etc. You cannot bestow a wider label just because you want to, Zionism really has a provinance outside of your own vision. The definition that starts the article is accurate and supported (and clear!), your definition (Zionism is a point of view) is not. I think there is room to compromise around the term "ideology," however since I would agree that Zionism refers to both a Jewish political movement started in the 19th century, and the ideology it supported and spawned, but that doesn't seem to be what you are aiming for.

Would anyone else like to weigh in here, because I am fairly sure that Marsden will continue to insult me, and not engage any of the information I present, because it contradicts his POV. I am happy to go with consensus, if the majority of editors think I am wrong, but I would like to see some sources supporting an alternative definition. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, Polonius, but I've decided that you aren't worth my time. Marsden 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I tend to lean toward some sort of combined definition -- of course Zionism is a Jewish political movement; and of course Zionism is a point of view. It really depends on the context of who is using the term Zionism. The term has been flung around so much by so many people since its invention that any serious discussion of Zionism has to specify quite clearly exactly what is being discussed -- the specific political movement launched by Herzl? The spiritual Zionism invoked by "Next year in Jerusalem"? The national-political Israeli experience? Anyway, I can't understand why Marsden is being so confrontational here; this is a good opportunity to compare notes, discuss, and improve the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, JPGordon. All I wanted to do was establish clear terminology for use in the article. This is a very contentious subject, and I have little patience for arguing over anything as trivial as terminology -- Polonius might reasonably have argued (were it true) that people will not understand if we refer to a political/religious ideology as "Zionism" and a political movement as "the Zionist movement;" what is not so reasonable is insisting that "Zionism" means exactly one thing when virtually every English speaker in the world (other than Polonius, apparently) understands it to mean other things as well. I thought it would be useful to discuss and agree on terms, but "You are incorrect ..." is not discussion; it is assertion of superior knowledge. And it is not very impressive when its source bitches and moans that he doesn't like how I addressed some of the points he made while he has absolutely ignored a lot of my direct questions to him.

The last major re-write of this article seems to be by Adam Carr (?) from November 2003. I'm inclined to us that as a base, and try to incorporate into it whatever changes have been made since (if they seem to belong) in a legible way. Marsden 15:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm "You are incorrect in asserting the Zionism is a point of view," does not seem hostile, and certainly not compared to your snide remarks, personal attacks, and bizzare conclusion that "I've decided that you aren't worth my time." I have been an active (and hopefully valued) editor on Wikipedia for quite awhile with a huge number of contributions under my belt, and it would really be worth being civil (and compromising!) if you want to make progress on a consensus-based project like Wikipedia. You shouldn't expect your rewrites to be accepted if this is the way you discuss, especially after asking for comments, and you shouldn't continue to absolutely ignore sources. I hope you will apologize, I don't expect that you will. Good luck making progress this way. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

These, however, may be considered hostile:

• "You are incorrect in asserting the Zionism is a point of view"
• "Wow, Marsden, I really appreciate the condescending attitude" when you may be guilty of the same.
• "Marsden, you may not want to back down, but you are just not right"
• "Right out of the box, you make discussions very unpleasant"
• "Zionism really has a provinance outside of your own vision"
• "I am fairly sure that Marsden will continue to insult me"
• "I hope you will apologize, I don't expect that you will"

--Vizcarra 22:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And how are these hostile? And how do they justify the way Marsden has been responding? I would have been happy to apologize to Marsden if he somehow found my first reply ("You are incorrect in asserting the Zionism is a point of view") condescending, it wasn't my intention, I still don't read it that way, and he certainly did not write anything to that affect. EVERYTHING else you quote (and I wonder what in it is hostile, could you explain? Asking for an apology? Telling him he was acting badly? Saying that I was afraid -- correctly -- that he would continue to attack me?) comes after Marsden obviously attacked me in his very first reply, and continued to do so in a way that I have not seen from an obviously cogent editor in my year of active Wikipedia participation, often on much more contentious topics. Besides, I am still not sure how to proceed, since Marsden has decided to either ignore or attack me, and seems uninterested in compomise. As for your list, Vizcarra, thank you for combing through my comments so closely; would you like to go through Marsden's replies and make a similar list, or is there some other point you wanted to make?

Could someone help end the madness here? Jpgordon's approach seemed reasonable, but apparently his call for civility as well as his efforts at compromise went unheeded, and I am not sure why Vizcarra has joined in specifically to attack me rather than discussing the article or trying to reach a resolution. What I would like to see is a return to reasonable discussion, and a step back from the edge. Goodoldpolonius2 01:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"And how are these hostile?" Assuming hostility from the other party while you may be guilty of the same. Resorting to useless accusations is hostile as well. Marsden even explained to you that <<You are incorrect ..." is not discussion; it is assertion of superior knowledge. I would suggest changing your language to a less condescending one, but you seem to already have done this.

"I am not sure why Vizcarra has joined in specifically to attack me". Excuse me, attack you? This melodramatic approach of yours can only make things worse, you are seriously over-reacting. How is "These, however, may be considered hostile:" before quoting is in any way an attack?

"how do they justify the way Marsden has been responding" It doesn't, I never said that or implied anything, re-read my remark. For a conclusion to get ugly it takes two people. And is understandable that if you raise the temperature of the discussion the other party may do exactly the same.

"Vizcarra, thank you for combing through my comments so closely; would you like to go through Marsden's replies and make a similar list, or is there some other point you wanted to make" You're welcome (although your comment is highly loaded with sarcasm), the point I was trying to make is pretty clear, it came after you asked "How is... hostile?". I would go through Marsden's replies if you were the newbie, but in this case you are the wikipedian with more experience. Also, it seems that the "regulars" who agree on a determined number of POV seem to stick together anyway, so I'm doing it to balance the discussion. --Vizcarra 23:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Polonius, I think you're completely right here, and here's another argument against the "point of view" definition: WP:Importance There are as many "points of view" as their are people, and no one can possibly learn about all of them. There are relatively few political movements. Take Marsden's example of someone who thinks that things ought to be a certain way, but doesn't attempt to persuade or organize others or indeed to do anything about it at all. The views of such a person are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia. But a group of people of diverse backgrounds working towards a common goal, some devoting their lives to its fulfullment--that is interesting, and the ideas that inspire such effort call for examination.

As to the tone of the discussion, you're not imagining it, Marsden is acting bizarre. Particularly when he starts a discussion specifically about terminology, and then says he has "little patience for arguing over anything as trivial as terminology".Brian Tvedt 02:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I think you've made some excellent edits to the article, and I think a somewhat more tactful approach here on the talk page could serve the article even better in the future. BrandonYusufToropov 10:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, more tact would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving on ...

A draft of what I think the article should open with:

Zionism is an ideology that supports Jewish control of the historical Land of Israel, where ancient Jewish kingdoms existed from roughly 1300 BCE until the Jews were expelled by the Roman Empire in 135 CE. While the ideology is based heavily upon religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, the Zionist movement was originally secular, beginning largely as a response to rampant antisemitism in late 19th century Europe.

A BIG omission in the current article, I think, is a statement of the competing claims to Palestine, which probably would best fit in the "Zionism and the Arabs" section. I also think an "Other Reactions" after the "Jewish Reaction to Zionism" section would be good. This could probably supplant the "Non-Jewish Zionism" section and permit a "hostorical progression" look at the matter. Marsden 14:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, I am not sure if you are still ignoring me, or if you have decided to compromise. In any case, I would suggest:

Zionism is a term developed in the 19th century, and currently refers to two linked concepts. The first is a Jewish political movement, developed in response to 19th century anti-Semitism. Zionists maintain that the Jewish people are entitled to a national homeland in the land of Zion (a synecdoche for the Land of Israel, also known as the region of Palestine), where ancient Jewish kingdoms existed between roughly 1300 BCE and 135 CE, until the Jews were expelled by the Romans. Since this original goal was achieved with the formation of the State of Israel in 1948, modern Zionism in this sense is concerned with the support and development of Israel, and with encouraging Jews to settle there. There were historically a number of competing Zionist ideologies about how a Jewish homeland might be achieved, though almost all were secular in nature and the movement was originally opposed by many religious Jews. Since the Holocaust, the movement has become widely embraced by the Jewish community, including by most religious Jews, though ideological differences remain within Zionism.

Zionism is also used to refer to a general ideology that predates both the term "Zionism" and the political movement, an ideology growing out of the religious tradition linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, and holding that Jews should have some control or presence in the historical land of Israel.

The political movement is critical, that is what is referred to by scholars of Zionism, by the World Zionist Organization, etc. We can definitely include the ideological element in the intro, but it should not be the lead. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think my version is more concise and reads much better. A lot of what you include in your first paragraph (and that is in the current first paragraph) is historiography that doesn't, in my opinion, belong there. The first paragraph of an encyclopedia entry should explain, for someone who has never heard of the entry item before, what it is. For Zionism, obviously the most important thing is its position on Jewish control of the Land of Israel; in this respect, your first two sentences are unwieldy.

I'm sorry to see that you remain wrong in your understanding of the relative importance of the ideology of Zionism.  ;) Marsden 16:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, at least your sorry for something, even if it is that I am wrong. ;) In any case, while your version is shorter, I really think it is missing a key point. The primary meaning of Zionism, supported by the OED, Vital, the World Zionist Organization, and scholars of Zionism is the Jewish political movement that resulted in the creation of the State of Israel, and whose offshoots (Political, Revisionist, Labor) formed the parties of modern Israel. The preceding collective, unacted on, religious yearning of the Jewish people for a return to the land of Israel is not the primary meaning of the word "Zionism", though the use of the word Zionism to refer to that desire deserves mention, but not including the political movement is not like an article on Communism without mentioning Marx in the intro. We probably won't agree on this, but I am happy to discuss. I would like to see you produce a scholarly source, however, outside of the 1919 Atlantic Monthly piece attacking Zionism, that supports your views that the primary meaning of Zionism has nothing to do with the political movement. Other opinions are, in any case, welcome. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think my version should be extended to add a brief something about the Zionist movement culminating in the creation of the State of Israel.

If I google "his Zionism," including the quotation marks but not the comma, I get hits for Herzl's Zionism, Jabotinsky's Zionism, Einstein's Zionism, Winston Churchill' Zionism, lots-of-people-I've-never-heard-of's Zionism, Louis Brandeis' Zionism, etc. Clearly, each of these people did not sponsor his own political movement; what is refered to is an ideology. I don't think there can be any reasonable question that "Zionism" has been commonly and broadly used to mean an ideology. (I don't know how you reached the conclusion that the Atlantic Monthly piece was attacking Zionism, although I didn't pony up for the complete article. The stub, in any case, began with the quote, "The idea of Judaism is inseparable from the idea of the Jewish people, and the idea of the Jewish people is inseparable from the idea of the Jewish land." Where was the attack on Zionism?)

If we consider Zionism as a movement, we have a problem: before 1948, Zionism-as-a-movement was pretty clearly working toward establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Then it succeeded. Normally, I would think, whatever succeeded a movement that had achieved its end would be called something else, or maybe "post-(whatever the original name of the movement was)." And, indeed, sometimes the term "post-Zionism" is used, but what is refered to by it is not the Israeli government and its supporters (we still call those "Zionists"), but rather those who have come out of the Zionist movement and begun to question its underlying ideology.

Indeed, if Zionism is a movement today (and we generally hold Zionism still exists, don't we?, and that it is not another of the 19th century movements that either succeeded or failed but then disappeared), what is it trying to move? What is the change that it wants in the world, as opposed to mainly wanting to avoid change?

I strongly think, Polonius, in case it wasn't already obvious, that "Zionism" as ideology and "Zionist movement" as political movement gives us a sufficient set of terms to discuss whatever might be in the article. I don't think this will confuse people when they hear, elsewhere, "Zionism" used to refer to a movement. But if we use "Zionism" to mean a movement in the article, what do we call the underlying ideology, and in particular, what do we call the underlying ideology when we find it separate from the movement, as with the pre-1890s religious sentiments of Jews or the Zionist-ic sentiments of non-Jews, or even, arguably, pro-Israel sentiments after 1948?

Marsden 21:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but my main objection remains that introducing a split between Zionism as a point of view Zionism-as-a-movement is arbitrary, and that it creates a big problem. It relegates the most common definition of Zionism, the political movement, to a sub-definition or an expression of an ideology. This is not supported by the evidence, as Zionism refers primarily and mostly to the movement, and other meanings spring from it. Take a look at the Jewish Agency's Zionism timeline or the Israeli MFA's 100 years of Zionism. All use Zionism to refer to the movement, and so should we. Perhaps a solution is to acknowledge the yearning for Zion and early rabbinical movements as distinct from Zionism, just as the Jewish Agency does, calling them "forerunners of Zionism" [2]. If you do want to maintain that we should use the word "Zionism" to refer to an state of mind that existed before the 19th century, I still would like to see it explicitly used that way in a few reputible sources as the major meaning. As for the state of Zionism today, it is more of an ideology than a movement, but I think the current introduction tries to say that after 1948, the movement changed.

In summary, I suggest that we have three periods, as does the Jewish Agency, WZO, and many other writers on the topic: "Forerunners of Zionism," "Zionism" (the movement, with all of its splinters and arguments), "post-1948 Zionism." Does this help at all? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to start a new heading so we don't have to scroll down so much. Marsden 14:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)