Zionism

Zionism is a political movement among Jews, although supported by some non-Jews and not supported by some Jews, which maintains 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 Balfour Declaration, 1917 or state in Palestine (region), the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defense of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. Romanian_language),''The_Promised_Land''_(in_Hungarian_language)">Image:ac.zionistposter.jpg|thumb|250px|Poster promoting a film about Jewish settlement in Palestine, 1930s:''Toward a New Life'' (in Romanian language),''The Promised Land'' (in Hungarian language) This article is intended to be a survey of the history and objectives of the Zionist movement, not a history of Israel or of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The history of the various forms of opposition to Zionism is discussed at the article Anti-Zionism. ==The Jews and Zion== The word "Zionist" is derived from the word "Zion" (Hebrew language: ציון, ''Tziyyon''), being one of the names of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Bible. It was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal ''Self Emancipation'' in 1890. Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness). Many religious Jews opposed Zionism, while some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists. Religious Jews believe that since the land of Israel (''Eretz Yisrael'') was given to the ancient Israelites by God, the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable. To generations of Jewish diaspora, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Bible. (See also Jerusalem#Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism) Despite this, many religious Jews were not enthusiastic about Zionism before the 1930s, and many religious organisations opposed it on the grounds that an attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency was blasphemous, since (in their view) only the Jewish eschatology could accomplish this. The secular, socialist language used by many pioneer Zionists was contrary to the outlook of most religious Jewish communities. There was, however, a small but vocal group of religious Jews, led by the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Abraham Isaac Kook, that supported Zionism and cooperation with the secular majority in Palestine. Only the desperate circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s converted most (though not all) of these communities to Zionism. Secular Jewish opinion was also ambivalent in its attitudes to Zionism. Many argued that Jews should join with other progressive forces in bringing about changes which would eradicate anti-Semitism and make it possible for Jews to live in safety in the various countries where they lived. Before the 1930s, many Jews believed that socialism offered a better strategy for improving the lot of Ashkenazim. In the United States, most Jews embraced the liberalism of their adopted country. By some estimates, before World War II only 20–25 percent of Jews worldwide supported Zionism, with most others either opposed or lukewarm to it. The chain of events between 1881 and 1945, however, beginning with waves of anti-Semitic pogrom in Russia and Congress Poland, and culminating in the Holocaust, converted the great majority of surviving Jews to the belief that a Jewish homeland was an urgent necessity, particularly given the large population of disenfranchised Jewish refugees after World War II. Most also became convinced that Palestine was the only location that was both acceptable to all strands of Jewish thought and within the realms of practical possibility. This led to the great majority of Jews supporting the struggle between 1945 and 1948 to establish the State of Israel, though many did not condone violent tactics used by some Zionist groups. Since 1948 most Jews have continued to identify as Zionists, in the sense that they support the State of Israel even if they do not choose to live there. This worldwide support has been of vital importance to Israel, both politically and financially. This has been particularly true since 1967, as the rise of Palestinian nationalism and the resulting political and military struggles have eroded sympathy for Israel among non-Jews, at least outside the United States. In recent years, many Jews have criticised the morality and expediency of Israel's continued control of the occupied territories captured in 1967. ==Establishment of the Zionist movement== [[Image:Herzl large.jpg|thumb|150px|Theodor Herzl]] The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland has remained a universal Jewish theme ever since the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70, the defeat of Bar Kochba's revolt in 135, and the dispersal of the Jews to other parts of the Empire that followed. Due to the disastrous results of the revolt, what was once a human driven movement towards regaining national sovereignty based on religious inspiration, over centuries tradition and broken hopes of one "false messiah" after another took much of the human element out of messianic deliverance and put it all in the hands of God. Although Jewish nationalism in ancient times have always taken on religious connatations, from the Maccabees to the various Jewish revolts during Roman rule, and even Medieval Times when intermittently national hopes were incarnated in the "List of messiah claimants" of Shabbatai Zvi, among other less known messianists, it was not until the rise of ideological and political Zionism and its renewed belief in human based action toward Jewish national aspiration, did the notion of returning to the homeland become widespread among the Jewish consciousness. The Haskala of Jews in European countries in the 18th century and 19th century following the French Revolution, and the spread of western liberal ideas among a section of newly emancipated Jews, created for the first time a class of secular Jews, who absorbed the prevailing ideas of rationalism, romanticism and, most importantly, nationalism. Jews who had abandoned Judaism, at least in its traditional forms, began to develop a new Jewish identity, as a "nation" in the European sense. They were inspired by various national struggles, such as those for German and Italian unification, and for Polish and Hungarian independence. If Italians and Poles were entitled to a homeland, they asked, why were Jews not so entitled? Before the 1890s there had already been attempts to settle Jews in Palestine, which was in the 19th century a part of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by about 450,000 people, mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs (although there had never been a time when there were ''no'' Jews in Palestine). Pogroms in Russia led Jewish philanthropists such as the Moses Haim Montefiore and the Rothschild to sponsor agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine in the late 1870s, culminating in a small group of immigrants from Russia arriving in the country in 1882. This has become known in Zionist history as the Immigration to Palestine and Israel#First Aliyah (1882-1903) (''aliyah'' is a Hebrew word meaning "ascent," referring to the act of spiritually "ascending" to the Holy Land. In modern Hebrew, this word is used in place of an equivalent to "immigration."). [[Image:First_aliyah_BILU_in_kuffiyeh.jpg|left|thumb|250px|The first aliyah: Biluim used to wear the traditional Arab headdress, the kuffiyeh]] Proto-Zionist groups such as Hovevei Zion were active in the 1880s in Eastern Europe where emancipation had not occurred to the extent it did in Western Europe (or at all). The massive Anti-Semitism pogroms following the assassination of Russian_history, 1855-1892 made emancipation seem farther than ever and influenced Judah Leib Pinsker to publish the pamphlet Auto-Emancipation in January 1, 1882. The pamphlet became influential for the ''Political Zionism'' movement. There had also been several Jewish thinkers such as Moses Hess whose 1862 work ''Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question'' argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine (region) as a means of settling the national question. Hess proposed a socialist state in which the Jews would become agrarianised through a process of "redemption of the soil" which would transform the Jewish community into a true nation in that Jews would occupy the productive layers of society rather than being an intermediary non-productive merchant class which is how he perceived European Jews. Hess, along with later thinkers such as Nahum Syrkin and Ber Borochov, is considered a founder of ''Socialist Zionism'' and Labour Zionism and one of the intellectual forebears of the kibbutz movement. A key event triggering the modern Zionist movement was the Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894. Jews were profoundly shocked to see this outbreak of anti-Semitism in a country which they thought of as the home of enlightenment and liberty. Among those who witnessed the Affair was an Austrian-Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl, who published his pamphlet ''Der Judenstaat'' ("The Jewish State") in 1896. Prior to the Affair, Herzl had been anti-Zionist, afterwards he became ardently pro-Zionist. In 1897 Herzl organised the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, which founded the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) and elected Herzl as its first President. ==Zionist initiatives== The WZO's initial strategy was to obtain the permission of the Ottoman Empire#Sultans Abd-ul-Hamid II to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. The good offices of the German Emperor, Wilhelm II, were sought, but nothing came of this. Instead the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration, and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund in 1901 and the Anglo-Palestine Bank in 1903. Before 1917 some Zionist leaders took seriously proposals for Jewish homelands in places other than Palestine. Herzl's ''Der Judenstaat'' argued for a Jewish state in either Palestine, "our ever-memorable historic home", or Argentina, "one of the most fertile countries in the world". In 1903 British cabinet ministers suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (actually in modern Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogroms Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the 6th Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Notwithstanding its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal still proved very divisive, and sparked a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a majority voted to establish a committee for the investigation of the possibility, and it was not dismissed until the 7th Zionist Congress in 1905. In response to this, the Jewish Territorialist Organization led by Israel Zangwill split off from the main Zionist movement. The territorialists attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible, but went into decline after 1917 and were dissolved in 1925. From that time Palestine was the sole focus of Zionist aspirations. Few Jews took seriously the establishment by the Soviet Union of a Jewish Autonomous Republic in the Russian Far East. [[Image:ac.weizmann.jpg|thumb|200px|Chaim Weizmann]] One of the major motivations for Zionism was the belief that the Jews needed to return to their historic homeland, not just as a refuge from anti-Semitism, but also to govern themselves as an independent nation. Some Zionists, mainly socialist Zionists, believed that the Jews' centuries of being oppressed in anti-Semitic societies had reduced Jews to a meek, vulnerable, despairing existence which invited further anti-Semitism. They argued that Jews should redeem themselves from their history by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. These socialist Zionists generally rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people. One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov, continuing from the work of Moses Hess, proposed the creation of a socialist society that would correct the "inverted pyramid," of Jewish society. Borochov believed that Jews were forced out of normal occupations by gentile hostility and competition, explaining why there was a relative predominance of Jewish professionals, rather than workers. Jewish society would not be healthy until the inverted pyramid was righted, and the majority of Jews became workers and peasants again. This could only be accomplished by Jews in their own country. Another, A. D. Gordon, was influenced by the ''volkisch'' ideas of European romantic nationalism, and proposed establishing a society of Jewish peasants. Gordon made a religion of work. These two thinkers, and others like them, motivated the establishment of the first Jewish collective settlement, or kibbutz, Deganiah, on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in 1909 (the same year that the city of Tel Aviv was established). Deganiah, and many other kibbutz that were soon to follow, attempted to realise these thinkers' vision by creating a communal villages, where newly arrived European Jews would be taught agriculture and other manual skills. Another aspect of this strategy was the revival and fostering of an "indigenous" Jewish culture and the Hebrew language. One early Zionist thinker, Asher Ginsberg, better known by his penname Ahad Ha'am ("One of the People") rejected what he regarded as the over-emphasis of political Zionism on statehood, at the expense of the revival of Hebrew culture. Ahad Ha'am recognised that the effort to achieve independence in Palestine would bring Jews into conflict with the native Palestinian Arab population, as well as with the Ottomans and European colonial powers then eying the country. Instead, he proposed that the emphasis of the Zionist movement shift to efforts to revive the Hebrew language and create a new culture, free from Diaspora influences, that would unite Jews and serve as a common denominator between diverse Jewish communities once independence was achieved. The most prominent follower of this idea was Eliezer Ben Yehudah, a linguist intent on reviving Hebrew as a spoken language among Jews (''see'' History of the Hebrew language). Most European Jews in the 19th century spoke Yiddish, a language based on mediaeval German, but as of the 1880s, Ben Yehudah and his supporters began promoting the use and teaching of a modernised form of biblical Hebrew, which had not been a living language for nearly 2,000 years. Despite Herzl's efforts to have German proclaimed the official language of the Zionist movement, the use of Hebrew was adopted as official policy by Zionist organisations in Palestine, and served as an important unifying force among the Jewish settlers, many of whom also took new Hebrew names. The development of the first Hebrew-speaking city (Tel Aviv), the kibbutz movement, and other Jewish economic institutions, plus the use of Hebrew, began by the 1920s to lay the foundations of a new nationality, which would come into formal existence in 1948. Meanwhile, other cultural Zionists attempted to create new Jewish artforms, including graphic arts. (Boris Schatz, a Bulgarian artist, founded the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem in 1906.) Others, such as dancer and artist Baruch Agadati, fostered popular festivals such as the Adloyada carnival on Purim. The Zionist leaders always saw United Kingdom as a key potential ally in the struggle for a Jewish homeland. Not only was Britain the world's greatest imperial power; it was also a country where Jews lived in peace and security, among them influential political and cultural leaders, such as Benjamin Disraeli and Walter, Lord Rothschild. There was also a peculiar streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite to which the Zionist leaders hoped to appeal, just as the Greek independence movement had appealed to British Philhellenism during the Greek War of Independence. Chaim Weizmann, who became the leader of the Zionist movement after Herzl's death in 1904, was a professor at a British university, and used his extensive contacts to lobby the British government for a statement in support of Zionist aspirations. This hope was realised in 1917, when the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made his famous Balfour Declaration, 1917 in favour of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Balfour was motivated partly by philo-Semitic sentiment, partly by a desire to weaken the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany during the World War I), and partly by a desire to strengthen support for the Allied cause in the United States, home to the world's most influental Jewish community. In the Declaration, however, Balfour was careful to use the word "homeland" rather than "state," and also to specify that the establishment of a Jewish homeland must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." ==Zionism and the Arabs== Outside of Jerusalem, Safed, and Tiberias, Arabs and/or Muslims constituted the overwhelming majority of the population. The early Zionists were well aware of this, but believed that the inhabitants could only benefit from Jewish immigration. This attitude resulted in the Arab presence being ignored, as in Israel Zangwill's famous slogan "A land without a people, for a people without a land". Generally though, such statements were propaganda invented by leaders who did not foresee the subsequent conflict with the Arabs and thought of them as allies against the big empires whom they viewed as the main obstacle. Agreements with the Ottoman authorities, or with Arab rulers outside Palestine were their main concern and concerns of the local Arabs were overlooked. One of the earlier Zionists to warn against these ideas was Ahad Ha'am, who warned in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover :''From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place. '' Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its mere infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition. [[Image:ac.jabotinsky2.jpg|thumb|180px|Zeev Jabotinsky]] Nevertheless, despite clear signs that a true Palestinian nationalism was rising, much the same range of opinion could be found among Zionist leaders after 1920. However, the division between these camps did not match the main threads in Zionist politics so cleanly as is often portrayed. To take an example, the leader of the Revisionist Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is often presented as having had an extreme pro-expulsion view but the proofs offered for this are rather thin. According to Jabotinsky's ''Iron Wall'' (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they :''look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. '' The solution, according to Jabotinsky, was not expulsion (which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]") but to impose the Jewish presence on the Arabs by force of arms until eventually they came to accept it. Only late in his life did Jabotinsky speak of the desirability of Arab emigration though still without unequivocally advocating an expulsion policy. After the World Zionist Organization rejected Jabotinsky's proposals, he resigned from the organization and founded the New Zionist Organization in 1933 to promote his views and work independently for immigration and the establishment of a state. The NZO rejoined the WZO in 1951. The situation with socialist Zionists such as David Ben-Gurion was also ambiguous. In public Ben-Gurion upheld the official position of his party that denied the necessity of force in achieving Zionist goals. The argument was based on the denial of a unique Palestinian identity coupled with the belief that eventually the Arabs would realise that Zionism was to their advantage. Privately, however, Ben-Gurion believed that the Arab opposition amounted to a total rejection of Zionism grounded in fundamental principle, and that a confrontation was unavoidable. In 1937, Ben-Gurion and almost all of his party leadership supported a British proposal to create a small Jewish state from which the Arabs had been removed by force. The British plan was soon shelved, but the idea of a Jewish state with a minimal population of Arabs remained an important thread in Labour Zionist thought throughout the remaining period until the creation of Israel. The attitude of the Zionist leaders towards the Arab population of Palestine in the lead-up to the 1948 conflict is one of the most hotly debated issues in Zionist history. This article does not cover it; see Israel-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian exodus. ==The struggle for Palestine== With the defeat and dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, and the establishment of the British Mandate of Palestine over Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922, the Zionist movement entered a new phase of activity. Its priorities were the escalation of Jewish settlement in Palestine, the building of the institutional foundations of a Jewish state, raising funds for these purposes, and persuading — or forcing — the British authorities not to take any steps which would lead to Palestine moving towards independence as an Arab-majority state. The 1920s did see a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration. International Jewish opinion remained divided on the merits of the Zionist project. Many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States opposed Zionism, arguing that a Jewish homeland was not needed because Jews were able to live in the democratic countries of the West as equal citizens. Albert Einstein, one of the best-known Jews in the world, said: "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks." The many Jews who embraced socialism opposed Zionism as a form of reactionary nationalism. The General Jewish Labor Union, or Bund, which represented socialist Jews in eastern Europe, was strongly anti-Zionist. The Communist parties, which attracted substantial Jewish support during the 1920s and 1930s, were even more virulently anti-Zionist, if one defines Zionism as the advocacy of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. During this time Communists actively promoted an alternative Jewish homeland — the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, or Birobidzhan, which had been set up by the Soviet Union in the Russian Far East. At the other extreme, some American Jews went so far as to say that the United States ''was'' Zion, and the successful absorption of 2 million Jewish immigrants in the 30 years before the World War I lent force to this argument. (Some American Jewish socialists supported the Birobidzhan experiment, and a few even emigrated there during the Great Depression.) The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for Zionism. Not only did it create a flood of Jewish refugees — at a time when the United States had closed its doors to further immigration — but it undermined the faith of Jews that they could live in security as minorities in non-Jewish societies. Some Zionists allegedly supported the rise of the Nazi party, recognising that it would increase the possibility of a Jewish state. It is claimed by Marxist author Lenni Brenner that The Zionist Federation of Germany even sent Hitler a letter calling for collaboration in 1933; however the strongly anti-Semitic Nazis rejected the offer and later abolished the organisation in 1938. Jewish opinion began to shift in favour of Zionism, and pressure for more Jewish immigration to Palestine increased. But the more Jews settled in Palestine, the more aroused Palestinian Arab opinion became, and the more difficult the situation became in Palestine. In 1936 serious Arab rioting broke out, and in response the British authorities held the unsuccessful St. James Conference and issued the White Paper of 1939, severely restricting further Jewish immigration. The Jewish community in Palestine responded by organising armed forces, based on smaller units developed to defend remote agricultural settlements. 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. With the advent of World War II, both groups decided that defeating Hitler took priority over the fight against the British. However, attacks against British targets were recommenced in 1940 by a splinter group of the Irgun, later known as Lehi (group), and in 1944 by the Irgun itself. The revelation of the fate of six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust had several consequences. Firstly, it left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees (or displaced persons) in camps in Europe, unable or unwilling to return to homes in countries which they felt had betrayed them to the Nazis. Not all of these refugees wanted to go to Palestine, and in fact many of them eventually went to other countries, but large numbers of them did, and they resorted to increasingly desperate measures to get there. [[Image:ac.bengurion.jpg|thumb|290px|Harry S. Truman and David Ben-Gurion (Abba Eban behind)]] Secondly, it evoked a world-wide feeling of sympathy with the Jewish people, mingled with guilt that more had not been done to deter Hitler's aggressions before the war, or to help Jews escape from Europe during its course. This was particularly the case in the United States, whose federal government had halted Jewish immigration during the war. Among those who became strong supporters of the Zionist ideal was President Harry S. Truman, who overrode considerable opposition in his United States Department of State and used the great power of his position to mobilise support at the United Nations for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, although he expressed very negative views of Jews in his diaries, and had, a letter written years before he entered the White House, referred to New York City as "List of ethnic slurs#K town" .[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/trumandiary1.html][http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A40678-2003Jul10¬Found=true][http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030718/us02.shtml] Since Britain was desperate to withdraw from Palestine, Truman's efforts were the crucial factor in the creation of Israel. Thirdly, it swung world Jewish opinion almost unanimously behind the project of a Jewish state in Palestine, and within Palestine it led to a greater resolution to use force to achieve that objective. American Reform Judaism was among the elements of Jewish thought which changed their opinions about Zionism after the Holocaust. The proposition that Jews could live in peace and security in non-Jewish societies was certainly a difficult one to defend in 1945, although it is one of the ironies of Zionist history that in the decades since World War II anti-Semitism has greatly declined as a serious political force in most western countries, and Jewish communities continue to live and prosper outside Israel. ==Zionism and Israel== In 1947 Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine, and on 29 November the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state (with Jerusalem becoming an international enclave). Civil conflict between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine erupted immediately. On 14 May 1948 the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine made a declaration of independence, and the state of Israel was established. This marked a major turning point in the Zionist movement, as its principal goal had now been accomplished. Many Zionist institutions were reshaped, and the three military movements combined to form the Israel Defence Forces. The majority of the Arab population having either fled or been expelled during the War of Independence, Jews were now a majority of the population within the 1948 ceasefire lines, which became Israel's ''de facto'' borders until 1967. In 1950 the Knesset passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel. This, together with the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and the later flood of expelled Jews from Arab countries, had the effect of creating a large and apparently permanent Jewish majority in Israel. Since 1948 the international Zionist movement has undertaken a variety of roles in support of Israel. These have included the encouragement of immigration, assisting the absorption and integration of immigrants, fundraising on behalf of settlement and development projects in Israel, the encouragement of private capital investment in Israel, and mobilisation of world public opinion in support of Israel. The 1967 war between Israel and the Arab states (the "Six-Day War") marked a major turning point in the history of Israel and of Zionism. Israeli forces captured the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the holiest of Jewish religious sites, the Western Wall of the ancient Temple. They also took over the remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt). Religious Jews regarded the West Bank (ancient Judaea and Samaria) as an integral part of Eretz Israel, and within Israel voices of the political Right soon began to argue that these territories should be permanently retained. Zionist groups began to build Jewish settlements in the territories as a means of establishing "facts on the ground" that would make an Israeli withdrawal impossible. The 1968 conference of the WZO adopted the following principles: * The unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life * The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through ''aliyah'' from all countries * The strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the "prophetic vision of justice and peace" * The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values * The protection of Jewish rights everywhere. Control of the West Bank and Gaza placed Israel in the position of control over a large population of Palestinian Arabs. Whether or not there had been a distinct Palestinian national identity in the 1920s may be debated, but there is no doubt that by the 1960s such an identity was firmly established — the founders of Zionism had thus, ironically, created two new nationalities, Israeli and Palestinian, instead of one. The faith of the Palestinians in the willingness and ability of the Arab states to defeat Israel and return Palestine to Arab rule was destroyed by the war, and the death of the most militant and popular Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, in 1970 reinforced the belief of Palestinians that they had been abandoned. The Palestine Liberation Organization, 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. ''From this point the history of Israel and the Palestinians can be followed in the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict.'' 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 length in the article on anti-Zionism. ==Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism== More than 50 years after the founding of the State of Israel, and after more than 80 years of Arab-Jewish conflict over the territory now known as Israel, West Bank and Gaza Strip, many have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some liberal or socialist Jews, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities (the most vocal and visible being the small Neturei Karta group), still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Well-known Jewish scholars and statesmen who have opposed Zionism include Bruno Kreisky, Hans Fromm and Michael Selzer. In the United States a small number of Jewish intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Norman G. Finkelstein have continued to oppose modern Zionism, although few argue that the entire Jewish settlement of Palestine should actually be reversed, 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. Chomsky says he supports a Jewish homeland, but not a Jewish state, and claims that this view is consistent with the original meaning of Zionism. Criticism of Israeli policies in the territories has become sharper since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel. Some elements of Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, although mainstream Orthodox groups such as the Agudat Israel have changed their positions since 1948 and now actively support Israel, often assuming right-wing stances regarding important political questions such as the peace process. Today, the overwhelming majority of Jewish organisations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist. Among the important minority threads within Zionism is one that holds Israelis to be a new nationality, not merely the representatives of world Jewry. The "Canaanite" or "Hebrew Renaissance" movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s was built on this idea. A modern movement which is partly based on the same idea is known as Post-Zionism. There is no agreement on how this movement is defined, nor even of which persons belong to it, but the most common idea is that Israel should leave behind the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and instead strive to be a state of all its citizens according to pluralistic democratic values. Many Israeli historians hold "Caananism" or "Pan-Semitism" as an aberration outside the bounds of Zionism. Self-identified Post-Zionists differ on many important details, such as the status of the Law of Return. Critics tend to associate Post-Zionism with anti-Zionism or postmodernism, both charges which are strenuously denied by proponents. Another persistent opinion favors a binational solution in which Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy. Variants of the idea were proposed by Chaim Weizmann in the 1930s and by the ''Ichud'' (Unity) group in the 1940s, which included such prominent figures as Judah Magnes (first dean of Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Martin Buber. The emergence of Israel as a Jewish state with a small Arab minority made the idea irrelevant, but it was revived after the 1967 war left Israel in control of a large Arab population. Never more than the opinion of a small minority, the idea is nevertheless supported by a few prominent intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said, and (since 2003) Meron Benvenisti. Opponents of a binational state argue that since Arabs (whose population growth rates are much higher than among Jews) would form the majority of the population in such a state, the Jewish character on which the state was founded would be lost and the Jewish population's existence threatened, as it was threatened under other Turkish and Arab regimes in the past. They also suggest that such a state is unlikely to remain a democracy for long, as most Arab countries today tend to have autocratic governments. Critics of Zionism see the changes in demographic balance which created a Jewish state, which culminated in hundreds of thousands of Arabs being made refugees, and the methods used to cause this, as an inevitable consequence of Zionism. Critics also point to current inequities between Jews and Arabs in Israel, similarly viewing them as attributable to Zionist beliefs and ideologies. Those who regard Jews and Arabs as racially distinct thus condemn Zionism as racist. Defenders of Zionism disagree with the identification of Zionism with racism on a number of grounds; they state that the basis that the charge is too vague, as the views of Zionist groups differ widely from each other. They also disagree on the basis that Palestinians and Jews are not racially distinct from each other, that Israeli Jews themselves are racially "mixed" (nearly half of Israel's Jews come from Arab countries, and there are also almost 100,000 black Jews from Ethiopia); thus even if Zionism discriminates against Arabs, such discrimination cannot accurately be termed racist, but rather ethnic and/or cultural. As well, they argue that discrimination based on culture or ethnicity is a fact in almost all countries in the world, and that any discrimination in Israel (including discrimination between Jewish groups) is similarly based on such differences, and not inherent in Zionism itself. See also Zionism and racism. ==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 [http://www.azm.org/ 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 various 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 Six-Day War 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 liberals 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. Some Christian Zionists also believe that most Jews will be killed and will burn in Hell while some will be converted to Christianity as a prelude to the second coming of Jesus, after which Christians will inherit the Holy Land; 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. *Some Muslim scholars point out that "The Qur'an says that Allah gave the Land of Israel to the Jews and will restore them to it at the End of Days" [http://www.templemount.org/quranland.html]. Shaykh Abdul Hadi Palazzi cites the Quran to support this view:

"Pharaoh sought to scare them [the Israelites] out of the land [of Israel]: but We [Allah] drowned him [Pharoah] together with all who were with him. Then We [Allah] said to the Israelites: 'Dwell in this land [the Land of Israel]. When the promise of the hereafter [End of Days] comes to be fulfilled, We [Allah] shall assemble you [the Israelites] all together [in the Land of Israel]."
"And [remember] when Moses said to his people: 'O my people, call in remembrance the favour of God unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave to you what He had not given to any other among the peoples. O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.'"

==Relevant articles== ===Types of Zionism=== * General Zionism * Labour Zionism * Religious Zionism * Revisionist Zionism * Christian Zionism ===Zionist institutes and organization=== * Histadrut * The Jewish Agency * State of Israel * World Zionist Organization ===History of Zionism and Israel=== * History of Israel * History of Palestine * Israeli-Palestinian Conflict * List of prominent Zionist figures * Timeline of Zionism ===Anti-Zionism=== * Anti-Zionism * Post-Zionism * Binational solution * Neturei Karta * Zionism and racism ===Related articles=== * Christian Zionism * Guardian of Zion Award * Jewish Emancipation ==References== * Arthur Hertzberg (ed.), ''Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis & Reader'', MacMillan, 1972, trade paperback, ISBN 0689700938; [http://www.jewishpub.org/ Jewish Publication Society], 1997, trade paperback, 656 pages, ISBN 0827606222; [http://info.greenwood.com/ Greenwood Publishing Group], 1970, hardcover, ISBN 0837125650. * E. Nimni (ed.), ''The Challenge of Post-Zionism'', Zed Books, 2003 ISBN 185649893X. * J. Reinharz and A. Shapira (ed.), ''Essential Papers on Zionism'', New York University Press, 1996 ISBN 0814774490. * J. Mandel, ''The Arabs and Zionism before World War I'', University of California Press, 1976. * Z. Sternhell, ''The Founding Myths of Israel – Nationalism, Socialism, and the making of the Jewish State'', Princeton University Press, 1998 eISBN 1400807743. * G. Shafir, ''Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914'', University of California Press, 1996 ISBN 0520204018. ==External links== * [http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=161 New Age Zionism: Holding On as the World Turns — Arthur Hertzberg's January 1, 1998 article] * [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=132&letter=Z Encyclopedia article on Zionism ca 1905] * [http://www.jsource.org/jsource/zion.html "Zionism" — from the Jewish Virtual Library] * [http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00un0 "Centenary of Zionism" from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs] * [http://www.jafi.org.il/education/index.html The Jewish Agency for Israel — The Department for Zionist Education] * [http://www.ameinu.net/ Home page of the Ameinu Progressive Zionist Movement] * [http://www.azm.org/index.html Homepage of the "American Zionist Movement"] * [http://www.wzo.org.il/en/ Homepage of the World Zionist Organization] * [http://www.biu.ac.il/Spokesman/Tolerance/michman.htm "A Historical Look at Religious Zionism" by Dan Michman] *[http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=585 Fascism and Zionism — From The Hagshama Department — World Zionist Organization] * [http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_history.htm A history of Zionism and the creation of Israel] * [http://www.mideastweb.org/labor_zionism.htm Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism] * [http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_documents.htm Zionism: Historical Source Documents and texts] * [http://www.zionismontheweb.org/strawsonaut.htm Why I am Against the AUT Boycott of Israeli Universities] by John L. Strawson. An advocate of the Palestinian cause argues that Anti-Zionism is hardly distinguishable from antisemitism. * [http://www.zionismontheweb.org/zionism_definitions.htm Definitions of Zionism] * [http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/zionism/mackay.htm Zionist Aspirations in Palestine], The Atlantic Monthly, July 1920. The author was the British military governor of Palestine in the teens. ==Jewish denominations' view of Zionism== * [http://www.ccarnet.org/platforms/principles.html A Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism — 1999 — Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform)] * [http://rj.org/wrj/reso/zionism.html Women of Reform Judaism resolution: Reform Judaism and Zionism] * [http://groups.msn.com/judaismfaqs/israelzionismandthemasortimovement.msnw Conservative Judaism and Zionism] * [http://www.mercazusa.org MERCAZ USA (Zionist membership organization of the Conservative Movement)] * [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2843 Salvational Zionism and Religious Naturalism in the Thought of Mordecai M. Kaplan (Explains the Zionist thought of the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism)] * [http://edah.org/zionism.cfm Modern Orthodox Zionism] * [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ "Jews opposed to Zionism": An ultra-Orthodox website] * [http://www.nkusa.org/ Neturei Karta, Orthodox Jews Against Zionism] Israel and Zionism Nationalism

Zionism

See also: Talk:Zionism/archive1, Talk:Zionism/archive2, Talk:Zionism/archive3 Talk:Zionism/archive4, Talk:Zionism/archive5 == 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. == 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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. --User: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? User: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. User: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? --User: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. User: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? --User: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? User: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? --User: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"? --User: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. User:Adam Carr 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. --User: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. User: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). --User:Zero0000 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. User: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? --User: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. User: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? --User: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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. --User:Wclark 18:57, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC) :::I'm game, but what specifically do you think should be done? User: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-Zionism, 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. --User: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. User: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). --User:Wclark 03:18, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) :::::::Early in the article? Perhaps. In the first paragraph? Absolutely not. User: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. --User: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. User: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. :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. User:Adam Carr 04:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) Exactly. User: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. --User:Wclark 05:44, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) ::I'm confused as well; Adam, were you proposing that new intro, or opposing it? User: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. --User:Wclark 08:08, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) : I think it is fine. I added a comma. --User:Zero0000 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. User: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? User: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. --User: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. User:Style 10:57, 2004 Aug 2 (UTC) :I agree, Zionism is about ideology as well. --User:Bk0 22:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC) Where did that definition of ideology come from? ''Crude Marxism for Beginners''? User:Adam Carr 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... -- User:Style 14:36, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC) ::Adam, why do you think "political" is more accurate than "ideological"? User:Jayjg 15:44, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Wouldn't "nationalist" be more precise and accurate than either? User:MirvUser talk:Mirv 18:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) == 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. User: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. User: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." User: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-Semitism 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.--User:Alberuni 04:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) :It correct. There are people who equate Zionists with all Jews.--User:Yoshiah ap 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. User:Jayjg 06:58, 31 Oct 2004 (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.--User: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. User:Jayjg 21:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::It's completely subjective and POV. Not encyclopedia material.--User: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". - User:Mustafaa 03:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::::Exactly. User: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. --User: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. User: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? --User:Alberuni 16:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::::::::::Interesting and provocative topics. User:Jayjg 17:50, 1 Nov 2004 (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. User:Vacuum | User talk:VacuumSpecial:Contributions/VacuumSpecial:Watchlist/Vacuum 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? --User:Raistlin 14:06, 13 Nov 2004 (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? User: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.--User: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.--User:Pharos 20:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Christianity and Zionsim == 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 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 [http://www.azm.org/ 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. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 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. --User:JpgordonUser talk: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 http://www.alexanderbaron.150m.com/eustace_mullins_7.html, 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. —User:MirvUser talk:MirvSpecial:Emailuser/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. . . —User:MirvUser talk:MirvSpecial:Emailuser/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? User: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. User:Jayjg | User_talk:Jayjg 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 !? ====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, --User:Guy Montag :Insertions by neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are inevitable on pages relating to Jews and Israel. User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 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? User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 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)? User: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! User: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. --User:JpgordonUser talk: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 User:Kuratowski's Ghost 18:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::And that in itself is useful information. --User:JpgordonUser talk: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? User: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. User: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)? --User:JpgordonUser talk: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. User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 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.≈ : Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that does not mean that anon trolls deserve a response. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus_sapiens 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. - User: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. User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 19:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC) 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. ::::I thought the Stormfront putzim were putting together their own Nazipedia! Wonder what ever became of it... --User:JpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 00:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I suspect they couldn't find any literate contributors. User:Jayjg^{User_talk:Jayjg} 02:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::That sounds like a defamatory statement to me. Wikipedia has a policy on personal attacks does it not? - User:Molloy :::::::Yeah, but Nazis are fair game here as well as everywhere else decent people congregate. --User:JpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 04:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Nobody is in season right now, so please, keep the shotguns in the lockers. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 04:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Don't need shotguns. Words suffice. --User:JpgordonUser talk:Jpgordon 16:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Yeah, save your bullets for the palestinian kids. - User:Molloy :::::::::::Now now Molloy, that was not needed. User:Zscout370 User_talk:Zscout370 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC) This is an encyclopedia, not the OK Corral. Settle down, everyone. A Ball of Fire on the neck can help in these situations. -User:Willmcw 11:19, May 22, 2005 (UTC) :in case anyones interested, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_%28group%29#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities 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. ''User:Sam Spade'' 15:53, 22 May 2005 (UTC) So are we done discussing this nonsense now? User: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). -User: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.