Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Unbalanced

Why does the view that anti-zionism is antisemitism gets 5 sub-headings and the view that it does not just one? Also the “View that anti-Zionism leads to antisemitism” should be just contained in the “View that the two are interlinked” since it’s the same thing. BlackYaroslav (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The views on either side are opinions, not facts, and so must be presented with the same amount of supporting evidence. If editors cannot find enough satisfactory evidence for the argument that they are not linked, they should reduce the amount of evidence present for the view that they are linked. DominateEye (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree with DominateEye's statement. If the majority opinion is that anti-Zionism is antisemitism, then this needs to be reflected on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is never censored for the sake of false balance.

Consider this analogy:

The majority opinion on Mozart is that he is a great composer. The minority opinion is that his music is terrible. Should Wikipedia remove supporting evidence for the "Mozart is a great composer" opinion so that it is "balanced" with the "Mozart is a terrible composer" opinion? Certainly not. --GHcool (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea that the majority opinion that anti-Zionism is antisemitism is based on absolutely nothing. nableezy - 17:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree completely with Nableezy. Please cite a reliable source for your assertion that "the majority opinion is that anti-Zionism is antisemitism". RolandR (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

When I wrote "the majority opinion is that anti-Zionism is antisemitism," I was being imprecise. I will rephrase it to be more precise:

The majority opinion among experts in the study of antisemitism is that there is a strong correlation/crossover between those who hold ideologies that are hostile to Jews and those who oppose Jewish self-determination.

I decline the invitation to find reliable sources for this claim because (1) it is self-evidently true and (2) I am not making this claim within the article (if I were, I would agree with you that I'd have to cite a source). --GHcool (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The equation of Zionism with "Jewish self-determination" is itself problematic, since it implies that this is the only permissible form of such self-determination. But, as anyone who has studied the subject knows, there have been many different forms and proposals for expressing self-determintion. Zionism is just one of these, it was historically opposed and denounced by many Jews, and for a long time it was a minority view. This sleight of hand cannot go unchallenged. This article is about Anti-Zionism, not about "opposition to Jewish self-determination".RolandR (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not self-evidently true, it is actually risible in its subtle framing of a correlation/crossover between the two, in which you through obfuscation decline to say which way that correlation/crossover may be true, and which way it is not. Sure, most anti-semites may express anti-Zionist views. The idea that most anti-Zionists are anti-semites is something that is not self-evidently true, and is in fact an outrageous statement to drop here and then add I decline the invitation to find reliable sources for this claim. If you do decline that, kindly read WP:NOTFORUM and stop polluting this talk page with such nonsense. nableezy - 21:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

An op-ed Senator John Lewis wrote in the San Franscisco Chronicle in 2002 provides an extensive explanation of how anti-Zionism is antisemitism. https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/I-have-a-dream-for-peace-in-the-Middle-East-2880295.php SanDWesting (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

An op-ed by a politician is not a reliable source for anything beyond that politicians opinion. And John Lewis was never a senator, and nowhere does that equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism beyond relaying the supposed MLK response to a question. nableezy - 01:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@GHcool No way, since when both are being the same? Anti-Zioninsts are oppose to Zionism. Was Marek Edelman an-antisemite?.. come on GHcool 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous. What strikes you as 'self-evident' strikes many anti-Zionists as a 'sand-in-the-eyes' hasbara cliché.(a)Israel's founding ideology is Zionism; (b) Zionism aims to secure 'self-determination for the Jews' (=denial of the right to self-determination by Palestinians) (even for Jews who couldn't care less for this kind of 'national self-determination' in their name); (c) therefore it is intrinsically a 'Jewish' project (involving all Jews (d) so criticism of the ideology and its practices is, ipso facto, anti-Jewish ergo antisemitic. That is very common - great pressure has been exerted by indirect diplomacy to have many prominent countries accept legislate the equation that would make a strong correlation between criticism and antisemitism. It is, nonetheless, in scholarly terms, puerile, and in historical retrospect contrafactual, since Zionism has been vigorously opposed since its inception by numerous Jews. The majority of the classics of anti-Zionism, as one can see in the list of the history of anti-Zionism, have been of Jewish background (Timeline of anti-Zionism). (Of course the standard response to that is that such thinkers are 'self-hating Jews', another tedious meddling in the right of Jews to think for themselves without being subject to abusive insinuations about some putative lack of narcissism in their 'ethnic' component. Sheesh.Nishidani (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It was once considered a liberal virtue to be opposed to any form of 'ideology' which Zionists accept as a proper description of its principles. This cant wouldn have it, for the first time in the history of ideas, that criticism of an ideology is motivated by hatred of those who espouse it. This is how jejune the argument has become. Philosophically, infantile.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy's suggestion to "kindly read WP:NOTFORUM and stop polluting this talk page" seems commendable at this time. I consider the matter of removing information for the creation of false balance closed. I do not wish to engage in a debate on the scope of antisemitism at this time. --GHcool (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's a bunch of AZ's telling Greenblatt what he can do with his opinions. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that Wikipedia would ever frame a debate as "Mozart was a great composer" vs "Mozart was a terrible composer". Instead, the Wikipedia article on Mozart would likely include a "Praise" section and a "Criticism" section. Considering the undeniable impact Mozart's works have had on classical music, I would be surprised if there was not enough evidenced, academic criticism of Mozart's works to give the Criticism section an equal level of detail as the Praise section. An absence of such would either be the result of editors acting with a focus on a particular section (not necessarily nefarious, but not ideal for an encyclopedia) or editors acting with intent to make the subject of one section appear insignificant, regardless of whether it truly is or not (which I personally would consider nefarious). I think the same situation applies to this article, and it is in the best interests of Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy as an encyclopedia to rectify the imbalance present in this article. DominateEye (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Mind if I ask what bought you to this article? Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in the best interests of Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy as an encyclopedia for users to read and follow the WP:False balance guideline. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I consider the matter of removing information for the creation of false balance closed is what was said above by yourself. If you have changed your mind and you have sources, bring them, we keep asking and none are forthcoming, at least none that are of any relevance. Mere assertions are not useful. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the issue of balance remains, and the subsection View that anti-Zionism leads to antisemitism is based entirely on quotes from two politicians and one from the Simon Weisenthal Center. None of those are reliable sources for anything other than their own views, and they lack weight to be included here. I am removing that for a start. nableezy - 17:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues

For the revert I just made, Id like to go over this step by step instead of allowing this to get amalgamated and washed away through proof by assertion or vague waves to Reza Aslan.

1. BBC as a source for the definition that it is opposition to the political movement of Jews to self-determination. The lead says The term is broadly defined in the modern era as opposition to the State of Israel or, prior to 1948, opposition to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, which is exactly what the BBC says, but it does not anywhere define anti-Zionism as opposition to the political movement of Jews to self-determination. In fact, the BBC only includes the words "self-determination" in a quote from Baroness Julia Neuberger. Baroness Julia Neuberger has no academic qualifications to make her opinion reliable for a definition of anti-Zionism. It is almost as if somebody just googled "anti-Zionism" "self-determination" and plopped in the source as though that were enough to show it supports the material. The BBC cite emphatically does not support what GHCool claimed it does.
2. Anti-Zionism on Campus: The University, Free Speech, and BDS as a citation. The portion of the book that says Anti-Zionism is fundamentally about denying to Jews territorial self-determination in their ancient homeland, is an essay, and it would be fine for an attributed view of the authors, but any good faith reading of it will quickly see it is very obviously opinion. The entire book is a series of essays, as the very next paragraph makes clear, "With that in mind, the problem, we believe, is not merely a Jewish or Israel one. For as the essays in this volume show, campus anti Israelism isn’t merely an attack on Israel, or on Israel-friendly members of the campus community, or Jews in general ... , in other words, anti-Israelism is an attack on the very norms and values of the university—and with it, some might argue, on the norms and values at the heart of Western civilization." Opinions are reliable as opinions, not for fact. And as this is not an unchallenged view, you cannot present that opinion as a fact.
3. Raphael Jospe is a reliable source on Jewish philosophy, not Zionism or anti-Zionism. Midstream (magazine) is an opinion journal produced by the World Zionist Organization. You cannot seriously argue that the World Zionist Organization is a reliable source for anti-Zionism, you may not use the political opponents of one group to define them.
4. ADL. Idem.
5. AMCHA Initiative. UNDUE weight for propaganda outfit. Primary source without any serious source considering it important in any way.
6. MLK story. Whether or not he even said it is besides the point, a. MLK is not a reliable source on Zionism, anti-Zionism or anti-semitism and the appeal to moral authority is transparent. It lacks weight to be included, beyond its disputed provenance.
7. Noa Tishby is not a reliable source, and his opinion lacks weight to be included.

nableezy - 17:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

1. BBC, Anti-Zionism on Campus, Raphael Jospe, and the ADL. I frankly don't have time for the discussion on the definition of anti-Zionism, so let's just drop it and keep it as it is. Everyone knows that anti-Zionists don't want Jews to form a liberal democracy in the Middle East. Those who pretend otherwise can continue to pretend.
2. AMCHA Initiative. I'm sure I can find a source that proves AMCHA Initiative's importance, but since I don't have time at the moment, let's drop it.
3. MLK story and Noa Tishby. I am forced to agree with you that MLK and Noa Tishby are not necessarily the most reliable source on anti-Zionism. Neither is Todd Gitlin, Noam Chomsky, or Steven Salaita. I've removed them from the article for the sake of consistency. --GHcool (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to remove commentary you disagree with, I will do the same with the commentary you agree with, including the remnant of Stephens, Macron, Wistrich, David Hirsh and Greenblatt. As far as BBC, again, it does not once support what you cited it for. It does not say anything about Jewish self-determination. I addressed the rest. But if you cool keeping as is then great. nableezy - 19:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Everyone knows that anti-Zionists don't want Jews to form a liberal democracy in the Middle East.

I generally stop listening when interlocutors introduce their opinions, such as this balderdash here, with the prefatory 'everyone knows.'Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary anti-Zionism is, precisely, criticism of the failure of Israel to develop into a 'liberal democracy'. (Peter Beinart speaks of 'the pretense that what makes Israel precious is its attachment to liberal democracy' (from memory) Crisis of Zionism p.181, noting that younger American Jews are drifting away from interest in Israel precisely because of that failure to live up to the liberal ideals that underpin their diaspora culture) At least that is what a huge amount of scholarly opinion in Israel and the diaspora keeps stating, with meticulous documentation. States that practice apartheid, finance land theft, are not 'liberal'. In liberal democracies, land is something purchased by due deed of title from the owners, not seized as God's freehold present to an ethnos.Nishidani (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

With great respect and admiration, I would suggest it be better not to answer one WP:FORUM violation with another. nableezy - 20:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am cool keeping the article the way that it is now. I would not suggest removing commentary cited to reliable sources with whom you disagree. --GHcool (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The remaining piece from Stepehens is an off-hand mention of one of his columns, it still fails weight in this article, possibly it could be included in Media coverage of the Arab–Israeli conflict, but the quote is about the NYT publishing a cartoon then apologizing for it, not about anti-Zionism. Seriously, why would you think that is a strong source to include beyond it just being a quote from a favored columnist? nableezy - 01:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Kressel

GHcool, the reason Kressel was removed is that a. he is a psychologist, and b. it is off-topic in that section. If you noticed, you re-added that not to the section on any supposed relation with anti-semitism, but rather to the section on conspiracy theories. Explain why a psychologist should be used here, and why in that section please. nableezy - 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument. I removed it. Thank you for being civil. --GHcool (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

lead

The lead should be short and 'sweet'. Opinions are frequently neither here nor there, esp. when we have numerous studies examining the putative correlation between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, most of those I am familiar with suggesting that analytically that equation doesn't stand up. That this ostensible correlation is a public hasbara meme which collapses when its spouters are asked to justify its implications and logic, is well known, as you can see with Isaac Chotiner's recent piece cross-examining Jonathan Greenblatt (wriggling with unease and embarrassment several times when faced with the logical impasse his noted ADL assertions lead to) for his remarks equating the two (Isaac Chotiner Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism? New Yorker 11 May 2022). It's not the lead that requires adjustment, but the body of the text, which still tends to ignore the bulk of the substantial technical literature. It's not sexy and takes a long time to digest. Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I shortened the lead. I hope I didn't make any controversial changes. Just cut some of the subordinate clauses and redundancies. I hope this is acceptable. --GHcool (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

particularly of Israeli military actions and occupation of the West Bank should be retained. nableezy - 16:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont think it should be anywhere close to this short, we still need to summarize the whole article in it. nableezy - 16:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

this is extremely, indeed provocatively, poor,GHcool and just won't do. When I said the lead should be short and sweet that was not meant to provide an excuse for gutting it to repress any reference to what anti-Zionism often is motivated by. Leads for articles like this have 3/4 paras, briefly summarizing the article, which this fails to do, as floundering over whether we can get away with pressing the POV that anti-Semitism =Zionism wastes our time. So the earlier form, already excessively terse must be restored, and a para added summing up per WP:Lede the history of anti-Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with reverting if that is what Nableezy wants as well. --GHcool (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Think the lead needs to be rewritten, not just reworked. Ill work on something over the next couple of days and present it here. nableezy - 18:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe we're relying on this for a definition of AZ.Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's see what Nableezy does. I doubt, however, that a more Wikipedia-acceptable source and definition can be found than Webster. --GHcool (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Original:

Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism. The term is broadly defined in the modern era as opposition to the State of Israel or, prior to 1948, the Jewish community in the Land of Israel, as well as to the political movement of Jews to self-determination. The anti-Zionism movement has attracted supporters and controversy, including within the broader Jewish community. Critics of anti-Zionism accuse it as a cover for modern-day antisemitism, that it may be motivated by prejudices against Jewish people, or creating a climate where antisemitism is viewed as acceptable. Defenders of anti-Zionism have rejected these characterizations and counter-accuses critics of attempting to stifle legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies, particularly of Israeli military actions and occupation of the West Bank.

Current:

Anti-Zionism views Zionism, the movement for Jewish statehood that produced the State of Israel, as a colonialist, racist or exceptionalist ideology or movement. Critics of anti-Zionism claim that it often serves as a cover for modern-day antisemitism. Anti-Zionists reject these claims and assert that their critics are attempting to stifle legitimate criticisms of Israeli policies.

Proposal:

Anti-Zionism is the opposition to Zionism, the movement that sought to, and ultimately succeeded, establish a Jewish state in the region of Palestine. Broadly encompassing political opposition to Zionism prior to the formation of the modern state of Israel and since its 1948 founding opposition to the state and its policies, anti-Zionism spans a range of political, social, and religious views, both among Jews and outside of Judaism. Prior to World War II, anti-Zionism was widespread among Jews for varying reasons, with Orthodox Jews opposing on religious grounds and more secular Jews opposing the idea that Judaism constituted as national or ethnic identity. Following the war and widespread understanding of the scale of the Holocaust, Jewish support for Zionism grew, along with changes in the once gradual aims of the early Zionists, with Jewish groups formerly opposed to Zionism either largely disintegrating, such as the Bundists, or transforming in to a non-Zionism or pro-Zionism view. Non-Jewish anti-Zionism likewise spanned communal and religious groups, with the Arab population of Palestine largely opposed to what they considered the colonial dispossession of their homeland. Among Arabs, opposition to Zionism was, and continues to be, widespread, among both Christians and Muslims.

Anti-Zionist views are also expressed by anti-semitic groups and individuals, while other anti-Zionists have opposed the co-opting of their views by what they consider to be racists masquerading as anti-Zionists. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress and some academics taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-semitic, while other groups such as Jewish Voice for Peace and other academics rejecting any such linkage as unfounded and a method to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including in its occupation of the Palestinian West Bank.

Ill say that while reading this article to try to summarize it, I am legit dismayed at how terribly it is written. This thing needs a rewrite from top to bottom. I started at the top. nableezy - 14:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Counter-proposal: I took Nableezy's generally well written Proposal and made a few edits. My edits are in italics:

Anti-Zionism is the opposition to Zionism, the movement that sought, and ultimately succeeded, to establish a Jewish state in the region of Palestine. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, anti-Zionism evolved into opposition to the state and its policies. Anti-Zionism spans a range of political, social, and religious views. [removed "both among Jews and outside of Judaism" since the very next sentence details the phenomenon of Jewish anti-Zionism.] Prior to World War II, anti-Zionism was widespread among Jews for varying reasons. Orthodox Jews opposed Zionism on religious grounds and more secular Jews felt uncomfortable with the idea that Jewish peoplehood was a national or ethnic identity. Following the war and widespread understanding of the scale of the Holocaust, Jewish support for Zionism grew, [removed along with changes in the once gradual aims of the early Zionists,] with Jewish anti-Zionist groups either disintegrating, [removed "such as the Bundists,"] or transforming into non- or pro-Zionist organizations. Non-Jewish anti-Zionism likewise spanned communal and religious groups, with the Arab population of Palestine largely opposed to what they considered the colonial dispossession of their homeland. Among Arabs, opposition to Zionism was, and continues to be, widespread, among both Christians and Muslims.

Anti-Zionist views are also expressed by antisemitic groups and individuals. [removed "while other anti-Zionists have opposed the co-opting of their views by what they consider to be racists masquerading as anti-Zionists" since this appears to be few and far between. Even if you disagree with me on this point, I think you'll agree that it is disputed enough that it doesn't belong in the lead.]. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is debated. Academics and organizations that study antisemitism such as the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress take the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. Some academics reject any such linkage as unfounded and a method to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including in its occupation of the Palestinian West Bank. [Removed mention of Jewish Voice for Peace since the organization isn't even mentioned in the article at all.]

As far as few and far between and disputed, no I dont think that is true. There are countless examples of anti-Zionists condemning anti-semites for attempting to whitewash their racism with the veneer of a political alliance with pro-Palestinians. See for example this or this or this, and Im sure you know that list can grow. I also object to Academics and organizations that study antisemitism contrasted with Some academics, I could just as easily say Some academics and avowedly Zionist organizations such as. nableezy - 16:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the final paragraph should start "Anti-Zionist views are also expressed by some antisemitic groups and individuals", since many antisemites do support Zionism and the removal of Jews from other societies and their territorial concentration elsewhere. RolandR (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum, so I do not want to debate how few and far between anti-Zionist condemnation of antisemitism is. All I will say is that one source that Nableezy linked to details an internal debate within the anti-Zionist community about how much antisemitism they are willing to tolerate. Perhaps if this internal debate were even mentioned in the body of the article, I'd be willing to consider placing the claim in the lead. But it isn't, so it shouldn't be here. Furthermore, this link does not mention Zionism at all. Palestinian advocacy is not the same as anti-Zionism. (For what it is worth, I myself am a Zionist who hopes and prays for a day when Palestinian self-determination is a reality).

"I would not object to changing Academics and organizations that study antisemitism to Some academics and avowedly Zionist organizations such as. I would also not object to "Anti-Zionist views are also expressed by some antisemitic groups and individuals." --GHcool (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Daveout Id prefer you retain Palestinians instead of in Palestine. nableezy - 22:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

the repeated "among" doesn't look good. -Daveout(talk) 22:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Palestinians should be mentioned and linked in the lead. However you want to phrase it, not just simply as the Arab population of Palestine. nableezy - 22:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Soviet anti-Zionism

The coverage of the subject suffers from two major drawbacks (both in the main article and in the summary here). See Talk:Soviet anti-Zionism#Major issues. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See alsos

@Tombah: Please provide evidence that Israel and the apartheid analogy and Jewish assimilation are "frequently described as anti-Zionist views" (according to your edit summary reverting the deletion of these) If that is the case, then it ought to be possible to find suitable sourcing allowing the incorporation of these links directly into the article.Selfstudier (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't going to bother with this, but my edit comment said 'tenuous' for a reason. Anti-Zionism is not mentioned at all on Israel and the apartheid analogy, and is mentioned only once on Jewish assimilation in reference to prejudice within Israel towards interfaith couples, who can be accused of being 'anti-Zionist' - a grim piece of bigotry I hope is not mainstream. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Julius

Julius now has more than 20 references in the article. It is way more than a single source deserves and some of the citations don't even establish their relevance to the topic. Pruning by 2/3 or 3/4 is appropriate. Zero^talk 01:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and given that this is Princess Diana's divorce lawyer we are talking about, it's not entirely surprising that a lot of it (or a lot of what we see here) is material that clearly advocates a position (as if in court) and actually carries us away from a mature, scholarly and usefully encyclopedic subject summary. As noted on the Trials of the Diaspora page by actual historian Dominic Sandbrook: "Many readers... will part company with Julius in his final chapters, where he effectively suggests that criticism of Israel is inextricably bound up with anti-Semitism ... This strident tub-thumping is unworthy of such a learned author, and makes an unsatisfying conclusion to an otherwise thoughtful and impressive book." All of this is additional information worth mulling over when considering due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The book is published by Oxford University Press. It received rave reviews upon its release from practically everyone in the field. It is incredibly well researched. I don't think pruning or censorship or Wikipedia:I just don't like it is the appropriate course to take. --GHcool (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely be pruning tub thumping or find a way to summarize. Especially since it would appear to be no more than a minority view. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm perplexed by numerous studies of the kind Julius embarked on. The record is undisputable, but one has no inkling that prejudice has afflicted numerous other ethnic groups for centuries, England is no exception. I'm prejudiced of course. I find this endless identitarian grievance, fear, outrage and expostulation all over our cultural landscape, as each constituency, ethnic, gender, political, whatever, scrapes a sense of universal principles, except to exploit the rhetoric of injured feelings in so far as it affects one's own circle. Were anyone to use Julius (or Schama)'s approach to Palestinians, you'd get a book of the same length, of the same force, of the same sense of inexpungible prejudice in their regard by the 'host' society under whose dominion they live. But no, Julius can't see anything over the other side of his Israel=Jews ergo, anti-Zionism is almost always borderline antisemitic. That discourse has won the field, gets rave reviews in the right quarters. You're quite correct on this GHcool. In that perspective most I/P editors here are suspect antisemites. Well, stiff cheddar. But not forum. I agree that 20 refs to one source, which is intensely opinionable - a lawyer's highly partisan case against a highly variegated constituency of people and scholars whose impressions of 'Zionism' are grounded in facts AJ can't dispute) is undue, and needs trimming. Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And yet, Oxford University Press published this book and it is considered authoritative. I've added a few relevant quotations to the footnotes for context. --GHcool (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No one has said that it does not reliably reflect Anthony Julius' "tub-thumping" views on the subject; just that these are only due certain weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"Considered authoritative" by whom? RolandR (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because something is in a book doesn't mean it has to go in the article. It is clear from this discussion that there is agreement on that. Not to mention that it only deals with the British case. Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Guardian review "He could have demonstrated this by continuing to write the history of antisemitism from 1967 on, instead of wasting 150 pages on political polemic. There is merit in the earlier sections of this book, but the deficient treatment of anti-Zionism casts a shadow over the whole work." Antony Lerman, former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. That's at least two reviews criticizing the work specifically for its treatment of AZ, which treatment provides the majority of the refs in the article. Continuing to add material from this source in the middle of a discussion about doing that is also objectionable. Selfstudier (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer reviews surmise that it is "tendentious" [1], "a book with a title that is at best misleading" [2], and a work lacking in historical bearing: "The study is interdisciplinary in its variety of sources as well as in its author’s profession as a lawyer rather than a historian. But, unfortunately, the fact that Julius is not a professional historian is more of a liability than an advantage in this case." [3]. Another notes: "while his own analysis is competent, he does not engage with important scholarship on the Jew in English literature from Valman, Shapiro and particularly Bryan Cheyette. Though Julius might disagree with their analysis, to simply ignore them seems antithetical to scholarly practice [...] Though many of his points are persuasively argued, his lack of balance and scholarly analysis proves detrimental to his argument" [4]. These are just a sample of the various available caveats. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

ABS review "Concern with the critics of Israel and with anti-Zionism presents itself here as the main focus and raison d’etre for the entire book." and "Julius is quite condescending about anti-Zionist arguments, often dismissing them without sufficient engagement. His harshest criticism is reserved for Jews who express what he considers anti-Zionist views." Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I spent some time with Julius' book. Lawyers are trained to be able to make an argument for or against any proposition. In this case, Julius is not content to employ only the usual device of portraying anti-Zionism as antisemitic in its essence, but he also looks for clear cases of antisemitism and labels them as anti-Zionist. Good for him, but we aren't a jury who needs to pay attention whether we like it or not. It is obvious that the consensus here is that Julius is over-represented in the article. It is also an obvious violation of the requirement to balance the presentation of viewpoints. There are also some examples that, if they stay, must be reworded. For example "his research indicates" is not a valid way to attribute an opinion. There are also examples like "Julius's research indicates that Muslim anti-Zionism is plagued by a particularly violent form of antisemitic invective." which are supported by a page that just has some anecdotes involving a handful of people. Zero^talk 09:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There are quite a few reviews that do not square with "rave reviews", David Cesarani The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 84, No. 3 (September 2012), pp. 719-720 The University of Chicago Press "This enables him to dismiss virtually any criticism of Jews and Israel as irrational and to demean the doubts expressed by Jews themselves. Too often his lawyerly tone and the pounding rhetoric betray an ulterior motive. At one point Julius asks, “The question arises, is it indecent to deplore the anti-Semitic aspect to the response to the King David Hotel and Dier Yassin atrocities?” (333). Well, it may or may not be “indecent,” but is this a pertinent line of inquiry in the first place? In the end, Julius is a victim of his own judgmental and ahistorical approach" Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we have quite enough evidence here to support the aforementioned pruning. Perhaps a section only about Julius book and a summary of what it says about AZ, all these refs scattered all over the article are completely unnecessary, since we know from these reviews what the point is going to be in almost every case. Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Just out of scruple, I speedreread David Daiches wonderfully Joycean memoir of his childhood as a Jew, a Scot and an English boy in Edinburgh, Was: A Pastime from Time Past (1975) because when I read long excerpts from AJ's book when it came out, it struck me as a total quasi paranoid caricature of what being Jewish in England generally was like (so many different experiences of course). Lawyer? Well, his approach is inimitably captured by the anecdote about the rag merchant in judge Sir Stephen Sedley's'Short Cuts,' London Review of Books vol 40 No 9, 10 May 2018. Do one's math. If the massive newspaper overdosing of hysteria about criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism were based on Jewish experiences, how does one square that with the fact that 90% of the world's Jewish population) lives in two countries where anti-Semitism (in the classical use of that term) forms little if any part of one's experience of being a Jew. The reviews above, esp. by David Cesarani who had a profound professional knowledge of the topic unlike Julius, only confirm that excessive use of AJ is an abuse, and highly POV-pointy at that.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above, this is not an article on Anti-Zionism according to Anthony Julius. Even if it is a reliable source, though it is mostly opinion, it is an insane violation of WP:DUE. nableezy - 20:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring, pruning of Julius

Here are all 22 sentences in the article ascribed to Julius and his book:

Jewish anti-Zionists partner with like-minded non-Jewish groups, but tend to shy away from some of the overt antisemitism found in those groups.[6]

According to Anthony Julius, anti-Zionism, a highly heterogeneous phenomenon, and Palestinian nationalism, are separate ideologies; one need not have an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be an anti-Zionist.[35,1]

Anti-Zionist thought, according to Julius, rarely rises above the coarse standard of these stereotypes [35,2]

Government officials in charge of the administration of the British Mandate for Palestine were anti-Zionist.[36]

The British press during the Mandate period followed suit. Editorials frequently decried the heavy burden it was to govern the land with competing national interests and claimed that Zionism's promise of a homeland for the Jewish people with civil rights for its Arab citizens was impossible to realize. Much of this sentiment was flavored with the anti-Bolshevism and antisemitism of the time.[37]

According to Anthony Julius, anti-Zionism in the Muslim world is often flavored with classically European antisemitic canards. His research indicates that Palestinian media frequently portrays Zionists as child-murderers, echoing the medieval blood libel. A 2003 Syrian-produced anti-Zionist television series, "Al-Shatat," depicts scenes of Jews baking matza with the blood of gentile children.[46]

Indeed, comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany became a popular staple of anti-Zionist rhetoric due to the influence of Soviet propaganda in the late 1960s and early 1970s.[82]

A 1972 publication of the Soviet Information Office of Paris argued that Zionism's "racism" and "atrocities" are rooted in the Hebrew Bible.[84] "Soviet anti-Zionism was credibly considered the greatest threat to Israel and Jews generally. ... This 'anti-Zionism' survived the collapse of the Soviet system."[85]

The Durban Conference organized by the United Nations in 2001 was ostensibly about combatting racism. However, the themes that emerged from the conference were condemnation of Zionism and downplaying antisemitism. Indeed, Zionism was the only form of nationalism condemned at the conference.[88]

An internal debate is occurring within the Far Left over how much cooperation with Islamism ought to be pursued. In the 2000s, leaders from the far-left Respect Party and the Socialist Workers Party of the United Kingdom met with leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah at international conferences in Cairo.[89]

Research by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) shows a positive correlation between respondents who agree with statements critical of Israel and those who agree with statements that are antisemitic.[100]

In 2010, Oxford University Press published Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England by Anthony Julius. In that book, Julius claims that "[a]nti-Semitism is implicated in contemporary anti-Zionism in much the same way as it was implicated in the anti-Bolshevism in the 1920s. It is as difficult for today's anti-Zionist to evade anti-Semitism as it was for the anti-Bolshevist of ninety years ago. Bolshevik Jews in alliance with New York were fomenting world unrest .... Zionist Jews in alliance with Washington are the cause of global instability."[107]

Anti-Zionist thought, according to Julius, rarely rises above the coarse standard of these stereotypes.[35] Julius's research indicates that Muslim anti-Zionism is plagued by a particularly violent form of antisemitic invective.[108]

Some anti-Zionists argue that they cannot be antisemitic because the Arabs they support against Israel are Semites. They sometimes go so far as to claim that Israel is "antisemitic" due to its treatment of Palestinians. This argument, however, misunderstands the history and etymology of the English word "antisemitism," which refers solely to prejudice against Jews.[116]

A similar conspiracy theory is belief in a powerful, well-financed "Zionist lobby" that clamps down on criticism of Israel and conceals its crimes.[119][120]

Zionists are able to do this in the United Kingdom, according to Shelby Tucker and Tim Llewellyn, because they are in "control of our media"[121] and "suborned Britain's civil structures, including government, parliament, and the press."[122]

Anti-Zionism is a major component of Holocaust denial. One strain of Holocaust denial states that Zionists cooperated with the Nazis and charges Zionism with guilt for the crimes committed during the Holocaust.[123] Deniers see Israel as having somehow benefitting from what they refer to as "the big lie" that is the Holocaust.[124] Some Holocaust deniers claim that their ideology is motivated by concern for Palestinian rights.[125]

So which ones go, which ones stay, which ones amalgamated? Suggestions on a postcard. please. However it ends up, I think we need to also clarify/include that there are critical reviews of this book. I'd keep ref 107 in some form and get rid of all the rest (just kidding).

Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we can cross some out as we go? There are two in the middle, with Hezbollah and the ADL, that do not even mention Zionism, so they're utter duds. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

116 and 125, which, respectively, contain "Some anti-Zionists" and "Some Holocaust deniers", both vague statements even before the off-piste follow-up. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pruning the entire article

Its not just Julius. This article is too long. I propose pruning the following:

• "These have included Nahmanides" thru "fulfilled in a messianic age." Y
• "It remains a basic tenet of Zionist ideology." Y
• "Attitudes changed during and following the war." Y
• "Their contributions to what's becoming normative discourse are toxic." Y
• "Islamic maps of the Middle East frequently do not show the State of Israel." Y --GHcool (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

One thing at a time. By the way, apropos 'pruning'. Don't use the stated goal of concision as a justification for wiping out core details, as you did in eliding the fact that Filistin was a Christian-owned newspaper.Nishidani (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you think the religion of the owner of an anti-Zionist newspaper is a core detail on the topic of anti-Zionism, then far be it from me to remove it without debating first. I shall not prune that area. But here's a few more areas to prune:

• removing all the little itty bitty sections out of the larger "Christian community" section. These could easily just be divided into regular paragraphs like every other section and reduce clutter in the table of contents. Y
• Remove all of "Jewish anti-Zionism" as most of it is directly copied and pasted into the article dedicated to Jewish anti-Zionism. We can simply link to the larger article.
• "Political Zionism and Christian Zionism are anathema" thru "John Stott" Y
• "The picture it paints of both Judaism and Israel is barely even a caricature." Y
• "Charles and John Wesley, founders of the Methodist Church, held Restorationist views." (although this is interesting in and of itself, it is only tangentially related to anti-Zionism) Y
• "No Arab country" thru "denounced the vote." Y
• "The Durban Conference" thru "condemned at the conference." (this is cited to Julius) Y
• "A number of sources link anti-Zionism with antisemitism." Y
• "Antizionists distinguish between the two, claiming the first is antisemitism, but the second is not." Y
• "Bolshevik Jews in alliance" thru "standard of these stereotypes." (another portion cited to Julius) Y
• "Evidence of direct linkage has been difficult to establish empirically." Y
• "Above all, these results counsel against facile accusations concerning the intentions of the Israeli government’s critics." Y
• "The sociologist Steven M. Cohen likewise finds little correlation between antisemitism and anti-Zionism." Y --GHcool (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging Jewish anti-Zionism back in/deleting duplication

Jewish anti-Zionism was on 30 June turned from a redirect into a page by copying the Jewish anti-Zionism section from here without attribution (by an editor with 250 edits). I'm not sure entirely what prompted it, but rather than unilaterally undo this, I think it would be best to formally discuss and hash out exactly why we do not need to create a false dichotomy or POVFORK here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why it was copied there either. The only reason I can think of for doing it is because the current anti-Zionism article is pretty long. Perhaps somebody thought that splitting up this long section was a good idea. Personally, I agree with Iskandar323 that it would be better if it was just part of this article. --GHcool (talk) 05:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on whether it's a WP:POVFORK risk or whether to invoke WP:PAGEDECIDE, but I'll note that Jewish anti-Zionism meets GNG independent of anti-Zionism more broadly, so we could split off such an article if it ever seems like a better way to present information to readers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I did consider this, but the bulk of the sources seem to address the subject holistically, not split up in this particular way. Either way, it merits discussion first. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Chronology or collective-based history?

My initial observation on seeing this article was the artificiality of its divisions. Should this article even be written out in the current format, divided into sections based on different collectives, or should it be written out in a more normative, chronologically ordered history, mentioning different views as and when they arise? In my mind, there could still be some other sections on specific groups or allegiances, but my feeling is that the more historically contextualized elements, such as the 'international community' part, should really just form part of a contiguous history of the opposition to the ideology. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Or, if a Jewish/non-Jewish division is still perceived as necessary, perhaps at least the other parts could actually be woven into a chronological narrative? Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a chronological history is the right approach. (We have this in Timeline of anti-Zionism). At the same time, I don't think the primary division should be Jewish vs. non-Jewish. I don't mind it organized by community (Jewish, Palestinian, British, etc). Another approach may be to categorize by ideological perspective; sections could have headings such as "Anti-colonialism," "realpolitik," "Islamism," etc. --GHcool (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Eurgh, a timeline is a grim format for a complex subject - not sure what good that sort of page is supposed to do. Some broad time-period divisions do of course makes sense, however: pre- and post-WWII and pre- and post-1948 are clearly significant ideological inflection points for Zionism and therefore also any ideological trends in opposition to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reorganization largely by argument

I reorganized the article. Instead of by community (Jewish, non-Jewish, Christian, etc.), it is not organized by type of argument. I cut out any repeated argument (for example, many of the Christian arguments were echoed in the left wing world). --GHcool (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Check. This is patently false

Zionism was routinely condemned in Germany since 1870s as an element of the antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination.(ref name="Penslar")

If anyone knows Penslar's work, that is patent tripe. It is patent nonsense because anachronistic, anti-Zionism preceding the formal rise of Zionism as a doctrine itself). The quality of editing here is such that junk statements like that, and there are plenty here, are plunked in and remain without any stir from the reader/editorship, for years. I gather the source is

• Derek Penslar. "Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism: A Historical Approach." in Derek J. Penslar, Michael R. Marrus, Janice Gross Stein (eds.) Contemporary Antisemitism: Canada and the World, University of Toronto Press, 2020 ISBN 978-1-487-52624-5 pp.80-95.

Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It is typical of the constant degeneration this article has suffered since 2016, with the evisceration of much of the cogent evidence that anti-Zionism was a dominant element in Jewish thought down to the 1930s (that is why the Timeline is required, which had been shifted off the article as something external to it, rather than something which captures the key events in anti-Zionism far better than this article does) and its substitution by focusing on anti-Zionism as an anti-Semitism as a response to the establishment of the state of Israel. That is, apparently, the remit of editors who have driven the article since then, particularly in light of the legislative proposals pushed by Israeli authorities to get this accepted as an accurate equation, rather than being an historical anomaly.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I do not own the book and the relevant pages are not on Google Books. I will reserve it from the library and check. This might take a week or two. Please do not delete for now. --GHcool (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I got that chapter via Wikilibrary (search the chapter on De Gruyter).

There is this on p84:

"In Germany, by contrast, from the 1870s onward, antisemites were wont to judge Zionism more harshly, as a manifestation of ongoing global Jewish chicanery. Wilhelm Marr, who is credited with coining the term ‘antisemitism’ in the late 1870s, wrote here and there throughout the 1880s about shipping all of Europe’s Jews to Palestine, where they could put their boundless energy and resources to work in creating a model polity, a Musterstaat. Yet this relativelysanguine attitude did not survive the passage of time, as Marr’s antisemitic world view grew ever darker and more bitter. Marr wrote at the time of the First Zionist Congress of 1897 that ‘the entire matter is a foul Jewish swindle, in

order to divert the attention of the European peoples from the Jewish problem.’ Marr did not elaborate on his opposition to Zionism, for, as with Drumont and the other antisemites we have analysed thus far, Zionism was far from central to Marr’s concerns."

Idk how you get "routinely condemned" or antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination from that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

"Routinely condemned" in the article = "wont to judge Zionism more harshly" in the source ("wont" means accustomed to doing something)

"antisemitic canard of Jewish world domination" in the article = "a manifestation of ongoing global Jewish chicanery" in the source

If you don't think summary in the article is worded accurately, I am more than happy to quote Penslar directly in the article. --GHcool (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph is clear that it was "antisemites" that were responsible not anti-Zionists, this seems like a backdoor method of equating the two so I am removing that sentence. The succeeding sentences probably need scrutiny as well. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ditto the following sentence, it says quoted in Penslar, but Penslar goes on to say that "Marr did not elaborate on his opposition to Zionism, for, as with Drumont and the other antisemites we have analysed thus far, Zionism was far from central to Marr’s concerns. Again, the equating of the two things is wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

And the Nazi ideology, Penslar writes "Even in Nazi ideology, however, Zionism was little more than an addendum to a well-worn diatribe against international Jewish political machinations and inveterate malevolence. The presence of the Zionist movement did not substantively add to or detract from pre-existing modes of antisemitic sensibility". Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I am removing the last sentence of that para (Duhring) as well, the antisemitic connection with antiZionism is less than weak. Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Am I not correct in saying that anti-Zionism was originally a Jewish reaction to Zionism (eg Montagu 1917 "Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed") as somewhat covered in the pre 48 Religious section? The article should address the origin of AZ and subsequent development.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The earlier stuff is fairly well populated in the Timeline of anti-Zionism, including the note above about Montagu and murmurings dating back to the C19th. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, right, I have just now noticed your commentary in the section Chronology or collective-based history? up above. Hum, still think we need some broad brush commentary about the origin and subsequent development in this article, particularly the idea that AZ = AS. Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And it may be worth noting the statement of the German rabbis explicitly condemning Zionism and denouncing the proposal to hold the first Zionist Congress in Munich. "On 6 July the five-man executive committee of the German rabbinate did what no other country-wide Jewish secular or religious organization had done: it formally and publicly condemned the ‘efforts of the so-called Zionists to create a Jewish National State in Palestine’ as contrary to Holy Writ, and drew a sharp distinction between legitimate efforts to assist Jewish settlers in the Holy Land, and the illegitimate purposes of the Zionists." (David Vital, The Origins of Zionism, Oxford University Press 1980, p336). RolandR (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

And, of course, the most significant Jewish political movement in the pre-WWII period, The Bund, was anti-Zionist,[5] one reason being that Zionsim was perceived as racist.     ←   ZScarpia   12:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe can go back even further 1845 https://israeled.org/reform-assembly/ Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on this particular quote, but strongly support the general point being made here by Nishidani, Selfstudier, RolandR and ZScarpia that the pre-1948 section needs to be significantly enlarged to do justice to the mainstream anti-Zionism both of liberal/conservative assimilationist Jewish communal leaderships in the diaspora (e.g. the Anglo-Jewish Association) and of the various socialist and diasporist currents on the Jewish left, of which the Bund is the most important, although Autonomism, Folkism and Territorialism are all significant. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Brauman/Badiou et al in the lead

I'm not sure if this has already been discussed, but I'm concerned about the citation of Badiou et al in the lead. The text currently says "According to one analysis...". The citation is to Alain Badiou et al. This text is quite controversial text.[6][7] The citation is to the section by Ivan Segré. I don't have the book but the Google books snippet shows that Segré is quoting an interview with Rony Brauman, which might not merit the word "analysis". I really don't think this is solid enough or useful enough to be in the lead, and suggest it be moved to the opening of the section "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism", with attribution to Brauman. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bob. I put it there under the stress of immediate concerns here, but realized that it is not lead material, and indeed in reviewing the page presently I will removed it, as you yourself suggest,down the page. The citation is taken from the Conclusion, or summing up of the whole work, a summary of the analyses preceding it. All books I am familiar with on this topic enter into a critical crossfire depending on the POV of the reviewers. As an editor I've little time for Badiou, just as I have little time for Anthony Julius's book which is highly prized as a source here. But since both are RS, you'll not find me objecting to either. I'll adjust according to your suggestions.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevancies

This edit is surely wrong. Why are these irrelevancies here? They aren't cited to anything. There is no information anywhere in the article about the phenomenon of Zionist antisemitism. I don't assume bad faith on the part of the editors that added these irrelevancies, but the effect (if not the intent) is to poison the well or engage the reader in whataboutism. The offending portion is this part: "Supporters of Zionism have frequently highlighted that Anti-Zionist views are expressed by some antisemites, just as pro-Zionist views are expressed by other antisemites. The relationship between anti-Zionism, pro-Zionism and antisemitism is debated ...." It is clear how silly and irrelevant this is when other ideologies are given the same treatment:

1. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the Black Lives Matter article: "Supporters of Black Lives Matter have frequently highlighted that views contrary to Black Lives Matter are expressed by some racists, just as views in support of Black Lives Matter are expressed by other racists. The relationship between opposition to Black Lives Matter, support for Black Lives Matter and racism is debated ...."
2. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the LGBT rights article: "Supporters of LGBT rights have frequently highlighted that views contrary to LGBT rights are expressed by some homophobes, just as views in support of LGBT rights are expressed by other homophobes. The relationship between opposition to LGBT rights, support for LGBT rights and homophobia is debated ...."
3. Consider the following hypothetical uncited portion in the lead of the 2017 Women's March article: "Supporters of the Women's March have frequently highlighted that opposition to the Women's March is expressed by some misogynists, just as views in support of the Women's March are expressed by other misogynists. The relationship between opposition to the Women's March, support for the Women's March and misogyny is debated ...."

If no good argument is given for why these uncited irrelevancies should be included in the article, then I will remove them within the next couple of days. GHcool (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I kind of agree with GHcool, unless a source is tying anti-Zionism with antisemitism by Zionists then it is just whatabboutism. nableezy - 20:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually anti-Semitic pro-Zionism, the obverse of what much editing here has tried to affirm -i.e., an intrinsic nexus between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism - is well-documented, and quite a few sources on the former do note that, esp. in evangelical circles, pro-Zionism masks anti-Semitism, indeed, it is inscribed in the theology of evangelical pro-Zionism since the 'ingathering of Jews' into Israel is a precondition for their conversion to Christianity on the eve of the Messiah's return (Jews who fail to convert will suffer annihilation). This is very well-known among American Jews, as polls consistently show, their widespread private diffidence over the Christian right's support of Israel, which is appreciated politically, but not otherwise. If one is trying to skewer opposition to an ideological system of thought (Zionism) as inherently 'antisemitic' as a mother-lode of respectable pro-Israeli writers have done, a note on this complexity is more than due.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats all well and good for the article Zionist antisemitism, but absent a source directly tying that antisemitism among Zionists as being related to anti-Zionism it does not belong here. Its saying ok there are racists here, but there are racists there too. nableezy - 21:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If you read carefully (not only the linked pages) the contexts in which the several books I cite mention anti-Zionism, the two are linked. I have linked the lead to that article whose title is, by the way, inept, in failing to distinguish 'Zionist' - a word normally used of Jews who espouse that ideology - and 'pro-Zionist', which is used of non-Jews who embrace the same religio-political creed. (Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Still dont really see it, that source is saying exactly what I wrote, that ok there are racists here, but there are racists there too, but adds there are non-racists here. It doesnt actually connect the topic of anti-Zionism with the topic of "antisemitic Zionism" or "Zionist antisemitism". nableezy - 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What source? I cited several for the mention of anti-Semitism among pro-Zionists in the context of anti-Semitism among Zionists. I've had a long day, but anyone with a little work can find that this point is made frequently. And it is important, given the extraordinary effort Israel and its supporters have made to define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic, even while evangelicals, who theologically at least, are anti-Semitic, rope-a-dope themselves into pro-Zionism. It is a mirror relationship and therefore absolutely congruent with the topic. Time for me to have a fag to get rid of my bronchitis, and hit the fartsack.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The one added to the lead. But again, I dont think it is a mirror relationship is a valid cause of inclusion. It still reads as whataboutism, and to the WP prefix minded, as WP:SYNTH. nableezy - 23:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is correct. It is whataboutism, victim blaming, and borderline offensive. But even if none of the above were true, it simply isn't relevant to an article about anti-Zionism. I have reverted the silliness. --GHcool (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

GHcool’s examples above are not applicable – they are missing the causality. If some BLM supporters are racist, some LGBT rights supporters are homophobes and some WM supporters are misogynists, they are not supporting those things because of those stated beliefs. There is no causality. That is why these are not documented or documentable connections. Just random chance.

On the other hand, Zionism antisemitism is a widely documented phenomenon, where the Zionism is a direct result of the person’s antisemitism.

Ultimately of course we follow sources. There are no sources connecting the themes that GHcool imagined above. But there are many sources connecting Antizionist antisemitism with Zionist antisemitism, as Nishidani has shown. Some other examples are Professor Gilbert Achcar (Achcar, Gilbert (2017-11-02). "Zionism, anti-semitism, and the Balfour Declaration". openDemocracy.) and Professor Joseph Massad (Massad, Joseph (2019-05-15). "Pro-Zionism and antisemitism are inseparable, and always have been". Middle East Eye.)

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

GHcool removed this from the lead as irrelevant and unsourced. RolandR disagreed, stating (a) leads don’t require sources and (b) affirming the removed matter was relevant.

• (2) I satisfied GHCool’s request for sources, adding:

(a) Gerald J.Steinacher,‘The Oldfest Post-Truth? The Rise of Antisemitism in the United States and Beyond in Marius Gudonis, Benjamin T. Jones (eds.), History in a Post-Truth World: Theory and Praxis, Routledge, 2020 ISBN 978-1-000-19822-5 pp.121-141,pp137-140.

(b) Anita Shapira, Israeli Perceptions of Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism, in Jeffrey Herf (ed.), Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism in Historical Perspective: Convergence and Divergence, Routledge, 2013 ISBN 978-1-317-98348-4 pp.229-249 p.231

(c) and a third, namely Alain Badiou, Eric Hazan, Ivan Segre, (eds.), Reflections On Anti-Semitism, Verso Books 2013 ISBN 978-1-781-68115-2 p.232

(d) and a fourth, namely Norman Solomon, 'The Christian Churches on Israel and the Jews,', in Robert S. Wistrich (ed.),Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in the Contemporary World, Springer 1990 ISBN 978-1-349-11262-3 p.143

• GHcool wiped out most of these additions with a second revert on an ARBPIA 1 revert rule page. The gravity of this is that he removed the evidence supplied when he requested it.
• Onceinawhile restored the material on the grounds that GHcool’s second removal was improper given that a discussion was underway on the talk page.

The discussion on the talk page has Nableezy in favour of GHCool’s argument for irrelevance, and Onceinawhile’s support for my argument for the relevance. There is also the fact that RolandR was in favour of retention. GHcool, promoted Nableezy to the Papacy by taking his v verdict as infallible, decisive, but the fact is that three disagree. The discussion so far on the talk page does not warrant an authority to gut the evidence given. II will replay to the substance of GHCool and Nableezy's points later today.Nishidani (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Lewis et al developed the concept of New Antisemitism, which posited that the way that antisemitism is expressed has evolved and now takes the form of attacking Israel. The concept underlies the tendency by Zionists to try to push as far as possible the equation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Frequently, and crudely, statements are made that anti-Zionism is exactly that. A corollary made to support that argument is that antisemitism is very low or absent among non-Jewish supporters of Zionism. In response, anti-Zionists point out the ludicrous historical denialism inherent in that. Practically, Theodor Herzl's first step after publishing "Der Judenstaat" was to send it to prominent antisemites in order to gain their support. Arthur Balfour, who is celebrated by Zionists for the Balfour Declaration, declared himself in agreement with much of what antisemites said and wrote. Previously, while British prime minister, he brought in the Aliens Act of 1905, which was particularly designed to reduce Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe into the UK. The declaration of support for the creation of of a Jewish National Home in Palestine was largely a tool intended to increase support for the granting of control of that place from countries, including the US, which wished to reduce Jewish immigration or encourage their "excess" Jewish population to go elsewhere. In the interwar years, antisemitic regimes in Europe assisted Zionists to direct Jewish emigrants to Palestine, including the giving of military training to Zionists when the British limited Jewish immigration to Palestine in the wake of the Arab Revolt. Despite being an antisemite, Richard Nixon was a strong supporter of Israel, shoreing up Israel with a large arms lift in 1973 (which was a major cause of the subsequent Opec oil embargo). Despite believing in antisemitic conspiracy theories, white nationalists in Europe and North America declare their admiration and support for Israel because they regard the ethnocracy there as a model for their own countries and because they approve of the idea that Israel is THE Jewish state and that diaspora Jews should emigrate there.

The article has already gone down the road of oulining the attempts by Zionist organisations and individuals to portray anti-Zionism as wholly or largely antisemitic. I think that, in the interests of neutrality, the rebuttals coming from anti-Zionists should be included. Currently, Zionist claims have been presented as though they were non-partisan.

    ←   ZScarpia   10:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

A particularly useful source for expanding this would be Non-Jewish Zionism: Its Roots in Western History, by Regina Sharif (Zed Press 1983), which argues that the strong support for the Zionist movement and the Israeli state by non-Jews in the west is based, at least in part, on traditional antisemitism and hostility to Jews. I will reread the book and try to locate a couple of key sentences to add to our article. RolandR (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That would indeed be an important service for the article. It is not available via Google books, but widely cited). Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I still dont get how this is connected to anti-Zionism. By all means, include that in Zionism and in Zionist antisemitism. But what does that have to do with this topic? nableezy - 14:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you can't grasp what strikes, not only myself, but many, and certainly accomplished experts, as obvious. Antisemites, like Edouard Drumont, from the outset, were impressed by Zionism, as an excellent proposal to get Jews to fuck off outta Europe, one proposed by Jews themselves. Herzl himself stated that there would be a natural affinity between Zionists and anti-Semites, since they both sought the same end, to rid Europe/the West of Jews. It lies at the core of early Zionism, and means anti-Zionism when it is antisemitic (the thesis promoted on this page is that the relationship is intrinsic) and anti-Semitic pro-Zionism were perceived as having a perverse elective affinity. Deal with (a) while (b) excluding (as GHcool insists on doing)/ burying this other side of the coin, ignores sources and to a purpose, intended or not, of leaving anti-Zionism as something more or less tantamount to hostility to Jews or Israel or both. You can be hostile to Jews and proudly promote your love of Israel, as recent political events in Italy underline. If you can't see it, I can't help you beyond this point. Your position is that of the numismatist who is only interested in examining the head of a coin, not the tail.Nishidani (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The refutation of "anti-Zionism is antisemitism" is not in any way advanced by "Zionism has antisemites too". But to the point, a source connecting anti-Zionism with antisemitism in Zionism is needed. If somebody is anti-Zionist because of the antisemitism of some Zionists then sure that belongs. But the topic of this article is anti-Zionism, not Zionism. So the source needs to relate directly to that. nableezy - 16:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

the topic of this article is anti-Zionism, not Zionism

Try editing the antimatter article to cancel references to matter and see where that leads to. In conceptual analysis, one supposes the other. This has nothing to do with fair-mindedness. Nableezy certainly is fair-minded, but this concerns the ability to understand the relationship (dialectical or otherwise) of a term and its antonym. We cannot not speak of an antonym unless we are clear about the other term denoting its opposite. I'm ready to admit that Nableezy is one of the finest readers of wiki policy we have, but that can have its dangers if it is the only framework. I.e. in simple terms, if whataboutism is raised, N. will excel in policy interpretation about why Wikipedia must avoid that, and spend less time, certainly here, in weighing what the fundamental content means in practice. Here it is evident policy informs his judgment, and he has given no thought to the fundamentals of linguistics and logic applicable here, which govern language and articles, irrespective of Wikipedia policies. Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is right, not because he is the Pope, but because he is fair minded.

The convergence of interests between a certain type of antisemite and the Zionist movement is an interesting phenomenon worthy of being somewhere on Wikipedia. Indeed, the appropriate place for that information is in the Zionist antisemitism article. It is not here. The "causality" argument fails because anti-Zionism does not cause Zionist antisemitism. This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. To say that anti-Zionist antisemitism and Zionist antisemitism are two sides of the same coin is to say that anti-BLM racism and pro-BLM racism are two sides of the same coin. They might be two types of racism worthy of discussion in the article on racism, but unworthy of consideration in an analysis of BLM's ideology or history. --GHcool (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What makes it relevant are its connection to arguments made by Zionists and the counter-arguments made by anti-Zionists. There are two sides to the Zionist argument which are, roughly: antisemitism is prevalent among anti-Zionists; antisemitism is largely absent among pro-Zionists. Part of the rebuttal by anti-Zionists is to point out the historical denialism inherent in the latter claim, undermining Zionist claims as a whole by highlighting their dishonesty. The second part of the Zionist argument is necessary to the first as any force in the first disappears if the second part is untrue.     ←   ZScarpia  

ZScarpia's comments do not merit a response because Wikipedia is not a forum.

The claim that one must put contentious claims about a topic's antonym is needed to understand the topic itself is evidence of a person who is himself confused about the topic at hand. This is understandable; we are not used to thinking of words with the prefix "anti-" as a subject in and of itself. "Anti-Zionism" has more in common with "anti-abortion" or "anti-capitalism" than it does to "antimatter." "Abortion" and "capitalism" are discussed in their articles. Similarly Zionism is discussed in its article. The anti-Zionism article is about the history and ideology of anti-Zionism, not the merits or faults of any particular argument in favor of Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

These are red-herrings, and the confusion is all yours.

(a) Capitalism's principles are discussed in anti-capitalism, just as fascism is discussed in anti-Fascism. Liberalism lacks so far an article dealing with opposition to it, but covers a minute part of the critical hostility to the concept in a subsection of the article itself.

(b) Zionism is an ideology, a doctrinaire mindset that requires faith rather than cool analysis of the real world of practices, to be the benchmark for those who embrace it- no one contests that. Somewhat distinctively, however, though opposition to Zionism was dominated by Jews for much of its early history, the rise of a state embodying the principles of that ideology, particularly after its expansion in 1967, led its proponents to argue that the opposition to it was anti-Semitic. Hence we had the flourishing of the bizarre (new Antisemitism) theory/meme precisely to promote the idea that opposition to the ideology was actually opposition to Jews, not grounded in concern for human rights (the occupied Palestinians) but rather in the suppression of a human right (the right to a homeland in Palestine for immigrants) for the only (assumed) relevant ethnos, Jewish people the world over. It is rather like saying that the history of opposition to any other ethnic ideology,-because it is ethnic and ideological in its thinking pattern,- say Mussolini's fascism, cannot avoid running the risk of tacitly embodying Anti-Italianism, indeed that hostility to Italians is in variably hidden or just below the surface, of any mention of fascism. A patent nonsense, sand in the eyes.

(c) In practical terms this has entailed, for this article, the incremental shift from focusing on the (strong Jewish) history of anti-Zionism to increased highlighting of the suspected sentiment of hostility to Jews themselves in criticism of Israel. Much of your own editing drifts that way, as far as I can see, and the tendency parallels the diffuse drive by Israel and its supportive groups over the last two decades to shift the goalposts from the conceptual gravamen of anti-Zionism - outrage at human rights abuses -something that can be legally and empirically measured - to get the narrative or discourse reassessed as, really, entangled up in some ostensible antipathy to Jews. In the former, concerns for Palestinians, are slowly, eroded by showcasing rather a putative insensitivity -veiled anti-Semitism - to the concern for Jewish sensitivities-qua people with a putative existential bond to a State of the Jews- as the real issue to be teased out in any criticism either of the state or its programmatic ideology. What about "us", and your attitudes to "us". Talk about "us", your real feelings about "us" not "them".

To state this, as ZScarpia and others have done, here, is not foruming. It is a matter of trying to get editors to clear the elementary confusions, and their historical backgrounds, involved in arguing that an article about an opposition to an ideology must exclude any mention of that ideology itself. Another case of exceptionalist thinking which, fortunately, the actual documentary record, as shown, does not support.

(d) Making out that opposition to a (faith-based) ideology was tantamount to opposition to a real people is what a political pressure ground like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's tendentious Working Definition of Antisemitism was all about. Shifting the goalposts so that opposition to Zionism - traditionally a very 'Jewish' issue,- would, optimally, be branded as tendentially anti-Semitic, an obsession entertained about Israel among non-Jewish people. The article, thus edited, in short, reflects a recent highly politicized recasting of the topic that tends towards anachronistic revisionism via cherrypicked sourcing, WP:Recentism, if one prefers a policy peg.Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

My comments are no more forummy than your own ... and a good deal less patronising, I hope. Don't fabricate "strawmen" to knock down (particularly not strawmen tied together with gobbledygook).     ←   ZScarpia   23:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Resolution

This edit by Nishidani satisfies my concerns about this irrelevancy in the lead. I am willing to accept it this mildly interesting information in the "Anti-Zionism and antisemitism" section. I hope that this edit by me satisfies everyone as well. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Review

This article is well below par. Articles should not stagnate, be tweaked, fiddled with, for two decades without desultoiry attempts to review the results, put them into a standard wiki uniform format, and verify, one by one, all of the given sources, while addiing new ones. The references to Penslar are easily, in the present regime, confused (and he himself alters his emphases from article to article. I, for one, am willing to undertake this, but I only work efficiently if we have format that allows precise page indications for every tidbit of material harvested from source, a distinct bibliography, and a footnoting section. Nishidani (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• One in 7 of the notes (16 of 105) come from Anthony Julius's polemical book. He is not an historian, but a legal mind arguing the case for the certainly antihistorical and somewhat paranoid view that virtually all criticism of Israel/Zionism is tainted with anti-Semitism. That makes hundreds of Jewish thinkers over the last century into self-hating Jews in that they must be, by inference, anti-Semitic. Antony Lerman for one, called his tirade bankrupt, confused and malign.

he defines as anti-Zionism a cluster of different positions from "seeking to fix the world's attention on the injustices of the occupation", through "'Re-partition' anti-Zionism (also known as the 'two-state solution')", to 'Liquidation' anti-Zionism (also known as the "one-state solution')". And, second, he argues that all of them slide ineluctably into antisemitism. The first implies Israel alone is guilty; the second manifests antipathy towards the Zionist ­enterprise; the third wants to cancel the "last surviving Jewish political project of the 20th century". But none of these positions is necessarily anti-Zionist; none of the glosses automatically follows. Antony Lerman, 'Trials of the Diaspora by Anthony Julius,' The Guardian 27 February 2010

Evidently a text that controversial, even in the eyes of a level-headed scholar like Lerman, cannot be deployed to form the backbone of an article: it is like using a papal encyclical on abortion as the analytical framework for an article on abortion. Secondly, just looking at the way it is used, it is self-evident that a good deal of WP:OR has been used, in a way that Nableezy thought objectionable in the context above, i.e., many incidents or facts are cited for anti-Semitism, regardless of whether the pages in question are discussing anti-Zionism. In short, the article essentially is an extension of the muddled thinking behind Julius' polemic. There is a huge literature on this topic, and the use of Julius, aside from these factors, is a case of WP:Undue. At best we should cut back substantially the use of Julius (works specifically on anti-Zionism abound, and, when cited here, are nonetheless restricted to snippets) and summarize the main thust of his polemic/personal view, that anti-Zionism is essentially anti-Semitic.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Julius as a source, but I agree with you that 16/106 footnotes is probably too much for a single source. I began to trim Julius's stuff down and added other sources where necessary. I'll do more when I have more time. --GHcool (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Come now. He's patently, almost one would venture to say, toxically partisan. When you removed my query (how many etc) from the statement below, you evidently saw nothing odd in what is a decidedly extremist opinion passed off as a fact. I.e.

Government officials in charge of the administration of the British Mandate for Palestine were anti-Zionist.=sfn|Julius|2010|p=295

Sure! the first High Commissioner in the early crucial years, who made several major and lasting decisions, was an ardent Jewish Zionist, Herbert Samuel, for example. Jeezus. Anyone assessing Julius’s work has to have a certain intimate familiarity with the people and topics he generalizes about. That remark could only come, perhaps by tertiary sources, from Churchill or Richard Meinertzhagen. Churchill is certainly on record that 90% of the British officials in Mandatory times were opposed to Zionism. No. Many, esp. in the army, just knew that the Balfoiur Declaration would cause them a massive and long-standing headache. Churchill would not brook being bothered by men in high office, in London or Palestine, who opposed him, often on serious technical grounds. Churchill got Meinertzhagen his appointment there, figuring that the latter was a Jew given his intense pro-Zionism. He was right in the last regard: Meinertzhagen was so pro-Zionist he complained to the home office, I think, that the Mandatory authorities were creating obstacles for Zionist gun-running to Palestine (which he supported). But he was also an intense antisemite, (and came to admire Hitler as strongly as he supported Zionism) and was given to railing against anyone who opposed him as ‘anti-Zionists’. Zeinertzhagen was perhaps even Churchill’s source for that generalization, and Meinertzhagen was a forger of his own diaries, a congenital liar. He’s an excellent example of what we are talking about an influential pro-Zionist who was at the same time a self-confessed anti-Semite. We have extensive and detailed studies of the period, its officials, and these Chinese whispers about the Palestine administration’s anti-Zionism are known to be nonsense. So Julius either cherry-picks, or relies on a single outdated rumour that confirms his prejudices, that anti-Zionist are everywhere you look. he just hasn't read the serious literature on the vast complexities he describes with a broadbrush here (as opposed to his medieval excursus) It is pseuds'corner history by muddling details, ignoring sources –history as caricature. Everytime I’ve had occasion to examine parts of that book – it’s unbearably tendentious in its browbeating contextual flaunting of knuckling ignorance – I find junk simplifications. It is useless, in sum, but RS allow it. We should use it only with reservation, and only when there is confirmation in the technical academic literature for this or that point (at which point, the fact that he echoes these renders him expendable by replacement of a stronger source).Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I just finished reading through a bunch of reviews of Julius book and it is fairly clear that it is mainly a polemic. When I have a little time, I will see if I cannot summarize these reviews but for now, I think the trimming/replacement with more thoughtful sourcing is the right approach. Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The English literature aspect of anti-Semitism, much of the book, gets more or less praised but for our purposes here:

"In the closing chapters he deals with the highly charged question of whether particular forms of anti-Zionism are antisemitism in another guise."However, as he develops his argument it turns out that virtually any criticism of Israel, even the suggestion of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, is suspect."(David Cesarani The Journal of Modern History)

"The 2012 paperback edition, under review here, has a new preface by the author intended to respond to several critics of his hardcover edition to remedy the “current muddle concerning the connections between ‘criticism of Israel,’ ‘anti-Zionism,’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ In addition to the preface, Julius concluded the paperback version with a twelve-page outline of his “Propositions on anti-Semitism” that distill his definitions of the muddled terms and their relationship to one another. But rather than adding anything radically new to the work, “Propositions” simply lists in condensed form Julius’s own convictions regarding these terms, as opposed to illustrating how his definitions relate to one another. It remains to be seen whether these additions will satisfy his critics.(Heatheer Miller Rubens, Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies, Journal of Religion)

"There are of course anti-Semites who have merely adopted anti-Zionism as a disguise for their Jew-hatred, and in order to claim respectability for their views or to evade laws against anti-Semitic activity" (p. 578). This sentence, coming on the fourth page from the last, completely undermines the thesis he has devoted so much effort to creating." "I wish there had been a bibliography. In a book with nearly 600 pages of text and nearly 200 pages of notes, a few more listing secondary sources would have been helpful. Did he use Barbara W. Tuchman and Todd M.Endelman? Yes. Did he use N. A. Rose’s The Gentile Zionists: A Study in Anglo-Zionist Diplomacy, 1929–1939 (1973)? I am not sure, but I think not." (Joshua B. Stein Roger Williams University)

"Julius seems to accept, with some hesitation, that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not much different. The book often seems more like a lawyer’s brief than a historical work. All historians are deeply influenced by concerns of the present. The challenge is to use them constructively. On the whole, Julius fails to do so. He mainly seems determined to argue the case that the abomination of antisemitism is alive and well in England" (Peter Stansky Stanford University)

"The final two chapters deal with contemporary anti-Zionism, both secular and confessional, and it is the discussion of this subject that seems in many ways to have been the driving force behind the inception of the book. Julius links the criticisms leveled at Israel to many of the anti-Semitic tropes explored earlier in the book. Here, his tone becomes almost polemic, and though Julius holds that there are ways in which Israel can be criticized without anti-Semitism, the definitions of the two that he uses are not always clear. Particularly in his section on Jewish anti-Zionists, his very personal distaste for the group is clear. Though he mostly skates around describing the group as anti-Semitic he claims: ‘Their perspectives on anti-Semitism are defective; their contributions to anti-Semitism are strong’ (p. 554). Though many of his points are persuasively argued, his lack of balance and scholarly analysis proves detrimental to his argument." (Hannah Farmer University of Southampton)

"The biggest problem with the book is also its rhetorical strength: a capacious definition of antisemitism, viewed as a constant throughout history. The term never serves as a category of analysis, a term that is historicized and in dialogue with its historical context. Julius does not place hostility and distrust of Jews in any historical or cultural context, nor does he seek to evaluate changes in the discourse over time. Furthermore, he does not discuss the distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism that has been well developed in scholarship on this topic. Julius is quite condescending about anti-Zionist arguments, often dismissing them without sufficient engagement. His harshest criticism is reserved for Jews who express what he considers anti-Zionist views.(Dana Rabin The University of Illinois)

"Julius’ definition of the "new" antisemitism would seem to settle the matter: “[The new antisemitism] first emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in consequence of the Six Day War, but became hegemonic in the 1990s and 2000s in consequence of certain developments mostly unrelated to the Middle East [e.g., the collapse of the Soviet Union and—outside of university English departments—Marxism] It is to be distinguished from the ‘old anti-Semitism’ because it takes Israel and the Zionist project as its collective term for the Jews, because its geographic hub is Western Europe, because self-identified Jews are among its advocates, and because it comes from the Left—indeed, has become part of the common sense among people of a broadly progressive temper. It is taken to be continuous with the ‘old anti-Semitism’ in its principal stratagems and tropes, while novel in its specific focus upon the Jewish State." (Edward Alexander Springer) Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

• This erasure is not only unhelpful, but noxiously POV-pushing, in my view. By snipping out a key qualification in the lead's generalization, the reader is left, as before, with a pseudo-fact, the idea that Jewish antizionist organizations historically distintegrated, or became pro-Zionist. That stuck out as an untrue, and decidedly tendentious aut/aut judgment, and I fixed it by adding the exception, the way Reform Judaism did not disintegrate, or endorse Zionism. Part of it reformed, and, conserving its historic position from the late 19th century (which yes, gradually waned by the 30s) continued the tradition of opposition to Zionism. That is an abc level fact of American Jewish history, everyone must know, surely? The excision leaves us with the idea opposition within American Jewry disintegrated by 1942, leaving the fold unitedly 'pro-Zionist'. In any case I will expand on this in the relevant section. Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Added a source

here. Penslar and others who had contributed to a special issue of Journal of Israeli History had their contributions printed up in a book. Selfstudier (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Some queries

This change from American Jewish disapproval of the Balfour Declaration to Reactions to the Balfour Declaration makes no sense. The latter is a vast and generic topic, part of which is addressed in another section: the text simply notes the anti-Zionist reaction in the Jewish community of the United States, which is perfectly summed up by the reverted title.

• The reason for this query over the relevance of

  At the time around half of the CPUSA's membership was Jewish, with perhaps 10% of the American Jewish population joining the movement over a decade

Is obscure. The fact that Zionism, which was a Jewish movement, was opposed by the CPUSA, half of which was Jewish, is obvious relevant, as is the additional point that 10% of the American Jewish community had joined the Party in this period. The original draft was full of shouting details about ‘leftist’ antisemitism, obscuring quite deftly the fact that considerable parts of what constituted the ‘left’ had roots in a Jewish tradition of anti-Zionism. This article will respect the factual record. There is nothing odd or strange or queer about noting the Jewish roots of anti.Zionism, the topic of this article. It is as ‘Jewish’ as Zionism. And statistics are a necessary corrective to a page that indulges in a rally of opinions

There's also something odd in tagging on the basis of a personal opinion, the text, without then arguing the reason for that tag on the talk page. What happens that a tag is dropped, then silence, I assume because the burden of justifying additional material here must be on those whose work is challenged, while the tagger has no need to justify his position, unless challenged in turn. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that "Reactions to the Balfour Declaration" makes a rather limited one-paragraph "section" obsolete and moves it, appropriately, to a broader section that contains all of the reactions to the BD. Hopefully it makes more sense to you now that I have explained it.

You write that it is obviously relevant that half of the CPUSA was Jewish. It isn't obvious to me why this is relevant. If an explanation is not forthcoming, it can only be assumed that the ethnic/religious makeup of the Communist Party is irrelevant to the topic of anti-Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It is obvious to me that you justify removing 'stuff' by the meaningless edit summary 'irrelevances', repeatedly, even this third time. No reasoning, just ìrrelevant'. To whom, you? Sources by experts don't think this material irrelevant.- As to your justification that Reactions to the Balfour Declaration makes a limited one-para section irrelevant, that's comical. Because that is the title you changed it two, altering the earlier, cogently titled American Jewish reactions to the Balfour Declaration (which is a paragraph - I haven't finished with any of these sections yet). In short, that is sheer deception/wikispeak = 'disingenuous.' Change the title so that it suddenly overlaps with another section, and use that as an excuse to merge.

By the way, you have broken 1R (I made an edit between), so you'd better revert at least your last piece of provocative censoring of the historical record.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm still waiting for you, GHGcool, to explain what the word 'irrelevancies' means when you remove what the source quoted states. I e in these erasures

(a)Zionism, like fascism, promoted an ideology of national character and racial community.

That happens to be as succinct a summary of the long passage in the source, Polkehn (1976), which runs:

The attitude of the Zionists towards the encroaching menace of fascist domination in Germany was determined by some core of ideological assumptions: the fascists as well as the Zionists believed in unscientific racial theories, and both met on the same ground in their beliefs in such mystical generalizations as "national character" (Volkstum) and "race", both were chauvinistic and inclined towards "racial exclusiveness." Thus the Zionist official Gerhart Holdheim wrote in 1930 in an edition of' the Suddeutsche Monatshefte, dedicated to the Jewish question (a publication in which, amongst others, leading anti-Semites aired their views): "The Zionist programe encompasses the conception of a homogeneous, indivisible Jewry on a national basis. The criterion for Jewry is hence not a confession of religion, but the all-embracing sense of belonging to a racial community that is bound together by ties of blood and history and which is determined to keep its national individuality." That was the same language, the same phraseology, as the fascists used.

And it is by no means an idiosyncratic 'opinion' (since the literature on anti-Zionism is vast, I try to keep source documentation to a minimum)

efn:Klatzkin also argued that 'If we do not admit the rightfulness of antisemitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism.’

The article in the second part stresses the intimate nexus putatively binding anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, and here, as elsewhere, you are removing RS material that, in the history of anti-Zionism, consistently shows that many Zionists appreciated the utility of anti-Semitism for their purpose of, as with anti-Semites, getting the diaspora rid of their historic assimilated Jewish communities so that they would have to go to Palestine, and become Zionists. The relevance stands out like dogs' balls.Nishidani (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry abut the 1R violation. I didn't realize it. Could you kindly tell me which passage to self-revert? I would be happy to do that.

The clause "like fascism" is an example of poisoning the well and violates NPOV guidelines. Yes, it is an accurate summary of the Polkehn source, but it is an inflammatory claim that isn't necessary. If you chose to quote Polkehn directly and not use Wikipedia's voice in claiming that Zionism is like fascism, I would not object as much (though I still wouldn't like it). The claim that Zionism is like fascism is indeed an idiosyncratic opinion; perhaps not idiosyncratic in the literature of anti-Zionism, but certainly idiosyncratic in the literature on Zionism as a phenomenon in and of itself.

The use of antisemitic diplomacy by Zionists is interesting, but utterly irrelevant to the topic of anti-Zionism. It is pure whataboutism/WP:SYNTH. The irrelevance stands out like horses' balls. --GHcool (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Don't worry about the 1R. I don't report that kind of thing, esp. when I know it's a lapse by an experienced and committed wikipedian. I'll fix it.
• I don't know what well is being poisoned. That idiom itself in recent usage evokes the idea of anti-Semitism. Two points of many:(a) I've just added Stanley Aronowitz's essay 'Setting the Record Straight' , which deals with the thoroughness with which a strong tradition of Jewish critique of Zionism has been erased from the mainstream record. (b) facts are not 'inflammatory'. We don't have an enwiki article on the German Zionist de:Gustav Krojanker's Zum Problem des neuen deutschen Nationalismus. Eine zionistische Orientierung gegenüber den nationalistischen Strömungen unserer Zeit (1932), just on the eve of Hitler's election. Well Krojanker did aliyah that same year, and Haaretz then ran his book in serialized form. In it, he appraised Nazism as a dynamic positive phenomenon, and drew analogies between it and Zionism. (c) I don't use 'according to' willingly when the opinion concerned is not simply that of a single person, but well-attested in others. It's in Krojanker, Brenner, Polkehn, Glass (his quote from the Polish Holocaust survivor Vitold Yadlitzky, who stated that every time he heard his fellow Zionists in Palestine talking of Arabs, he was reminded of how anti-Semites and Nazis describe Jews like himself. 'I would say the only human response to Holocaust is to try not to be like Nazis, in word or in deed. What brought the Holocaust was the racist attitude toward Jews, the division of German society into Jews and non- Jews on grounds of race. This is exactly the same thing that is happening in Israel.'That is not an uncommon testimony), not to speak of all the evidence regarding figures like Arthur Ruppin (I dunno if it's on his wiki page: I haven't got round to doing it thoroughly) etc.etc.etc. Despite their number, I still try to be stringent with notes, it's just that there's a heck of a lot of material on this out there.
• As to Zionist diplomacy with Nazis, I beg to differ. Mentioning that is is a far cry from WP:Whataboutism, for the simple fact that, as editors will presently see, this spurred anti-Zionist reactions. It was known. Zionists after all tried to intervene, on behalf of Nazis, against Stephen Wise's boycott, by directly contacting him as Wise, a Zionist, in concerted efforts with anti-Zionists, was organizing demonstrations in New York and elsewhere.
• One flaw in this article, and I'd like you to keep an eye out for anything you might have that could help clear it up, is the lack of a prefatory clarification on the word 'Zionist'. Unlike those who push the anti-Zionist = anti-Semitism equation, I at least think that the record will show Zionism is an ideological mosaic, as variegated in its patchwork of viewpoints as Joseph's coat. So when we speak of Zionism, and anti-Zionism, we are at risk of succumbing to a simpleton's antinomies, a kind of verbal bipolar disorder. There are Zionists who were liberal, Zionists who were illiberal; religious Zionists who despaired of political Zionism, and political Zionists who thought the former were 'useful idiots' etc. Chomsky's testimony for the 1930s-40s is just one of many. Being a Zionist to many did not mean espousing, and acting on, what Herzl predicated - the realization of a state in Palestine. As often as not, self-described secular Zionists of that generation at least, thought Zionism in practice was a contemporary form of the traditional halukka (or tzedakah/chesed) that was a core value in Judaism - some Jews were settling in Palestine, and need help. Let's help them (while we stay here, at home, in the US or elsewhere). If we keep using Zionism strictly as just one form of it Political Zionism, we are skewing the record and misleading readers. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for not reporting it. I apologize again.
• (a) Fair enough. (b) This is poisoning the well because, as has explained multiple times, this article isn't about Zionism. It is about anti-Zionism. This is purely hypothetical, but if you find a source alleging that Chaim Weizmann committed adultery, it would not belong in this article because the "sins" of Zionism are not the topic. If, however, you find a source that specifically critiques Zionism on the basis of Weizmann's alleged adultery, that would be a different story. This article is not a catalog of facts that make Zionists look bad. If these facts are worthy of inclusion, they must be included in a different article that is on topic. (c) See above. This is interesting history, but much of it is irrelevant. The only relevant stuff is the Yadlitzky quote which directly criticizes Zionism (i.e. it is anti-Zionist).
• Brief contextualizing Zionism's political maneuvers might be ok if the topic remains on the anti-Zionist response to the maneuvers, but as it is written now, I remain unconvinced. I am open to suggestions on how to reform this area, but remain skeptical that it could be done in a way that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH.
• I agree that a definition of Zionism might help the article. It used to have one, but it got erased in the hustle and bustle of editing. I'll try to find one and add it. --GHcool (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  You have added the BBC definition of Zionism, "the historical campaign to create a Jewish state in the Land of Israel and contemporary advocacy for the State of Israel" (though the source you cite does not appear to use these words or anything similar). But this is not the only possible definition. For instance, Walter Lacquer states simply "Zionism is the belief in the existence of a common past and a common future for the Jewish people" (A History of Zionism, Schocken Books 1976, p 589), while Maxime Rodinson says "The word 'Zionism' was coined at the end of the nineteenth century to designate a collection of various movements whose common element was their plan to create a spiritual, territorial, or state centre, generally to be located in Palestine, for all the Jews of the world" (Cult, Ghetto, and State: The persistence of the Jewish Question, Al Saqi Books 1983, p 137). Arthur Hertzberg, in The Zionist Idea, does not even attempt to provide a definition, but offers a long introduction discussing the meaning and forms of Zionism (The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader, Atheneum 1971, p[p 15-100). And many other scholars have struggled to provide a definition. My own working definition, which of course is unacceptable original research, would be "support for the policies and practices of the World Zionist Organization". The problem is that, for each of these formulations, there would be different variants of anti-Zionism. It is certainly arguable that there have been Zionists who do not meet the first part of the BBC definition (for example, Martin Buber, Yehuda Magnes, Noam Chomsky), while there are many who advocate for the Israeli state who could not really be considered Zionists.

  It might be better to state in the article that the meaning of the term is contested, and to offer more than one of these definitions, than to suggest that there is one simple and unchallengeable definition. RolandR (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Tend to agree, I think it might also have varied over time. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

DONE. --GHcool (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are shockingly poor sources: the BBC, AJC Campus watch, and what the present head of the ADL thinks (in that article I, like Chotiner, fail to see evidence Greenblatt is 'thinking'). The second source even laughingly remarks:'reestablish a Jewish state in Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People' which is POV fudging ahistorical nonsense, the point of which is to confuse readers into thinking that the Israel of antiquity (the successor statelet of the northern 'Davidic' kingdom? the Hasmonean 'Israel?) is commensurate with the modern state of that name, which technically has its core in Philistia. So they have to go out. The point of our work here is to try to avoid, as far as possible, poor sources, and ground the whole article on academically informed research. Roland provided some excellent examples, of this approach, and Maxime Rodinson's is a fine example, and together with a ref to Arthur Hertzberg's survey also mentioned, points to the route we should go towards the disambiguation required.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

as has explained multiple times, this article isn't about Zionism. It is about anti-Zionism

(a)Actually the article as I found it wasn't about anti-Zionism. It was about the intrinsic anti-Semitism of anti-Zionism. You didn't find that problematical. Someone might object that anti-Semitism has its own article, and that this should deal singularly with an orderly outline of the history of anti-Zionism, without mentioning Zionism except by a link, or anti-Semitism. I.e. using the materials in the Timeline of Anti-Zionism, and secondary sources discussing it, and just leave to a short final section, criticisms of anti-Zionism, in imitation of what the article on Zionism does. That wouldn't work either, self-evidently, for anti-Zionism is a critique of Zionism, and therefore you cannot mention the one without the context of the other, exactly as our manifold sources do.

(b) All the sources I have brought to bear on this discuss anti-Zionism, together with Zionism. As I commented earlier, one cannot discuss anti-matter without mentioning 'matter'. An antonym cannot be understood on its own terms, but has to be explained by contrast to the concept it is the antonym of, as explained earlier Nishidani (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Definitions of Zionism

Let's begin with these for the proposed edit. Any other definitions? No hurry on this.

• For the many meanings and forms of Zionism Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Atheneum, 1969 ISBN 978-0-689-70093-4 pp.15-100
• "Zionism is the belief in the existence of a common past and a common future for the Jewish people" Walter Lacquer, A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel, Knopf Doubleday (1976) 2008 ISBN 978-0-307-53085-1 p 589.
• "The word 'Zionism' was coined at the end of the nineteenth century to designate a collection of various movements whose common element was their plan to create a spiritual, territorial, or state centre, generally to be located in Palestine, for all the Jews of the world". Maxime Rodinson, Cult, Ghetto, and State: The persistence of the Jewish Question, Al Saqi Books 1983 ISBN 978-0-863-56020-0 p.137
• 'Not every anti-Zionist necessarily opposes each and every aspect of Zionism as defined above. Although anti-Zionism is a heterogeneous ideology, all of its proponents ultimately agree that the creation of the modern State of Israel, and the movement to create a sovereign Jewish state in the biblical Land of Israel, was flawed or unjust in some way.' Shany Mor, doi 10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.16 'On Three Anti-Zionisms,' Israel Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, Summer 2019, pp. 206-216

Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

External links

It seems to me that the four links in the EL section are quite arbitrary. Might be good to see if they can be merged into the rest of the bibliography? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Footnote about Balfour & Weizmann

This footnote is has too many long, naked quotes:

which arguably emerged from an anti-Semitic milieu (efn|It has been argued that the document itself emerged from a milieu where antisemitic views were commonplace, starting withArthur Balfour and Chaim Weizmann themselves: "Although Zionists have tried to conflate Zionism with Judaism to their advantage, and although some people argue that criticizing Zionism can be used as a concealed attack on Jewish people, it could be argued that the early Zionists were themselves anti-Semites. In 1914, Chaim Weizmann, leader of the World Zionist Organization (1921-1931/1935-1946) and later first President of Israel, told Balfour, 'we too are in agreement with the cultural anti-Semites, in so far as we believed that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon.'" "British support for Zionism was spearheaded by anti-Semites within the civil and foreign service. These people believed that Jews, acting collectively, were manipulating world events from behind the scenes. Consequently, they vastly exaggerated the power and influence of the tiny Zionist movement. Balfour himself took a similar view. Moreover, some years earlier, as Prime Minister, he introduced the Aliens Bill (which became law in 1905), aimed specifically at restricting admission of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. He warned Parliament at the time that the Jews 'remained a people apart.'")

I'd like to summarize, paraphrase, and copy edit it this way:

which arguably emerged from an antisemitic milieu (efn|It has been argued that the document itself emerged from a milieu where antisemitic views were commonplace. Disparaging comments by such Zionists as Arthur Balfour and Chaim Weizmann have been interpreted as antisemitic.)

GHcool (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Why summarize? If one states 'that Balfour's document arguably emerged from an anti-Semitic milieu' that is the sort of statement that begs explanation. I cannot imagine a general reader drawn to subject would be content with such an elliptical allusion, and be told, 'if curious, read these two sources'. The note is long, but buried away in an explanatory footnote that clarifies the reasoning behind those who hold that view of the BD. Secondly, I have been, as often here, laconic in my text generally: I could easily have added substantial references to books that go into more detail, adding for example several other anti-Semitic remarks made by Weizmann to humour the anti-Semites he had to persuade, such as

each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews” (Brenner 1983 p.34 from memory)

Nor do I leap at the occasion of the Alien Bill promoted by Balfour to jam in a further sentence about how Herzl, in giving his advice on that issue as the parliament discussed in a few years earlier, suggested the solution lay in backing Zionism so that the Jewish masses could be diverted from England to Palestine, leaving England safe from the threat of more Jews. I am being parsimonious with the record.

Or dozens of quotes from the early Zionists who could not refrain from pouring an anti-Semitic contempt on other (poorer, East European) Jews. No. I don't do that here, as has been done largely in this text as I found it against anti-Zionists. The elaboration we have has a certain cogency for an article where a substantial number of scholars, esp. in the last decades, have used their prestigious voices to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, totally ignoring or failing to address the extensive evidence for anti-Semitism in their own pro-Zionist tradition.

Remember WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. I find huge tracts of the material I'm reading from Wistrich et al., totally irrational and hysterical, but I am obliged to respect it per NPOV, and give it full coverage because it is an important element in this discourse, whatever my personal beliefs or private analyses might suggest. Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Why summarize and paraphrase? This is why: Wikipedia:Quotations. --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not policy, but on editor's opinion. And, more importantly, there are numerous quotes down the page, inline, that you haven't applied this criterion to. The only one that seems to have caught your attention is in a footnote and reflects badly - but that is the background - on both Balfour and Weizmann's motives. Why discriminate? Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind summarizing/paraphrasing other long, overly detailed quotes in this article that reflects badly on anti-Zionists. In fact, I will start doing that now. --GHcool (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no harm in paraphrasing in order to shorten (not eliminate) quotes, as long as the essential meaning is not lost. Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

DONE. I consider the matter closed. --GHcool (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. You've gutted Penslar on Harkabi, a very important generalization, and idem for the section on British pro-Zionists believing in a Jewish world conspiracy ergo, Balfour. I could give a lot of documentation on that, and the little I supplied you disliked. But, I note that the huge swath of paraphrase and extended quotes from an academic middlebrow Alvin H. Rosenfeld, coming from an essay no one can find is left untouched: it happens to be an attack on anti-Zionists. So, as it stands, you are excising anything negative about Zionists and quietly leaving out oif your retrenchment plan, a lot of text like that, which is not worth, critically, a nob of goatshit. Serious pro-Zionist scholars are far more trenchant and eloquent. So, try to apply your principle even-handedly and 'fix' that motherlode of Undueness. It's one thing to place details in footnotes in extensor, as I do. It's another to allow them in mainspace, esp. when they are dumb. Nishidani (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not anymore. --GHcool (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with the summarizing, beyond that I fail to see the reasoning behind removing the quote from the endnotes. That is where somebody who wants to go further in the weeds would start. nableezy - 22:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally, I think summarizing makes articles more encyclopedic, but the particular example raised at the start of this talk section seems to me an instance of where summarizing makes something complex more confusing so would keep Nishidani's long version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't really understand why it's relevant in this article. It should be in the Balfour declaration article, where it would provide very useful nuance (if it isn't there already). But it doesn't illuminate anti-Zionism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It isnt in the prose, its a footnote explaining further. Seriously, whats the problem here. nableezy - 13:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It’s not a major problem, but material in the article needs a reason to be in it. It doesn’t help understand the topic of this article so it’s hard to see what it adds except distraction. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Stuff removed for the moment

• I'm trying to source the page predominantly to scholarship. In revising this, the major problem as usual is that Wikipedia is naturally given to being edited in dribs and drabs, breaking up history and thematics into a list-like sprawl of what is Joe Blow's opinion of this or that, with section headings splitting the matter into groups, nations, ethnic bodies and political positions. As a reader if I see that kind of page, I don't generally read it: because there is no coherent narrative development, but simply the outcome of hundreds of edits that find the text, and adapt whatever may have caught their attention to the relevant section, or create even another one. That is not how encyclopedic articles are supposed to be written.

The amount of scholarly material, learned books and articles is massive, so analysis is extensive even if there is a profound rift between competent researchers on a topic like this. Eventually, I hope, we can move to a more synthetic overview, and weed out a lot of citations that are just repetitions of something often known and said, whose presence here is justified because the person who said it is notable wikiwise.Nishidani (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can anyone ferret a link to the essay '"Progressive" Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,' Rosenfeld 2006. All we appear to have is a link to a wiki article which sums it up, where the links once again fail, at least for a net illiterate like myself.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Almost two weeks on, no reply. Please note that

Alvin H. Rosenfeld in his much discussed essay, Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,

If the essay is unavailable, where is the evidence it was must discussed, let alone imporant for this page? We have loads of material for the topic, but this minor blip doesn't appear to qualify, except to ring a bell on one person's name, for an essay that has been withdrawn from circulation, and therefore in itself is not notable.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• By contrast, reform Jews rejected Judaism as a national or ethnic identity and renounced any messianic expectations of the advent of a Jewish state. Reform Judaism dropped many traditional beliefs, including aliyah, the Hebrew word used to describe religious Jewish return to Israel, as incompatible with modern life within the Diaspora. Later, Zionism re-kindled the concept of aliyah in an ideological and political sense, parallel with traditional religious belief; it was used to increase the Jewish population in the Holy Land by immigration. Support for aliyah does not always equal immigration; however, most of the world's Jewish population resides within the Diaspora. Support for the modern Zionist movement is not universal, and, as a result, some religious Jews, as well as some secular Jews, do not support Zionism. Non-Zionist Jews are not necessarily anti-Zionists, although some are. Generally however, Zionism does have the support of the majority of the Jewish religious organizations, with support from segments of the Orthodox movement, and most of the Conservative, and more recently, the Reform movement.

I've striven so far to take the text as given, conserve, fine better sources for whatever is asserted, in respect of earlier editors' efforts. But there is a good deal of unfocused waffle that is not really focused on anti-Zionism, but strays into talking about Zionism, and, as here, poorly referenced (My Jewish learning, Masorti Movement, etc). I think the text can do without this piece. I'd appreciate input, and if there are any objections to its removal, then one would expect that the drift be improved by replacing the references with serious sources. Nishidani (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• (2)

  After Israel occupied Palestinian territory following the 1967 Six-Day War, some African-Americans supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel's actions, for example by publicly supporting Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat and calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. Immediately after the war, the black power organization Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee published a newsletter criticizing Israel and asserting that the war was an effort to regain Palestinian land and that during the 1948 war, "Zionists conquered the Arab homes and land through terror, force, and massacres."

• (3)

  Proponents of Zionism note Zionism's success in establishing the Jewish state of Israel in the region of Palestine, and seek to portray anti-Zionism as broad opposition to Israel and a Jewish presence in the region. Supporters of Zionism have frequently highlighted that Anti-Zionist views are expressed also by some antisemites. The relationship between anti-Zionism, pro-Zionism and antisemitism is debated, with some academics and organizations that study antisemitism taking the view that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic or new antisemitism, while others reject any such linkage as unfounded and a method to stifle criticism of Israel and its policies, including its occupation of the West Bank.

Third para of lead with 87 words at a glance representing positions critical of anti-Zionism and a small tail for anti-Zionist positions wriggling its 25+ words. A violation of WP:NPOV. It should be rewritten with due balance between both views.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC) What on earth has this to do with Palestinian nationalism and anti-Zionism. The title suggests we are to get Palestinian views, not those of a couple of Afro-Americans in the 60s /70s. The only apparent point to such junk dumping is, as far as I can imagine, that of associating Palestinian antizionism with black power organizations. Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Allenby massacre

• Hey, GHcool. Thanks for the compliment but you state that you find the following of 'questionable relevance' and removed it here.

stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area,(efn|In one of several incidents that stirred local rage against the occupying British forces, when an Arab thief killed one of their soldiers, a unit of Allenby 's troops burnt down the entire village and killed or wounded some 30 of its residents. They went unpunished.)

I think the reasons for inclusion are cogent.

(a)The paragraph is the sister piece I added to the paragraph below it now, per NPOV. We required a balancing statement of the context for the detailed material I added to give a complete coverage for the Zionist suspicions that British administrative resdistance or leg-dragging in executing the Balfour Declaration was anti-Semitic.

(b) In short, the paragraph is concerned with the roots of British anti-Zionism in that period, and the Palestinian perspective (that is still less in focus, but I'll try to improve it shortly)

(c) The relevance for it is established by secondary sources that deal precisely with this theme. In my view, the 4 volume La Question de Palestine written by Henry Laurens is the most neutral and comprehensive account scholarship has to date on the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians.

(d) Laurens alludes to this incident precisely in his volume one treatment of the impact the dutiful i8mplementation of Balfour's promise under the section heading 'Antisionisme et antisémitisme' (pp.480ff).

(e) Using it is a first step to explaining what our article never really took seriously as an NPOV obligation. We have been highly focused on Zionist complaints of anti-Semitism throughout, and in this section, but have neglected background on why Palestinians at the time were hostile to Zionism and as diffident as were Zionists about Great Britain's behavior. Taking it out once more tilts the narrative to Zionist anxieties and concerns by eliding those of the Palestinians.

(f) As a longterm IP editor, I've often noted the detailed coverage we give to Joseph Trumpeldor, and the sister article Battle of Tel Hai. Justifiably so because it is one of the ashlar stones of the Zionist narrative for this period, and thereafter. The incident at al-Sarafand near Haifa over a year before, is ignored, even in that village's article though it forms a perfect parallel for background to Palestinian sensibilities. My addition was simply a matter of ensuring that we avoid WP:Systemic bias.

(g) So it is not I, Nishidunny/Nishidunno, as editor who is asserting its relevance, but one of the major narrative authorities on the period, and it is germane to the still undeveloped balancing of Zionist and Palestinian backgrounds to the anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism crux.Nishidani (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(h)The passage needs adjustment with a link to Allenby and one more item of the footnoted details. I propose:-

stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area,(efn|In one of several incidents that stirred local rage against the occupying British forces, when an Arab thief killed one of their soldiers, a unit of Allenby's troops burnt down the entire village and killed or wounded some 30 of its residents. The men culpable of the massacre went unpunished. Allenby's desire to pursue the matter ran up against a wall of resistance in his staff and administrative officials. )

Thank you for this invitation to civil dialogue. I'll respond to each of your lettered points:

(a) The paragraph below it (the one that begins "Once the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) ...") has all the necessary context for the article on anti-Zionism.

(b) These details are too "in the weeds" for an article about anti-Zionism generally. Might I suggest you add these details to another more specific article? For example, Mandatory Palestine?

(c) I don't doubt the references. I only question how far deeply into the weeds of anti-Zionism an article for the general reader needs to go.

(d) See (c).

(e) I feel as though the flaw in the article referenced here has been corrected by your recent edits. We don't need long footnotes in the weeds to overcorrect the problem.

(f) I have no problem with mentioning the al-Sarafand article here. I just don't think we need to go into excessive detail about it in a general article about anti-Zionism.

(g) See (c) and (f).

(h) I propose that we keep it as it currently is in the article: "stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area, [with ref to Laurens source]" --GHcool (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(a3)Your point is an assertion not an argument. I disagree with your belief that the following paragraph has 'all the necessary contextr'. To the contrary, it is a paragraph focused on Zionist concern. This whole article was, before I started, almost totally focused on Zionist concerns or impressions of anti-Zionism. That has to be repaired per NPOV

(b3)The details are about Palestinian anti-Zionism, weeds, you say. They are the other actors in the piece. Do a word count: the Zionist case of complaints is given far more attention than we give to Palestinians and Arabs. This article is not about how Israel or Zionists see the situation of criticism of their views. It is about what anti-Zionism is, as articulated by its exponents, and reacted to by Zionist sources, and with both cases, you have the historical realities both parties are talking about. So along with the 'grass' of the flowering of that desert, we have to respect the weeds that form any part, indispensably, of a healthy landscape.

(c3) Again the weeds of antiZionism. If you make an analysis, as I have done, of the sources in the article, the overwhelming majority consisted of hostility to anti-Zionism. I am intent on providing a corrective. If you think the details have to be weeded out, - and please note - the reader has nothing of those flung into their face because the rest away from mainspace visibility. The good Lord lies in the details, proverbially. And though others argue that we should read 'Teufel' for Gott in the customary phrasing (i.e. the weeds in the garden of these details), I regard them as an unobtrusive assist to the general reader, who can just read the maintext but, if his curiosity is stirred, will find we have anticipated it by providing footnotes with linked sources they can read further up in.

(d4) See c3.

(e4) If I had my way, I'd ve wiped out the text and restarted from scratch. No. Wikipedia is collegial, the work of prior editors - however much it sediments into a geological nightmare - must be respected. So I am revising in terms of what I find, in a sense being dictated to by what earlier editors prioritized, line by line. Once I have finished, clearly a revision of the revision to make it tighter is to be considered. But that, if far less tedious than correcting this flawed screed, would be time-consuming, and, were it done now, stop me, for one, from completing the task of, what is it, the 2,000 plus pages I have to summarize as I plough on.

(f5) If you leave out the footnote to al-Sarafand, the reader is left none the wiser. Indeed, will be perplexed by the allusion. And the footnote is brief.

(g3) Well, see my corresponding replies.

(h3) Laurens is in French, not linkable, the volumes difficult to obtain and therefore the predominantly Anglophone readership of this wiki would be given no help by eliding the footnote.

Well, excuse me, but I think the Allenby note important. You object. We don't seem to be getting anywhere. I will put it back, because the Palestinian side, a handful of details about which you call 'weeds' several times, must have its due. I don'0t think your replies address this issue of parity in representation (NPOV).Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it again. Please don't restore without consensus.

(a4) We seem to be at an impasse on this point. I think the following paragraph contains the necessary context. You don't. I think I'm right. You think I'm wrong. Let's just drop it.

(b4) You are correct that this article is about anti-Zionism. You are also correct that it used to be skewed towards the Zionist perspective of anti-Zionism. You are incorrect when you say that details about this massacre are relevant to either point of view. Please feel free to include details about this massacre in a different part of Wikipedia where it is more appropriate.

(c4) Everything you say here is remedied by the inclusion of references to the sources. Readers may find the sources and read about the details if they so choose.

(d4) See c4.

(e4) Thank you for respecting the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.

(f4) The reference to al-Sarafand is included in this clause: "and incidents like the massacre at Al-Sarafand stirred deep resentment against the British throughout the area."

(g4) And see mine.

(h4) It doesn't matter to me if Laurens wrote the book in French or in English. Non-French speakers will simply have to learn French to read his book. Another option is finding this information in an English source and referencing it here. --GHcool (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus to restore or delete, just your opinion against mine. It is pointless for a deleter to exercise a right of excision, and then repeat it, when it is, so far, only his idiosyncratic view that the note is irrelevant. I respect what scholars think relevant, not what anonymous editors may think, unless they have a consensus on their side, which isn't the case here.

To repeat, it makes no sense to mention al-Sarafand, which Laurens elicits from the mass of incidents at that time in a section on anti-Zionism. without clarifying what Laurens alludes to. That we need English sources is nonsense, because, if asked I would provide a translation. So I will restore it, and if you get a consensus to overturn that, I will go with that. I restore it because I can't see anything of a policy rationale in your removal, and assume, since it deals with a massacre of Palestinians, that this is inappropriate (in an article flush with numerous notes on Jews as victims of anti-Semitic prejudice, which they certainly have been, and are). There happens to be some suffering in the other party as well, and to erase the only mention of it seems, well . . . Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Whatever. Keep the factoid. I don't care to continue arguing about it. --GHcool (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Left-wing anti-Zionism

I believe that this edit was in error. Linfield is correctly attributed. Perhaps it could be worded better, but it certainly should not have been wholesale deleted. This is the quote from Linfield's book: "After the Six-Day War, the anti-Israel phenomenon became worldwide .... [T]he New Left immediately tagged Israel as an imperialist and ... fascist state. German New Left militants became enthusiastic proponents of--and, sometimes, participants in--Palestinian terror attacks. ... For much of the French New Left, Palestinians became the new Algerians .... None of this was a reaction to the Occupation and the settlements, which didn't yet exist." I propose the following: "This form of left-wing anti-Zionism preceded the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and the Israeli settler movement, and therefore, was not a reaction to them.((sfn|Linfield|2019|p=6))" GHcool (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I quietly ignored your second violation of 1R the other day, exercising great patience, despite the execrable 'quality' of your editing here. The second would have, if reported by referring back to the first, got you a site ban. Now you propose to retain a text that, as cited is nonsensical,(that was indicated as such by Zero whose edit summary you haven't grasped), as it remains in the proposed paraphrase.

The thesis is that after the Six Day War, the occupation didn't exist. Had you even glanced at Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories under the relevant sections, you would have realized that stating that the Occupation beginning in June 1967 didn't exist is a blatant in-your-face contradiction in terms. The first settlement in the WB, as everybody knows, was established on September 25, 1967.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

East Jerusalem was occupied during the 6 day war and annexed (unrecognized so occupied) on 27 June 67. It is I think true that post 67 Israel ceased to be regarded as the poor little fellow surrounded by murderous neighbors but it also seems to me wrong to simplistically equate anti-Israel with anti-Zionism. NYT review says "If the book has one problem it’s Linfield’s inability to recognize the significance of the document that she herself has produced. She tries to present it, particularly in her tacked-on introduction and conclusion, as foreshadowing and illuminating the tragic deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian coexistence. To be blunt, it doesn’t work." or Jewish Currents "In The Lions’ Den, Susie Linfield studies eight Jewish leftists’ views on Israel but fails to confront her own liberal Zionist preconceptions." The actual sentence from the book's intro is "None of this was a reaction to the Occupation and the settlements, which didn’t yet exist." is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of fact.Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I retract this complaint. --GHcool (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

1920s-1930s questionable relevance tag

What is the "unclear or questionable importance or relevance" of the 1920s-1930s - most of it appears highly relevant. Could someone briefly explain why this entire section is being painted with the incredibly broad and seemingly inapplicable brush of irrelevance? Otherwise I will be removing this tag. Undue tagging just defaces the article for readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The tag should be removed, and objections to anything specifically deemed irrelevant should be bulleted for discussion. The general objection's premise is that an article on anti-Zionism should preclude mentioniing the distinct clashes in policies advocated respectively in that period by Zionists and anti-Zionism. The answer is that, if sources for anti-Zionism state the Zionist position,-what anti-Zionists objected to, then ipso facto, the Zionist position must be stated. Otherwise, one cannot grasp comprehensively what anti-Zionists were challenging.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll remove the tag and the two irrelevant portions already tagged. Thank you. --GHcool (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The pertinence of the tag was questioned, And, by consensus, it was decided that it was inappropriate. What did you just do. You agreed the tag was to go, and at the same time, removed the tagged information. If the tags were invalid, the raison d'etre for expunging the tagged material drops, self-evidently. I therefore reverted your cancellation of an extensive note, under discussion, which, when raised, I answered minutely, and had no reply. It is still under discussion, and a provisory two vs.one, with one 'vote' merely what looks like a mechanical acquiescence in Bob's position, is not a cogent reason to preempt things. Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring only to the section tag, not the inline tags - the material for which I had not closely inspected. However, eyeing that quickly, the second definitely seems relevant. The first statement, about CPUSA membership, is not as compelling, but neither irrelevant - not so much so that it needs eliminating from a 40kB page. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree the section as it now stands no longer needs the tag. I don't feel strongly about the two specific passages tagged, but would leave the text and tags to see if consensus emerges, as there is still live discussion. My view is that the detail of the Mike Gold novel is undue and am unsure about the ethnic make-up of the CPUSA. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

35 words - a précis can trim that to 25, out of 6600 is negligible, and the final text, if I can overcome my scruples (at the moment I'm in stop work mode: too much snipping, clipping, without reading the sources I've had to wade through)about devoting my energies to a rewrite that is constantly hacked away at it is in progress, would run to about 9,000 words. Half of the CPUSA was Jewish, which is it is important to note, given that the CPUSA was anti-Zionist, and the stats give one objective data to measure where the objections come from. When I wrote that, I was aware that, out there, readers thoroughly familiar with polemics, might reflexively think 'Ah, there's the Protocols-Jewish commo conspiracy theory raising its ugly head between the lines. I've never been politically correct, because history can't be written that way. I don't think your objection reflects that imaginable reaction, but I don't think, as I argued above in the Levin/Gold section, that the objections to this survive close scrutiny.Nishidani (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't take action if "out there" some reader might "reflexively think" something. Although official Wikipedia policy doesn't reference Talmudic principles, this is an example of ka salka da'atach, which means "one might think [but one would be wrong]." --GHcool (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Any professional writer, any professor of reading, any tutor of English, will tell you that any text will not say much that readers from various angles will discern in its subtext, or what its author did not state formally, but which the nature of language allows as hovering in the corridors of a narrative. All literary criticism assumes this principle as constantly active. All writers who know their stuff write with some awareness of how their narrative choices will meet with reactions which they either absorb into the text, or dismiss as distractive. I live in the modern world, not in the religious past.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Globally

This edit asserts that there are studies globally (i.e. outside of Europe) that purport to have "failed to find any statistical correlation between criticism of Israeli policies and anti-Semitism." I don't have access to the article, but it appears from the body of the text that both studies were in Europe, not in any other part of the globe. GHcool (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not good enough to say you haven't got access. We have jstor Wikipedia access and other instruments here for editors.

Both Beattie (2017) and Werner Bergmann (2008) giver comprehensive overviews on the literature, summarizing over a dozen studies done in numerous countries on the anti-Zionism/antisemitism correlation theories. Read them and you will find mention of research like that of (Dunbar 1995) In the USA; Frindte, Wammetsberger, and Wettig ( 2005). Kaplan and Small (2006)’s survey of 5,000 people from various different European countries;, Baumand Nakazawa (2007)’s on Canada; Kempf (2012) on Germany and Austria; Baum (2009) idem for Christians and Muslim; (Cohen et al. 2009)(Cohen (2012); Dekker and van der Noll (2011) for Holland, aside from Bergman’s mentions of Swiss research and his own in Germany, and Beattie’s on US internet users in this context. I’ve had to download over 1,200 pages of books and articles and are slowly reading through them to write this page. I expect that you should, rather than glance at the bibliographical references used, and counting ‘ah, two’, actually read the cited texts – only 50 pages -where all this disparate harvest of scholarship is paraphrased, analysed and tested. Had you done so, you would not have altered several to two. So far I make elsewhere a mere passing allusion to the numerous similar studies (Stillman) on the Arab world, and Harkabi et als, judgments in that regard, and haven't had time to add several works like that of Esther Webman,The Challenge of Assessing Arab/Islamic Antisemitism Middle Eastern Studies, Volume 46, 2010, Issue 5 pp.677-697, for all the Arab material needs thorough reorganization as I did with the Soviet stuff this morning.

I am still awaiting an explanation for the rationale behind your other tag.

Opposition to the Biltmore Program also led to the founding of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism,}} which, according to Noam Chomsky was the only Jewish group in America immediately after WW2 to lobby for the immigration of Jewish Holocaust-survivors to the United States, rather than Palestine.

The clock tells me I've spent 10 and a half hours today on this, so I expect that you'll appreciate my curiosity in seeing the rationale behind the dropping of the tag there, which must have takew 10 seconds. Some work please, if the tag is to be taken seriously and not just removed as vexatious and subjective dislike of the sentence's meaning.

This article was a shambolic mess, and still largely is, a dumping ground for googled tidbits almost totally shorn of cogent scholarly insight, except for obiter dicta from the usual sources. It is meaningless to compile lists of this was said, someone else, notable, replied, esp. when the comments and replies are repetitive, hackneyed, as opposed to the serious to-and-fro of analytic approaches. It is almost fatally vitiated by the overwhelming emphasis placed on the putative anti-Semitism =anti-Zionism nexus. That is an official Israeli talking point - don't look at the substance of some extended analysis, but erect a theoretical definition that suggests anything said re Israeli policies is tendentially hostile to Jews, and therefore, one shifts the goalposts from the substance to the psychology allegedly behind the content of an analysis. All this has been remarked on by analysts, but there is no sign of it, so far, on this page. The topic is anti-Zionism, not anti-Semitism, which has its own page(s).Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The rationale behind tagging the sentence about the American Council for Judaism's immigration lobbying efforts as irrelavent to the topic of anti-Zionism is because it is irrelevant to anti-Zionism. --GHcool (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

?? Are you serious? At Biltmore, most American Jewish bodies reach a turning.point, embracing the idea of underwriting the Zionist programme for massive immigration into Palestine as war news highlighted Jewish suffering in occupied Europe. The exception was the American Council for Judaism, which retained the anti-Zionist position, and pushed for the alternative, for increasing massively immigration to the United States. The whole article is about opposition to Zionism, and this is a palmary instance of a concrete anti-Zionist proposal on the core presupposition of Zionism, that salvation for Jews lies anywhere but in the diaspora. I'll expand on it, if that simple note is not sufficient, but the relevance is patently cogent.Nishidani (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious how an organization with the subject in its name lobbying for immigration to the US not Palestine is a relevant historical node. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is prima facie relevant, but I'm not sure if Chomsky, not an expert on that period, is a good source. This is what he says: In fact, as far as I know the only Jewish groups that lobbied for Jewish immigration from the camps was the Council of Judaism, an antiZionist group. Is there an actual historian who we could cite instead? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)30

(1)We use Améry for his testimony as a Holocaust survivor that anti-Zionist 30 years later were identical to the earlier antisemities, but we can't use Chomsky, who was intimatedly engaged with currents of Jewish life and culture in the US in the 30s and 40s? (2)'As far as I know' means 'I stand corrected if anyone can prove the opposite'.(3) Chomsky is a historian, just like Walter Laqueur, who never qualified as such. Are you familiar with his works? Large stretches minutely, event by event, date by date, chronicle the evolution of the I/P conflict, and if you do that, before professional historians would can challenge your data, you are practicing history.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)