Talk:Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lack of a neutral point of view

The policy is WP:NPOV Some issues are as follows. This is presented as fact, when it appears to be a theory based on one book and a chapter of another book. It presents a case, without presenting alternative viewpoint(s). It makes numerous assertions which are highly controversial, unsupported and easily countered. It treats support for the Palestinians as motivated by antisemitism. I would have thought that this could be moved to and covered in New Antisemitism. Jontel (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If the views are easily countered, then counter them, as long as you use reliable sources to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

This article has something about the alleged motivations of those making such portrayals and their supposed impact. Neither is evidenced in the article and it would be difficult and possibly impossible to do so. Alongside this difficulty is the lack of detail. When are these portrayals being made? Where? By whom of whom, exactly? What examples might there be? What is the context for such portrayals? What do those making such portrayals say? Is Israel a state with a strong racial identity, in a constant state of war with external opponents and under a boycott, with restive occupied territories, strong security forces, and heavily policed minorities? What comparisons or analogies would be appropriate? What is the historical or appropriate role of comparisons or analogies in political discourse, particularly in situations of internal or external conflict? The article is currently simply a list of dubious assertions which are too vague to engage with. Jontel (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I expected better

@Icewhiz: I have come to expect more from you than this. The article is a poor reflection of the sources you have yourself selected. You cherry picked a focus on the Palestinian analogy and excluded the dispute around the anti-semitism claim. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it or is it not antisemitic?

The first sentence says:

Holocaust inversion is the antisemitic act of portrayal of (...)

Meanwhile, the third paragraph says:

Whether it is intrinsically antisemitic when it is related to anti-Zionism is disputed. Professor David Feldman, director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism argues that Holocaust inversion is often not antisemitic (...)

So, which is it? Since it appears that there is a controversy as to whether it is always antisemitic, if no one objects, I will change the first sentence to "Holocaust inversion is the portrayal of (...)". --Un assiolo (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Two things to note here:

• First, those statements are not mutually exclusive, so the question "So, which is it?" is not exactly right. The latter paragraph you noted indicates that Professor Feldman believes it is sometimes anti-Semitic and sometimes not.
• Second, the lead sentence can summarise a consensus position despite further paragraphs representing diverse points of view, per standard NPOV practices. So even if the third paragraph quoted someone who said that it is altogether not anti-Semitic, then this still would not necessarily mean the lead sentence requires revision. It depends on the balance of reliable sources, insofar as I understand Wiki policies (which is by no means extensive).

So, if you are interested in challenging the lead, I would suggest two things:

1. Take notice of the cited materials. There are three citations for the lead. I checked one, and it is clearly an academic text where Holocaust inversion is one of several features in a typology of "New Anti-Semitism" or something like that. Another source is "Fathom" journal, which seemingly is an outlet of some British-Israeli interest group and might not be considered a reliable source (I do not know), but at any rate supports the same description of the practice as anti-Semitic. The third is a Wall Street Post article that does likewise. So the sources all pass the sniff-test for supporting the lead, and the third paragraph does not invalidate it.
2. If you believe this is a biased sampling of the consensus, you are welcome to find as many reliable sources as you would like to contend that this should not be described in the lead as anti-Semitic. If you do so, I would suggest presenting your sources here in the talk page first so that other editors can help.

Best regards,

Scuoise (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Labels.

This article labels anti zionism and anti semitism as the same thing when they are in fact different. Palestinians are anti Zionists because they are being displaced but they are not anti semites. fix the terminology 71.11.126.74 (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the title neutral?

Endwise "Holocaust inversion" is a term used almost exclusively by those who oppose such comparisons on principle, for example Lustick states: "Outraged defenders of Holocaustia have labeled use of Nazi crimes as a moral yardstick for judging Israel as “Holocaust inversion” and denounced it as anti-Semitism and as more dangerous than Holocaust denial." I don't think we could have an article both on this and on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany as this article would be a POVFORK of the latter, capturing the point of view that all comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel are inadmissible in principle, a form of Holocaust denial and/or antisemitism. (t · c) buidhe 10:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I think this article is already very one sided towards one POV, essentially the same POV as that quote is criticising: Outraged defenders of Holocaustia have labeled use of Nazi crimes as a moral yardstick for judging Israel as “Holocaust inversion” and denounced it as anti-Semitism and as more dangerous than Holocaust denial. I guess if the article is expanded and reworked to talk about comparisons to Nazi Germany in general, similar to how e.g. Israel and the apartheid analogy discusses in large part comparisons to apartheid South Africa, the title move would make perfect sense. So in order of preference, to me it would make the most sense if the article:

• A) was expanded and reworked, and retitled to "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany"
• B) had nothing done to it
• C) had the title changed to "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany", while it is still talking about the more one-sided concept of "holocaust inversion"

Does that view make sense? I don't have plans to expand this article or deal with its one-sided nature, but if you do, I would fully support you changing the title along with it. Endwise (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, one of my main concerns with changing the title but not the article content is that it may if anything create a greater POV problem, because before it was heavily leading towards describing a concept called "holocaust inversion" as antisemitic or even a form of holocaust revision, and after the move it would seem to be heavily leading towards describing comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany as antisemitic or even a form of holocaust revision. Endwise (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I've expanded a bunch, what do you think now? (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, you have my stamp of approval to move it back Endwise (talk) 12:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe one other thing that's come to my attention, is that there's crossover between here and Criticism of the Israeli government#Comparisons with Nazi Germany. Perhaps some material from there should be trimmed and merged here? Endwise (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I've suggested a merge. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If "Holocaust inversion" isn't a neutral title, "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany" is even worse. It invites and treats as wholly valid and legitimate a discussion on comparisons between the only majority-Jewish nation on the planet and the regime that was more successful than any other entity in history in pursuit of its goal of annihilating the Jews. How much did the Nazis hate the Jews? They murdered 6 million of them - one-third of all Jews on the entire planet. In 1939, there were 17 million Jews in the world. In 2019, there were 15 million. The Nazis' slaughter was so efficient, the Jewish people still haven't fully recovered almost 80 years later. At the height of Operation Reinhard, during one 92-day span, Jews were being murdered at a rate of 14,000 per day. 600 per hour. None of that is being done by Israel or has ever been done by Israel. It's arguably a worse comparison than comparing COVID-19 vaccine legislation or gun control to the Holocaust, and it qualifies as inversion because it argues the primary victims of the Nazis - the Jewish people themselves - are Nazis. EricSpokane (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The current title is literally the description of the topic. You may not like the topic or think it's invalid by definition but that doesn't mean that you can change the title to something that discredits the topic because of your dislike of it. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The title literally used to be "Holocaust inversion," so your point that the current title is "literally the description of the topic" has no bearing on what the topic should be called, considering it's been given other names previously. The current title is itself a form of implicit discreditation toward Israel by comparison to the very regime that tried to annihilate the very Jews who make up Israel's own citizenry.

If Holocaust inversion is "one-sided," so is this title. "Israel and the apartheid analogy" at the very least has some basis, since it's debatable whether or not Israel is guilty of racial or ethnic segregation. But guilty of genocide? No. That is factually and objectively untrue. It is about as serious a comparison as the Nazi gun control argument or the Irish slaves myth. Wikipedia has no problem properly categorizing hoaxes and misinformation when it comes to other topics, but when it comes to Israel, calling out misinformation suddenly becomes "one-sided." A lie isn't a side of a story. It's just a lie.

Should we also title a COVID-19 misinformation article "Comparisons Between COVID-19 Mandates and Nazi Germany/the Holocaust" just because people have made that claim? If the article were simply comparing Israeli policies to those of a fascist government, why Nazi Germany specifically? Why not Francoist Spain or Mussolini's Italy or any one of the many other fascist governments that exist or have ever existed? Because the comparison isn't about comparing government policies. It's about weaponizing the genocide of the Jewish people against them. - EricSpokane (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification

EricSpokane The content is "referred to by critics as Holocaust inversion". Where in the source does it say that? Please quote. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The article itself is a work of criticism, the author being an obvious critic of the comparison, and refers to the subject as "Holocaust inversion" both in the title and in the article. The article explains why it's Holocaust inversion. I strongly disagree with the current title, but in the interest of civility, I won't change the title of the article. But I did feel the article including a second title in the heading has precedent on Wikipedia in the form of many articles where a subject goes by multiple names, like how a Civil War battle goes by one name in the North and another name in the South. The criticism of "Holocaust inversion" is common enough that it warrants a place next to the article's current title. "Referred to by critics" was my attempt at neutral wording to avoid the appearance of bias. - EricSpokane (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If all that's verifiable in the source is that Klaff calls it Holocaust inversion, all you can write is "referred to by Klaff as Holocaust inversion". In the case of Civil War battles, I expect the cited sources actually say which names are used by North and South—otherwise it's not policy compliant. Verifiability is especially important on a controversial topic like this one. I expect you to self-revert since you admit that the source does not support the content you added. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Do I need to cite more sources to point out it's more than just Klaff saying this and to justify the use of the plural "their critics"? Because I can easily do that. Also, I did effectively do what you suggest other articles do in "citing sources that actually say which names are used by whom." The article itself makes the claim of "Holocaust inversion" and the author is the one saying it. So do the authors here[1], here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and it's such a common criticism of this comparison by multiple different people that I figured just capping "referred to by their critics as Holocaust inversion" with one source would be good enough without overloading it with an excessive abundance of redundant references. The point is, it's a common name by these comparisons' critics. I really don't understand what the holdup here is. The First Battle of Bull Run has "Battle of First Manassas" right next to the first name in the heading with only one source without any controversy. If it's a question of not enough citations, I can place more. If it's a question of whether the source states who uses the term, I literally wrote "their critics" as a neutral, catch-all term for the author of the article and any and all critics like her who say as much. Unless it's something else, I don't see the issue here. - ~~~ EricSpokane (talk) 06:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:Original research states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." You cannot synthesize multiple individuals who use this label and criticize the phenomenon under "critics" unless the source explicitly says that this description is used by "critics" (or some reasonably close synonym). If you don't understand NOR you have no business editing this article. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean "a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source"? Nothing of what I've written qualifies as original research, and I would argue it's distortion of the actual policy to suggest that it is. The article is titled, "Holocaust Inversion: Unmasking the False Comparisons of Palestinians to the Holocaust." It explicitly states the conclusion that comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel is Holocaust inversion. It is from a peer-reviewed journal, which Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally considers to be in high regard. Are you really splitting hairs over the fact of multiple sources explicitly reaching the conclusion that comparisons are Holocaust inversion just because the authors of those critical sources don't explicitly identify themselves as critics? This article makes plenty of summations that aren't explicitly stated in the sources themselves. For example, "Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz introduced the term 'Judeo-Nazis.'" Does the source have Leibowitz explicitly say he introduced the term? Or is that implied by him being the first person on record to use it? I'm trying not to assume bad faith on your part, but you're making it incredibly difficult, especially with your accusation that I don't understand NOR when nothing I wrote could reasonably constitute original research. - EricSpokane (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want the article to say that Holocaust inversion is a term used by critics, you need a source that explicitly supports that assertion. All your above comment indicates is that you don't understand NOR. (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You're making a tautological argument and are simply repeating yourself over and over. Nothing I've written constitutes original research, and your distortion of the actual policy to argue that I have is baffling. The author is a critic and is using that term in the cited article they wrote. I've gone out of my way to make the article as fair and neutral as possible, but I'm not budging on the specific issue that "Holocaust inversion" is a common name for this topic unless you can give me a consistent reason within Wikipedia's policies why I should. - EricSpokane (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's give another example of why this is original research. Let's say I collect 12 sources criticizing the "Iraq War" and 12 sources supporting the "War in Iraq". I then edit the article to state that "Iraq War" is a term used by opponents of the war and "War in Iraq" is used by supporters. This is why the rules against original research exist. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, I do not think that "Holocaust inversion" is synonymous with the subject of the article. For example if someone wrote, "Israel's treatment of Palestinians is, in some respects, similar to the non-Jewish French people under Nazi rule," it is not a Holocaust-related comparison. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If it wasn't a Holocaust-related comparison, then why not a comparison to Francoist Spain or Mussolini's Italy? There are lots of fascist governments in the world to choose from. Why specifically the one responsible for the mass murder of the families of half the population of Israel?

As for controversial names, we have an entire page dedicated to a list of names for the American Civil War. Should we create a separate page for names for this topic, being that you individually seem to be the primary force behind having the original "Holocaust inversion" article that this was changed to "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany" in the first place? - EricSpokane (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The subject of the article is any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. The short description of the article is "Portrayal of Jews and Zionists as equivalents of Nazis"—which is not equivalent to the subject of the article, so it should probably be changed. It is not clear if "Holocaust inversion" is synonymous with either of the above; more specific definitions/quotes from reliable sources are needed to verifiably state it. (t · c) buidhe 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I came across an article about the Kalergi Plan, where it's alternative name is listed as "sometimes called." I decided to follow that example for my recent edit. That's neutral enough wording I can live with, and I no longer need to do this ridiculous dance over semantics regarding my usage of "their critics." - EricSpokane (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

What source says that "Holocaust inversion" is synonymous with any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany? Please quote. (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

If it isn't synonymous, why did you change what the article originally was - "Holocaust inversion" - to "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany"? Could you not have created a separate article from "Holocaust inversion"? I presume because you know those articles would have been merged together eventually, and you know why. The article's second image literally compares a Holocaust denier to someone denying the existence of Palestine. Come on. We weren't born yesterday. And my question about why not a comparison to Francoist Spain or Mussolini Italy still stands. - EricSpokane (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

We stil need a verifiable source saying these things are exactly synonymous (as opposed to one being a subset of the other, which would usually be covered in a single wikipedia article) (t · c) buidhe 17:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If it isn't synonymous, then I'm sure you wouldn't mind creating a separate "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany" article and change this one back to what it was originally. Or answering why you changed the article's name in the first place. Or why you've avoided answering (for the third time) why the comparison is to Nazi Germany specifically rather than any number of other fascist governments.

Because I gave you nine sources authored by critics saying that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is Holocaust inversion. You argued that critics of that comparison should either be specifically name-dropped or the sources themselves should have the authors identifying themselves as critics of the comparison in the text of their articles criticizing the comparison. I removed the word "critics" altogether in favor of the more neutral "sometimes called," and you've moved the goalposts - again - to argue the sources need to explicitly say verbatim that comparing Israel to Nazi is Holocaust inversion when those sources are explicitly arguing that it is.

"Comparing Israeli policy towards Palestinians with Nazi policy regarding Jews is an example of Holocaust inversion, where reality is inverted (the Israelis are cast as the 'new' Nazis and the Palestinians as the 'new' Jews), and an inversion of morality (the Holocaust is presented as a moral lesson for, or even a moral indictment of, 'the Jews')."[2]

"The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel, Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history."[3]

"Solemn ceremonies around Europe marked yesterday's Holocaust Memorial Day. But 63 years after the liberation of Auschwitz on Jan. 27, 1945, one of the most perfidious forms of contemporary anti-Semitism is Holocaust inversion -- the portrayal of Israelis and Jews as modern-day Nazis."[4]

"Barghouti, alongside many other BDS proponents, often equates Israel's treatment of Palestinians to Hitler's persecution of European Jews. This comparison reflects what many scholars refer to as 'Holocaust inversion'."[5]

"On social media and college campuses, anti-Zionists have made it a habit to compare the plight of Palestinians with the Holocaust. Historian — and now Biden administration envoy — Deborah Lipstadt describes such comparisons between Jews in Israel and Nazis as a form of 'soft-core denial,' also known as Holocaust inversion."[6]

"Clemens Heni, the German political scientist and director of the Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA), believes that the equation of Israel/the Jews/Zionism with Nazism amounts to an ‘inversion of truth’ which is used today as a form of ‘extremely aggressive anti-Jewish propaganda.’"[7]

The fact is this comparison is inherently Holocaust inversion for all the reasons multiple scholars and academics have already stated. The second image in the article where a Holocaust denier is compared to a "Palestine denier," as I pointed out, makes that abundantly clear. Actually, both images make that link clear, considering the first image[8] explicitly mentions a quote by Martin Niemöller saying, "They came for the Jews and we did nothing." And no amount of semantics or nitpicking or a ridiculously high burden of verifiable proof demanded by you, not Wikipedia policies, is going to change that. - EricSpokane (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You arent proving anything with these sources. You start with the World Jewish Congress, an avowedly Zionist organization, then go to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an avowedly Zionist think-tank, then an op-ed by Manfred Gerstenfeld, head of already referenced JCPA, then an article by Lesley Klaff who would be a fine source if she supported the idea that all comparisons between the two are "Holocaust inversion", but she doesnt, she supports that some such comparisons arm, and supports that one political scientist goes further in saying it generally us. Next you have a student paper (seriously?). Maybe dont act like you have established something is widely believed when all youve shown is that the political adversaries of one group wish to paint them as racists. nableezy - 15:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I gave nine sources in this discussion - keep up, please - and as far as I'm aware, I fail to see how some of them being authored or sourced from pro-Israel sources violates Wikipedia's standards of verifiability any more than citations from Al Jazeera do. Yes, the vast majority of Jewish people happen to be pro-Israel. What a shock. I never argued whether "the political adversaries of one group" are racist. You inferred that. What I am specifically saying is that comparing Israel the state to Nazi Germany is Holocaust inversion, as the two images on the article make abundantly clear, considering they both directly reference what the Nazi Party did to the Jewish people and invoke that genocide to imply Israel is doing the same to Palestinian Arabs. - EricSpokane (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep up please? Keep up yourself, thank you very much. The standard is reliability, and editorials in al-Jazeera would only be as reliable as their author. Some of your sources are of such low quality I thought it better to just find a better one (Algemeiner lol, seriously? Your college paper one was better than that.) Nobody said anything about Jewish people, making that just another in a string of attempts to change the framing of this to racism. The WJC is an avowedly Zionist organization. So is the JCPA, and the JCPA head is reliable for his own opinion but thats about it. What I am specifically saying is no they are not the same thing, as the source below makes clear it is using the Holocaust specifically to shame Israel and/or Jews more widely regarding the treatment of the Palestinians is Holocaust inversion. No, not any comparison between Israel the state and Nazi Germany. The two images are not the only thing in this article. The article also includes Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Yehuda Elkana, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt making such comparisons. Are they all anti-semites too? nableezy - 19:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I addressed Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt in the relevant discussion below, and as far as I'm concerned, your issues with Algemeiner and the WJC seem to stem from personal biases against pro-Israel sources rather than any issues of reliability on Wikipedia. As you said, editorials are only as reliable as their authors. Apart from being pro-Israel, do the authors of any of those sources have personal histories of being unreliable? - EricSpokane (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy groups are not reliable sources by default, even less so for discussing their political adversaries. Hamas is not a reliable source on the history of Zionism either. The actual academic source, as quoted below, is very clear that Holocaust inversion includes, shocking development, using the Holocaust. nableezy - 19:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The actual academic source, as quoted below, stated:

"The practice of using the Holocaust as a means to criticize Israel and 'the Jews' in political debates concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict is known as 'Holocaust Inversion' and is so prevalent that it is regarded as the 'new' trope of the 'new' or 'contemporary' antisemitism."

So, she acknowledges usage of the Holocaust to criticize Israel in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict is known as Holocaust inversion. You argue that she is specifically arguing only the Holocaust being weaponized against Israel is antisemitic.

Let's continue the quote:

"Holocaust inversion actually involves two distinct but closely associated tropes, which may or may not appear together."

Emphasis mine.

"These..." as in, the closely associated tropes, "... are an 'inversion of reality', whereby the Israelis are cast as the 'new' Nazis and the Palestinians are cast as the 'new' Jews, and an 'inversion of morality', whereby the Holocaust is presented as a 'moral lesson' for, or a 'moral indictment' of, 'the Jews'."

Emphasis on the word "Nazis" mine.

She makes it quite clear she's talking about a comparison to both the Holocaust and a comparison to the Nazis. Because both are very closely associated with each other for obvious reasons. - EricSpokane (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

she acknowledges usage of the Holocaust to criticize Israel in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict is known as Holocaust inversion. Um yes. What you keep saying however, and attempting to place in the article, is that any comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany is Holocaust inversion. No, it is specifically using the Holocaust. As far as involves "two distinct but closely associated tropes, which may or may not appear together.", yes obviously using the Holocaust involves a specific comparison between Nazi Germany and Israel. But what you are apparently failing to understand is that there are other comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany that do not involve the Holocaust. You may not define the entire set but a definition that only fits one member of that set. nableezy - 23:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If what I am failing to understand is that there are "other comparisons" between Israel and Nazi Germany that do not involve the Holocaust...

... then what are they?

The article contains an image of a protest sign comparing Palestinians to Jews under Nazi Germany because... why?

During the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, settlers donned yellow stars because... why?

Israeli general Yair Golan said "If there is something that frightens me about the memory of the Holocaust, it is seeing the abhorrent processes that took place in Europe, and Germany in particular, some 70, 80 or 90 years ago, and finding manifestations of these processes here among us in 2016" because... why?

British politician David Ward said "I am saddened that the Jews, who suffered unbelievable levels of persecution during the Holocaust, could within a few years of liberation from the death camps be inflicting atrocities on Palestinians in the new state of Israel and continue to do so on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza" because... why?

Turkish president Recep Erdogan said he believed "no difference [exists] between Hitler's obsession with a pure race and the understanding that these ancient lands are just for the Jews" because... why?

In almost every example provided of a comparison being made to Nazi Germany, the Holocaust is directly or indirectly invoked. And of the small number of examples that don't, they're vaguely worded. For example, "the Soviet Union compared Israeli tactics to those of Nazi Germany." What does that even mean? Are they comparing military tactics or something else? It doesn't say. In the case of the 1948 open letter, it's quite obvious from the actual letter that a far right political party - not Israel - was being compared to the Nazis.

So, yes, in fact, we can define the entire set by what the actual overwhelming majority of examples actually showcase. - EricSpokane (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, I have zero interest in any personal opinion by you or anybody else on Wikipedia. You may not claim that your cherry picked examples constitute the actual overwhelming majority of examples and you may likewise not claim that you may define something based on those cherry picked examples. You need reliable sources that explicitly back up your position, and you do not have any. nableezy - 03:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal opinion? I am telling you what is actually in the article itself. The only examples that feasibly might not invoke the Holocaust are:

A) the 1948 open letter

B) Israeli philosopher Yeshayahu Liebowitz inventing the term "Judeo-Nazis." Noam Chomsky cites Liebowitz.

C) Historian Omer Bartov comparing the IDF to the German army during World War II.

D) the Soviet Union comparing "Israeli tactics" to those of Nazi Germany.

That's it. And of those examples, I would argue at least one doesn't even belong because the open letter very specifically compares a far right political party to the Nazis, not the state of Israel itself. I also find Liebowitz coining the term "Judeo-Nazis" rather than "Israeli-Nazis" curious in that it could be invoking the Holocaust or maybe it isn't. The remaining two are quite vague in why they're comparing the Israeli military to the Nazis German military. Is that cherry-picking? - EricSpokane (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no sources documenting any of the points you are trying to make, mainly that Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is known as Holocaust inversion. As far as feasible examples, no, that is very obviously not true. Given Ive offered other examples, such as the comparison of "A land without a people for a people without a land" to Lebensraum (see Yacobi, Haim (2017). Constructing a Sense of Place: Architecture and the Zionist Discourse. Design and the Built Environment. Taylor & Francis. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-351-94933-0. Retrieved 2022-04-20. The justification for such misuse of localist concepts was the supposed shortage of living space (Lebensraem), created by the fact that Germany - unlike the colonial empires that dominated a 'world of empty spaces' - was a 'space-less country'. (Such horrific imagery of voids and spaceless-ness is invoked in slogans of certain Zionist circles who propagated the notion of 'land without people' for a 'people without a land')). That this article does not cover all the available subject matter does not make it so that this subject matter does not exist. And regardless, you wishing to define the topic based on the examples currently in the article is, of course, cherry-picking. nableezy - 03:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the source absolutely have to have the specific wording that "Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is known as Holocaust inversion" in order to be making the point? Because several sources I've provided as well as sources I didn't provide did make that point, if not in the exact same wording verbatim.

You do have a fair point that the article doesn't include all material out there on this subject, though, so I retract that point. - EricSpokane (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesnt have to include that exact phrasing, but it does have to make clear that all such comparisons are definitionally Holocaust inversion. That is what you are doing when you say Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, also known (or sometimes known or called or whatever) as Holocaust inversion. nableezy - 04:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Such a source, if it exists, would also have to be balanced with others that may use a different definition. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There already is a different definition. "Comparisons." - EricSpokane (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried providing sources that argued comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is Holocaust inversion. You dismissed them as "Zionist." The argument wasn't that these sources were misrepresenting facts or being deliberately deceitful with their information, but that they were biased in their interpretation of a subject that, from what you're arguing, is all about interpretation.

Why would Haim Yacobi's personal interpretation of the comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany bear more weight than Manfred Gerstenfeld's? Yacobi's comparisons to Lebensraum could just as easily be compared to Manifest Destiny, yet he doesn't seem to be comparing Israel to the United States, for some reason. The Soviet Union is notorious for its anti-Israel/antisemitic propaganda, yet an allegedly "Zionist" source doesn't belong? What's the parameter here for sources? - EricSpokane (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

And here is Lesley Klaff defining Holocaust Inversion:

• "Holocaust Inversion". Israel Studies. 24 (2). Indiana University Press: 75. 2019. doi:10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.07. ISSN 1084-9513. The practice of using the Holocaust as a means to criticize Israel and "the Jews" in political debates concerning the Israel-Palestinian conflict is known as "Holocaust Inversion" and is so prevalent that it is regarded as the "new" trope of the "new" or "contemporary" antisemitism. Holocaust inversion actually involves two distinct but closely associated tropes, which may or may not appear together. These are an "inversion of reality", whereby the Israelis are cast as the "new" Nazis and the Palestinians are cast as the "new" Jews, and an "inversion of morality", whereby the Holocaust is presented as a "moral lesson" for, or a "moral indictment" of, "the Jews".

It is the practice of using the Holocaust, not simply just a comparison between actions by Israel and actions by Nazi Germany, that makes something "Holocaust inversion". Attempting to claim any comparison is inherently "Holocaust inversion" is a transparent attempt to paint all such criticism as racist and it isnt supported by sources that say that including the Holocaust in the comparison is an integral component of "Holocaust inversion". And that attempt to equate the two certainly is made, but it is made only by those who are identifiably on one side of the pro vs anti-Zionist divide. And it is unreasonable to define one group by their political adversaries. nableezy - 20:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Your quote from Klaff explicitly argues that this comparison is Holocaust inversion. If it wasn't Holocaust inversion, why do the two images on the article invoke the Holocaust? If it wasn't Holocaust inversion, why compare Israel to Nazi Germany specifically rather than Francoist Spain or Mussolini Italy. It's so abundantly obvious why this comparison is made, yet you act like it's not. - EricSpokane (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No it does not. It says Holocaust inversion includes that, but that is not sufficient by itself to be that. I dont give a shit about the two images. We can remove them if youd like. The rest of your comment violates WP:NOTFORUM. We are not here to discuss your feelings, but rather the sources and the article. nableezy - 19:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't advocate for removing those images, as that would be tantamount to hiding the evidence that it is Holocaust inversion. I fail to see where my feelings came into play, but I'll ignore the personal attack. Klaff did, in fact, argue that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is Holocaust inversion.

"What has been called ‘Holocaust Inversion’ involves an inversion of reality (the Israelis are cast as the ‘new’ Nazis and the Palestinians as the ‘new’ Jews), and an inversion of morality (the Holocaust is presented as a moral lesson for, or even a moral indictment of ‘the Jews’)." - Klaff

Those are her words. - EricSpokane (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it involves the Holocaust. Not all comparisons between the two involve the Holocaust. As far as the supposed personal attack, that was in reference to your repeated attempts at asking rhetorical questions like why compare Israel to Nazi Germany specifically rather than Francoist Spain or Mussolini Italy and outlandish statements like It's so abundantly obvious why this comparison is made, yet you act like it's not.. This is not a forum, and your personal musings are not appropriate for this page. And that is not a personal attack. nableezy - 19:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not rhetorical questions. They're quite serious. If comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany aren't about the Holocaust, then what else specifically are being compared? Economic policy? Abortion law? Please. The only reason Godwin's law exists is because of the monopoly the Nazis have on the social and cultural consciousness as representatives of absolute evil. Why? Because the Nazis invaded Poland? No. Because the Nazis bombed the hell out of London? No. Why are Hitler and the Nazis the go-to representatives for absolute evil? Because of the genocide they committed primarily against the Jewish people. Because of what Allied soldiers found inside the Nazis' death camps that shocked and horrified them to their core, men who had seen battle but nothing like the ovens they found at Auschwitz. That's undeniably the reasoning behind any comparison in virtually any argument. To deny that is to deny reality. You attributing of that to either my "feelings" or "personal musings" is simultaneously an attempt at gaslighting and a personal attack. - EricSpokane (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Absent a source raising those points they are of course your personal feelings and it is not gaslighting (how absurdly hysterical to say that) or a personal attack to ask you once again, to stop violating WP:NOTFORUM. Again, what the sources says, and youve quoted it so I dont know youre having trouble with it, is that using the Holocaust is what Holocaust inversion is. Not all comparisons to Nazi Germany. You keep trying to change the framing here, the article is about comparisons to Nazi Germany. The article discusses several things that are not invoking the Holocaust. Some of the comparisons are about the ghettoization of Gaza, the comparison of "a land without a people for a people without a land" top Lebensraum. Note neither of those things constitute genocide or invoke the Holocaust. And yet they are comparisons to Nazi Germany. Huh. nableezy - 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"You keep trying to change the framing here, the article is about comparisons to Nazi Germany."

The article was originally "Holocaust inversion." Until someone decided to change it. So, I'm not the one changing the framing here. Yes, comparisons to Nazi Germany are inherently invoking the Holocaust. We're not comparing Israel's tax codes to Nazi Germany's, are we? Even if it wasn't inherently invoking the Holocaust, the majority of examples in the article itself invoke the Holocaust to some degree. Since we're already discussing that above, we're basically going in circles, but yes, claiming this is about my personal feelings on the matter is gaslighting.

Now, as per the Talk page guidelines, I've gone out of my way to make adjustments to the article to make the article better, even attempted multiple times to make the wording as neutral as possible. I've communicated my points and explained why I feel those changes would improve the article based on deductive reasoning and my observation of the facts here. You keep trying to make it about my personal feelings when, frankly, if my personal feelings were a factor, this entire article wouldn't exist at all. But since it does and that doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon, yes, "Holocaust inversion" is a major component of this comparison. - EricSpokane (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

If youre going to keep calling something gaslighting then, per WP:ASPERSIONS report it or stop. Full stop. You may not make repeated claims of wrongdoing without substantiating it, and repeating serious claims without evidence is prohibited conduct. Gaslighting, and other psychological manipulation is prohibited by the UCoC, and claiming others are violating that code without evidence is casting aspersions. If you do it one more time I will be requesting sanctions. Yes, anything you say here that is not directly backed by reliable sources is just your own personal view, and as all other personal views on Wikipedia is irrelevant. Saying that is not gaslighting. Requesting that you abide by our policies on original research and verifiability is not gaslighting. Say it one more time, without substantiating it and making a report, and I will be reporting it myself. As far as the pertinent part of your comment, if youd like to propose moving this to Holocaust inversion you can follow the procedures at WP:RM. The article is currently on comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, not Holocaust inversion. nableezy - 03:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't feel I needed to report it, so I'll retract the aspersion of gaslighting, but I am going to formally ask you to please stop claiming this is about my "personal feelings" or "personal musings" on the matter.

The first two sources cited in the article - the Wall Street Journal article by Mansfeld and the Fathom Journal article by Klaff, which were not placed by me - are both about Holocaust inversion. That is not my personal interpretation of the text. That is the text. So, what I'm gathering is that the problem with calling this subject "Holocaust inversion" isn't that there aren't sources calling it that, but the problem is that there aren't sources saying other people are calling it that. Do I have that right?

As for the procedures at Wikipedia:Requested moves, I'm unfamiliar with that process, but I might consider doing that. - EricSpokane (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there arent sources saying that as a whole this topic is referred to as Holocaust inversion. I certainly agree a subset of what is covered here is referred to by some sources as Holocaust inversion, but the claim that all such comparisons are is not accurate/sourced. I dont think anybody is denying that Holocaust inversion is included in comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, when Israel is accused of perpetuating a new holocaust or when people say Israel/Israelis should know better because of the Holocaust than to become the new Nazis then yes that is both Holocaust inversion, as called by some sources, and a comparison to Nazi Germany. But that isnt all comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. nableezy - 04:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Inversion" is also used by Israel and its supporters to portray "Israel as a beleaguered nation surrounded by Nazi sympathisers who seek to destroy it as the Jewish homeland." and in particular against Palestinians. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a strange argument to make on an article comparing Israel to the Nazis. Do we have a "Comparisons between Palestine and Nazi Germany" page? - EricSpokane (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If that is a topic reliable sources discuss as a topic enough to merit an article go start it. nableezy - 19:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange? I am pointing out that according to a reliable scholarly source, the "Holocaust-Hitler analogy" exists in two directions not only one. The argument that it is only inversionists against Jews and/or Israel is a good example of accusing others of what one is guilty of oneself. Selfstudier (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

You say it exists in two directions, not only one, and yet only a "Comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany" article exists, not a "Comparison between Palestine and Nazi Germany" article. That's my point. Your argument that "inversion" is used by Israel advocates to "portray Israel as a beleaguered nation surrounded by Nazi sympathizers" makes no sense because we're not comparing Israel's enemies - including "in particular, the Palestinians" - to Nazis here. We are comparing Israel to the Nazis. I would be first in line to oppose a comparison between Palestine and Nazi Germany, but it's simply not happening on the scale the reverse clearly is and it's almost disingenuous to even bring it up. - EricSpokane (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

In your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Does or does not a "Comparisons between Palestine and Nazi Germany" article exist?

Yeah, sure. It's "in [my] opinion."

Quit with the gaslighting. It's unbecoming. - EricSpokane (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The answer to why such an article does not exist is that no editor has found it notable enough to make. If you feel it is you are welcome to do so. I dont quite get the relevance in this line of argument though. nableezy - 03:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite get the relevance of the argument that - in a nutshell - "Palestine gets compared to Nazi Germany, too!" when we're on a Talk forum for an article comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. The argument insinuates "inversion" is a one-sided descriptor used to compare Palestinians and their sympathizers to Nazis, which... almost borders on troll logic. - EricSpokane (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

My not getting this argument spans both participants. nableezy - 03:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor has no difficulty including Palestinian "relativization" of the Holocaust in their most recent edit but oh, no we must not on any account mention that Israel does the same thing viz a viz the Palestinians (actually not just the Palestinians). Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This isnt an article on comparisons of Palestinians and Nazis. What does that have to with anything here? nableezy - 23:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abbas made a comparison of Israeli behavior, he said "I have 50 slaughters that Israel committed….50 massacres, 50 slaughters, 50 holocausts". There is only one "holocaust" if one is using the word in that sense, otherwise there is no ban on using the word in another context. Was it an indirect reference, who knows? It's just sensationalism, fodder for Bild. There was a diplomatic meeting, then a press conference in which reporters asked Abbas will he apologize for Munich and they get a pissed off response from Abbas, hardly surprising. OK, if I have to write an article on Israeli comparisons of Palestinians with Nazi Germany in order to rectify the nonsense here, then I'll do that but I didn't open the door. Selfstudier (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Abbas made a comparison that is part of the subject of this article. Comparisons of Palestinians to Nazis is not part of the subject of this article. The whataboutism isnt on-topic for either this article or even this talk page section, which as far as I am aware is about equating comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany with "Holocaust inversion". nableezy - 23:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In the article it says "According to Lustick, many Israelis are "already repelled by actions against Palestinians they cannot help but associate with Nazi persecution of Jews." Guess you will be removing that, right? Selfstudier (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

You can add that part if you want. But please try not to shift the discussion to things that arent directly related to the topic of this article. We dont get anywhere when it becomes e meandering mess. nableezy - 03:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct, I don't have any difficulty with providing examples of Israel being compared to Nazi Germany in an article about comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany in a section specifically revolving around "21st-century discussions and commentary." If you're going to argue Israel does the same thing - the same thing being compare Palestinians or the Palestinian Authority to Nazi Germany - make an article about that, but it's a whataboutism when you're bringing it up in this discussion to argue "inversion" is a propaganda term. - EricSpokane (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Does The New York Times Open Letter Belong Here?

In the Historical Examples section, the opening line says, "An early example of comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany was a 1948 open letter to the U.S. publication New York Times describing the Herut party as 'closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.' The letter was signed by researchers Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt." I won't move that because I'm uncertain, but does it belong here as an example of comparing Israel the state to the Nazi German state? Einstein and Arendt were both Zionists and signed the letter out of anger at the Herut party and the Irgun militia for the Deir Yassin Massacre, not because they believed the Israeli state was comparable to Nazi Germany. I'll await further thoughts on this. - EricSpokane (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The letter is cited as an example of the article topic by a reliable source written by two experts. Seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I'm finding your distortion or seemingly deliberate misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies to be a roundabout way of making WP: Arguments to the person without directly violating WP: No personal attacks. I never said or implied I wanted the source removed because "I don't like it" or any of the various examples made in the policy. It's a valid question of whether it belongs as a historical example of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany because the letter is comparing a political party in Israel to the Nazi Party. Notably, the citation doesn't even include the open letter as a primary source so readers of Wikipedia can see it for themselves. You don't get the sense Israel the state was being compared to Nazi Germany in that letter.

Neve Gordon and Mark LeVine ask rhetorically in the article whether Albert Einstein or Hannah Arendt were antisemitic for signing the letter, arguing that the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism would have branded them antisemites without adequately explaining why. They even acknowledge the open letter was criticism of a specific political party:

"Yet, according to the definition of anti-Semitism that more than 30 countries [...] recently adopted, these two leading intellectuals could very well be labeled as [anti-Semites]. This is due to an open letter they sent on Dec. 4, 1948, to The New York Times, claiming that the right-wing Herut Party in the newly formed State of Israel was 'closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties.'" - EricSpokane (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

IHRA? In 1948? Non-argument. Many use Israel as shorthand for whatever IsGov it is at the time, slicing and dicing the differences (State/Gov/Israeli Jews etc) isn't a very useful argument, see if there is a source making it. Ditto the primary source, needs a secondary interpretation, not an OR interpretation. Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree its opinion piece yes its written by experts by their WP:WEIGHT is not enough to be included as it not peer reviewed paper. In any case it should be attributed Shrike (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Content placement issues

Placing Lustick's comment in the "antisemitism" section is inapproprate since Lustick does not discuss whether the comparisons are antisemitic. Perhaps we need a new section on why such comparisons are made. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean this or it was something else already moved? "already repelled by actions against Palestinians they cannot help but associate with Nazi persecution of Jews." Selfstudier (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead is not that bad but the body might benefit from a section like that. At the moment the entire focus is on whether such comparisons are antisemitic and not why the comparisons are made. As well, there are comparisons and comparisons. Perhaps there ought to be sections specifically dedicated to comparisons in the context of holocaust denial, relativization and comparisons with Nazi behavior and/or institutions (Hitler). Selfstudier (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll just drop this here to remind me later because I don't follow this article as much as some others.Selfstudier (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Algemeiner

Is a very poor source, especially considering there are academic sources here. nableezy - 22:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Why? because it negates your world view? Jacker1968 (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably because it's a tabloid newspaper and the article cited is just a lazy rebuttal of pre-made talking points written by some guy. Aside things that could be considered subjective, something objectively bad is that the writer denies that 700,000 Palestinian people were were displaced during the Nakba which is as far as I know the consensus, as reflected on this site. 2800:810:596:3320:542A:9856:C323:A32E (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Pertinently, isn't it also openly an opinion piece by an advocacy group? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

Jacker1968 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The claim: "This definition is controversial because of concerns that it could be seen as defining legitimate criticisms of Israel as antisemitic and has been used to censor pro-Palestinian activism." - is not backed up by any reliable source.

 Not done: It is supported by ref 10, located after the sentence immediately following it. Tollens (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Herut is not in scope

The Herut party was an opposition party in December 1948 when the letter was published. Including this letter in the article about 'Comparisons with Israel and Nazi Germany' is out of scope. Criticizing an opposition party does not constitute a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany, not to mention in the lead, where it is extremely undue. It can be included in the article about Herut.

The letter is very clear about this :

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine

Einstein was a Zionist, and this letter was not a comparison of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The source is discussing one of the topics of this article, comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany supposedly being antisemitic, and raises that letter as an early example. And it isnt mentioned in the lead. nableezy - 06:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is an opinion article in an opinion section. According to WP:REDFLAG, "Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended" require "multiple high-quality sources." It is evident from the letter that it criticizes Herut and not Israel. I am sure you know how to identify a high quality source. Marokwitz (talk) 06:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Please provide multiple high-quality sources or self revert. Marokwitz (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

That is an article by two noted experts and even if it were self published would be reliable. Try harder. nableezy - 15:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You can't seriously claim that Einstein compared Israel to Nazi Germany; it's absurd.

The Neve Gordon opinion article doesn't make this claim anywhere, it is very clear from the article that Herut party was criticized as a precursor of Irgun.

Second, if such an outlandish idea were true, which is completely out of character for Einstein, it would surely be covered by other sources. Find them. Marokwitz (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Following your point, it does appear that there is substance in your argument. Indeed implying that Israel is compared to Nazism following a quote of Einstein on Herut party. Upon further analysis. Herut represented in 1949 about 10% of voters and in the 1951 elections 6.6% of voters. Therefore, it seems to be OR to assess that Einstein is comparing Israel to the Nazis especially in light of his Zionism and his advocacy for Zionist institutions. If i'm not mistaken, he established the first friends of the Technion association, also attended the founding of the Hebrew University. I think I'll stop here, since point is clear enough. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No the substance is that the secondary source cites this as an example. You can try to argue they are wrong but on Wikipedia that is an invalid argument of zero worth. nableezy - 15:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

You have drastically redefined the scope of the article through contested edits to the lead, please self-revert and seek consensus here for your changes rather than attempt to ram them through. nableezy - 15:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Albert Einstein is considered to have been a Zionist who advocated for Arab-Jewish cooperation. I think the discussion above has rather amply covered the reasoning. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the "Freedom Party" (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine

It is sheer mystification to misconstrue this sentence as an attack on Israel. The grammar means what it says: a party has emerged in Israel (not Israel) that closely resembles in various dimensions the Nazi and Fascist parties. There is no arguing the point by talking round or past the obvious.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, needs to remain clear. Happy we've reached a consensus on this topic. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Ive reverted the drastic rewrite of the lead where the its antisemitic mantra is repeated in the start, middle and end. I also rectified the massive amount of undue weight given to klaff. nableezy - 03:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright :) Homerethegreat (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Is inclusion of Yair Golan WP:DUE ?

According to our page on Yair Golan, he retracted and said that he did not intend to compare Israel to Nazi Germany, releasing a statement in which he said "It is an absurd and baseless comparison and I had no intention whatsoever to draw any sort of parallel or to criticize the national leadership. The IDF is a moral army that respects the rules of engagement and protects human dignity."

Is this still due for inclusion, in your view? Marokwitz (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I added to it later comments he made. Yes, I think it is due. nableezy - 03:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The new source you have added says ' he likened far-right politicians to Nazis' . This is not a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. Why are you doing this again? Marokwitz (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

He retracted his comments. Don’t think it is due. Dovidroth (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Even before the retraction, it was not clear that he was referring to Israel. He said, "If there is one thing that is scary in remembering the Holocaust, it is noticing horrific processes which developed in Europe – particularly in Germany – 70, 80, and 90 years ago, and finding remnants of that here among us in the year 2016." The overall sum of his statements seems to imply that in his speech, in the words "remnants of that here among us" he was referring to right-wing extremists and not to the state of Israel. Including this in an article dominated by academic discourse seems quite sensationalist. Marokwitz (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Marokwitz. Could you desist from this frivolous, species quibbling over Israel in the title, in argufying that only comparisons that are made between Nazism and the state of Israel, rather than specific parties, groups, politicians or other prominent people, are acceptable here? It is patently ridiculous, Israel does not exist as a separate entity over and beyond what Israelis say, or its institutions are or may be. That is a familiar category error. Like any nation Israel is the sum of its institutions, history and people, so Israel entails what is said or done, notably, there.

The retraction argument likewise holds no weight. We have numerous bios where what people say is criticized as 'antisemitic' followed by a denial or retraction. I for one never erase the record saying the offense is not notable because retracted. NPOV means consistency in the way we apply our principles.Nishidani (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It is easy to fall into sensationalism. Our mission here is to write a quality encyclopedia that serves our readers, not a yellow tabloid. Specific radical elements in a country are not synonymous with the country. The Finns Party in Finland has been compared to Nazis and is connected in various ways to Neo-Nazi organizations, yet we do not say that "Finland has been compared to Nazi Germany" - we can mention that in an article about the far-right in Finland. There are countless such examples in many countries.

In the case of Yair Golan, he made a vague statement about elements of society which he later clarified; he did not mean that he was referring to Israel or the IDF. It is quite an absurd idea to come to the conclusion that a senior Israeli general was referring to Israel rather than criticizing fringe elements of society, which is what he repeatedly said on other occasions. Marokwitz (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yair Golan has indeed warned of fears of the repetition of process in Europe in Israel. Following his retraction of the comment, I'm not sure it's really that due... Indeed perhaps its also problematic in the sense that since Yair Golan is still alive and we attach such a comment to him it might be an overstep.

All in all what is clear is his reference to the extreme right (not Israel). The inclusion of this comment especially if retracted is murky. Overall I do support it being undue. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

No special, policy-indifferent opinionizing please. The text cited from Golan states

Golan stated: "If there is something that frightens me about the memory of the Holocaust, it is seeing the abhorrent processes that took place in Europe, and Germany in particular, some 70, 80 or 90 years ago, and finding manifestations of these processes here among us in 2016.

We are all English speakers. We don't have to interpret it, talk our way around it, or scrabble about to find pretexts to question it, such as that it does not refer to Israel (Marokwitz repeated refrain which, as above, is totally, conceptually void). Golan made a clear comment: there were Holocaust processes that, he felt, were reappearing in Israel. None of us who read Israeli newspapers have a right to engage in denialism that in Israel many things happen which worry people. Here's one typical reminder:

Slogans such “Arabs out” and “Death to the Arabs, scrawled on walls and chanted at sports events, mimic Nazi slogans and German behavior in minds attuned to Holocaustia. Violence and vigilantism against Arabs and against Jews perceived as Arab sympathizers by organizations such as Price Tag, the proudly racist Beitar football club La Familia, and the race-traitor oriented Lehava (Flame) movement cannot help but trigger images of Nazi persecution of Jews in the last years of the Weimar republic. Ian Lustick, Paradigm Lost, 2019 p.144 Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights. I agree with the distinction you've made between the state of Israel and groups in Israel, as you have also mentioned above in the discussion about Albert Einstein's criticism of Herut.

Golan was clear in his clarification that he was not talking about the actions, policies, or government of Israel as resembling Nazism; rather, he is criticizing elements in the far-right, saying that they remind him of processes that happened in Germany in the 1930s.

This article is not about the debate over whether there are some people in Israel who hold views that can be compared to Nazism. It is about the state of Israel. Just like criticism of the Finns Party in Finland is not the same as criticism of Finland. I'm not nitpicking; this is a sensitive article, and we are doing a disservice to our readers if we fail to distinguish between criticisms of the state as defined by its official policies and actions, and those reprehensible actions and ideologies of a far-right small minority. Similarly, the page Criticism of Israel page is criticism of Israel's policies and actions, not criticism of specific political parties, non-governmental groups, or individuals within Israel. Accepting a definition that everything that happens within Israel is in scope would lead to absurdities, for example, including criticism of Balad (political party) within the article Criticism of Israel or other such craziness. One should also notice that Racism in Israel uses the words 'in Israel' and not 'of Israel' so it would be an appropriate page for such topics. Marokwitz (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same argument. This article is about features of Israeli processes/practices which have drawn comparison with aspects of the Nazi treatment of Jews. The lead's first sentence avoids defining the topic range of the page, and perhaps that is where your mnisprision arises from.Nishidani (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the arguments, so I assumed you didn't understand and needed to explain again. The title of this article is a clear enough indication of its scope. The article is not about groups or individuals in Israel; it is about Israel. If you think comparisons of non-official elements in Israel to Nazi processes or practices are a notable topic, create a new page. Marokwitz (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope. You are harping on the one idea and ignoring what I, for one, said regarding it. This is therefore a problem of precisely construing both the title and the lead, which I will now do, to show its defectiveness.

(a) Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany have been made since the 1940s, taking place first within the larger context of the aftermath of World War II. (b)Such comparisons are a rhetorical staple of anti-Zionism in relation to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[1][2] (c) The legitimacy of these comparisons and their potential antisemitic nature is a matter of debate. (d) Historically, figures like Arnold J. Toynbee have drawn parallels between Zionism and Nazism, a stance he maintained despite criticism. (e) Scholar David Feldman and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have provided contrasting views; Feldman suggests these comparisons are often rhetorical tools without specific antisemitic intent, while (f) the ADL sees them as diminishing the Holocaust's significance.[3][4]

(a1) is anomalous because it does not define the title, which, as remarked, allows various meanings. As it stands we do not know what the article is intended to describe.

(a2)A further defect is that (a) starts with the history of the comparison. That is usually relegated to the second lead para in articles of this kind.

(b) Outlines a claim as a fact breaking NPOV by wooing a thesis in the literature. It deploys an adjective' rhetorical', furthermore, which again asserts that the comparison itself is oratorical hot-air, again violating NPOV.

(c) is a sentence to be retained, but contradicts (b). If we accept that the claim in (b) is true, i.e. that the comparison is a 'rhetorical' device, the controversy over its legitimacy is already decided in favour of its illegitimacy, since rhetoric is a device of persuasion, not, in itself, a determination of the factual.

(d) the world's foremost comparative historian of his time entertained this view that a parallel existed, a stance he maintained despite criticism. Half clever violation of NPOV, and consolidating the tendentiousness of c. Toynbee, in short, stubbornly persisted in asserting an analogy, refusing to shift ground, despite the fact that he was taken to task for it. The obvious neutral wording 'defending it against his critics' is ignored.

(e) The tweedledum-tweedledee contrast, for and against. Necessarty, but note that again the language is skewed to favour a POV. For (i) one single voice, David Feldman, a professor of history at Birkbeck is contrasted to an important organization's viewpoint ( ii) Feldman's view corroborates the 'rhetorical' thesis improperly passed off as a 'fact' (c).

(f) the ADL viewpoint is not in opposition to Feldman's, as we are led to believe in the precedingf line. If

the ADL sees them as diminishing the Holocaust's significance

(a1) is anomalous because it does not define the title, which, as remarked, allows various meanings. As

then a 'rhetorical tool without specific antisemitic intent' is not incompatible, or in opposition or contrast to, a perceived 'diminution of of the Holocaust's significance.' Feldman is saying it is not intrinsically antisemitic to draw such a comparison; the ADL is saying that one consequence of the comparison is that it underplays the importance of the Holocaust. These are two totally different statements in kind.

That is just a few lines of para one, highlighting the pointy ineptitude of the article, the incompetence of its draughtsmanship. The fact that you cannot grasp the ambiguity of the title, that you cannot see that if someone wrote an article on 'Comparisons between Soviet Russia and Communist China' it would entail elaborate comparisons between the two, historically, institutionally, culturally, economically and also what, for example, Russian communists and Chinese , communists have stated about this, and espouse the idea that everything is summed up by talking about rhetorical posturing, is, to repeat myself, understandable, because the lead does not define the title.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)