Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

---

If you mean "all Arab nations" then say "all Arab nations", not "all Arabs". That's all Pizza's last comment said. He's quite correct (on that particular matter). Evercat 13:15 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Are you trying to argue that the various wars have invalidated Chomsky's views? I suspect Abbas would be quite willing to work with Chomsky on creating a new government in the region. Pizza Puzzle

The form of Zionism that Chomsky believed no longer exists. In theory, this could change in the future; in theory, the Jewish community could develop new beliefs along these lines. Similarly, in theory, Chomsky could also change his mind. in theory, anything is possible. But in the present, what he describes is not Zionism, and is rejected by the Jewish and Israeli community as not being Zionism. Millions of Christian Zionists also reject such views. Frankly, some of his views are even considered anti-Semitic. Thus, it would be misleading to present him as a Zionist! (He himself refuses to identify as one. Doesn't this tell you something?) In any case, Chomsky is just on person, and his views are not representative of all the many millions of anti-Zionists out there, nor are they represent the views of many officially anti-Zionist governments and organizations. Look, I don't mind you or anyone else discussing his views; in fact, they already are covered in great detail! I just object to the way that so many people use him, in so many articles, as having a voice equal to that of millions of other people. Context. RK 14:50 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

It does exist. Chomsky is an advocate of it. What he describes is rejected by the mass media. What the Jewish/Israeli community endorses remains unknown and debatable. Pizza Puzzle

It exists as an idea held by more than one individual, yes. But it does not exist as a mass-movement, nor as a position within the WZO. Slrubenstein

Proposed addition

Under the "anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism" section some mention should be made that the latter could be construed by the former through a double-standard in both action and argument. The same argument was made by both Lawsrence Summers, president of Harvard, and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. See the following links: [1]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3299

---

Moreover, as a member of European clergy, Rufeisen's personal safety from possible persecution by Nazis was guaranteed. -- I wonder where that comes from, as it is certainly not an accurate description of Nazi practice in Poland. A Jew who became a Catholic priest would have been persecuted once as a Jew and once as a Catholic priest (a large number of whom were killed, including several thousand in Auschwitz). This sentence also contradicts the early sentence ...a Polish Jew persecuted by the Nazis.... Was he or wasn't he? I'm not familiar enough with this case to fix the text, but obviously something is wrong with it. Or maybe it is just written confusingly?? -- zero 13:35, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I removed the sentence, since it was obviously incorrect. In fact, there was even a Catholic church in the Warsaw Ghetto for Jews who had converted. Danny 13:42, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Arabs have interchangeably used the term "Zionists" (Sahyûniyyûn), with "Jews", "Children of Israel" (Banû Isrâîl) or "Israelis". (Stillman, 1986)

I'm sure that is true, but it is no different from the normal practice in Israel, where one hears "Jew" all the time in places where "Israeli" should appear, while "Zionist" is hardly heard at all unless one is speaking specifically about Zionist organizations or (usually historical) Zionist activists. zero 14:14, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Israelis do not assume that all Jews are Zionists (they know much better); they don't assume that Zionists are the same as Jews (they know that many Christians in the USA are pro-Zionist); they do not deliberately morph these two terms together to make anti-Semitic statements politically acceptable. I think you missed this point; most experts on anti-Semitism decry the fact that the western public is unaware of the way these two terms (Jew, Zionist) are morphed together in much of the Arab world as a way of making anti-Semitic statements acceptable. RK 21:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I said that "Zionist" is rarely heard, so your reply avoided the main point, which was the first one. I'll give an actual example. Once I attended the opening of a part of an educational institution in Israel and there were lots of speeches. Speaker after speaker (some of them American) went on about "educating young Jews" despite the fact that about 10% of the students there are Israeli Arabs. When I mentioned this to the people I was with (all Israeli Jews), they agreed that "educating young Israelis" would have been better, but it had not even occurred to them until I pointed it out. In my experience (and according to my discussions with Israelis) this is a completely normal situation. I find it hard to criticise a Palestinian under Israeli occupation who says "Jew" to mean "Israeli" when Israelis use the same language themselves. (Arabs in other countries have less excuse.) --zero 01:38, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Oh. Very good points! RK 16:56, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Israeli writers about the Arab-Israeli conflict almost always say "Arab" and "Jew", rarely "Arab" and "Zionist" (with the same exceptions). Which raises the issue: why not complain about the even more common failure to distinguish between Arabs and Arab nationalists? [I bet nobody here even heard of this issue before.] Note that I am not referring to the substantive distinction between Israeli behavior and Jewish behavior, but to the verbal distinction between Jews and Zionists that RK raises with this quotation. Speaking slightly more widely, it seems to me that nobody has worked harder to foster the equation between Jews and Zionism than the Zionist movement has. There are no complaints to be heard if this equation is made in the course of giving praise but only if it is made in the course of criticism. --zero 14:14, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Most Jews are Zionist, in the limited sense that they support the right of Jews to have a Jewish state somewhere within the land of Israel. Very few Jews are anti-Zionist. (Many might be non-Zionist, but non-Zionism and anti-Zionism are totally different.) Millions of Jews are actively Zionist in their tangible support of the State of Israel through financial aid, charity, visiting the country, and joining synagogues that are actively pro-Zionist. (Even the Reform movement is now actively pro-Zionist; it is not just an Orthodox phenomenon.) Also, perhaps we should point out somewhere that Jewish nationalism (Zionism) is not exclusive of Arab nationalism. In fact, as far as I know, the vast majority of Jews have no problem with Arab nationalism in general, the belief that Arabs have a right to an Arab nation - in fact, many Arab nations - in the middle east. Zionist Jews merely believe that they have a right to have a small state somewhere in the middle-east as well. These are not exclusive positions. RK 21:50, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am confused as to your distinction between "Arabs" and "Arab nationalists". Pretty much all Arabs are Arab nationalists, in the same sense that Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Not all Arabs are extremist about Arab nationalism, but they all support the existence of many Arab nations (just as Jewish nationalists support the right of existence of one Jewish nation, i.e. Israel.) Of course, you may be talking about pan-Arab nationalism, the unification of all Arabs into one nation. (Nassar's dream! Saddam's dream!) Or something else. Could you clarify? RK 21:43, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I confused my point by introducing the phrase "Arab nationalist", so I'll try again. When people write, for example, The Jews just blew up an apartment building without even allowing the 100 people living there to remove their possessions, we are offended because it was not the action of "The Jews", but an action of the Israeli army. I also find that way of speaking offensive, and it is correct to say that it is common throughout the Arab world. We should say The IDF just blew up.... However, many people in both Israel and the West don't have the slightest hesitation in saying The Arabs <did something> or The Arabs <believe something> in almost identical circumstances. It is a pervasive double standard. Most people in the West (especially in America) don't even notice because they have grown up in a system which is saturated with anti-Arabism from top to bottom. Many times I have seen an American politician talking about "The Arabs" in a way that would cause an instant end of career if the same words were spoken about "The Jews", but nobody complains except a few Arab-Americans and who cares what they think? --zero 01:38, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Again, very good points. RK 16:56, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Regarding this: "In most of the Arab world there is no practial difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. Since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Arabs have interchangeably used the term "Zionists" (Sahyûniyyûn), with "Jews", "Children of Israel" (Banû Isrâîl) or "Israelis". (Stillman, 1986)" Seems that this statement is overly sweeping and broad -- especially saying "Arabs" and seems a bit POV -- for example, what is a "practical difference". Perhaps it could be toned doen a bit. Bcorr 22:18, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this point can be refined. However, before you do so I would just ask that you read a handful of books on anti-Semitism in the Arab world. These book refer to the huge number of Arab books, as well as editorials and articles from the Arab press, in which this identification is made. By the way, as other Wikipedia articles point out, this phenomenon was not confined solely to the Arab world. The deliberate mixing of "Jew" and "Zionist" and "Israeli" and "traitor" was purposely done by the Soviet Union and some of its client states for many years. The existence of this propaganda, in both the former Soviet Union, and in the many Arab states today, is not controversial. The only controversy exists in the mind of Zero000. So let me be clear: we should not hold that discussing this important phenomenon is racist towards Russians, or towards Arabs. It isn't. It is not a double standard, either. It is an essential point in understanding why so many in the Arab conflate Israel with all of Judaism. RK 13:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It is RKPOV. (No, I'm not seriously suggesting creating such an article, it would be too hard to keep it within 40K.) It is especially instructive to note how it uses the word "Arabs" in the same sweeping manner as the use of the word "Jews" it is complaining about. This double standard is so deeply ingrained that many people in the West aren't even aware of it. Also, to quote myself from above, nobody has worked harder to foster the equation between Jews and Zionism than the Zionist movement has. There are no complaints to be heard if this equation is made in the course of giving praise but only if it is made in the course of criticism. Go ahead and try to make the article NPOV if you dare... --zero 03:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No one denies that much of the Zionist leadership attempted to make such a relation. No one is preventing you, or anyone else, from discussing this in a Wikipedia article. Please do not imply otherwise. The effort, however, failed. For almost a century most of Reform Judaism was hostile to Zionism, and much of Orthodoxy was indifferent. And now that we have post-Zionism, the effort is revealed as a total failure. About the only people who buy this identity, ironically, are Arabs who hate Israel. RK 13:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Alternative version of this article

A possible alternative to this page is being developed at User:Adam Carr/Anti-Zionism.