Talk:Anti-Zionism

Inapropriate Use Of Israel

Given that the use of the Biblical term "Israel" to denote the modern Jewish State is rejected by most anti-zionists, would it not be best to give the appearance of balance by avoiding the use of it within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The State of Israel exists, even for anti-Zionists.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel means the Jewish people, and by extension their state. Zionists use it to describe the land that state occupies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Communist anti-zionism outside of europe

It should be noted that anti-zionist communist ideas were also held by jews outside of europe, in particular the iraqi communist party was notable for being an alternative to the zionist movement in attracting support. since the article is under semi-protection, i can't add that detail. well-known iraqi jews like Sami Michael (having a decidedly non-zionist slant) were iraqi communists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiS-Saath (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - I just noted the same in the article, before seeing your comment here. I added the basic point however citations are needed. Anyone?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Being "non-Zionist" (which seems to accurately describe Sami Michael) is different form being Anti-Zionist. Many communists were also Zionists or at least looked upon Zionism favourably even if the leadership did not approve of it.

Albert Memmi, a tunisian-arab-jewish-frenchman was also very radical and a zionist.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I don't think it says otherwise in the article (re: Zionist communists) does it? This is what's written: "Meanwhile, many Middle Eastern Jewish Communists, particularly in Iraq, felt that Zionism would not only obstruct a common struggle for equality via asserting the primacy of ethnic affiliation above class affiliation, but would lead to the establishment of a separatist state privileging Jews at the expense of their fellow Arabs in Palestine." About Michael, good point. Maybe this should be re-titled "Non-Zionism and Anti-Zionism" since there is a lot of overlap between the two? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The iraqi communist party, which happened to draw plenty of jewish support (second only to the zionist movement) was much against the idea of Zionism, even if it never supported staunch anti-zionism action. it was anti-zionist. Many Anti"Post"-Zionist academics in israel draw upon these traditions. Albert memmi was very different indeed, but then again he never was a communist, to my best of knowledge. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You may also consider classifying some eastern religious establishments as Anti-Zionist (e.g. Sasson Khdury). it all depends on where you draw the line between 'Non-Zionism' and 'Anti-Zionism'. MiS-Saath (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

removal of mizrahi anti-zionism

The section i removed suffered from several 'terminal' issues:

First and foremost, it was badly sourced. 'forget baghdad' is not a reliable source and its selection of figures does not reflect the opinion of the wide public. it does not account to any acadamic measure. Moreover, the figures cited never declared themselves to be Anti-zionist. Perhaps 'non-zionist' is a better definition of their views - but they didn't even pick that self-definition, to my best of knowledge. Furthermore, Ballas' and Michael's issues with Zionism might be better attributed to a Communist world view and thus should be classified under communism (in the tradition of not taking a world view, Mizrahi communism is again discarded to the sidelines). Moreover, there were dubious statements included about the Arab-Jew dichotomy and insinuations of a ploy (e.g. "didn't buy into"). the issue is ofcourse very complex and probably best not discussed in this article. Furthermore there's the issue of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, it remains a very contentious issue as to how many people hold these beliefs or not. MiS-Saath (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am posting the removed paragraph here, as it seems to me that further discussion is required: "On the other hand, a range of figures who had opposed Zionism prior to WWII continued to hold such views after taking refuge in Israel. This is particularly the case among Mizrahi figures such as Sami Michael, Shimon Ballas and Samir Naqqash who, refusing to buy into the Jew-Arab dichotomy facilitated by the conflict between the Zionist state and the Palestinians, to this day refer to themselves as Arab Jews." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent insertion - Jason Kunin in ZNet

I've moved the following recent insertion here for further discussion:

Still, some Jews have fundamentally rejected Zionism because, they argue, it is inherently a racist ideology. (reference: "Any opposition to Israel rooted in Zionism can only seek to mitigate Israeli apartheid and racism, not end it, because apartheid and racism are what Zionism - and by extension, the Israeli state - are all about."

"A Genuine Peace Movement Cannot be Zionist". Kunin, Jason. ZNet. Jason Kunin is a Toronto-based Jewish activist and writer.)

Why on earth would we care what Jason Kunin has to say, and when did Z Net suddenly become a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it. Jason Kunin has been published in Counterpunch, with the note that he is "a member of the administration council of the Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians." The same article was apparently previously published as an Op-Ed in the Winnipeg Free Press, which is Winnipeg's main daily newspaper. Apparently, the Wiesenthal Center cares what he has to say enough to have responded to his Winnipeg Free Press article. Jason Kunin, I submit, is a reliable source on the opinions of Jews who are anti-Zionists, among whom he numbers. His prominence in this group is clear from the publication of his Op-Ed in the Winnipeg Free Press and from the Wiesenthal Center's choice to respond to it. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One op-ed? As for the "Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians", it's under 2 years old, and has under 200 members. Kunin certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies. And you seemed to have ignored entirely the point that Z Net is not a reliable source. Please find more compelling evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my evidence is sufficient. 71.191.137.214 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Jason Kunin is a reliable source only for his own point of view - and his point of view isn't significant enough to justify a "Some Jews have fundamentally rejected Zionism" claim. Having been published in Counterpunch isn't exactly an industry plaudit, in my opinion. If a comparison between Zionism and racism is one that "some Jews" make, then cite it to a better source. Avruch ^T 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Having reverted the insertion myself, I have to agree with Avruch's statement. He's not authoritative or notable enough to speak for any significant group or movement. AniMate 03:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty poignant article, though. Would you agree that, having been featured prominently in ZNet, Kunin warrants consideration as notable for representing viewpoints promoted there, if not as a representative of any Jewish group? Tegwarrior (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed the point already made twice in the section, Z Net is not, in any event, a reliable source, nor is being "featured prominently" in it a claim to notability. Extreme and notable are not the same thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a reliable source for the conclusions drawn, but it is a reliable (primary) source for what was actually said on it.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources, and opinions based on them, can only be used in articles about the subject. The subject here is not Jason Kunin, it is Anti-Zionism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter. Also, Jayjg, you've been rather loose with your references to "Wikipedia's notability standards," which are for the purpose of deciding if people (or groups) should have articles on them. This is a different matter than determining whether something they have written can be referred to by an article on another topic. I think it is fair (with the matter of Kunin's op-ed in the Winnipeg paper, at least) to rely on the Winnipeg paper and Counterpunch's implicit acceptance that the piece is notable for this matter. Tegwarrior (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Being published in Counterpunch would not be an indication of any sort of notability. As for being published in an op-ed one newspaper in one small North American city, that's hardly a serious claim for notability either. Please review the comments above from me and from several others. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote elsewhere, about including an image of a poster in the article on "New Anti-Semitism," that "the image in question illustrates all the themes described in the article." No provenance (beyond that of the photographer) at all had been claimed for this poster, and yet you believe it was worthy of inclusion in the article. Can you clear up what seems to be a discrepancy in your position that a poster that illustrates a phenomenon should be includable without regard to whose viewpoint it illustrates, or whether it is a "notable" viewpoint, but that an essay that illustrates another phenomenon should not be includable in another article because the author is "not notable?" Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever weak analogy you're straining for isn't working. If you're concerned about images without a provenance, I suggest you take a look at Anti-Arabism and Islamophobia, those articles are rife with them. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if you assume good faith and behave civilly, before you ever write anything like your first sentence here you would make an effort at ensuring that you understand whatever it is that you are thinking of calling a "weak analogy" that "isn't working." What do you think? Tegwarrior (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reading that sentence again, I suggest you reread the policies you linked to. AniMate 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think AniMate is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence, however, that either of you have any idea what you're talking about. It's very easy to call names; its something else to justify your name calling. Are you both involved with the Hasbara Project? Tegwarrior (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell me, Animate, where you think I have been uncivil or have failed to assume good faith? Thanks. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, lesse, how about this comment? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. Clearly when you have something that you really think is a violation of civility or of the assumption of good faith (even if it's just left as bait for you) you can point specifically to it. But what does that suggest about the instances when you accuse someone of violating civility or failing to assume good faith, but you don't point to any specific thing as the basis for your accusation? Can you see how this might not enhance your credibility? Tegwarrior (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Considering that the article lead says that "Anti-Zionists can be either left-wing or right-wing, religious or secular, Jewish or Gentile. Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial." (my emphasis), then the Category:Anti-national sentiment is clearly inapt for the article. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what most of that has to do with whether or not the category is appropriate, though. Can you explain? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The part in italics is the core part. The notion that anti-zionism = anti-semitism is hotly contested, and using the category 'anti-national sentiments' is essentially to take sides in that debate. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, since the article discusses that issue, it should be included in the category. And, even if one argues that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, there is no question that anti-Zionism is anti-Israeli. Israeli is a nationality too. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not according to the Israeli state: "The state denies there is any such nationality as `Israeli'", Haaretz 28 December 2003. RolandR (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good Roland. So you now accept what the State of Israel says as fact, and the basis for Wikipedia's categorizations? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition to lead

The following sentence was just added to close out the lead, after I had removed a less detailed sentence yesterday:

The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism—whether it is an example of,[2] cover for,[3] or overlaps with[4][5] antisemitism—is debated.[6][7][8]

The primary issue here gets back to the purpose of this article: is this an article to cover opposition to Zionism as variously understood, or is it an article solely on the concept of "anti-Zionism"? If these were distinguished, then possibly an article on "Anti-Zionism" should focus heavily on the controversy of the term. However, if it is simply a "criticism" article to match the article on Zionism, then this is less clear, as seen in the Zionism article itself which does not discuss criticism in its lead paragraphs. This gets to perhaps the underlying point, that it's difficult to see how Zionism should avoid any discussion of controversy, but then the article on Anti-Zionism, would immediately make central issue of a relationship between Anti-Zionism and antisemitism in the lead. This should presumably find some balance.

Aside from that, this sentence suggests only three options that all concede a relationship; it doesn't note any who contest the relationship, or who challenge claims to that effect (see the lead of New antisemitism, for example). However, I think the first issue should probably be resolved first. Mackan79 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, the sentence replaced this unsourced statement, which had been in the article for many months:

Because anti-Zionism and antisemitism are at times associated, and as both terms can mean different things to different people, the relationship between the two is controversial.

The new sentence is more accurate and properly sourced. Now, regarding your first objection, the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is one of its most salient controversies; please review WP:LEAD. Regarding your second objection, please note that you will have a hard time finding reliable sources that say that there is no connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Rather, they all say things like Zipperstein: "Such prejudice against Israel is not antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist" or European Jews for a Just Peace: "This is not to deny that there are circumstances in which criticisms of the state of Israel might indeed be antisemitic. But the presumption should not be that they are. This requires demonstration on a case by case basis." Jayjg ^(talk) 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How odd. CJCurrie just deleted all the sources that say there is a link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while leaving all the sources that dispute it. Even more oddly, he claimed in his edit summary that I hadn't included any "anti" links, which is quite obviously false.[1] Even more oddly, he hasn't commented here on the Talk: page. Ah well, I'm sure he'll remedy all of that soon enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to restore the links to the end of the sentence, once the rather leading aside that you've added is removed. Your current wording makes it appear that the dispute only concerns how anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are inherently linked, and leaves out the rather important point that some have questioned an inherent linkage.

Btw, you're currently in violation of the 3RR. CJCurrie (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Which sources indicate that there is no linkage? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed he said "inherent linkage," Jayjg; this is the same point you quote Zipperstein making above. However, if you think the article should state in the lead that people only debate how anti-Zionism relates with antisemitism, this would seem a rather extraordinary position to support, considering the debates over all aspects of this issue are so well known. Mackan79 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe we're being required to prove a negative - particularly when the linkage being made is very disputed indeed. eg Finkelstein "Beyond Chutzpah: On the misuse of anti-semitism and the abuse of history". The main perpetrators of such "mute" anti-Semitism are alleged to be "radical anti-Zionists" ... is a direct throwback to the darkest days of Stalinism, when those criticizing the Soviet regime were, by virtue of this fact alone, branded "objective" abettors of fascism, and dealt with accordingly.

Needless to say, "Beyond Chutzpah" alone is loaded with such examples - if I knew exactly what we're being asked for, I'm sure I can find it. It seems extraordinary that, when at least six out of the first seven references appear to imply antisemitism of anti-Zionists, that such a prominent anti-Zionist as Finkelstein, with a well regarded book (cited a respectable 17 times) specifically on the topic of mis-use of antisemitism gets such a small and misleading mention and his book isn't mentioned atall. What's going on here? And there is no mention of accusations of Holocaust Denial - I'm sure many sources would consider these accusations, almost invariably false, the very most prominent feature of any and every debate about anti-Zionism. Why don't we link to any article we have on it, or don't we have such an article? PR^talk 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to the last part, PR, I think it's better if you have material you'd like to add that you simply put together the material that you'd like to see. At least in my experience, that's much more time-efficient, and helps discussions stay on topic. Mackan79 (talk) 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the estimate made that there are 150,000 Orthodox anti-Zionists, and around a million "non-Zionist" Orthodox. (What %age this is of the Zionist Orthodox, I don't know). Unfortunately, I'm told that the source is "extremist" - and, even though I've been denied any evidence for this whatsoever, I cannot use it. (And there is a lot more I would like to add, all of it from sources unimpeachably knowledgeable and likely very reliable). PR^talk 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that discussion on this page? I'm just thinking it's perhaps better placed in another section than here, in order to keep each section on track. Mackan79 (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This section concerns the insertion into the lead of a statement that hi-jacks the entire article with a narrative that attacks all anti-Zionists as antisemitic (as largely runs through the article).

The truth of this assertion is not simply debatable - it's almost certainly false. As can more-or-less be "proved" just by the highly credible information I'd like to insert from people who would appear to be gentle and knowledgeable. Except that .... the source has been smeared as being so extreme that it's a blocking offense to use them as a reference. No evidence provided or available on request. PR^talk 11:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing about why you're not allowed to use extremist, anonymous, personal websites as reliable sources. If you're unwilling to abide by WP:V then you need to find a project that doesn't have it as a policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps you'll explain another mystery - the book of "extremists who cannot be referenced in articles" appears not to include the Neturei Karta. And yet, six of those people stood with Ahmadinejad at his "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" - and I'm told that they celebrate the death of Israeli soldiers (cries of "extreme" anyone?) Why is that the apparently gentle people running the world-famous Jews Against Zionism web-site (claiming to be the "True Torah Jews") are more of a problem than the NK? PR^talk 12:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope that people will avoid simple reverts over this. In reply to Jayjg, the problem of course isn't whether these views exist, but whether it is a neutral way to frame the issue. For example, I think it's fairly clear that covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is "overlap" is to rather widely miss their position. I think a shorter version is one option; otherwise we would need a larger discussion of the issue, but I'm not convinced that would improve the lead. Mackan79 (talk) 04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think a WP article needs to frame an issue? "Framing" is, by its very nature, never neutral [2]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but please note that I had removed the text, not replaced it; or can you say that the text you have replaced removes the framing?[3] You'll see several specific points on this above, relating to the manner in which your text states that people only discuss the manner in which anti-Zionism and antisemitism relate, as if the primary disputes over this issue don't exist or are not relevant. Mackan79 (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, my concern is that you have stated an intention to frame the discussion. I do not consider that statement of your intention to be a positive indicator. Please reconsider your editing goals. The intention of my own edit was to restore content which you removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A "positive indicator"? Malcolm, if you read WP:AGF, I think you'll see one important part is trying to make sense out of what people say rather than doing the opposite. I'm not sure how you looked at my comment and my edit and decided I was arguing for framing of any type, let alone the type you have in mind, but all the same, you've currently made two simple reverts to the page without any response to the issues raised here that I can see. If you think this material is appropriate, please do consider addressing those points. Mackan79 (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, we are still at that strange impasse, where I accurately summarize the sources in the lede, and you complain that its not NPOV to do so, but fail to explain what would make it NPOV. Are there sources that insist there is never a relationship between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Or, as seems to be the case, are there various sources that debate the relationship between the two, with some saying it is strong, others saying it is weak, but none saying it doesn't exist? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I find it frustrating that you come back to the page reverting, after violating 3RR last time, and without any intervening attempt to discuss the issue, especially as you continue to ask the same question that has already been addressed while claiming that it hasn't. As I said immediately above, one problem with your text is that "covering all critics of the first two arguments as simply contending there is 'overlap' is to rather widely miss their position." You quote Steven Zipperstein, for instance, but rather than relying on his main argument, you rely on his caveat beginning "[t]his is not to deny...." Writing an encyclopedia article isn't about going "Ah ha! So you admit..."; it's about accurately and fairly representing the coverage of an issue. The material you have included very clearly fails in this regard, which again is why I removed it as violating WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I hope you can respond more specifically. Mackan79 (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I'm failing to see your point. Every source I see says there is some sort of relationship, but the nature of the relationship is hotly debated. Zipperstein notes this relationship, even as he disputes the claims of others that is inherently a form of antisemitism. That's not a "Ah ha! So you admit..." point. I'm willing to work with you to flesh out the con view, but there's no reason to remove the pro view, which, after all, is a significant one, and one that should be mentioned, per WP:LEDE. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wish I had a quarter for every time you didn't see my point, Jay. As far as expanding the discussion, I'm pretty sure that would only work if the entire lead were expanded to the three or four paragraph standard. I've tried in the past, but haven't found myself able, largely because the whole concept seems to be so poorly defined. In any case I know you see my point, since we've discussed this before. If we're looking for an analogy, please consider G-Dett's below, which I think illustrates the problem... about equally to the text proposed here. Mackan79 (talk) 06:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what information regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel is missing from the lead sentence I inserted? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay, the sentence you're edit-warring into the article is a grammatical mess, and its summary of the sources is tendentious and inaccurate. I'll hold off copy-editing your work til you've come around to accepting a neutral approach to the matter at hand. Suffice to say that what you're adding is analogous (both in terms of stylistic solecisms and substantive distortions) to saying that The relationship between opposition to affirmative action and racism – whether it is an example of, cover for, or overlaps with racism — is debated. When we have something that isn't utter crap on the table, I'll be happy to proofread it.--G-Dett (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:STALK. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sentence is unacceptable because (a) it misrepresents the debate about an alleged relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, and (b) it is ungrammatical.--G-Dett (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is useless. Suggest changing it to something along the following lines: "The difference between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism is not clear. This has led to a trading of accusations between Zionists and anti-Zionists with some Zionists arguing that anti-Zionists are influenced by anti-semitism, and some anti-Zionists claiming that Zionists use accusations of antisemitism as a tool to stifle debate." Telaviv1 (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A little wordy as such, but substantively an excellent summary, Telaviv1.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how you would make it less wordy? To me one issue is saying that it is "unclear," as the first comment on this point. This may be reasonable, but seems potentially to leave behind the reader who may not initially have considered a relationship (this is a general reference work, after all). Otherwise, the question is whether this does not get rather heavily into one aspect of the article, in what is otherwise a very short lead. I'd find this reasonable for a third or fourth paragraph, for instance, but that assumes a second or third that we don't currently have. This is also why I raised the point that this article has generally been treated as a general article on "opposition to Zionism," and not simply the issue of "anti-Zionism" as that term is used. Mackan79 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, might I prevail upon you to stop adding an ungrammatical, tendentious, and misleading sentence to the lead?

G-Dett, I do not need your advice on how to edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, how about something neutral and succinct like Allegations of a necessary link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism have generated ongoing controversy?--G-Dett (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Mackan, you raise an excellent point re "anti-Zionism" vs. "opposition to Zionism." The phrase "anti-Zionist" has become something of a catch-all, applied to a whole range of totally distinct positions, ranging from fundamental opposition to the idea of a Jewish state to activist opposition to state apologetics for the occupation. To take an obvious example: Noam Chomsky is not opposed to Zionism, but his political writings are generally described as "anti-Zionist." He is hardly alone in this regard. Another, perhaps even more striking example would be the work of Benny Morris. He is certainly not opposed to Zionism – far from it. And yet his work is often described as "anti-Zionist," not because of readerly incompetence but because his work dismantles certain state myths about the founding of Israel – and the term's range of meanings has come to include that. --G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)--G-Dett (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that seems pretty similar to what CJCurrie reduced, and is fine with me. Actually, I would probably use "link" instead of "necessary connection"; I could see someone saying this would wrongly imply that a link is disputed, but in truth I don't think it would imply that or anything beyond what it should. I don't know if there could be other minor improvements. Mackan79 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you have now reverted three times without addressing any of the issues raised on this page. This is along with Jayjg who has now on subsequent occasions jumped immediately to exhausting all of his "three reverts" while also failing to engage the other editors on this talk page. I don't know your history with G-Dett, but that's known as WP:Revert waring, and is very unhelpful toward improving the page. Please consider a more collaborative approach on this page so that we can come up with something that addresses everyone's concerns. Mackan79 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, please restrict your comments to discussions of article content, not other editors. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained that the problem with your version is that you removed content. Also, I made changes with every edit trying to improve the disputed sentence. All you have done is revert multiple times to the same useless version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the content gives a choice of three positions all of which posit a link. To properly nuance the situation requires more than one sentence. Therefore the Lede should just draw people's attention to the issue and elave the reader to find the more detailed explanation in the body.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think something extra is needed, add it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, as several people have now explained, the material has been removed because it violates WP:NPOV and falsely suggests that the only discussion is about how anti-Zionism relates to antisemitism. I assume you understand that content needs to comply with Wikipedia's policies or it should be removed. As has also been discussed, the problem with simply adding material is that it would give excessive focus to this issue in the lead. You've now added it again with cosmetic changes that don't address these problems, and violating the three revert rule in the process, which as I recall would provide that your account be blocked. Please revert yourself, as it is impossible to collaborate with someone who edits in this way (I haven't followed the Israel-Palestine arbitration case enough to know whether it applies or you've been notified about it). Mackan79 (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, what additional POVs regarding the relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism do you feel must be added to make the paragraph NPOV? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, you're "re-edited" the misleading and ungrammatical sentence four times now. Here are your versions:

1. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if is an example of, cover for, overlaps with – has been much debated.
2. The relationship between anti-Zionism and antisemitism – and if it is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism , or overlaps with antisemitism – has been much debated.
3. It remains a much debated issue if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.
4. It is a much debated, and still unresolved issue, if anti-Zionism is an example of antisemitism, a cover for antisemitism, or just overlaps antisemitism.

My favorite here is #2, for the way it manages to repeat the word "antisemitism" four times. The tone gets looser and more colloquial as you go on (e.g. "or just overlaps antisemitism") and the writing asymptotically approaches grammatical correctness – but honestly, I do not see any substantive difference whatsoever between any of these iterations, and your tinkerings appear to be entirely unrelated to the objections that have been patiently elaborated on this talk page. May I ask what it is you're doing?--G-Dett (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)