|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
Since this is a completely new article, I have archived the old talk.
This new article represents a month's co-operative editing between me and other interested users. Adam 12:47, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Post-Zionism is not synonmous with the neo-Canaanite movement. This article needs to clarify the fact that the term "Post-Zionism" is still loosely defined, and can include those who consciously identify as Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-Zionists. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
Post-Zionism's most controversial advocates are anti-Zionists, who naturally receive a lot of press, out of proportion to their influence. It also really should be noted that the neo-Canaanite movement has little following among Israelis, or among Jews worldwide. It is only accepted among those who wish to replace the State of Israel with an Arab majority, which they euphemistically call the "state of both peoples". This state will be effectively and politically ruled by an Arab Muslim majority; all sides agree that any single-state solution will soon have an Arab Muslim majority; this is not in dispute. This context is necessary to understand why most people reject the neo-Canaanite movement. Many people have publicly criticised it as a disguised form of anti-Zionism that aims at the total removal of the State of Israel and its replacement with an Arab Palestinian State, and I have seen nothing so far to refute this position. Indeed, such views are tacitly admitted by the neo-Canaanites. RK 00:21, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
RK, I must say that I found Zero's paragraph on post-Zionism a little unclear, but it's not an area I know much about so I didn't change it. Please feel free to suggest an alternative (btw, I did ask you to review the draft before it was posted here). Adam 01:15, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It didn't say that Postzionism was the same as the (neo-|NULL)Canaanite movement, but anyway I rephrased it and also made the point that there is a problem with the definitions. I don't want to labor that point as in fact there is no agreement on the meaning of many terms in this article including the term "Zionism" itself. Postzionism deserves its own article where the internal and external debate can be aired but I don't think that should be done in this article. Note that what I have written does not even attempt to present the arguments in favor of Postzionism; I think that doesn't belong. Btw, I think that mention of the Canaanite movement would be better moved into its historical setting earlier in the article. --Zero 10:22, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The word "Zionism" comes from "Zion", being one of Jerusalem's names, as mentioned in the bible. Zionism is, literally, the yearning for the Holy Land, Zion (Jerusalem) being its symbol in the eyes of diaspora jews of the time (and much before). I corrected that bit of the article, and linked "Zion" to its wikipedia definition, which is pretty accurate. Also, I deleted two links: one referring to jews converting to islam, which might be relevant to some people, but not to the issue of Zionism. The other was plain racist and ignorant, in my humble opinion. I'm gonna look at that link again, just to make sure. --Tohe
- I think your wording here actually works better than the wording you used in the main article, so I have incorporated it there. Adam
That link contains, beside valid criticism, lots of blunt propaganda, without a bit of reasoning such as: "The ever-scheming European imperialists wisely placed Israel where she could geographically divide the Arab world..." and a page of images entitled "Zionism and Nazism: We Can't Tell The Difference, Can You?". If that's not blatant propaganda, I don't know what is. Those things are valid as opinions but I don't think they should be offered as valid anti-zionist claims. Wonderer
- I have been arguing this for over a year. This virulent kind of anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, and it is not a valid form of anti-nationalism. (See the Talk page for Anti-Semitism.) These views are not not logical arguments, they are not based on an fact. Such views, and the wesbites that promote them, belong in articles under bigotry, and not in political articles like this one. RK 14:10, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)
Those links were carried over from the old article. Feel free to delete them and find a new set of relevant links. Adam
I added an article called Prominent Zionist Figures. It's hardly anything now, but I'd like it to become quite extensive. I do think that all of the people to be mentioned there, should also be incorporated into Zionism, or other complementary articles. Regardless, it'd be good to have such information concentrated under one article, as events are under Timeline of Zionism. Wonderer (a.k.a. Tohe)
For the record, the large chunk of text "Zionism and Germany" added by 184.108.40.206 and deleted by me was taken verbatim from a book review in the Journal of Palestine Studies (vol 129, 1). The interactions between Nazi Germany and the Zionist organizations do deserve an airing somewhere in Wikipedia, but I would argue against putting it in this article (except for a link). Viewpoints other than Brenner's would obviously need to be included. --Zero 03:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Attention RK, Zero and Danny. I have found all three of you to be intelligent and knowledgeable on the issues involved in this article, and I wish you would conduct your feuds elsewhere. As far as I can see you are arguing about one sentence in the post-zionism section. If no agreement can be reached I will delete the whole paragraph, which is pretty marginal anyway. I will continue to delete all off-topic personal abuse from this page. Adam 03:14, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I am backing off this one, but just for clarification, the debate was about a link that read: "Jews opposed to Zionism": An ultra-Orthodox Satmar website. Not recognized by other Jewish groups., which I changed to "Jews opposed to Zionism": An ultra-Orthodox website.. Danny 03:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
My view is that all the anti-Zionist links ought to be removed from this article, and placed at the article anti-Zionism, the rewriting of which ought to be our next project. Adam 04:30, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it is impossible to write and maintain a good article on anti-Zionism in the Wikipedia environment. You are welcome to prove me wrong. --Zero 09:02, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you implied that a fellow writer was an anti-Baptist bigot. I have been attacked in recent days as a liar, and as "evil"; this has shown that consensus is impossible when people allow feelings to reduce debate into ad homenim attacks. Having someone treat me badly in Dating the Bible makes my sympathetic to others who are treated in this way. Instead of accusing people of bigotry, work instead on clarifying the issue. See below. Asking specific questions can resolve disputes. JeMa 17:09, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
I accept the challenge :)
Adam 15:58, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here are questions that should help clarify the issue: JeMa
- RK, you claim that Satmar is anti-Zionist, and is not representative of mainstream Judaism. Could you provide references to support this?
- I think we all agree that Satmar is anti-Zionist; they proclaim this quite openly. Danny and I agree on this. The disagreement is over whether a group that has such a tiny extremist following can be considered representative of mainstream Judaism. Quotes from leaders of Satmar are very explicit in stating that they do not belong to the same Jewish world as Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Judaism. They have been pretty clear in saying that they alone are Judaism, and that all else is not Judaism. I would reccomend reading David Landau's Piety and Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism for a good overview of Satmar, other ultra-Orthodox groups, their relationship to each other, and to the greater Jewish community. Also reccomended would be the articles on this subject in the Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing). I would be happy to offer relevant quotes from these publications.
- RK says that the mentioned website is Satmar; Danny says that it is not Satmar, and instead represents many "Ultra-Orthodox" groups. Can either of you support your position?
- This particular website itself prominently displays photographs of Satmar rabbis, and a large amount of Satmar quotes, and pushes a Satmar point of view. Views of other Orthodox groups are much less visible. I don't know how much more clear it can be. If someone wishes to claim that it is not Satmar, but is rather promoting the view of a set of groups equally, I think it is up to them to demonstrate this. I don't see any reason for viewing this website as anything other than it makes itself out to be - an outpost on the Internet to advocate a Satmar point of view on Zionism and the State of Israel. I am uncertain of why this is controversial. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Danny, you say RK has confused Satmar with all anti-Zionist Jewish groups, and is ignorant of this subject. Could you provide a quote from him saying this? Maybe he was only talking about one weblink.
- Zero0000, you have attributed an anti-Baptist position to RK, and imply that he doesn't accept them as legitimate Chrisitians. Why? RK, do you have a position as to which Christians groups are legitimate?
- I am not a Christian, so I care not for inter-Christian polemics. I understand that many American Protestant groups see Catholics as "heretics" and as un-Christian. I also know that some Catholics might feel the same way about some Protestant groups. However, I find such disagreements incomprehensible; to me, Baptists, Catholics, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, Presbytrians, are all equally Chrisitian. My only statements on the matter were simply that even though they might be Christian, they are not the same. Baptists are not Catholics. These two groups are no longer in the same community, and it would be disingenuous to use the statements of a Baptist to represent the beliefs of Catholics. I think the same is true of Satmar in regards to the rest of the Jewish world. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)~
- Are there any mainstrea, Jewish groups which accept the views of Satmar as a representative view of the Jewish world? If so, who are these groups? About what percent of Jews worldwide view Satmar as mainstream? About what percent view Satmar as an unrepresentative extremist group?
- None that I know of. If you read books, sermons and journal articles by rabbis and Jewish scholars, you will see that few of them see Satmar as mainstream. Even Orthodox authors like David Landau find it difficult to sympathise with their self-separation from the rest of the Jewish world. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Do different people use the word "anti-Zionist" to mean different things? If so, why are these views combined into one article, when they really may be different ideas? If not, in what ways are all forms of anti-Zionism similar? Could we get references? JeMa 17:09, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Hello! I have an idea about this, but I need more time than I have to write it up. Maybe this Sunday. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
For the record, I have no idea nor interest in what RK's opinion is towards Baptists and I never accused him of having any particular opinion. He used Baptists/Catholics as an analogy and I stated my opinion that his analogy did not fit the situation he wanted it to fit. I used a simple rhetorical device (alternative straw analogy) to explain my point. --Zero 20:30, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Your simple rhetorical device made me look like a very bad person indeed. RK 21:52, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)
Excuse me? What elementary mistake of understanding have I made? I have taken no part in this argument. Adam 23:27, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Gulp. Sorry, I misread JeMa's comment as yours. An elementary mistake of understanding on my part, for which I apologise. I deleted my remark. --Zero 00:03, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
That's OK then. :) Go and read my anti-Zionism article and tell me what you think. Adam 00:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whether the site is Satmar or not is irrelevant. Yes, there is a picture of Yoel Teitelbaum on the title page, but since he was the author of VaYoel Moshe, that would be appropriate. Just going by pictures though, there are also pictures of the Brisker, the Munkaczer, the Chofetz Chaim, the Rambam, and about twenty other rabbis, none of whom could be called Satmar. The demonstrations in Jerusalem that appear in the pictures were led by Blau, who is not Satmar either. As for Satmar quotes, they are represented no more than Brisker quotes--can you pick out the Briskers in the gallery? The problematic issue is actually the idea of writing people out of "mainstream" Jewish life. Is there such a thing? That is assuming a homogeneity that probably does not exist. In fact, that is part of RK's problem when discussing Jewish life--he describes the gamut as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist. This is exclusionary, since all of those groups define their Jewishness in terms of religion. While that may be an American phenomenon (and I question that too--so what is Woody Allen), it fails to account for the vast numbers of people who consider themselves ethnically Jewish, though they do not identify with a particular religious denomination. Most Jewish Israelis aren't Orthodox--but they do not define themselves as Conservative or Reform either (the miniscule Conservative and Reform congregations in Israel are primarily Anglo immigrants). In fact, classical Zionism is about Jewish peoplehood, not religion. The particular view espoused by RK could, then, even be defined as antithetical to classical Zionism, a la Borochov or even Herzl. As for people who consider Satmar mainstream, the ultra-Orthodox world does, even if some groups may disagree with their attitudes toward Zionism. The Jewish world does, even if some groups disagree with their attitudes toward Zionism and religion. That is because for them, and for most Jews, Zionism is not the unifying bond that unites the many, segmented Jews together into some undefinable mainstream. Asssuming it is puts an interesting spin on Weissmandel's 10 questions. Zionism is one movement out of many, which often clash bitterly (the GRA put the Baal HaTanya in cherem, remember). Say it is an ultra-Orthodox website. Fine. No need to go on the Zionist defensive with some POV attribution about some imaginary mainstream. Otherwise, I might be tempted to start quoting the many proud Jews that think that all Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform are "out of the mainstream," or as they would say, a bunch of meshugenes. Danny 00:48, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Some Christians also claim to be Zionists. See Christian Zionism
--Adam, I don't know what that means. Why the "also"? Are you referring to some movement different from support of Zionism? --Zero 03:44, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here, too, there are different historical attitudes among Christians claiming to be Zionists: Orde Wingate, the son of Christian missionaries in India and widely claimed to be a founder of the IDF, was an early Christian Zionist, whose motivation was unlike that of, say, Pat Robertson, although they have certain key features in common. Danny 04:02, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- A slightly earlier example would be Richard Meinertzhagen. However, I wonder if Adam was intending to refer to the phenomenon of Zionism as a Christian religious movement. Such as described at http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v37/v37_2mw.htm for example (not necessarily a great article). Of course the boundary is unclear, but I would try to distiguish between Christians who have given active support to the Zionist movement and those who have a separate agenda that has some present common interest with Zionism but have ultimate aims that conflict. Either way, some clarification of the reference would be a good idea. --Zero 04:34, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Richard Meinertzhagen. Danny 04:36, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- He was a British non-Jewish Zionist who was an intelligence officer for Allenby then a bureaucrat in the Foreign Office. He is sometimes credited with getting the Balfour Declaration almost word for word into the Mandate for Palestine. (I think that's an exaggeration, but certainly he played a part.) Later he became a confidant of Chaim Weizmann and helped him with the Zionist-British interaction. Possibly you met his "Middle East Diary". --Zero 09:18, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I used the word "also" because this article defines Zionism as "a movement among Jews." Christians who claim to be Zionists must therefore be treated separately. Adam 04:56, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- No, you gave two definitions and only the first was "among Jews". In any case, I think "Zionist" should mean any supporter of that particular political movement, similar to communist, anarchist, etc.. Also to make it comparable to "anti-Zionist" as any opponent of that movement. I realise my opinion on that isn't universal. --Zero 06:03, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Zionism is a movement among Jews, and a non-Jewish supporter of Zionism can't really be Zionist, only pro-Zionist or a supporter of Zionism. You may well support gay rights, Zero, but that doesn't make you a gay liberationist. Anyway I have reworded the paragraph to avoid this particular semantic trap. Adam 06:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I'm OK on your revised wording, but you are wrong in your opinion (in my opinion). Words mean what they are used to mean in common speech, and Zionist as a supporter of Zionism regardless of Jewishness is very common indeed. Incidentally, OED agrees. Here is the complete OED definition of "Zionist": A supporter of Zionism. Webster's agrees with you, apparently, but the Macquarie even defines "Zionism" as a political movement without identifying it as a movement amongst Jews. Btw, how do you know I'm not gay? --Zero 09:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Not in this article. It might belong in the new "anti-Semitism" article you are going to write (hint). --Zero 09:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
When I was consulting OED to refute Adam (;-), I found a second definition of "Zionist": A member of any of a group of independent churches in southern Africa similar to pentecostal churches but containing distinctive African elements of worship and belief. [Named after the first such church, the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church in Zion, brought from Chicago to S. Africa in 1904.] Actually I never heard of that before and don't know if it ought to be mentioned. For the record, here are the usage examples offered by OED:
- 1948 B. G. M. SUNDKLER Bantu Prophets in S. Africa ii. 55 Theologically the Zionists are now a syncretistic Bantu movement with healing, speaking with tongues, purification rites, and taboos as the main expressions of their faith. 1956 H. BLOOM Episode xvii. 318 Among the crowd were a number of Sunday pilgrims, location Zionists of various sects. 1970 Standard Encycl. Southern Afr. II. 55/1 Most ‘Zionists’ have a characteristic form of dress, worn to all services by all members: long dresses and capes, mostly white, decorated with coloured figures (stars, crosses, rings, angels, etc.), veils for women and special forms of headdress for men. Ibid., The ‘Zionist’ phase has led to extensive proliferation of small groups. 1977 Time 27 June 18/3 Some aspects of the old Soweto still exist: the neatly kept gardens of middle-class black homes;..the Zionists, an Africanized Christian sect, famous for their daylong religious dances that begin at prayer services in backyard tents on Saturday nights.
-Zero 09:33, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- I don't know you're not gay, as I realised as soon as I re-read that. My apologies if you are (I don't get to say that very often).
- I had forgotten that Black Christians frequently use Zion and Zionism as an analogy with the promised land of freedom. Someone who knows more about it can write about that.
- Adam 10:29, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Zionist is frequently used by anti-Semitic groups as a euphemism for "Jew."
What's euphemistic about that? Malbi 12:35, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
It seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Adam 12:52, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I agree with Adam. (JeMa) The article on Anti-Zionism states.
- 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)
- "The mounting scale and sheer extent of this vehemently anti-Semitic literature and commentary in the newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, television, and in the everyday life of the Middle East have swamped that minority of Arabs who did try to separate their attitudes to Jews from their rejection of Zionism." (Wistrich, Antisemitism, p. 253)
That's right, it's designed to make anti-Semitism "sound better/more positive," by dressing it up as a political idea called anti-Zionism. Adam 09:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
None of the above argument shows why the comment belongs in this article. On the contrary, it shows that it actually belongs in anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism. HOWEVER, I will also question its meaning and accuracy. I take it that we are not referring to the possibility that someone who criticises Zionism is motivated by anti-Semitism, but rather to the use of "Zionist" to mean "Jew" in circumstances where Zionists or Zionism are not the topic of conversation. For example, "Zionists rule the world". Since Russia is mentioned, I discussed this with a Russian Jew who lived there until moving to Israel not many years ago. He was adamant that he had never heard such a usage. Of course one person's memory is not statistically significant, but still I wonder where the information about "the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland" comes from. (And even if it is correct, I still think it is in the wrong article.) --Zero 13:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You surprise me, Zero. The whole 1968 campaign in Poland which led to virtually every Jew in the country losing their job and most of them being forced to emigrate was conducted against "Zionists" - it was used completely interchangably. The same was generally true in the Soviet Union. I agree that a general discussion of this belongs at anti-Zionism and / or anti-Semitism, but it merits a mention here as a recognised usage of the word "Zionist." Adam 13:42, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I heard it used by a Russian at a public meeting in London. He was arguing that the problems in Russia were caused by "Zionist" owned banks. Secretlondon 13:46, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Zero, for over a year you have tried to hide facts which make you uncomfortbale, even when they are highly relevant to the subject. The simple fact is that in many nations across the world, Zionism has been used for decades as a thin veil for anti-Semitism, especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union in the 1950s to 1970s, and in some Muslim Arab nations from the 1960s to the present. This is not a minor academic point; it is a major topic addressed in the literature on this subject. Your desire to totally remove any reference of this from the article is not responsible or justifiable. RK 13:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
Zero writes: rather to the use of "Zionist" to mean "Jew" in circumstances where Zionists or Zionism are not the topic of conversation. For example, "Zionists rule the world". Since Russia is mentioned, I discussed this with a Russian Jew who lived there until moving to Israel not many years ago. He was adamant that he had never heard such a usage. Of course one person's memory is not statistically significant, but still I wonder where the information about "the Soviet Union and its satellites, notably Poland" comes from.
- If you do not know where these facts come from, then I can onl conclude you have never once read a book on the subject of anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union. This is extremely well documented in the literature, and never have I met anyone who questioned the existence of this FSU campaign. RK 13:47, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
Sources for anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism
The following copyrighted material is from the Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing, CD-ROM edition.
- At the beginning of the 1970s, most opposition to and reservations concerning Zionism among Jews had disappeared. This change happened gradually, under the influence of several factors...Parallel to this, there was also a mutation in Arab as well as in Soviet anti-Zionism, but in the opposite direction. These forms of opposition to Zionism not only persisted, but, by contrast with the past, the defamation and the demonization of Zionism became prevalent. There was a notable shift from the previous rather "objective" opposition to and criticism of Zionism to its hysterical, paranoid and global denunciation.
- After 1948, the Arab hostility to Zionism deepened. From being categorized as a mere agent of "both Imperialism and Bolshevism," Zionism was raised to the status of an "imperialist conspiracy" against the unity of the Arab world, and charged with being racist. This emphasis on racism came to the fore especially in the Palestinian National Covenant, which states that Zionism is "racist and separationist in its structure and fascist in its objectives and means" (Art. 19 in the 1964 version). It aimed at enlisting the support of the Third World and at awakening a guilt complex in Western circles.(2) With Israel's success in surviving and overcoming the Arabs, the conspiracy pattern (to rule the world) became more and more prevalent, as illustrated by the repeated editions of Mein Kampf and of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and their frequent quotations.(3)
- Besides, Zionists and Jews were presented more and more not as adversaries or agents of enemies, but rather as the embodiment of evil, of a wickedness imputed to alleged basic characteristics of the Jews and of Judaism, to their ambition to rule the world because of the pretentious notion of the "chosen people."(4)
- A similar trend became noticeable in the Soviet Union. For a long time, Zionism was regarded there as a "chauvinist, bourgeois and reactionary" movement. It was in the beginning of the 1950s that Zionism was denounced as an international conspiracy against the Soviet regime. This was one of the major themes of the campaign against cosmopolitanism, and of the well-known trials of the 1950s. After the Six-Day War, and its humiliation of Soviet armaments, and subsequently the stimulation to the Jewish movement in the U.S.S.R., Zionism began to be demonized there from 1970 as a racist movement and an accomplice of the Nazis, the basic evil of which stemmed from the "theory of the chosen people."5
- 2. Y. Harkabi, "Arab Positions on Zionism," in: S. Almog (ed.) Zionism and Arabs (1983).
- 3. Institute of Jewish Affairs Staff, The Post War Career of the Protocols of Zion, Research Report, Dec. 1981. Y. Harkabi, op. cit.
- 4. T. Mayer, Arab Anti-Zionism, its Development and Significance (1984); Harkabi, op. cit.; Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, "An Inquiry into Arab Textbooks," in: Asian and African Studies 8 (1972), 1–19.
- 5. Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union, its Roots and Consequences, proceedings of a seminar held in Jerusalem, April 7–8, 1978, The Hebrew University, Center for Research and Documentation of East European Jewry, 1979. See also Y. Manor, "L'Antisionisme," in: Revue FranLaise de Science Politique (1984).
- 6. V. Zagladin and F. Ryzhenko (ed.), Sovpomennoe revolutzionnoe dvizhenie i natzionalism ("Contemporary Revolutionary Movement and Nationalism"), Izdatel'stvo Polititcheskoi Literatary, M. 1973, 205.
- Some of the things said in reply address the question and are evidence against my suggestion. But I'm not happy. In my country (and probably yours) there are racists who carry on about the evils of "immigrants" when it is clear that they are really only concerned with non-white immigrants. Does that mean that the article Immigration should get a footnote saying that "certain racists use immigrant as a euphemism for non-white immigrant? It just would look pretty odd to me, though it might look ok in Racism. (Now I've had my word and I'll stop; I don't feel strongly about this at all.) --Zero 14:20, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
From today's andrewsullivan.com: QUOTE OF THE DAY: "When my eyes fell upon the rare copy of this dangerous book, I decided immediately to place it next to the Torah. Although it is not a monotheistic holy book, it has become one of the sacred [tenets] of the Jews, next to their first constitution, their religious law, [and] their way of life. In other words, it is not merely an ideological or theoretical book. Perhaps this book of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' is more important to the Zionist Jews of the world than the Torah, because they conduct Zionist life according to it… It is only natural to place the book in the framework of an exhibit of Torah [scrolls]." - Dr. Yousef Ziedan, museum director of the new Alexandria Library, on why the anti-Semitic forgery is now prominently displayed next to the Torah in the manuscript museum. UNESCO funds helped build it. Adam 23:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)