From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379

Contents 1 Name change 2 refactored discussion 2.1 History section 2.2 one article for criticisms? 2.3 ignorance 2.4 Knesset law 2.5 Attribution, please! 2.6 What is this article about? 2.7 establishment of Israel 2.8 Attribution 2.9 double standard law 2.10 Not Jus Sanguinis 3 Unrefactored talk 4 Major rework is in order here 5 don't need this article 6 Photos 7 Deleted POV "background" 8 The intro 9 Racist 10 orig research 11 "They also note that Zionism as an ideology existed before the State of Israel." 12 Zionists desired Palestine? 13 Reorg? 14 Why the move? 15 POV 16 Category 17 Edit of 1st paragraph - Please respond to challenge here 18 Zionism and racialism! 18.1 Section on Israeli Arabs 18.2 Unbalanced Quotes 18.3 Non Jewish Nations 18.4 any person may choose to become a Jew 18.5 Zionism and affirmative action 18.6 Land Claims 18.7 Arab state discrimination 18.8 If Jews are not a race, then how can hatred of Jews be racist?

[edit] Name change

There was some debate over an appropriate name for this subject - which started as Zionism is racism, moved to slogan 'Zionism is racism' , before finally ending up at Zionism and racism with United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 describing the UN resolution.

Other suggested names included:

• Zionism as racism
• Equating Zionism and racism
• Zionism is a form of racism
• UN resolutions equating Zionism and racism
• UN resolution equating Zionism and racism
• Zionism/Criticism
• UN criticisms of Zionism
• UN condemnation of Zionism
• claims that Zionism is racism

Other comments:

• Should we seperate reportage of the "Zionism is racism" idiom from the substantive debate, because the latter is unmanagable?
• Is it correct to call a phrase in a UN resolution a "slogan" - given that UN delegates aren't waving banners?
• "Zionism is racism" might seem to assert a very contentious point.
• We should avoid subpages
• Titles should be names of things, "Zionism is racism" is not a name.
• Article needs a broader treatment of all debates conducted under UN auspices.
• Zionism and racism fits nicely with the rest of the series; Christianity and anti-Semitism, Islam and anti-Semitism...
• See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (slogans).
• Want to include statements by Zionists condemning racism, for balance

[edit] refactored discussion

Beware that some context swizzling may have occured, and the discussion has been (and will continue to be) edited for WikiLove, to remove personal attacks, etc. See former version

[edit] History section

I am not trying to push a new view that says that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Rather, the identification of anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism is very well established, and accepted as factual by all mainstream Jewish groups, by many Christian groups, by many Western historians, and by a small but growing number of Arab intellectuals. RK 21:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We should explain the history of how and why slogans and campaigns are developed, funded, accepted, etc. The "Zionism is racism" campaign is one of the most studied and documented such campaigns; it has a long and complex history, and tells a fascinating story. RK 21:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some of the material could be construed as a history of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories rather than something related to this particular phrase, which could (in a sympathetic interpretation) be why the anonymous user wished to remove it. I do think much of it should stay though, as even if the Soviets did not invent the exact phrase, they were one of the first to explicitly equate Zionism with racism, which is really the issue under discussion. --Delirium 21:38, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Delirium is, of course, correct. The two paragraphs I added are only meant to be a short summary of the issue. As these subjects are developed fuller in Wikipedia, they will soon diverge. I anticipate that this particular section (Slogan) will grow by a few more paragraphs, and focus on how an initial set of beliefs in Europe and Russia grew to bcome official policy of the Soviet Union and many Arab nations (this set of beliefs characterized by the motton "Zionism is racism"). In contrast, in the article we have on Conspiracy theory this discussion will move off in a different direction, and cover a much wider array of people and nations. The professional literature on the creation and social and political effect of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is huge, and over time this might become an article on its own within Wikipedia. My goal for this particular page is much more limited, tracing the origin of the slogan, and presenting it in its context. RK

Some people are treating this three word phrase in isolation, which makes no sense to me. People who used this motto often did so as part of a state-coordinated propaganda campaign which attacked Zionists and Jews (little distinction was made) as racists, imperialists, colonialists, and conspirators out to secretly rule the world. I don't think we can have a coherent discussion on this slogal without mentioning this context to at least a small degree. RK 21:54, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article is discussing how this anti-Zionist campaign, now signified by the motto "Zionism is racism", came about, how it developed, how it was funded and spread, and how it relates to this motto. Unlike the previous versions, which existed solely to justify anti-Zionism, the article now is about history, and it now is beginning to take a serious look at a interesting subject worthy of academic study. RK 03:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Much of the text [RK] wants to add is redundant. For instance Zionism itself contains some of it. So there is no racism, merely a desire for terseness, in wanting to avoid a full history of anti-Zionism in this article. EofT

I don't disagree with RK's attempt to put this slogan into context, but I do agree that this article is not necessarily the place to provide that context. There are many other anti-Zionist slogans - must we include this history in all of them? Graft 15:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The assertion that the slogan is part of a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy is POV. Linking to anti-Semitism, elders of Zion is fine -- but please don't turn this into yet another diatribe about anti-Semitism. This article, about a slogan, could be limited to two or three paragraphs and some links.-戴&#30505sv 02:06, Aug 14, 2003 (UTC)

I am writing about the history of this slogan. It begins with 1800s European conspiracy theories (i.e. theories about the supposed domination of the world by Jews, Freemasons, etc, which were certainly false), and it also begins with the beliefs and culture of Europeans, Russians and Ukranians. Over time one can then trace how beliefs about Jews affected the early Soviet Union, and how these beliefs were changed over time into official Soviet government policy. The history of this subject then should conver how the Soviets created special terminology to demonize "cosmopolitan Jews", "Zionist Jews", "people without a Fatherland", etc., and how this terminology spread to the client states of the former Soviet Union, especially most of the Arab states. Finally, we need to cover how the Soviet Union (not the PLO!) began the campaign in the UN to brand Israel as a "racist" state, in response to United States proposals for UN resolutions against bigoty. This entry would be remiss if it failed to mention the cold war politics between the US and USSR which led to the USSR's decision on this issue. RK 14:04, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The "new view"of labeling someone who does not agree entirely with the views of Israel as an "anti-zionist", and to label the anti zionists as anti-semites is not a new view, it is just the old rethoric trick to label yor oponent.

For example, someone who was against the apartheid is not necessarily "anti-south africa", and much less "anti-caucasian". Manco 15:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC) (P.S: By the way, I will use the same rethoric and propose the name of History section to be changed to "RK's section")

[edit] one article for criticisms?

we [should have one article where we] can put in all the criticisms of Zionism (Zionism is nationalism, Zionism is racism, Zionism is genocide, etc. etc. etc.). Chadloder 20:03, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)

These criticisms should go in nationalism, racism, genocide, as examples of how contentious such claims can be. Treating Zionism as different from any other form of ethnic or tribal or religious identification violates NPOV in my view. Do this subpaging for Zionism and you must also do it for Zoroastrianism. Sigh. EofT

[edit] ignorance

The whole "Zionism is racism" thing is based on ignorance, whipped up by Arab hatred of Jews:

You dare talk of racism when I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That, Mr. President, is Zionism. [1]

---

I still think the first sentence is POV:

The political slogan Zionism is racism brands Israel as an international outlaw and thus gain support for Islamic nationalism at the expense of Jewish nationalism.

The first part is simply untrue - it makes Israel a pariah, but not an outlaw. The second part is dubious and is anyway POV speculation; what the actual effect of the slogan is is subject to debate.. I don't think the sentence adds anything; the following paragraph serves perfectly well as an introduction. Graft 14:24, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good points, both. So how shall we revise this? --Uncle Ed 14:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The phrase "Enemies of Israel" is absolutely not NPOV. Graft 03:02, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It was probably I who added those words. Perhaps the article should not directly label any country an "enemy" but merely say that So-and-so CONSIDERS this-or-that country an enemy -- the key being that the Wikipedia cannot endorse any controversial view. My mistake, Graft. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Knesset law

Err, Znet says that "this story first appeared in an August 3, 2003 report by the Jerusalem-based writer, Justin Huggler. It was printed in The Independent, a well-known British newspaper. This racist marriage law was passed in the Knesset (the Israeli Parliament) and goes into effect immediately.

Components of the law also include the following: Palestinians will be excluded from obtaining citizenship or residency. Anyone else who marries an Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship. Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband or wife. Children of these unions will also be affected: from the age of 12 they will be denied citizenship or residency and forced to move out of Israel. The statute is a direct reversal of one of the provisions of the ten-year old Oslo Agreement, which allowed family reunions for Arabs inside Israel. In fact, many marriages of Palestinian Arabs with Israeli Arabs did occur. In practice, the Palestinian spouse was automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship and it was understood that Israeli citizenship would be denied in only very extreme cases."

Someone who cares, care to check this out? If this is Zionism, I sure don't want to get any more of it on me. Revolting. The European Union also thinks so, saying it "violates basic human rights. Condemnation from abroad included a joint letter from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which asked the Knesset members to reject the marriage law.

It stated, "The draft law barring family reunification for Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens is profoundly discriminatory," and "a law permitting such blatant racial discrimination, on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly violate international human rights law and treaties which Israel has ratified and pledged to uphold." --anon

Uh, none of this has anything to do with Zionism. Zionism is a movement supported by millions of Christians and Jews which holds that Jews should have the right to have a safe homeland. In any case, the atttitude you mention in the above law is not Israeli law. By contrast, such laws do exist in Arab nations. RK 19:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The law you mention has never had anything to do with Zionism, and is a recent proposal made by a few people who are overreacting to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. RK 19:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, this type of stereotypical argument is a straw man. マイカル (MB) 22:20, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution, please!

I noticed a unattributed quote in this article:

"the Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own law of return in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews."

Could the person who entered this quote provide a source please? マイカル (MB) 22:20, Aug 13, 2003 (UTC)

"Relatively new"

Someone should find a specific date, rather than this vague phrase - relative to what? Tell me who first made the claim, and when and where they made it. Was it the Russians? Or did they popularise an existing claim? Martin 21:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

came to existence after the establishment of the Zionist state Israel

Do we have a reference for this? It sounds somewhat implausible to me. Martin 08:54, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Zionists respond that [...] no occupants were forced to leave

Reference, please, to a named Zionist who makes that claim. Martin 14:31, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] What is this article about?

First of all, is the article about the slogan or the origin of the belief that Zionism is racism? If it is about the slogan, the actual slogan is generally "Zionism = racism," kinda like the "silence = death" slogan. Furthermore, the article should focus on the slogan and the slogan alone. Who coined it? Where was it used? How was it picked up? How was it spread? That would be an interesting article.

On the other hand, if the article is about the sentiment behind the slogan, its supposed origins, its political implications, etc., then all of this should moved to Anti-Zionism.

This is not the place to debate the validity of Zionism. This is a place to report on the debate. If that takes place in a neutral manner, it doesn't really matter if the prime minister of Israel or the chairman of the PFLP. Danny 00:51, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. RK

Danny, I agree with the first part of what you wrote. We need an article about the slogan, which I often see written out (on the web, anyway) as Zionism is racism.

I would like to see this article focus more on the origins of the slogan, such as who coined it. I'm also interested in who uses this slogan in their PR campaigns; whether anyone actually "believes" it or not is less interesting to me. So much political rhetoric is consciously false, at least in the American tradition (as so brilliantly depicted in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington).

Please, let's let the article grow a bit over the next few weeks. If it reaches a stable point where it has a large overlap with another article like Zionism or anti-Zionism, that would be a good time to refactor. Redundancy is good in the short run, to get those creative juices flowing. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Good points. By the way, there is some reason to believe that at least some people who spout extremist slogans don't believe them. Some in the leadership of the Soviet Union were very clearly aware of the fictitious nature of their own propaganda towards Jews (and on other topics, towards the US, or towards China). When necessary or expedient, the USSR reversed course and significantly changed its propaganda. George Orwell's famous work, 1984 was written specifically about the way that totalitartian governments, such as those in communist USSR, view words as mere tools to achieve power. While the average citizen may believe the propaganda, many in the intellectual elite probably do not. RK 14:14, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] establishment of Israel

Just to change the subject a bit,

it was a UN resolution that established that state.

Was Israel actually established via a UN resolution, or was it more of a home-grown thing which then a UN resolution approved? I recall reading something on-line recently that made some such quibble. Do you know, Danny/RK/slr? --Uncle Ed 14:30, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A UN resolution divided the British Mandate of Palestine into two states. The State of Israel was proclaimed in territory given for the "Jewish state" in the UN plan. They annexed some more territory after the 1948 war. - Efghij 03:42, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

For three decades, many advocates are have claimed that Zionism has a racist component. This advocacy is often trumpeted via the slogan Zionism is racism. It may be coincidence, but the countries advancing this charge tend to be countries which either have been on the losing side of wars with Israel or are alleged supporters of state-sponsored terrorism against Israel.

Many supporters of Israel think just the opposite: i.e., that Zionism does not have a racist component. For example, the Patrick Moynihan quote (which Stevertigo cut from the article when trimming it down -- I don't think this was a snub; I think he was trying to make the article short and sweet; I've done it myself a few times.)

I think we writers need to examine both the arguments and motives of those crying racism. I think -- and some other Wikipedians might agree -- that it's a trumped-up charge. --Uncle Ed

I see that the article has been destroyed successfully by self-proclaimed Zionists who say it has "nothing to do with" various policies it is clearly encourating. It is time to write another article again with only facts. I refer above to your own edit here as actually the best so far. RK then added redundant text from Zionism. EofT

[edit] Attribution

You know, it might be a good idea if we all agreed to some guidelines. I've noticed a lot of unattributed stuff creeping into this article and others like it, relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm probably guilty of it just as much as anyone else, and it was just after doing myself that I really became aware of the trend!

We Wikipedians should not add anything that we consider 'common knowledge' to these article without attributing the source. At least, say some advocates maintain that this or that is so.

This would start, presumably, with actually quoting the UN documents. EofT

Also, when there are arguments which we writers wish to analyze, dissect and/or defuse -- maybe we should agree to first clarify precisely what the POV is, and who is advocating it first. For example, who is it who claims that "Zionism is racism"? When did they start saying it? Who did they get to agree with them? For how long? Who still agrees with them? Who changed their mind?

And under what pressure, from whom? EofT

And what's the best way to address speculation on the motives of people who advocate points of view? Surely we can't (as writers) baldly state that Mr. X has pure motives and really believes this while Mr. Y is a sneaky, underhanded fink who just wants to steal something. Maybe it's better to say Mr. A regards X's motives as blah blah blah and Y's motives as thus and such.

Well, it is commonly asserted as above. EofT

A lot of us Wikipedians may sincerely believe that we know of an "objective source" which can be called upon to settle a dispute. Like, the UN said this. Or my favorite historian/politician/scientist/etc. This is perhaps my most common failing: not recognizing that what I consider an objective source could very well be just another advocate with his own POV. --Uncle Ed 16:27, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Then one deals with that by qualifications. But it must be said somewhere. I repeat, no one has found a more neutral source to quote than UN agencies or general assembly resolutions. EofT

EofT, thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm going to take some time to think over what you have said before making any further edits on this or any other controversial subject. --Uncle Ed 16:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hopefully this article can evolve into something fairly NPOV. Maybe then it can be used as a "template" for the "xxx and anti-Semitism" articles because it seems much harder to add dubious statements to this article than to them. And thats a good thing. BL 20:17, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

I think that there's bit of a problem taking three common words, and characterizing the phrase as a "slogan", so I'd like to see the "slogan" unbolded, and copy-editing done to shift the attention to the claim instead of the dubious slogan. Regarding the "relative" part, I think that the newness or oldness is not really relevant and it's good to remove it. Timetables describing development of the anti-Zionist controversy are discussed later, anyway. It seems to me that it's almost inevitable that anyone who rejects and opposes Right of return for a specific family of people, will almost automatically label all the advocates of Return as racist (and the other side, reciprocally). The claim will be there from the start, I would predict: although it might not be in the form of the modern rhetoric. Mkmcconn 21:46, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] double standard law

Last week Israeli parliament passed a double-standard law for citizens of Israel. As a result, if an Israeli citizen who is a Jew marries a foreigner (and that foreigner is also a Jew) then the foreigner can become an Israeli citizen, but for Israeli citizens who are not Jews, this rule does not apply. Also, it is the law in Israel that the religion of all citizens MUST be indicated in the national ID card of all Israeli citizens. (anon)

Check out the policies of Arab states on this issue. Their legal discrimination of all Christians and Jews is extreme. RK 16:51, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Surely anon, the "double standard law" you speak of should be discussed at Israel and racism or race-relations in Israel, rather than Zionism and racism? After all, just because a law is passed by Israel, doesn't mean that it is a "Zionist law". Martin 17:39, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Israel is not Zionist? The Pope is not Catholic? Haha. 24.64.166.191 06:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Syria is officially Ba'athist, but a law passed in Syria would not usefully be characterized as "a Ba'athist law". It's a Syrian law, just as a law passed in Israeli is an "Israeli law" rather than a "Zionist law". Babajobu 06:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this similar to the relation between communism and Soviet Union? Israel call itself Zionist but its racist actions has nothing to do with Zionism at all? The discussion has similarties and differences. One of the differences is that today, most Zionist like and support Israel while most communists did not like and did not support the Soviet Union. Can Zionism be validly criticised because of what is happening in Israel? I don't know but it HAS been criticised because of what is happening in Israel. --BL

---

To BL: I think the biggest problem is ignorance. A lot of people simply don't know what Zionism and communism are, let alone how these philosophies were practiced in Israel and Russia respectively. Before a person can make an informed evaluation on whether something is good or bad, he has to know what it is and how its use has affected real-world events.

For example, the idea of "sharing goods in common" sounds great, but where has it worked? Only small groups where everyone knows each other, I guess (or point me to an article on a large-scale success, with statistics and footnotes, my bags are packed!). Before evaluating, say, socialism or Capitalism a bit of economic history on countries which have tried these experiments may be in order.

I don't think, however, that the Wikipedia should endorse or condemn ideas such as socialism, communism, democracy, capitalism, Zionism and so on. It should rather give as simple and clear an explanation as possible of What They Are. Let the reader make up his own mind, I say.

I have high hopes for the Zionism and racism article. If it can separate fact from opinion, it might make the parting of the Red Sea look paltry, but I think we can hash it out if we put our heads together. At least we'll end up knowing what all major authors THINK about the issue.

In the end, there will always be a conflict between those who support Zionism and those who oppose it, so much of the article will have to be of the Mr. X says this, Mr. Y says that variety.

But laws about acquiring citizenship, owning property or practicing one's religion might be relatively easy to research and write about. So, if anyone wants my advice an how to proceed I would say to put in some hard facts about these points. --Uncle Ed 21:08, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Anon wrote "Last week Israeli parliament passed a double-standard law for citizens of Israel. As a result, if an Israeli citizen who is a Jew marries a foreigner (and that foreigner is also a Jew) then the foreigner can become an Israeli citizen,"

Not exactly true. Any Israeli citizen, whether said Israeli citizen is Jewish or not, can marry a foreigner of whatever religious, racial or ethnic background, and that foreigner can later acquire Israeli citizenship on the basis of that marriage-- with one recent exception which is what you are talking about. The law of which you speak was enacted by the Israeli parliament in 2003, with the ostensible aim of preventing West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, who often marry with Israeli Arab citizens and thus, later acquire Israeli citizenship, from utilizing this advantage to commit acts of terrorism. The law did not forbid such marriages outright or bar such Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens from eventually obtaining Israeli citizenship either, it only put the process on hold until such Palestinians could pass security review before they are automatically granted the rights and benefits of Israeli nationality on the basis of marriage to an Israeli citizen, as was the case in the past. The law also did not strip people of citizenship who had acquired it earlier. Moreover, the law was enacted as a temporary measure, subject to approval and ratification every six months, depending on the security situation. Many denounce the law as racist and discriminatory on its face, and, to be sure, it discriminates against a certain segment of a population. However, when it is taken into light that many Palestinian residents of the territories, who would be subject to security scrutinity otherwise, make an end-run around it by obtaining Israeli nationality through marriages of convenience, and thus are equipped with an Israeli ID to evade security oversight and commit acts of terrorism the rationale of the controversial law was understandable. Many in Israel decry the law as a double standard, and they have a certain point, and if the security situation improves substantially, it can easily be overturned. However, the statement made above is patently untrue. An Israeli Jew may marry a foreigner (Jewish or not) and said foreigner would be granted Israeli citizenship.

"but for Israeli citizens who are not Jews, this rule does not apply. Also, it is the law in Israel that the religion of all citizens MUST be indicated in the national ID card of all Israeli citizens. (anon)

As of 2005, nationality (le'om)(religion was considered nationality) on the te'udat zehut (Israeli ID card) is no longer listed. ShmorgelBorgel 12:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Jus Sanguinis

The "jus sanguinis" reference to the right of return is not entirely correct, and should be removed.

Jus sanguinis refers to a right of citizenship by descent. While it's true that all Jews have the right to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, not all Jews are Jewish by descent. A convert to Orthodox Judaism can avail himself to the Law of Return, despite not having any Jewish ancestry. Similarly, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that a Jew who willingly adopts another religion cannot use the Law of Return, even if he is of Jewish ancestry.

Steggall 22:44, 05 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The UN labelled Zionism as racism between 1975 and 1991, many Arab states hold this position and it is the main argument Anti-Zionists criticizes Zionism for.

That reminds me. Americans all hate "racism" these days. Could the identification of Zionism with racism be a ploy to attract American sympathy to the cause of Palestinian Arab nationalism at the expense of Israel?

Israel garnered considerable sympathy after WWII by representing Nazi Germany as "racist". To the degree that people believe that Hitler's regime was genocidal against Jews (the Holocaust, the "final solution") and/or exalted a particular race (the "master race" of blue-eyed blond Nordics), than to that extent people condemned Germany and saw Jews as victims deserving of reparations.

Hence, the Jewish "right of return" and the establishment of Israel.

Do any of the above viewpoints merit mention in the Zionism and racism article? --Uncle Ed 14:50, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Possibly. If you can find a named advocate of those viewpoints, preferably one who is an authority of some kind in the field. With references and quotes. Martin 15:38, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Unrefactored talk

normal sevice is now resumed.

Err...Palestine either existed or it didn't. If it was "only" part of the Ottoman empire it still existed, right?

I edited that sentence. What do you think? Martin 21:02, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Major rework is in order here

Some claim that this decision made Zionism different from other nationalisms as it claimed territory for an ethnicity that did not inhabit it at that particular time when Zionism was founded. For earlier inhabitation of the territory by the Jews see Kingdom of Judah and Kingdom of Israel.

"Some claim that" the Earth is flat. There is well documented history of practically uninterrupted Jewish presence in Eretz Israel. This is just one "pearl" of jihaducation here, the article is full of them. Our readers deserve better. --Humus sapiens Talk 10:19, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense. The Ashkenazis who founded Zionism lived nowhere near Palestine, and the Jewish minority that had lived in Palestine had nothing to do with the establishment of Zionism. - Mustafaa 23:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nonsense yourself. The Arabs who conquered and settled in the Land of Israel in the 7th century "lived nowhere near Palestine", the effendis (absentee landowners) "lived nowhere near Palestine", etc. As for "the Jewish minority that had lived in Palestine", wouldn't it be right that during the split of Ottoman Empire and establishing of 22 huge and rich Arab states in its place, the Jews who lived there would also get a tiny part of their ancient homeland? None of so many partition plans was acceptable to the Arabs as long as Jews had some sovereignty and self-determination. BTW, Ashkenazis, Sephardi and other groups of Jews were descendants of Jewish refugees. Elsewhere you argue for the right of return for the Palestinian refugees, but somehow your pleas don't apply to the Jewish ones. Who's the racist here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 06:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You apparently see the land rights of people who were exiled 2000 years ago as trumping those of people exiled 50 years ago. A more incoherent position could scarcely be imagined; by that reasoning, every Englishman should be prepared to evacuate their homes in favor of the Bretons. I like your joke about 22 huge and rich Arab states, though. - Mustafaa 10:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• As to the Arab states, check the map. What number do you need help with: territory, oil wealth, or population? Try to imagine what could be accomplished with little peace, democracy and education, instead of jihad, dhimmitude and brainwash.
• None of many partition plans was acceptable to the Arabs as long as Jews had sovereignty and self-determination. Who's the racist and imperialist here?
• Jews have never abandoned the Land of Israel, but never planned to expel all the others. The Arabs consitute 18% of Israel's population, while the Arabs expelled the Jews from all over Middle East and N. Africa. Who's the racist here?
• Israel did not threaten Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria or Iraq. They attacked it repeatedly with openly announced genocidal goals. Who's the racist here? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:41, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Rich? Puh-lease. Tell it to Egypt, or Syria, or Mauritania, or just about any non-Gulf Arab country.
• No, strangely enough the Arabs were not willing to accept a plan that would involve a bunch of recent immigrants taking over half the country.
• Exactly the opposite. Some Arabs states expelled Jews, after the Jews had expelled the vast majority of the Arabs from the land they took over.
• So they should have just ignored the plight of the Palestinians then?
• What exactly is the point of this argument? - Mustafaa 11:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] don't need this article

I don't think we need a separate article for this. The matter should be dealt with in the Zionism article. Also, the article is not intended to be a defence for zionism, as it now stands. Zw

Originally the article was named after the slogan "Zionism is Racism" so it did once have a place. Anyway, I think the discussion about the UN resolution is better kept on this page. In think it will be very difficult to agree upon what ground is neutral enough, as even the UN is not neurtal enough to avoid the POV flags from popping up. We need this article, and both need to link to each other. MShonle 04:26, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

We have a much better article called Anti-Zionism. This article should be abolished and any useful material in it sent to that article. This article seems to be just a piece of provocation. 08:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The articles on evolution and abortion seem prone to provoke, shall we get rid of them too? Perhaps the two can be merged and Zionism and Racism and Zionism is Racism both redirect to it, but I object to your notion that the article lacks useful material. MShonle 08:42, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In theory, you could believe Zionism to be racist without being anti-Zionist (though it'd be a very odd position) so potentially they are seperate topics. As the UN infamously held the position that Zionism was racism for period, I think the title has some justification (though I don't agree with it - it's much more complex than that). -- EuroTom 06:25, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Again, it is unclear what form of 'Zionism' is being attacked: in many circumstances, the indigenous emigres left because they did not wish to live in a Jewish state and were expecting Israel's imminent destruction. As such they were not "compelled" to leave, (though there was much violence being committed by both sides) and that those who remained gained Israeli citizenship with equal rights to ownership and voting.

-- It makes little sense. What do "forms" of Zionism have to do with the issue of dispossession? Also, the new text states the traditional Zionist view of the Palestinian exodus as if it is fact. The last part is also false: many Arabs who remained in fact lost their property, and the "equal right" to ownership is theoretical. I don't think these issues should be debated in this page at all, but should be reduced to links to relevant pages like Palestinian exodus. --Zero 07:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The 'form' reference is that Zionism that favours the creation of a Jewish homeland, but was happy to share the homeland with Palestinians, would not support/have supported expulsions. Zionism claimng Israel should be a Jewish-only country would be. I agree - a link to the Exodus would be good to balance up. How about:

Again, it is unclear what form of 'Zionism' is being attacked: the creation of Israel did not (in itself) necessitate expulsion of the Palestinians, but Zionism that claims Israel as exclusively Jewish land does. In some circumstances, the indigenous emigres left because they did not wish to live in a Jewish state and were expecting Israel's imminent destruction. As such, they were not "compelled" to leave, and that those who remained eventually gained Israeli citizenship with equal rights to ownership and voting. This said, there was much violence being committed by both sides, some intentionally designed to drive out Palestinians from areas. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War or al Nakba, many Palestinians had their property and land redistributed to Jewish immigrants.

Is that more balanced?? Anyway, if it's an improvement, paste it in, otherwise just ignore it... -- EuroTom 17:35, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think having this article (and a ridiculously long article at that), no matter its content, is just aimed at spreading and reinforcing an old prejudice, not informing the reader. Attributes using which opponents of Zionism connect it to racism exist in every national movement. I do not think Wikipedia has artciles like 'pan-arabism and racism', or 'French (English, Indian, Russian, whatever) nationalism and racism', so having one on 'Zionism and racism' is biased, regardless of the content. That does not mean that the fact that some people hold this view should not be mentioned. Indeed, historical disputes, and ridiculous sequel of UN resolutions mandate this. But it should be done in a brief way in the articles about Zionism and/or Anti-Zionism. BorisG 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Boris, I agree with you. Notice my original edits,in approximately the last week, to the first paragraph of the article and their deletion by Huldra and the similar behavior plus discussion with Babajobu.

The existance of this article, as its currently formulated, is in someways like me asking Babajobu and Huldra when did they stop beating their wifes. The association of wife beating with them is discriminatory, unreasonable and inherently biased, yet editors such as Huldra and Babajobu will delete any direct information at the beginning of the article that immediately addresses the issue clarifying the fact that race is not part of Zionism. However, I'm sure they would reserve that right for themselves "if the shoe was on the other foot." Doright 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's face reality: the UNGA Res 3379 has stayed in force for 16 years. I do not think complete removal will fly here in WP, because the topic is valid: even after the Res. has been revoked, many propagandists still insist that Z=R. We can turn it into a redir, but to where: Zionism, Anti-Zionism, UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel and the United Nations? In any case, it would be great to have this article cleaned up. Humus sapiens 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

The photos are both irrelevant, unless accompanied by a paragraph along the lines of "Some argue that, since Israel is so nice to refugees as long as they're non-Palestinian, it can't possibly be racist, and thus Zionism can't be racist." No such paragraph is to be found, but if someone isn't embarrassed to write it, I suppose the photos could reasonably be reinstated. As it is, their sole purpose is misdirection - like putting a photo of Hutus getting chummy with white and Asian guys to prove they weren't racist, when racism against Tutsis is the worry (and vice versa). - Mustafaa 00:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted POV "background"

"In 1948, due to a deadlock in negotiations and rejection of compromise, accelarated violence carried out by militant groups. In response Israel declared independence. Almost immediately they were invaded by foreign Arab armies who wished to drive Israel "into the sea." The Palestinian Arabs, whose leadership invited the armies either fled or were expelled with most of the Palestinian Arab population during the war."

This suggested emendation's first and second sentences are POV in the extreme - I like that "in response", as if Israel would never have declared independence if it weren't for the "accelerated violence" or the deadlock. The remainder is already covered by the following paragraph, and should not be duplicated. - Mustafaa 23:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The intro

"The extent of the homeland Zionists believe the Jewish people are entitled to varies, typically from the Green Line cease fire line of Israel on the low end to that plus the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the high end; both cases either had or continue to have a Palestinian majority, which was or would have to be turned into a minority to make this homeland a Jewish state. For this reason, and more generally because they see it as having caused great suffering to Palestinians, many critics of Zionism condemn Zionism as "racist". "

I am cutting this passage out. Even leaving the Palestinian questionable demographics aside:

1. By 1947, the Jews constituted majority in the areas designated to the Jewish state by the partition, which the Zionists accepted, while the Arabs repeatedly rejected any Jewish self-determination. They refused to even negotiate. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • By 1949, in other words, Palestinians had already been made a minority in portions of the northern coast.
     • The partition of 1947 was in 1947, not in 1949. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. The Arab leaders chose (Israel didn't threaten them) to start one genocidal war against the Jews after another. If they would have chosen peaceful coexistence, this year we could celebrate 58th anniversary of the Palestinian state. Another choice they lost was 1937 partition, that would possibly save millions of Jews from the Holocaust and make the Palestinian state 68 year old today. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • That's your POV. - Mustafaa 08:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • Did the Arabs accept the partition of 1937 or 1947? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. The "great suffering" to both Jews and Palestinians was caused by irresponsible leaders such as Nazi mufti Amin al-Husayni and six Arab states who attacked newly-born Jewish state to wage genocide.
   • Ditto. - Mustafaa 08:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • And their irresponsible supporters. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4. The UNRWA helped only the Palestinian refugees. About the same number of Jewish refugees from the Arab lands (only Israel accepted 600,000 in a few years after 1948) had no assistance from the UN. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • So? - Mustafaa 08:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • So who is the racist? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Even today, as the Palestinians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians negotiate with Israel, the majority of Arab/Muslim states do not recognize the Jewish state. I guess it's because the Zionists "caused great suffering to Palestinians"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
   • So? - Mustafaa 08:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
     • So who is the racist? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So who is the racist here? And why, even 14 years after the collapse of rotten Soviet regime we still repeat after them "racist Zionists"? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: I took the liberty to move Mustafaa's responses into the corresponding places, adding my replies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In summary, you're arguing that the reason most commonly given by those who claim that Zionism constitutes racism should not be mentioned here because you think they're wrong. But what you think of their arguments is besides the point; this article is supposed to describe. - Mustafaa 08:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"I believe that zionism is racism, because in establishing the racially exclusive state of Israel, in 1948, and expelling the indigenous Palestinians from the land, the zionists severed a relationship that people had to the land for over 4,000 years, uninterrupted, since before Abraham."[2]

Glad you brought the quote. Since it is based on a number of faulty premises (that Israel was or is a "racially exclusive" state, that the Palestinians were expelled from the land, and that they had been there for 4,000 years uninterrupted), it exposes the fundamental flaws in the "Zionism is racism" arguments. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first really is a fundamental flaw, since Jews and Palestinians are not racially distinct. The second and third premises are unquestionably true, and indeed unquestioned except by Israel's most extreme advocates. - Mustafaa 21:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first premise is also fundamentally flawed even if Arabs and Jews were "racially distinct", because Arabs have always been citizens of Israel, and therefore citizenship has not been exclusive. The second premise is faulty for at least two reasons; one, because while some Palestinians were indeed forced to move, the majority were not. A more fundamental flaw in the second premise, however, is the one Benny Morris points out; that someone who has been forced to move 15 km has not been "expelled from the land" in any meaningful sense. And the third premise is flawed because it ignores the significant in-migration to Israel that occured over the 1300 years of Muslim rule, and which was happening even in the 1940s. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Someone who has been forced to move 15 km (although most Palestinian refugees ended up rather further away) has been "expelled from the land" in the most meaningful sense of all: he no longer has his land. That applies whether he ended up in the same country or in a different one when the dust settled. As for the third premise, Sephardim and Palestinians look closer together, at least in Cavalli-Sforza, than Sephardim and Ashkenazim; so whatever in-migration occurred was obviously not all that significant. - Mustafaa 23:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Expelled from the land", not "expelled from his land; the clear implication is the land of Israel/Palestine, not whatever farm he was working on behalf of some owner in Syria, or whatever flat he was renting in Haifa. Someone still living in Israel/Palestine hasn't been expelled from it in any meaningful way. And, aside from the entirely subjective nature of your latter argument, the natives of the other Middle Eastern countries (and even Greece and Turkey) etc. didn't look all that different from the native Jews of Israel to begin with, so even a complete replacement of the population would not be notable on appearance alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear; Cavalli-Sforza is the world's most notable human population geneticist, and I was referring to his graphs of genetic factors, not to mere facial appearance. - Mustafaa 00:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Your argument assumes that the Sephardi populations have not had an admixture of elements from surrounding Arab populations. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sephardim and Ashkenazim may look different but they have the same genes. So I also dont know what argument there is.

Guy Montag 02:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They don't have the same genes. The Ashkenazi gene pool has a dominant Semitic component combined with a very large European input. On Cavalli-Sforza's graphs, as I recall, they show up as the furthest outlier in the Levantine cluster, with Sephardim and Palestinians significantly closer together than Sephardim and Ashkenazim. I recommend finding a copy of his illuminating, if large, The History and Geography of Human Genes, which anyone with any interest in human history should read anyway. The point is confirmed by other studies, such as [3]. - Mustafaa 05:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. They have the same common genes relating to priesthood and other relation. [4] There was a study about a year ago that connected genes from both Sephardim and Ashkenazim despite the difference in pigmintation.

Guy Montag 07:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. Besides the inherent weakness of pitting some rabbi's understanding of genetics against Prof. Cavalli-Sforza's, the article merely presents evidence that a significant proportion of the Ashkenazi gene pool is Jewish. This in no way contradicts the well-proved fact that a large proportion of the Ashkenazi gene pool is European; in fact, it is very unusual for a human population not to derive from multiple sources. - Mustafaa 07:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews are genetically distinct from Europeans and are genetically connected to Sephardic Jews. These are the current findings of expert genecitists. I just dont have the study on hand. This is what is sounds like. The conclusions were that the Jewish populations showed strong affinities with each other, but exhibited types also found in some non-Jewish populations. In other words, they were about what you would expect if you believed that Jews derived from a single historical population, but had undergone a small amount of intermarriage in the last few thousand years. The results were grossly inconsistent with the notion that the Jewish subjects of the study were about as much related as any random collection of Europeans and North Africans.[5]

Guy Montag 09:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also remember reading about that. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 11:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dunno whose notion that is ("that the Jewish subjects of the study were about as much related as any random collection of Europeans and North Africans"), but it's certainly not mine. As I said to begin with, the Ashkenazi "show up as the furthest outlier in the Levantine cluster". In other words, they include a strong Jewish element, and are more like Palestinians than like either Europeans or North Africans. What is not true is that Jews form a single genetic cluster. Due to the high European genetic input (and conceivably an Arab element among Sephardim as well, although that's harder to prove because Arabs are genetically a lot more like Jews than Europeans are), Ashkenazis are more distant from Sephardim than Sephardim are from Palestinians. - Mustafaa 20:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It has already been proven that Jews are from one genetic source. They differentiate between Europeans and are similiar to Sephardim genetically. In other words, the cluster of genes that are normally identified with "Semitic" origin are overwhelmingly present in Ashkenazim. I dont know why you are trying to push a diluted theory of the Khazar myth. And if you are not than please clarify your statements.

Guy Montag 23:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"It has already been proven that Jews are from one genetic source" is false; read the book(s) (even if simple visual inspection doesn't convince you that maybe there are African genes in the Falasha community, for instance.) "They differentiate between Europeans and are similiar to Sephardim genetically" makes no sense; I'm not sure what word you meant to use in place of "differentiate". "In other words, the cluster of genes that are normally identified with "Semitic" origin are overwhelmingly present in Ashkenazim" is true, but does not contradict the fact, also true, that there are fewer Semitic genes in Ashkenazim and more European ones. None of this has anything to do with the Khazar hypothesis, which, though plausible in the pre-genetics days when it was proposed, turns out to be mostly wrong. The fundamental point you don't seem to get is that a person has more than one ancestor. You can simultaneously be descended from Jews, Europeans, and indeed any other set of groups, and if so, your genes will reflect each of those groups' contributions. But Talk:Zionism and racism is not the place to explain the basics of population genetics; if the point still seems difficult to grasp, there are many excellent books on the subject you could try. - Mustafaa 00:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beta Israel (Falashas) are a bad example, since they are the exception to the rule; that is, the Beta Israel descend from Ethiopian Christian Sabbatarians who, in the Middle Ages, decided they were Jews. As for the Khazar theory, it was weak pre-genetics too, for a number of reasons even farther off the topic of this Talk: page than it already is. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone is referring to the same study but still disagreeing. The study found that Y-chromosomal DNA(gotten from father) in a selection Ashkenazi Jews was almost exclusively middle eastern, while Mitochondrial DNA(gotten from mother) was mostly not Middle eastern, but did not really match any other single grouping. What all this means is that early ashkenazi jewish populations probably consisted primarily of Jewish men (maybe traders and such) and a mixture of a few Jewish women, but mostly of a mixture of women from a lot of other areas (they couldn't resist us I guess). Sephardi Jews weren't that much different, they just found a bit more middle eastern mitochondrial DNA (so probably there were more Jewish women in the original populations) but they were much more similar than Mustafaa made it out to be since there was genetic contact between the populations in the first few centuries of the diaspora. So basically you were all right, I hope this clears stuff up.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racist

So if you believe this genetic inheritance stuff gives you political or real-estate rights, aren't you a racist by definition?24.64.166.191 05:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By that argument all countries giving citizenship based on jus sanguinus (right of descent) are racist.

[edit] orig research

Cutting out opinion presented as fact:

"Zionism is now, despite its pre-Israel origins as a "homeland movement," essentially synonymous with Jewish nationalism, since the Jewish identity of Israel is already established. The ideology has similar characteristics to many other European nationalisms developed at the same time, such as German nationalism and Irish nationalism.

Many Zionists dispute this, saying that it still is the same "homeland movement" that started Zionism. Others say that, in a sense, all nationalisms are racist because all privilege one ethnicity above all others."

Cite the source please. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 17:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "They also note that Zionism as an ideology existed before the State of Israel."

"They also note that Zionism as an ideology existed before the State of Israel." What does this argument mean? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess that it existed before the State of Israel and no one called it racist then. Bur ir is a pretty badly worded argument, if its even an argument.

Guy Montag 22:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even understand what it is supposed to be arguing. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who's its author, but the second part (that I removed) of the sentence was smth to the effect of "and will exist after Israel". Good riddance. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionists desired Palestine?

Mustafaa insists that the Jewish homeland is "preferably located in the region of Palestine", arguing that this is the accepted English term for the region. Leaving an awkward word "preferably" aside, please note that the connection between Zionism and Zion is clear, and therefore it should be mentioned first. Jews strived to return to the Zion, a synecdoche for the Land of Israel, and called it Eretz Israel centuries before Herodotus or Hadrian or Arabs called it Palestine. Since today the term "Palestine" is being increasingly connected to Palestinian Arabs, I think that saying "Jews desired Palestine" carries negative connotations, especially in the context of this article. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's clear that when Jews prayed for return to, and in some cases actually returned to, Israel, they didn't refer to it as "Palestine". Rather, they generally referred to "Zion" or "Jerusalem" or "Eretz Yisrael"; it was only in the 19th-20th centuries that the term started to be used by Jews, no doubt influenced by secular Zionists. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorg?

I think this article is in need of reorg. The contents is more or less adequate, but the historical narrative goes around in loops. Also, I think it should be reflected here that many Jews consider anti-Zionism as racist and anti-Semitic ideology. Of course need to distinguish it from legitimate criticism of Israel's policies. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 21:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the move?

We already have anti-Zionism. Why move Zionism and racism to criticisms of Zionism? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There's enough duplication among these articles as it is. - Mustafaa 06:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

[Guy_Montag ] All his edits are hardcore Zionist! it reads Zionism and racism doesn't it? (unsigned comment by User:The Brain)

It would be more valuable if you focussed on why you think the article belongs in the category, rather than your assessment of Guy's edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is riddled with pro-zionist POV.

[edit] Category

Could someone please explain why an article of the title form "X and racism" should not belong to the "Racism" category? —Ashley Y 07:31, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Let me understand this logic: since Taliban regarded any music as devil worshipping, there must be some relation between the two, so let's categorize it as such... Even the UN affirmed that Zionism is not a form of Racism. Why some editors still insist? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That reasoning would be entirely cogent - if this article were called Zionism. Fortunately, we have a different article on that. This article is about the view that Zionism constitutes racism, and obviously belongs in the category "Racism" whether one accepts that view or not. - Mustafaa 20:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mustafaa. And I would categorise "Music and devil worship", if it existed, in both Category:Music and Category:Devil worship. And for as long as this article is called "Zionism and racism", it should be categorised in Category:Zionism and in Category:Racism. —Ashley Y 20:38, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I find this reasoning compelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I dont even think an article on this subject needs a separate article. It should be transferred as a catagory of Anti Zionism.

Guy Montag 05:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're both long. Generally with long articles, sections should be spun off as separate articles if possible. —Ashley Y 05:41, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

The Arabs_and_anti-Semitism article is under the category of anti-Semitism, no double-standards, this should be in the category of racism.Yuber 18:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is generally agreed on that Zionism is a subform of Apartheid (there's good scientific theoretical writing on that), which is a subform of racism, perhaps that will help in the categorization. questlitur

It's only "generally agreed that Zionism is a subform of Apartheid" in radical anti-Israel circles; could you direct me to that "good scientific theoretical writing on that"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit of 1st paragraph - Please respond to challenge here

Please try providing some form of rational argument instead of summarily deleting my edits. (You know who you are). Believe me, you’re not garnering any wikilove points with that approach. Wouldn’t it be more fun to have a collegial dialog? Towards that end, I have parsed my edits into the following 13 numbered items. If you believe any of these items should not be included in this article, as your censoring actions seem to indicate, please take this opportunity to comment under each item stating if you dispute the accuracy or if you want to claim there is a npov problem. By the way, just crying npov is not a rational argument; give us some clue on what basis you make an npov claim.

1. Zionism maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland.

2. Its focus is on governing the Land of Israel or Zion (a synecdoche for the Land of Israel).

3. Zionists point to the fact that Jewish people have historically understood themselves to be part of a nation distinct from the non-Jewish nations.

4. Like most nations, offspring of members are likewise considered members.

5. However, common ancestry is not required and new members are admitted based upon prescribed criteria.

6. None of the criteria include race.

7. The association of Zionism with racism is seen by critics as a modern form of the traditional blood libel claimed against the Jewish people by antisemites wherein the antisemite’s own racist worldview is ascribed to the Jew.

8. Critics of this association further assert that this is motivated by the desire to deny the Jewish people the same rights other nations enjoy.

9. Racism refers to beliefs and practices that assume inherent and significant differences exist between the genetics of various groups of human beings; that assume these differences can be measured on a scale of "superior" to "inferior"; and that result in the social, political and economic advantage of one group in relation to others.

10. Jews, Judaism, Jewish Law, and Jewish Zionists hold that any person may choose to become a Jew, after meeting the necessary requirements, and enjoy all the benefits and responsibilities of membership.

11. Jewish Zionists are therefore, by definition, anti-Racist.

12. One of the benefits of membership, according to the Zionists, is the right to live freely without fear of persecution, as a Jew, in the national homeland.

13. Thus, associating Zionism with racism is seen as a canard by its detractors and as merely another case of accusing the Jews of whatever is considered most despicable at the time, whether it’s deicide, poisoning the wells in medieval Europe, blood libels, racism, colonialism, imperialism or genocide and using this as a pretext to deny Jews the rights that all nations seek to enjoy.

Best regards Doright 04:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Doright, I think the additions are problematic, at least presented the way they are. What you've added is a polemic against the notion that Zionism equals racism. That's fine, but it cannot be the lead of the article. It needs to be further in, and in a section that clearly indicates these arguments are commonly voiced by proponents of Zionism. Most glaringly, your point eleven is presented as fact, not as the position of Zionists. This is unacceptable. I'll leave them there for now, see what other people do, but I really don't think your additions can stand, as is. Babajobu 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, thank you for the courtesy of dialog. I believe items 5, 6, 9 and 10 are facts. Since you have not disputed their accuracy, I’ll assume you agree with them. Therefore, I’m having some difficulty understanding why you think it’s necessary to say that the conclusion (i.e., item 11) is the sole property of Zionists. Rather, it appears to me somewhat akin to requiring one to caveat that one plus one equals two by saying that it is the position of Zionists that one plus one equals two. You’ll notice that I had included the language “by definition” in item 11. However, respecting your pov, I’ve edited item 11 as follows:

Original item 11 = “Jewish Zionists are therefore, by definition, anti-Racist,”

New item 11 = “Since anyone can (i.e., regardless of race) both join the Jewish people and equally enjoy the benefits of membership, Zionists conclude that Zionism is anti-Racist.

Babajobu, it’s unclear to me why you characterize this as a Zionist “polemic” rather than clear, concise, well reasoned and very helpful to the reader. Even an anti-Zionist must agree with the conclusions, unless you deny the easily verifiable and widely accepted premises. It takes the two words, Zionism and Racism, objectively defines their salient characteristics and then draws what appears to be the inevitable clarification. It would be helpful to me if you could further explain and present your argument. Again, it does seem to me like complaining that one plus one equals two is polemical. Doright 19:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally I do agree with some of those points. I think the notion that Zionism equals racism is ludicrous, and testament to the truth of Abba Eban's cracks about the nature of the General Assembly, i.e. that they would have approved the motion that the Earth was flat, and Israel flattened it. But my personal opinions are irrelevant here. The notion that because a particular group is not a "race", per se, that it is incapable of producing a racist ideology is a contention, not a fact, and it hinges on one's definiton of racism. Some would say it is enough to argue or imply the inferiority of another race vis-a-vis the rest of humanity, and that one does not necessarily have to assert the superiority of his own race. Regardless, your points above do not represent a mathematical formula. They represent a line of reasoning adopted by some proponents of Zionism, and some who just reject this particular criticism of Zionism. But this line of reasoning, i.e. this POV, must be presented as what it is, and not as a final, objective word on a topic about which a myriad of positions have been advanced by different parties. However, perhaps "polemic" was the wrong word, and I withdraw it. I think I felt the effort to pass the views off as a plain fact was somewhat polemical, rather than the arguments themselves. Babajobu 20:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, Unfortunately, you have not addressed a single point that I’ve made. Further, it appears that your above argument is a barrage of non sequiturs mainly consisting of straw men and red herrings. Logical fallacies do not advance your point. I see that you have now chosen to take the unilateral action of removing my edits from the introduction, despite your original promise to wait to see what others say and my prior alteration to address your concern. How do you rationalize this unilateral action now?

Your assertions:

A. You assert: “The notion that because a particular group is not a "race", per se, that it is incapable of producing a racist ideology is a contention, not a fact, and it hinges on one's definiton of racism.”

- My reply: No one said this. This is very strange rhetoric from someone trying to write an encyclopedia. This was certainly not stated in my edit. You’ve invented this from whole cloth. You’re making a straw man argument. Also, If you don’t like the definition of racism, I would like to hear yours. Mine came directly from wikipedia.

B. You assert: “Some would say it is enough to argue or imply the inferiority of another race vis-a-vis the rest of humanity, and that one does not necessarily have to assert the superiority of his own race.”

- My reply: Again, you’re the only one suggesting that another race is inferior. I did not write that another race was inferior! This is another straw man argument.

C. You assert: “Regardless, your points above do not represent a mathematical formula.”

- My reply: I didn’t say that they represnted a mathematical formula. This is a red herring. The point, as I already told you, is that it follows by definition, not that it’s a mathematical formula. The conclusion necessarily, logically and obviously follows by definition. No mathematics required. Therefore, as you again have not refuted or even disputed the accuracy of my items 5, 6, 9 and 10 that shows that RACE is NOT a consideration in Jewish Zionism, you can not deny the conclusion that the Jewish Zionist ideologies are not racist. One suspects that this is why you pack your discussion with non sequiturs.

D. “You assert: They represent a line of reasoning adopted by some proponents of Zionism, and some who just reject this particular criticism of Zionism. But this line of reasoning, i.e. this POV, must be presented as what it is, and not as a final, objective word on a topic about which a myriad of positions have been advanced by different parties.”

- My reply: You now merely restate your initial conclusion that you have only supported by a steady stream of fallacies (as shown above) and now throw in the claim that I assert this is the final word on the topic. I obviously do not make that claim as the number of words following mine in this article exceed my words by an order of magnitude.

Your complaint that my facts are not plain reminds me of the complaint that relativity and quantum theory are “Jewish Physics.” Other than concisely elucidating the truth, EXACTLY WHAT ARE NOT "PLAIN FACTS" ABOUT FACTS 5, 6, 9 AND 10? Doright 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Doright's edits now appear twice in the article. Excellent. Doright, perhaps you would respond to the above objections to your comments, as well as just putting them back in? Babajobu 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lies, garbage and nonsense. First You'll note that I had already written a detailed response to your "argument" and posted it within minutes of my article edit. Second, your reputation for not telling the truth is being firmly established here by your claim that I was "just putting them (my original edits) back in." Everyone that wants to can compare the current with my original and see you for the liar that you are. Doright 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, if elements of my contributions appear in more than one place it's only because YOU PUT THEM THERE. Perhaps you would like to correct your own edits?

And perhaps you would actually like to look at how the article has changed before inserting your mind-dumps. Babajobu 01:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your negative characterization of my carefully edited contribution as a "mind-dump" is not spreading any wikilove.

Okay, look, you need to tone down your rhetoric. You've already invoked Godwin's law by saying that my points remind you of claims about "Jewish physics". As someone who clearly has great appreciation for logic, you must know that likening someone else to the Nazis is not a generally admired rhetorical technique. Okay, you have argued, as best I can tell, that because Jews do not regard themseles as a race, Zionism cannot be regarded as racist. Do your contributions make this point, or no? Babajobu 01:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

One need only read this section to see that your contribution has been entirely rhetorical and devoid of any substantive content. After all this you now have the temerity to say, tone down the rhetoric and then say "Okay, you have argued, as best I can tell, that because Jews do not regard themseles as a race, Zionism cannot be regarded as racist." No, my contributions do not make that obviously absurd point. BTW, your failure to understand my point about Jewish physics is very similar to your failure to understand my point about two being equal to one plus one by definition. Doright 06:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism and racialism!

Quote from the article: "An American long active in issues of race relations, Pennsylvania State Rep. Mark B. Cohen, said "Racism claims superiority, while Zionism merely claims difference. Racism seeks the persecution of long powerless groups, while Zionism seeks to protect the members of a group long persecuted." Even though I am convinced that Zionism is not racist, it is still in most aspects evidently RACIALIST. While in some cases, it is just a matter of religion, but then again non-religious jews are just as welcome in Israel as religious ones.

[edit] Section on Israeli Arabs

Please stop trying to edit this article in a POV way and remove the section on discrimination against Israeli Arabs. It fully applies here.Yuber^(talk) 15:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Please stop directly copying large articles and inserting them inside other articles; summaries and links (as has been done here) are what is required. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced Quotes

The reader of the article will most certainly see that quotes by pro-Zionism people are much more told than those of anti-Zionism people, if any of the latters are there.Hamadamas 20:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. As it stands now the article is so tilted as to be almost a joke. We have quote after quote rejecting any allegations of any link between zionism and racism, but not a single quote as to anybody actually making such an allegation (or why).

To be exact: there are 4 quotes: One by Gromyko (which I do not understand why is here? Is it relevant? Nothing about either zionism or racism.) And: 2 quotes by Herzog + 1 by Cohen; all strongly condemming any claims of links between zionism and racism. And the number of quotes linking zionism with racism?: exactly ZERO. Nill. Nada. How very typical of Wikipedia. Sigh. Huldra 00:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to your POV, but removing a relevant quote, the response to the accusations by the Israeli Amb. and leaving just a hollow unsubstantiated phrase "they disagree" won't work. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Strange, isn´t it: its´t always other people that have a POV, never oneself! Lol! Haveing said that: I quite agree that the one "amputated" sentence left was not good; I was going to come back to it as soon as I finished the Res. 3379-article. Give me an hour or two, will you? I still think the Herzog quote should go into the Res. 3379-article. Actually, if you see: I have moved it there. Herzog made these statements as an answer to a specific "accusation", namely Res. 3379. Therefore it belongs in that article, IMO, (Is this very POV in your world..?) Regards, Huldra 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

First, learn WP:NPA. Second, "a specific "accusation", namely Res. 3379" was "Zionism is racism". How is it irrelevant to this article? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 02:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I find your first statement quite condescending if it implies that I do not know/have broken WP:NPA.

Secondly: Where have I said that the Herzog statement is "irrelevant" to this article? Nowhere, to my knowledge. I have said the quote belongs (more!) with the "accusation", i.e. in the Res. 3379 article. So please clarify your position: are you against moving Herzogs statements (of 10.Nov. 1975) to the Res. 3379 article? Or do you want to both move the quote to the Res. 3379-article and keep it in this article, too?? From what I understand the Res. 3379 article "grew out" of this article. Therefore I think it would be more orderly to have everything pertaining to Res. 3379 in that article. This article is messy enough as it is (IMO). (Btw, if there was no seperate article for Res. 3379, well, then I would ofcourse have wanted to keep the Herzog quote in this article.)

Thirdly: take a look now at the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. Now Herzogs statements directly follows the (full) text of the Resolution it was aimed at. (Earlier, the only Herzog statement there was that last sentence ("For us, the Jewish people..", etc)). Now you see all his statements in its proper context. Honestly, don´t you think that looks better?

If you want just a quote against equeling zionism with racism, I´m sure you can find plenty others (besides Herzog); surely you don´t need to give a quote which is already given in another article? Regards, Huldra 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC) PS: logging out soon, its laaaate here in Europe.

Comments on pro-Zionism vs. anti-Zionism: we already have separate articles for both, let's not repeat that here.

A well-sourced quote was removed. If you think it belongs in another article, that is not a reason to remove it from here entirely, leaving only dangling hollow words "they disagree".

Let's keep in mind that it's been 14 years after even the unreformed UN resolved that Z≠R. I'll assume good faith. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have already said that the article as you "found it" (while I was editing) with what you call "only dangling hollow words" was clearly not satisfactory. Actually, I don´t think we are in much of a disagreement there. I should perhaps have put a template on the page, indicating that the article was in the middle of beeing edited.

Have you looked at the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379? You will there see the Herzog quote, with both the date it was made and with the text of the resolution which it was adressing. There is the full context of the quote.

As for the Herzog quote also to be given here: now there is A: no date mentioned of when the quote was made. B: no mention of the context. I think that if we are to keep the Herzog quote here, then we would also need to copy the text of Resolution 3379 into this article, (fully or partially). As it is now, it is the Herzog quote which is "dangeling" in the article. The Herzog quote is a defense against accusations which are not voiced in this article. This simply does not make for a balanced article.

So, what do you prefer; that we take out the Herzog quote from this article.....or that we insert (some of) the text of Res. 3379? Cheers, & regards, Huldra 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we are not in much of a disagreement. Good job on the UNGA3379. I am removing the Herzog's quote, and making few other edits, please see if they work for you. In general, this article digresses too much into irrelevant details and usual grievances. I don't think it needs them, but as long as it talks about the right of return, I've added a phrase on the UNGA194. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Humus, I'd like your input on Doright's additions to the article. My feeling was that they should not be in the lead, but rather in the "rebuttals" section. For this opinion Doright has already called me a Nazi and a liar, and I don't really feel like dealing with that kind of garbage. If you're okay with the additions, I'm okay with them. Babajobu 02:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

On WP:NPA, the guide is clear: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. ... There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them."

On the content, I'm flattered you asked me. Consider this my POV, but I don't have a problem refuting the Z=R claim in the intro because even the unreformed UN did it and I happen to know that it is a result of the Cold War and the Soviet Middle East policies/politics.

Most importantly, I would like to see this article (as any other) clean, crisp and compact. It should not go into all the usual grievances, like the refugees, the history of AIC, etc. Let's get other opinions as well. Humus sapiens 04:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, your attempt to “poison the well” by both lying to Humus sapiens and then absurdly claiming that “For this opinion Doright has already …” done horrible things to you is as transparant as glass. Anyone that is interested can read the discussion section titled “edit of first paragraph” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism_and_racism#Edit_of_1st_paragraph_-_Please_respond_to_challenge_here to see how I’ve attempted to take your input seriously and in return you continue to produce this kind of rhetoric.

Wouldn’t it have been enough to ask Humus for his opinion without poisoning the well with your fabrications? Indeed you have lied as I showed before and you do so again here. You now claim, “For this opinion Doright has already called me a Nazi and a liar.” I did point out when you lied before. It was not because of your opinion, but merely because you lied. This is all documented in the discussion section. Furthermore, I never called you a Nazi. But here you lie again claiming that I called you a Nazi. If I called you a Nazi, why can’t you quote it? Doright 04:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Doright, you said "Your complaint that my facts are not plain reminds me of the complaint that relativity and quantum theory are 'Jewish Physics.'" This is the exact equivalent of "Jeez, that sure sounds like something Hitler would say". And you have called me a "liar" for what? For saying you reinserted your arguments? You did! You made modifications, but basically the same content was reinserted in the same place. Even if you think your alterations were substantive, surely you can argue this point rather than leaping to hysterical accusations of lying and Naziism? Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing this with you further. Babajobu 10:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Babajobu, As a new member of wikipedia, it's come to my attention that this does not belong in a content discussion section. So, rather than commenting on your further dissembling, I'll refer the interested reader to the previously mentioned section where the dialog is fully documented. Have a nice day. Doright 17:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non Jewish Nations

The notion that ethnic groups are a "nation" is propaganda by ethno-nationialist movements (Nazism, etc.). It is not common usage of the word "nation". Would any Zionist say that Jews should have equal rights and non-Jews have equal rights everywhere? 24.64.166.191 06:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. However, ethnolinguistic groups have long been described as "nations". For example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire is regarded as a multinational empire because it comprised multiple ethnolinguistic "nations". Regards, Babajobu 06:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask anyone on the street today what is a nation. My point is that ethno-religious movements such as Zionism and N**ism claim superior rights because of their "national" ancestry. Do you think that anyone, anywhere has superior rights because of their ancestry?

This notion was also common practice by the Brits on dividing up their empire. Of course if you think this should be corrected 50 years later, you're welcome to try persuade Pakistan that they should really be part of India.

[edit] any person may choose to become a Jew

Haha. I choose to become a Jew. However, I have a few problems with the fundamentalist beliefs of OrthoJism and the little issue of non-medically-qualified surgery.

Well, Noam Chomsky or Leon Trotsky are/were Jews and atheists. No one would dispute this. So a child of a Jewish mother is by definition a Jew even if s/he does not follow Jewish traditions or religion. Thus they are entitled to the right to emigrate to Israel.

But if I - son of a gentile mother and a gentile father - wish to become an ATHEIST Jew, may I be one? Am I entitled to the right to emigrate to Israel?

If not there is a privilege advocated to the descendants of Jewish mothers which does not apply to any other human being. Is this advocacy not discrimination?

As to the right of long (and far) displaced peoples to nationhood, the Zionists think this also apply to the Roma people for example? Why not a national homeland for the Roma in north India (where they come from)? What would be the reaction of the people presently living there? Sergio Morales

Well, this whole article as it stands now is just a sick, sick joke. I have given up and abandoned it to the POV warriors. Life is too short...

But just as an experiment: imagine someone going over to the Dhimmi article and argue along the lines of this article: as anybody is free to convert to Islam, the Dhimmi status cannot be discrimination! Pr. definition! .... Lol! .....and welcome to Fools Paradise! Regards, Huldra 21:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (PS. ....and the earth is flat. Pr. definition; easily. )

I don't think anyone claims Dhimmi status is *racism*. 'Discrimination' is a broader term. But you realise that a major cause of this argument is that the USSR and Arab states wanted to set Israel apart and took the pointed new word 'racism' - which everyone hates - and tried to associate it with Zionism? Now personally, I see any kind of bigotry as being as vile as racism, even if it's discrimination based on gender or religion, but the point is that most of the world currently has a particularly strong gut reaction against *racism* and the USSR and Arab states wanted to direct this against Israel alone. No UN resolutions linking Dhimmi status or Sharia to racism, were there?

So when debating *racism*, the 'any person may become a Jew' argument is entirely valid because it shows that *race* has no part in it. 165.146.122.244 12:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sergio Morale wrote:"Well, Noam Chomsky or Leon Trotsky are/were Jews and atheists. No one would dispute this." A quibble: Chomsky never renounced his Jewishness, but I am pretty sure that Trotsky himself would dispute this, when asked, he always insisted that he was not a Jew, but a member of the proletariat (amusing as that notion is), or a revolutionary. Ironically, one of Trotsky's grandchildren subsequently became an Orthodox Jew, emigrated to Israel and became an extremist support of Meir Kahane's Kach movement.

"So a child of a Jewish mother is by definition a Jew even if s/he does not follow Jewish traditions or religion. Thus they are entitled to the right to emigrate to Israel." Any child of a Jewish mother is recognized as a Jew automatically for purposes of Orthodox Jewish law should such person choose to regard him or herself as a Jew. Any grandchild of someone known to be a Jew is entitled to Israeli citizenship under Israel's Law of Return, whether or not such person qualifies as a Jew under the strictures of Jewish law. In a way, this is a reversal of Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws, which subjected people to discrimination, persecution and eventual extermination, whether they were recognized as Jews under Jewish law or not. A German with one Jewish grandfather who was not recognized as a Jew under Jewish law could be sent to a concentration camp as a Jew in 1940. Israeli law recognizes that such person should be able to easily obtain refuge and nationality in the Jewish state, although such a person would not be a Jew (absent conversion to Orthodox Judaism) for religious reasons, at least not in the Orthodox stream of Judaism.

"But if I - son of a gentile mother and a gentile father - wish to become an ATHEIST Jew, may I be one? Am I entitled to the right to emigrate to Israel?"

There is a group called Society for Humanistic Judaism, which is explicitly atheist. Many non-Jews join their group and later describe themselves as "Jewish". I don't believe that affiliation with them, however, is recognized by the State of Israel as being Jewish under the Law of Return. "If not there is a privilege advocated to the descendants of Jewish mothers which does not apply to any other human being. Is this advocacy not discrimination?" It could also be the descendants of Jewish fathers or grandfathers, as stated above. It is my udnerstanding that the Republic of Ireland also grants automatic citizenship to anyone who has one grandparent who was born in Ireland. Thus, someone who is three-quarters Italian-American, but has one Irish grandparent born in Ireland 90 years ago, can automatically obtain an Irish passport. An Irish-born child of Nigerian guest workers in Dublin or Limerick, raised and educated in Ireland, who speaks with a thick brogue and arguably is culturally much more "Irish" than the American with one Irish-born grandparent, however, does not automatically acquire Irish nationality. Is that racist?

"As to the right of long (and far) displaced peoples to nationhood, the Zionists think this also apply to the Roma people for example? Why not a national homeland for the Roma in north India (where they come from)? What would be the reaction of the people presently living there?"

What does it matter what the Zionists think of the homelessness of the Roma? It is up to the Roma to decide. As far as I am aware, there has never been a significant parallel to Zionism amongst the gypsies that has been widely accepted by them. I read somewhere that in the 1940s some Roma advocated a "back to India" movement, but it never caught their imagination or enjoyed support amongst them. As a non-Roma, I would say that they never had much of a "national consciousness" in the sense that they shared a common geographic origin, a shared sacred and national literature, etc. European linguists made the connection between various Romani dialects and Sanskrit and other Indic languages in the late 18th or early century and thus realized that the Roma had probably migrated from India into Europe--the Roma themselves were not aware of any particular connection to India, and I don't think that they ever longed, as a group, for some lost homeland in present-day India. They were and are disparate bands of descendants of people who migrated into Europe and elsewhere, many of whom lived nomadic existences and endured persecution and discrimination, to be sure, even were targeted for genocide by Nazism, but I don't think it is justifiable to call them a nation exiled from its homeland. Although modern linguistics and anthropology has established that they in all likelihood originated from somewhere in present-day India, nobody knows precisely from where. Moreover, as India is a sovereign nation state composed of numerous ethnicities and religions in a way that "Palestine" never was, I don't think anyone there would permit an establishment of a Roma homeland in India. If Roma did want to return en masse to their ancient place of origin, maybe *some* in India would welcome them back as lost brothers, who knows, perhaps they could even obtain Indian citizenship but nobody would offer therm any territory to become sovereign over.It's not quite an accurate analogy to the dispossessed Jews, who became Zionists, because the Jews in the diaporah always had a national consciousness and knew where they came from.ShmorgelBorgel 13:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism and affirmative action

Has anyone ever made this comparison? 165.146.122.244 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Land Claims

After reading this article I have reviewed what I thought Zionism was (I did equate it to racism). I believed this to be so from watching a documentry on the Gaza withdrawal which focused on one of the last families to leave (forcably removed by the IDF). In the film the father (who i believe identified himself as a Zionist) was teaching his children that ALL the lands from the Med Sea to the Euphrates/Tigris rivers in Iraq is Jewish land (I think it might have been all the land in the Torah) and that one day the Jews will get it all back. How would you class/label this guy (yeah i know labels are for jars and bottles not people)? Is this a Zionist belief and/or do many Israelis/Jews believe this? Is this a form of Zionism or blind patriotism gone wrong? Is he one of the orthodox Jews whom I'm told cause trouble with all secular Israeli citizens (the less religious Jews, Muslims etc) or could he simply be just a nutjob, redneck or bogan?Theinnerexits 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Zionism = return of Jews to *Zion*, Hebrew for Land of Israel. This quote is from the Bible so I'm guessing this guy is a Religous Zionist. Zionism has several forms; from the socialist Labor Zionism to the nationalist Revisionist Zionism. Zionist Jews in Israel identify their agenda with the political party they vote to the Knesset. Last elections the centrist Kadima and centre-left Avoda gained most of the votes. I hope that answers you. There are also non-Zionist parties, for example the communist Hadash and the Arab anti-Zionist Balad. Psychomelodic (people from Alpha Centauri think that I look like Zelig ^{write your own!}) 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response Psychomelodic, greatly appreciated. Im reading up on it now. Cheers.--Theinnerexits 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arab state discrimination

I'd like to see a citation for this statement:

Furthermore, even if one was to refer to this hypothetical discrimination as "racism", Zionists say, it would be insignificant in comparison to the discrimination against Jews that is carried out by governments of Arab states.

I don't think it's necessary to say that this is not a valid logical argument (see tu quoque) but I would entertain the possibility that Zionists make this argument. Can anyone note a particular notable Zionist who has done so? Deco 16:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If Jews are not a race, then how can hatred of Jews be racist?

I found a logical inconsistency in an argument forwarded on this page. The claim is made that Zionism can't be racist, because Jews are not a race. This means that to accept this argument, one must abandon racial prejudice as a motivation for anti-Jewish sentiment. It is logically contradictory to say that those who hate Jews are racist, but then claim that Jews are not a race. I put forth an edit of this page articulating this counterpoint, and it was removed.
I was referred to Racial anti-Semitism which argues that hatred against Jews is racism (Jews=race) and the WP:NOR page. However, this page in particular has a disclaimer at the top which states that "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." If Jews are not a race, then they cannot be discriminated against racially, and all of the attrocities done to them were not racial. If the Jews are a race, then the argument forwarded on this page is false, and deserves to have a counterpoint that says this. If this page follows the WP:NOR rule, then original research and arguments should be removed. --Joshua242 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the basis for your claim, but according to reliable sources, the Racial policy of Nazi Germany which resulted in the Holocaust, was one such case. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My argument simply put is this. If Jews are not a racial group (as this article argues), then anti Jewish sentiment or activity is not racially based. The argument that is forwarded on this page is that since Zionist discrimination is based along Jew/non-Jew lines, and since that distinction has nothing to do with race, it cannot be racist. This means that the the Holocost was not killing members of a particular race, but rather targeting a religious group.
This article is about Zionism and racism, yet, this article seems to exonerate Zionism from any claim of racism without exploring a single claim or argument. In "Viewed as anti-Semitism", this article goes so far as to say: "The association of Zionism with racism is seen by critics as a modern form of anti-Semitism"; so to even add claims to this article that are not Pro-Zionism is anti-Semitic? --Joshua242 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism may not be based on race (in the barrow definition), but also against an ethinc group. // Liftarn

So, doesn't this efface the argument? Jews are an ethnic group. Muslims are an ethnic group. Perhaps even Palestinians are an ethnic group. Zionism can be racist if it discriminates against an ethnic group. --Joshua242 08:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, racism against an ethnic group is still racism. Oh, and I don't think Muslims are en athnic group, but a religious group. // Liftarn

The Wikipedia article on ethnic groups says that "An ethnic group is a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith, 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioural, linguistic, or religious practices. In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community." Within this construct, Jews, Muslims and Palestinians would all be properly classified.
This still invalidates the "Zionism can't be racist because Jews aren't a race" argument, because discrimination against ethnicity is considered to be racism. --Joshua242 02:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. By the way, a while ago I engountered an interestion opinion. One person claimed that Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism since what it says is that Jews can never become assimilated or feel nationalism to any country but Israel. // Liftarn

Perhaps the most appropriate way to correct this issue would be to properly define racism in this article including ethnic groups. Then, to balance the thrust of the "Zionism is not racism because..." argument, point out that zionism does discriminate against ethnicity (which includes religious beliefs). This would at least give a basis for a claim that Zionism could be interpreted as racism. The article should not be a total denouncement of the mere notion. --Joshua242 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you lost me. In what way does zionism discriminate against any religious group? // Liftarn