Talk:Zionism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Contents

[edit] Zionism draft for discussion, adopting in part or whole

Below in a collapsed section is the draft Zionism article worked on by myself, ChrisAmiss, Blacke and PacWalker. We used the current version to work off of, but the changes made are quite considerable, not least the many long-overdue references added. Sections in red indicate either no or insufficient attention and that it still needs work. Of course, the sections in black are proposals only and are open for the views and good faith edits of all other users.

I put the collapsed version of the draft on this page both for easy comparison and consultation and also to ensure that the discussion takes place here and not at PacWalker's page, where he kindly hosted the draft.

So, let's talk Zionism!---Mona- (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

(No need to have the draft version posted on the talkpage; people can look at it by following this link.)

[edit] Well Mona has apparently gone completely bonkers

Not content with having her insanity reverted hard when she tried to insert her Stormfront electronic Jihad Intifada propaganda into each and all articles, she now tries to replace the Zionism article with her personal hatchet piece. And as she knows that she won't get any semblance of consensus in favor she goes around inviting people to this discussion in the same manner that Paravant vandal binned me for. I say we've had enough! Block Mona and put her in the vandal bin! This Wiki would breathe free if this were achieved! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I alerted the other authors. While the bulk of this work is mine some important contributions came from others, including PacWalker who hosted the page for working on it. And, Paravant had asked me to offer it for consideration about a week ago but I wanted more time. So I gave him the courtesy of alerting him when I finally made the move. That is not the solicitation of the uninvloved you were seeking for your edit wars. Now, what are your SUBSTANTIVE objections to the draft version?---Mona- (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Calm down. Just say you don't like it, dummy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Who is "we"? You and Arisboch? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I feel like I am back in middle school watching this play out. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
There's this big myth about being an adult. Namely that it's a thing at all. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
My eyes hurt from rolling so much. MarmotHead (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope we move beyond "middle school" and on to the adult undertaking of discussing the draft and consider partial or whole substitution for the unsourced assertions in the poor current version. Bear in mind, those who do not take my perspective had all the same amount of time to clean up and source the extant version -- and largely did not do so.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
It's taken me a while to read through all this screed & its refs: I like it. Better by far than the existing page. Not gonna do a section by section analysis but I'd recommend replacement. Scream!! (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Scream!!---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. When I tried to edit this draft when it was hosted on PacWalker's page because I disagreed with some of it, I was reverted with the reasoning "This is the version for critics of Israel, go away and leave us alone." I didn't press the point because it was a page on PacWalker's user space. However, You can't claim now that anyone who wanted could edit this version. So which is it? Are you inviting people who disagree with you to contribute to the article, or are you going to keep shouting people down as time wasters and energy drainers? Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 23:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
To edit the draft page, you basically just needed PacWalker's approval first. Editing of the actual RW article is open to pretty much anyone (as long as they edit responsibly). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:11, 25 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
SuperDude, since I've now added most of the draft to the main article, you are absolutely entitled to offer substantive criticisms and add your own sourced facts. When it was at PacWalker's page the people willing to intensively work needed the space to do so. Why didn't you edit the earlier version here?! It was almost entirely left a piece of undocumented assertions.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought you didn't care what I think/say?Super Dude,Where's my car? 23:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You were told to make edits at the main article. Others more in your corner had the same opportunity, fully aware that I and others were working on a version at PacWalker's page. Almost nothing was done in those weeks on the main article by those who disagree with our POV. We worked very hard, and sourced the shit out of our version. The main article remained undocumented crap. So, if you have sourcing for facts you feel should be included, say so.---Mona- (talk) 23:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] If ever there was a tortured page ...

... this is it. Congratulations. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorte, if you offer sourced and substantive edits they should be considered. The problem with the strongly Zionist version was a near-total lack of sourcing and tendentious assertions.---Mona- (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not an expert on Zionism and I don't have your compulsion. I do have a sense of proportion. What you are doing is, almost by your definition, changing an article that suffered from „a near-total lack of sourcing and tendentious assertions“ into a propaganda piece. English is my third language in order of learning so I can't compete there and thus I'll do you a favour and look up a word which you are fond of, namely „tendentious“ just to get it right. You don't seem to be aware of the meaning. You used the same word, when I posed a simple calculating question about populations and area. But according to The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it means: „Having an underlying purpose; (of writing etc.) composed with the intention of promoting a particular cause or viewpoint.“ Now, I really only have two questions for you if you accept that definition. What was tendentious about my calculating exercise? I thought it had quite a bearing on the matter, and if I got the numbers wrong, you have Wikipedia to blame. The question is per se neutral and relevant. Second, have you yourself ever written anything here which is not tendentious by that definition? If so, I've never seen it. Just like with the Apartheid article, you shift the centre of gravity towards anti-Zionism wherever you go. You dismissed my „anecdote“ about the seething hatred and obvious wish of some Palestinians to see the Jewish population as removed or dead. Anecdote in the sense that I was telling something first hand. But it is nevertheless true. In the final analysis you're a hypocrite. Sorry for saying so, but with your vast knowledge of the Arab world you are, I presume, aware of how „comics“ in many Muslim states treat Israel. I remember one „comic“, I'm really sorry that I don't remember where, which involved roasting a baby on a spit. So, do you want another Holocaust? Avenger is quite right in posing that question. Or do you not prefer to think about the implementation? I know, I know, you said something about enfranchising the West Bank. As things are now, that would simply be suicidal for the Israelis. And now go back to your non-tendentious tracts. We live in different worlds. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. Yes, I do find some of what you and Avenger ask to be tendentious, as are many of his edits. The word has a pejorative connotation that I sincerely tell you is inappropriate for me and my work. If you see my User Page, there is but one article on it, to wit: my statement of my personal journey out of Zionism and to anti-Zionism. (Avenger asked me why I took the positions I did, and that was my answer). My POV is totally rooted in facts and history; I have immersed myself in relevant reading. This I did because I had been so ardent a Zionist I felt compelled to read on and on and understand where I had gone wrong and the depth of the error. So, whatever else one can say about my work on Zionism and related topics, it cannot be said it comes from a place of ignorance without any support.---Mona- (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I read your talk page and about your journey. You see, I have also seen and read Holocaust and I have read Exodus. That last one was accidental - it was in a German translation to keep my German fresh after the Abitur after Günter Grass had proved to be too much at the time. I didn't really like the book, it was incredibly long-winded and one sided. But it was the language I was after, and I got the book more or less at random. I have seen any number of journeys like yours and they almost invariably involve jumping from one extreme to the other. That is what I meant by proportion. As for calling you a hypocrite, that is probably not fair - like the Muslims we have here, the only fanatics we are aware of are newly converted Christians - the ethnic Arabs to use a blanket term as well as other originally foreign Muslims are quite relaxed. The same has happened to you, or so it seems. And that is a tragic fate. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty overwrought, not to say condescending. I'm a woman of reason and facts. (Indeed, to my annoyance, I've at times been told I "think like a man.") When facts compel me in a different direction, I go there. When those facts also demonstrate a great injustice has been done, I become an advocate trafficking in the facts. There is no pathology involved.---Mona- (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be condescending. Most people see themselves as reasonable and well-read. Anybody can be well-read, it is what he or she takes from it that matters. And, to be fair, I'm of course no exception to that, seeing myself as usually reasonable unless my temper gets the better of me. As for your gender, that is irrelevant. I never cared about that. But it is a fact that I read your own description of yourself and I instantly recognized the same journey. I am probably older than you think. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading quote with questionable references

"Zionism has long been a political movement and is another word for Jewish nationalism. Indeed, the two are identical in the most salient aspects – "backing of a national identity with credible force"[1] – whatever less salient or theoretical distinctions some may make between them"

The quote makes it sound like an official policy or a statement by a prominant zionist, rather than a random quote from a NYT columnist. What's the point of it? Also, can't it be said about most nations that they back their national identity with credible force? Super Dude,Where's my car? 23:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This was an argument agasint the spiritual Zionists. They felt there had to be "credibvle force" in political Zionism to get rid of the Arabs.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in that reference that talks about that, find a different source? Super Dude,Where's my car? 00:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
SuperDude, Jabotinksy did not REMOTELY think Palestine was empty! Read the quote and its reference!---Mona- (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This section has nothing to do with Jabotinsky. Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
SUPERDUDE - please read the talk archives. There were claims Zionism is not nationalism. But it is -- precisely because the mix of credible force. When the advocacy of that prevailed, and it was implemented, it ended alternative versions of Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
None of what you said has any relevance to my point, you might have misunderstood me, so I'll rephrase it: what is the purpose of inclusion and (original) source of that quote? Super Dude,Where's my car? 01:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Superdude, you have not offered good reasons to revert the information about how other democracies have made (weak) amends to their wronged indigenous populations. That paragraph was inserted for a reason; it's valid information, and absent substantive reasons for removing it, it should stay. As for the purpose, I've explained that -- political Zionism, that included coercion, prevailed. Objections to saying this were offered and you can find them in the talk archives. PLEASE FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE PRECEDED YOU AND WHICH THIS VERSION IS SOMETIMES MEANT TO MEET---Mona- (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find the arguments from skimming the archive, and the phrase "credible force" does not appear there even once, but I'll concede the point about the purpose. However, a good source for the quote is still needed. if it's just a phrase, don't put it as a quote. Super Dude,Where's my car? 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There are other reasons for putting something in between quotes besides it being a literal citation, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:13, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] Move parts about current Israeli policies

I think that the paragraphs in the first section regarding current Israeli policies and actions be moved to Israel because they're only tangentially connected to Zionism. Super Dude,Where's my car? 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Um, no. Israel is Zionism implemented; Zionism realized. Zionism is the ideology of Israel.---Mona- (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, so talk about the implementation in Israel. not to mention the fact that those 2.5 paragaphs can be summarised as "waah, Israel bad!"Super Dude,Where's my car? 02:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No. Did you miss the paragraph about how TODAY Zionism is seen in the polices discussed in that beginning section. This isn't "Israel is bad waaah." These are facts. If you feel they make Israel look bad, well, facts are not always pleasant.---Mona- (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yah no. Zionism didn't stop when Israel became a state and state Zionism is still Zionism. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
^ 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] A navbox!

This page cries out for some form of navbox!--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 16:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Which one, though? {{Judaism}}? {{Politics}}? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:10, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] What happened

I've been somewhat busy the past week or so. When did we agree about what to do with this page and what was the decision? CorruptUser (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I recall Paravant unlocking the article a couple weeks ago with the intention of giving Avenger, Arisboch and basically anyone else who wanted to have a go the opportunity to polish up the article while Mona, PacWalker and ChrisAmiss worked on their draft version. No one seemed to bother much with working on the main article and Mona is now largely finished with the draft and has proposed it for consideration, also adding a few sections to the article that didn't have a prior equivalent. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Cause even reading such a empty-headed hatchet piece is infra dig for me, that's why. I think, I even wrote it here on her user talk page.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
pretty much. Rw was given Its chance to make a better anti-mona version of the article and did nothing. And this version being presented against monas was shit. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
"Shit"? For not looking like it was written by Al-Aqsa TV Electronic Jihad Intifada?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Then why didn't you make a better version? --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Cause my command of the English language or my skills in writing letters or articles is not good enough? Or that I'm too fucking lazy?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the people who know a great deal about this topic, and who did with it what users are supposed to do (i.e., add supported text) worked hard on a version. That version has been largely incorporated into the main article at this point. SuperDude has found a few issues with references (one was paywalled), and he's disagreed with various things which has been hashed out mostly on the talk page, but otherwise, there has been no significant substantive criticism of this new version. But, there are sections that remain less than complete. I am working on that, and would be happy if others did, too.---Mona- (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Jabotinsky propaganda

Most the Godwin intellectuals back then pulled against him was motivated by the good ol left-against-right pissing contest and you apparently try to gloss over, that Jabotinsky had something against or wanted to get rid of them. This is a fucking lie. Look at some quotes, the first from the same fucking essay you quote-mined:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true

Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.

I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.
—Zeev Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall
[...]From the wealth of our land there shall prosper The Arab, the Christian, and the Jew[...]
—Zeev Jabontinsky, The East Bank of the Jordan

And this "That didn't stop either him from highest office or Jabotinsky's bayonets from evolving into F-16s and white phosphorus." is bullshit, too, since even the article didn't try make a connection beyond some empytheaded version of snark. It did also not show any kind of evidence of Jabotinsky on the Zionist movement as a whole, just trying to blame Jabotinsky for Bibi due to his dad being a secretary of Zeev, which sound like something straight from Alex Jones site. And all the references she gives on the ridiculous taring of all and any Jewish underground movements there with the brush terrorism, is some opinion piece and simply the name "Chomsky" (if Steven Salad Bowl Salaita used that kinda source citations in his uni stuff, nobody would give a fuck for him being fired (or probably they would've, if he cried "I'M BEING PERSECUTED FOR BEING PALESTINIANS" or whetever loud enough)). Siriusly?? Here, not fucking proof for Being having ordered the shit which was done during attack is given (shit, Irgun command even ordered not to shoot kids, women and prisoners, according to the Wikipedia article).

And about the Duma arsoning, nobody was charged, cause they didn't find the fuckers responsible! And why do you think these price tag fuckheads attack regularly the Israeli army and police, while your article hatchet piece claims, that the army/police more or less look the other way or even help them??

And why the double-fuck is the part about the Israeli nukes under "Geopolitical Zionism" and your source reference about "Francis Perrin" saying this is crap, too. Where did he say it exactly, when did he say it, what context and so on??

"The Holocaust seemed to have blinded a great many liberal Jews to what political Zionism entailed." is too more bitching about the US Jews not believing your kinda bullshit about Zionism than anything else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Jabotinsky is directly quoted at some length. Readers can determine his meaning, and the entire Iron Wall speech is in the reference, as is at least one of his follow-up pieces. As for the Bib/Jabotinsky info, that's a fact of history. As for the Perrin stuff, that, too, is referenced. Readers can see the context. (The geopolitical section is very incomplete, and is one of the sections not yet finished.) Arisboch, we've had the argument about Jabotibnksy's meaning and words already, it's in the archives. You were outnumbered then. The man said what he is quoted to have said.---Mona- (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no quote mine Arisboch. Every historian knows that politicians/ideological leaders are conscious to make self-serving statements that make them look more reasonable in public compared to the contradictory statements in private and their actions that follow. Ben-Gurion was a master at doing this, and historian Benny Morris even noted this. You should know this. For example, if Eichmann said there were no gas chambers, one could say that this is a self-serving statement. If, however, in private Eichmann acknowledged the existence of gas chambers, then the historian could reasonably deduce this as a point of evidence because it goes against what is said in public and is more revealing. Or, let's go with another example. I believe it was Serbian military general Ratko Mladic who met with Bosnian Muslim representatives (of the refugees, along with Dutch military officers) the night before the Srebrenica massacre. For anyone who studied the Yugoslav wars, Mladic was responsible for major war crimes and genocide of the Bosnian Muslims. Would any serious historian try to credit Ratko's meeting with Muslim representatives as repudiating what he did? No. Consider your quote too. Jabotinsky said there would have to be a Jewish majority. Well, even with immigration, the Arabs still made a majority in Palestine, so how exactly could you achieve a Jewish majority in an area that was overwhelmingly non-Jewish? You would have to expel them. One can't have it both ways, and Jabotinsky knew this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"You would have to expel them. One can't have it both ways, and Jabotinsky knew this." - ChrisAmiss [citation needed]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs" (Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians, p. 47). Jabotinsky said this in a letter to one of his revisionist colleagues in the US in November 1939. Jabotinsky, of course, wasn't the only one to suggest transfer. Transfer was quite a popular idea among Zionists, Ben-Gurion included. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
And such stuff is of course always in some obscure letters dug up by some completely biased book authors. Wonder why. Probably the same reason, why all photos of aliens, the Loch Ness monster and the Yeti are so unsharp.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, here's one from a Zionist historian Tom Segev if that's not good enough for your "bias". "The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world." (Segev, One Palestine Complete, p. 407). ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, it is Chris and me, and then there is you. Stop it.---Mona- (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't be so humble, you're not that great (wait a second, you're not humble. Shit. And you have fake-BoN helping you revert).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] blood and soil

Arisboch, see these google results: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS658US658&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Israel+blood+and+soil&newwindow=1&start=10 Pick a few. Or I will.---Mona- (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You wanna anyone take you Sirius serious after giving a google search link as a quote or trying to make others search for the sources of your claims??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Mona, you're verging on do your own research. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This ain't verging anymore.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
No I'm not. I gave him endless links to choose from, and said if he would not, I will. After he claimed no one reaspectable uses that phrase -- google results are the exact evidence called for to rebut that point. So ok, here is one: "Israel’s blood and soil roots are now on parade, while a minority- and youth-driven coalition of the ascendant is occupying a larger space within the Democratic Party. A Brazilified America is less comfortable with an increasingly ethnocentric and overtly religious Jewish State." That's the Daily Beast, Lloyd Green.---Mona- (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Really, NO-ONE is gonna do your research for you. Bring sources or bugger off.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Ha...funny thing is you are. The results page is in no way specific. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

"Blood and soil If fascism is being mainstreamed in Israel, it is most unusual in a way. In most states where there is a fascist potential, what is most visible is protracted class conflict (usually settled in favour of capital), political polarisation between left and right (with the right tending to have the initiative), collapsing hegemonic apparatuses, and a stalemated parliamentary leadership. You see these characteristics in Greece; not in Israel. There is class polarisation, sure, but not a great deal of class struggle. There is a political polarisation, but it's a polarisation almost exclusively to the right. The race/class hegemony is relatively stable, the hegemonic apparatuses are not falling apart, and the state is not in deadlock. Hardly any Jewish Israeli opposes what the government is doing. In that circumstance, what space would there be for a mass movement of the middle class to take state power? Who would even need to cancel parliamentary democracy?

But of course, Israel is different. It is a colonial settler state, and a peculiarly ideological one at that. Its territorial claims and its demographic imperatives conspire to create an auto-radicalising dynamic. Hardly any political current in Israel disagrees that Gaza and the West Bank belong to Israel by right. The main tributaries of Zionism, Labour and Revisionist, converge on this, and on the absolute necessity of maintaining fluid and thus expandable borders potentially capable of absorbing the whole of Eretz Yisrael. Of course, the secular wing of Zionism does not 'take seriously' the Biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants upon which the claim to Palestine is based but, like all nationalisms, it does need a sacred mythology to explain the otherwise totally contingent relationship between people and territory.

There is also necessarily a profoundly messianic element in Zionism. To dream in the first instance of a new nation state, a Jewish state, in a part of the Ottoman empire, where there are few Jews and no Jewish nationalists, as a deliverance from the darkness of Europe, is to believe in a fairy tale - no matter what Theodore Herzl said on the matter. To summon the political will to do this, to get people to believe in it, to suppose that the will itself will suffice, is a type of magical thinking which surely draws from the same well as religiosity. Surely this partially explains the peculiarly spiritual language of secular Zionists, from Ben Gurion to Jabotinsky. It also furnishes part of the reason why the historical claim cited by secular Zionists is essentially a 'blood and soil' mythology derived from German Romanticism, and founded upon the supposed ancient connection between Jewish 'forefathers' and the land (a mythology debunked most efficiently by Shlomo Sand). One could go on, but the point is that the 'settler movement' and the religious right, usually mocked as some sort of 'extremist' outlier of the Zionist project, are in a way its inner truth. When they say that cities should be built across the Middle East, that there are 'halachic imperatives' demanding the colonisation of not just Palestine but Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, they are not in fact deviating far from the secular 'founding fathers', all of whom agreed that Eretz Yisrael, the 'native land' of the Jews, extended well beyond British Mandate Palestine."http://www.leninology.co.uk/2014/08/how-much-fascism.html ---Mona- (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer in HuffPo:

"I am pained by the parallels I observe between my experiences in Germany prior to 1939 and those suffered by Palestinians today. I cannot help but hear echoes of the Nazi mythos of "blood and soil" in the rhetoric of settler fundamentalism which claims a sacred right to all the lands of biblical Judea and Samaria. The various forms of collective punishment visited upon the Palestinian people -- coerced ghettoization behind a "security wall"; the bulldozing of homes and destruction of fields; the bombing of schools, mosques, and government buildings; an economic blockade that deprives people of the water, food, medicine, education and the basic necessities for dignified survival -- force me to recall the deprivations and humiliations that I experienced in my youth. This century-long process of oppression means unimaginable suffering for Palestinians."---Mona- (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You godda bring something more than a extreme moonbatty site and some guy pulling a Godwin.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Why do you sign virtually every addition to talk pages, instead of just adding it on to your previous writings and keeping 1 signature? It's starting to annoy me, but it's not a policy or anything. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
To indicate additions. Anyway, now I added the Hajo Meyer reference to the usage.---Mona- (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, stop it. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboich, stop edit warring. Now you are irrationally and unreasonably rejecting every source, after claiming I had none. Stop it. Hajo Meyer is a respected source and fucking Holocaust survivor. You don't get to dismiss him with "Godwin."---Mona- (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't give a flying fuck, who he is, his comparisons are complete bullshit and again not about the ideology Zionism, but about some of the Israeli day-to-day politics he objects to.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, settlers are ZIONISTS. Meyer is writing about ZIONISTS doing what Zionists have done virtually since they arrived in Palestine, namely, staking claims on land inhabited and/or owned by Arabs. Some think God gave them the land in their Bible, others think it is their ancestral homeland by dint of DNA or cultural ties. Either way, it works out the same.---Mona- (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice try. If you wanna have this part about the blood and soil to stay, provide some notable sources about claiming the Jews to be a race and justifying Zionism that way, cause that's what "blood and soil" is, not the shit you wanna stretch it to be.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Hajo Meyer is a "notable source." But I'll find more later tonite -- but I do not accept your criteria for who they have to be and on what basis they use the phrase.---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the blood part only requires an emphasis on one's genetic ancestry/genealogy as the main criterion for belonging to the group in question. And if you're familiar with the Old Testament, you'll find it's rampant with this sorta thing. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Genetics in the Old Testament? What drugs are you on??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clearly I was talking about the science of genetics being conducted by the people of Abraham (me using the name "people of Abraham" here is no coincidence, btw). >.< 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:29, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently. >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:37, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Zionist historian Anita Shapira actually made the point that there was a recurrent motif in Zionism of the mysticism "that links blood and soil", the cult of "heroes, death, and graves", that "graves are the source of the vital link with the land, and they generate the loyalty of man to that soil", and that "blood fructifies the soil". Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=vNb5VkyxDlYC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=image+and+reality+of+the+israel-palestine+conflict+blood+and+soil&source=bl&ots=B4xRJ7gr7r&sig=OQrISywBxCf_qIAPzJq-MUUEXyU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMIs-6C5umVyAIVBpeACh2jmwea#v=onepage&q=image%20and%20reality%20of%20the%20israel-palestine%20conflict%20blood%20and%20soil&f=false ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Great Chris, feel free to make that reference note number five for this phrase.---Mona- (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, here again, it is Chris and me, then there is you. Stop it. Your behavior is wholly unreasonable. You now have FIVE sources. No one is calling the ALL uncredible, except YOU.---Mona- (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
ADDING: Now 142․124․55․236 has also reverted you Arisboch. That's 3 to 1. Stop it.

I'm sure you can dig up even more crap to pass as sources for your false accusations of racism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Why is it being reverted though? It's perfectly legitimate to argue if a political ideology abides by ideas of 19th century Romantic nationalism. We are talking nearly 2000 years of a land not being occupied by a Jewish majority. Creating a nation in an area with a majority of non-Jewish inhabitants and denying their political right to independence was bound to cause troubles and riots, especially in the age of nationalism. I think more scholarly sources could be used rather than websites, but it's still a topic worthy of further research. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Blood and soil doesn't always have to do with race despite a strong association through Nazism's use of it for lebensraum. I'm copying from Wikipedia, but it says of blood and soil, "refers to an ideology that focuses on ethnicity based on two factors, descent blood (of a folk) and territory. It celebrates the relationship of a people to the land they occupy and cultivate, and it places a high value on the virtues of rural living". Zionism can easily fit into this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Guess, to what "descent blood" links...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"I think more scholarly sources could be used rather than websites" Well, sure, but it's not like Wikipedia does that usually, either. And in many cases, with a book the reader can't then easily check it for themselves. That's why, e.g., when citing to John Judis' book on Truman and Zionism I link to intelligent book reviews that contain quotes. A wiki isn't a scholarly journal after all. We generally have to do the best we can with what the Internet makes freely available and also can't apply the same rigorous standards to wiki articles that one would for, say, a learned treatise.---Mona- (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
To a page that's relevant to the Nazi version of blood & soil, but whose title isn't actually synonymous with the phrase that's actually used in the definition? Is this really the basis for your arbitrary criterion, Arisboch? What something links to on Wikipedia? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 01:17, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Wikipedia, despite its imperfections, does make a decent attempt to link to scholarly books. And not all books are viewable, but there do exists previews on Google Books and can be downloaded by torrent through PirateBay. The sources I'm going to include in the Zionism article are going to be generally books rather than websites. I think books provide a respectable source of information whereas with the Web you sometimes get garbage and intellectual ghettos. Plus, with a topic as contested as Israel/Palestine (which I really don't think deserves to be as contested as it is), providing reliable scholarly sources is a better way to earn respect than say, linking to partisan websites. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I do see your point about books and that some are available on google books. However, there are also shit books available there, real pieces of garbage. Moreover, some authors of well-sourced books post articles with excerpts or that are similar to chapters in their books. For example, Ali Abunimah does this quite a bit and I am wholly comfortable using him as a source. He is a careful journalist in both his books and his online pieces in the Nation or at his site. He has a reputation for getting the facts right.---Mona- (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Before reverting, ask for citation

Please everyone -- and this goes for you as well, Arisboch -- if you feel a claim in this Zionism article is wrong or unsupported, insert "citation needed." Then, allow some time -- at least a few days -- for that challenge to be met (or, for it to be argued no citation is necessary). I believe that I have demonstrated I do not simply pull claims out of thin air and that I merit the presumption that I can, when reasonably expected, source my stuff. Moreover, this is the policy I also impose on myself when I object to contested, controverted claims here.---Mona- (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

No. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Why? It's what I do?---Mona- (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Simply put, because I disagree with the idea. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, if your reason is "just because," I reject that. My request is reasonable and your objection is not.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Because I refuse to allow unsourced crap to remain on such a controversial article for a "few days". You'll have to get one of the 7 fuckers on my ass 'cuz I'll revert like hell and IMHO adhering to the burden of proof is not edit warring. Get your sources together before you start spewing stuff.<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
More like 3 at this point, with one more showing up every so often, the other 4 gone, and the other elected standby banned. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, requiring a multiple-day waiting period seems like a tad much. Using {{fact}} before going into full removal mode isn't bad form, though. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
Talking about it instead of edit warring is a good idea, but expecting people to wait several days while you gather sources you should've had in the first place is unreasonable. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Look, this article is not finished, but it has FIVE times more sources already than the other version. When I tried to delete ENTIRE paragraphs of the old one for no sourcing, I was told: "No!" This has been a lot of work, and I'm willing to defend it. It's not unreasonable to insert a citation need and let me get to it as I can, in a day or two if necessary (I'm still working on the WHOLE THING) -- and as Chris and Blacke or others can. Finally, and again, I have extended others this same courtesy on other talk pages regarding edits.---Mona- (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a wiki. No-one's freeze an article, unless it's a vandalism-target and this article ain't (and I'll remove the protection, if you put one on it. And as a sysop, you can't keep other sysops out).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I now have FOUR sources for the "blood and soil" phrase, and Arisboch continues to revert by imposing an absurd criterion on what any source must say. Please support advising him to stop reverting. ---Mona- (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
This ain't absurd. Just some guys playing around with this phrase isn't enough to prove Zionism being so evel racist as you claim.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We could always do my method where I mod lock the page and cut it down to a tiny nuts and bolts from the lead article until this is resolved. That's what happens if I have to get involved again, so find a better way to work this out kids. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Paravant, that simply incentivizes Arisboch to continue. He wants this version gone. Or to force me to let him do as he pleases if it is to remain. PLease don't give him that unfair tool.---Mona- (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I'll also hand out long blocks because we already did all of this a month ago and have no reason to do it over a second time. Find a better solution to this problem then endless circular arguments and edit wars. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I understand if you have to block it. I hope that doesn't happen, but I don't want to be in a position where Arisboch knows all he has to do is persist in unreasonable reverts, and if I don't accept them you reduce the article to a nuts-and-bolts version. I've worked hard on this.... (I know, boo-fucking-hoo.)---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant of you people. Find a solution to this, have a fucking vote. do ANYTHING than what we did a month ago, this goes to all of you. This ends, sooner rather than later and unless you want Rationalwiki to be known for a piece of shit useless article that makes us look lazy and stupid, you'll find a solution that everybody has to agree on. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, Paravant, I don't know what to do. It is now three people reverting Arisboch on the same language and he won't stop. Is this the kind of thing that is properly taken to the chicken coop?---Mona- (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
You did the right thing with mod level protection. But if Arisboch won't accept it when he is given credible references and then outnumbered 3 to 1, I don't see an ultimate solution. He will remain an obstacle to finishing a polished article in anything like a collaborative way.---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] While article is protected

I'll reproduce the frozen version back at PacWalker's place (assuming he doesn't object). I will work on the unfinished sections there so that there is text to present and work on when the protection is lifted.---Mona- (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Settler colonialism

Doesn't this whole conflict boil down to an example of settler colonialism? All the debates over how much power & territory should be given to the colonizer versus how much power & territory should be given to the colonized? I'll refer to the seven rules of nationalism since it seems much of the West have hardly any stake in this conflict themselves, save America's tenuous political alliance with Israel. Withoutaname (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Current article is bad, proposed new one is bad

They're both just poorly written. Sorry, I know a lot of people have worked hard on them, but there's so much kludge in there. Almost unreadable. Very little interesting snark, and myths and other woo are discussed in such an obfuscatory manner that it's difficult to follow. I suggest starting with a clear and simple outline, and then filling it in with an eye towards a clean and streamlined article that stays relatively on mission. Stop riding your hobbyhorses. Here's a sample of a good way to begin. Just a suggestion, though... I guess if arguing about the article is your hobby, you might want to just keep going as y'all have been.--ADtalkModerator 18:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the current version not completed. Second, it is significantly improved over the almost entirely unsourced version it replaced -- six times more references are now there. Third, your objections to the current, newer are overbroad and vague, and for those reasons are not helpful.---Mona- (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
While it's true there are a ton of references, that doesn't seem like a good metric. Probably the best metrics would be:
  • Is it readable?
  • Does it address our mission?
  • Is it interesting?
The current and proposed new versions are neither readable, interesting, nor particularly on-mission. If these criticisms seem broad, it's because the problems with the article sprawl widely, and if these criticisms seem vague, then I can be clearer: I cannot imagine a human being who would want to read either article, outside of extreme partisans and the editors involved.
But hey, everybody does need a hobby.--ADtalkModerator 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
it does need much more snark though. Keep that in mind. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Are you serious? I felt (and discussed this last nite in the coop) that snark on such a controversial article is BEGGING for trouble and would be gratuitously inflaming those who disagree. Do you actually think a lot of snark is something we should go for with such a sensitive and incindiary topic? I have it in two places (I can think of), but have just been waiting for someone to revert it.---Mona- (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Moar snark.--ADtalkModerator 19:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, so. I snarked up the introductory section a bit more. Let's see how well that is received before I unleash my Snark Beast further---Mona- (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Look at this sentence: "Of course, every country on the earth can be seen as a result of settler colonialism, but whereas the Western world has renounced or at least ended such conquests (though not non-Western nations such as China in Africa [5] [6], among others), and in some cases even attempted some things resembling reparations , Israel, being a bit of a latecomer to the party, is still engaging in stealing land forcible settlement outside its generally-recognized borders."
I count five qualifiers expressing uncertainty, three intensifiers, and four asides including one parenthetical thoughts. And the whole damn article looks like that. In the entire six-paragraph (!!) klunky introduction, we find only a handful of clear declarative sentences.
This is bad writing: hard to understand and impossible to enjoy. It's the product of countless small hedges, changes, and asides. Clear it all out, use what's here as a resource, and write a cohesive article composed of clear paragraphs that works together as a whole.
And moar snark.--ADtalkModerator 20:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that we can only be clear if we agree on the direction we want to take. As of know my humble self, Arisboch and others disagree with Mona's electronic Intifada. Unfortunately, some guy tends to side with Mona and has thus ensured that a factual discussion of Zionism on the merits cannot happen, as one side is barred from participation. Many of these asides are of course Mona's attempts to insert propaganda against Israel and justifications for its enemies to be disgusting excuses for human beings Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
"Intifada?" Epistemic rationality, dude. Learn it.
The angle of the article is impossible to discern at the moment, so you and that other guy can rest easy. No one is reading it, either way, whose mind could ever be changed by what they read.
Trust me: a clear introduction and organization will cure what ails this article. If we don't allow anyone's terribly-written and densely-hedged crap into the article, then it doesn't matter whose terribly-written and densely-hedged crap wins.
I'm sure Mikal is doing his best with what he has to work with. And I'll also say that people try to take the fast solution way too often, sometimes, particularly when it involves discarding hours of hard work from another person. But this article needs the Gordian treatment. It could also do with being left alone by Mona, you, and the other guy.--ADtalkModerator 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
AD, you go write a draft version at your talk page. Write it the way you think it should be done. Then offer it for consideration. I promise not to edit one word of it.---Mona- (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and also AD. That sentence you quoted? That came about because of mob editing and compromises. You should check the FR to see why certain things are there. (And you'd have that same issue in any draft you yourself might undertake unless you wrote it entirely alone and it had to remain unchanged after being placed on the main article page.) In any event, I cleaned it up some. But I really intend for a through meta-editing for elegance after all the sections are done and all compromises reached.---Mona- (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Citations needed

I've filled in a few, but wish to return to text writing on incomplete sections. If some others (hi User:ChrisAmiss) could look at sections where I am less proficient: "Secular Zionism," "Islamic Zionism" and especially "Historical Anti-Zionism," if you fill in some references I will make burnt offerings to FSM in your name.---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Whenever this is actually done (as much as a wiki ever is), can citations 64 and 65 have their links put through bitly or some link shortening or something? Those URLs are breaking my mobile screen and making it impossible to read the article (that's not just a problem with this one, by any means, but this isn't going to be the one I start playing with citations on!) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Er, that'd be great, but I don't know how to do that!---Mona- (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Assuming I can Internet, this will take you to this section of this page -- http://bit.ly/1YJbMNt -- and this -- https://bitly.com/shorten/ -- is how I did it. I'd read their ToS and such before using it here, but it's a lifesaver for Twitter and the like. Argenti Aertheri (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't get to it tonite, but I will at some point soon.---Mona- (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Could you for the love of all that's unholy spell "night" right? There is a good etymological reason for the "gh" to be there (in other Germanic dialects there is a "ch" there). And as we all know the way it's pronounced does not matter for English spelling. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Does it matter Avenger?<-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 02:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
*replaces "night" with "favour", "gh" with "ou", "Germanic dialects" with "French", "ch" with "eu" and watches Avenger squirm in agony* :) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 02:42, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] What in the name of Haruhi

Is a Jewish DNA presence? Another dumbass edit to accuse the Jews "Zionists" of racism (although, given, that Paravant have Mona the go-ahead to turn this article into even more of a hit piece than it already was by de-sysopping me (and Avenger), I'm not in the least surprised)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Who knows? Maybe we end up with the Khazar myth presented on this page once Mona is done... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past her.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I added that because AD and Paravant both said the thing needs more snark. I don't actually like it. I don't feel this article is conducive to a lot of snark and said so. They disagreed.---Mona- (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] One weekend away and all hell breaks lose...

Oh well, there I was away for not even the whole weekend and now this... I kind of like the suggestion above to only address Zionism where it directly relates to our mission and leave for Wikipedia what Wikipedia does best. Another suggestion (that would now probably be rejected by Mona out of hand) would be to have one skeleton article here that tries to stay neutral and on the issue and links from it to one or more opinion articles in essay-space where Mona and the other side may lay out their views for the benefit of those wishing to read on the "Israel is evil colonizer occupant kill them all free Palestine" versus the "Israel can do no wrong, Hamas are terrorists who deserve to be punished" interpretations of the issue. But given that- if I am not ill informed this page is currently locked in a peculiar way as to lock out both me and Arisboch, I fear that the Anti-Zionist bloc will be unlikely to even consider anything less thaen the total Endsieg of their side... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

And by purging us, Paravant did ensure, that Mona and Chris can turn the article into exactly that (and not, that this kinda stuff is anything new here, the article on the USS Liberty incident look like something piratecopied from Alex Jones' pages).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the USS Liberty incident? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
During the Six-Day War, Israel attacked, by mistake, an US spy ship. According to a bunch of tin-foil hat wearers, Israel did it on purpose.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hardly a "purge". Exaggeration much? <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Not enough people de-sysopped for Mona to turn the article into complete shit?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What is the usual response? Cock up before conspiracy? Let's face it... in 1967 intelligence and precision bombing where far from what they are now. It is extremely likely that Israel hit the ship by accident and extremely unlikely that they deliberately provoked one of the most powerful nations of its time and the first nuclear power to boot. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

I propose a restart of the article along these lines. Please vote as to your preferred solution. Please keep individuals and vendettas out of it and take the time to read the actual article from the top. If this vote becomes a hyper-lawyered crapfest, I'll just delete the article and do this anyway. No headless chicken mode.

[edit] Keep it as is.

You have no idea how much work went into the current SOURCED version. And AD, your criticisms are utterly non-specific. Unless and until you offer many substantive reasons to jettison the version I and others worked very hard on: No. It is only about 2/3 done. Work on what is there and make it better -- if you know anything about this topic and can offer actual information and source it---Mona- (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AD to some extent that the article has got bloated & incoherent with a lot of digressions, but I think it would be better to work from the article as is & trim out what is extraneous rather than nuking it & starting over. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
What you see on the main article page is a hybrid of a bit of the old, a lot of new but not finished, and the detritus of compromises worked out from disagreements, in both. When a piece is extremely controversial the editing WILL result in clunky prose, and that's hard to take care of until all the warring is done. For example, I just edited the specific paragraph AD cited as dense and too clunky. In doing so, I deleted compromise language from at least two users. That's going to be a problem for any version unless AD plans to write the draft all by himself and preclude others from editing once it should be proffered here. All of which is to say, the problems AD identifies are inherent in the topic and mob editing.---Mona- (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think those couple of paragraphs (about how the Western World used to be mean & nasty and now it's all touchy-feely) really belong here at all. The story they're telling is rather simplistic & also not really anything to do with Zionism at all. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That's totally not so. In multiple academic fields the Palestinians are covered right along with Native Americans, Australian Aborigines & etc. as colonized indigenous peoples.---Mona- (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Let me guess... The "very important" field of Salaitalogy being one example? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid, while I stand by the point being valid in its own right, it fell to my editor's pen while cleaning up and shaping the article into something fitting a coherent outline. At least in that intro it was extraneous and there wasn't another obvious spot for it. So, it's gone. Somebody pro-Israel had wanted the point that colonizing didn't start with Israel, Then Israel critics wanted "yeah, but Israel hasn't made amends (that was partly me) or stopped." The whole thing just went.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Restart it, along the lines of the linked outline.

  1. --ADtalkModerator 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  2. - To clarify that - or alternatively having Zionism to be declared (partially) off mission and only the on-mission parts discussed on wiki was my proposal in the now closed coop case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. The article was turned in a total train wreck by Mona, Chris and others. A restart is the only solution I see.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Restart it, but really I want an outline that pushes my preferred point of view rather than treating this as a complex and inflammatory topic that is nonetheless worthy of thought and mockery, because I am a jackass.

[edit] You are very much free to propose a new version for the article, but until that version is more than just a rough outline with empty sections, keep that *ahem* respectable ambition busy in userspace please.

  1. Believe me, I can very much empathize with looking at an article and thinking "If I had my way with this article, I'd rewrite this completely." But until you have something more substantial to show than just an outline, well... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
  2. <-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-> (pretentious, unwarranted self importance) (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, no. People had an opportunity to do a different draft of their own as I and others were working on the current one -- nobody did. When asked why he didn't, Arisboch said he might be too lazy. So, I mean really!---Mona- (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    This is kind of separate from all that, Mona. AD only came back recently and isn't involved in the continuous conflict on any side. Once he does have an actual alternative version to propose, we should at least take it into consideration. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
    I don't disagree with that. I'm saying not until such a fulsome, alternative draft exists. I'm doubting it will given that many knew mine was coming and were offered an opportunity to one of their own -- no one did. I don't even know if AD particularly knows a lot about the topic and is competent to write a draft. But if he is, hey, let him have a go.---Mona- (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  4. Another country heard from. A list of headings ain't gonna start any kind of realistic difference. Now that the two main Zionists are off the case there can possibly be an improvement of the current version over the next few days. Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    So wait, you think that any competent RW coverage of Zionism is only possible if Zionists are barred from editing? I just want to have that clear and on the record... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    No one's saying there can't be any reasonable Zionists out there who could contribute proper content, but you and Arisboch have kinda given Zionists a bad name on this wiki. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:09, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
    Personally I'd have let Arisboch continue editing but Avenger is so monomaniacal in his proIsraeli stance that I very much doubt he'll ever be allowed to edit anything even distantly related (see Dresden bombing right now). BTW that's how to do a footnote on a talk page) Scream!! (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    You know, I wasn't entirely ready to offer this version, but Paravant had suggested that I do so a week ago, even unfinished. The prior thing was such unsourced shit I decided to go ahead this weekend. But it's not done -- just in much better shape than the dreck it replaced. SuperDude already made many edits from a pro-Zionist POV and we had to work out compromises (I don't think AD knoiws the FR). A lot of the language reflects compromises old and new (since I worked off of the last draft and did keep some of the wheat). It's hard to get an article wholly elegant while still working out edits of a contentious topic!---Mona- (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  5. I definitely don't like how the current version is, but i'd rather see a better version proposed instead of the skeleton before saying "yes" or no, honestly. Though i'd still likely lean more towards no than yes as I think it's going to be easier to fix problems by going from how it is instead of making up a new version and somehow going from there. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    The "skeleton" is a good idea, if expanded a bit and then fitting what we already have into it -- it's a good organization tool. I just have not yet had time to move pats around into the final organization; I pretty much tracked the order in thew article I worked off of -- just to get some altered, better, and sourced text on the page. But I'm fully competent to move text around into something along the lines of the skeleton AD offers, and will do that further along the process. And now, I am tired. Good nite.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  6. We're a wiki. We preserve histories and edit articles. Any improvements from draft versions in userspace can be swapped into the existing article; there's no need to scrap anything. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Goat.

[edit] Goat!

Goat should be exclamated, darn it! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:09, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

[edit] Major edits, work still needed

So. AD's threat to toss the whole thing had a salutary result: I saw that I'd been held back by fear of deleting text that reflected many old and newer compromises and thereby pissing people off. However, the text demanded some streamlining, so I took AD's disgust with the "clunkiness" as permission and removed whole chunks and rearranged others.

Nevertheless, some section still need some filling up and sourcing:

  1. The State of Israel is Founded, Nakba occurs
  2. Christian Zionism (needs some plumping)

These also need work and I do plan to give them my own attention:

  1. Secular [from Jews] opposition reemerges
  2. Modern anti-Zionism; Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement

It's getting there! Don't stop now!---Mona- (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine work on the Xtian Zionism bit, User:Smerdis of Tlön. I'm so old I read Hal Lindsey's initial edition of The Late Great Planet Earth as a young teen in, like, 1973. As I think can be seen, what I "learned" didn't take.---Mona- (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott, Divestment, Sanction

Can we create separate article for this organization? I feel like there is a lot to write on the subject, and it deserves its own separate article. This could go more in depth on the topic. Kentuckyball (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a bad idea. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd been planning on it, and have a draft in my email folder. But was waiting for things to die down.---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Which "things" do you want to "die down", Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Labor Zionism

I am surprised we haven't mentioned this form of Zionism. It tends to be less religious and more focused on the working class. They are socialistic and concentrated on the construction of kibbutz throughout Israel. They attempted to create a Jewish state through settling the working class in Israel. Many of them were leaders during the early days of Israel's founding.--Owlman (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is an interesting area but my knowledge is a bit limited. I know the socialist Zionists did not place class above national identity as other socialists do. That is, they specifically did allow, and even require, Jewish-only labor policies. Maybe ChrisAmiss knows enough to comfortably spit out a cogent section on that.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Finkelstein has a good section dedicated to reviewing variations of Zionism such as Labor and Cultural. Though they differed in degrees, not all of them were opposed to using terrorism and a Israeli historian like Anita Shapira herself acknowledges that Labor Zionists actions of terrorism were equally as bad as other groups. I will add it after I include all the sections under historical woo. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Purging the Zionists from the valiant and brave Leftist movement ™, are we, comrade?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If I'm recalling correctly, I think contemporaneous leftists were a bit troubled by Zionist Labor and socialists. But as I say, I'm more comfortable leaving this area to Chris.---Mona- (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Whether someone is a "terrorist" depends almost entirely on whether or not you support their motives... Also purging the Jews from the leftist movement was already done under Stalin. As you can read in the excellent book by Stephan Grigat "Der Mufti und die Stalinisten" about the Israeli left... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
So Mona is continuing Uncle Joe's work (and is of course now saying, that she hated always Stalin, just how all the French and Germans became through some kinda wizardry Resistance fighters the second Hitler ventilated his skull with a gun), huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
And all the Nazis were little brown green men from planet Nuts who left in their Reichsflugscheiben when 1945 rolled around... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Nope, they did go to the backside of the moon[wp].--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah right, how could I forget this... When is the second part coming out btw? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, somewhere around 2016. Judging by the trailer 1 and trailer 2, it's gonna be really hilarious.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, Terrorism and Freedom Fighting are more or less orthogonal. That is, it's not a contradiction to call someone both a freedom fight and a terrorist. One is a method, the other is a goal. But it's always important to never overlook the goals of an organization when trying to determine its morality. CorruptUser (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
cough Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

[edit] How do you define Zionism?

@Mona: You say I'm a Zionist. Why? As I understand the word, it is a dedication to a national Jewish state. I'm too young to have swallowed that. What I do stand for is, that there happens to be a state with 7.000.000 or so inhabitants with nowhere to go. Allowing all descendants of the Arab population back in 1948 to settle in that state would be suicidal. I can not accept that a few million people should be exterminated. That would be the conclusion of it or at least a bloodier war than hitherto seen in the dreary Middle East history. So your altruism at the cost of others is quite understandable. You won't be at risk. I do agree that the situation is impossible, but since we have had 67 years of unsatisfactory attempts, no solution seems to be on the horizon. The solution in 1948 would have been for the Arab states to assimilate the Arabs in Palestine, but they weren't thinking about the Palestinians' welfare. Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel and that's all the progress there is. So get off your high horse and face reality. In the meantime the Israeli government does what a government is supposed to do, that is protect itself. Personally I don't give a rat's ass whether the population is Jewish, Hindu or whatever although I draw the line at Scientology.Sorte Slyngel (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you just described a Zionist position. Including the unhinged notion that what I advocate would mean the extermination of anyone. Your repulsive claim that in 1948 the Arab states should have "assimilated" the Palestinians who had no interest in being assimialted anywhere but in the land they'd inhabited for centuries -- so the Zionist Jews could take over their cities, villages and homes -- is definitely Zionist. Of course you are a Zionist. And one of the more radical, extreme and unreasonable ones, which is a steep contest.---Mona- (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Mona, what exactly do you think would happen if Israel let all the Palestinians in? No, tell me what would happen. CorruptUser (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Clearly you already have your own opinion on what would happen, so feel free to share. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser, what do you mean by "letting all the Palestinians in?" They are "in." They are simply occupied.---Mona- (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about leaving most of the West Bank; in spite of what you might think, I don't think the settlements are a Good Thing at all for a number of reasons. I'm talking about your goal of the "right of return". What do you think will happen? CorruptUser (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There can't be a fully realized right of return because the cities, villages and homes have been razed and built over. There could be some return, but there would also have to be a system of compensation, and enfranchisement of all the Palestinians. (The settlements are simply the ongoing process of stealing land. There have been "settlements" from the outset -- they are just now taking what is left.) Additionally, it is almost certain that the UN would have to oversee a unification process.---Mona- (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
So you are talking about the one state solution? What do you think would happen if that occurred? And why is that even remotely preferable to a two state solution based on the Green Line? CorruptUser (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That ship has sailed. The land has been settled -- it's the same problem that precludes a fully realized right of return. There is not enough unsettled land to carve out 2 states. There is now (and has been for some time) a de facto 1 state, but it is an apartheid state. The thing that remains needing done is to end the apartheid.---Mona- (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's an Apartheid state, why isn't Israel claiming the temple mount, the cave of the patriarchs, and every last other holy site?
Wait I have a better question. The one you keep dodging. What will end up happening? CorruptUser (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Er... what will end up happening if the Israelis enact a program of compensation and enfranchisement with the help of a UN unification process you mean? Presumably Mona believes there will be a period of simmering tensions, possibly some violence followed by an uneasy truce and finally peace. It seems that your question has been largely answered; though you may not agree with the answer it is unlikely to change, no matter how many times you ask it. Tielec01 (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much what Tielco said. Israel is an apartheid state, for all the reasons set forth in our site's Apartheid article (ChrisAmiss probably wrote more of that than I did.) That Israel has not yet taken over the Temple Mount and other contested parts of Jerusalem doesn't mean it won't. Over the decades, Israel has taken more and more of the land and places it was once said it would not. Palestinians no longer believe Israel wants a 2-state solution. There was a time the leaders probably did, but that time has passed. The only thing left to do is isolate Israel as the Western world did to South Africa. Existing as the pariah of the West is deeply unpleasant and people really don't care to do it forever.---Mona- (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone cry like a baby if this conversation were moved toTalk:Zionism where it belongs, and off of a page that is on my watchlist because the page is a subject I care about? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

(EC; yeah sure move it) ChrisAmiss likes to quote Benny Morris. So I will too.
Students of the Middle East, including New Historian Benny Morris, have argued that the one-state solution is not viable because of Arab unwillingness to accept a Jewish national presence in the Middle East.[78] Morris has dismissed claims that a binational state would be a secular democratic state and argues it would instead be an authoritarian, fundamentalist state with a persecuted Jewish minority, citing the racism and persecution minorities face throughout the Arab and Muslim world, and in particular, the fact that Jews in Islamic societies were historically treated as second-class citizens and subject to pogroms and discrimination. In his book One State, Two States, he wrote "what Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindus with tolerance and as equals? Why should anyone believe that Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently"? Pointing to specific examples of violence by Palestinian Muslims towards Palestinian Christians, Morris writes that "Western liberals like or pretend to view Palestinian Arabs, indeed all Arabs, as Scandinavians, and refuse to recognize that peoples, for good historical, cultural, and social reasons are different and behave differently in similar or identical sets of circumstances." Morris notes the differences between Israeli Jewish society, which remains largely Westernized and secular, and Palestinian and Israeli-Arab society, which according to Morris is increasingly Islamic and fundamentalist, with secularism in decline. He also pointed to Hamas' 2007 takeover of Gaza, during which Fatah prisoners were shot in the knees and thrown off buildings, and the regular honor killings of women that permeate Palestinian and Israeli-Arab society, as evidence that Palestinian Muslims have no respect for Western values. He thus claimed that "the mindset and basic values of Israeli Jewish society and Palestinian Muslim society are so different and mutually exclusive as to render a vision of binational statehood tenable only in the most disconnected and unrealistic of minds." He wrote that the goal of a "secular democratic Palestine" was invented to appeal to Westerners, and that while a few supporters of the one-state solution may honestly believe in such an outcome, the realities of Palestinian society mean that "the phrase objectively serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab–dominated polity to replace Israel." Morris argued that should a binational state ever emerge, it would likely result in the mass emigration of Israeli Jews seeking to escape the "stifling darkness, intolerance, authoritarianism, and insularity of the Arab world and its treatment of minority populations", with only those incapable of finding new host countries to resettle in and Ultra-Orthodox Jews remaining behind.[79]
-Wikipedia on 1 state solution.
CorruptUser (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that is how Benny Morris sets forth his bigoted hypotheticals. Nevermind that U.S. Muslims do just fine. Or that Muslims and Jews lived in relative peace in Palestine until Zionism came along, gained in popularity and strength, and the Muslims realized the plan was to take over; the pre-state Zionists bought more and more land to operate businesses in which Muslims were barred from employment. Before Zionism Jews existed in relative peace in Arab countries, and still exist in peace in Iran. In any event, Zionists were and are the aggressors, and the burden is on them to adjust and make peace, and to compensate their victims. Morris's bigoted depiction of Palestinians as uncivilized savages cannot stand against the justice of the Palestinian cause.---Mona- (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ADDING: Norman Finkelstein contrasts and compares the Old Benny Morris with the New Propagandist Morris, who now departs from historical fact and ventures into rank bigotry and much speculation.---Mona- (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Nice denial of minorities being treated like shit or worse than shit. Or them saying all the time, that they're gonna drive the Jews in the sea.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Mona, your proposal will end up with tens if not hundreds of thousands of Jews killed and perhaps millions cleansed. This is why anti-Zionists are conflated with anti-Semites. You don't seem to care because you aren't the one that'll suffer. You aren't the one that'll be hunted down in other countries by fanatics, though you might get caught up if you stay too close to your boyfriend Glenn Greenwald, him being Jewish and all. And I can guarantee you that if Israel falls, the Arabs will celebrate by going after the Maronites and Druze[wp], because that's the way these things go. That you don't see this is because you are either completely bonkers or you secretly want it to happen (in which case you are still completely bonkers). CorruptUser (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There is only one thing wrong with your post: Glenn wouldn't shag Mona, cause he's gay and also married to a gentleman of the name David Michael Miranda.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser, in one comment you have managed to apologize for calling anti-Zionists like me "antisemties," to bigotedly claim that Muslim victims of them are as savage as Zionists have long argued, to spew inappropriate sexual-relationship innuendo about me and Glenn Greenwald, and to declare that I long to see Jews exterminated. You are not engaging in good faith argument. I tolerated your reposting that outrageously racist (sic) Morris screed, but I'm done. Cleanse your mind and learn to behave like a decent human being, and I will again entertain your inquiries. Adieu.---Mona- (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course Arisboch, you would find the only thing wrong with CorruptUser's repugnant statements is that he seems not to know Glenn is gay. You are a bigoted, advocate of your tribe's ethno-religious supremacy as realized in Zionism. One who is quite happy to revel in depictions of the victims as savages.---Mona- (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't regard Jews, Druzes, Shiites, Christians, Kurds and so on as savages (you started talking about victims...). And I also don't regard Arabs, Persians Iranians or Turks as savages. I regard the Hamas, Hezbollah, DAESH, Assad, Boko Haram, Islamist rulers of Iran, House Saud as much worse than savages.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, you regard Palestinians as savages, which is why you've endorsed CorruptUser's repugnant commentary. One may deal with savages as one "must," which is oh-so-convenient for your tribe's ethno-religious supremacist schemes. (Including Hamas with DAESH and Boko Haram etc. is preposterous, but one does not make reasonable distinctions among savages, because why bother?)---Mona- (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't regard the Palestinians as savages (I said, I don't regard Arabs as savages, don't I? Palestinians are Arabs). And yes, the Hamas is a tad less radical than the DAESH or Boko Haram, but roughly up the same ally (both are Sunni terrorist groups, ain't they?). I also didn't fail to notice your curious phrasing "your tribe's ethno-religious supremacist schemes". Don't you always claim to be against teh evel Zionists and not Jews in general (and as a proof pulling out some Jewish friends of yours)? Is the mask slipping?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary division

Yeah, I'm kinda with Mona here. You guys expect total foresight into every possible negative consequence of giving people citizenship in the places they live as a condition of such. The world isn't that neat and orderly, and the difficulty of answering that question isn't an excuse for continuing an apartheid state. The "What-ifs" were used as excuses in South Africa and Jim Crow US. Human rights can't take a back-burner to anticipating all contingencies. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
What apartheid state? Saudi Arabia?--15:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The intent is to what? Pretend anyone here is saying "Yep, Saudi Arabia's systemic abuse of immigrant labor as a de facto slave caste is okay by me." Grow the fuck up. This is just straight up you being stupid. And you should know better. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Arabs in Israel have more rights than anywhere else in the Middle East, so no apartheid there.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜

∈)☼(∋ 19:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, as ChrisAmiss has shown you. Moreover, Palestinians, the ANC, Desmond Tutu, and even some Israeli Jews call it apartheid. The standards are Western states, not Arab theocracies.---Mona- (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't give less of a fuck, what kinda arguments from authority you or Chriss try to pull. Arabs in Israel suffer no racial discrimination from the government. Private one of course, but you can do only so much against people being assholes, they'll find always a way.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Is there a term here at RW for promiscuously and erroneously pulling fallacies out of one's ass? If not, there should be. Arisboch does this constantly.---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, Zionism is nothing more than Jewish tribalism writ large, and bloody. (Read the article for which this is the talk page.) You are a Jewish Zionist. Many Jews are not, including some of my friends.---Mona- (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "tribe"... Zionists are not a tribe.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Zionism is an ideology of Jewish tribalism. You are a Jew who is a Zionist and are therefore tribalistic. This is a matter of simple logic.---Mona- (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You said "tribe" and not "Zionists" or "tribalists".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I did! You can read!---Mona- (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit] The civilized man and the savage

Who knew she had fans here? Her recent ad campaign:

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel, defeat Jihad."
---Mona- (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Fuck off, Mona, and take your false accusations with you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, I think I shall not fuck off. You may recall that last August that you, Avenger and Hipocrite all were guarding the Zionist henhouse and insisting no edits you disliked could be made on any of the myriad I-P related articles already here when I arrived. This turned out to be false. After I determined you were a minority holding a majority hostage, I made it a point to lead a charge to make you stop it and permit the majority to edit reasonably. I was successful. And now, Hipocrite is gone, Avenger essentially so (Avenger repeatedly predicted *I would leave), and you, well, you are still behaving like an asshat but are impotent on this issue. So no, Arisboch, I believe I shall stay!---Mona- (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Nicely dodged, Mona.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you wish it was a dodge. You and CorruptUser are saying the same thing Geller is. Because it is all you have.---Mona- (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Did I ever take the word "savage" in my mouth?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Mona, you (not incorrectly) claim that Arabs/Palestinians hate Jews/Israeli because of the actions of Israel. That's fine. The claim I mean. But you must be consistent. Nearly a million Jews had to flee for their lives from Islamic lands, now making up the majority of Jews in Israel, and to claim that it was all voluntary IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS ISRAEL CLAIMING THAT PALESTINIANS LEFT VOLUNTARILY. Claiming these Eastern Jews don't exist is EXACTLY THE SAME AS FANATICAL ZIONISTS CLAIMING JORDAN IS PALESTINE. Have you considered that perhaps the Israelis harbor some animosity because they have actually witnessed what the Arab societies have planned to do? CorruptUser (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
And btw, not so-called fanatical Zionists claim, that Jordan is Palestine. King Hussein said it.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I see. Last nite I watched a super good movie.---Mona- (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
CorruptUser, WTF? The caps did not make any of that more intelligible, coherent or (where it can be understood) accurate. ---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Problems with reading comprehension? Onset of the second childhood?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm on a phone, k? CorruptUser (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but that whole thing was just bizarre and non sequitur-y---Mona- (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You claimed that the Palestinians were the Muslim victims of Zionism, implying that part of the reason of the animosity towards Jews/Israel is because of said treatment. This is not an incorrect statement. But you don't seem to also make the claim that Israelis are the Jewish victims of Arab nationalism and everything else (thus the circle of violence). CorruptUser (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There's many brands of nationalism. Zionism is of the ethno-religious supremacist variety and is bloody in its Jabotinsky version and execution. Palestinian nationalism is characterized for obvious reasons more by what it is fighting against than anything else.---Mona- (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"Zionism is of the ethno-religious supremacist variety" - -Mona- And again Mona being a lying sack of shit...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why no, friend Arisboch! Do read the article for which this is the talk page.---Mona- (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean the hatchet job that you created with sources from Electronic Intifada? CorruptUser (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean the collaborative work drafted by many knowledgeable people here, including me, ChrisAmiss, and a variety of others heavily referencing with many and diverse sources, many of them primary documents and scholarly sources -- as well as a few references to the reliable journalistic outlet, Electronic Intifada. That's what I mean.---Mona- (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that hatchet job made by Electronic Jihad, brought to us by Mona and enforced by Paravant S.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You, and all who agree with you, were given every opportunity to contribute and provide your own sources. You declared that you do not do sourcing. I do. So does ChrisAmiss. So do the many others who contributed the primary, scholarly and diverse journalistic sourcing to the article. Sour grapes that you and yours cannot do the same is exactly that. (Paravant didn't bin Avenger; David Gerard did.)---Mona- (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Mona dear, you apparently think you're a mind reader, but you're not. What I said has nothing to do with Zionism, just the practical situation as it is. But since you have described what's wrong with you elsewhere, I think that may be taken as an explanation although not excuse. And I'll leave you to your leprechaun studies for the time being. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No Sorte, you are a Zionist. And an obnoxious one at that who thinks the Arabs of Palestine should have "assimilated" in other Arab countries to make way for the Zionist Jews. What chutzpah!---Mona- (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If the Arab countries around them did allow that, they would've, just like it happened with more or less any other refugees in history or do you know of any other refugees with officially inheritable refugee status?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
There were countless refugee problems in the wake of WWII, all involving more people than the Palestinians (with the exception of Finnish refugees) and all were solved by repatriating - except the Palestinians. They were no more a special nation than the millions of German refugees. The Arab states, however, refused that solution. Being a Zionist involves a belief that Jews have some sort of claim to a national home. I don't hold that belief. I am getting tired of repeating myself, but I'm just a pragmatist. While you're at it, why don't you invent some other beliefs for me. It could be amusing. As for you, you have described yourself so clearly - and by the way without any need to do so - that one can form a very good picture of your mental state. I refer, among other things, to your own description of your forced retirement. A process of elimination can only lead to one conclusion. I regard all lives a equal. You, sad to say, do not. If that doesn't make you obnoxious, then I don't know what will. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Gee Sorte, you can't source your claims, but you do love to traffic in ugly personal attacks. Stay classy.---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Zionists had no right to manufacture these refugees. They have no right to continue to occupy and oppress them.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I outclass you in every respect, so I don't worry. You see, I am not a single-issue fanatic and I enjoy a number of things you've never heard of and wouldn't understand if you had. If I traffic in ugly personal attacks, which is debatable, then that is only because you have taught me well - the only thing you can teach. The Arab states could have refrained from attacking Israel in 1948. Had the partition plan been respected, Israel would probably not exist. The „manufactured“ refugees are the responsibility of Israel's neighbors. (How do you manufacture refugees? And you claim to write for a living!) Anyway, the source of my analysis of you are your own words. You were not forced into retirement for a number of reasons you gave yourself, leaving only mental disability as a possibility. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Are you two ever going to stop grandstanding? You're both waving around ugly slurs, and even if the both happened to be true, what the hell would that change? Is there going to be a duel at dawn soon?KrytenKoro (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I must admit, that it's mainly a reflex for me, and of course I don't take kindly to be assigned opinions I don't hold. But I'll cease and desist, at least as long as my patience allows. One way of doing that is simply not reading Monaesque articles. Is that satisfactory as a temporary solution? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Waste of time

All this page is now is Mona editing as she pleases, and when someone edits with something she doesn't like, she will demand you take it to the talk page, argue with you, and then continues making edits as she likes. There is no hope here. Kentuckyball (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that I alone contributed to the article. This is entirely untrue. For one thing, the group of us that put the first draft of this version together worked off of the old one, and a good deal of that old version remains. Moreover, ChrisAmiss has had at least as much of the larger input as I have. Finally, I apologize to no one for having a great deal of knowledge on this topic and therefore being able to inform a lot of the article. We have editors who have a lot of background in, say, Gamergate, or GMO/GMF, and who therefore have a dominant influence on those articles. When that influence is because they are knowledgeable and able to source their claims, that is a good thing. ---Mona- (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Believe it or not, people who have opinions which differ from yours can also have a great deal of knowledge on a topic. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on this topic as well which I would not have on Gamergate or GMOs. Quite a lot of people here do, but you deliberately make the process impossible for people with dissenting views to edit this article, while you, ChrisAmiss, and other edit as you please as long as it conforms with your worldview. That's why this is a complete waste of time. Kentuckyball (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
It is not in my power, or in Chris's, to "make it impossible" for others to edit here. And we do not do so. You recently deleted two fact claims in the "Zionist terrorism" section, arguing in the edit summary that they were false. I restored them and added additional documentation of their facticity. You are and have been perfectly free to challenge claims, but not to delete text when they it is not false and another editor(s) support the claims. You may be knowledgeable in this area but have not so far shown great facility with facts. You are free, however, to continue to try, as are most.
You seem unaware of the history of this article and the sheer irony of your accusation. When I arrived in the middle of this past August the Zionism article was a shitty, unsourced mess. I began to add sourced claims only to find them immediately reverted, and was advised by three parties that unless I thought "Israel is great" my edits would not stand. They'd accept no compromises, and even a bifurcated article, to which I agreed, was rejected by the Zionists here; their position was that anything they did not like they would continually revert -- no matter how well-sourced. As a result, I and others began drafting a version at another users talk page, and then brought it here to discuss section-by section adoption. By that time, it was apparent that those of us critical of the Zionist narrative were the majority here and that the arrogant stranglehold the Zionists had insisted upon was an exercise in, well, chutzpah.
So, you see, my editing here, Chris's, and that of others, is the result of freeing the majority view from the gatekeeping of unreasonable Zionists. ---Mona- (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support