User talk:PacWalker/Zionism

Before you say it, the "implementation of the idea" section is very clearly incomplete. I am aware, and if someone more knowledgeable than me wants to write that in, I would love the help. Also, general thoughts on the structuring? Walker Walker Walker 07:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it needs someone (I can help) to pull together sources and draft it. Give me some time as I have several other obligations competing in the next few days. Also, the "Secular Opposition" section urgently needs more Jewish indivduals cited and explanations given. You'e got prominent, fierce critics of Israel and its lobby in such American Jews as Chomsky, Greenwald, John Judis, (his book here) [edited to move "Finkelstein" here cuz it looked like I was linking to his book, not Judis's}, who may or may not be anti-Zionists, and Tony Judt, Tony Kushner, Max Blumenthal, Judith Butler who are explicitly anti-Zionist. And of course the organizations already cited. This is a good start -- kudos. I'll have othe thiughts as the caffeine kicks in. ---Mona- (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From the article:" while there are no doubt longstanding Jewish claims on the land that now makes up the state of Israel, " Like what? Unless one regards the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) as a divine land deed, what claims do you mean?---Mona- (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably exactly what it refers to. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * "For better or worse, if one only goes far enough back, every country on earth is the result of settler colonialism." There should be something indicating that Zionism is anachronistic by modern standards. Ethno-supremacist, blood and soil nationalism was seen in the WWII era to be ugly and the trends for liberal-minded people continued to turn even more universalist, not to "blood and soil" nationalism. Israel is the utter opposite -- it is uber-nationalistic and its policies toward any group not seen as proper, white Jews (the elite are Ashkenazim) are awful. For example, discrimination against Ethiopian Jews is as bad as blacks suffer anywhere in the West. The original Zionists and pretty much until today, favored European Jews and a European way of doing things -- as long as nationalism was in vogue in Europe, which it no long so much is.


 * Moreover, while settler colonialism may once have been the way of the world, other Western nations such as the U.S., Canada, NZ and Australia have to varying degrees recognized the evil done to the indigenous in their nations and made some recompense. Israel, by contrast, continues appropriating Arab land, razing homes, burning their crops & etc and to kill, maim, and discriminate against the refugees it created.---Mona- (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that Zionism is ethno-supremicist rather than just ethno-nationalist? And like it or not, nationalism is protected specifically as a UN human right. CorruptUser (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Israeli flag lately? In Israel state-funded rabbis determine who is Jewish. Only they ("real" Jews) have a Right of Return -- no Arabs whose land was stolen do. The population of Israel is not allowed to fall below a 70% Jewish majority, as anything less constitutes a "demographic threat" to the "Jewish character" of Israel. Just google the concept of "Jewish supremacy." Some info starts here, but most especially read Max Blumenthal's Goliath. He's interviewed about it here: Having covered the radical right in this country and attended white nationalist conventions, I was emotionally and psychologically prepared for a lot of the scenes I would witness and the statements people would make to me in interviews. But one of the things that was surprising to me was the extent to which groups and figures, remarkably similar ideologically and psychologically to the radical right in the US and to neo-fascist movements across Europe, controlled the heart of Israeli society and the Israeli government. I was surprised at how far right the Israeli government had gone and how strong a base this government had within Israeli society at large.

For example, I present many scenes in my book where I'm hanging out at nationalist rallies where people are calling for the expulsion of Arabs from their neighborhoods and for the expulsion of African asylum seekers just south of Tel Aviv, calling them a cancer, chanting "nigger, nigger, you're a son of a bitch," while members of the Knesset, Israel's deliberative body, are on stage inciting them.

[...]

This book is the product of Jewish privilege. One of my Arab-American friends in New York or Washington would not have been able to write this book even if they had the same intentions and talents or were more talented than I am, and many of them are more talented than I am. I just can't imagine them getting through the airport, where you're given a number from one to six, one being the lowest security threat, based on your ethnicity. Because I have J-positive blood, I usually get a number one or two, and I'm quickly waved through. And my passport has a special little pen mark that says I'm eligible for return. In other words, I can return to this place that I was supposedly in three or 4,000 years ago when I was chilling with Methuselah, Shim, Ham and Japath, drinking St. Ides on the corner with Aaron and Moses. It's absurd.

In Israel, Arab men who let Jewish women think they are Jewish so as to hook up, get convicted of rape, for, as one judge put it: Violating "the sanctity of [Jewish womens'] bodies and souls." (Remind you of certain obsessions about the honor of white womanhood? "Your honor, he passes as white, but he's a Negro! The sanctity of my body and soul are now polluted!") ---Mona- (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "And like it or not, nationalism is protected specifically as a UN human right." Do you have a citation for that?---Mona- (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser, did you expect anything except some lame-ass nutpicking from Mona?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, number 15 on the list. And really, your argument in the past has been a small fraction of Israeli society is racist against black people, therefore Zionism is evil.  Nevermind that in Israel's case, it has more to do with a hundred thousand Sudanese refugees who don't want to go to South Sudan and have no skills, and ignores that in many Islamic countries (e.g., Sudan, where they fled from), being black is a capital offense. CorruptUser (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser, no snark: Are you a bit out of your depth? It's just odd, at best, to conflate a right to a nationality with a "right to nationalism." Every individual does, indeed, have a right to a nationality, but not to any particular one -- and certainly not to nationalism! I mean, dude....---Mona- (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, re: Israel and the Sudanese refugees. I don't generally reply to whataboutery or victim blaming except to point out that I recognize them.---Mona- (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've done a lot of work on this today -- not all of it yet as documented as it should be. I should stop until I hopefully get reasoned and reasonable feedback---Mona- (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed to: "Jabotinsky, the Iron Wall, and the legacy"
Some of my edits are just for tightening up the prose and clarifying certain points. But obviously I've also added substance. Discuss!---Mona- (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not how userpages work--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did ask for some help in other sections; we'll call this wandering into others innocuous to helpful and not make a huge deal of that rule this time, please? Walker Walker Walker 20:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What rule?---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ehat? Oh. Generally messing with something in somepme else's userspace is frowned upon, but I asked if you could help out so I'm telling Paravant to please let that slide for here. Walker Walker Walker 21:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. And I've invited Blacke and ChrisAmiss. Avenger has been editing (I'm ignoring for now his BS below the Americans and Zionism section I added.), but isn't ok in your own space to insist that the two creating the impasse at the article page leave those of us not creating it a chance to see what we can do? BTW, I can't tell whether I reverted you since this morning or not. I only meant to undo Paravant and any messing from Avenger. You and I can discuss changes I made that you don't want -- I wouldn't re-revert you without asking why. ---Mona- (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Borders citation needed
From the article: "In more recent times, the term [Zionism] often used beyond its original meaning to describe the Israeli occupation of, and settlement in, lands outside its internationally-recognized borders in the West Bank and Gaza, commonly referred to as the Palestinian territories." What "internationally recognized" borders? Moreover, this is not what Zionism has "come to mean." Zionism is an ideology of ethno-religious, supremacist nationalism, and remains the ideology of Israel now, as it was for political Zionists pre-state.

So, two issues here: 1.The border question (and I can't get one of our Zionsts to state what they believe are the firm boundaries of Israel -- there are reasons for such timidity), and 2. the fact of the ideology of Zionism which is same as it ever was. I do NOT accept most of the self-serving BS at this site, but it clearly presupposes that Zionism continues as an ideology of military means of taking and defending land for Jews a la Jabotinsky.---Mona- (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

PacWalker, hope you're basically pleased
I did a lot today, and Paravant and you both added some as well. Of course, Avenger has been busy mostly (but not entirely) in the lower half. I'll get to those sections prolly starting tomorrow. He's way off in Zionist LaLa Land, of course, and I hope he isn't gonna cause edit wars here. After all, he entirely has his way right now over at the actual article. We're entitled to make a version for comparison and then all interested users may judge both.---Mona- (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't start fights.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Avenger has been having an editing field day here -- why? This is PacAwalker's project to which he invited me. I intend to edit this thing beginning to end, and I'll of course do so in consultation with Walker, you and other reasonable people. That category does not include Avenger UNLESS he starts defending his edits as I do, in good faith, which often entails substantive engagement on the talk page. (Whether he is even capable of that on this topic is in doubt.)---Mona- (talk) 03:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your one and only response should have been "I won't start fights by posting comments that are going to rile people up and insult them". anything else makes you a direct part of the problem still. Stop it.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Paravant, I decline your dictated response. Look, I'm a well-informed person, professionally trained to research and write -- one who knows a great deal about this topic and can do a semi-professional job of it. (See how the reference notes are piling up?) Your interest lies in not allowing Avenger to do his obstruction thing here -- and if you don't have his number in that area, well, I can't fathom how you could miss it. [shrug] I play well with most others, but have no interest at all in what Avenger does on this topic and would hope to have him corralled a bit so that others have a chance to show how they can do it. Ok?---Mona- (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not care. You have one response - I will not spark more fights by directly making statements that will cause fights-. If you cannot do that, i;m going to consider you as much to blame as avenger for the fighting.I dont want to see shit like " He's way off in Zionist LaLa Land, of course, and I hope he isn't gonna cause edit wars here " and "Whether he is even capable of that on this topic is in doubt.)". Don't make statements you know will cause arguments and nothing else. --"Paravant''" Talk & Contribs 04:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I could remain mute on this page and he would still do as he will -- if you have any common sense you already know that. I am speaking preemptively trying to get others to say: "Yeah, Avenger, let's see what the folks here can do." (Why is he even messing with edits here except to cause trouble? )You've totally not done that. You are not supporting the ones who do QUALITY, SOURCED edits, and who will engage in good faith give and take on this page. Way to go, Paravant.---Mona- (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I say remain mute. No. Stop fucking putting words in my mouth. You had absolutely zero reason to even -mention- Avenger in your comment and yet you've spent the last several talking about him and making comments that can do nothing but make him want to challenge you back. Stop it. I don't give a shit, I really do not. I want this endless war over and you are not helping.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy shit this canard again?!
I wanted to avoid this and move on with my life, but I just noticed "In Israel, Arab men who let Jewish women think they are Jewish so as to hook up, get convicted of rape" -mona-

Just 10 seconds of googling or just going to wikipedia about the case would've revealed that he had committed forcible rape and the "rape by deception" charge was part of a plea deal.CorruptUser (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that! Thanks! As the links in the footnotes show, for quite a long time the whole world thought this was a case of a man being convicted of rape for lying about being Jewish when he in fact was not. This case was a big deal and was discussed all over -- and I read about it more than once. But your source does show the case was far more complicated and it wasn't really about his ethnic status. It took some time for this to become known until after an unsealing of the court records. I am always grateful for genuine corrections of something I am wrong about.---Mona- (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Zionism vs "Jewish nationalism"
This statement "In this way, Zionism was an expression of Jewish nationalism, though the two should not necessarily be considered identical" intrigues me. Can anyone provide an example of "Jewish nationalism" which is not identical to "Zionism"? If not, I suggest the clause "though the two should not necessarily be considered identical" be stricken. If yes, we should cite that example. Blacke (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on what is meant with the term. Jews being nationalists of their relative country of citizenship was quite common pre-1945, in fact it was one of the main reasons Zionism initially attracted little following and many Jews chose to stay in their countries of birth and residence even though Antisemitism got worse and worse. After all, they were good Patriots and had bled and died for their countries. Another form of Jewish nationalism (now mostly extinct) focused on the Shtetl and Yiddish culture, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe. Instead of Zionism this was a movement of (national) self-empowerment of Jews in their places of birth and residence. However, this movement mostly died with its proponents during the Shoah. Nowadays, there is hardly a Jewish nationalism that isn't implicitly or explicitly Zionist in some form. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Suppose a Swedish person living in Germany becomes an advocate of German nationalism - would it be correct to call them a "German nationalist" or a "Swedish nationalist"? Surely the former is more correct. Where X is an ethnic group, an "X nationalist" is a person who advocates the establishment or maintenance or advancement of a political entity defined in terms of X - not a person of ethnic group X who happens to advocate some nationalism defined in terms independent of X. So a Jew advocating German nationalism is surely a German nationalist, not a Jewish nationalist. (And non-Jewish advocates of Zionism are Jewish nationalists without themselves being Jewish.) So your first example of non-Zionist Jewish nationalism is not really Jewish nationalism at all.
 * As to your second example - I don't think the Yiddish Renaissance / Yiddishism counts as an example of a nationalist political ideology, because on the whole it had no interest in establishing distinctively Yiddish political entities - it was primarily a cultural movement, as opposed to a political one. To the extent that it was a political movement, it was at least partially anti-Zionist (and hence at least partially anti-nationalist) in presenting a competing vision to Zionism (especially given the Zionist preference for Hebrew over Yiddish). If Yiddishism had actually become a form of nationalism (envisioning its homeland as somewhere in Europe, not the Middle East), it might have become an alternative Jewish nationalism to Zionism - but that never happened. It might have happened, had the Jewish Autonomous Oblast had been a genuine outgrowth of Yiddishism, as opposed to an artificial construction of the Soviet bureaucracy (considering that ethnic nationalism doesn't always end up the existence of an independent state - in some cases ethnic nationalism results in the creation, not of an independent state, but of a sub-state entity with some degree of autonomy.
 * So I don't think any of your examples disproves my basic contention - "Zionism" and "Jewish nationalism" are synonymous, and there are no genuine examples of things which are one but not the other. Blacke (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blacke, I agree with you. Please make the indicated edit if you are so inclined.---Mona- (talk) 04:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Responding to criticism of one state solution
Article as it stands is rather anti-one state solution, but some of the arguments it raises against it are pretty weak.
 * Some anti-Zionists, rather than supporting the Palestinian nationalist call for a separate Palestinian state, instead favor the one state solution — abolition of Israel and Palestine, to be replaced by a single state which is for all its citizens (sometimes suggested to be called "Israelestine" or similar).
 * This, of course, would mean there would be no Jewish state left in the world.
 * And, why would that be necessarily be a bad thing? There is no Yezidi state in the world, no Sikh state in the world, no Jain state in the world, no Zoroastrian state in the world (any more), no Samaritan state in the world, no Druze state in the world, the list goes on. There is no Kurdish state, no Scottish state, no Welsh state, no Tibetan state -- whether the existence of such states would be a good thing or not is a matter about which reasonable people can disagree - why can't people have the same reasonable disagreement about a Jewish state? There are a number of officially Christian states, but most secularists would like to end their officially Christian status - given that, is it unreasonable to desire that Muslim states stop being officially Muslim, or Buddhist states stop being officially Buddhist? And hence, that a Jewish state stop being officially Jewish?
 * And it would also raise the question where Jews could go, should they be persecuted in their countries of residence again. Given the prevalence of Antisemitism in the world, this concern should not be dismissed as "minor".
 * Let's be honest here. The 1940s were an absolutely horrific period in human history, but the odds of something like that happening to Jews ever again are very low. The next genocide will almost certainly be against a different ethnic/religious group (the Yezidis?). Immigration laws are in many ways more liberal now - in the 1930s/1940s, many Western states imposed quotas on Jewish immigration, none do now - in many Western countries, the idea of race/ethnicity based immigration quotas is now considered racist (not in Israel though). Most Western states have adopted (or are moving towards) skills-based immigration systems, in which those with professional skills and qualifications are favoured for immigration - a set of rules under which Jews on average fair better than many other ethnic groups (since Jews have a much higher rate of professional qualifications and skills than many other ethnicities.)
 * Also if one takes a look at Belgium, skepticism as to the workability of such a state is not entirely "out there".
 * This overstates Belgium's problems. Yes it has some political instability, and there is always talk of a breakup -- but the breakup hasn't happened yet, it may well never happen, even if it does it will highly likely be peaceful. It's not liking the Flemish and Walloons are killing each other in the streets. And what about Switzerland? It is a multi-lingual, multi-religious state which is very stable. But I think an even better comparison is Bosnia-Herzegovina - largely peaceful nowadays, intermittent constitutional crises, but a breakup is very unlikely - because no one wants another Balkan war. And the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina is under a certain degree of international administration helps as well - many proposals for a one-state solution would see Israel/Palestine placed under a Bosnia-style international administration, with a UN administrator empowered to intervene in the political process to unstick any political crises.

Blacke (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why would any Israeli voter in their right mind wish to have less thaen half a say over the whole house if they could have all the say over half the house? Also Belgium and Bosnia are basically two countries pressed into one with many issues decided on the ethnoreligious local level. And as for another state with several religions in it that did not work out all that well, just look at Israel's northern border. Basically all religious and ethnic groups of Lebanon are constantly getting screwed over by the ridiculous political arrangement they have. Made worse by the constant Syrian dabbling in their domestic politics (see the Hariri murder for instance). And after all, partition "worked" for India-Pakistan. It would not end with an uneasy truth within one state but some sort of final settlement between two states. And if a two state solution brings peace and open borders between the two states, they might even gradually become de facto one state. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Why would any Israeli voter in their right mind wish to have less thaen half a say over the whole house if they could have all the say over half the house?" - I doubt many Israeli voters would vote for a one-state solution today; but in the future, when circumstances are different, they might vote rather differently. Israel is becoming less and less popular internationally; one might imagine, that if current trends continue for a few more decades, with European (and maybe eventually even American) opinion turned against them, Israel's international isolation might start to have a serious economic impact, and the calculations of Israeli voters might change. Thus far BDS has only seen some small successes and has only done a small degree of economic damage to Israel - but it is plausible that BDS will see greater successes in the future, and might start doing some serious damage to the Israeli economy. What would Israel do if it was more or less abandoned by the US? the Democratic party elites are turning against Israel; Republicans still mostly support Israel, but a lot of Republican support is based on Christian Zionism - as conservative American Christianity declines, so will Christian Zionism. As minorities (Hispanic and other) become an ever larger proportion of the US population - minorities tend to be more pro-Palestinian than the old non-Hispanic white majority was. American Jewry is shrinking at the secular end but growing at the traditionalist end - which is a problem for Israel, since secular Jews do a much better job of convincing secular non-Jewish society to support Israel than the traditional/religious could (people are more likely to be convinced by others mostly like them than by those who are very different.) It is estimated that in 20 years time, Muslims will outnumber Jews in the US; at least initially, even once outnumbered, Jews will still have more political clout as a minority, but in time that will change too - the day will come to the US when opposing Israel wins more votes than supporting it. So, in the medium-to-long term, the outlook for Israel is not that great. Blacke (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Blacke Please know that my serious attention so far only goes as far as the "geopolitical" section. This draft we are working off is taken from the current article at the Zionism page -- I've only been using it to organize what will be a very different version. Anything you want to add is more than welcome. Moreover, no doubt the sections I've only been through once -- above the "geopolitical" section -- are still imperfect.---Mona- (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Also Blacke. BDS is actually causing a great deal of angst in Israel. It's working, and has now been identified at the highest levels as an "existential threat." Haaretz: "Netanyahu’s Declaration of War on BDS Is Its First Major Victory"

"When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issues a manifest in Jerusalem against the delegitimization of Israel and calls for a “wide front” to combat boycott, and then, within 24 hours, Sheldon Adelson convenes an emergency summit in Las Vegas to fight BDS on university campuses - as Nathan Guttman revealed in the Forward on Monday - BDSers can smugly tell themselves that they’ve finally made it. From a nuisance, perhaps even a danger, they have been elevated the status of existential threat, on a par, almost, with Iran and Hezbollah."

Militantly Zionist sources are beside themselves and Israeli farmers are feeling it. And this doesn't even reach the "pariah status" factor. It was "Don't Play Sun City" that finally got Apartheid south Africa to cave. "Don't Play Tel Aviv" is doing the same.---Mona- (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Mona, I agree BDS has had some impact on Israel, but honestly I don't think the impact has been that great yet. You'll find a lot of Israeli sources playing up the impact that BDS has had, but I think that some of those sources are really talking about "narrative"/"political" impact rather than actual economic impact (which is something the Zionists should be worried about in the medium-long term, but probably has limited short-term impact), and also some of those sources are serving domestic Israeli political purposes. But look, I agree that BDS has huge potential to do damage to the Zionist project in the medium term, but I think most of the damage that BDS is going to do lies in the future rather than the present. BDS is a long game - but to defeat Zionism one has to play the long game, since Zionism is a long game itself (been played since the late 19th century.) Blacke (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You could be right. But have you read Ali Abunimah's The Battle for Justice in Palestine? He makes a persuasive case that the pariah factor is critically important and examines how it worked in South Africa: almost up to the time the white govt gave in everyone was saying it was intractable -- the whites had the money and arms, and would never budge. (Other parts of the book made my eyes glaze over; a good chunk is about economics in the WB that is over my head.)---Mona- (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read that book, no. But I agree with the basic point that Zionist Israel is going to collapse in a rather similar way to the collapse of apartheid South Africa. I think the disagreement is about timing. You take the optimistic view that it will happen soon. I take the more pessimistic view that it is quite a few years away (10, 20, 50?). (I'd love for me to be wrong and you to be right about this though - that would be a great outcome were it to happen - I just don't think it is very likely.) Blacke (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Must Read: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:-Mona-#Israel.E2.80.99s_former_internal_security_service_chief_sees_Israel_collapsing Link and excerpt at my talk page of desperate article just published in Tablet by an Israeli former security chief, who sees Israel collapsing, and admitting what we all know (but the hardcore Zionists won't concede) about the two-tiered justice system in Israel: one for Jews, and a draconian one for Palestinians.

Personally
I think you should move forward with trying to get this version to replace the one at Zionism, given the version as is over there seems to be the one that's going to be put up in competition, regardless of whether you think this one is perfect yet. Plus, if you can get this through, you can pretty much get most of your content through.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me a few more days.There's stuff I need to get to before I feel ready to defend "my work."---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Cherem of Neturei Karta
I've tried to make this point clearer. A number of Jewish authorities put certain members/leaders of Neturei Karta in cherem - e.g. Rabbi Metzger did that to the NK delegation to Tehran - but they did not put Neturei Karta as a whole in cherem. And I think it overstated the amount of opposition to Neturei Karta - they were not universally rejected. I think it is clear there is a difference in opinion among Satmar authorities as to how strongly NK should be rejected, with some favouring a stronger rejection, others not wanting to reject them too strongly. (After all, Satmar and NK share a fundamental agreement on an anti-Zionist outlook, the difference being around how they should relate to enemies of the Zionist entity - there is internal disagreement within Satmar on that later question.) Blacke (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sections in red
For those sections where I (or, as far as I know, others) have not done anything or much to this draft we are working from, I have turned the section names red. This would mean that, if you are so inclined, these are the sections most in need of your attention. Shortly, we will be offering this draft for all the users' consideration.---Mona- (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)