Talk:Zionism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon judaism.svg

This Judaism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

How do you define Zionism?[edit]

@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 DruzeWikipedia's W.svg, 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)

Arbitrary division[edit]

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)
Fallacy fallacy? --91.7.30.163 (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2016 (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)

The civilized man and the savage[edit]

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)

Waste of time[edit]

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)
You claim to do what you do for freedom, yet you have removed all traces of Zionism from the article, turning into a critique, not an analysis. Dolphinjamez (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

BDS reactions[edit]

The only sources for the BDS reactions and consequences section are either blatantly biased or just an opinion article somewhere. Surely you can do better than the, can't you?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 11:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC) 11:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The BDS section of the article comes off as advocating the movement. I am personally an advocate of strategic divestment from the settlements (and perhaps Israel proper, but I'm hesitant about this), but the article fails to mention that BDS also includes the highly problematic tactic of "anti-normalization"--i.e. blacklisting--in addition to academic and cultural boycotts, which many people (liberals included) consider ethically problematic in a way that economic boycotts and divestments are not.
Also, Meyerson is not a liberal, he's a radical. He is not a good representative of millennial American Jewish opinion on the subject. Most younger liberal American Jews simply don't give a fuck either way, and those who do are more often J Street types than JVP.
These groups are vastly, vastly different: J Street works within the system and is anti-BDS (although it is against blacklisting BDS supporters); JVP is a more radical protest group, and is pro-BDS. There is some overlap between the two groups in the sense that individual members of J Street will support JVP-led settlement divestment actions, but their ultimate goals are different: J Street is fundamentally a dovish, two-state, but still pro-Israel organization, while JVP is a Palestine Solidarity group with a large (but not unanimous) one-state consensus. This distinction is not sufficiently clear in the article.
Do I have permission to edit the BDS section of the article to reflect these concerns?— Unsigned, by: 108.21.190.165 / talk / contribs

Jewish Indigenous Status[edit]

Why does this article's history part begin in the 1800s, rather than with the expulsion of the indigenous Jewish people from Rome two-thousand years ago? Seems important to me. Dolphinjamez (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If nothing else, part of the answer is that we're not an encyclopedia. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A history section is meant to give history. The article as written is clearly meant to take away the history of the Jewish people, and make it seem like we, the indigenous, are invaders. Dolphinjamez (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You can blame an insane loon for this. And please don't start up with trying to fix it; more drama than it's worth, assuming you arent AvengerSock7. StickySock (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well Jews are certainly indigenous to the area, but does that really influence the discussion one way or the other to state this blindingly obvious fact? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this article one-sided?[edit]

Is this article one sided? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes.--95.208.248.45 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Used to be worse. Now it’s got 1.5 sides, maybe. 96.248.68.247 (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits removed December 10?[edit]

Does anyone have a issue with Jana's edits based on content? I see the page as it currently stands as highly biased, with a lot of criticism of Zionism and almost none of opposing movements. It seems tonally opposed to RW's typical SPOV, and quite honestly rather nasty. Let's be clear--people who come to this page and edit do so because they have strong feelings on the subject, either pro or against. But we can balance it better. 35.2.105.243 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea what "jana's edits" means, but now that it's a little more clear the content you changed mostly sucked. Zionism definetly relates to apartheid for fairly obvious reasons. Whether it is apartheid is hotly debated, but I personally have never seen a compelling argument for how Israeli policies vis-a-vis Palestinians aren't super-duper analogous, what with bans on mixed-heritage marriage travel restrictions, no representation in the legislature, etc. For categories, while pseudoscience, fascism and genocide aren't substantiated by the article and its sources, crimes against humanity is. And it's definitely, beyond any reasonable argument, a political philosophy. Pulling that category out makes no sense at all.
Most of the text you removed is true, relevant, and cited. Removing text about the double standard of trials for Israeli versus Palestinian citizens, for example, is not okay. Not without much better substantiation than "the article is biased". There's room for improvement, but in bulk, the changes you made were not an improvement. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Edits initially made by [[User::Jana]], on December 10. Spud pointed out that "You're going to have to have a discussion on the talk page before removing so much content" when reverting them. I didn't make them. I want to have a discussion, and improve the article, but nobody else was willing to engage (Don Juan removed my comment from his talk page). I'm willing to discuss apartheid, by all means. But can we at least remove the ", given the movements' related history and" in "Extremist" anti-zionism? Given that the section is about extremists by definition, wouldn't the view espoused there not be the one tacitly approved by RationalWiki? 35.2.34.111 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, it's not that there aren't problems. Those two changes seem like good ones. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 00:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright. I'll start with removing the most egregious categories and that sentence, and go from there. Thank you for listening to me. 35.2.34.111 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Would people kindly read my edit summaries? I'm trying to remove bad, unreliable, biased content with sketchy sources. I left Wikipedia and I'm not making an account here because I got tired of wikipolitics. I don't want to edit war. I want to make this page better. 35.2.51.255 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay. I've removed the egregious things on an initial parse. I'll probably keep poking at this, making small changes. 35.2.51.255 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You should make an account and I'll autopatrol it so you don't keep getting flagged on the vandal catcher. Commie Lib (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea, but TBQH I don't really want an account. I love reading RW, but I don't really want to become a full-on editor. As I've mentioned, I got burned by Wikipedia after a few thousand edits and a couple years, and I'm trying to be over that. I've done a decent chunk of what I intend to--I'll probably go through the sources a bit more and flesh out the whackjobs in anti-Zionism. 35.2.51.255 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Got it, have fun! Commie Lib (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)