From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This conversation is about to go badly downhill,
inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler,
and hurt feelings all round.


Must sleep soon...more later.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 23:01, 28 November 2007 (EST)

  • With the Metapedia scum hanging around, we need to keep an extra-special watch on this article though. Does our MediaWiki software offer sprotect capability? EVDebs 23:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
It can be protected, but I don't know if it can allow specific editors.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 23:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)
It's already been attacked a few times (and fixed by Jeeves, if I recall). It's here in part to rebut many of the most common memes from the MP types. Researcher 23:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)
I guess because I'm not a sysop, I can't edit it now. (Not that I particularly need to, since you all have made it so much better, but just saying.) Researcher 23:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Nah. I think it only works that way on CP. There's more democratic ways to handle it. EVDebs 23:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I don't fully understand how the semiprotect thing works, but as I understand it there's a certain threshhold of numbers of edits that can be set so that only people with established track records can access it. The idea is that presumably any recently-registered usernames with a grudge can be prevented from messing around with controversial topics; it's not exactly protection against sleeper vandals, but it's the only thing I can think of. Wikipedia seems to use it to good advantage. EVDebs 23:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)
It still won't let me edit it, and I have (I think) a whole freaking bunch of edits on here. (Plus some 100+ articles I've created.) Though it's not important to me to be able to edit it now that's it's been so improved, but it could prove problematic for others with legitimate things to add. (Unless I'm the only regular non-sysop. Which could be useful for testing purposes.) Researcher 23:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)
Though, reading the history, it looks like you semi-protected this page rather than the main one, and I *can* (obviously) edit this one. Researcher 23:18, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Woot! I feel special now. Researcher 23:23, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Semi protection on WP (not sure how custom that is) block IP edits and edits by users less than three days "old". Used to ward off waves of excited vandals. It might be nice to have here for some of these articles. But then again, sometimes it's fun hitting that "rollback" link... humanUser talk:Human 15:34, 29 November 2007 (EST)
Honestly, I get a perverse pleasure dealing with vandals and trolls. (I like to go into teacher mode, even when it does no good.) Researcher 16:42, 29 November 2007 (EST)


I'm tempted to release the page. Any votes in favor or against? Researcher 21:59, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Go ahead, we can always revert ugly wandalism and reprotect if we feel the need. Really, unless some editors start to burn out on reverting, etc., we shouldn't need to protect much, if anything. humanUser talk:Human 22:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Jewish Nationalism[edit]

I know little about this area of politics, but the article mentions "jewish nationalism is not the same as Zionism", can anyone explain that better? Also, how does Zionism fit into the now (virtually ridiculous) behaviors of the State against Gaza, cause I do hear people say "Zionism and/or Nationalism is the cause". Some days my ignorance slaps me in teh face, I must admit.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?" 11:20, 18 February 2009 (EST)


There's a few issues with this, though given the topic want to discuss first.

  • As already mentioned, how is modern day Jewish nationalism different from Zionism in practical terms? Before the creation of Israel I can see how they were distinct, but now the two are so conflated as to be pretty much one and the same.
  • If we are going to discuss the liking of Zionism to Nazism, something should be said of comparisons to apartheid South Africa, where, at least in terms of where Zionism has led, regardless of the original ideology, does hold some valid points of debate re: segregation, political and legal rights, economic exploitation, and bantustans.
  • Mention of the 1967 war, but not mention of the 1948 war, which is directly relevant, as is the first time the Zionist ideals came into contact with real on-the-ground problems of carving out a Jewish state/homeland in Palestine/Israel.
  • Changing dynamics of support for Zionism. US was initially uncertain of support for Israel, but quickly adopts a fervent pro-Israel stance, whilst Soviet Union turns against Israel and arms nations in the region that are hostile. Zionism becomes part of the cold war games.
  • Debate over whether or not Zionism in it's current form is inherently a racist ideology, is a mostly neutral ideal exploited by politicians to justify racist policies, or neither?

--TheEgyptiansig001.png 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Those all sound, to me, like legitimate issues to be dealt with. I am not remotely qualified to write much about them, however. Researcher (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The issues brought up are all very good points. As a Jew who is very focused on Middle Eastern politics I will try to address all of them.
  • Zionism and Jewish Nationalism: Jewish Nationalism is belief that the Jews constitute a "nation", because of Jewish history it was a rather far-fetched idea that the Jews could act on that nationalism and create a nation. This is because the Jews historically were stateless. Zionism is the belief that grew out of Jewish nationalism which addresses this problem by moving Jews to into Palestine where they can crate their own state there. In essence Zionism is Nationalism, it is the idea that the Jews must have an independent homeland in Palestine. Distinguishing between Jewish national and Zionism is not really useful because Zionism is simply Jewish nationalism made into reality.
  • Zionism and Nazism. If the differences between Zionism and Jewish nationalism are small, the differences between Nazism and German nationalism are giant. Nazism promotes irredentism taken to the extreme in the form of lebensraum. Most irredentist claims are historically based, Nazi irredentism wasn't. Furthermore nationalism in general treats race a minor issue, nationalists are more concerned about ethnicity and borders. Eugenics and by extension race, was a giant component of Nazism, and borders were regarded as an obstacle to world domination. German nationalism and irredentism attempts to unite all German speaking people into the same country; Nazism by contrast seeks to dominate the globe and rid it of undesirables. Despite what most of the people at metapedia and stormfront seem to believe Zionism does not seek to dominate the Globe, it seeks to create a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. Zionists could care less what the rest of the world does so long as it does not conflict with there interests of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.
  • Apartheid and Zionism. An Israeli apartheid only exists in light of a one state solution. In the light of a two state solution the situation in the West Bank is an occupation but not an apartheid. One can make the argument that in the West Bank there is a de facto apartheid but whether or not you regard it as an full apartheid depends on how you choose to view the conflict as a whole and what outcome you want to see. Now a major difference between any hypothetical Israeli apartheid and the South African apartheid is that the Israeli one is based on nationality and religion, it is NOT based on race.
  • The article should discuss the 1948 war. My view on what happened during the war is similar to views taken by Benny Morris. The Palestinians fled from there homes for the same reason why the current Syrian refugees fled from there homes. They didn't want to be living in war zone. Zionism doesn't take into account the Palestinians natives for several reasons. Firstly, the province Palestine was in fact underdeveloped and underpopulated, the Ottoman Empire neglected the entire Levant. Mark Twain (not a man known for having conservative views I may add) describing it as Palestine as "desolate" probably is a bit of an overstatement but the reality was the entire Middle East was a backwater in the 19th century. For the past one hundred and fifty years Palestine and its people have undergone a massive population boom. Secondly, the Palestinians were not seen as such and for most of their history never really asserted their identity as Palestinian. Without question the Palestinians are a people even without Israel, but that just meant and to some extant still just means that they are Arabs who live in Palestine. This is a major Zionist talking point. For most of the Cold War Arab nationalism was a major force in the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was seen in that light. And from that perspective the conflict seems lopsided in favor of the Arabs since the Arabs are quite numerous and the Jews are not (Linguistically and historically the conflict gets quite confusing because whereas Hebrew is a Canaanite language Arabic is not. For instance I recall seeing a post to a news article describing how Hebrew usage is widespread in Gaza. The post lamented the fact the Palestinians were being forced to learn the "language of the imperialists," from a historical linguistic perspective that comment completely shatters the irony meter. Arabic is not native to Palestine, or Iraq, or Syria, or Lebanon, or Egypt, or North Africa; it is not even native to Jordan and Yemen). Thirdly, even if they had to move people around at gunpoint (which is what they did eventually do) they had no qualms about doing so. In this light the entire refugee crisis is no different than any of the other "populations exchanges" that happened during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The position of the Palestinians in this perspective is comparable to the Greeks of Ionia, the Muslims of the Balkans (during the Balkan wars), the Armenians, and all the other refugees who ended up on the wrong side of the borders during the early 20th century. Making the Palestinians Arabs further justifies these actions. Basically when you take into account all of the "population exchanges" done in the name of nationalism during the first half of the 20th century the plight of the Palestinians does not stand out.
  • Zionism and the Cold War. The American state department officials didn't like Zionism because they feared that the founding of the state of Israel would negatively impact relations with Saudi Arabia. The soviets for there part were communists, why they supported Zionism at all is a bit of a mystery since according to Communist thought all nationalism is evil. However in the cold war the Soviets found it beneficial to use the decolonization movement to forward their own agenda. Israel was and still is a big target for the anti imperialists due to the circumstances surrounding its creation. The anti imperialist perspective claims that Israel is a colonialist creation rather than a nationalist one, this is not surprising since Zionists like Ben Gurion gave speeches making it seem like it was. The problem with this assumption is that it completely ignores the fact that Zionism is a Nationalist ideology and that Zionists ally with whomever supports there goal of Jewish state in Palestine. This leads to pro palestinian activists and zionists activists having shouting matches talking about completely different things. This all brings me back to the difference between nationalism and Communism. From a Marxist perspective the only possible explanation for Israels existence is that it is a colonial endeavor. From a nationalist perspective Israel's exists to serve as a homeland for the Jewish people and it came into existence because of out of control antisemitism.
  • Zionism today. Zionism is for all intents and purposes nationalism, if it is a racist ideology than so is every other nationalist ideology on this planet. The only possible way to describe Zionism as racism while portraying Palestinian Nationalism as something different is to redefine racism to the "prejudice plus power" definition which borders on moral relativism. Indeed rationalwiki does not view the concept favorably because it imposes an artificial definition on a concept in order to reconcile positions that seem contradictory. (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Alex

Possible error[edit]

Zionist history is not my strong point, so bear with me. I find this line curious though; Most forms of Zionism focused on creating a state in the land that is now Israel, since that land had strong symbolic meaning for the Jewish people. I don't think this is true. Although the Kibbutz movements in the 19th century were clearly Zionist in nature, the international Zionist leadership were not particularly concerned if Israel became their homeland or not. David Ben-Gurion, for example, wasn't overly bothered if Israel became the home of the Jews, so long as they had one.

On another note, one of the last relatively unsettled parts of the world capable of sustaining a nation state would have been Patagonia in Argentina. Considering Argentina went on to possess a large Jewish population (c. 200,000), was this ever considered as a likely site? Just an idle notion I had. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard it suggested that they should have given up part of Germany for a Jewish nation. I don't know if that idea was floated at the time, but it does have some interesting pluses to it. - π 23:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The Soviet Union actually made an internal division specifically for the Jewish just happened to be out in Siberia. Not so popular. Researcher (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Grow up. Swearing at me on my talk page is not helpful. Why do you feel that the assertion that Zionism is often used as a code word for supporting apartheid in Israel is incorrect? Can we compromise, at least? What we have now is about as fair and logical as CP is. Zionism is more than just the idea that people shouldn't kill Jews, and we both know it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

It just so happens that I do not disagree with you BoN. But there are ways to amend an article without just posting inflammatory additions. 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I was going to emend it to:

"Zionism in some circles (especially on the Internet) can also refer to the idea that Israel is justified in what some consider the continued and unabashed oppression of the Palestinian people and more widely all Arabs, including forcibly evicting Arab or Muslim families from their homes in Jerusalem as part of a government program to 'de-Arabify' the city."

But it seemed a bit weaselly. Sources would be very nice here. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
PS, does this really belong in the "religion" portal thingie? Isn't it more political? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
For a rational Wiki, it's surprising to see the canard of Zionism being like apartheid. Under apartheid, black people could not live in South Africa except as servants to white people. In contrast, Israeli Arabs can live anywhere secular Israelis live (some religious communities exclude both), can become hospital directors, members of the Knesset, and even Supreme Court Justices. So how is this like apartheid.
As for Gaza, any discussion of that should include the fact that Israel gave de-facto internal sovereignty to that area; their response was to elect a government sworn to destroy Israel and to lob rockets at Israeli civilians. Whether this justifies Israel's actions in Gaza is not the point; however, it should be considered in the discussion. Zvi the Fiddler. Dec 11, 2011 — Unsigned, by: Fiddlerzvi / talk / contribs

These kinds of additions make The New Statesman seem like a measured, reasonable political journal. For God sake, do we have to use language that would make a Soviet propagandist blush when talking about Israel? MarcusCicero (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
That's why I put it here, to tear it apart. If the "what some consider" had a solid reference to some who consider it, that would be different. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't having a go at you, unfortunately many in the west seem incapable of either thinking or debating about Israel in proportion, it all seems to be black and white, good and evil. Never mind that Hamas is a fascist organisation that seems impervious to compromise. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


I deleted this sentence because I have no idea what it means:

This usage "Zionism" has also been accepted to some degree by other groups that are not anti-Semitic, particularly on the Internet. These people, thus, use the term to refer to the idea that Jews should not be killed, or that the State of Israel has a right to self-defense against Palestinian terrorists, etc.

Some people, who aren't anti-Semitic, take the term "Zionism" to mean Jews should not be killed, or Israel has a right to self-defence? I am not sure why the "that are not anti-Semitic" qualifier is there, it goes without saying there is nothing particularly antisemitic about these positions, quite the opposite. It seems to be confusing the likely consequences of support for Zionism with Zionism itself. If someone supports Zionism, one would expect them to oppose the idea of killing Jews, and support Israel's right to self-defence. But neither are part of the definition of Zionism -- they are consequences of Zionism. --Maratrean (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Zionism and Nazism[edit]

I don't believe the section should be present, at least not in this article. Perhaps a new article (criticism of Israel?) or on the Israel article. I'm the one that put Norman Finkelstein in there, but I regret it since he's not the best example of anti-Zionism (he's an example, but not the best) and because he talks more of Israel than Zionism itself.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx, is you argument that people don't compare Zionism to Nazism, but rather compare Israel to Nazi Germany? But, people actually do compare Zionism to Nazism. Try googling the portmanteau word zionazism. It's not a fair comparison, in fact it's one designed to be as offensive as possible, but it is without doubt a comparison that gets made. (((Zack Martin))) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected, but I still don't like that section as it was. Maybe someone (not me) could redo it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The embarrassingly racist UN General Assembly vote[edit] Is cited in this article as if it had any relevance. First of all, it never meant anything. The General Assembly has no standing whatsoever in human rights or international law. Furthermore, it was at that time made up mostly of client states of the Soviet Union, Third world dictatorships and badly outnumbered Western Democracies. The vote has to be understood in the context of the cold war and has since been reversed. see here If you read German this link might be interesting as well. I will not try to get this mentioned on the main page as our resident anti-Zionist and grammar Nazi won't let me... And while I like the truth to get out, I dislike edit wars... (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:ikanreed, this would be the first thing, I would like to change. at least add the fact that the resolution was one by the general assembly (which carries little weight if any) and that it was revoked after the cold war was done. As this is a statement of fact, I doubt it to be controversial. (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that is so badly written it's painful to read. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Just put something into the text to the effect that the General Assembly vote classifying Zionism as a form of racism was later revoked by the general assembly. As a matter of fact Kofi Annan described the vote equating Zionism with racism as one of the "low points of the United Nations". But sure, there is no bias whatsoever against Israel or Zionism on this here pages... (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The image at the very top of this article[edit]

What does the image have to do with Zionism, other than - once again - scoring cheap points by badmouthing Israel? (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

In more recent times the term is often used to describe the Israeli occupation of, and settlement in, lands outside its internationally-recognized borders in the West Bank and Gaza.
—The article
Answer your question? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there any source for this statement? Also if this is in fact one aspect of Zionism, it does not in fact justify having this as the only image of the article. Especially if there is no image of Herzl or his main work "Der Judenstaat" or any of the other things related to Zionism or its history (like - you know - the state of Israel) (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
It's sourced as extensively as the shit you keep spamming on the page. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but tu quoque does not a legitimate debate technique make. Furthermore, I was in the process of providing refs, when it all got reverted without rhyme or reason. And when my refs do manage to get in they are dismissed for a variety of bogus reasons instead of looked at calmly and on their merit... (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The resolution was Cold War bullshit and the UN itself revoked it after the Cold War was doneWikipedia. Could we please can this polemic nonsense and add a picture, that has actually something to do with the political ideology called Zionism instead?--Arisboch (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Arisboch, that was exactly what I was getting at. But it seems to carry more weight, when it comes from a registered user instead of an IP... (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Register here, it's extremely easy.--Arisboch (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I might at some point. To counter the immense amount of Anti-Zionism displayed by some users at the very least... (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ooooh boy, balance fallacy time! Can't wait for that single-purpose agenda-driven account to start "countering" perceived bias about their single issue. What fun! ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
So you see no bias whatsoever against Zionism on the part of any user or in the mainspace of any article? (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, not at all. Bias happens. Unbiased is both an impossible standard and one that often works contrary to communicating effectively. Countering bias with obscenely stupid nationalist bias that supports crimes against humanity by means of a misdirected tuquoque fallacy is just obnoxious and exhausting. And we get the same kinda single-minded "bias fixers" on every goddamn article, who never contribute shit to the greater mission rationalwiki approaches, only to their pet causes.
And if fixing the problems introduced by bias were your goal, I'd go, "yeah! fix that factual oversight! woo!". But no, you want to counter everything you think is bias with shit tons of unhealthy bias that tends to go directly against the anti-authoritarian intended slant of the wiki. By all means, make an attempt, but make sure that attempt isn't stupid fucking youtube links to justify a personal hatred that you seem patently unaware of.
And I'll revert edits that fit that mold. And sometimes, occasionally, even ones that don't if they aren't an improvement, because it's a wiki and wikis take work to get right. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I am very aware of my hatred for Hamas. No sane person likes Hamas imho. Which makes it all the more puzzling to me, why a page that claims to be rational is willing to make so many excuses for Hamas... And if you take a look at my edit history, I at first was not overly concerned with the Anti-Zionist bias, some articles exhibit (most bizarrely of which, that about Saudi Arabia of all places, claiming Israel to be somehow worse than them), but the fact that it is impossible to get human shield tactics and other things Hamas does mentioned even as an "X accuses Hamas of using human shields" (and than finding a credible unbiased source that explains why this is wrong - which you won't find, cause it isn't) is just baffling. (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
If there are specific problems, fix them. Just don't do it in a dumb way. I've got all of like 2 edits to this article(if that), reverting you because of the nature of your edit isn't an endorsement of the status quo, but an objection to the quality of the edit. Make good changes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── as this page is blocked, I can't make any edits, good or bad to it. Also it appears to me that the threshold for what constitutes a good edit is rather arbitrary, especially if I look at the number of times YouTube and Wikipedia links are provided as refs... (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not going to win this with an argument from fairness. I don't think you saw way upthread where I said that youtube refs were sometimes acceptable, (context eh?) but a pile of them looks crazy. A good source isn't impossible to find. Have at it. Substantiate something important with a reliable link, and I'll integrate it for you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Dear BoN, if you register you'll be able to edit the page as it's only locked for BoNs (I think mainly due to anti-Semitic trolls who do drive by edits).
As for YT links, I agree with ikanreed that it really depends on context. For instance, the William Lane Craig article has loads of them, but that's because he's mainly (in)famous for his oral "debates" and consequently a ton of responses picking his claims apart are on YT (WLC's debates aren't scholarly enterprises, but apologetic entertainment), but there's a great distance from this sort of serious debunking to, say, the crackpot linkspammers who turn up at RW posting bunch of YT links that will definitely convince everyoneIrony alert! that chemtrails or freeman on the land pseudolaw is like totally for realz and being suppressed by Them through an evulz conspiracy. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well one of the youtube links was of the official France 24 channel where a reporter is on the air while Hamas fires a rocket a few meters away from him (which might on the face of it imply that they might have implicitly risked that reporter's live and safety) Later the reporter shows a UN flag waving close to the site of the rocket launch and says the hotel where most of the reporters are is a mere 50 meters away. Another video was from the IDF showing Hamas rockets being launched from schools and cemeteries. Than I tried to link to an article of an ambulance driver reporting on how Hamas fighters tried to misuse his protected status by having him drive them out from their current position at gunpoint. Yet for some reason all this was reverted for some reason on the Hamas article. Here I just wanted to add the fact that the racist UN vote was one of the General Assembly (i.e. not really important in the grand scheme of things) which was than dominated by regimes like Ceausescu's Romania or Assad sr.'s Syria and was revoked in 1990. The article for some reason still says "the UN" considers Zionism to be racist. Furthermore I still don't quite understand why the only image that accompanies the article is of a bulldozer... (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The great mid-august fight over the Zionism article[edit]

Major work I'm doing[edit]

Hey all, I'm new here and this is the third entry I'm editing. Zionism is a topic I know a great deal about. As of the date of this post I have reshaped only the first paragraph but already added 3 reference sources to a grossly under-sourced article. You won't miss that I have a point of view and that it's quite critical of Zionism and supportive of the Palestinian victims of it. Certainly I anticipate objections to my perspective, but whatever else is true I will not be lacking for documentation of my claims -- I won't be undertaking major editing of any article where I lack documentation. Finally, I note that in the "Fossil Record" some attach explanations and comments to their editing decisions. How is that done?-Mona- (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a box which says "summary" (beneath the note on copyright) in there you can put something describing your edits. And from what I've heard pretty much anything that has only a tangential relationship with Jews or Israel is bound to draw huge amounts of criticism and possibly revert fests. Especially if your bias tilts away from RW's "consensus bias" which on Israel seems to be: We don't particularly like them, but they are at least better than Hamas (people like User:Arisboch notwithstanding) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I have the time and the knowledge (and sources) to polish this as it needs to be polished. (The entry will end up with dozens of notes.) And I'll do it, but not if everything is going to be undone as soon as I write. I am STRONGLY supportive of the Palestinains, but it is the highly informed bias of a formerly ardent Zionist. I take the view I take now *because of massive reading -- and I know how to link to articles, books and even videos. I request this: Give me several days to work off of this and don't undo what I don't know how to get back. It's a LOT of work. Then there can be a discussion of objections, additions or deletions. But at least you'll have a comprehensive and well-sourced something to debate about.-Mona- (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a wiki, it gets edited, deal with it. If you want to write longer stuff, do it in a subpage of your user page and then integrate it into this article.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
What's this "deal with it" crap? I'm new here. And as much as I like many entries -- which is why I joined-- many are garbage. Unsourced shit. I have been a professional writer and editor of copiously sourced materials. I'm good at it. But I'm not going to pour my effort into an article only to have it continually undone. I'll take the suggestions (politely stated) of doing a draft on my user page and then offer it for consideration. If my critical (but highly informed) stance toward Zionism and Israel -- and empathy with Palestinians -- is all too much for any significant use of my efforts on this topic, then I will have to consider whether I am in the right place. I may not fit, and you may agree.-Mona- (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem begins with your "requesting" an article not be edited. This cannot and will not happen on any major wiki, much less on a controversial article. However, you are welcome to create something in your own userspace and declare it off-limits for others to edit. Nobody is going to have a problem with that, in fact this (and essays) is encouraged here at RW...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to polish the article as you say, but there will probably be others eager to revert you. Why not write up a draft version in your userspace so you can work on it in peace and present us with the finished product afterwards? (talk) 18:16, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would advise you to either use your userspace (or an essay, which is encouraged over here) or to post it onto the talk page, as talk page edits only get deleted if they are doxxing or criminally trolling vandalism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck, you're dealing with a group who resort to ad hominem attacks through appeal to motive fallacies anytime you criticize a country and its politics (singling out as they put it, much like Islamists claim victimhood when their religion is criticized and hold that other religions should be criticized before criticizing them). And that's not including the most vicious apologetics for colonialism and state terrorism who deny that the territories are even occupied. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, so RW is now lead by/full of SJWs (according to GGers), teh evel Zionists (according to Chris), now whom did I miss? The lizard people?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It's no secret that a number of contributors have recently been editing articles with a pro-Israel bias, ya know, like that 141.30.(other numbers) IP. Not sure what that has to do with SJWs or GGers. (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for proving my point Arisboch. Even if I were to entertain your argument, you would still have misrepresented my position because I referred to a group, not RW being "full of" as you claim. I take issue with people who engage in the most basic sort of denialism that RW frowns upon, such as denying that the Palestinian territories are occupied as affirmed by the international community and human rights orgs. That type of editing is not rational, but rather propagandistic. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, previous revisions can be accessed at the "fossil record". These are the specific changes you made earlier: [1]. (talk) 18:24, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Deep division[edit]

Sigh. Has there ever been a political movement that was not deeply divided about the issue of Jews/Zionism/Israel? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This is among the reason why I'm suited to write on this topic: I once was a very fierce Zionist and militantly pro-Israel. AS far as I am concerned, the Zionist narrative that's been peddled in the West is replete with myths and even outright falsehoods. I was dragged to that position kicking and screaming -- but as a skeptic by nature who makes herself go where the evidence takes her, I've had no choice but to abandon Zionist myth and propaganda in favor of the best historical and definitional truths that I can determine.The Western Zeitgeist is somewhat rapidly evolving away from its strongly pro-Zionist position; this is apparent all over the digital publications, as well as Twitter. -Mona- (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I once heard that on the internet simply asserting something makes people actually believe the opposite. That being said, I would really like to read your Essay where you make the case. After all, if you once were an ardent Zionist and now aren't (as you claim) the same arguments that convinced you may - well presented - convince other people as well. As you claim to be an experienced writer, presenting your argument in a well thought out essay should not be difficult. The mob will than likely determine which of your points and refs belong into mainspace and which don't. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, if you are implying I merely "assert," is this page supposed to be footnoted and annotated? It's conversation, no? If you are looking for evidence that I can do what I say, when I arrived the Glenn Greenwald entry had no footnotes and was a fucking mess -- with a notice about needing sources and removing undocumented claims. See it now.---Mona- (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

SJW not seriously[edit]

I do not take seriously any individual who uses the abbreviation "SJW" other than ironically. Some fringe Social Stalinists exist, but that's no reason to sweepingly dismiss many valid movements and people. SJW simply means: "Someone more left than me whom I don't like." Users are lazy.---Mona- (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Poe's law, huh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe one of us should write an essay on how the left likes to tear itself into pieces over seemingly minor issues and Israel is a perennial favorite for that... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that Israel and the plight of the Palestinians is no "minor issue." The U.S. gives Israel $3.1 billion in military aid annually. That makes Americans complicit in all those F-16s and other state-of-the-art weapons that savaged Gazan refugees last summer and killed 2200, including over 500 children. Tens of thousands are maimed. Hundreds of thousands are still living in rubble. And whether there is a Dem or the GOP as president -- and no matter which party controls Congress -- the U.S. gives Israel overweening diplomatic cover everywhere, including at the UN. Yes, progressives are split on this issue; that's becasue some are PEPS: Progressive Except for Palestine.-Mona- (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no way to logically arrive at any conclusion on foreign policy - particularly not when it comes to Israel or Hamas - from the fact that one is progressive or left wing. I consider myself left wing and I hate Hamas, Hezbollah and all other parties of god (just like good ole Hitch did, even though he was an anti-Zionist); however, I am well aware that there are left wing people who are apologetic towards Hamas and Hezbollah. Most US left wing people were (and still are) against the war in Iraq, yet the Kurdish Worker's Party PKK (undeniably left wing) was largely anti-Saddam and at least tacitly welcomed the invasion. On foreign policy left wing and right wing quickly cease to have much meaning, as one sees when contrasting the foreign policy of Ron Paul and Lyndon B Johnson Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Codswallop. Left-wing people reject imperialism and colonialism, as well as apartheid. Zionism is an ideology of all three. Makes no difference what one thinks of Hamas or Hezbollah. That the African National Congress wasn't always dainty and reasonable in fighting against the apartheid in South Africa in no way buttressed the white supremacy enshrined in law. Ditto with Hamas vis-a-vis Zionism and Israel. I suggest this interview with journalist Max Blumenthal to get an idea of why a progressive can only be deeply critical of Israel and supportive of the oppressed Palestinians. Part I and Part II. -Mona- (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
no true Scotsman? And while the comparison between Apartheid South Africa and Israel is common currency among certain people, that does not mean it is correct. You cannot deny that there are genuine left wing people and movements who are supportive of Israel. Just as I cannot deny that there are genuine left wing people and movements who are supportive of Hamas; even though I'd wish there weren't... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh and an aside: RT is not considered a trustworthy source over here... Just look at the article on said institution... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The apartheid analogy refers to the situation in the West Bank through Israel's occupation and settlement policies, just want to make that clear. Arabs within Israel are citizens and generally have equal rights afforded to normal citizens. The West Bank is a whole another story. If there were no Jewish settlements outside Israel's legal borders and it was simply a military occupation of the Palestinians, then the situation could simply be called a military occupation. However, that Jewish settlements exist, and are treated under a different law than Palestinians despite living under the same military occupation in the same foreign country (which again, I want to stress that these are outside Israel's legal borders) is what warrants the apartheid comparison. Enough respected figures like Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, John Dugard, human rights groups (B'tselem), and even former Israeli intelligence members (Ami Ayalon) have made the comparison that it warrants some attention.
As far as left-wing politics go, I think Avenger makes a mistake that people on here usually do do when criticizing right-wing pundits through guilt by association. One does not need to agree with Hamas or Hezbollah' political platform nor all of its politics to believe they have a case to resist foreign occupiers/invaders like others do. Supporting one's right to self-determination does not mean you agree with everything the group or person says, so I find the argument of there being left-wing apologetics for Hamas to be a straw-man. Even if for argument's sake we accepted that left-wing policies do not jive with Islamism, keep in mind there are some nuances to groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. Unlike jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS, they are not freakish anti-nationalist groups who want to eliminate national borders and reject democracy. Hamas and Hezbollah, though jihadist, are willing to work through the political process and bow to public demand if need be. Though again they are socially conservative, Hamas and Hezbollah focused on social justice issues that many on the left would endorse to order to gain popular support, such as setting up community building (through creation of women's groups, sports clubs, setting up charities for those in poverty, among others that were not adequately addressed under secular models of development (i.e. Nasserism). That is not meant to be an endorsement of them in its entirety, but rather to provide evidence that not all Islamist groups are anti-democracy. I would however agree with Avenger on the point that political labels can be meaningless sometimes, just not restricted to foreign policy. One could make the argument that we should be defending Assad because he represents the Ba'ath Party and is a secular leader fighting against religious fundamentalists (ISIS and al-Nusra). However, this would be an insane position to take because Assad is far more oppressive than those two groups are. Besides foreign policy, one could make the argument that secularism is a left-wing position, but yet, when taken to the extent that Ataturk, Reza Khan, or France does by banning religious clothing, it more or less resembles the kind of religious fundamentalists in the Muslim world who want to cover women. Another example one could make of political labels is free trade, but that's for another discussion. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh Mona, I wouldn't recommend citing Blumenthal. Blumenthal is a fanatic anti-Zionist who wishes to eliminate the state of Israel and makes insane comparisons by comparing Israel to ISIS. I would recommend citing Finkelstein or Chonsky who though could be considered anti-Zionists from a certain perspective, are not zealots who wish to do away with the existence of Israel. Liberal Zionists who oppose the occupation, settlementa, blockade and military operations like Peter Beinart are also recommended for citation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Poisoning the well is, I assume, also fronwed on around here. Regardless of the relative merits of RT, Max Blumenthal is a first-rate journalist whose work is fact-based and accurate. You can learn much listening to and reading him. As for apartheid, the ANC has declared Israel to be an apartheid state, and I imagine they would know. Finally, the Scotsman is not involved in my discussion: Leftists in our era are anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism and anti racial supremacy. (This is both common sense and conventional wisdom that is generally true.) Except, as I alredy noted, for PEPS: Progressives Except for Palestine.---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I will cite Blumenthal a good deal. I do that because his work is meticulously researched and fact-based. I also cite Ali Abunimah. Adjectives any wish to apply to them, or objections to their hyperbole on Twitter, are irrelevant. What concerns me is their formal writing and speaking which virtually always meet high standards for accuracy and conscientiousness. End of. On a site such as this I would expect to hear objections to what they actually say or write in their formal arguments. Not ad hominems and other irrelevancies.---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

My stance on Assad and Al Nusra is that they have to go. Same with ISIS. There can be no negotiating, they are so beyond the pale that anything but their elimination as a credible fighting force is a defeat for humanism and human rights. Just like looking at the Thirty Year's War one would in hindsight wish all sides to lose (though I like to jokingly demand an apology of all Catholics in existence for Magdeburg 1631; the worst war crime prior to the 20 th century). Hamas and Hezbollah have to go. Even if one were to assume that Israel is evil and does not want peace, those groups that openly claim to be in favor of the destruction of Israel and which do have antisemtic elements in their official rhetoric and founding documents are not helping the Palestinian cause; on the contrary they provide malicious elements within Israeli military and political leadership (if such elements exist) with the perfect reason for continued war. No one in their right mind can deny that Hamas attacks Israeli civilians. No one in their right mind will reject a rationale of defending civilians out of hand. (Though many people will doubt bombing Hamas is the right way of protecting Israeli civilians, but that is not the point). Thus the mere existence of Hamas and their continued violence allows the Israeli right wing (and big parts of the left wing actually agree with this narrative) to justify military operations in Gaza, Southern Lebanon and the West Bank... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the majority of this, including attacks on Israeli civilians and the hard-line rhetoric. I ideally would like Hamas and Hezbollah to go on an ideological, anti-Islamist front and rather have a secular, left-wing party like PFLP be a major influence. However, PFLP's political influence is minimal, so I am not sure how effective they can be in the realm of politics. Removing Hamas and Hezbollah would I believe only provide fertile soil for an even more far-right Islamist group. Even Israeli intelligence have said removing Hamas isn't possible and that doing so would only worsen the situation. The only thing I disagree with here is the claim about wanting to openly destroy Israel, because I think there's more nuance here than is suggested with regards to their stance towards the two-state solution, but I will put that aside for brevity's sake. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"PEPS: Progressives Except for Palestine"? Have you ever considered the possibility that the Progressive stance is to oppose the side that openly states it will create a theocracy? CorruptUser (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Which goes to show that my adage that no stance on Israel can be necessarily derived from being left wing or right wing. There may have even been Zionist antisemites... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we're all very well aware that far from all Palestinian factions have such intentions. Hamas ≠ Palestine. (talk) 23:33, 17 August 42015 AQD (UTC) 23:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think mainstream progressives support Hamas so that's a straw man. I think the PEP is meant to refer to liberals who exonerate Israel's occupation, war crimes/mongering, policies in the territories, blockade, land expropriation, torture, and settlements, like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Alan Dershowitz, Michael Walzer, Paul Beeman among others. That is mean to say, the individuals usually engage in revisionism on both a historic, diplomatic and human rights level to provide a liberal masquerade on Israel's nationalist politics even when the actual facts say otherwise. I think it would be what Chomsky would call liberal apologists whom he criticizes for endorsing state violence committed by the US in Vietnam and Iraq with a "liberal" lense so to speak. The topic of Hamas is irrelevant in this case and a red herring to what's actually being discussed then. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
To even begin to clearly think about the Middle East and Israel-Palestine, it is essential to understand that the animus directed at Israel by many Arab nations and non-state groups directly derives from Zionism; from the founding of the State of Israel by land theft, appropriation of sacred sites, and ethnic cleansing. Jews were terrorists -- Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin were out-and-out terrorists. On wanted posters. Albert Eisnstein and Hannah Arendt called Begin a terrorist and a fascist. They did in fact kill civilian Arabs and insufficiently Zionist Jews. Moreover, Harry Truman believed that in recognizing Israel in 1948 he was flirting with WWIII -- but the problem he had is that there were then almost no Arab voters in the U.S. He wasn't wrong to be worried -- injustice will be opposed.-Mona- (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Israel is currently engaged in an on/off war with Hamas. Not with Fatah, not with "the Palestinians" not with some obscure other entity or person. And just like many left wing critics of the Vietnam War had at least some sympathy towards the Viet Cong, is it so out of the realm of possibility to assume that at least some of the critics of Israel in the current war have some sympathy for Hamas or are apologetic towards it? After all, there have been some moonbats who said stuff like that outright... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Debatable. Building settlements on someone's territory in violation of Geneva Conventions and expropriating land is probably a blatant declaration of war on a people if I ever heard. Some left-wing critics may be sympathetic to Hamas with regards to living under an occupation and having your land taken away from you, but that doesn't mean they're sympathetic to their religious orientation. There's a crucial distinction to be made in that regard. As far as religion goes, this may be complicated with regard to foreign policy. It wouldn't be the first time religion was used as a rallying cry in a war, such as Stalin's use of the Orthodox Church in the fight against the Nazi invasion, Bush's use of God to fight terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, etc. A person's use of religion in a conflict or struggle may or may not be left-wing/right-wing, depending on the context of the situation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh I agree that the settlements are a problem. Even Israel thinks they are illegal (it's, umm, complicated obviously). The hope was in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians would agree to peace and a deal could be worked out, and there would be little argument against the removal of the WB settlements. But nooope, the Salafists (Hamas) took over and kidnapped Gilad Shalit and launched a barrage of rockets. CorruptUser (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bismarck was a reactionary warmonger. Does that mean we should reject the continued existence of the German state? Robespierre was not a nice person. Does that mean we should be against the modern French state (as opposed to the feudal / absolutist monarchy it was before 1789)? Most of the founding Fathers were slave holding racists and many had unkind views of the Native Americans. For more than a century the US conducted genocidal warfare (at least according to some voices on the left in the US) against Native Americans. Does that mean we should reject the modern USA as we know it? There was recently a good Essay:Why Nationalism Is Nonsense, but I am always skeptical of people who would judge one nation by standards that they don't seem to apply to others. If the fact that some Zionist self-defense organizations in the time of the Mandate engaged in isolated acts of terrorism discredits Zionism, does the history of the founding of almost any nation in existence ever discredit the continued existence of said nation-state? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention that supporting a state for the Palestinians but NOT the Jews is blatantly racist. The reverse is probably just as racist, depending on whether you consider the Palestinians to be Arab or not. CorruptUser (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The rockets are a crime against humanity and Hamas leaders/militants should be tried for war crimes on the basis of that, but unfortunately, I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this CorruptUser, because I think you're putting a false balance between the two. I've already explained that Israel continues to occupy Gaza through control of the borders, the air-space, waters, and population registry, so Israel never left Gaza. One of Ariel Sharon's men, Dov Weivglass, admitted that the Gaza disengagement was not about peace. but instead putting the peace process on "formaldehyde", his words not mine. So negotiating with someone who admits the disengagement was about putting the peace process on the back-burner while they continue to occupy your land is, well, difficult. Also, I've already explained the context behind the war in 2007 as David Rose in VanityFair wrote. It was Fatah who were supplied by the US to overthrow Hamas, to which Hamas retaliated, not the other way around. And that's not forgetting the assassinations that sometimes precipitate rocket-fire even if we accepted the argument that occupation is benign and you're not allowed to fight back against it.
I don't disagree with the above statement on Israel's founding. I don't like it, but Israel exists, and people have to accept that period. You can't be hypocritical and deny sovereignty to one side while affirming sovereignty for the other. International law doesn't work like that. You cannot rectify the wrongs of a past with another wrong, and eliminating Israel would make things worse, not better. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Israel is NOT at war with Hamas. Israel is occupying Gaza, corralling refugees from the land it stole and walling them up in an open air prison. Israel has been committing state-sponsored terrorism and war crimes against Palestinians since 1948; prior thereto Zionists they were non-state actor terrorists. But most in the U.S. are only now beginning to hear this suppressed, truthful narrative (which many Zionists "blame" in the Internet). Moreover, Those essentially toy rockets Hamas launches are put together from whatever half-assed parts they can smuggle, to defend against one of the mos sophistication armies in the world that maintains them in a hellish prison. Israel is not the victim here. Resistance movements often commit atrocities, but that does not negate the justice of their cause nor the victim status of the Palestinians.-Mona- (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Since when do "toy" rockets have coupla kilos of explosives on board and how does firing them at civilian sectors of Israel defend them against anything? And also, since when do you let a so-called "open-air prison" basically govern itself (and say, why do the Egyptians aren't keen on opening the border, either? Also controlled by teh evel Zionists?)?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 10:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Bismarck, Germany, Founding Fathers owning slaves & etc. All irrelvant. The proper model is apartheid South Africa. The oppressed Palestinians must be allowed to either return to their ancestral homes or be significantly compensated. And, they must be made citizens and allowed to vote. The 2-state solution is dead, Israel killed it with settlements. Any one who thinks Israel could uproot those hundreds of thousand of fanatical, far-right settlers is on serious drugs. Not gonna happen. The Palestinians of Gaza and the WB on the one hand, and Jews on the other, already live in a de facto one state; an apartheid state. The thing that must be done is to end the apartheid. If anyone objects to that tell me what other realistic alternative exists that is just?-Mona- (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What do you call someone whose father or mother had to leave some place but who was born and raised in another place? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
A reasonable solution can be implemented. An arms embargo can be enacted penalizing both Israel and Hamas. And enough public pressure could compel the US and EU to force Israel to withdraw to the 67 borders. The solution the PA put up with leaving 60% of the settlers in without significantly harming the state's contiguity was also reasonable even if they legally did not have to. Two states isn't dead, but there needs to be serious pressure for it to be implemented, settlers be damned. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Terrorism. Why do I raise the issue of pre-state Zionist terorrism? Because so many want to yammer endlessly about Palestinian suicide bombings and Hamas's toy rockets as if those have anything to do with the merits of their grievances. Yitzhak Shamir innovated the letter bomb. He would become prime minster of Israel. Menachem Begin led slaughter of innocent Arabs in their villages. He would become prime minister of Israel. As long as one thinks all that pre-state terror doesn't undermine the Zionist cause, one has no logical right to cite Palestinian terrorism to undermine their just grievances. Avengerofthe BoN: That depends, I lack sufficient information to answer you question.---Mona- (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Israel is not ever going to withdraw to it's '67 borders. Ever. There is no feasible diagram for how that would happen. It's a fairy tale that diverts focus from realistic solutions and supports the status quo.-Mona- (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Let's assume for the sake of argument that my grandfather (who was born where he now still lives) was born in - say - Poznan back when it was called Posen. Would I have a claim to be called "refugee" on account of my grampa having to leave his childhood home? If yes why if no why not? Furthermore: Could I "demand" a right to return or some sort of compensation from the modern Polish state? Why? Why not?Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
To Avengers, refugees and stateless people, according to UNRWA, whose work has been praised by the international community who doesn't deny their classifications of refugees either. People can be qualify under UNRWA by applying, so I see no reason why to see they shouldn't be called refugees if they both don't have a state and a lack of a suitable home to live if a political solution hasn't been put in place that settles the refugee issue.
One-state solution won't happen. No country in the world supports that, not even Iran. And frankly, it would lead to a civil war not unlike that in 1947-1948. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
One state has already happened. Israel is an apartheid state in which Gaza is a Bantustan. There is no reversing the one-state in any feasible plan I have examined. Do you know of a realistic plan for a 2-state solution? If you wanna talk civil war try to uproot all those Israelis and settlers who live in areas outside of the '67 borders, and good luck with that.---Mona- (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A one-state solution for the Israel-Palestine thing is about as likely as a one-state solution for all constituent countries of the former British Raj. And as to your point: UNRWA is unique in their definition of refugees in that it becomes an inheritable status with them. Nobody cares if a Jew who lives in New York had grand parents who had to flee the Shoah, nor does anybody care whether my grandparents had to flee from the second world war or not. And I would say: rightly so. Personal experience can not and should not be inherited. And refugees are only those who personally flee. Just like immigrants are only those who personally immigrate. Hence that one GOP candidate is way more Canadian than he is whatever he claims to be... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Children and grandchildren are born in refugee camps. And were born on Indian reservations in the U.S. Also, Indians were compensated for what the U.S. did to them, both with land and money. And, they were made citizens and given the vote. Finally, given that Zionists almost always claim that they had long-ago forebears in what is now Israel which makes the land their ancestral homeland, it's pretty odd to hear one claim refugee status can't be inherited.---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona pretty much said what I was going to say. And it is unique because a Palestinian state has not been established, so they are still stateless, even those living in the West Bank. If the settlers don't want to move, then they should be declared citizens under the Palestinian government and the Israeli government should withdraw. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
My final comment in this sub-heading -- Prominent Israeli journalist, Bradley Burston, today threw in the towel and declared that Israel is an apartheid state. His reasons seem unassailable.-Mona- (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So basically Israel is responsible for the Palestinian refugees (and their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren) being treated like crap by the rest of the Arab world.... Seems... "legit", I guess....Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, didn't you know? For any problem in the Arab World, the Jews Israelis Zionists are to blame!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Oy vey! Velcher goy hat das wider fermasselt? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
OH KACKE DIE GOJIM HABENS RAUSGEKRIEGT MACHT DEN LADEN DICHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111EINSEINSELFELFEINS (German translation of the "The Goyim Know / Shut It Down" meme. Unfortunately, I don't know any Yiddish, my grand-parents couldn't teach it my parents. Pity that, I lost an important part of Jewish-Ashkenazi culture that way.) --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If those ignorami are to splain the meme, they need to know that "goyim" is plural. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that! The German text takes into account, that "goyim" is plural (the "die"-article here has is "plural", not feminine singular!). My knowledge of Hebrew is rudimentary at best, but I'm not that bad in it!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I was pointing at the ignorami at, not you. They say "a goyim (non-Jewish person)" when the singular is "goy" and the masculine plural ending is "-im". (Feminine plural is formed with "-it" or "-ot", but that's another story. I still do not know how to say "don't put your dick in the tea" in Hebrew, but I can say "shit mixed with yogurt", so at least I got that going for me.) CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Adon CamelCasePragmatist, ani medaber yivrit kzat yoter miklum. Chaval, eh?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ani mitzta'er, aval ani lo medaber ivrit. Shalom, CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
What does "mitzta'er" mean?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I was told "ani mitzta'er" means "I am sorry" but I don't know my alefbet, and probably transliterated it wrong. Sorry. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I also write Hebrew using a most likely wrong transliteration into Latin characters. But at least I know a few curse-words in Hebrew (they're mostly from Russian, Arabic and other languages).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So most Hebrew swearwords are actually loanwords? Well I should have guessed as much, given that it was basically a "dead" language outside of religious usage for nearly two thousand years... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Final comment, but Avenger is being intellectually dishonest here. UN Resolution 194 was set up that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes as soon as possible. However, declassified documents uncovered by Israeli historians reveal Ben-Gurion and the like were dead set against the refugees returning despite the majority of the international community supporting their right of return like other refugees (i.e. East Timor, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq, etc.). As much can be said about the annual resolution called Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question which calls for a just settlement to the refugee question that's been voted on for the past 30 years. In 1989, 151 countries voted in support while 3 countries voted against (the US, Israel, and island state of Dominica). This vote has relatively been consistent, with 164 countries voting in favor of the resolution (the entire world basically) and 7 countries against (the US, Israel, Canada, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Pauru, and Nauru). As I've stated before, this resolution has been accepted by the entire world (including the Arab World) with only 7 countries voting against? Who again is for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, including the refugee issue? For Avenger to come flat out and exonerate Israel for the refugee issue in light of the diplomatic and historic record is breathtakingly dishonest.
Nevertheless, I like to be intellectually challenged, so I will entertain the argument about the Palestinian refugees in the Arab world. It is correct that some refugees have been treated like human garbage, and this is perhaps no more prevalent than in Lebanon with restrictions on movement and the lack of general rights. The Lebanese government should be condemned for this and pushed to improve the Palestinians situation or accept them as citizens. Palestinians were recently allowed to join private jobs, but their situation could be much improved. However, Avenger takes this point and stretches it way beyond intellectually honest levels. Most of the Palestinian refugees fled to Jordan who were granted citizenship and given rights like most other people living within the area. That is not an endorsement of Jordan, but Avenger knows mentioning this would've hurt his thesis. The Syria case is complicated. Palestinians are not citizens of the state and thus cannot vote, but they have the rights accorded to most citizens and can purchase property. The onset of the Syrian Civil War however, has devastated the refugee camp of Yarmouk, and Assad should be held responsible for this and punished. Nevertheless, the situation in Syria still wouldn't compare to say Lebanon. Avenger also doesn't mention that a good portion of the refugees are still in the West Bank and Gaza especially that Israel still occupies and maintains central control of. Again, Avenger doesn't mention the restrictions on planning in Area C that impede Palestinian building nor the home demolitions nor the settlement building that keep Palestinian refugees as refugees, because this would again hurt his argument. Thanks to the blockade of Gaza, the refugees in Gaza are reduced to an unemployment rate of 43%, the worst rate among the entire world, and one could argue that their situation is worse than that of Lebanon with the restrictions on freedom of movement and the bombings they're subjected to (I believe the refugees in Gaza outnumber those in Lebanon, and considering Israel still occupies Gaza and stifles its economic development, Israel does very much hold responsibility for the plight of some refugees). NOTE: this does not include Palestinians in other parts of the Arab World who are not registered under UNRWA, involving those who fled from Kuwait during Iraqi invasion and were later expelled. The subject is Palestinian refugees in the Arab world registered under UNRWA compared to those are who not. However, the Arab World's treatment of Palestinians is still a worthy topic and I'll add some information tonight on them.
TL;DR: Rehashed arguments filled with omission and distortion needing to be debunked. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 § Voting ResultsWikipedia
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Afghanistan, Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yemen, Yugoslavia.
Bolivia, Burma, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Iran, Mexico.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't dispute what I wrote. I wrote the MAJORITY of the international community supported the resolution, and your evidence confirms this assertion for me. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Huh. So the one time the US doesn't pick Israel's side, the Soviets vote against? (talk) 21:19, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Politics is strange like that.... Israel's first major arms supplier was Czechoslovakia of all places. Reportedly some of the fighter planes included hand-me-downs from the Nazis that The ČSR had captured during the war. It has been said (can't remember by whom) that the Haganah quite literally painted a Star of David over Swastikas... Avengerofthe BoN (talk)

Arbitrary subdivision[edit]

How is any of what you said at all relevant to the question whether the grandchildren of refugees should be considered refugees? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you miss the part about Palestinian children growing up in refugee camps, conflict areas and occupied territory? Next you'll tell me you're one of those pedants that don't consider internally displaced personsWikipedia to be refugees. (talk) 21:24, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I believe I've already addressed this. Palestinians still lack a state, and as such they constitute a stateless people, as well as births in refugee camps and the lack of a conflict resolution that ensure two states. I defer to UNRWA's judgment on this. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you are born in Syria, the Syrian govenrment is responsible for you. Just the same as if you are born in Germany the German government is supposed to take care of you. If it doesn't it is the fault of said government not the people. And it is immaterial if some people are kept in "refugee camps" in Gaza. This is just part of Hamas' diabolic strategy to breed anti-semitism and than reap the "benefits" once those people are old enough to become "martyrs"... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the ole blame Hamas for everything in Gaza. Not the blockade that allows for no economic development, not the terror bombings done after assassination of Hamas militants despite Hamas upholding ceasefires as confirmed by Israeli intelligence, not the blockade that restricts chocolate/baby chicks/potato chips (how are those used for weapons again?), not the restriction on exports, not any of that. Instead, blame the people who live under an occupation for daring to fight back. How dare they?! What are they, humans?! You seem to be missing the part about governments being held responsible for expelling people from their homes. What kind of precedent is it when people are expelled from homes and dumped into your lap, and then the expellers say, sorry not my problem. That's the argument apologists use when Israel rejects African asylum seekers. "Why should we take care of them? We didn't expel them." That won't wash. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the current list of stuff, that is banned to import into Gaza from the Israeli side? And why doesn't Egypt help their Arab brethren? Is it possible, that it's cause they're trying to help their buddies from the Muslim Brotherhood stir up shit in Egypt, too? With all the aid Gaza gets, if the Hamas wouldn't use it to line their own pockets and fire rockets at Israel (aimed at the civilian sectors... or not aimed at all, which amounts to more or less the same), Gaza'd be mostly fine.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Would you like to live under a regime governed by Hamas? I know that's beside the point, but it might be food for thought... Anyway. How again does shooting rockets at civilians constitute "defense". And how again did Mahatma Gandhi (whom I dislike for being a religious anti-modernist nutcase) or Nelson Mandela reach their political goals? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The main academic book on Hamas by Khaled Hroub as well as the works of Sara Roy on Hamas' contribution of social services (establishing charities, women's groups, etc) paint a more nuanced picture. True, they're socially coservative, but I think it's inaccurate to put them in the same group as Al-Qaeda or ISIS or countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran who are far more fundamentalist. This is my approach to Hezbollah and the Islamists parties in Turkey and Tunisia. I don't like them, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to suggest they're fanatic hardline extremists. Gandhi was not against violence. His point was if a rapist is raping you and you fight back, that could count as "almost" non-violence. Much has been said about Hamas rockets, but an Israeli official basically called them "pipes". They accounted for only 15 million dollars in damage last year (compared to the damage done in Gaza with Israel who has far more precise weapons and yet kills more civilians than combatants) and usually land in open areas because of their indiscriminate nature. Mandela and the ANC were not against terrorism. A truth and reconciliation commission done at the end of apartheid affirmed that they ended up killing more civilians than military targets. I can point to the burning alive of apartheid collaborators (necklacing) and the 1983 Church Street bombing as examples. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Did either of them indiscriminately target civilians? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I answered this above. And Arisboch you're wrong on that. Because Hamas is listed as a designated terrorist organization, no aid goes to it. There are certain procedures in place which prevent that, because if the UN is giving aid to Hamas, then the UN and other groups would be guilty of supporting a terrorist group. Shin Bet estimates that only 12 to 14% of Hamas budget is spent on military, with the other part being mostly spent on social services (Council on Foreign Relations affirm this). It is morally impermissible to defend attacks on civilians. Keep in mind the attacks on civilians inside Israel only began when Baruch Goldstein launched a massacre in 1994 and Rabin decided that the settler presence in Hebron should be kept, persuading Palestinians that Israel did not give two shits about civilian casualties. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Gimme a link. You say It is morally impermissible to defend attacks on civilians- ChrisAmiss... Only to do exactly that in the next sentence (by claiming the dumbest bullshit on this page ever. Damn, Arab attacks on civilians in this area occurred, before there even was a state of Israel!!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
You misrepresent my point. My comment was meant to highlight the hypocrisy of those who condemn Hamas for attacking civilians while ignoring settler and Israel attacks on civilians even before then. There was no justification of attacks on civilians located anywhere. If you want to get into before 1994, I could discuss the First Intifada, the 1982 Lebanon invasion, the 6 day war, the massacres under Ariel Sharon, the discussion of transfer of Palestinians in order to create a Jewish majority state, the expulsion of Arab peasants thanks to colonization, etc. By attack on civilians, I meant to refer to suicide bombings. My bad on that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And another bunch of whataboutism from Chris... (the First Intifada was caused by shitty driving (you saw, how Israelis drive in general? Or how e.g. bus drivers drive in Jerusalem?), in the Six-Day war Israel got Egypt before they could get them, what kinda massacres "under Sharon" (if you're talking about the Sabra and Shatila massacre, that was Elie Hobeika and his merry band of wackos from the Kataeb Party, according to the Kahan Commission, it was incompetence rather than malice on Scharon's partWikipedia (Hanlon's razor, anyone?))??, the Israeli involvement in the 1982 Lebanon war was to kick out the PLO from there, etc). And about Baruch Goldstein, well, there is only one to blame: Baruch Goldstein (he got what he deserved right on the spot of his crime, though).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The first intifada was in response to the occupation and continued settlements of the West Bank. And the majority of it was non-violent. Remember the breaking the bones technique that Rabin gave to the IDF? You're wrong on the 6-Day War. Nasser was not going to attack Israel and posed no danger. Even if Nasser did attack, Lyndon Johnson was frank enough to say to Abba Eban that "you'd whip the hell out of them". All US intelligence affirms that Nasser posed not threat to Israel and that even if he did, he would've got trounced (which is what happened anyway). I was talking about the Qibya massacre in the 50's, but if you want to talk about Sabra and Shatila, you grossly misrepresent what the findings were. It was not "incompetence" as you put it, but they were held personally responsible. The IDF was witnessing what was going on from observation posts, and did nothing. They fired illuminating flares and could see what was happening. That's not incompetence, that's letting a bloodshed happen after they were the ones who themselves sent the Phalange in to do the dirty work. The Israeli invasion of 1982 indeed was to kick-out the PLO, but for different reasons, namely to forestall a Palestinian peace offensive as political scientist Avner Yaniv puts it and to consolidate its control of the West Bank/Gaza. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
About the Six-Day War, I call bullshit and not only IWikipedia, about what kinda "peace initiative" you talking about (smells like conspiracy theories to me), the "dirty job" they were supposed to do was to remove any PLO fighters from that area, not fucking shooting everything that moves (and according to the commission he was personally... indirectly responsible (read the Wikipedia-articleWikipedia))?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
You have a right to an opinion regarding Israel's conduct in the 6 Day War, but you're not entitled to your own facts. I'll give you a couple of quotes from US intelligence before you start throwing the bullshit term around. It's a long read but bear with me if you want to learn about the war. You can find this in the 19th volume of the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War.
CIA Appraisal on May 25: "In our view, UAR [Egyptian] military dispositions in Sinai are defensive in character . . . .The steps taken thus far by [other] Arab armies do not prove that the Arabs intend an all-out attack on Israel. . . . In sum, we believe these are merely gestures which all Arab states feel compelled to make in the interests of the fiction of Arab unity, but have little military utility in a conflict with Israel."
General Earle Wheeler, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff on May 26: "The UAR’s dispositions are defensive and do not look as if they are preparatory to an invasion of Israel. . . . [T]here was no indication that the Egyptians would attack. If the UAR moved, it would give up its defensive positions in the Sinai for little advantage."
CIA's Board of Estimates on May 26: "Clearly Nasser has won the first round. It is possible that [Nasser] may seek a military show- down with Israel, designed to settle the whole problem once and for all. This seems to us highly unlikely. . . . The most likely course seems to be for Nasser to hold to his present winnings as long as he can, and in as full measure as he can".
Even if the Arabs attacked, they were not prepared to do so, rendering the case of an aggressive war against Israel stupid. Consider the US estimates on the balances of forces leading up to the war. The CIA mentioned on May 23: "Israeli ground forces “can maintain internal security, defend successfully against simultaneous Arab attacks on all fronts, launch limited attacks simultaneously on all fronts, or hold on any three fronts while mounting successfully a major offensive on the fourth.” In the air, the judgment is less clear: the Israelis “probably could defeat the Egyptian air force if Israel’s air facilities were not damaged beyond repair.”"
General Wheeler, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff on May 26: "[If Egypt attacked first, Wheeler] believed that Israelis would win air superiority. The UAR would lose a lot of aircraft. Israel’s military philosophy is to gain tactical surprise by striking airfields first but [Wheeler] believes this is not essential to Israel’s gaining air supremacy. "
CIA on May 26: "Israel could almost certainly attain air superiority over the Sinai Peninsula in 24 hours after taking the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first. In the latter case, Israel might lose up to half of its air force. We estimate that armored striking forces could breach the UAR’s double defense line in the Sinai within several days. Regrouping and resupplying would be required before the Israelis could initiate further attacks aimed at driving to the Suez Canal. Israel could contain any attacks by Syria or Jordan during this period."
Secretary of Defense McNamara on June 2: "Secretary McNamara said that the Israelis felt that they could start hostilities now or a week from now and prevail. They believe their capabilities are perishable as time goes on, but Secretary McNamara thought they could delay from 2-4 weeks and still accomplish their military objective. . . . Secretary McNamara said Israelis think they can win in 3-4 days; but he thinks it would be longer—7-10 days."
National Security Council on June 3: "By a delay of one week—28 May to 4 June—the Arabs have made a net military gain if war should now occur. The ultimate outcome . . . would be unchanged. Israel would still win. . . . If war outbreak were delayed one more week— to 11 June, the Israeli military position would probably deteriorate further, but at a slower rate. . . . After 11 June, the military balance would not change until the economic effects of mobilization began to affect military posture. . . . I conclude that Israeli concern about delaying a war which they fear is inevitable is based primarily on their concern about a deterioration in their political and diplomatic position rather than on military factors." ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, what is that supposed to prove? That the CIA thought, that the Arabs wouldn't attack and if they would, the Israelis could kick their asses? Well, they did so before being attacked. Tell the CIA to send that kind of enlightening tidbits from their super-secret meetings a lil earlier so the Israelis could learn from their great wisdom ... of not being hit on the head by Berlin Wall bricks (*warning, sarcasm*).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 01:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Israel was the one who launched a pre-emptive attack on Egypt and Syria, and even they don't deny this, so you're wrong on that account. The Israeli intelligence came forward and said our intelligence isn't different from yours (the US), and given the evidence I cited above, that would refute the idea of Israel being in moral peril. Sharon himself acknowledged attacking Nasser was about restoring Israel's deterrence capacity. Also, read again: Secretary McNamara said that the Israelis felt that they could start hostilities now or a week from now and prevail. Why would McNamara state that Israel feels it could start hostilities now? Why is McNamara saying the Israelis themselves feel they could prevail? Was he duped by some anti-Zionist conspiracy? *sarcasm* Could it be that the aggressor in this conflict was...ahem Israel? Or would that be antisemitic since Israel cannot possibly be criticized for anything nor do anything wrong without token acknowledgement of crimes other countries commit? Isn't that a double standard Israel itself is exerting? Again, try to read: [T]here was no indication that the Egyptians would attack. If the UAR moved, it would give up its defensive positions in the Sinai for little advantage. You can either believe what the Israeli government says, or you can believe the US intelligence agencies (who as I said, had the same intelligence reports as Israel did) who don't have a self-serving stake in the matter. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course it was pre-emptive. Hit them before they hit you and that's what Israel did. And what kinda "same intelligence reports" are you talking about?? And please give me Ariel Sharon's exact words. And tell the CIA to share such wonderful tidbits in advance, so... well, see above.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
That's called aggression when you both attack and lack a legitimate case of an imminent attack from the enemy, about as convincing as the US saying Saddam was going to attack with WMD's. Every country who launches a conquest argues it's making a pre-emptive attack. I can't believe you don't see that. As for intelligence reports, even the apologetic hack Michael Oren himself notes in his book Six Days of War that U.S. intelligence predicted “the IDF would win a war in two weeks even if attacked on three fronts simultaneously—one week if Israel shot first,” and that Israeli intelligence “agreed entirely” with these American forecasts (his quotes, not mine). There are more comments from Oren's book that merit notice: Foreign Minister Abba Eban himself informed U.S. officials that “Israel believed its forces would win and . . . that the balance of power had not been shifted by deployment of the last few days.” Also Divisional Commander Ariel Sharon at that time declared, “The army is ready as never before to repel an Egyptian attack . . . to wipe out the Egyptian army.” Mossad chief Amit also assured prime minister Levi Eshkol that “If [Nasser] strikes first, he’s finished,” and he told U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that “the war would be over in two days.” I don't have all the page numbers with me, but they fall around 100-160.
Ariel Sharon's quote (“deterrence capability . . . our main weapon—the fear of us,” in reference to IDF and government members who were hesitant for Israel to launch an attack) can be found in Tom Segev's book 1967 on page 293. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
(fucking EC...) OK, they all believed, that Israel could kick Egypt's ass. So? All these quotes do not say anything about how fucking peaceful Nasser will be and the author (or you, I don't care) apparently quote-mined Eban, cause, according to that thing here, said the following afterwards: "[...]Under the best of circumstances casualties would be great and Israel's urban areas were open to devastation.[...]". S Yes, it would be fucking dandy, if Egypt attacked and Israel just stood there with their thumbs up their asses instead of striking them before they could strike them (Look at what e.g. the Agranat Commission said about the Yom Kippur War later).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
NASSER WAS NOT GOING TO ATTACK. JESUS CHRIST. IF HE WAS GOING TO ATTACK, WHY DIDN'T HE? Fucking Oren admits, "By all reports Israel received from the Americans, and according to its own intelligence, Nasser had no interest in bloodshed”. Fuck, even Begin said Nasser's troop concentrations were not proof of an attack. Begin said in 1982 (you can find this on Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website), "In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Also, the only one who quote mined was you, read again: "Mr. McNamara went on then to say, however, that Israel should realize that an Israeli attack under present circumstances would have most serious consequences. We cannot undertake to support Israel if Israel launches an attack. He said that the U.S. agreed with the Israeli view that Israel would prevail in a conflict, even if hostilities were initiated by Egypt, and that the issue before us should not be a preemptive attack by Israel but how to prevent hostilities." And this: "General Wheeler restated the American view of Israel's military superiority and said that, although we recognize that casualties would be greater than in 1948 and 1956, Israel would prevail. He went on to observe that as far as the ground situation was concerned, if the Egyptians came out of their prepared positions to attack they would be at a further disadvantage". There was no quote mine on my part. When Eban was pressed on how he was attempting to deceive the Americans that the attack was imminent, he conceded this point and as such the quote is a crucial caveat that should not be overlooked. What you are quoting is a self-serving statement by Eban posed to the Americans to secure their support and get a green light to conduct a strike. Even if casualties were higher for argument's sake, Israel would still win regardless in a few number of days, and the Israelis admit this as I noted above. What aren't you understanding about this? How many documents do I need to show to you? ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
ARGUMENT FROM UPPERCASE? Nice one, Chriss, really nice... And btw, I found what Begin said after that:
This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back (on Nasser's own territory, lulz), and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation (aka, land expansion).

We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary. While it is indeed true that the closing of the Straits of Tiran was an act of aggression, a causus belli, there is always room for a great deal of consideration as to whether it is necessary to make a causus into a bellum.

And so there were three wars with no alternative - the War of Independence, the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War - and it is our misfortunate that our wars have been so. If in the two other wars, the wars of choice - the Sinai Campaign and the Six Day War - we had losses like those in the no alternative wars, we would have been left today with few of our best youth, without the strength to withstand the Arab world.
—Menachem Begin, 55 Address by Prime Minister Begin at the National Defense College- 8 August 1982
And you quote "General Wheeler restated the American view of Israel's military superiority and said that, although we recognize that casualties would be greater than in 1948 and 1956, Israel would prevail." Israel was obviously unwilling to have these casualties...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Then why did it attack and why was it not concerned that Nasser posed a threat? BTW, Israel does have a doctrine (Hannibal Directive) of endangering a soldier's life to prevent his or her capture. And that's not even including the IDF assassinations which almost inevitably provoke a retaliation. The quote you mentioned still doesn't refute what I said. If anything, it only adds to my argument. Begin is basically saying at the end that we had to attack to ensure our military strength over the Arab World, aka, a blatant example of aggression. I am highlighting crucial caveats in Begin's quote above. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (Kuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurwa[1], again EC!!) Your so-called "caveats" are products of your own fantasy, since e.g. Israel did give the Sinai back and pulled out of Gaza. They did give land up and got from Egyptians a peace agreement in return and from the Hamas rockets in return.
Israel is not Russia, it doesn't have ton of retreat area, in fact, it has almost none, so it has to carry the battle to the enemy or else it is very history very fast.
Being stronger than your enemies is not aggression, it is survival (and if your enemies stop being your enemies, it's even better, as was the case with Egypt and Jordan).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hardly. Golda Meir said the areas in the Sinai were strategic. It was only from an Egyptian attack on people OCCUPYING their own territory in 1973 that gave Israel a surprise and along with it the international community asking Israel to formally withdraw did Israel bow. And even then, Begin suckered Sadat because giving up the Sinai allowed him to build settlements throughout the West Bank to a much greater extent. I already addressed the point about Gaza being not about peace, but putting the peace process on "formaldehyde" and consolidating the separation of the Gaza from the West Bank, so I see no need to press further.
This is bullshit paranoia. Israel is a regional superpower, and in each of its wars, its forces have far out numbered opposing armies. Even in the 48 war, the greatest Arab force in Trans-Jordan colluded with Israel in secret to annex the West Bank. It is the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. Israel's need for alleged self-defense and security is driven purely by the arrogance and folly of its leaders who think they can muscle the surrounding Arabs into subservience. If Israel's existence was truly in danger, it could come to the US/Jordan/Egypt for help or nuke the whole ME.
Attacking your alleged enemies (who are only your enemies because you attack them) without any imminent case of danger to show your strength is aggression. Kicking someone's ass to prove you're the better fighter makes you a bully, not someone fighting for survival. The only one who's exhibiting products of his own fantasy is you, because evidently, might makes right. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea, how giving up land translates into being able to build settlements in the West Bank (and why Sadat would even give a shit about the West Bank?).
Yes, hoping for the US to bail them out was, what the Ukrainians thought, too, and look where it did get them. And Taiwan also can tell you tales about how fickle things such as "international law" and "recognition" can be, cause via removing recognition, Taiwan was demoted from being a country into being a part of Red China in the eyes of the so-called "international community" and the position of the US is, that Taiwan is a part of China, that China shouldn't attack Taiwan, Taiwan shouldn't declare itself independent more officially and that the US would defend Taiwan, so, if you go by the One-China-doctrine, the US doesn't want China to attack China, China not declaring independence from China and defend China against China? Dandy, eh? And no, I don't believe, that the US will betray Israel any time soon (people claiming Obama to be anti-Israel or some such shit are talking bullshit) or even at any point in time I can see from now, but better being safe than sorry dead, right?
"Might makes right"? Are we talking about so-called International Law vs what's really going on in international politics again? Is the discussion again going Ouroboros (eating it's own tail)? Probably I should take the advice of the Fake-BoN (that is by no means intended to be an insult to you, I just can't memorize an IP-address-name and I'm too lazy to scroll down for copy+paste) below and get out of this clown car and only come back, when you try to monkey around with the article).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 12:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
In the Yom Kippur War, Israel was surprise attacked and for toom many hours, even days, it was once again alone in the world. Israel learned two things from Yom Kippur: That it cannot hope to steamroll everybody else in a surprise attack and that it cannot hope for help even if clearly the attacked party. Thus we got the "peace of necessity" with Egypt and later Jordan. Of course Israel had always extended both arms for peace with the Arab world, but until Sadat came around (who paid for it with his life) there was no rethoric in the Arab world but of the "evul Juice". Israels nuclear capabilities are intended in a similar vein. If Jews should be marked for extermination once more and killed, the world shall at least pay a dear price for doing it and once again not coming to their help. The nuclear weapons have scant offensive value and are not good at deterring religious nutcases who belief in the second coming of the mahdi on a flying horse with 72 virgins and Lord Xenu... (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Meir said holding onto the Sinai was strategic at one point. Sadat wanted to press for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, but Begin used the terms of 1978 peace treaty to conduct a separate peace treaty with Egypt rather than a full withdrawal from Arab lands, and that's why Sadat came to be seen as a traitor in the Arab world. And increasing the settlements was what happened anyway. Israel likes to play by distraction. Netanyahu mentioned in 1989 that Israel should've taken the opportunity to cleanse the Palestinians when the world was focused on the Square Massacre in China.
I do not see how Ukraine or Taiwan factors into this discussion because they do not share the same special relationship with Israel like the US does, nor are they areas where the US has strategic interests (unlike the Middle East). Israel received more military aid than both and usually is helped by the US on the diplomatic level, so I fail to see how this is relevant.
You apologists are full of shit. The Yom Kippur War was not as dastardly or surprising as you out. As military historian Zeev Maoz puts it, the war was entirely preventable had Israel took the diplomatic gesture offered by Sadat in 1971 of a peace treaty. That Israel did not shut the possibility of a diplomatic solution and led to the war. And as I've explained and which people above don't seem to deny, the attacks were directed against occupying forces rather than Israel itself. The only thing being threatened was Israel's occupation snd settlements (illegal again) in the Sinai, not Israel itself. And the world community die not come to Israel's help because, well, they did not see Egypt as an aggressor (unless they attacked Israel proper of course). You can't claim to defend yourself against the nation you're occupying and building settlements on, unless of course you believe Israel has the God given, Biblical historical right to do so.
Again paranoid bullshit that doesn't match reality. The Arab World has long acquiesced to Israel's existence for the better part of some 40 years. As I've stated before, in the UNGA resolutiobservant and the Geneva Accords, the Arab World has accepted two states. But no, keep bringing in conspiracy theories about how those pesky Arabs want all Jews dead *sarcasm*
Considering the original topic was the 6 Day War that Israel started and yet for some reason shifted to the Yom Kippur war 6 years later, I'm guessing changing the subject was necessary on the apologists part to deflect attention from the act of aggression in 1967.

ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering Israel openly stated that it would take the closing of the gulf of Aqaba as grounds for war, the aggressor new what they were doing when they shut the Gulf of Aqaba. Just like the South knew what they were doing when they shot on Fort Sumter. Also resuming hostilities if a state of war already would - if we are really technical about it - not be considered "starting a war" in the letter of international law. As for the peace initiative: Whom are you going to believe? Decades of propaganda and the "triple no" of Khartoum (no negotiation, no recognition, no peace) or some parvenu who just got the presidency of Egypt handed to him making cryptic allusions? Remember, losing a war is not an option.... And your distinction between "occupied" land "Israel proper" is meaningless, at least it was at the time, as no party of the conflict had any official definitions of what any such thing meant. Israel did not and still does not define its borders in the constitution (though several "basic laws" clear up important bits like the fact that Jerusalem is not and should not be divisible). The Arab aggressors on the other hand still openly stated the whole existence of Israel to be - let's use a biblical term - an abomination. Hence Israel was justified in assuming that any attack upon any territory under its de facto control was equal to an attack on Jerusalem or Tel Aviv itself... Do you think the US would take differently to the US Virgin Islands being attacked than to Maine being attacked? Actually, we got precedence for that one: at the time of Pearl Harbor (a date which will live in infamy), Hawaii was not a state yet... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is admittedly just a guess, but I'd think the Americans were more upset about losing most of their battlefleet in a Japanese sneak attack than the fact it happened on Hawaii. If Japan had launched a couple missiles at a largely uninhabited pacific island officially part of US territory, you think they would've responded the same way? (talk) 23:08, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well if we are guessing anyway, I'd say, the US were outraged (and justifiedly so) as they were attacked by a country they believed themselves to be at peace with. I guess if someone were to sink the Russian fleet in Sevastopol today (which was there prior to 2014), Russia would react the same way as if it were an attack on Moscow. Probably for the fact that they were deliberately attacked, presumably by a country they believed themselves at peace with... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, gross ommission. Israeli leaders in private salvated the possibly of taking Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Southern Lebanon, Gaza, and the Sinai long before the 6 day war. Indeed, Ben Gurion lamented that the mistake of 1948 was not finishing the territorial fulfillment of the state of Israel. You can read this in Tom Segev's book 1967. Plus Israeli leaders in a cabinet meeting stated in Mid May that they were going to attack Egypt and Syria, which is why Egypt put it's troops at the border as a defensive measure (as acknowledged by US intelligence agencies), refuting your flawed stance on the war. Even Israeli leaders in private dismissed the blockade as symbolic rather than an act of war. Most independent observers like U Thant and Odd Bull held that Israel was trying to change facts on the ground to its liking, even Moshe Dayan admitted he entered tractors into DMZs to provoke a Syrian attack and use it as a casus belli to attack Syria. Try actually reading what the US intelligence agencies said before ranting how Israel acted defensively, because you're exhibiting a gross ignorance of the situation. Is it really decades of propaganda, or is it information you don't like because you're an apologist for Israel's territorial expansion? It's fine when Israel does it, but when Arabs do it, it's aggression (a hypocritical double standard in itself). And you're wrong again, UN resolution 242 stated very explicitly that it is inadmissible to acquire a territory by war and Israel should fully withdraw. The countries did not wish to vote on it Unless the inadmissible clause was included. So Israel knew regardless of its borders that it was breaking the inadmissibility clause. And don't try to weasel your way out of it. Saying your borders aren't defined is really just saying we can expand our territory as we please. The Arab states did not recognize Israel, that is correct, but they acquiesced to its existence and cared about their own problems moreso. Anyone who says someone who expands their territory is acting defensively is full of shit. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Arab states care more about their own problems than about Israel? Don't be ridiculous. At any time Arab leaders think there is even a remote chance they can get away with it they blame Israel (or Jews, they don't differentiate all that much) or in some cases the US for all ills in the world, especially the Arab world. Antisemitic television in the Arab world is the rule rather than the exception. But of course all this is irrelevant, because of... reasons. What would you think if the only demonstrations allowed in Israel were calling for Arab blood? What would you think if Israeli TV ran series after series on how the Arabs are an evil in the world with ritual child murder and the whole shebang? And as to your point about the supposed evil Zionist masterplan to conquer the territory the Jews were promised in 1920... Well I don't know whether you ever heard of a small stretch of land called Alsace (or Elsaß in German); you see, it was taken by force with bogus rationalizations under Louis XIV. In the Napoleonic war, France took even more land (again by force) and while these conquests were turned back at the Congress of Vienna (as if any such thing was theirs to give), Alsace stayed under French rule. Than happened the war of 1870/71 were blame rests on both parties as both wanted war, but ultimate guilt may well be French. Alsace was taken by France and for the next forty-odd years France had one purpose and one purpose only (as it was said back than "always think of it never speak of it"): retaking Alsace. Well their masterplan finally came to fruition when Germany was stupid enough to declare war on France in 1914. And guess what: What goes a round comes around and 1919 in Versailles (as if such a thing was theirs to give) France was given Alsace. So there is ample precedent for territory being taken by force, even among "civilized" nations (and I don't even have to go to Austria-Hungary or Poland for that) yet if the same thing happens with Israeli involvement... Well, you know the drill... Stupid question: Is Alta California (claimed by the US as the state of California) currently illegally occupied by the US and is it an apartheid state as part of the Latino community is not treated the same and has to do menial jobs in the field? Should it be "given back" to Mexico? Or should there be a "Latino state" in the Southern US? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you at least conceded my point that you're okay with Israeli expansionism on the basis of civilized nations doing it. If Israel does it, it's okay, but if an Arab state wants to eliminate Israel or conquer it, that's bad. So no further need to highlight the hypocrisy on your part. As I've said before, this is the 21st century. This is not the 20th century where Axis countries can do as they please. There are standards to be followed, and if you don't like it, don't do it then, otherwise you're going to receive criticism for it like Saddam did for annexing Kuwait or Russia annexing Crimea. As for the 1920s and beyond, Ben Gurion himself said he wanted the land of Israel in its "entirety" regardless of partition and he wrote a letter to his son that a Jewish state was not an end, but a "beginning". That may not jive with you, but that's in the history books. As far as the Arab states go, several of them have actually pretty moderate criticism of Israel and the US. But nope, you want to cherry pick to show how EVULLLL those Arabs are. And if we're being honest, remember the Israeli people on the hill celebrating the bombing of Gaza last year? Remember Ariel Sharon calling his operation of bombing Gaza city (that killed over 10 civilians including children) a great success? Remember the Likud charter that says there shall be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan river? Remember the pseudo history on the part of the Israeli press to say Palestinians use human shields (despite no human rights organization confirming this )? Or is it possible that Jews can never do wrong? The Arabs can never have legitimate grievances because they're not Jews. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. That was the 19th century. You know what youre saying is wrong if you appeal to the past to justify it, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The US isn't stationing troops in California nor are they demolishing homes to make way for Jewish settlements. Either way you know you're being intellectually dishonest here, or you're a guillible person who accepts anything Israel says at face value, which makes you a propagandist. ChrisAmiss (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait there are no US troops in California? Guys I found their week point! Attack![2] And sure as hell there are homes being demolished in California. Usually to make way for more interstates and airports. Which no Californian ever uses. You know what? The more I try to dig for the absurdity of my absurd statement the more they sound like "legitimate" grievances.... And you still have not addressed what is allowed to air on the highly censored Arab TV stations. More than once have Arabs uttered legitimate grievances that were unrelated to Israel. The result were mass jailings, executions and a tighter grip of censorship all while the dictators leaders of the Arab world proclaimed that nothing could be achieved unless the "occupation" was solved first. Which is ridiculous on the face of it given how far away most Arab countries actually are from Israel. During the Al Quds day in Tehran the masses have to shout "we give our lives and blood for Jerusalem". During the 2009 protests the Iranian youth said: "we don't want to give our live for Jerusalem. We only give our live for Iran." Of course soon after that they were shot at and jailed and tortured, all while the US and Europe watched and pretended nothing happened. Just six years later - with no change in the regime (Khamenei is still big boss) - Iran suddenly becomes an "important partner for peace and stability". No more. Force all Arab nations to sign peace treaties and official recognition with Israel. Through sanctions, support for the democratic opposition or whatever it takes short of war. Than the whole house of cards of Arab despotism will fall, as the convenient scapegoat of Israel is unavailable. But of course all problems any Muslim ever had are caused either by Israel or by Islamophobia Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Umm, claiming my pedant's privilege here... there are US troops stationed in California, which the local natives call "fungus among us." I have personally seen Fort Ord, the Presidio of Monterey, and parts of the naval base in Coronado. Can't say what the current level of rowdiness hostility is, though. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
You know what I mean. You can't occupy your own territory (I mean US here) Israel is occupying a foreign territory that it captured in a war and has much of the army stationed in majority of the West Bank as well as a siege on Gaza. Are we really going to debate whether Israel is actually occupying the Palestinian territories? Are we really going to enter Flat Earth territory where we deny that there's an occupation? I think some criticism of Israel may go over the top (like the HR situation of Israel proper and using Nazi analogies), but when we begin questioning whether there's an occupation, we're entering woo territory. ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
How is the territory the US took from Mexico "their own" territory in your world? I thought you cannot ever take land by force? And what if Israel were to unilaterally annex the West Bank and integrate it into their mainland in a similar limbo status as Puerto Rico currently is in - give it some limited self government (though as we can see with Puerto Rico right now lacking some pretty important abilities a government usually has[3]) and invent some reason for why the people there totally cannot vote in national elections for.... reasons. Than it would all be okay, because as per your definition you cannot occupy your own territory. And if the US does it to Puerto Rico (and I don't see you organizing marches to "free Puerto Rico") it cannot be so bad. And I am still saying: If one says A about a piece of land and another says B it is by definition disputed territory, nothing else. What I am not denying is that Israel currently maintains some military and police capabilities in part of said disputed territory, though notably not Gaza (making it not currently occupied by Israel by any sane definition - or would you say West Berlin was occupied by the GDR because they maintained a pretty weak semi-blockade?) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, as I repeatedly stated, this is not the 19th century where land can be taken permanently without recourse. For example, although I don't like the fact that Israel expanded its terigory beyond the partition plan of 1947, nevertheless I realize that is irreversible and Israel has sovereignty over six areas. Again, I want to stress, we are not in the 19th or early 20th century anymotr. You cannot take land by force with accordance of international law, and this doesn't just apply to Israel, but Russia, Turkey, Morocco, Iraq, ISIS (with what it claims today). This has been frowned upon ever since the actions of the Axis powers during WWII. The Puerto Rico is a false analogy because the circumstances and context of it do not compare our Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, so I do not need to press further on that because you know those examples are not the same. It really doesn't. If that were the case, in the most extreme of cases, pan-Islamists like Al Qaeda or the Third Reich could argue that the land they conquer is disputed. The same goes for Hamas according to that logic, because the could argue that Israel's existence is disputed, which is something you'd never be comfortable with. I will not press further about Gaza, because most sane people recognize it as occupied, except by Israel and its apologists of course. Israel has Gaza occupied according to all legal definitions of "effective control". Your issue is with the law. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Except the land was taken from Egypt and Jordan, and both of those countries have given up their claims of the land lost (and Egypt got the overwhelming majority back). CorruptUser (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
And what does that change with regard to Israel's occupation? The Egyptian and Jordanian occupations were illegal, but that doesn't make the Israeli occupation any more legal. And if we're being honest about whether it's disputed territory on the basis that some Zionists argue that Palestinians "never had a state", keep in mind Palestinians could argue that we should revert back to the 1947 borders because Israel illegally expanded its land beyond the partition boundaries by annexing parts of the Arab state and that the true Palestinian state should follow what was recommended in the partition plan on the basis that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. No sane person would recommend this, and no Israeli or Jewish person for that matter would either. I will cite the ICJ ruling because apparently some people think it's okay that Palestinians should receive less than 22% of the land for their state: "The Court determines the rules and principles of international law which are relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly. The Court begins by citing, with reference to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and to General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), the principles of the prohibition of the threat or use of force and the illegality of any territorial acquisition by such means, as reflected in customary international law" (Source:
Consider what Theodor Meron, legal counsel to the Israeli foreign ministry, stated in an opinion to prime minister Levi Eskhol, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention". ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, even Israel thinks the WB settlements are illegal and should go. That's kind of what the whole pullout of Gaza was supposed to do; settlements go, Palestinians agree to peace, roadmap to utopia or whatever. From there, Israel could negotiate a withdrawal of the WB settlements (in the territory that wasn't annexed), slowly grant the PA more authority, and eventually let it go independent; the right-wing arguments of "oh we aren't trading land for peace, only hastening our deaths" would fall flat when they could say "but we withdrew from Gaza and they love us now, they really are trying to live in peace". Instead, well, you know. But this isn't some philosophy course about ethics, this is the real world. It's about what you get in exchange for your actions.

And don't repeat "22% of the land" while ignoring the context; virtually all the holy sites are in one part of the WB or another, and most of the rest of Israel is desert. CorruptUser (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

CorruptUser, I thought I already explained the purpose of the Gaza disengagement, which was to put the peace process on "formaldehyde", as Dov Weissglass put it in 2004. And Gaza is still occupied, I don't know how many times I have to state this without losing my mind.
But doesn't Israel make the desert "bloom"? Part of the Palestinian opposition to the partition plan in 1947 included not just the fact that 2/3's of the population had 56% of their land given to a minority as part of the Jewish state, but also because the land of the Jewish state included the coastal plains (see Walid Khalidi's article in 1997 on this). The West Bank has the Judean desert, and many of the settlements have been established on desert, so that don't wash. There are also communities that live in the Negev. A country's portion of a land being desert doesn't give a right to take it by force. Should Mexico decide to annex Arizona because some parts of it are desert?
Virtually? I guess all the synagogues, mosques, and churches in Israel just disappeared, my bad. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Please give a definition of "occupied" that includes Gaza but excludes territories like Northern Cyprus, Taiwan, West Berlin (1961-1989), North Korea and Puerto Rico. Also, are the Falklands currently or were they ever occupied? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the countries I listed above? I listed Turkey because it occupies Northern Cyprus, but okay here I go: ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-arbitrary subdivision for clarity[edit]

Not all countries practice jus soli and even those that generally do don't always recognize children of illegal immigrants or people staying in the country under special conditions (refugees/asylum seekers) as legitimate claimants to citizenship. On top of that, not all regions of the planet have been properly managed by a government throughout human history. For a non-Palestinian example, what government were Somalian refugees supposed to turn to when the conflict in the region was at its height? In many areas, there was no effective government. (talk) 22:01, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I am sorry but that is a non-sequitur. All countries in the world are responsible for refugees that have to flee. Sadly enough usually only a small number accept them. Often for their own gain. Be it the case of the Huguenots of the 17th century (who were accepted by Prussia for being rich) or the German refugees of the 20th century (who were accepted by Germany for being "German"). But once you have accepted refugees into your country, they and their children and grandchildren become your responsibility and yours alone. Period. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless the infallible Pope UNRWA says otherwise *folding hands in prayer*.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Which part is a non-sequitur? And while it'd be nice for countries to take proper responsibility for refugees that end up on their territory, sadly, one person on the internet deciding how things should be done has even less influence on such matters than current intergovernmental organizations do. (talk) 22:39, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I should note that refugee problems are not as simple as portrayed and the situation is morally complicated. On the one hand, it's a liberal position to allow citizenship for refugees. On the other, to do so would mean massive, MASSIVE changes to the labor force with negative effects on current workers, which from a liberal perspective may do some harm. This is why countries allow a certain quota of refugees from war torn areas like Syria (Turkey is home to 2 million refugees snd they decided that was enough) and stop there. Some countries even launch wars because of refugee problems, that was one of Saddam's insane justifications for attacking Iran because they were allowing too many Kurdish refugees in violation of the 1975 Algiers agreement ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
[Previous text removed] Nvm, I have looked into the situation more and it seems Israel may be the problem here. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Guerilla army =/= human shields. Human shields entails a coercive element in which you deliberately force people into shielding a military post for attack. If that were the case, tyrants like Assad and Saddam could argue that their opposition is using human shields because they're fighting guerilla rebels/separatists.
Here's what Amnesty had to say during OCL: "fighting in urban areas per se is not a violation of international humanitarian law, but the parties involved in the conduct of hostilities in an urban setting have an obligation to distinguish, and to ensure to the best of their ability, that their attacks only target military objects. Israeli forces have at their disposal a range of high-precision weapons capable of pinpoint targeting—within a meter—and recklessly attacking civilians or civilian objects simply because they are in the vicinity of fighters or other military targets cannot be justified (emphasis in bold)." (from 22 Days of Death and Destruction)
Also, here's Amnesty again highlighting the irony when issuing its recent reports on Hamas war crimes: "In Ashkelon, Sderot, Be’er Sheva and other cities in the south of Israel, as well as elsewhere in the country, military bases and other installations are located in or around residential areas, including kibbutzim and villages, [. . .] During Operation Protective Edge, there were more Israeli military positions and activities than usual close to civilian areas in the south of Israel, and Israeli forces launched daily artillery and other attacks into Gaza from these areas along Gaza’s perimeter". (From Unlawful and deadly Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict) Israel has far more open spaces than Gaza, which is very densely populated and which Human Rights Watch acknowledges, is "scarce" of open areas. Can't it then said that Hamas is only launching rockets into Israel not to incite terror, but because Israel is setting up its military bases in civilian areas? Why does Israel get off for it, but not Hamas?
P.S.: IDF is not a reliable source, and those videos could easily be buildings devoid/emptied of civilians regardless of the proximity, so the video proves nothing. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
UNRWA. Why is the UNRWA's opinion on Israel's ruthless attacks simply discounted? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Because accepting its opinion would clash with the Israel apologists' pre-made assumptions. (talk) 05:34, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
UNRWA was set up for one goal only: "deal with" Palestinian refugees. As we all know, bureaucracies tend to be self-sustaining and don't like the reason for their existence being called into question. Hence it is in the best interest of UNRWA for their to be as many Palestinian "refugees" as possible. If need be by inventing them or changing the definition of the term "refugee" willy-nilly. After all, would you call the descendant who fled the war in Afghanistan launched by the British in the 19th century to be "refugees" who have a "right of return"? At what point and after how many generations does one cease to be a refugee? How "pure-blooded" must one be? Is it sufficient to have one refugee grandparent? Do it have to be two? three? All of them? (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Righttttttt. UNRWA is just faking the number of refugees for shits and giggles. Never mind that its work has been praised by Kofi Annan, the UN, US, snd other parts of the Western World who tend to be more sympathetic to Israel than deserved. I'm not sure why you take issue with that since the whole basis of Zionism was for refugees and their descendents to return to their homeland they lost 2000 years ago. Unless of course you think Jews have a right to return to their homeland as refugees and Palestinians do not, which is just so hypocritical it doesn't merit an explanation. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Why're the Palestinians the only ones with an inheritable refugee status according to the UN??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This has already been addressed (born in refugee camps, statelessness, etc). Plus it's not necessarily true that they're born with inheritable refugee status, they're available to register for UNRWA to be considered a refugee if their services are lacking (which has a good deal are because of their statelessness and being left in refugee camps). If they don't register, they're not considered refugees. This is why the statelessness aspect is brought in. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I guess the following will get me attacked from both sides (well maybe only one side as Arisboch seems to be almost the only consistently pro-Zionist voice here) but here goes. The issue of whether the creation of Israel as a state was legit or not does not matter. It was the only state created by an explicit UN General Assembly vote, which some of the Anti-Zionists seem to adore above all else. So one could argue Israel has even more of a right to exist than any other state. But that does not matter. The Jews have the same right to a state as any other ethnic group who so wishes. If we let the Scots decide whether they want their own state, we should apply the same logic to the Kurds, the Catalans, the Jews and those that are often called "gypsies" (listing all their self-identifying terms would be tedious and prove little, as Sinti and Roma are by far not the only terms). But - and this is the important point - Israel as a state exists and has been in existence for more than 60 years now. It has every right to self-defense (if any state has a right to self defense). It has every right to set his own citizenship and residency laws (including the "right of return" you keep alluding to) - if any other state has that right. It has every right to do with conquered territory as it pleases - if any other state has that right. If Czechoslovakia was acting unlawfully in expulsing its German minority, it deserves no more or no less a punishment as any other state. If we apply a "right of return" to people who left what is now Israel, but none for people who left what is now the Czech Republic, we are being intellectually dishonest. If Israel should not have been founded by immigrants, than Australia, the US, Argentina and indeed about half the countries in the world should cease existing and give the land "back" to those whose ancestors once inhabited it. This will get problematic to get far enough back to prove that Hungary was overrun so often by horse nomads that we don't actually know who was their first... Argentina arguments that the native people of the Falklands don't matter because they represent a "colonial population". What about the Jewish people in Tel Aviv, who go back five, six generations in some cases? What about Hebron, which - apart from a short interruption due to Jordan's antisemitism had a Jewish population for more than two thousand years? This tangled mess cannot be solved if we grant a "right of return" to people who did not flee themselves. The only thing this is likely to do is destroy the state of Israel or alter it to a state where Jews are a minority who has to hope for the benevolence of a possibly hostile majority. We know how this played out historically. Whatever happens, Israel must not become a state where Jews are only "tolerated". That would be the end of Zionism. And it may well be the beginning of the end of Judaism. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I have repeatedly stated Israel has a right to exist so the first half of your diatribe is meaningless bickering on your part. I also believe Palestinians have a right to state much like Israel does. If you want to takk about 1948, I will gladly do so on your talk page if you wish. Just because Israel has a right to exist does not give it carte blanche to annex territory as it pleases. I'm glad you at least conceded that every state does as it pleases with conquered territory, because if everyone does it (see Russia, Iraq under Saddam, Turkey, etc), it can't possibly be wrong (no need to explain the fallacy here). States do not have a matter to do as they please with conquered territory because that would be a gross violation of Geneva Conventions and international law in general. So that's a meaningless strawman on your part and I'm shocked you would make apologetic excuses for state violence on the basis that everyone does it (which tells me you know you're doing is wrong). Yes the Czech Republic should be punished for doing so. I've stated refugees have a right to legally return regardless of location, whether it be Palestinians, Syrians, Iraqis, etc. So again, another strawman on your part. And if you listened to what I said, the Palestine UNGA calls for a just resolution to the refugee question, not a full return which would turn Jews into a minority immediately. As for Hebron, you should be intellectually honest enough to know the difference between legally registering back to former territories as citizens under the state and taking that land by conquest through military occupation.ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I did not say any state has the right to do with conquered territory as it pleases. I said any state has the same right to do with conquered territory as it pleases. So either we deny the US the right to annex Texas and most of Northern Mexico, or we grant Poland the right to annex most of Silesia, Parts of Pomerania and other bits and pieces here and there. And holy shit, I cannot belief that you wish to punish the current Czech state for something that happened seven decades ago, was perpetrated by people who are now almost all dead. And done by a state different not only in name but also in government from the current one. Nazis often accuse the left of holding Germany in "permanent collective guilt" for what Germans did between 1933 and 1945. You seem to apply this concept to the Czech Republic as well. Guilt can only and should only ever be individual. While I deny the right of a German state to exist, this train has left the station in 1945, so to speak... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the 21st century. You cannot use historical examples in the past to justify a current conquest. As I've said, if you believe Israel has the same right to do with conquered territories that it pleases, then Hamas has the same right to eliminate Israel and annex it. You misrepresent what I said. I was answering your hypothetical on whether states should be held to a universal standard of accounting for its wrongdoings, and I answered you. Not even close to "collective punishment" as you put it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well... The last time Israel conquered land was in 1967. They were attacked on all sides and prevailed and thus they took the whole mandate (minus of course those portions split off in the early 1920s) and in addition to that they took Sinai (later given back to Egypt in exchange for peace). Since than Israel has done nothing but withdraw. Even if you count the minor unpleasantness of Lebanon, they have withdrawn as well. Of course it has done them little good, as today Israel is accused of the most horrible crimes imaginable even more than it was in 1967. So if I were an Israeli politician and keen on getting more territory (rather than - you know - peace and prosperity, the thing every government in existence runs on), I would say "attack attack attack. Take what you can and give nothing back". This would probably lose Israel the few friends it still has (and more importantly it would go against the firm moral compass of the overwhelming majority of Israelis), but it would not much increase hatred and Antisemitism. After all, Antisemites and Antizionists have never needed any rational reason for their hatred... If Israel was confined to a small village somewhere in the hills, there would still be people calling it a colonizing apartheid state and calling for its destruction.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Now you're just spouting propaganda. Israel attacked Egypt first in 1967 and attacked Lebanon in 1982 after violating the nine month ceasefire multiple times as acknowledged by the UN. And you're also full of shit because Israel still expands its settlements in the West Bank. Ah yes, the old antisemitism card. Israel had no legal entitlement to the Sinai, so giving it back was not a peace gesture nor a concession but simply complying with the law. But since you threw the antisemitism card at me for believing Israel shouldn't conquer territory that doesn't legally being to it, the only racist one here is you. It's bad for other countries to make conquests, but when Israel does it, it's defensive (dubious in fact and evidence). If Arabs want to eliminate Israel and take land, that's bad. But if Israel attacks Arab states and takes away their land, it's only for security reasons. You're a so hypocritically full of shit. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second. Are really thinking Israel is to blame for the six day war? First of all, there existed no state of peace or even anything approaching diplomatic relations between Israel and any Arab nation prior to the six days war. Hence from a international law perspective it was simply the resumption of military action of the 1948 war. Just like a resumption of the Korean war would be. Ending a cease-fire is not legally the same as starting a war. Furthermore Israel said in no uncertain terms that it would see the closing of the straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping as a casus belli. Nasser did precisely that. This is approaching the kid whom you tell not to stuff beans up their nose just to see them do precisely that. Now you tell me: What kind of response could Israel have given after drawing a clear red line and that red line being crossed? Anything but war would have been a miracle. And Nasser knew that. What he didn't know (or seemed to disregard) was the fact that he was unable to win a war against Israel, especially if he did not have the element of surprise in his favor. And you know... Your non sequitur is baffling. Israel fights a defensive war and gains territory (just like France did in 1914-1918) - somehow this is equivalent to people who want to eliminate Israel? That is.... Well I am at a loss for words... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Uh, yes? Did you read the US intelligence agency reports I cited above and what Begin said? The Israeli intelligence agreed with the US that Nasser was not going to attack and it wouldve been stupid if he did attack, considering he depleted his resourcea in the Yemen Civil War. There was nothing defensive about it. And you omitted what I said about Israeli leaders seeing the blockade as symbolic and their desire for territorial expansion. Nasser actually quietly ended the blockade and was prepared to submit it to the ICJ. Nobody wishes to eliminate Israel. They don't however like the arrogance of itss leaders who believe they can do as they please because they're allegedly exceptional. There's no non sequitur, you're engaging in double standards. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you recently (or indeed ever) watched Hamas controlled Gazan TV? Or what airs in countries like Egypt or Syria? I would guess at least some of the people who make this kind of antisemitic Bullshit mean it seriously. If I were a Jew I would take Antisemites dead serious. My live might depend on it. And if what you say about the Straits is true, why did he do it quietly and not trumpet it out for all to hear (not even after the war) to let Israel look like the aggressor? No country in the history of this fine planet has ever had to deal with as many threats of "wiping off the map" "driving into the sea" and similar drivel as Israel. Do you really believe a dovish foreign policy would serve such a country? What kind of strategy would you call if you were killed if your Football team loses? Wouldn't you get the best team on the field that you possibly can? And would you not let them play as hard as possible within the rules? If Hamas wins any of its war (not a tactical advantage, the fulfillment of its Charta) Jews will be murdered left and right. No Israeli with a brain can wish for that to happen. No Israeli with a brain would vote for any party that would allow such a thing. Do not believe for a second that the majority of Israelis like having to have such a strong military. But you would get less votes in favor of getting rid of the military in Israel than in the US. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ever read the Likud charter which says no there shall be no Palestinian state west of the Jordan River? Ever read the statements of war hawks like Ariel Sharon who say that Israel needs to maintain its deterrence capacity so that the Arabs fear us? Ever read the statements of people like Netanyahu who say Arabs are coming in droves to vote? Ever think that maybe Arabs are reacting in response to this rather than the other way around? And no again, you're hyping up threats to extreme levels when the situation on the ground says otherwise. The Hamas charter was written by one person, and if you actually read article 31, they stress restraint against those who do not attack you. The only people who make such antisemitic claims tend to be religious fanatics rather than the actual leaders like Meshall and Haniyeh. Also, actions are more important than words. As I've stated so many fucking times, the Israeli intelligence has said Hamas has been the one enforcing the ceasefire by suppressing rocket fire. That doesn't sound very genocidal to me, now does it? The same goes for the Arab world. If their rhetoric is allegedly bellicose, they would attack Israel left and right. But they don't. Israel will not encounter hostility if it actakes less like a warmonger, not that hard to grasp. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Working in my user page[edit]

I followed suggestion of moving it to the Sandbox.

This has all been an interesting discussion of Zionism and Israel, but I'm moving away from it for now. I have copied and pasted the Zionism entry as it currently is into my user page and will work on it there. When I have made the changes, additions, deletions & etc. I deem proper, I will offer it for comment. Thank you for all the advice. — Unsigned, by: -Mona- / talk / contribs

I can say this much: As your opinion (and your "sources") is even more to the anti-Zionist fringe than this article already is (including the PRATT about Apartheid) you will not have a snowball's chance in hell to get anything beyond cosmetic change implemented here... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
We shall see. Anything I state will be documented. I expect it to stand unless my sources can shown to be factually wrong. Claiming a view is of "the ant-Zionist fringe" is irrelevant if it is deeply and credibly sourced (disliking my sources is not valid unless those sources are reputed to be shoddy with fact-claims). That is to say, a skeptics' site where reason and rationality prevail should respect demonstrated facts and proper sourcing. Of course, sometimes there are good faith, reasonable disagreements about what the facts are, or how they should be interpreted; in that case it is often best to present both views.-Mona- (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, I've never seen the characterization of Israel as an apartheid state effectively refuted. Indeed, more and more reasonable people are coming to accept it. As an Israeli journalist has also just announced. Desmond Tutu, the ANC, so many and the list increases every day. Unless you are going to a priori decree that Israeli journalists (at Haaretz), the ANC and anyone else arguing that the facts demonstrate apartheid, unless you are going to hold these are all unacceptable sources, well, that would be rather shocking if you did that.-Mona- (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The Haaretz article is behind a pay-wall...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, a perennial favorite among the anti-Zionist crowd... citing some people who hate Israel and happen to be Jewish or citing an Israeli newspaper when it published something that supports your point (but rejecting it as biased when it doesn't). You know, there is (supposed to be) such a thing as "internal press freedom", which means that on some occasions people may write stuff in a newspaper which the majority of its editors (and readers) disagree with. This is mostly to stimulate debate (and to a lesser extent to make money); two things Jews have of course never been accused of... But enough with the anti-semitic tropes. After all, they are dangerous and hurtful even if said in jest. Just like calling Israel an Apartheid state may lead to Jews being thrown out of music festivals just for being Jewish - as happened to Matisyahu who refused to endorse the BDS "movement" which - if you ask for my humble opinion - is a bunch of anti-semites and has been denounced as harmful by a number of respected figures such as several Nobel laureates or some guy called J. Carter Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, for clarity's sake, the apartheid analogy should be reserved for the legal segregation between Jewish settlers outside Israel's legal borders who are afforded the rights normally given to those under Israeli civil law, and the Palestinians who live under military law. The West Bank (and Gaza for broader purposes since they're supposed to constitute one state rather than be separated) should be the point of reference, not Israel proper which is flawed but nevertheless could not be considered apartheid. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Say that to the jokers, who call Israel an apartheid state without your kind of escape hatches limiting it on West Bank (there ain't no Israelis in Gaza anymore, so how can they do "apartheid" there?!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Apartheid policies don't need to apply to all of a nation's territories for it to be what it is. The Belgian Congo was pretty blatantly apartheid-ish, but this was far less the case for the European bit of the Belgian Kingdom. (talk) 22:33, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
What about Indian reservations? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No escape hatchets my friend. Under the disastrous Oslo Accords, the West Bank and Gaza were not meant to be separated. Through restrictions starting in 1991 and closures and blockades, this fragmentation has been near complete. So the label very much applies there with respect to separation. Gaza more or less serves as a Bantustan. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Gaza is separated, cause the Hamas did a coup there. According to the Fatah, Hamas is occupying the Gaza Strip.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
How many Bantus live in Gaza again? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, you don't need to pretend not to know what an analogy is. >.> (talk) 22:05, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'm sure, he mixed up Bantus and Banthas :D...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Banthas kind of look like goats Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, space-goats, not unlike the nerfs!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Plain regular goats are apparently also a thing in the Star Wars universe. And they live on Endor, because of course they do. (talk) 22:18, 18 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You have it backwards. Fatah launched a coup backed by the Bush administration and Israel. See David Rose's article in VanityFair. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── whether whoever that is is right or not the fact of the matter is that Hamas has de facto control overt the Gaza strip and there have not been free and fair elections to as much as a city council since 2006 Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gimme a link to this article (say, ain't this David Rose not the one, who's writing stuff for the Daily Heil?).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not correct Avenger. Israel maintains control of the borders, the air-space, waters, and population registry in Gaza. The Red Cross, UN, human rights orgs and international community regard Gaza as occupied by Israel. Israel is the effective ruler in Gaza. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This is the link. Of note: "With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, the author reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever."ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Avengerofthe BoNIs the epitome of the Zionists I've debated for years now: when the facts are unpleasant, he engages in every fallacy in the Logic 101 textbook. A prominent Haaretz journalist bites the bullet and declares -- with supporting arguments -- that Israel is an apartheid state, and my new friend attacks me for a selectivity about the publication he cannot possibly know whether I have, and which, even if it were true, would be irrelevant. In my career of political argumentation, before I began debating Zionists, my targets were: 1. drug prohibitionists, and 2. creationists. Zionists like Avengerofthe BoN behave quite similarly.-Mona- (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Among Avengerofthe BoN fallacies is whataboutery, in this instance I mean his invocation of the Spanish music festival that has dis-invited Israeli Matisyahu for his politics. Ok, one whataboutery deserves another. So, Avengerofthe BoN, what about all the American (many Palestinian-Americans) Israel won't permit in the country, even to visit sick family? Including a leading American novelist. (Whataboutery can go on forever, kind of like the cardgame "War.")-Mona- (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If she wants to boycott Israel, she can start by staying away from it as far as she can (*warning, sarcasm with a tad of schadenfreude*).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 02:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you Zionists actually grasp how in this Internet age, such appalling arrogance and lack of empathy are seen by many and this changing minds. (*warning, reality with a tad of disgust*)---Mona- (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course, 'cause everyone will be up in arms, when they see me laughing about her Holiness Mona the First, right? Or everyone will be in arms, cause a Palestinian Kuwaiti-American writer is amazed, that no-one lets her cross a border check point despite ranting and screaming (oops...) and then bawls on the net about it...-Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you too, are typical in your substanceless argument from sarcasm and nastiness. No hasbara campaign can undo what people experience of Zionists in the world and online these days. Or the pictures uploaded to Twitter by medical personnel and western journos during Israeli bombing campaigns of Gaza -- the dead babies and maimed women and teens. The beaten Palestinian-American teen IN Israel proper, his burned-alive cousin. This now all goes viral, and how Zionists act and react is contrasted with all that.-Mona- (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, Susan Abulhawa is a Palestinian-American. Her Palestinian parents hailed from Jerusalem and fled during the '67 war which is why, as a refugee baby, she was born in Kuwait. By the way Zionist Jews parse things for themselves, she is a Palestinian. For Israel to deny her entry is at least as bad as some Spanish Music festival promoters refusing to allow an Israeli Zionist to perform owing to his racist politics -- the particular piece of whataboutery that got this whole topic started.-Mona- (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
He's singing after all. Eat that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
She is Palestinian only according to the UNRWA, since, according to the UN, not "teh evel Zionists", only Palestinians have a inheritable refugee status, no-one else and the Party UN is always right, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight[4]? And of course it is OK to just demand from someone political statements, just cause he's from Israel and not demand anything like that from anyone else, cause singling out Israeli artists is completely A-OK, cause they're all evel, raciiiiiiist, baby-eating Ziooooooonists, unless they sign some lines fed to them by the BDS clown car, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 04:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
How bizarre. I mean, is all that overwrought spewing of vitriol, extreme Straw-manning and jabberwocky your usual mode of discourse? Or do you only act this unhinged when the subject touches on Israel and Zionists? The fact of Palestinian-American novelist, Susan Abulhawa, being refused entry into Israel is just that -- a fact. (Even if she were a Kuwaiti-American, so what? How would that justify Israel's not allowing her entry? If, that is, we are going to discuss artists being refused at music festivals or to enter countries.) Yours is just an amazing performance.-Mona- (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Arisboch, relax and take a step back for a bit. If you think this way of arguing will further your case, you're quite wrong. (talk) 04:43, 19 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

What is with the persecution complex I keep seeing? Example 1: The UN is so biased against US! (despite them not placing sanctions on Israel for its settlements or violations of international law unlike they did with Saddam). Example 2: Iran WILL HAVE a nuclear weapon TO WIPE US OFF THE MAP! (despite Mossad officials disagreeing with this) Example 3: All the human rights organizations are engaged in anti-Israel malarkey to make us look bad! (truth hurts, sorry) Example 4: THE ARABS WANT TO PUSH US INTO THE SEA! (even if we were the ones who actually did that in 1948). Example 5: EVERYONE SINGLES US OUT! (despite Israel ironically singling itself as the so-called most moral army in the world) On and on and on. The paranoia doesn't end. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "everyone singles us out" trope is especially precious when talking about American critics of Israel. We Single Israel Out Because We in the West Are Shamefully Complicit in Its Crimes. "Which other country is in receipt of $3billion a year in US [military aid; we give Palestinians 0 in military aid], despite maintaining a 47-year military occupation in violation of international law? Which other country has been allowed to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons in secret?" The U.S. has long had a "special relationship" with Israel, so it has already been positively singled out. That some negative attention is now being given is unpleasant for many Zionists, but live by the special status, die by the special status.---Mona- (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
People get turned back at borders all the time. It is the way things go. Recently a case of a young German woman was in the press who was denied entry to the US. Before that there was a acase of somebody being denied entrya to the US - allegedly because she is against TTIP (a free trade agreement). But when Israel does it (fill in the blank) (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Israel can turn back whomever it pleases. But it will be judged on its reasonableness when it does, just like anyone else. Moreover, Israel is preventing friends and family of their oppressed minority from entering the country which adds to Israel's status as oppressor. Elderly George Khoury is a Christian Palestinian born in Jerusalem and a long-time American citizen traveling who taught university-level languages for decades in California. Traveling on a U.S. passport he went with a priest to visit Jerusalem last month and intended to meet with family he'd not seen since his youth. He was denied entry. The guard at Ben Gurion told him, among other things: "This is our Israel, this is for the Jews. No Palestinian should come to Israel." -Mona- (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
BTW, George KhouryWikipedia became another victim of Palestinian terrorists (he was jogging in French Hill, Jerusalem, when it happened), so he got into Israel somehow (I'd like to have a look at why he was denied entry this time (some credible sources) and this purported quote from the security guard sounds too made up to be true). He was buried in the Christian cemetery on Mount Zion (the Fatah was apparently embarrassed by that and wanted to declare him a martyr, but his mom wouldn't have any of it).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
"this purported quote from the security guard sounds too made up to be true" The source is George Khoury, a different, elderly man:

An airport security agent (who I believe to be a Shin Bet agent) began:

Agent: “Oh so you came through Ben Gurion airport?”

Me: “Yes. What’s wrong with that?”

Agent: “You can’t do that.”

Me: “Why? I have an American passport. I came with father Bernard, to spend a few weeks in Jerusalem and that’s it. We are coming here on a religious pilgrimage and to visit some friends and family.”

Agent: “No no, you cannot go to Israel. You should have gone through the Allenby Bridge.”

Me: “Why should I do that? I’m not coming through as a Palestinian. I’m coming as an American citizen.”

Agent: “No. You are a Palestinian. Why are you denying that you’re a Palestinian?”

Me: “I’m not denying that I’m Palestinian. I am Palestinian from head to toe. My father is Palestinian. My mother is Palestinian. My brothers are Palestinian. My sister is Palestinian. My grandfather is an Orthodox priest and I can trace my Palestinian roots for the last 500 years. What do you mean I am denying? I am denying nothing.”

Agent: “No no, you belong with the Palestinian people. This is our Israel, this is for the Jews. No Palestinian should come to Israel. You should have gone through the Allenby Bridge.”

Me: “Why do you say that? Did I ever have a Palestinian passport? Did I ever live under the Palestinian authority? When the PA was constituted I was never in Palestine and I was never issued a Palestinian passport.”

Agent: “But you have an Israeli ID.” [He is referring to the Israeli ID issued to me after Israel began their occupation of the West Bank in 1967. I had an Israeli ID until I left for the US in 1969.]

Me: “An Israeli ID is not a Palestinian passport. The Israeli ID was issued to me when I was in Beit Jala when I was studying for the priesthood but you cannot equate that to a Palestinian passport. Juridically speaking, I was never a citizen of a country called Palestine. I am coming with an American passport and you should honor it.”

Agent: “How do you want me to honor your American passport? Do you want me to kiss it, to hug it, or to worship it? Moreover, you are rude and ill mannered. How did you get to be so rude? You are a Palestinian and you are rude and ill-mannered.”

Me: “I am neither rude nor ill-mannered I’m just stating the facts. I’m just telling you I’m an American, who has been an American citizen for the past 40 years and I’ve lived in America for 46 years. So you disregard all these legal facts and you only focus on my Palestinian heritage?”

Agent: “You will be deported to Jordan and come through the Allenby Bridge to continue your visit to the West Bank.” [The Allenby Bridge is the connection between Jordan and Israel. Palestinians can only enter the West Bank through this bridge because they are not allowed in through Israel proper.]

Khoury concludes:

They took something that was suppose to be a vacation from my long work hours, a reconnection with my homeland and old friends, and made it a nightmare from hell. I was disrespected, demeaned and treated like I committed a crime. I tell you my story so as to encourage people to visit Palestine to challenge the thuggery of this racist entity and do it here in the USA as well as in Israel.

Just so.---Mona- (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well well -Mona- I think you might like this particular tidbit. See it is probably unfair, but it is quite funny and it makes fun of actual Apartheid when it was actually happening in - you know - South Africa.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
10/30/2012 "The African National Congress said on Tuesday that its International Solidarity Conference resolved to support the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel....The ANC chairperson, Baleka Mbete, strongly responded, saying that she has been to Palestine herself and that the Israeli regime is not only comparable but 'far worse than apartheid South Africa', BDS said in a statement. "-Mona- (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if some ANC hack says something (for whatever reasons) that does not mean it is true. You cannot simply assert something (especially if it is something as absurd and controversial as your "opinion) and than walk away quoting a couple of hacks living in their own bubble. If any of what you say comes even remotely close to the truth, what would you than call the situation in Darfur? Or East Timor prior to ~ 2000? Or for that matter the United States of America and her treatment of Native Americans starting in 1776.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Changing the subject again *sigh*. Since when does criticizing one country require token acknowledgement of the human rights abuses of other countries? Does criticizing Iran make a bigot because I should be criticizing other states in the ME who are oppreasive? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah the good old defense... Well imagine somebody criticizes a specific genre of movies for a racist trope common in them. Let's say Horror Movies are criticized for black people being (almost)[5] always the first to die in them. Let's further assume a specific movie is criticized for doing exactly that. Now the director comes and says: "Well you know there were compelling reasons x y and z to do that and it was totally not racist and ladidah bla bla bla...." If you are intellectually honest, you would not be satisfied and you would be pissed. Now compare this to the situation with Israel. Whether there is currently war or ceasefire between Israel and the Antisemites, some people will always find reasons to bash Israel. The amount of drivel written on Israel far surpasses that written on any country on earth (maybe excluding the US) and certainly any country on earth of similar surface and number of inhabitants. (The German state of HessenWikipedia is about as big as Israel; how often do the media talk about Hessen?) Is it not legitimate than to ask "why Israel?" And if instead of an answer we hear the same ladidah bla bla bla, are we not allowed to be pissed? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It is not antisemitic to point out that Israel usually acts more aggressive than its neighbors through it's history. Military historian Zeev Maoz himself notes after going through the literature that most of Israel's wars (with maybe a slight exception to 1948) were done by choice or folly. And no country is off limits from criticism regardless of how skewed one's perception of the attention it receives (which I argue is very little compared to say Syria or Iraq right now). What you say is drivel may be legitimate criticism of Israel from a liberal perspective, not antisemitic. I hate it when people use that or when Islamists use Islamophobia to deter criticism of Islam. ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So what should Israel do if Nasser and his ilk rattle the saber? What should Israel do if Hezbollah and Hamas (who openly claim to be in favor of getting rid of the state of Israel through violence) start shooting rockets? Is the state of Israel supposed to just take it all in good humor until every grain of sand has been hit by rockets and shrapnel twice? If evil people are not stopped, they are emboldened. That's why we have police to catch bad guys without a government to prop them up. That's why we have sanctions. And yes that is way sometimes war is a necessary evil. An evil, undoubtedly, but sometimes necessary. But you see, we seem to be operating from two different sets of fact. I think that in almost all cases Israel was the attacked party and has done a lot to extend a hand for peace (though, it has to be said, less so since Hamas took over Gaza) whereas the anti-semites have done nothing but kill kill kill, shoot shoot shoot and having the rhetoric to back it up .... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we're coming to an agreement, because I think your analysis isn't an accurate assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict with regard to who broke ceasefires and who was most willing to stretch an offer for peace. For the 6 day war, the US intelligence agencies along with Israel came to the assessment that the Arab states (mostly Nasser) did not pose a significant threat. Israel launched an attack on Egypt and Syria, and they argue it's preemptive, but as Lyndon Johnson told Abba Eban, even if they did attack, you'd "whip the hell out of them", which is what Israel did anyway. Israel was not in mortal danger. The only question was how many days it was estimated Israel would achieve victory, and it ended up being 6. Much of the PLO was beginning to warm to the idea of two states, long before Israel did, and for this, the PLO was attacked for it in 1982 for its peace offensive. The invasion led to Hezbollah. The 2006 war is complicated. Hezbollah did capture two Israeli soldiers (following the capture of two Palestinians in Gaza in late June before the war), but an article in San Francisco gate reveals Israel had planned the operation a year earlier in advance, so it hardly came as a surprise to them. And even then, Israel had more Hezbollah prisoners the other way around. Israel also had a revenge motivd after Hezbollah came to be seen as a resistance faction who successfully defeated Israel, and Israel especially doesnt like being seen as weak in the Arab World. The Hamas situation is also more complicated. Its leaders have stated they're willing to accept a Palestinian state on the 67 borders and that they're willing to negotiate a long term truce with Israel (which is what they're doing now actually). Khaled Meshall was actually willing to conduct a 30 year truce through King hussein of Jordan, but Mossad attempted an assassination on him in 1997. The US Institute of Peace has also mentioned Hamas has moderated its stance and moved away largely from its charter. Ephraim Halevy of Mossad also shares this viewpoint and believes Hamas can be negotiated with. Hamas has proven to be reliable through its suppression of rocket fire, only to receive raids and assassinations in return (2008 and 2012). ChrisAmiss (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, if Avengerofthe BoN feels that all the officials of the ANC are "hacks," I guess he must feel that Desmond Tutu is as well: "Desmond Tutu, the noted civil rights leader who became the first black archbishop of Cape Town, compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the apartheid regime that discriminated against blacks in his native South Africa." -Mona- (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you be happy with a thirty year truce between the US and Mexico? And User:-Mona- your argument from authority ain't cutting it, sorry. And if the pope (whom I dislike) the Dalai Lama (whom I also don't like all that much) Franz Beckenbauer (whom I hate) Pele (whom I couldn't care less about) and Barack Obama together released a statement calling Israel the nasty things you like to call it, I would still not be convinced. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

-mona- and chris thought we needed another full section[edit]

Let's be clear, it matters not a whit whether one frowns on the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, the toy rockets, or even if one is justly outraged by the suicide bombers of yesteryear. Palestinians are the victims and the oppressed. The Zionist State of Israel is the oppressor. The oppression actually precedes 1948, but with the Nakba was cemented and is ongoing. Moshe Dayan had an utterly clear-eyed understanding of why, after the Nakba, Gazans would commit atrocities and hate the Jews of Israel. Giving the eulogy for an Israeli soldier shot dead by a Gazan in 1956, Dayan candidly declared:

Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived. We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood.

Exactly so. Political Zionism was, from the beginning -- or at least from the time of Vladimir Jabotinsky in the 20s -- an ideology of colonial violence and subjugation. Zionist terrorists assassinated the UN mediator, Folke Bernadotte, when he saw the Zionist slaughter befalling the Palestinians in 1948, so he could not continue reporting it to the UN and thus the world. These are only some of the facts I have learned and that undid my commitment to Zionism.---Mona- (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ok.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 04:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Listen, Mona - what's your end goal, here? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Why the end goal of every anti-Zionist: teh end of teh evul juice state and the end of all juice in teh wooooorrrrrrrlllllllddddd!!!!! (manical laughter). I thought that much was apparent. (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
My "end goal" vis-a-vis woo-woo and politics is always the same: the truth. This is the talk page for "Zionism." One of several entries I have edited -- or sought to. As anyone can see, unpleasant facts cause pro-Israel enthusiasts to suspend rational and reasonable interaction and resort instead to various fallacies including play-ground level straw man "responses." Some truths are more equal than others for certain folk.-Mona- (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Israel apologists tactic 101: always bring Jews into the discussion even though we're discussing a country (not a religious group) in order to frame any criticism of Israel as an attack on Jews in an effort to silence criticism and portray the critic as an antisemite. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Notably it's implicitly ceding of the point that the nation is a religious apartheid state and only one of the religions counts in the speakers' mind. That's a point they explicitly decry as unfair when directed at them. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Look, Mona, that's really nice and all, but you seem to be nutpicking here. I don't see me framing anything as anything, but I can tell you that by you amping up the rhetoric on pages to 11 by calling things ethnic cleansing, you seem to be pushing the woo, not fighting it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite what lets you draw this conclusion? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I draw that conclusion based on the rhetoric amping up to 11. If there's no way to make your point without writing "ethnic cleansing," your point is probably an appeal to emotion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is a 2006 book authored by Israeli historian Ilan Pappé. Mark Braverman writes: "This shift reflects the reality that once you address present-day violations of Palestinian rights, you see that the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was the continuation of the program of ethnic cleansing that began in 1948 ..." The phrase -- which is accurate -- is not at all original with me. To call it woo is (amusingly) preposterous.-Mona- (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well David Irving also wrote some books. Should we quote their titles all over the place as well? The only people who were ethnically cleansed were the Mizrahi Jews in 1948. They were thrown out of Jordan (and the illegally occupied territory that would become Fatahstan) and Gaza as well as any other major country in the Arab world. But of course their grandsons and great granddaughters are not "refugees" according to Pope UNRWA the first[6], so that's that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the illegal occupation in question was that of the territory commonly referred to as the "West Bank" which was - to use your terms "ethnically cleansed and kept as an Apartheid state by the colonizing Jordanian regime" or something of the sort... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Jonathan Freedland in the New York Review of Books approvingly quoting and appropriating a Norman Finkelstein question, to wit: "The ultimate question leftist opponents of Zionism like to hurl at liberal Zionists, the one the former believe the latter cannot answer, is, to use Finkelstein’s formulation: 'How does one excuse ethnic cleansing?' If one is a liberal, committed to human rights, how can one justify the expulsion and dispossession of Palestinians in 1948 as Israel was born?"-Mona- (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Jordan's occupation was illegal, but they granted the majority of people in the area citizenship unlike Israel's occupation. One's occupation doesn't make any other occupation less illegal. Also most of the historical scholarship doesn't agree with your position on the plight of Jews in the Arab World, you can reference statements by historians like Tom Segev, Yeshouda Porash, etc on this (unless od course the historians are engaged in some anti-Zionist conspiracy). The only ones who engage in this historical revionism are lobbyists for Israel, not unlike Serbian lobbyists who argue that the Serbs suffered ethnic cleansing in the 90'a, not unlike Turkish lobbyists who argue that Turks were victims of genocide like the Armenians during WWI, not unlike Holocaust deniers who argue the Germans were victims of genocide like the Jews/Roma/disabled during WWII, you get my point. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I know little about what did and did not happen in Serbia in the 1990s and Slobodan Milosevic was as unpleasant a person as has ever been leader of a European country in the 21st century. That being said, in 1999 the NATO intervened on the side of the UČK, a group which it had declared a terrorist organization and there appears to be evidence that whatever happened in Kosovo prior to 1999 was perpetrated by both sides about equally. Of course Serbian generals and politicians were guilty of many war crimes in the 1990s, but that does not mean that the Albanians and Croats were all innocent angels. And I don't know any of those names, but I will just throw a name at you in return: Stephan Grigat of the Vienna university. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I suppose Ari Shavit and his My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, will also be likened to David Irving. And, accused of writing woo.{rolling eyes} Well anyway, Shavit cites two rabbis reporting about Palestine back to Theodor Herzl: "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.” So, writes Shavit: “If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be. If Lydda was to be, Zionism could not be.” And Freedlander, reviewing the book, says of Shavit: "he implicitly accepts what anti-Zionists have long argued: that the eventual dispossession of Palestinians was logically entailed in the Zionist project from the outset, that it could not be any other way."-Mona- (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A cursory glance of that page reveals authors who talk about the Iranian threat and Zionism, not the specific status of Jews in the Arab World or the history of them. You're wrong about the YugoSlavia wars. Most independent observers recognized that as a classic case of Serbian aggression no matter how much left wing apologists try to asset a false balance between the two. I'd recommend reading Balkan Witness War Crimes Deniers section on this. It can be found with a simple Google search. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Well the whole Serbia mess was incidental at best. Let's just sum it up thusly: The war of 1999 is still controversial in Germany among certain groups. And Grigat has in fact written (and held lectures) extensively about the Israeli Left (one of his most recent books) as well as a history of the Israeli Communist Party and its failed attempt to be accepted as a "proper" communist party - it was one of the first organizations of any relevance in the Mandate to be open to both Jews and Goyim. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes made in one sub-section[edit]

The re-titled Comparison between Zionism and Nazism can be discussed here. I've documented my re-write significantly more than this entry has been sourced -- as I will do for virtually any edits I make on any entry.---Mona- (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit in question, which has been reverted, unreverted, and re-reverted as I write this. Edit summaries are no substitute for actual discussion. "Pulling Godwins" is not an excuse to avoid carefully considered discourse, on this of all subjects. I don't have much of a horse in this race, but I don't like to see peremptory edit-warring. Live long and prosper, CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
If Zionism is comparable to Nazism than any guy ever who ever waved a US flag is comparable to Nazism. They are similar in only one way: Both are types of Nationalism. However, Nazism is an exterminatory ideology of conquest to make the whole world into living space for your master race, whereas Zionism is the desire to carve out one safe space for Jews in a world hostile to them. In essence Zionism is a response to Antisemitism and Nazism just like Black Lives Matter is a response to racism. Of course they would focus on Jews, just like Black Lives Matter focuses on African Americans Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact ismy edits are sourced and demonstrate that non-lunatic people -- inlduing Zionists -- do, in fact, employ comparison to aspects of the Third Reich with Isreal. The fact is, which I sourced, Zionism is a species of blood-and-soil nationalism seeking territorial expansion, as was the Third Reich. I also document that -- with non-Klan sources. The fact is, Mike Godwin has made clear in a statement regarding a Glenn Greenwald column about his eponymous rule, that he did not intend to foreclose all invocations of Hitler and Nazis, because they sometimes are apposite. Which is irrelevant anyway, because this entry should be descritpive not prescriptive, and people do IN FACT make the comparison -- again, including Israeli officials. If there is to be wholesale rejection of my fact-based, foot-noted writing on this sub-topic -- in preference for crappy, unsourced assertions -- that merits some intellectual defense.---Mona- (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As for this "edit-warring" charge. There is a notice appended to this entry about either sourcing or deleting material. The sourcing -- or lack thereof -- sucks. I deleted dreck, added substance, and SOURCED it. When I did the same to the Glenn Greenwald entry non one accused me of edit-warring on an equally abysmal, incomplete entry.---Mona- (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I did not mean to point my "edit-warring" comment at you, but at the activity subsequent to your edit, diff linked above.
Avenger, in recent decades there have in fact been comparisons of the US regime to fascism. No, it is not just about nationalism, but more about legislation favorable to corporations, and maybe a bit about gorilla-esque behavior on the world stage. Just saying that's a weak comparison for you to have opened with. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well and those comparisons are Bullshit. Just like attacking high speed rail because the Nazis used trains to deport people to the death camps. There is way more similarity between "Arab nationalist" and Baathist leaders and Fascism (in fact the movements were inspired by one another) than between the US and fascism... But even if you only judge it from a "tactical" standpoint, comparisons between anything and fascism lead to most people simply tuning out. That's why so many people were unwilling to hear Christopher Hitchens out when he started of by calling Saddam Hussein a fascist[7] who had to be removed from power[8]. That's also my main criticism of the term Islamofascism - as accurate as it may be in some contexts, it is simply not helpful Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Just because it's a conversation-derailing thought stopper doesn't mean it's bullshit. A regime with authoritarian tendencies, favoring corporations over ordinary people? Yup, smells like fascism. Not saying Rove and Cheney were literally Mussolini, but they should still be tried for war crimes. Bringing up trains is blatant specious irrelevant equivocation, which proves nothing except that you seem to enjoy typing more words. CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No one who understands the corporatism aspect of fascism could find the term wholly inapplicable to the U.S. where the corporate and government worlds have effectively merged in myriad ways. The same people draft the laws and regulations, hold government positions, rotate back onto boards of directors or positions as CEOS, and back into government -- wash, rinse, repeat by the thousands.---Mona- (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
How do Marx and Engles write in 1848 in their manifesto of the communist party (translation in footnote) "Die moderne Staatsgewalt ist nur ein Ausschuss, der die gemeinschaftlichen Geschäfte der ganzen Bourgeoisklasse verwaltet"[9] - what you call fascism (and it is a very flawed definition indeed) is nothing but good old fashioned capitalism. State and Bourgeoisie are not opposites, in capitalism they need and add to each other. Fascism is - by its very nature - a mass movement. It is populist and "anti-capitalist" but instead of trying to get rid of capitalism, it tries to "fix" it. Be it by only allowing "domestic" exploitation (as in "national socialism") or be it by making a bogus difference between banks and entrepreneurs. Marx may have been wrong in many things. But he did know what capitalism is and how it works Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is incorrect; the corporate and government worlds have NOT merged. What they do is pull people from the same professional and socio-economic class, which makes perfect sense when you realize that governmental management and corporate management require the exact same skillsets. Overlap is bound to happen in such a case. This is the problem with specialization. *shrugs* However, that does not mean a deliberate corporatist fascism has developed. --Castaigne (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons between Zionism and Nazism[edit]

Anti-Semites have made the claim that Zionism is comparable to Nazism, but so have some who are not antisemitic, including the Zionist Israeli and former director of Shine Bet, Avraham Shalom. According to Shalom, Israel has become "a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II."[10] Additionally, the deputy editor of Haaretz, Aliyana Traison, wrote in 2012: "I am as afraid to live in the Israel of 2012 as any right-minded German should have been in 1938..." [11]

Zionism and Nazism are both forms of blood and soil nationalism, a 19th century enthusiasm that is no longer popular in the West.[12] (Indeed, Western Jews increasingly "don't believe that blood-and-soil Jewish nationalism should crowd out their Jewish and universalist values."[13]) Also, both Zionism and German National Socialism include an expansionist territorial project to "repossess" purportedly ancestral lands.

That all said, the comparison is most inflammatory when Israel's treatment of Palestinians is compared with the Third Reich's exterminationist Jew hatred that culminated in the Holocaust. For example, the journalist Max Blumenthal has been sharply criticized[14] for, in his book Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, titling chapters “The Concentration Camp” and “The Night of Broken Glass.” Blumenthal, however, explains that he took the former title from "former Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin" who called Israel's internment camps for non-Jewish Africans "concentration camps."[15] Some pro-Palestinian activists do claim that Israel is and has been engaging in genocide, but there clearly has not been a policy remotely like the extermination camps of Auschwitz and Dachau put in place by Israel. It is not hard to see why survivors of those camps, and their descendants, would be offended by such a claim.
_______________________________________________________________________________END END END
Now, that is accurate and sourced. The old version he keeps reverting is crap and unsourced. So, what's it to be?---Mona- (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh I am sure I can find some fringe sources claiming Hitler is alive and well in New Swabia. That does not mean it should be inserted into the article on Adolf Hitler Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
INFIDEL!!! The Führer doesn't live in any other place except BielefeldWikipedia!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 15:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, but we will now have to deal with you.[16]Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As all can see, the only "objections" offered to my calm, well-sourced edits are overwrought invocations of Hilter and juvenalia. Unless and until substantive criticisms are offered, I shall be reverting my edits, and asking for a consensus that they be permitted to stay absent substantive objections that should prevail on their merits.---Mona- (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Good luck trying to get consensus for something that even your anti-Zionist friends see as "out there" at best. Did you have better luck getting a similar passage into Wikipedia? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to "Secular opposition"[edit]

I've added significant, well-sourced content. I'm going to be doing the same for several other sub-sections in this entry, but obviously I am not doing so seriatam. ---Mona- (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop. You are making this article worse. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert back to "Facile comparisons" version??[edit]

The other changes in that edit are rather substantial, but it is a facile comparison. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is it facile? Are you saying all the individuals I cite -- including an Israeli former director of the Shin Bet, Israel's FBI -- didn't make it? That it is wrong to cite that they did? That they did, but it should be described as facile? I'm still waiting for substantive objections to trashing my entire edit and retaining an unsourced series of assertions about mere beliefs, rather than documentation of what people actually say and do. And btw, how does one invoke/request/beg for someone with authority to impose some order on this process?---Mona- (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if the comparison is wise, I personally believe the more apt comparison is between Zionism and South African apartheid and the American treatment of the Natives. But since we have articles on RW that greatly exaggerate the Palestinian connection to Nazis and blames them for their fate in 1948, I actually hope the comparison between Zionism and Nazism remains intact just to offend Israel apologists. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Zionism and Nazism are similar on the basis of repossession historical lands, using the Virgin land myth (empty and desolate) to conquer such lands, and arguing that the native are barbarians who only use force. However, there is a crucial difference. Nazism posited for racial purity and hierarchies, while Zionism does not. Zionism posits for a Jewish majority against the wishes of the indigenous majority population, but it does not advocate for eugenics. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
If that's the justification, that troll somewhere else.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 18:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
When I say facile, I don't mean "entirely inaccurate". I mean facile: "Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial." It's really superficial aligning some similar traits to make a kludgey, insensitive accusation of hypocrisy. The issue calls for more consideration than that argument entails. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So then, explain HOW Avraham Shalom, or the deputy editor of Haaretz, are being facile. Or how Blumenthal is being so. Because, again, the fact is that even Zionists are using the analogy, and it's uses are being avidly discussed in serious venues-- and I presume facts are welcome in this sub-entry? ---Mona- (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No. This is not how we do things here. We do not randomly take quotes from people who believe things and then toss them up as authorities on something. You have to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wait a second. Amin al Husseini (whom we definitely need an article on, him being a religious right wing nutcase) was an important leader of the Arabs during the mandate era. And he was allied for the Nazis and actively recruited SS volunteers. He also was aware of the Shoah and never uttered a tone of disapproval about it. Not even after the war. Are we now trying to eliminate "uncomfortable" Arab figures? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the Judenrat who (according to scholar Hannah Arendt) served as the Jewish collaborators for the Nazis in sending Jews to extermination camps and the Stern Gang who sent a telegram to Nazi Germany asking for cooperation in 1941, if we're being fair. And that's not including the lackadaisical response among Ben Gurion to the night of broken glass.ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well as far as we know what you call the "Stern Gang" (they never called themselves that, notice how Hamas is never called the "Mashal gang" or a similar term) - they called themselves Lehi - was unaware of what the Nazis were doing and was taking "my enemy's enemy" to its logical extreme. They were of course wring and hindsight's 20/20 but they had a legitimate reason to fight against the British who since the Arab uprising of 1936 and especially since the white paper of 1939 appeared to be more and more hostile towards the Jewish presence in the Mandate. I am quite confident that had the leaders of Lehi known fully what the Nazis were up to they would have grudgingly sought some sort of agreement with the British. Andhad the British known (and believed) the full extent of the intentions of the Nazis, they would have let more Jews into the mandate in the first place. As for the whole Judenrat issue.... Wow... Now you have sunken quite low. You do know that they were literally forced at gunpoint to do what they were doing? This is seriously approaching the levels of Stalin, who argued that any Soviet POW who survived had done so by betraying those who didn't and hence a great part of POWs were sent to the Gulags right after returning from captivity. Could the Jews of Europe have done more to save themselves if they had anticipated what the Nazis were doing? Absolutely. But nobody did anticipate what the Nazis were doing. Most members of a Judenrat were probably thinking that by what they did they could save at least some Jews. They were obviously wrong. But up until Hitler forced their hand, Britain and France thought that Hitler had legitimate grievances that could be addressed by acquiescing to his demand. Had they drawn a line in the sand in 1933 and started with escalating sanctions once he crossed said line, the Nazi regime would have collapsed in no time. Most of Hitler's appeal was at first his foreign policy successes and later that war tends to shut down domestic dissent and criticism of the leadership....
Oh. and lest I forget it... So you are basically saying, the Jews are (partially) responsible for their own extermination during World War II, because they did not fully anticipate the murderous intent of the Nazis. Well... Today there are again people who claim to wish to kill all Jews. And now Israel has decided to take those threats at face value and shoot first if push comes to shove. Sorry, but you cannot have it both ways. Either Jews should anticipate the possibility of anti-Semitic threats being serious or they shouldn't. Good day sir (or madam). Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you really making excuses because the groups in question happen to be Jewish? I know you're an apologist for Israel's actions, but the extent of these apologetics is just barbaric on your part and especially disturbing. The Lehi made a second contact to Nazi Germany at the end of 1941, at a time when the Germans were killing Jews and Soviets through death-squads as part of its invasion of the USSR. But no, because the Lehi happens to be Jewish and Zionist for the matter, they were "unaware" and could do no wrong. They actually were not taking the enemy of my enemy to a logical extreme, but were establishing an alliance on mutual ideological interests. Part of the reason I do not declare myself a Zionist is because it provides a certain legitimacy to antisemitism in that Jews cannot assimilate in other societies, and as such, need a state of their own. And indeed, Lehi sought contact with Nazi Germany because Germany could help transferring Jews out of Europe into Palestine (they previously did this in the Haavara agreement in 1933). In other words, exclude Jews and expel them in order to foster the creation of a Jewish state. That was not enemy of my enemy, but an ideological connection.
Again, you're making excuses which I find extremely disturbing. The Judenrat were the ones who assisted the Germans in catching Jews and transferring them on transport trains to Nazi extermination camps. The Judenrat represented the elite of the Jewish communities and had their own internal security and control, especially in light of the fact they did cooperate with some resistance movements such as the uprisings in Minsk and Lachawa. The role of the Judenrat is not much different from what I would call the Palestinian collaborators in the PA, who did Israel's dirty work of the occupation by serving as the internal administration between the occupiers with guns in their hands and broader communities. I'll consider your quote: "Could the Jews of Europe have done more to save themselves if they had anticipated what the Nazis were doing? Absolutely. But nobody 'did' anticipate what the Nazis were doing. Most members of a Judenrat were probably thinking that by what they did they could save at least some Jews." The Judenrat served between 1939 and 1945, and as you know, the Holocaust took place from mid-1941 to 1945. Are you really trying to tell me they didn't "anticipate" what the Nazis were doing? That they didn't see the liquidation of the ghetto uprisings for themselves?
I brought it up in response to your diatribe on Husseini to make the point that it's not as one-sided as you portray it to be with regard to who collaborated with Nazi Germany and who acted passively; my point was to highlight the hypocrisy of trying to assign Palestinian culpability for the Holocaust while not doing the same for other groups (Israeli in this case). Right, Zionists did not fully "anticipate the murderous intent" of the Nazis. Even though 96 Jews were killed after the Night of the Broken Glass, Ben-Gurion himself stated, "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second—because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people" (Segev, p. 27 of Seventh Million). But yes, after 96+ Jews were killed after being excluded from society, fellow Zionists like Ben-Gurion did not have a problem with this as long as it served their cause in Palestine as quoted above. What do we call that? Sounds like a culture of death. Even at war's end in 1945, Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership blocked plans to transfer thousands of child Holocaust survivors in frail health from wretched camps for displaced persons to safe havens elsewhere in Europe, for fear that such resettlement “might weaken the struggle for free immigration of Jewish refugees to Palestine" (Grodzinsky, In The Shadow of the Holocaust, p.97). But yes, even though Zionists fought the British because of the restrictions of Jewish immigration at a time when Jews were in mortal danger and even though the broader Jewish population became supportive of Zionism during and after the Holocaust, they were "unaware". Especially with the willingness to sacrifice Holocaust survivors as I cited above. I knew I was going to be frustrated with an Israel apologist, but I didn't imagine the apologetics would go this far. Good lord. If Arabs like Husseini try to collaborate with the Nazis and pay passive attention to the Holocaust while not displaying any sign of disapproval, it goes to show how EVULLL THOSE GENOCIDALL ARABS REALLY ARE. But if Jews do the same, well no problem with that because they're Jewish, and to even question such actions would be ANTISEMITIC AND RACISTTTT. ChrisAmiss (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Where to begin? Yes Lehi did make some errors and they were overall not pleasant people. It probably is not the biggest stretch to say that their methods included terrorism (though whether they were a terrorist organization is up to debate - much like the PKK which engages in acts of terror but is not necessarily a terrorist organization). But. Comparing Lehi to Al-Husseini and concluding they were somehow equal and than throwing in the Judenräte in for good measure...(btw. a certain Marcel Reich Ranicky wrote about his work for one of them in his autobiography... I guess the thing that best describes the mindset of most members of the Judenräte is the boiling frog analogy). Al-Husseini voluntarily chose to go on a recruiting drive for SS volunteers. He on more than one occasion could have saved Jewish lives (in some cases this would have even meant personal gain for him or his cause) but he chose not to. He could have confided himself with the White Paper and gaining almost all of his aims while eliminating the moderate Arabs in the mandate as a political force, but instead he chose to ally with the Nazis. Lehi was founded in part because the stance of Haganah regarding the White Paper was seen as too moderate. Now if you say that there needs to be a fight with the British and you cannot turn to many local allies but the British are currently at war, whom do you turn to? It was of course the wrong decision (at least with perfect 20/20 hindsight), but political decisions always have to be understood in the context of the time. Were all compromises on slavery morally wrong and tactically stupid? - In hindsight yes, beginning with the very drafting of the constitution. Could Reconstruction have gone further? Could the freed slaves have been armed in the Civil War at an earlier date and in a more massive fashion? Yes on all counts! But political leaders at that time did not have the benefit of hindsight. Political decisions are made by flawed human beings who don't always pay attention. And again, while Lehi were not particularly pleasant people (and - this might surprise you - I would not vote for Bibi Netanyahu if I were Israeli), their conduct during World War II (especially their choice of potential allies) was due to incompetence not malice. Al-Husseini on the other hand... There is only debate of whether he hated Jews for nationalistic or antisemitic reasons. An article on him would be fully on mission, but that is just an aside. And you cannot deny that most political factions in Israel have learned one lesson from what happened to the Judenräte - they will take all threats against Jews all antisemitic blatherings as serious as if it was Hitler himself saying it. They have proved the point more than once. The destruction of the nuclear facility in Osirak (which btw had no major negative consequences, unlike the third Gulf War) is just one proof of that. And in the end, who can begrudge them for that? Would you rather be right and dead or wrong and alive? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The Holocaust cannot justify current abuses, and this goes for any group that has been mass murdered in a genocide. I've been arguing that much of the justification Israel uses (they want to kill us) is exaggerated because it cannot be evidenced on either a historic or diplomatic level (see what I wrote on the 6 Day War).Mmuch of the alleged threats to Israel are borne of its self-inflicted wounds to the extent that it is ludicrous to say they are defending themselves (when they are actually on the offensive). Even if you cite Hamas, most of the time they fire rockets after an Israeli attack, not the other way around (source: If the Arabs/Palestinians/Hamas/Fatah or whoever the hell we're talking about is so genocidal, a couple of issues need to be raised. One, in the 1948 which is commonly cited among hard-line Zionists as alleged evidence that the Arabs wanted to wipe out Jews, consider the Arab take-over of East Jerusalem, in which Benny Morris in Road to Jerusalem writes, "its ultra-orthodox inhabitants and 300-odd Haganah defenders raised the white flag. The Haganah men went off to a prisoner-of-war camp in Transjordan and the 1,500 inhab- itants were shepherded and transferred, under Red Cross supervision, to Jewish West Jerusalem" (p. 165). Is that genocide? Or consider the case of Gilad Shalit. If Hamas is so dead-bent on murdering Jews, why didn't they kill him, or any Jewish human rights activists who enter Gaza for that matter? Why do they suppress rocket fire in Gaza? ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I do not doubt that Husseini probably had some antisemitic lingerings, but much of what is written on him historically is nonsense and so far beyond the pale of actual history that it morphs info pseudo history. I will address this later tonight. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Was editing the section but then the page was locked[edit]

So guess I'd post it here:

Simplistic and facile comparisons between Zionism and Nazism

Many opponents of Zionism find themselves tempted to make simplistic and facile comparisons to Nazism, given the movements' related history and the perceived opportunity to call Zionists hypocrites. While even self-critical Zionist Israelis sometimes make such comparisons, e.g. when former director of Shine Bet Avraham Shalom said Israel had become "a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II"[17], the marked differences between Nazism and Zionism indicate there is little debt to them. While the intention of Zionists was to establish a place of refuge for Jewish people, the Nazis wanted to subjugate all nations and exterminate anyone they didn't like. The only commonality between Zionism and Nazism is that they are both forms of ethnic nationalism with an expansionist territorial project to "repossess" ancestral lands. Anti-nationalists see them both as rotten fruit of a rotten tree, although there can be no doubt that Nazism is among the most rotten of the many rotten fruits that tree has produced. (talk) 19:19, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

The thing is, tho, Zionism really also is a "blood and soil" nationalism, just as National Socialism was, and also involves "re-taking" what is deemed ancestral ethnic homeland. that's just a fact. German Zionists actually wrote to the Reich depicting their movement as very similar and asking for support. (Yes, I can document that, too.) These are FACTS.---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure, try to use the fringe of Lehi as a means to smear all Zionists before, during and after (also, there was no notion of the Jews as superior race in Zionism, so the "blood" part ain't there, either).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that already reflected in "ethnic nationalism with an expansionist territorial project to repossess ancestral lands" though? (talk) 19:46, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yes, I guess, but the phrase "blood and soil nationalism" is a 19th centruy (colorful) artifact that simply applies to describe that phenomenon.---Mona- (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is no question that the Zionists, certainly by the time of Jabotinksy, advocated ethnic cleansing to secure their "territorial advancement." Moreover, Zionists were deeply racist toward the native Arab inhabitants, referring to them as "savages" and the like. Moreover, they wrote to Cecil Rhodes and said they envisioned for Israel his project in Rhodesia -- as a project of European bastions in more savage lands. This racism, too, is easily documented.---Mona- (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, that backs up Zionism being similar to plain old colonialism then. But colonialism ≠ Nazism. (talk) 20:08, 20 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
With respect to nationalism and irrendentism, they do share similarities. Zionism arose in response to Antisemitism while Nazism arose in response to the treaty of Versailles and the alleged persecution of Germans (that was their rationale for attacking Poland anyway). Zionism could only achieve a Jewish majority by expelling the non Jewish majority, so that is certainly true. However, as I said, Zionism did not advocate for racial hierarchies or scientific racism. Nazism did. That is the significant difference. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody ever denied that Zionism is a form of nationalism. And Nazism is in a very big part about nationalism (though there are way less currents of different thought within Nazism than within Zionism or even the more broadly defined nationalism). But saying they are the same or even similar is saying a Trabbi is basically the same as a Porsche because they are both cars from Poland. And no blood and soil is not helping your case User:-Mona-. What are the "-" for by thew way? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


Can someone block this page from editing? ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Further recommendation[edit]

Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

This topic is boring. I don't know why people get so worked up about it. Krom (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I really should write an essay going into more detail about this question. One thing is for sure: If you want to divide any political movement that is not explicitly about Israel (and even some that are) just ask the question what they think about Zionism. Within hours everybody will be at everybody's throat. I don't know why, but the experience here seems to confirm this Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Three changed sections that are inexplicably controversial[edit]

Editing has been frozen. I submit three sections I changed, adding a great deal of substance and documentation. What in the hell is wrong, and why are they not manifest improvements to the unsourced shit they replaced? Substantive reasons, not mere whines and fallacious objections.

Well, firstly, go fuck yourself. Secondly, my problem is with your rampant cherrypicking. There isn't going to be a house pov on Israel - seriously, not going to happen, so you're either going to be able to write something that satisfies people who think Israel is great, or you're going to get reverted a lot. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy controlling how one may publicly use comments made in the talk section? Is there, for example, a ban on sharing it with the press?---Mona- (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Sharing it with the press- -Mona- The talkpages are public, which means no (if you, of course, observe the license regulations, that is).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 19:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Um, public domain means anyone can take it. The opposite of not being to share it with the press. No, I'm asking if there are any policies that would cause me to jeopardize my privileges here by taking a complaint to the press -- I am networked with large platforms where there is objection to Zionist chilling of speech and debate. And, sorry to say, I sense that happening big time here. ---Mona- (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you'll probably get blocked for even threatening it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Under the 'being a petulant arsehole who's incapable of playing nicely with others' principle. Take a look at RationalWiki:Pissed_at_us for an idea of how much we're likely to care if you have that particular tantrum, and what illustrious company you'll be in. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's just sum it up: amping up the "persecuted anti-Zionist" spiel up to eleven by involving the press (or a whole bunch of new editors appearing out of nowhere who share your every view) is unlikely to help your case. For whatever reason... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Something innovative[edit]

An individual told me in a posting (I think now deleted) that nothing written that is unsupportive of Israel can survive at RW. That would suggest this is the most polarizing topic here and is in need of a solution of this entry if it and others are to not remain incomplete, unsourced shit.

Why not note that this topic ispolarizing and host parallel entries? That is a compromise where apparently none can otherwise be reached, and is a Marshall McLuhan-like demonstration of how polarizing the topic can be.---Mona- (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No. No one ever told you that. Stop being willfully obtuse. Hipocrite (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure someone did say that. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No one ever said that. It's a willfully obtuse misreading of "stop writing things you know will get reverted and try to find consensus." Hipocrite (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
...POV forks? Sounds awesome. Except no. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not?---Mona- (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
On my talk page Hypocrite claims it was worded this way: "You're either going to be able to write something that satisfies people who think Israel is great, or you're going to get reverted a lot," . Yeah, as in, unendingly, and one won't be able to make any FACT-filled edits that are sourced if the "people who think Israel is great" decide there won't be any. Apparently here, there is a Commandment: "Thou shalt utter not a thing that detracts from the glory that is Israel." I really do think this is a matter of public interest, especially for a site known to be a haven of rationalists. Some facts literally are not allowed. -Mona- (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Because we dont host two versions of an article in mainspace - get a consensus for the one. Again, this is a wiki, a collaborative consensus driven form of website. If you cannot accept that people do disagree with you, you are free to leave and host your version elsewhere. You certainly wont be getting any support if you are going to threaten us over it--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
User:-Mona- I have a request. Simply put just "imagine us complexly" (as John Green would put it). Try to read the article as if it was not about Israel but about some other thing or entity (preferably something you don't know or care about) and than tell us that there is no criticism of the subject matter in it. Just try that. I am not even asking for you to consider the pro-Zionist perspective. Just try to see the article as if you had no stake in it. I don't know whether this will achieve anything, and I don't know whether it even works, but please give it an honest try. Thank you. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Even if you will it, it will stay a fairytale...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Selbst wenn du es willst, ist es ein Märchen... You see now, where this is from?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Lo siento, aún no comprendo, maé. Sorry ain't got no clue whatya tellin' me. Verzeihung aber irgendwie stehe ich auf dem Schluach... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Zionism[edit]

(breaking my parole to post this but) There are uses of the word Zionism that do not refer to the political notion(s). SockHashbrown (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Define Cultural Zionism.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The founder of Hebrew University, Judah Magnes, vehemently rejected political Zionism, and called for a spiritual Zionism that would not mean killing Arabs and stealing their land. He lost to Valdimir Jabotinsky who very straightforwardly identified the Palestinians as indigenous populations who, like such populations anywhere, will fight colonization, and so Zionist force would be necessary and proper. But I'm sure Avenger of the BoN/Arisboch would immediately revert any edit reflecting these facts, and no one will stop him.---Mona- (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Persecution complex much? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, please. Stop saying non sequitur trollish things already. (talk) 21:02, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion, my dear BoNlike user... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
So ignoring the silly digs at each other, we agree that that is a valid, notable usage of the word Zionism not presently covered in the article, or no? WalkerWalkerWalker 23:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a dig on my part: I'm quite serious. Vladamir Jabotinsky is also missing from the current piece of crap; no history of Zionism is complete without that. I believe I've demonstrated that I know a very great deal about this topic and have read vast amounts about it; that I can source my claims. But to tell the truth on this topic entails not whitewashing the historical record -- it is to contradict the Zionist narrative and reveal a great many ugly truths which that narrative excludes. Avenger of the Bon and Arisboch have made quite clear they will not tolerate any such material or documentation.---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to appear stupid (someone has to from time to time) but what is "cultural Zionism" even supposed to mean? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Zionism not entailing the foundation/continuance of a Jewish state, or focused principally on the development of a Jewish national identity, culture, etc. Also some religious stuff that escapes me. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Read the Judah Magnes letter I linked above. He and others wanted a Jewish cultural and spiritual center in Palestine, but was repulsed by the plans of political Zionism which he accurately predicted would lead to obscene militarism, carnage of the Arabs and corruption of the Jewish soul with ethno-religious nationalism. Many contemporary Jews, especially younger ones, have reverted to a sense of Jewishness along Magnes' lines, and reject the grotesque, violent and racist State of Israel as having anything to do with their identity.---Mona- (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So in essence "Zionism without Zionism"? The continued existence of the state of Israel is the cornerstone and the foundation of every type of Zionism I have ever heard about. Something that rejects that may be an expression of Jewishness, but it certainly is no form of Zionism... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Think of it as promoting the nation but not the state. WalkerWalkerWalker 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Are the endless reversions from Avenger of BoN, Arisboch to continue?[edit]

David Gerard told me I may post this here. Are we going to determine whether Avenger of the BoN and Arisboch are going to be permitted to endlessly delete all evidence of the current state of the debate over Israel-Palestine? They want to quash, e.g., claims that Israel practices apartheid, but it is a FACT that the African National Congress, Desmond Tutu, Stephen Hawking, many Pulitzer Prize winnners, elite actors and writers & etc all take that view and have explanations for why. How is this growing phenomenon not relevant to a Zionism article? How is what Israeli officials and mainstream journalists themselves say about comparisons of Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinians on the one hand, with Nazi occupations of Eastern Europe on the other, not relevant? How are recent historical examinations (some by Israeli historians and journalists, and by American New Republic journalist, John Judis) of what Zionists did to Palestinians to remove them from the land not relevant? How is it not relevant that serious-minded, non-fringe people call what Zionist terrorists and military did in 1948 "ethnic cleansing?" (Einstein called it terrorism at the time, and I can document it.) Are Avenger of the Bon and Arisboch going to be permitted to keep all that current reality from the eyes of all who visit this site? I ask that you all confront that question.-----Mona- (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

They want to quash, e.g., claims that Israel practices apartheid, but it is a FACT that the African National Congress, Desmond Tutu, Stephen Hawking, many Pulitzer Prize winnners, elite actors and writers & etc all take that view and have explanations for why.- Mona
It is a fact that those people hold the opinion that Israel practices apartheid. That does not make it a fact that Israel practices apartheid. Many other people, just as notable, hold the opinion that Israel does not practice apartheid.
How is this growing phenomenon not relevant to a Zionism article?- Mona
Thank you for advising me that other people hold this opinion. I disagree with this opinion myself.
How is what Israeli officials and mainstream journalists themselves say about comparisons of Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinians on the one hand, with Nazi occupations of Eastern Europe on the other, not relevant?- Mona
Is it a fact or an opinion? I really don't care what the opinion of various Israeli officials or mainstream journalists say. All I care about are the facts of the matter.
And it's the same for all of your other questions. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to present facts, not considered opinions. RationalWiki, not OpinionWiki. --Castaigne (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Well here is an actual fact for you: Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have actual anti-marriage laws still on the books. Egypt explicitly for an Egyptian marrying an Israeli (with the question of whether (s)he is Jewish or not explicitly taken into consideration), Saudistan has a little more complicated rules, but in most cases marrying a Jew is totally off limits, as they cannot by definition be part of any of the qualifying groups. In Israel on the other hand you can even gay marry a Palestinian (or rather you can do it while on vacation to say Holland) and will be entitled to the full benefits of the Israeli law for any other gay marriage. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
But don't countries get a right to determine who resides within it and who doesn't? If Israel can prevent Palestinians from returning or any immigrants to come in on the basis of maintaining a Jewish majority or gets to decide whose citizenship is revoked (as they do in East Jerusalem), don't countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have the right to do so? That was what you said in Israel's case. So I'm just curious. By the way, your sources state that 30,000 Egyptians are married to Israeli women, and the case you're talking about is one example. Have the 30,000 Egyptians had their residency revoked? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I really fail to see why any of this matters to the topic of conversation? --Castaigne (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Er, ok. I don't see what that has to do with Zionism. At all. So thanks for the non-sequitur? --Castaigne (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, inserting non sequiturs into these discussions is one of Avenger's specialties. (talk) 22:17, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I guess I should have been more in your face about it... One of the worst aspects of Apartheid was outlawing love. As evidenced by people like Trevor Noah who - quite literally - was "born a crime". Israel does not as a matter of fact outlaw love. Egypt and Saudistan do. That was what I was getting at. And while the source probably does not go into great detail on the issue, I guess that the "exemptions" that are granted in the case of the Israeli actually being an Arab or a Muslim (you know, an Israeli citizen with equal rights, unlike the situation of [insert example of second class citizens here[18]]). So by citizenship they are Israeli, but Egypt does not give a crap about citizenship (though the latter of the law states it does) what they care about is their citizens not fraternizing with the enemy Jews. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, for a matter of fact, I'm quite critical of Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the basis of their authoritarianism and US support for it. My point was whenever Avenger gets confronted with critiques of Israel's occupation or Zionism in general, he changes the subject to another country or basically justifies it on the basis that everyone does it. He can only do this for so long before he gets confronted with it himself. And by the way, this omits the fact that Israel enacts a discriminatory marriage law where Palestinians from the OPT cannot visit their spouses in Israel generally while Jewish settlers on the other hand can, so the apartheid charge is still legitimate. The source for Egypt states they consider revoking it if they are in the army or embrace Zionism (which taken broadly enough can mean any Israeli), and their justification is on national security grounds, which is BS. Considering however, that Israel says it enacts the above law for security reasons, are Egypt's laws not also justified since Israel attacked Egypt in 1967? As far as Saudi goes, Avenger is correct. Saudi has gender apartheid laws where Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men, snd this applies to practically everyone. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You're using an extremely muddled and/or loose definition of apartheid. Apartheid, specifically, refers to racial segregation. Saudi Arabia does not have "gender apartheid" laws; they have laws that enforce religious discrimination. That's not apartheid, in either common parlance or political parlance. Jim Crow was a form of apartheid. Be precise. Don't hyperbolize. --Castaigne (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
That's why they call it "gender" apartheid. There's no legal definition of gender apartheid, but enough respectable commentators have highlighted the gender disparities that I think using the word apartheid (which originally referred to the state of being apart/separateness rather than the legal definition of racial segregation/dominance) could be seen as legitimate. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, there's no legal definition and your feelz aren't an appropriate substitute. I've noted your opinion and dismissed it as hyperbolic crap. --Castaigne (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but could I see a source or cite (preferably WP or another reputable source without too much "skin in the game") for said law? As I don't read Hebrew, its actual text will probably not do, though ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Im typing this from my mobile phone so bear with me. The sources are human rights groups like Amnesty, HRW, Btselem, Yesh Din, ACRI, PCATI, etc. Before you accuse them of "bias", keep in mind these groups are very critical of Palestinian human rights abuses under PA and Hamas, so they don't really have skin in the game even if you think they're full of crap or terrorist apologists. Here's one sourace on issue of family unification: ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If you're gonna focus on arbitrary distinctions between facts and opinions: It's a fact that Israel can be compared to South Africa's apartheid regime for much the same reasons as the latter can be compared to many other colonialist regimes with segregation policies. (talk) 22:20, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You can compare, sure, but Israel does not practice apartheid as apartheid is defined. --Castaigne (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on which definition? One that makes an arbitrary distinction between race and ethnicity? And factually speaking, whether something is X or is eerily similar to X often makes no meaningful difference. (talk) 22:52, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You can compare anything to anything. Whether it is meaningful is another thing. You can compare William Henry Harrison to Attila the Hun, for all I care. But most people misunderstand the word "compare" to mean: See two things as (almost equal). Well you can also compare vastly different things and get interesting findings. Let's say for example we compare Nazism and Democracy, if we are thorough and intellectually honest, the ways in which both are dissimilar may tell us how to avoid Nazism happening ever again (something I assume there is great consensus for over here) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Now observe as Avenger ignores the rather vital part "for much the same reasons as the latter can be compared to many other colonialist regimes". Also, are you seriously proposing we apply argumentum ad Hitlerum consistently to society? (talk) 23:06, 21 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"It is a fact that those people hold the opinion that Israel practices apartheid." That's right, and they provide reasons for that view. These are not nobodies: public intellectuals, scientists, academics, sophisticated artists and the fucking African National Congress (who knows a thing or two about apartheid) hold this growing view. But, that doesn't belong in an entry about current attitudes about Zionism, eh? ---Mona- (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
What are the reasons they provide, as I guess this is not just an argument from authority? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"And it's the same for all of your other questions. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to present facts, not considered opinions. RationalWiki, not OpinionWiki." Allow me to explain why it is rational to include such opinions. In the Western legal system the courts certify experts who are entitled to testify as to their opinions on topics within the parameters of their expertise. I suggest to you that a former director of Shin Bet is such an expert. Indeed, many of the people whose opinions I cite are well-educated in the topic they pronounce on. (Also, are you telling me that the opinions of educated people are excluded in all RW entries?) Moreover, when the state of Zionism has collapsed into such horror that SIX former Shin Bet directors are willing to state on camera that the State of Israel is committing vicious crimes, is that not incredibly noteworthy?---Mona- (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ben Carson touting fancy nutritional supplements is also noteworthy. Noteworthiness was not the question asked. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Castaigne was arguing/asserting that opinions have no place in the mainspace of RationalWiki. Mona is arguing that some opinions do deserve mention on our wiki. (talk) 01:10, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
@-Mona-Just to respond to your remarks: What counts as educated? Note the Dunning-Kruger effect. As a separate phenomenon, there are creationists as well as woo-believers who are scientists and or doctors. Famous and otherwise intellectual people have inverse stopped clock moments. Not all decisions and conclusions are rationally made. Anyway, you seem to have ignored my previous statement. Explain their opinions and why they're valid, or it's an argument from authority. Opinions can and have been wrong or unsupported. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I am not an expert in apartheid, of either the kind that obtained in South Africa or is now said to apply in Israel. But just as I would (and have) cited evolutionary scientists to creationists, I cite Desmond Tutu and the ANC (as well as others) for the proposition that they see in Israel something similar enough to the apartheid they lived under to call it by that name. Go to the ANC site. See the ANC BDS site. They write extensively on the reasons Israel is engaged in an evil that is apartheid. (Again, are the opinions of reputable people on topics they are known to be experts in prohibited from entries here?)---Mona- (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
From a Zionist source: "South Africa's ruling African National Congress (ANC) has officially endorsed the annual Israel Apartheid Week" -Mona- (talk) 01:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Many ANC leaders were also highly supportive (and some still are) of Robert Mugabe, so their opinion on Zionism may be influenced by things that happened in international politics during the 1980s or even before and not actually any thing Israel did or does domestically... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Mona is arguing that some opinions do deserve mention on our wiki." Yes but more than that I'm asking this: Are the opinions of knowledgeable people and those holding expertise on subjects generally prohibited in RW articles? And, in an article in vaccines, for instance, would a section on the anti-vaccine movement find it worthwhile to note that a movie star like Jim Carry has signed on to that dangerous nonsense? When luminaries, especially many of them, get behind a political movement is that something to note? How about if they feel so strongly about their view they are spearheading a very controversial and polarizing boycott campaign of a U.S. ally? -Mona- (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course they aren't, Mona. It's just a silly argument Castaigne made because they're obsessed with physical facts. It doesn't reflect on the site's policies. (talk) 02:03, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Avenger of the BoN speculates: "Many ANC leaders were also highly supportive...." Uh-huh. Well, the ANC and Desmond Tutu officially oppose Israel as an apartheid state. Your speculations as to their motives are noted.---Mona- (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That must be the most disingenuous quote-mine yet. What I said is that many ANC leaders were (and some still are) highly supportive of Robert Mugabe. Why? Well, he also fought against a white minority regime and when he got into power he provided the ANC with weapons and logistic support. So it is not entirely unreasonable to at least suspect that the ANC's opinion of Israel is influenced by geopolitics of past decades and not any thing Israel actually does or does not do to Palestinians in any way shape or form. But go ahead, disingenuously quote mine my statements all day long to make them look nonsensical. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"But go ahead, disingenuously quote mine my statements all day long to make them look nonsensical." I didn't quote you except that you went on to poison the well by speculating on motives. I don't care what implausible motives you assign to Desmond Tutu and the ANC. The fact remains they strong oppose Zionism and declare that Israel is an apartheid state. You can try to wrap this up in Mugabe and whatever all you like, but the fact remains that the people who most intimately lived South African apartheid denounce what they find to be an Israeli version. That is but one -- but a large one -- piece of support for including in the Zionism entry that there exists an increasingly held finding that Israel is an apartheid state. There are other serious people and their publications saying the same. ---Mona- (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
How is it "poisoning the well" to point out that your belovéd ANC (whose current head is Jacob Zuma and whose prior head was an AIDS denialist[19]) may not be the best source of foreign policy advice. Sure they have lived through actual Apartheid. Nobody doubts or denies that. But they do not necessarily know a thing about Israel and they quite likely still have an axe to grind. If this is an argument from authority, it is a week one. Hugo Chavez also hated Israel. What does that tell us? Well, it tells us that foreign policy is a bitch. Chavez and the Dinner Jacket had next to nothing in common when it came to domestic policy, but they both found themselves isolated by the West (and especially the US), so they decided to make common cause. Of course they had to throw in Belarus for good measure... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course they aren't, Mona. It's just a silly argument Castaigne made because they're obsessed with physical facts. It doesn't reflect on the site's policies.- 142․124․55․236
Wrong thing to say, BON. It's not a silly argument; so far what I've seen on this Talk page from you and Mona are assertions from authority and lots of biased sources that are strangely slanted in your favor. It's the same sort of thing that I see when people with an agenda of some sort show up here - Creationists, anti-vaxxers, so on. And you're not doing a very good job of convincing me that this isn't some sort of shill shitshow you're trying to run here. --Castaigne (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
These are not nobodies: public intellectuals, scientists, academics, sophisticated artists and the fucking African National Congress (who knows a thing or two about apartheid) hold this growing view. But, that doesn't belong in an entry about current attitudes about Zionism, eh?- Mona
I don't care who the fuck they are. Are they experts on Israeli history and government? What are their credentials on those subjects? As far as I'm concerned, the ANC's opinion on whether the Israelis conduct apartheid is about as valid as the Republican National Committee's opinion. The ANC is an expert on South Africa; I'll respect their expertise in their matters on that subject. But I don't go to electricians for plumbing opinions. --Castaigne (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And factually speaking, whether something is X or is eerily similar to X often makes no meaningful difference.-
And I don't see it as eerily similar either. In fact, I think your opinion on the matter is pretty much hyperbolic nonsense. Israel is not practicing apartheid as far as either a) I can see it or b) I can source it through experts on Israeli government and history. --Castaigne (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh and... User:-Mona-; Are the people you are quote "serious people" or very serious people? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

International Jewish Anti-Zionism Network[edit]

The link seems to be broken. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Voice for Peace[edit]

does not "hold a political objection to the need of a Jewish state." In fact, their mission statement (hit the Peace section) contains at least implicit support for the continued existence of Israel. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That they're not set on getting rid of the current State of Israel doesn't mean they have to support Zionism though. (talk) 01:18, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Umm... okay? Nonethless, the claim that they "hold a political objection to the need of a Jewish state" is plainly false, and I don't see them advocating some constitutional change, so the "as constituted" bit doesn't redeem it. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, defining Zionism as " a political movement... [bla bla history] to create a political and geographic nation-state for the Jewish people" precludes an self-consistent page from calling them anti-Zionist. Anti-nationalist? Quite, but that isn't the same as anti-Zionist. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. I didn't put JVP in there -- it was in the original. And before I was finished I would have looked that up because I think there are liberal Zionists in their membership. They support BDS and are deeply critical of Israel, but are not all necessarily anti-Zionist. ---Mona- (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, Jewish nationalism/irredentism really probably needs a page also (which I'm sure you could help build if it were to be made). Although of course the "can't have more the one page on Gamergate" argument would play out all over again if someone created such a page. [end of my ramblings goes here] WalkerWalkerWalker 01:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading their mission statement and I'm not seeing any implicit support for Zionism. Also, interpreting "as constituted" to refer to a constitution in this context is... funny. But if you wanna optimize the description in that section, feel free to do so once the protection is lifted. (talk) 01:33, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
They support the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel... which is to say they are, given the definition of Zionism at the top of the page, Zionist. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
That definition seems also to fit nicely with my boys Merriam and Webster WalkerWalkerWalker 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, argumentum ad dictionarium. I think you and I both know that considering it preferable or practical to accept a continued existence of the current State of Israel doesn't make one a Zionist. Let's not be pedantic/dishonest here. (talk) 01:44, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
That is exactly how I use the term (unless of course referring to a period when creation of said state was a forthcoming event), exactly what it actually means, and its usage in ordinary discourse. You seem to be discussing Jewish nationalism in general, of which Zionism is but a single manifestation. WalkerWalkerWalker 01:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So conversely anti-Zionists are people who want to get rid of the state of Israel no compromises no second thoughts no land transfer nothing? Or am I getting this wrong? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course not, PacWalker is just being silly. (talk) 02:00, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Let's take the definition this article actually uses: "a mass political movement originated in the 19th century to create a political and geographic nation-state for the Jewish people". This is not the same as "With Israel now being a thing and me being lazy, I guess we should go the easy road and keep it around." Do you consider yourself part of this mass political movement that originated in the 19th century or are you a strong supporter of it? If not, I'd tend not to identify you as a Zionist. (talk) 02:00, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Meh, I'm reluctant to use general dictionaries when an important definition is under serious discussion and debate. (Some dictionary definitions of evolution have been very creationist-friendly.) Similarly, no one should think they understand many words that have legal meaning by seeing what Merriam Webster has to say.---Mona- (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Supporting Israel's existence does not necessarily make one a Zionist. I support Israel's existence; I do not think it is practical at this moment for Israel to go away or for there to be one-state. However, this does not make me a Zionist because I believe nationalism based on an ethnic/religious group is inherently discriminatory and thus not desirable. I believe being Zionist means supporting a state for the Jews rather than the state of Israel (although Netanyahu wants to erase this distinction). ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) (ec) (ec) So you're saying Zionism is only support for the original creation of a state of Israel for the Jews? Let's take that on its face, then, and consider whether Jewish Voice for Peace claims the creation of Israel was wrong (i.e. opposes Zionism). If not, how do they qualify as anti-Zionist? WalkerWalkerWalker 02:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There are liberal Zionists who believe what Israel did in 1948 was wrong, but they nevertheless accept Israel's existence today. ChrisAmiss (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Do you consider yourself part of this mass political movement that originated in the 19th century or are you a strong supporter of it? If not, I'd tend not to identify you as a Zionist." That's not how Jewish supporters of Israel talk among themselves. Liberal Jews who endorse the continuation of ethno-religious Jewish supremacy in Israel are Zionists, even if they are otherwise liberals. Leftist Letty Cottin Pogrebin has said she sees Zionism -- which she accepts -- as "affirmative action for Jews." No Jewish person in Israel could get elected dog catcher if s/he rejected ethno-religious Jewish supremacy for Israel.---Mona- (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Peter Beinart is a liberal Zionist who has written a book claiming the ideology is in cirisis, to wit: "The Crisis of Zionism." Zionism may be in criris, but is certainly alive and continues as the foundation of the State of Israel.---Mona- (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So what I'm being told is that once it is possible, the definition of Zionism up top should be updated to reflect... whatever the hell this even is, and properly detach your railings against (what you're calling) Zionism from the movement for the creation of a state of Israel it presently names. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes the actions of a movement speaks louder than arguments by semantics. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take that also at face value, instead of questioning how you choose to define the movement and who you exclude. So when this page ceases to be protected, change the definition up top to reflect those actions instead of the historically accepted meaning, so that the page can be self-consistent in it usage of the word Zionism. WalkerWalkerWalker 02:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I had forgotten about this. German Zionists sought help from the Third Reich by pointing out the similarities of the blood-and-soil, ethno-religions supremacy on which Zionism is founded with National Socialism:"On June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation sent a secret memorandum to the Nazis:

Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear, which it seeks to overcome by carrying out its challenge to transform Jewish life completely.“It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry–indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions.“Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility.”---Mona- (talk) 02:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt most Zionists would have done this. This looks a little like the association fallacy. TheAtheistComrade (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The Jewish Virtual Library, which is replete with Zionist bullshit, nevertheless gives a reasonable, if general and flawed definition of Zionism: "The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has come to include the movement for the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defense Forces.From inception, Zionism avocated tangible as well as spiritual aims. Jews of all persuasions - left, right, religious and secular - formed the Zionist movement and worked together toward its goals.Disagreements in philosophy has led to rifts in the Zionist movement of the years and a number of separate forms have emerged, notably: Political Zionism; Religious Zionism; Socialist Zionism and Territorial Zionism." The Zionisms that matter today are all political, and all based on ethno-religious Jewish supremacy, just as at the foundation of the country of Israel.---Mona- (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh no AtheistComrade, no association fallacy. A deal went thru: And "In 1940, representatives of the underground Zionist group Lehi met with von Hentig to propose direct military cooperation with the Nazis for the continuation of the transfer of European Jews to Palestine.[7] This proposal, however, did not produce results." U.S. Jews were largely furious about this agreement, because they were marginalizing boycotts of Germany, and the Zionists (most U.S. Jews were not Zionists at the time) were undermining it.-Mona- (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any proof they represent most or a significant amount of Zionists? TheAtheistComrade (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
One of the members of the Lehi became prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir in 1983, meaning a prime minster of Israel was a would-be collaborator of the Nazis, disturbingly enough. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
TheAtheistComradeBreaking the anti-Nazi boycott "The Nazis would begin to boycott Jewish businesses in Germany starting in April 1933 in response to the American Jewish call for a boycott of Nazi Germany, which had started a month earlier in March 1933. In view of the racist Nazi regime's targeting of Jews, American Jews and other European Jews started a campaign in March 1933 to boycott Nazi Germany until it ended its racist campaign and political targeting of German Jews. Whereas American Jews, including Zionists, began to lobby US politicians and organisations to join the boycott, the Zionist leadership in Palestine and Germany saw the matter differently. It was in this context that the Zionists signed the notorious Transfer (Ha'avara) Agreement with Nazi Germany, whereby Jews leaving Germany to Palestine would be compensated for their lost property, which they were not allowed to transfer outside the country, through the transfer of German goods to the Jewish colonies in Palestine." American Jews were furious with their Palestinian and German counter-parts -- this was before anyone had any idea things would get as bad as a Holocaust and was seen as exploiting a common view of ethnic supremacy, i,e,e. agreeing with the Nazi's racial thinking, with the Jewish version taking place in Palestine. More in this book: ---Mona- (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You are failing to see the broader picture, User:-Mona-... First of all nobody - including Britain, France, The Soviets or the US - took Hitler's threats against Jews in his "book"[20] seriously, so why should the Zionists have? However, Nazis did hand out "tickets" to Jerusalem to Jews they did not like (hint: all of them) before they got into power and in their early years. So assuming that while the reasons were vastly different, there could be "tactical cooperation" between the Nazis and Zionists (namely the Nazis wishing to get the Jews out of Germany, the Zionists wishing to get Jews into the Mandate), was not at all unreasonable from a 1930s perspective. It would soon prove to be disastrously wrong, but so would appeasement and we don't question the legitimacy of the continued existence of Britain and France for a failed policy in the 1930s. Nobody, I repeat Nobody outside of a small circle around the top Nazis suspected what the Nazis were really up to. Sure some assumed Hitler wanted war. And most knew he didn't like Jews. But nobody could even hope to accurately guess what Hitler really intended, lest they be labeled a total crank. And as for a 2015 definition of Zionism, I'd say it goes like this: Support for the continued existence (and right to self-defense) of a Jewish state in (part of) the territory of Mandatory Palestine for religious, political or other reasons. Within this definition there is of course a wide variety of nuance and while it is a tired cliché, it is not entirely untrue that three Jews will have four opinions on the same topic. Kibbutzim for example are Zionist just the same as the "settlers" (many of whom are religiously motivated) consider themselves Zionist (for the most part at least). There are also several different reasons for anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism (this is by numbers the biggest reason) to a religious conviction that only the Messiah can bring the Jews back to the holy land. It might seem paradoxical, but there are even some "settlers" who reject the state of Israel (at least in its current form) as blasphemous yet still see it as their religious duty to live were they are currently living. In a similar vein, the orthodox community of Hebron, which was one of the first to be attacked by Arab extremists during the mandate had been there for centuries and vehemently rejected Zionism as blasphemous. It has only been in rather recent times that some orthodox groups have come to accept or made peace with Zionism. It is therefore doubly ironic that a group that is most likely to hate the state of Israel[21] is the only one that can realistically get around military service[22] - Orthodox Jews. Anyhow, according to the above definition I am a Zionist, because we cannot hope that a world without Israel would be able to rescue the Jews from the next Hitler. And saying something like Hitler cannot happen again is highly naïve Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm just going to say this again: decide on a definition of Zionism, update the definition currently given in the lead to match, and apply that same definition throughout. Don't take one definition up top and then apply another in the body. Cool? Cool. WalkerWalkerWalker 16:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Avenger of the BoN claims: "You are failing to see the broader picture," Not in the least; I agree "nobody - ....took Hitler's threats against Jews... seriously, so why should the Zionists have?" Exactly. Some have tried to defend the German and Palestinian Zionists by saying they feared something like the Holocaust was coming. In fact, they simply saw National Socialims's blood-and-soil nationalism and ethno-supremacism as the same ideology as theirs -- they figured they could work with the like-minded to get what each wanted: Germans could purify itself of Jews, and Zionists could fill Palestine with the Jews the German didn't want -- and fuck the Arabs. Win-win. That's what I've been telling you that you and others found so freaking intolerable -- some comparisons with the Third Reich are fact-based and reasonable.---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"decide on a definition of Zionism," In modern times, certainly since the founding of the State of Israel, there is only one that is operative, and that is political Zionism. Even the most liberal Zionists believe, by definition, in maintaining Israel as a Jewish-majority state established to promote the culture and religion of the Jews. If they don't insist on that -- if a one-state solution is acceptable or even demanded -- one where the Palestinian refugees of Gaza and the West bank are allowed to return to their ancestral homes and vote in elections in Israel -- then they are not Zionists. One can write of the differing tactics and compromises taken or allowed by liberal v. Likudnik Zionists, but they are all Zionists. ---Mona- (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So according to Mona-logic, Churchill was a Stalinist because he saw some limited tactical wiggle room for working together with him on some issues. The only way in which Zionism and Nazis are alike (which is a ridiculous statement on the face of it) is that they are both nationalism. Well so is advocating for the continued existence of Mexico. So is advocating for the continued existence of Burkina Faso. So is Scottish separatism. And a part of the Zionist movement seeing some areas of possible cooperation with the Nazis early on makes them Nazis? Oh for the love of holy Atheism, be serious! There is better cause to call the pope a fascist for his deals he made with Mussolini and Hitler (not to mention the rat linesWikipedia after the war)! Churchill (whom we have already established as an ardent communist in Mona logic, if you recall) is supposed to have said[23] " we slaughtered the wrong pig" after the war was over. The United States continued to negotiate and trade with Japan up until Pearl Harbor, so I guess they are all Shintoist hyper-nationalists who believe in a god-emperor. O please Mona, this might be fun if you were at least a little bit more intellectually honest. One past mistake of Zionism and it all gets called a Nazi movement... See? This is the definition of Antisemitism. Holding Jews to an unreasonably higher standard where every of their past faults no matter how small or made up is used as an "argument" against Jewish political movements. You know as well as I do that the one state solution isn't a solution. Just look at the failed state by design of Bosnia-whatsitsface Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Avengerofthe BoN again misunderstands: "One past mistake of Zionism and it all gets called a Nazi movement.." It wasn't a mistake -- Zionists had actual commonality with National Socialists NOT a common enemy. The comparison is not between Churchill and Stalin, but between Churchill and FDR, or Hitler and Mussolini. Addendum: There actually was a bit of a common enemy, insofar as at that time Palestinian Zionists saw the Brits as their enemy just as the Germand did.---Mona- (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hirohito also had both commonality and a common enemy with the Third Reich; indeed, he had more of each. Comparing him to a Nazi is still a gross oversimplification, though. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Excluding Zionists who aren't bloodthirsty expansionists from your definition of Zionism is something which can only be done with complete and willful ignorance of the historical meaning of that term: a movement seeking to create both a nation-state and a nation for the Jews. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:PacWalkerHirohito was not a Westerner drawing on an explicitly Western, 19th century enthusiasm for blood and soil ethnic nationalism. National Socialism, and to a large degree, Zionism, both did. Moreover, the problem is not with what *I* am excluding -- it is that the article at present excludes the colonialist, militaristic, anti-Arab racism - - or to use your word, "bloodthirstiness" -- of Vladimir Jabotinsky, Yitzhak Shamir and Menachem Begin; the last two (terrorists, both) would be prime ministers of Israel, and the former is a venerated, Israeli hero. So what's it going to be, User:PacWalker, is the Zionist entry to remain denuded of any harsh facts that are unpleasant for Zionists?---Mona- (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Entire introductory discussion of Zionism needs drastic re-write.[edit]

Zionism is not a thing of the past meaningfully compared only to the events of 1948, and no longer applicable. For one thing, Zionism's fundamental tenets and goals continue to control the State of Israel, as well as its unfinished business which is crammed into an open air prison called Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Don't take my word for it that Zionism remains a current movement, here is a (highly sanitized) bit from the ADL, with bracketed comments from me:


Modern political Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in response to the violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe [and because blood-and-soil, ethnic nationalism was a popular ideology then], anti-Semitism in Western Europe, and the rise of both radical socialist and liberal nationalist movements throughout Europe. Rooted in the Jewish people's biblical and historical ties to their ancestral homeland [read: the Hebrew bible as a land deed], and their centuries-long yearning to return to the land of Israel, modern Zionism successfully fused the ancient and the modern into a vision of creating a Jewish state in the land of Israel.

As a journalist in Vienna, Theodor Herzl (b. 1860) was deeply shaken by the anti-Semitism surrounding the Dreyfus Affair ­ the trial of a French Jewish army officer unjustly accused of treason. Herzl argued that anti-Semitism would persist until and unless Jews became a sovereign nation. The modern Zionist movement aimed to solve the "Jewish problem" ­ the predicament of a minority people who had been subjected to discrimination, persecution, exile and death over the centuries.

As the father of modern Zionism, Herzl consolidated the various strands of Zionism already in existence into a modern, organized, political movement. Convening the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in August 1897, Herzl brought the Zionist project to the forefront of Jewish and world attention. In his diary, Herzl wrote: "In Basle, I created the Jewish State." [Herzl also sent two rabbis to take a look at the Holy Land, who returned and reported: "The brides she is beautiful, but she has another groom."]

At the Basle conference, the Zionist movement articulated its goals ­ a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The Zionist movement included diverse groups from Socialist Zionists to Religious Zionists. Although the different factions had often radically differing conceptions of the nature of the future Jewish homeland, they cooperated towards reaching the goal of creating a Jewish state in their ancestral home.

At the time, not all Jews supported the primary goal of Zionism. Many religious Jews believed that the return to Zion could not be initiated by man and had to wait until God sent the Messiah. Many liberal, secular Jews believed that the Jewish people should assimilate into the nations in which they lived rather than foster an independent Jewish nationalism. [Judah Magnes, founder of Hebrew University, opposed ethno-supremacist nationalism, correctly predicting the blood of Arabs it would spill and the corruption of the Jewish soul.] Others maintained that the social and economic ideologies sweeping Europe at the time would inevitably solve the Jewish problem.

Zionist positions also differed widely on how to achieve statehood. Some advocated concentrating resources on creating facts on the ground ­ immigration, agricultural settlement of the land, a Jewish-based economy, etc. [All of which entailed discriminating against Arabs -- not allowing them to own land or work in Jewish-owned businesses, including farms. Socialist Jewish labor unions would not include Arabs.] Others supported focusing more resources on obtaining international recognition for statehood. As the reality of statehood neared [this was a reality in great doubt because Europe didn't want to fuck over the indigenous Arabs], Zionist leaders were also divided whether they should accept whatever is allotted to them or should they hold out for more territory. [These Zionists were most dissatisfied with the land "allotted" then by the '47 UN partition plan, but accepted it -- as the Arabs flatly did not -- because it had the huge advantage of conceding the existence of a Jewish state.]

Herzl traveled tirelessly around the world seeking international recognition and diplomatic support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. [He approached Cecil Rhodes asking for support, writing that just as Rhodes was trying to bring civilization to Africa, so to, were Jews trying to bring it to the savages of Palestine.] Before his death in 1904, he had convened six Zionist Congresses at which many Zionist institutions were founded including the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish National Fund.

Modern Zionism also embodied a revitalization of Jewish culture and the Jewish spirit. Cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am (1856-1927) believed that the spiritual and cultural revival of the Jewish people had to precede the national revival. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (1857-1922) stressed the renaissance of the Hebrew language as a prerequisite to Jewish national and cultural restoration. He is the founder of modern Hebrew, a language which previously had been used only in liturgy and literature.

For others, Zionism represented Jewish empowerment [read: stop all this silly talk of negotiation and peace and concede we are conquerors, and recognize that no people has ever agreed to subjugation, and neither will the Arabs living here -- we will have to be rid of them by force]. Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880- 1940) helped organize a Jewish self-defense corps in Odessa in 1903 and later convinced the British to form three Jewish battalions to fight in Palestine during the First World War. Jabotinsky later formed a self-defense corps in Jerusalem and promoted rapid mass immigration to Palestine and Jewish military self-sufficiency. He came into conflict with the official Zionist leadership, many of whom were wary of taking actions which would antagonize the British. Jabotinsky founded the Revisionist Party in 1925, of which the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin was a leading member. [Begin was then, according to Einstein and Hannah Arendt, a fascist and terrorist. He slaughtered Arabs and Brits, as well as uncooperative Jews and ended up on a British Wanted Poster for Terrorism.]

Other Zionist leaders focused on developing Jewish social service institutions. Henrietta Szold (1860-1945) founded Hadassah, the premier women's Zionist organization which helped establish a chain of medical institutions in Palestine. Socialist Zionist leader Berl Katznelson (1887-1944) was a leading figure in the establishment of the Histadrut labor federation and its medical unit, Kupat Holim Klalit.

Other Zionists saw a Jewish state in religious terms. Rabbi Samuel Mohilever (1824- 1898) was an early religious Zionist who blended Orthodox Judaism with modern Jewish nationalism. He was active in the Hibbat Zion movement and founded what later developed into the religious Zionist movement, Mizrachi. Chief Rabbi of Palestine Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook (1864-1935) based his understanding of Jewish nationalism on traditional Jewish sources and taught that only in Israel can the Jew achieve perfection and true piety. He taught respect and tolerance for all Jews and viewed the return of the Jews to Zion as the beginning of the Redemption.

Today, Zionism stands for a safe and secure Israel ­ a nation open to all Jews seeking both refuge and a Jewish homeland, the preservation of Judaism and the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life all over the world [that is, for the continuation of an ethno-religious supremacist state that is also profoundly militaristic. The factions in power also continue to be expansionist].

So you see, the original definition of Zionism still holds currency. It is only necessary to explain its contemporary manifestations and internecine battles; it is also critical to add some facts that make the current version less the movie "Exodus," and show the brutal, unjust reality often involved when implementing Zionism, right up to the present as the West turns on Israel and labels it an apartheid state.---Mona- (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The original definition still holds currency, but it is only necessary to use my twisted definition instead. Huh? And secondly, "the West" as a whole has simply not done such a thing. I appreciate your attempts to exaggerate support for that position, but try harder. WalkerWalkerWalker 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
User:-Mona- you fail to explain why of all nation states in the world, one - and only one - is not supposed to have a right to self-defense. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you really think that this is all just about Israel's right to self-defense, then you're not just a troll but blind and stupid too. (talk) 20:57, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well User:-Mona- seems to be against Israel's right to self-defense; that much appears certain. (Let's just leave out for a second the nasty things she likes to call the state of Israel). So it is a legitimate question, no matter what other issues may be concerned why one state- and one state alone - is not supposed to have a right to self defense, while all others do... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I repeat my previous statement. Focusing on the self-defense red herring is plainly dishonest and stupid. (talk) 21:12, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Yeah, I thought there was a vague attempt at discussing what is meant by the word "Zionism" going on before that was brought up. Oh well. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why is self defense a red herring? If it is any red thing it might in some cases be a red button, but that is neither here nor there.... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Because it hasn't been relevant in the conflict for decades. It's just a smokescreen Israel apologists like to pull up whenever Israel feels like 'waging war' (read: killing some Palestinians) in Gaza. Fun fact: Israel's official Hebrew name for "Operation Protective Edge" makes no mention of protection at all. (talk) 21:34, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
They've been probably taking pointers from the jokers, who translate movie and book titles from English into German... (you can't believe, how brainless these translations sometimes get!!).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 21:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Or the person who decided Wagnertube meant Wagner tuba. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well what is Israel supposed to do if the next barrage of rockets arrives from Hamastan? In fact what should any country do if a barrage of rockets rains down on its civilians. And no calling them "toy rockets" is a cop-out up with which I shall not put. And neither will I accept the distraction that the Israeli anti-rocket defense does in fact work[24]. So? What would you do if you were the head of a government whose country is barraged by rockets? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"a barrage of rockets rains down on its civilians"? I think you switched some names here or there, because that's what happens to Palestinians in Gaza, not Israeli civilians. (talk) 22:11, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You forgot the Qassams and similar (yes, their aim is shit and they rarely cause Israeli casualties, thank Madoka, but that's not for a lack of trying)--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, would you please go to Sderot and tell those people that the rockets Hamas fires on them (thankfully not right now, but who knows when they will start again) are a figment of their imagination? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not denying that rockets get fired from Gaza. But as opposed to Gaza, the overall area these rockets get fired at is what you'd call the opposite of densely populated, and as Arisboch noted their aim is (thankfully) shitty, so if we're talking about whose civilians are effectively targeted by a barrage of projectiles, the answer isn't the one you'd prefer for your Israel apologetic antics. (talk) 22:43, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Sderot and similar places ain't densely populated? Didn't they almost reach until Tel Aviv?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 22:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So people not living in densely populated areas don't count? Cool, let's nuke Wyoming. It's sparsely populated, so it doesn't count... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure, by all means twist my words into all sorts of weird contortions. (talk) 22:51, 22 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Israel attacked Gaza and Hamas first last year, but pointing that out would be ANTISEMITIC AND RACIST.
"At least 16 rockets were fired at Israel Monday morning [June 30], most of them hitting open areas in the Eshkol region, the army said. The security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, assessed that Hamas had probably launched the barrage in revenge for an Israeli airstrike several hours earlier which killed one person and injured three more. A member of Hamas’s militant wing was killed in the attack, Gaza health official Ashraf al-Kidra said. While Israel has maintained it holds Hamas responsible for all rocket attacks, officials have said that smaller groups, such as Islamic Jihad, are usually behind the rocket attacks, while Hamas squads generally attempt to thwart the rocket fire. Hamas hasn’t fired rockets into Israel since Operation Pillar of Defense ended in November 2012, and has yet to take responsibility for this latest barrage" Source:
Israel also attacked Gaza first even before the kidnapping of the teenagers. "In a new crime of extra-judicial executions, on Wednesday, 11 June 2014, Israeli forces killed a member of a Palestinian armed group and wounded three civilians, including his brother. The victim, who was riding his motorbike on the coastal road, southwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, was killed when an Israeli drone launched two missiles at him. Following the execution, Israeli forces admitted committing it as the spokesman of Israeli forces claimed that the man was targeted as he was recently involved in firing rockets at Israeli towns. [However the ITIC weekly report for the previous week states that “Israel’s south was quiet,” meaning no rocket fire for that entire week.] His brother, ‘Ali Abdel Latif Ahmed al-‘Awour (10 years old), was also wounded by shrapnel throughout his body causing him bleeding in the brain and entering into a coma. Another two civilians were wounded as well by shrapnel". We have a word for that, it's called an assassination designed to provoke retaliation. Source:
Following this, the first non-Hamas rocket came on June 14, three days after the attack. "Early in the morning on June 14, 2014, two rocket hits were identified in the western Negev. The remains of one rocket were found near the border security fence. In the afternoon a rocket hit was identified in the yard of a village near the southern coastal city of Ashqelon. There were no casualties and no damage was reported" Source:
TL;DR Israel whines when people fire rockets at it, but yet they are the ones who attack first. Who again is endangering civilians? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
WalkerWalkerWalker "The original definition [of Zionism] still holds currency." Yes it does, I am glad we've made that progress. So, there's no need to be scrounging about for some newer, better one. And if using the term is now only a "snarl word," then the ADL snarls, too.---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There is much that I could say about Israel's "right to defend itself" and also about the Jewish citizens of Sderot (I can provide sickening pictures of them holding beer and wine parties sitting on sofas they've hauled up to the hills to clap and laugh over bombs dropping on Gaza that kill another few hundred sub-human Arabs). But these are not the topic. The issue at hand is the facts that belong in the "Zionism" entry of a site called Rational Wiki.---Mona- (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

{indent} Oh and Arisboch, about Sderot (copying this from above) Here's what Amnesty had to say during OCL: "fighting in urban areas per se is not a violation of international humanitarian law, but the parties involved in the conduct of hostilities in an urban setting have an obligation to distinguish, and to ensure to the best of their ability, that their attacks only target military objects. Israeli forces have at their disposal a range of high-precision weapons capable of pinpoint targeting—within a meter—and recklessly attacking civilians or civilian objects simply because they are in the vicinity of fighters or other military targets cannot be justified (emphasis in bold)." (from 22 Days of Death and Destruction)

Also, here's Amnesty again highlighting the irony when issuing its recent reports on Hamas war crimes: "In Ashkelon, Sderot, Be’er Sheva and other cities in the south of Israel, as well as elsewhere in the country, military bases and other installations are located in or around residential areas, including kibbutzim and villages, [. . .] During Operation Protective Edge, there were more Israeli military positions and activities than usual close to civilian areas in the south of Israel, and Israeli forces launched daily artillery and other attacks into Gaza from these areas along Gaza’s perimeter". (From Unlawful and deadly Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict) Israel has far more open spaces than Gaza, which is very densely populated and which Human Rights Watch acknowledges, is "scarce" of open areas. Can't it then said that Hamas is only launching rockets into Israel not to incite terror, but because Israel is setting up its military bases in civilian areas? Why does Israel get off for it, but not Hamas? ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh Mona that's a new one... argumentum at observatorem proelorium[25].... Israel is EEEEEEVVVVVUUUUUUULLLLLL because some people went to watch the battle. So I guess the North in the Civil War was EEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVUUUUUUULLLLLL because some people watched the battle of Bull Run. And of course the Germans were EEEEEEEVVVVVVUUUUUUULLLLLL during the French-Prussian war as some people engaged in the same past-time... It is a stupid past-time, one I would never partake in. But it is the right of everybody to be stupid. Unless of course you are in Hamastan, there being drunk (often a precondition for stupidity) is punishable by death... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, note the irony here. If the Arabic press endorses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or if MEMRI catches one of the preaches/citizens making antisemitic statements, well that shows you how dangerous and genocidal those Arabs are. But if an Israeli crowd chants "Death to Arabs" or cheers as bombs are dropped on civilians on a hill, well, who cares anyway? They're Jewish, not Arab, so they can't possibly be genocidal. They're just being stupid. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh so now MEMRi is a paid shill as well? Anyway, that's not the issue here. All I wanted to point out that the stupid "tradition" of people going to watch a battle has occurred numerous times in history and is only remarked upon by geeky historians in most cases (and me being a geek, I of course pick up on stuff like that), but if some Israelis do it, it is of course proof of a vast genocidal conspiracy.... And as to your points above... So you are in essence saying, that Israel should just let people whom it knows to have perpetrated multiple counts of terrorism and murder get off scot free because they cannot arrest him as that would entail entering Gaza (and being hated by all Monas of this earth for it).... Interesting... And furthermore, you claim that rockets not fired by Hamas don't matter... Well well.... Tell that to people whose health and property or even lives are endangered by said rockets. If you moved to Sderot for even one month -let alone one year - during a war between Israel and the various antisemitc groups in Gaza, you would call for the nuking of Mecca to make it stop. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
So Avengerofthe BoN is reverting to ALL CAPS juvenalia again. So be it. Nothing substantive to reply to. I do hope the rest of us can start reaching a consensus on rewriting the current unsourced mess that the Zionism entry is.---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
ChrisAmiss You are making good points and I could add much support, but this is only enabling Avenger ofthe BoN to derail the discussion of what the Zionism entry should include. It's a worthwhile discussion you are engaging, no doubt about it and I've fallen into at as well, but I propose we stick to the issue at hand?---Mona- (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict[26]) Ah well, I was not expecting you to address any of my points anyway... But as to your hope: When kosher pigs fly on Venus... The article currently is not "an unsourced mess" as you describe it, but the maximum of what the community is willing to bear after several revert-fests. Until and unless some other BoN or new editor comes out of the woodworks to disrupt the established status quo. Which given your antics will not receive all that much love by the community, I gather... Just have a short look at the fossil record if you doubt me... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting view of terrorism. Israel uses assassinations to start violence as I supplied above and which you have not refuted and if someone retaliates back, that's not self-defense but terrorism. Sorry, assassinations don't make you any more civilized. You don't assassinate Netanyahu for example, and say, nope not terrorism, we're only targeting terrorists. My point was if Israel wants terrorism to stop, it should, well, stop conducting terrorism itself. Not that hard.
But Avenger, didn't you say people die in a war? I'm only using your standards. If a Palestinian civilian dies in an Israeli strike, it's casualties of war. But if Israel does the same thing as Hamas allegedly does, and yet an Israeli casualty results from a Hamas rocket, we can't say people die in war? You can't have it both ways. And you misrepresented what I wrote. My point was to highlight the hypocrisy of Israel's apologists who use flawed reasoning to justify the country's conduct. And again, this still hasn't refuted my part about Israel striking first, which means that the civilians in Israel are being endangered by Israel's acts. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
ChrisAmiss Do see this: Israeli High Court: Israeli Soldiers Used Palestinians as Human Shields 1,200 Times Israel's supreme court told the IDF it had to stop it, that it is illegal. But everyone knows the IDF thumbed its nose at the court -- who is going to stop them? Many credible reports of the IDF using Palestinians, including children, as human shields came out of Gaza last summer.---Mona- (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It's been well-documented by human rights groups. It's not surprising that someone making the accusations of human shields is the one who are themselves doing it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

But actually, a brief sidetracking, which is NOT actually an argument about Zionism[edit]

Do states have rights of any sort? Can they derive various rights from the natural rights of their citizens Hobby Lobby-style? Are they themselves endowed naturally with certain rights? WalkerWalkerWalker 21:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a good and legitimate question - maybe one best addressed in a forum - but it should go without saying that either all states have certain rights or none do. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I should also note that I kind of just presumed in that statement of the question the acceptance of the existence of natural rights, which is itself something not everyone agrees on. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Assuming human rights are inalienable may not be ultimately "true" in any meaningful sense of the term, but it is a helpful assumption Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And if we assume a human right for (individual) self defense - which has been asserted as early as in the Codex Hammurabi, if precedent matters - it is easy to assert a human right for collective self defense. After all, if I attack two people, both will defend themselves. So arriving from an individual right to self defense at a collective right[27] to self defense is a question of degree not principle. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that states have whatever rights they are able to assert by force. I don't believe in the existence of "natural" rights either, human or otherwise. --Castaigne (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you don't believe in their existence, do you still believe they should be positively stated ("as if they were real") in the constitution or other foundational documents? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
States do not have rights. Peoples and individuals do. (I mean, should the former U.S.S.R. appeal to the Hague to come back?) I've studied this issue and have no more to say unless and until someone points me to an intelligent piece of writing that argues states do, in fact, have rights.---Mona- (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
None? Not even the right to exist? Well well... Go say that publicly about the US and see what kind of reaction you get... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm plagiarizing. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.---Mona- (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ali Abunimah has undertaken some fine scholarship on this question. I've not seen it rebutted. Does Israel Have a Right to Exist as a Jewish State?: An excerpt from Ali Abunimah’s ‘The Battle for Justice in Palestine’---Mona- (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I will ignore the distraction about Ali whatshisface and address the actual issue. Interesting you'd quote the declaration of independence and the Southern states that seceded because of some minor issue or other[28], did not. When the states that only wanted lower tariffs seceded, the federal government of the US considered the states to have entered into a binding contract to be joined into a ever "more perfect union"[29], and as such had no legal right to leave the US. That's why secession threats sound so hollow today: They are contrary to 150 years of facts on the ground precedent in the US. And in addition to that, they are against both letter and spirit of the constitution. Nice try. Bye Felicia Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And BTW, Teh South only didn't seceded, cause they lost the (American) Civil War. If they've won, they've become the CSA and would be wiping their slaveowning asses with the US Constitution or anything else saying otherwise.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 23:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Avengerofthe BoN "I will ignore the distraction about Ali whatshisface" Of course you will. And it's Abunimah, Ali Abunimah.---Mona- (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Well I have got limited amounts of time and just like I would assume that you won't spend much time reading people critical of your St. Butler, I won't spend much of my time reading authors on the topic of Israel that your ilk likes... Most of them are probably so out there on the anti-Zionist fringe that they are only good for comedic value. Sadly, I don't see much comedy in an ideology that kills people all too often for the "crime" of being Jews and/or living in Israel... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Mona, I'm glad you can answer whether Israel has an inherent right to exist as a Jewish state; that is as trivial as declaring that the US or Britain does not have the right to exist as a white, or Christian, or even exclusively English-speaking, state. The more general question (does Israel, or any state, have a right to exist) is by far a more interesting question. WalkerWalkerWalker 00:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
PacWalker: "I'm glad you can answer whether Israel has an inherent right to exist as a Jewish state; that is as trivial as declaring that the US or Britain does not have the right to exist as a white, or Christian, or even exclusively English-speaking, state." Oh wow, I agree with that completely -- that is how the issue ought to be framed, and would settle much of the controversy. But you will never, ever get a Zionist such as Avenger of the BoN to agree that Israel can exist as anything other than as an ethno-religiously supremacist, Jewish state. Israel watches what it describes as "the demographic threat" of "too many non-Jews." Last I checked they will not permit anything less than a 70% Jewish majority. There is handwringing like this: "In 2009 Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren listed this community that is expanding more rapidly than the Jewish one as one of the threats to the state of Israel. According to Oren Israel is predicated on a stable Jewish majority of at least 70%. If this changes the state will need to deal with the problem of self-identification: whether it's a Jewish or a democratic state. If it chooses to remain a Jewish state than Israel risks becoming isolated, which could prove fatal for the country. If it chooses to become a fully democratic state than Israel as a Jewish state will cease to exist. The same position was once expressed by the current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for which he was severely criticized by Arab Members of Knesset." Jewish supremacy is a HUGE issue right now in israel, and angst over the Arab "demographic threat" is high.---Mona- (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Good post! I would be interested in how the specific value of 70% is arrived at, but the premise is definitely there whether it's 70%, 80%, or 60%. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
PacWalker: Thanks for the cute gif! I'm actually not sure how to insert something like that. But as to your point, I know that Arab Israeli citizens in, say, Jerusalem can't bring mates they marry from the WB or Gaza to their homes in Jerusalem. That's one way the "demographic threat" is contained.---Mona- (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This from Avenger of the BoN is quite telling: "I won't spend much of my time reading authors on the topic of Israel that your ilk likes... Most of them are probably so out there on the anti-Zionist fringe that they are only good for comedic value. Sadly, I don't see much comedy in an ideology that kills people all too often for the "crime" of being Jews and/or living in Israel." Knowing only that the source I cite has an Arab name, Avenger refuses to read him. Imagine taking that position if the name were Shapiro rather than Abunimah.---Mona- (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't care whether he is Arab, Jew or from Burkina Faso. The point that you like him and cite him as a positive example of something regarding your head up ass stance on zionism shows that I would only waste my time reading his diatribes... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of "head up ass stances"... Clearly we're all wasting time here reading your diatribes, so would you be so kind to stop trolling us? (talk) 12:48, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
You're quoting the Declaration of Independence, which is a historical document, not a document with any legal weight whatsoever. It's a statement, does not establish any rights - that would be the United States Constitution of 1789 and its Amendments - and has been adjudicated as having no legal weight and establishing no legal rights in US jurisprudence. Also, per Texas vs. White (1869), the people do not have the right to secede, rebel, or otherwise take unlawful forms of change of government in the jurisdiction of the USA. Rights are determined by law and legal documents and are whatever the law and legal documents of the jurisdiction involved say they are. --Castaigne (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Minor Point: TvW actually said States could secede, just not unilaterally. The others have to agree on them leaving.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
If a constitution or similar document states that blah is a right within that state, then it's a right within that state. The document is free to do what it likes. --Castaigne (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is TvW? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer is within the post I was replying to, perhaps you should read it as well.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Now I get it. Is there no universally accepted shorthand for commonly cited precedent cases? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I see a show of hands?[edit]

Avenger of the BoN just informed me: "The article currently is not 'an unsourced mess' as you describe it, but the maximum of what the community is willing to bear after several revert-fests. Until and unless some other BoN or new editor comes out of the woodworks to disrupt the established status quo. ... Just have a short look at the fossil record if you doubt me..." Is it the consensus that the entry should remain as is, and I will always be reverted should I insert the significant amounts of historical facts and data I have (and which I believe I've shown I can document with reputable sources)? I could proceed (if the block was lifted) but negotiate vis-a-vis any "bridges too far." Or is Avenger of the BoN correct? I had been told previously that no version that "does not satisfy those who think Israel is great" can survive at RW, and if that is the case, I would appreciate learning that before I spend any more time on this entry. Thank you.-Mona- (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


  • There's probably room for this article to be improved. But telling you that won't be a long argument-filled process with plenty of reverts and petty snipping along the way would be overly optimistic. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Why do I get the feeling, that you're right?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Because me. Duh. *hand-flippy emoji* WalkerWalkerWalker 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
These emoji, e.g.: 🙋🙌🖐👋?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines of umm... 💁 WalkerWalkerWalker 03:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
These damn things are TINY!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd ask to be able to re-write one section at a time and leave it unmolested until that section is done, and then have the fight before there is a revert-fest. (It feels very childish to me to keep undoing reverts and I don't want to play that edit war game.) I ask this because I sincerely do not see how progress can otherwise be made? Stasis seems the only alternative. In all truth, I know a tons and tons of stuff about this subject, but obviously my POV is very uncongenial to some/many/most. But if I just do a section at a time, people can busy themselves finding THEIR sources that conflict with mine if they can locate some -- or the consensus could be to excise the point altogether -- but can we thrash it out and reach consensus section by section? Would this not permit some progress? ---Mona- (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
That's what a userspace sandbox is for. Articles on wikis gets normally only frozen cause of edit-wars, wandalism or similar, not, cause an editor needs hell knows how much time to edit (edit conflicts are guaranteed for any high-traffic page).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so if tomorrow (or early next week) I offer one re-written section (or possibly an additional one - Jabotinsky needs some significant inclusion along with the Judah Magnes faction that Jabotinsky prevailed over) that's posted at my sandbox, can we take it just that section and thrash it thru? Can we agree that once it has been thrashed thru, whatever is left goes into the entry?---Mona- (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Your patience and determination is very impressive Mona. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, TheroadtoWiganPier. The two previous issues I'd immersed myself in and crusaded for (sensible drug policy and exposing creationism) are headed so far in the right direction I've turned myself to the Palestinian cause; to getting at the facts of what and why was done to them. RW is the kind of place that is my natural intellectual home and I'd like to make the case I can in an audience like this for overcoming the dominant narrative, getting at the actual facts & etc. Part of my zeal is driven be a need to make amends for several decades of ill-informed, uncritical Zionist advocacy. I didn't "see" the Palestinians in part because I'd been told (e.g., by Golda Meir) that they didn't exist! ---Mona- (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The zeal of the convert...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I don't deny that I have some convert's zeal. I am, however, mindful of those pitfalls and old enough, sufficiently self-aware, and educated enough to temper that with strict adherence to facts and reason. I learned long ago that facts and reason are the way to determine truth in the natural world. So, Arisboch, how about letting me begin re-writing sections and taking them one at a time to thrash them out as a group? Keeping for the entry whatever consensus can be reached?---Mona- (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So User:-Mona- claims to have gone from "there are no Palestinians" to "there are no Palestinian terrorists".... Interesting... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hear hear, such overt strawmanning. Are you trying to win a troll award here, Avenger? (talk) 14:40, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Ohh FFS Avenger, that's a LOT of straw. Careful, don't light a match. But anyway, how about this proposal for improving the sad state of the Zionism entry? Can we move forward on that? ---Mona- (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
So there are Palestinian terrorists after all, Mona? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Avenger, I call your attention to this inquiry.

No mames, Mona. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

-Mona-'s sources are shit[edit]

Have you ever heard of the concept of "quotation cartel"? In some sciences - the humanities especially - people only quote a couple of their friends and people they agree with. Hence if you take the sources of one work for new sources to write your own work (e.g. an RW article) you will only ever stay within this quotation cartel echo chamber... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

...says the person in the echo chamber. (talk) 13:56, 23 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
A pile of assertions with no evidence. I am friendLY with a small number of my sources, but I've never met, say, John Judis. Or Vladimir Jabotisnky, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt -- they're dead, ya know. Which is to say, many of my sources are of the primary variety. #poisonthewellfail ---Mona- (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Which you twist beyond the breaking point.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch claims: "Which you twist beyond the breaking point." No, but at least you implicitly concede my sources are not "shit." Moreover, once we get a consensus and begin looking at sections I rewrite, anyone can follow the references and judge for him or herself if I'm "twisting" them, no?---Mona- (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't make any diff in the end for what you're writing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. If during our consensus-building phase all can check my references to see if I'm "twisting," why would that not be salutary and therefore an acceptable way to proceed?---Mona- (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, we need to impose some order on the proposal for rewriting. We take section by section, and then let everyone have at discussing the claims and supporting documentation. Everyone can question; I defend, and/or am persuaded that something is wrong or otherwise should be canned. How is that not workable?---Mona- (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
After all these thousands of words, can't you see the answer to that Mona? Minds are already made up. Your patience and fortitude have been admirable but with RW mob-rule, the status quo is almost impossible to change. You are attacking a sacred cow.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Cows ain't sacred in the Middle East, they're tasty shawarma sources :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I like cows - dead and on my table - Now if you were talking about sacred goats ....Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I am so tempted to make a pig joke, but I won't. Enough infantile lulz.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The ultra-orthodox are getting regularly their panties inna bunch about the secular producing and/or eating pork in Israel, so there's a market for that, too.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The Great Late 2015 Zionism "Debate"[edit]

Biting the hand...[edit]

...that feeds them (rant about the UNRWA begins at about 3:49).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You're aware UNRWA's running out of funds right now, right? ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Running out of funds? Did the hookers and blow for all the UNRWA officials in Gaza and Amman got more expensive or what is happening?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 03:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Jesus on a crutch, Arisboch, what's this hatred and contempt for UNRWA all about? I've not heard that kind of bile since being subjected to the ranting about the UN as a bunch of commies from my unhinged paternal unit.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the UN is not so much a bunch of commies, but what happens if you base something on the worst dictators in the world getting the same voice and vote as the people of India or democracies like Iceland (who never hurt anybody since the Viking age - well except for some British fishing boats) or Norway... But anyway, the faults of the UN (and there are many) is not the issue at hand here. The point is: UNRWA is one of the most needless corrupt and incompetent agencies of the UN. They have existed for a longer time than any refugee problem in the world, squandered more money and yet their actual purpose is to not solve the problem, as the Arab countries and their ilk of the antisemitic voting bloc need the "refugee" problem to pressure Israel. In a sense those "refugees in the third generation" are nothing but human negotiation chips. As are (at least in the eyes of quite a few Israeli politicians) the Jews currently living in the disputed territories, who will probably be expelled as soon as (if ever) a "peace" deal is reached. Unless of course both sides (the "settlers" and Hamas alike) learn tolerance... Which is about as likely as Pope Vishnu III visiting Mecca with his husband Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The thankless position the UNRWA find themselves in is almost analogous to that of the odd sane editor who tries to reason on this page. HAMAS thinks UNRWA are agents of Zion and surprise, surprise, vice-versa.— Unsigned, by: TheroadtoWiganPier / talk / contribs
Am I seeing a balance fallacy? I guess we might have had almost all of them by now... I guess there have even been some fallacies never previously observed in the wild... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Lots of guessing there. And who is "we"? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The balancing fallacy is indeed odious -- it's committed often by our wretched establishment/corporate media. But can't say I've seen it at work here.---Mona- (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
TheroadtoWiganPier It's obvious why Avenger and Arisboch hate UNRWA. It comes down to insufficient contempt for Arabs and fealty to Israel. Ah well, that's their strong bias (Avenger refuses to read any source I offer!); there's no getting past that sort of entrenched tribalism. It's not amenable to reason. But in any event, I hope we can move toward a consensus on fixing the Zionism entry?---Mona- (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it hatred, I would rather call it a healthy distrust for self-perpetuating bureaucracies that are inefficient at their stated goal - in this case helping Palestinians. UNHCR on the other hand is very effective at their stated goal - namely helping refugees in their current situation and ensuring for their future either a return to their place of origin or if that is impossible[30] helping them integrate into the society of the places they currently find themselves in. As a matter of fact I currently fork over a substantial part of my meager earnings to UNHCR because I am convinced these guys do good work. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Avenger -- and All -- please answer here. ---Mona- (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, because everyone who doesn't support your views are obviously working shills for the Arab and Israeli nations. Zexcoiler Kingbolt (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Zexcoiler Kingbolt

Avenger and Arisboch, what say ye?[edit]

TheroadtoWiganPier just declared that no reasoning or proposals from me (or I presume anyone else not of your ilk) could lead to any lasting work on the Zionist entry, because: "[I am] attacking a scared cow." Are you really THAT intransigent and insisting on having it all your way? If not, will you commit to letting the group consider a section-by-section change to the entry, with debate from all to follow and an attempt to reach consensus. And then, any final version of each section resulting from that process, will you agree not to revert? [Edited for clarity after caffeine finally kicked in]---Mona- (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Aristocrats"<re>Yes, I love Hellsing Ultimate Abridged</ref>.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


I think the text on Birobidzhan is factually wrong. BirobidzhanWikipedia (Биробиджан) is the administrative center of the Jewish Autonomous OblastWikipedia (Евре́йская автоно́мная о́бласть), it is not the equivalent of it. Bongolian (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Instead of all this chaos, why can't somebody make it like the Morality of Abortion page? Just put Zionism instead of Abortion, and put a similar layout to that page. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ain't gonna work. All this will produce is some kind of balance fallacy Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
But the morality of abortion page doesn't? It's clear who is correct, but it doesn't appear anybody is going to agree. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton's king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The idea is a fucking abortion *rimshot*--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 02:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We could say it is dead before being born. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What a despicable idea. It might remove the veto that a small handful of editors have on the extant Zionism article.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. The ZOoRW are eeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvuuuuuullll and censoring you. If you don't like the Zionism article, write your own essay or userspace rambling rant...Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what the 3rd and 5th words you wrote are, but I definitely have not been censored as I have not been foolish enough to attempt any editing of the sacred cow.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
(sacre bleu; edit conflict) Why the Zionist Overlords of Rationalwiki... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Instead of all this chaos, why can't somebody make it like the Morality of Abortion page?" I just checked out the MoA entry and it seems like an excellent solution to the impasse here. This article cannot be edited as the situation is now -- I see it is still protected. There are a number of us who know -- and have been told bluntly -- our edits cannot ever stand (or who have made no edits because they know they wouldn't stand) given our viewpoints. Does this not suggest we are dealing with a topic as intractable here as the abortion issue? Why treat it accordingly? [Also, why is it OUR edits that can't stand and WE get called out for edit-warring? Why not the other POV that can't stand and they must leave OUR edits be?]I have looked at the "balance fallacy" entry and it is inapplicable -- there is no consensus among knowledgeable people on the morality and facts of Zionism. It is in that way similar to the debate over the morality of abortion. (I am legally pro-choice up to about 20 weeks, but hold strong moral objections to many abortions; it isn't a neat, binary issue. Zionism would appear to be the same.)Avenger: Please, instead of simply asserting objections, explain why they apply and why we should not adopt Kosterortiizbrock's solution?---Mona- (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of us are sick of the constant fighting over the Israel-related articles. It isn't about censorship, it's about us not wanting to waste our time. That virtually all of your edits have to do with Israel isn't exactly a good sign in your favor. CorruptUser (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"Why not the other POV that can't stand and they must leave OUR edits be?]" Because you're the one making the disagreed on changes, so the default is to revert it to the state without the arguing causing edits.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"That virtually all of your edits have to do with Israel isn't exactly a good sign in your favor." I proposed changes to the "Balance Fallacy" page, but Rev. Balck Percy ecaplained why my objection was not really appropriate. I accepted his explanation. My first edit was to the CAIR entry, and then I totally cleaned up the Greenwald page. Moreover, I read the "Cults" entry, an area in which I hold expertise, but it is very well done and needs no help from me. Finally, I know a great deal about Israel, Zionism, anti-Muslim bigotry and related issues. I have no shame at all about that. Deal with it.---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"Because you're the one making the disagreed on changes" Is this article the same, in sum and substance as it was since its inception? Have those who think it is too uncritical been reverted before? Also, I initiated the Steven Salaita entry, but the Zionists kept reverting me, and no one stopped them. I simply gave up. (And apparently transgressed greatly by deleting the entry I began.)---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
You know a lot about the anti-Zionist bubble you move in. Unfortunately, you are wholly part of this bubble and seem unable to escape it to at least look at it from the outside. And as to the Salaita article, you can of course always nominate it for deletion. But unilateral deletions are always a bad idea, unless missionality is clearly not given. And even thaen having a debate is the better option. And well had you seen who inserted a slim bit of facts into the Salaita article, you would have noticed it was not only Zionists, but also some a-Zionists[31] and even anti-Zionists who were and are able to see your blatant bias for what it is and Salaita's blatant Antisemitism for what it is and hence this article is still far from perfect in my mind and still exhibits the moderate anti-Zionist bias I have come to know and hate at this site, but it is a far cry from your bubble-world and this is a good thing. And no, I won't apologize for owning a flag of Israel and listening to Matisyahu (one day, not Jerusalem, in case you were wondering) just now. If you see what happens to refugees in Europe[32] or what happens to Latinos in the US[33], you cannot argue against a place of refuge for the Jewish people, unless you hate Jews. I for one think Jews are human beings. And as such, they deserve a place where they can live in peace. And one day, Hamas will have shot its last rocket and Gaza will be free and Israel will live in peace. Despite people like you not wanting it. I will not apologize for that, nor should I. Good day ma'am. Bye Felicia Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"And no, I won't apologize for owning a flag of Israel and listening to Matisyahu " OMG. I mean, dude, that whole thing is just embarrassing. ---Mona- (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I only found out his music exists thanks to User:-Mona-'s BDS and Hamas friends... Some of his songs do have a nice sound to them. And well, I won't deny the fact that I do own both an Israeli flag (a gift from someone very dear to me) and an American flag, yet none of the country I reside in nor any of the places I resided in for more thaen mere months. Is there any thing wrong with that? I guess User:-Mona- is to chicken to admit that she probably owns (or does not in fact own) a Palestinian flag, as both would cause some embarrassment to her. Is listening to a certain type of music an offense for which one has to apologize? Well, I have also fancied a bit of Pitbull now and thaen, knowing full well that the man is unable to speak either proper English or proper Spanish. Should I apologize for that? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Avenger, I have answered many of your inquiries. When you substantively and responsively address this: Avenger: Please, instead of simply asserting objections, explain why they apply and why we should not adopt Kosterortiizbrock's solution?. When you have substantively and responsively addressed that, I will answer your question. Until you do, I shall not be substantively responding to any further of your questions put to me.---Mona- (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Well the first part of my response will probably rejected out of hand because it is supposedly circular reasoning, but it isn't. I will not support an idea or a project that is dead in the water. It is dead in the water because it so obviously lacks community support. Crucially, it lacks support from the only two voices on here that would willingly and publicly self-identify as Zionist. If the aim of said project is to provide a balance, yet the main weights on one side of the scale are unwilling or unable to provide their input, said project is bound to fail. Furthermore, I have repeatedly invited you to create something in essay-space. I would like to discuss your essay in my usual way on your essay talk-page, just like I have put some of my opinions on certain issues out for debate in essay-form (you are of course welcome to join the debate here or here, and I guess the second one may even be about an issue you have an opinion on). Generally, RW does not have the pretense of a neutral point of view as there is on WP. However, nothing in the mission statement can be explicitly interpreted as condoning one stance or another on mainstream Zionism. Hence what we should actually strive for is less opinion in our articles on Zionism, not more. In essence, they might well end up looking like WP articles, which raises the question as to their purpose, as we are emphatically not Wikipedia. I am rather sure that you will now claim that I did not answer your question, but the thing is: My objections inform my opinion. They do not necessarily convince everybody, but they do convince me. There may be other reasons, but if you ask such a broad question, you cannot expect much in the way of detail in my response. Kind regards Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Do other Users approve of being held hostage like this? =[edit]

Avenger of the BoN has addressed the proposal of User:Kosterortiizbrock that we apply the same model to the Zionism entry that RW does to the Morality of Abortion article, to wit: setting forth both sides of an intractable controversy. Invoking himself and, I infer, User: Arissboch, he rejects the proposal for this reason:

Crucially, it lacks support from the only two voices on here that would willingly and publicly self-identify as Zionist. If the aim of said project is to provide a balance, yet the main weights on one side of the scale are unwilling or unable to provide their input, said project is bound to fail.

So, we cannot present any fact or position on Zionism other than ones that satisfies two members, because those two members won't participate in any compromise or solution to the impasse that includes one word they don't like.They will simply continue to revert every syllable that displeases them.

Is this site dedicated to the promotion of truth? If so, are other members all either so cowed, or weary -- or whatever other excuses they may grasp for -- that they are going to let a critical issue of current events be held hostage by two deeply partisan individuals against any and all other arguments in search of truth? Are you content to let them play censor in this manner?

Ask yourselves, what do these two individuals fear from allowing other ideas and arguments to be documented and explained?

Justice Louis Brandeis (himself a Zionist before it became clear what that entirely entailed) famously declared:

If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.

This is what Avenger and his colleague fear. People secure in the soundness of their arguments have no need to preclude the presentation of disagreement. Clearly, they fear having to compete if facts and arguments they dislike are allowed to be explicated in articles on Rational Wiki that touch on one one very specific issue.

The question is, are you -- each of you -- going to let this arrogant and illiberal behavior continue?---Mona- (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Question. How do you know what YOU wrote is the "truth" and what the other people wrote is "not truth"? This is a Wiki; that means people other than you get to edit it too, and will not always agree with you. CorruptUser (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(Andrew Jackson[34], edit conflict) Well what would you call a "debate" in which only one side participates?[35]Furthermore: crucially, not only myself and User:Arisboch think of the "idea" as stupid. Other users also dislike it. And if you wish to present your viewpoint on Zionism, there is always the possibility to write an Essay:Mona's views on Zionism or something of the sort. Nobody will revert your essay, short of doxxing. And we can have a civilized (or not) conversation on said essay's talk-page. And who knows, maybe the ZOoRW even lower themselves to write an essay countering yours. But just changing a (admittedly flawed) mainspace article in the Mona wants to play space just because a small minority of editors thought it a good idea is - and I will continue to say so - a horrible idea. Balance does not come from being mandated. And mainspace where no SPOV can be objectively determined needs balance. Hence we should not have a debate article in anything but debate-space. And no essays in anything but essay-space. There is a reason why RW is organized the way it is. Bye Felicia Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"How do you know what YOU wrote is the 'truth' and what the other people wrote is 'not truth'?" What I know -- as a well-read, well-educated, retired professional trained to think logically and to evaluate evidence -- isthat I have a solid basis in fact and reason for what I argue. But two people have decided that neither I, nor anyone else, who sees things as I do -- or who partially does -- can post a contrary word to their beliefs and see it stand. No proposal that allows contradictory views of a dynamic and important matter of current events is one they will accept. How is that consistent with RW being a source where people can go to see truth explicated, even if that truth is the fact of dynamic disagreement? Black Lives Matter and Dream Defenders have signed onto BDS and support for Palestinians, but this site is not going to reflect a scintilla of the reasons they and other social justice movements are moving in that direction?? pffft---Mona- (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
One aspect of the truth the two Zionists do not want shown: how the Israeli Defense Forces --The Most Moral Army in the World ™ -- treat Palestinian children; a photo display.---Mona- (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I can't imagine that in any way describes those two.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear sir or madam: I don't feel like a hostage. I also don't feel the need to conflate Zionism with "annex retain or occupy or whatever all the land and to fuck with casualties," even though that latter seems to describe the policy of HM's Bibi's government. WalkerWalkerWalker 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"I also don't feel the need to conflate Zionism" Then you are not paying attention; there's no conflation. What you describe and reject has always been political Zionism's policy. But you certainly won't learn that from an article at RW -- or know that an increasing number of people and movements are understanding it, for sound and fact-based reasons. Moshe Dayan said in 1956 at a eulogy for a soldiers shot by Gazans: Let us not today fling accusation at the murderers. What cause have we to complain about their fierce hatred to us? For eight years now, they sit in their refugee camps in Gaza, and before their eyes we turn into our homestead the land and villages in which they and their forefathers have lived.We should demand his blood not from the Arabs of Gaza but from ourselves. . . . Let us make our reckoning today. We are a generation of settlers, and without the steel helmet and gun barrel, we shall not be able to plant a tree or build a house. . . . Let us not be afraid to see the hatred that accompanies and consumes the lives of hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sit all around us and wait for the moment when their hands will be able to reach our blood.---Mona- (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"I can't imagine that in any way describes those two." I surely never claimed it did! However, it is precisely the sort of everyday occurrence the IDF perpetrates which "those two" want to keep out of any article at RW. Zionism is an ethno-religious, supremacist, nationalist ideology. Palestinians are the Other. They are the "demographic threat." Treatment of those who are seen as demographic threats - - and who have been Othered -- is never good. The treatment of Palestinians by Israelis is vicious, at the highest levels. Black Lives matter is incorporating some of these understandings into its movement and coalition-forming -- but at RW the reasons why won't be seen.---Mona- (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well black lives matter (or at least a certain portion of the movement) was already starting to lose me when they went went after Bernie sanders of all people instead of attacking Trump or the GOP candidates. If what Mona claims is indeed a mainstream position within BLM, they are in essence not much better thaen so many run of the mill left wing antisemitic groups, including individuals like Jesse Jackson. And while I heartily disagree with the description of Netanyahu's policies as given above[36], even people who view Israel thusly don't agree with you, Mona. If I were you, I would ask myself whether stepping outside my anti-Zionist bubble would really expose me only to "Zionist propaganda" or if some hints at the truth could be gleaned from people who don't deem Israel responsible for all ills of this world. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"even people who view Israel thusly don't agree with you, Mona" Yet. At a site that attracts individuals who value fact-based and logical arguments, I may be able to persuade some. We shall see.---Mona- (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I know I must sound like a broken record by now, but write an Essay for crying out loud. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
No.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Why not? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

From Ebony magazine last January: Dream Defenders, Black Lives Matter & Ferguson Reps Take Historic Trip to Palestine

Rpresentatives at the forefront of the movements for Black lives and racial justice have taken a historic trip to Palestine this week to connect with activists living under Israeli occupation.

Black journalists, artists and organizers representing Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, Black Youth Project 100 (BYP100), and more have joined the Dream Defenders for a 10-day trip to the occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel.


The full list of delegates includes five Dream Defenders (Phillip Agnew, Ciara Taylor, Steven Pargett, Sherika Shaw, Ahmad Abuznaid), Tef Poe and Tara Thompson (Ferguson/Hands Up United), journalist Marc Lamont Hill, Cherrell Brown and Carmen Perez (Justice League NYC), Charlene Carruthers (Black Youth Project), poet and artist Aja Monet, Patrisse Cullors (Black Lives Matter), and Maytha Alhassen, a USC PhD student.

The reasons these young movers and shakers have embraced solidarity with Palestinians are wholly missing from any articles at RW, at least any articles of which I am aware.---Mona- (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. CorruptUser (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Bree Newsome, the young African-American women who famously removed a Confederate Flag from the South Carolina capitol grounds last month, takes this position: I look at conditions under which Palestinians live in heavily policed ghettos and it looks no different than apartheid & segregation to me. But the reasons she feels that to be true are not reflected at RW. Nor is the fact that many social activists are coming to the same conclusion. (Newsome, and the vast majority of back activists, are not known to be "supremacists.")---Mona- (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Who? Try using an example from someone that we have an article on. CorruptUser (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The individuals having entries here are not, remotely, the sum total of the important world. That you are ignorant of high profile events/people in the current black social justice movement is disturbing.---Mona- (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that our coverage on black lives matter could need expansion, but their views (I am next to certain that the movement as a movement has no views on the subject whatsoever, only some individuals within said movement do) on Israel are about as important as their views on chewing gum. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"on Israel are about as important as their views on chewing gum" How dismissive and arrogant. It is for the global movement of BLM activists to determine what is relevant to their mission and movement. And they have determined that solidarity with Palestinians, and BDS, are integral to it. Moreover, anti-black racism is endemic in Israel; the global BLM movement reaches there. Not that readers consulting RW would know anything about the virulent racism against blacks and Arabs in Israel. I've adopted the task of making sure other members don't forget the problem of relevant, current facts that you and your friend obstruct from publication.---Mona- (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Are these jokers too busy taking potshits at Israel or Sanders to give a shit about Darfur?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
There is racism against blacks and Arabs in Europe. There is also virulent Antisemitism. Just within the last couple of years, more thaen once people have been killed simply because they were Jews or shopping in a kosher supermarket in France. In Berlin a man was beat up for the "crime" of wearing a yarmulke. But of course, that is all Zionist propaganda to defend the state of Israel. Someone I know and who is dear to me was hit with a racist slur mere meters from where I lived at the time. In the 21st century, in Europe. Israel is not paradise on earth, nobody should delude themselves to think that. But it is the only safe places for Jews in the world. There are more relatively safe places for black people in this world thaen there are relatively safe places for Jews. That is one of the reasons why the project of Liberia was not needed and hence failed. Are police violence and racism real problems in the US? Of course they are. Do they disproportionately hit blacks and Latin@s as well as Native Americans? Of course they do. Should something be done about that? Of course it should. Are the US the only place in the world where stuff like that happens? Of course not. I'd hazard a guess that police in some parts of Europe (Hungary for one) are even more racist thean in the US. The only difference is that US cops are more trigger happy. Which of course is partly because of the murder rate in the US being an order of magnitude higher thaen in the major European countries. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The point about Israel being a safe place for Jews is actually very much debatable in light of Israel being in the heart of a conflict with Palestinians and the broader Arab World. I would argue Jews are safer in the US and Europe than say Israel. ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ChrisAmiss Won't Answer a Question[edit]

Jews rank favorably among groups in Europe in polls, unlike say Muslims or Gypsies who are viewed less favorably. To call this antisemitism is just well, mind-boggling.ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well if nobody in Europe hates Jews, who is doing the beating up and the killing thaen? These polls only show that Antisemitism is frowned upon; not that it is gone. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Then care to explain why in France there were more hate crimes [against Jews than against Muslims]? CorruptUser (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually the way I read the data you linked to, there was in fact more Antisemitic crime thaen crime against Muslims. Now I have to ask: who of us is making a mistake? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

READ GUYS, READ. I said Europe, not France. Don't cherry pick. Again Avenger, READ. I said Jews rank FAVORABLY among in groups in Europe in POLLS. No group is going to achieve 100% favorability, that's impossible. I am, however, saying relative to other groups, they are viewed favorably. Source: ChrisAmiss (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Germany? And give that half of all European Jews live in France, it's not a cherry, it's a melon. I'd post the link the Britain, but the data quality is less than desirable ("other religions" stat includes unknown numbers of anti-semitic and anti-muslim together). CorruptUser (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems about right, people in Israel are sayin, that recently, the biggest groups of oleh chadashim are from either Ukraine (war, and also neo-nazis using the chaos to attack Jews) or France (you know the shit going on there recently).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(Ronald Reagen, those edit conflicts are tiresome) If people like Hollande and Merkel bemoan a rising tide of Antisemitism in their countries, this might indicate that there is in fact a rising tide of Antisemitism. Or that Antisemitism was never gone, it has only recently become more visible. Have you ever been to the Jewish Museum in Berlin? Did you notice that you have to go through the same kind of security procedures there that you would have to undergo at an airport? Yet in the same city, there is a museum that houses the irreplaceable bust of Nefertiti and has none of these procedures at the entrance. Probably that's just because Germans don't care about Ancient Egypt, though... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is not to deny racism or antisemitism, because these will always exist. The point raised is to what extent is such racism prevalent on a systematic level and what should the response be. Consider your source CorruptUser, hate crimes related to racism and xenophobia account 3 times more than antisemitism. And the polls I cited also apply for France, irrelevant of rate of attacks. My issue is not debating whether antisemitism exists, but to what extent the accusations of antisemitism existing are credible, and for that, I think the evidence is thin, both in polls and the fact that Jews tend to be affluent in society with regard to income earned and discrimination barriers falling down after WW2. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

You do notice that there were more attacks against Jews thaen against LGBT people and Christian combined. Antisemitism is the second biggest category of hate crimes, despite the same report stating a lack of reporting and despite the fact that Jews make up scarcely two percent of the German population. On the other hand, people who have at least one grandparent born outside of the current borders of Germany on or after the 1.1.1950 make up what? Fifteen percent? Twenty? In short: There are an order of magnitude more possible victims of xenophobia and racism thaen there are of Antisemitism. Please don't misconstrue my statements as implying racism and xenophobia are not real problems in Germany - they very much are. But Antisemitism cannot be swept under the rug. If I read this report correctly, many German Jews say they have been victims in the past or fear being victim of Antisemitic attacks in the future. That is probably part of the reason why more and more German Jews are seriously thinking of making Aliyah... It would be a shame if Europe were to lose its rich Jewish heritage, but I am damn glad that those people that don't see their safety guaranteed in Europe any longer have a place to go to - Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I addressed that above. Also see my post about whether Israel is a genuine place of safety. I am unaware of the security procedures in Berlin for a Jewish museum, would you go into this in more detail? Is it a recent thing? Does it apply exclusively to that museum or pther places? ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't avoid the question. Are the more anti-semitic or anti-islamic hate crimes in Europe relative to the Jewish and Muslim populations? CorruptUser (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That wasn't your question. The question was related to hate crimes in France, not Europe. My analysis was of Europe, not France. Don't change the subject. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
"READ GUYS, READ. I said Europe, not France." CorruptUser (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Also your source for France states there are more hate crimes based on racism and xenophobia than antisemitism, as well as bias against Christians and members of other religions. ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(Porfirio Diaz edit conflict! Twice! Even!) Are there good, reliable figures for the relative populations in different European countries? I know that in some places census questions on "race" or similar concepts are outlawed. However, I don't know whether the same is true for religion. And we should also keep in mind that security is a very individual concept. It matters not that nobody has ever died on a Thalys (or a TGV or a Eurostar) train while those operate, recent events have reduced their "perceived security" and we may well get security controls on airports in the nearby future. In a similar vein, the mere fact that a synagogue is protected by more sophisticated means thaen a nearby church will not generate a feeling of "I am safe and welcome here". At least it wouldn't for me. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
First of all, so what? The question was comparing Jews and Muslims, not Jews and everyone else. Second, are you going to answer the question or not? CorruptUser (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry, what question? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To ChrisAmiss, not you. And the question is "Are there more anti-semitic or anti-islamic hate crimes in Europe relative to the Jewish and Muslim populations?" CorruptUser (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In France at least, that seems to be the case, according to the data presented. For countries other thaen France and Germany we have yet to see data. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
More whataboutery -- perhaps the Zionists' favorite fallacy. The FACT remains that racism in Israel, against both Arabs and black people, is virulent and pervasive. The inglorious Donald sterling admitted it when he thought he wasn't being overheard. (Note: I do not rely just on Sterling's admission -- I've posted other evidence, and can provide more.) The black movement for social justice, including Black Lives Matter, has gone global, and includes blacks in Israel, as well as coalition-building with Palestinians and BDS. Again, not that one would ever know that by reading articles at RW.---Mona- (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am looking for the statistics in Europe but I am having difficulty. And sorry CorruptUser, you're not being intellectually honest here. The point of subject in my argument was that Jews were ranked more favorable than other groups, INCLUDING Muslims and Roma. Don't try to narrow the subject to Jews and Muslims without reading what I actually said (Jews in comparison to other groups). ChrisAmiss (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If Jews are "more favored" than Muslims, why are there relatively more hate crimes against Jews than Muslims in Europe? CorruptUser (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If you can stomach it, here's a 5 minute video of a Tel Aviv anti-African rally that includes uber-supremacist remarks by a member of the Knesset that drive an appreciate crowd wild.---Mona- (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(Tony Abbott edit conflict! Twice again!)Well hatred towards "gypsies" is one of the most pervasive hatreds in Europe and still one of the most socially accepted. What polls like these show is not actually a good predictor of the amount of hatred, but of the perceived image of said hatred. There is a term for that and most pollsters are aware of that phenomenon, but I fear to have forgotten it. So citing polls that say "Jews rank favorably" is actually quite a distraction. We should judge Europeans by their actions in that regard. After all, if I dare to bring up the words of the Iranian regime or Arab TV stations, I am shouted out of the room and the actions of said regimes are brought up instead. Well there is a difference between the words of those with power and those without it. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, I am looking for the statistics to confirm this, but I'm still having a difficult time looking for genuine data. And hate crimes is one measure of favorability, you know that. The sources I cited were PEW, a respected poll analysis which indicated that Jews were viewed more favorable than Muslims or Roma. It's possible for a group to be attacked more and yet viewed favorably/have more influence among society. For example, in the US, it would be obvious to point out that whites are in a privileged position, yet more whites are killed than blacks in America, including by cops. Would this mean that anti-whiteism is on the rise? I think not. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The question is proportionately. Most people killed by cops are white, but black people are disproportionately killed by the police. CorruptUser (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"In Israel, racism and extremism are exploding." This happens nearly every day in Israel: "Last Thursday two Palestinian men were attacked on Jaffer Street in West Jerusalem as they delivered food to a grocery market. The following day two more Palestinians, Amir Shwiki and Samer Mahfouz, were beaten unconscious in the Eastern part of the city by a gang of 30 young Israelis wielding sticks and metal bars."---Mona- (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it is only natural that more whites are killed by police as they make up the biggest chunk of the population. What we are discussing are not absolute numbers, but whether a higher proportion of Jews are victims of antisemitic attacks thaen Muslims victims of Islamophobia. The data for France, which has more Muslims thaen Jews yet more violence against the latter thaen the former, seems to indicate that this is the case. Just like all sensible data on black murder victims take demographics into account. The better once even account for socioeconomic status. And lo and behold, even when controlling for poverty and lack of education, blacks are still more likely to be killed and/or abused thaen whites. This is what can safely be called racism. Anybody who knows of this and denies it, is either ignorant, a simpleton or dangerous. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you guys misunderstood what I said. I wasn't referring exclusively to the police, I said more whites than blacks are killed in a year, including by the cops. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

From the Christian Science Monitor:Why 36,000 Israelis joined Facebook campaign calling for revenge (+video)Tens of thousands of Israelis joined a Facebook group that called for incitement against Palestinians, as part of a larger trend of right-wing Israeli and settler violence

In light of Wednesday’s suspected retributive killing of a Palestinian teenager and Tuesday’s funeral for three kidnapped Israeli boys, Israelis turned to social media to advocate for conflicting responses.

In two days, more than 36,000 Israelis joined a Facebook page entitled, “the Israeli people demand revenge,” in a call for military action and violence against Palestinians. The Facebook outpouring was troubling to some Israeli officials who see it as part of a growing groundswell of Israeli right-wing vandalism and incitement to violence in recent months.


Many users uploading photos were teenagers and currently serving in the IDF. Two girls took a picture as they held a sign saying, “Hating Arabs is not racism, it’s values.”

---Mona- (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trying to derail the thread, Mona. Create a new section if you want to argue about that.
And Chris, here you go. Or just google "hate crimes by religion". CorruptUser (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well there are more whites thaen blacks. Hence this should not be surprising. Which is what we have been saying for ages. Blacks make up - what? Fourteen percent? Thereabouts? Given there proportion it would be truly horrific if the actually made up a plurality of murder victims. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay but CorruptUser, those are the same stats we looked at earlier, with it still showing racism/xenophobia and Christians/other religious groups outnumber antisemitic hate crimes.
Yes, but even then the white proportion has been dwindling with rising rates of immigration. Can anyone look up statistics to see the total number of whites killed proportionate to their share of the population versus total number of blacks killed to their share of their population. This does not include just police killings, but homicides, etc. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I am quite confused... What is your point? Do you want to say that murder or any type of violent death is more likely to happen to US whites thaen to blacks? I don't have numbers handy, but I am quite sure this statistic would have been all over Fox News if it were the case. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The subject was hate crime, but even then the definition of hate crime is muddy because a murder of any member of a group can be perceived as racially biased. And I brought in the example in order to determine how seriously we should evaluate members of a group without going to hysteric levels of there being a new antisemitism or Islamophobia on the rise. FYI, if I'm perceived as reluctant to embrace these terms, it is because they are usually used to deter or silence criticism (Israel or Islam in this case). ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
1) "racism and xenophobia" and "other religious groups" often INCLUDES Jews (and Muslims). You have to read each country at the original source.
2) So fucking what? The question was Anti-semitism versus Anti-muslim hate crimes. That is, in the context of 'is Europe more dangerous for Jews or Muslims'. Don't try to change the subject to say that transgender Romanis have it worse.

CorruptUser (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Then why is there a separate group included for them and Muslims? Those are religious hate crimes, not race-based. No it wasn't, that's not what the subject was about. The subject was antisemitism in Europe and how seriously we should treat it. My point was about Jews in comparison to other groups, not to Muslims exclusively. I cited polls that Jews were viewed more favorably than other groups, INCLUDING Muslims and Roma, AKA NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THEM. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Because of the data quality. Not all countries break out the data into each category, and of the ones that do, the crime itself may not be reported as one or the other. Is, for example, a German burning down a Syrian refugee Mosque an anti-Muslim hate crime, an anti-Arab hate crime or a xenophobic hate crime? CorruptUser (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Polls are not very helpful when it comes to hate crimes - after all, the favorability rating of JFK in 1963 mattered little to him in the end. Similar things can be said about these polls. Not to say that they are worthless, but they don't give good data about who is likely or unlikely to be a victim of a hate crime. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

So if the data is inconsistent and unclear, then we cannot equivocally say whether more Jews were victims of hate-crimes of Muslims depending on the categories, because anti-Arab hate crimes could fall under xenophobia and yet the majority of those victims could also be Muslims, putting the advantage in their favor and potentially outnumbering antisemitic hate crimes (Islamophobia + anti-Arab xenophobia). To my knowledge, I do not believe Jews account for that much immigration in Europe to qualify under xenophobia compared to say Muslims who make up several of the immigrants to Europe. Or, the xenophobia could also include Christians who are seeking safety in the wake of persecution in the Middle East , meaning they could also outnumber antisemitic hate crimes (hate crimes against Christians + xenophobia). Well JFK is a president whose policies affect millions of people across the world, not a person whose decisions may affect 10 people at most. I don't think they're the exact same situation if you're trying to invalidate polls. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have the stomach to have your day utterly ruined, this is well worth reading. In a sense User:-Mona may even be right; it may well be that Antisemitism is on the rise again. And BDS is certainly part of that tide, if said tide exists. Let's hope Israel stays strong enough to ensure the safety and security of all its citizens. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You're not being held hostage, dispshit. --Castaigne (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a cop out and you know it, because it damn well varies by country and the country I linked first, the one where half the Jews live, does have complete enough data to draw a meaningful conclusion. Here is the US statistics, which are far more complete. 60% of anti-religious hate crimes were against Jews. 14% against Muslims. So, answer the question. CorruptUser (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't. You yourself admitted the data can vary country by country, so in Europe's case where Muslims make a fair number of immigrants compared to say Jews, it's a fair assumption to assume they could be subject to xenophobic hate-crimes as well as domestic Islamophobia. That answers your question, thank you. Also, if we're going with US statistics, consider that your sources states that there are more hate crimes against blacks and gays than Jews, but hey, ANTISEMITISM IS SPREADING!!! ALARM BELLS!!! ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
France isn't missing the information. The US isn't missing the information. You are avoiding the question once again, and trying to bring in other issues when this started because you said something along the lines of "Muslims have it so much worse than Jews in Europe" which, as the hate crimes stats show, is pretty much the exact opposite. In the broader context of "Zionism", it's clear you do not care about "justice" or "truth" or whatever fancy word you use to hide behind. It's clear that you don't care about the rights of Jews, at all. You want to outright deny any humans rights issues that Jews may have. You are not "just anti-Zionist not anti-Jew", you are a full blown anti-semite. CorruptUser (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, the antisemitism card. Fucking crybaby. First, your analysis of the data is skewed (anti-Christian and other religious groups/xenophobia and racism outnumbering antisemitic hate crimes), which I have repeatedly explained to you but you have yet to come up with a rebuttal. The hate crimes statistics show the number committed against Jews does not out outnumber xenophobia or racism/anti-Christian or other religious groups. And you have made the concession that these statistics may include more of one group despite varying categories. This tells me the only racist here is you for trying to magnify the hate crimes committed against Jews while minimizing the hate crimes of others. So let me fire right back at you. In the broader context of Zionism, it's clear that you do not care about "justice" or "truth" or whatever fancy word you use to hide behind. It's that you only care to elevate the rights of Jews above others, not only here, but in your apologetics for Israel's military operations. You are a pseudo-liberal who throws around accusations of racism in order to end an argument. I may not like conservatives, but conservatives at least have a point when so-called liberals go overboard in accusing people of racism or antisemitism or Islamophobia. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Uh... it varies by country, and the disclosures are there for each country. Some lump everything together, others don't. You would know this if you did more than glance at it. Never mind that I already gave you the FBI one which is indeed complete for the US, and once again, the one for France is also complete. We've been doing this for, what, how many hours now? And you can't answer the really simple question with a really obvious answer. So I'm not using the "antisemitism card" to stifle debate; you aren't interested in debate at all. I "used" it because it's what you are, and you should step back and ask yourself if you do have your own biases. CorruptUser (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, that's exactly what you used. You're not comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying your analysis of statistics is flawed, and as you acknowledged, it varies so one group could be subject to more hate crimes because of flawed data categories, so you cannot make definition conclusions about the entire continent of Europe which your question pertained to. As I pointed out above which you did not address, Muslims account for a good share of immigrants to Europe, so it is very probable that they are subject to hate crimes related to xenophobia AND Islamophobia. You called this a cop out because you know you couldn't refute it and so you started throwing around accusations of racism like a little toddler. As I have stated fucking again and again, antisemitic hate crimes do not outnumber hate crimes based on race/xenophobia or anti-Christian/other-religious groups. This is what your sources confirm, and you refuse to acknowledge it. There are people who could fit multiple data categories, as I explained above with the case of Muslims, thus answering your question on whether Jewish hate crimes outnumber Muslim hate crimes. Jews do not have comparable rates of immigration with Muslims with regard to Europe. You have not rebutted this, so I can only conclude that the only one who isn't interested in debate is you. And that's mighty ironic to say I'm biased, coming from you of all people in light of the fact I repeatedly have to explain things to you. The only antisemite is you, because you hold Jews to a different standard compared to other groups. ChrisAmiss (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually for both Germany and France, antisemitic hate-crimes do outnumber hate-crimes against other religions. And that despite (because of?) the fact that Jews are such a tiny minority. And as a matter of fact, since about the year 1990, there has been a lot of Jewish immigration, mostly from the former USSR. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary separator[edit]

<quote>Violence against Jews and Jewish institutions around the world occurred during Israel's operation in Gaza this summer. 5 In France on July 13, during a large anti - Israel demonstration, two synagogues were attacked. Dozens of demonstrators broke off and tried to attack the Synagogue de la Roquette in Paris, while other demonstrators tried to enter the synagogue at Rue des Tournelles. Anti - Semitic slogans were reported in both incidents and chants of “Death to the Jews!” were heard during the demonstration. A week later in Sarcelles, France, a kosher store was attacked with Molotov cocktails during an illegal anti - Israel demonstration and several other stores were damaged in the violence. In Germany , on July 12, anti - Semitic chants of “Jews to the gas” were shouted during an anti - Israel demonstration in Gelsenkirchen on July 12, 2014. On the same day in the United Kingdom , following a pro - Palestinian rally, occupants in a group of cars dr iving through the Jewish neighborhood of Broughton Park in Manchester shouted and swore at Jewish pedestrians with slogans that included “Heil Hitler”. Cans and eggs were thrown at Jewish pedestrians from at least two of the cars</quote> - from the linked pdf, on page six. I will refrain from commenting at this point. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

"Please stop trying to derail the thread, Mona. Create a new section if you want to argue about that." Excuse me? I created this sub-section for the topic of Zionism and the issues pertaining thereto that no one reads of here in the articles because of the control by people like you. For example, no one here reads how bloodthirsty and racist many Israeli teens are: Terrifying Tweets of Pre-Army Israeli Teens---Mona- (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree Mona! You created this edit section, and for other people to then turn around and insist that you don't participate in the conversation - just because they don't like what you have to say - just shows what kind of people they are. Your contributions to this site are valuable and I hope you don't stop. Blacke (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Current, deeply racist office-holders in Israel. Voted for by the Israeli people when they re-elected Netanyahu:

♦Moshe Yaalon: defense minister; warned Israel would consider using nuclear weapons against Iran, but “wasn’t quite there yet.” He called Peace Now a “virus” and spoke of Palestinians as a cancer when he said: “some say it may be necessary to amputate organs, but at the moment I’m applying chemotherapy.”

♦Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan: deputy defense minister; called Palestinians “animals, said “Jews always have higher souls than goyim, even if they’re gay.” He will serve as chief Israeli administrator for the Palestinian Territories. Imagine how the “beasts” will feel about that!

♦Tzipi Hotovely: deputy foreign minister; adamantly opposes two-state solution, supports West Bank annexation, invited Lehava, NGO advocating Jewish racial purity, to Knesset

♦Naftali Bennet: minister for education, minister for Jerusalem and Diaspora; supports transferring Palestinians from West Bank and ethnic cleansing: “I’ve killed many Arabs in my life. There’s no problem with that.” He has also called for Palestinians to be shot.

♦Ayelet Shaked: justice minister; republished settler screed advocating Palestinian mothers should be killed because they are raising “snakes” to attack Israel. Anglo-Israeli columnist said behind her “wide-eyed innocent face lurks the Angel of Death.”

♦Danny Danon: ministry of science, technology and space; “the biggest problem of the State of Israel is the Arabs of Israel,” ejected by Netanyahu from last government after he denounced last summer’s Gaza ceasefire.

♦Miri Regev: minister of sport and culture; during violent anti-African riots in Tel Aviv, she incited the crowds by calling the victims a “cancer” and then apologized to cancer patients

♦Silvan Shalom: interior minister; wealthiest MK, failed in campaign for Israeli president, denied foreign ministry job he coveted, said that the 16% of Eilat residents who are African refugees “endanger the future of the city.”

♦Uri Ariel: minister of agriculture and rural development; as minister in last government, single-handedly torpedoed U.S.-Israel relations by announcing thousands of new settlement units during delicate peace negotiations, admitting he’d passed on information to settlers about IDF troop movements

♦Yisrael Katz: minister of transportation and road safety, intelligence minister; suspended from studies at Hebrew University for use of violence in breaking up campus meetings of Palestinian students.

♦Ophir Akunis: minister without portfolio; denies existence of a Palestinian people or its right to settle anywhere in the Land of Israel (including within the Green Line), claims Israel’s right to all territory from Egypt to the Jordan River. Sponsored bill to restrict foreign funding for left-wing NGOs. Regarding them, he compared them to supposed Soviet agents in America exposed by Sen. Joseph McCarthy. “Sen. McCarthy was correct in every word he said–there were Soviet agents in America [sic].”

---Mona- (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: Danny Danon -- who says “the biggest problem of the State of Israel is the Arabs of Israel" -- has been promoted to Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. Danon considers God to have given Greater Israel to Jews via a scriptural land deed and claims the Almighty is on Israel's side but not on the side of the United States.---Mona- (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

An Extraneous section[edit]

There you go User:-Mona-, please refrain from derailing the discussion above and post your... stuff ... here. Thank you for your understanding. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a form of bullying. You are bullying Mona because you don't like her opinions. Blacke (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
User:-Mona- is disrupting a discussion we are having in the section above. She can post her stuff, she can even create a new section for it[37], but she must not disrupt our discussion in the section we currently use for it. Discussions sometimes drift from one topic to another and Mona is currently nowhere near the topic stated in the section header... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Blacke. But I truly am used to it. Zionists have hoped my children take out a DNR on me and hoped I get cancer; a JDL member even insinuated I could be "held accountable." (They do that with violence, including assassination.) I'm generally confident Zionists' behavior speaks for itself to reasonable people, and that is true here at RW as well. But I do appreciate the support.---Mona- (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah so now a right wing fringe group represents (all)[38] "Zionists"? Pray tell me how the KKK represents all white Americans... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Let's just be honest - Mona blathers on unceasingly about her pet topic, just like a Southern Baptist minister obsessed with "sluts and hoydens". I'm frankly tired of her preaching - and that's what it is, preaching, not discussion. When people preach, I don't give a damn what they have to say. --Castaigne (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
In Mona's defense, this is a political topic which means there will always be disagreements regardless of whether it pleases one side or not, you necessarily can't come to a consensus on politics the same way you can with global warming, vaccines, GMO's, among others, so I don't know why people are that determined to revert her edits on political subjects because they don't like her views; if this were a scientific topic and she was making pseudo scientific remarks, then reverting her changes is fair game. ChrisAmiss (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I honestly don't give a shit. She's annoyed and bored me with her strident preaching. I see no difference between her and a pro-lifer who's determined to shove pictures of dead babies in my face and shout doctrine. In real life, I have a more effective manner of dealing with those type of boors - a bloody nose and an explanation to the officer that they invaded my personal space and wouldn't desist.
"Mona blathers on unceasingly about her pet topic, just like a Southern Baptist minister obsessed with 'sluts and hoydens'" It's perfectly scandalous, yes sir, it is! I do this on the talk page for "Zionism." And, upon being invited by one of the two resident Zionists, I also had some things to say at the Iran page. And oh, my talk page, too. And, and, and -- wild demons have possessed User:Castaigne's eyeballs and forced him to read it all.. Lord, deliver us from this Evil Mona Succubus! How long, how long, Oh Lord!? [rending garments, grinding teeth]---Mona- (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. Avenger and Arisboch aren't Zionists.
  2. No, I haven't been forced to read it all, but you attract my attention by shitting up "Recent Changes" with your monotonous professing of the anti-Zionist faith. --Castaigne (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a style over substance-fallacy to me (and if we're gonna criticize people on their style of conversation, Mona's far from the only—and possibly not even the worst—offender). I can certainly understand displeasure with a preaching mode of communication, however, so in that respect, I'm happy to tell you that no one is forcing you to pay any attention to what Mona—or anyone else for that matter—has to say. (talk) 03:28, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
*tilts head* First, I don't give a good goddamn what type of fallacy it is. Second, if you don't want me to pay attention, fuck off with making the majority of the edits on "Recent Changes". I go back 500 and 95% of it is Mona jibberjabbing about the Zionist cabal on RW and how dare we edit her screeds and blah blah fuckity blah. And frankly, I'm rather Malcolm Tucker about it. --Castaigne (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Is 95% of it Mona or is 95% of it Zionism or Israel-related and do you blame all of that on Mona? (talk) 03:46, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
The former, you mincing fucking cunt. --Castaigne (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So there's just something wrong with your eyes? Fair enough. (talk) 03:57, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"so I don't know why people are that determined to revert her edits on political subjects because they don't like her views" Because they are Zionists and that's what they do. It's impossible to prove whether they do this somewhat formally in any specific case, but it is known that social media, blogs etc are appointed "hasbara" agents. "[Israel's Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs] boasts an advanced 'situation room,' a paid media team, and coordination of a volunteer force that claims to include thousands of bloggers, tweeters and Facebook commenters who are fed the latest talking points and then flood social media with hasbara in five languages. The exploits of the propaganda soldiers conscripted into Israel’s online army have helped give rise to the phenomenon of the 'hasbara troll'..." ---Mona- (talk) 03:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"you mincing fucking cunt." Auntie Em, he seems nice! (Avenger and Arisboch are Zionists, and the former has said so.)---Mona- (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Bloody hell Castaigne - less of the personal abuse and no use of that word.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I won't have you denigrate the noble cunt! We all entered this world through one and half of spend most of our lives trying to get back in another. CorruptUser (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
All of us?Wikipedia ;) (talk) 05:00, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well lets just say it played a roleWikipedia in the origin of all of us. And as for me being/not being a Zionist. I am a Zionist in the sense that I am in favor of the continued existence of the state Of Israel[39]. And as I am in favor of Israel's continued existence, I fully and wholeheartedly support Israel's right to self-defense. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought[edit]

Can we describe Zionism, a movement "to create a political and geographic nation-state for the Jewish people" on its own merits, and then discuss the many atrocities it has been used to justify? Conflating the one with the other is like saying communism is guilty of the Cultural Revolution in China. It's not even if it was the alleged justification. In other words, can we have an article that discusses the (mostly historical) notion of support for a Jewish state's creation, and then covers its abuse as a justification for x? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I would not agree with labelling Zionism as principally "historical", given the many voices in Israel and its supports demanding that Israel be maintained as a permanent Jewish majority in the present and onwards until the end of all time. If they stopped demanding that - unlikely - then I'd be happy to agree that Zionism would then be a primarily historical phenomenon. Blacke (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Saudi Arabia is intent to maintain a permanent Wahhabi gerontocracy while outlawing all other religions. But I don't see you blathering on about that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
User:PacWalker & ChrisAmiss: 1. Ignore Avenger's whataboutery -- that's just what Zionists reflexively do, and 2. the problem is, anti-Arab racism and an intent to ethnic cleanse them were integral to Zionism from the time of Vladamir Jabotinsky in the 1920s. In the first half of the 20th century most arriving Zionists (to Palestine) were European Jews who saw themselves as superior to the "savages" who didn't "deserve" the land they inhabited. Indeed, Theodor Herzl wrote a letter to Cecil Rhodes saying Zionists wanted to do for Palestine the "great things" for Western (white) civilization that Rhodes had white people doing for Africa. Where would these unpleasant facts about the origins of Zionism go?---Mona- (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You're fucking full of it. Theodor Herzl said the following about whites subjugating blacks:
There is still one other question arising out of the disaster of nations which remains unsolved to this day, and whose profound tragedy, only a Jew can comprehend. This is the African question. Just call to mind all those terrible episodes of the slave trade, of human beings who, merely because they were black, were stolen like cattle, taken prisoner, captured and sold. Their children grew up in strange lands, the objects of contempt and hostility because their complexions were different. I am not ashamed to say, though I may expose myself to ridicule for saying so, that once I have witnessed the redemption of the Jews, my people, I wish also to assist in the redemption of the Africans.
And Jabotinsky said the following about the rights of national and religious minorities in a Jewish state:
From the wealth of our land there shall prosper
The Arab, the Christian, and the Jew

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Jabotinsky merely -- and only -- agreed it would be impossible to expel all the Arabs from Palestine -- he absolutely wanted enough of them expelled to create and perpetuate a Jewish majority. And, he was utterly clear that when one agreed to Zionism one necessarily agreed to force the Arabs to do what they would not agree to do -- leave.

We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism.

Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. This means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population –- behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that an outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.

And we are all of us, without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.

In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians." Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British.

We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement," which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest.

Zionism Moral and Just

Two brief remarks:

In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just, or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative. [Ed. Mona: ALL Zionists by Jabotisky's time had resolved that the Arabs would undergo extensive -- if less than total -- ethnic cleansing.]

We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.

There is no other morality.

But these are yet more facts that the Zionists here will never allow to be documented in a RW article. ---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Same article:
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.

--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgable about the guy, but it sounds to me like he wanted to have the cake and eat it too. (talk) 18:21, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well if you reject "settler colonialism" decades or even centuries after it ended, you will always run into a problem. What to do with the "settlers"? Those people whose ancestors way back when came to a place and who have only ever known one home, their current one. You cannot simply throw them out, especially not against their wishes. Part of why South Africa is prosperous - at least compared to Zimbabwe - is the fact that Mandela explicitly invited the whites into his new nation as well. And what else should he have done? The white South Africans only ever knew one home. Where should they have gone? Still many white South Africans left, but their leaving was not as disastrous as the leaving of white Zimbabweans, that was forced more often thaen not. Whatever solution the whole Israel Palestine mess shall ever get, uprooting hundreds of thousands or even millions of people is not going to do any good for anybody. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"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." Yes, and he was reputed as that for a reason, and that reason is clear in what follows after his pretty insistence he means nothing terrible for Arabs. He meant they would never eject anyone again after the first necessary cleansing -- to impose a Jewish majority -- had been accomplished. As becomes clear later in the same speech. All that hand-wringing about morality isn't in there for no reason.---Mona- (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe Arisboch is right, and Jabotinsky was demanding "merely" apartheid as against a Zionist Left that wanted total expulsion:

It was the pre-state ideologues of Labour Zionism who first argued for segregation under the slogans “Hebrew labour” and “redemption of the land” and then adopted the policy of transfer. It was the Labour founders of the Jewish state who carried out the almost wholesale expulsion of the Palestinians under cover of the 1948 war.

For the right, on the other hand, the creation of a “pure” Jewish territory has never been a holy grail. Early on, it resigned itself to sharing the land. The much-misunderstood “iron wall” doctrine of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the Likud’s intellectual father, was actually presented as an alternative to Labour Zionism’s policies of segregation and expulsion. He expected to live with the Palestinians, but preferred that they be cowed into submission with an iron wall of force.

Jabotinsky’s successors are grappling with the same dilemmas. Most, like Mr Netanyahu, still believe Israel has time to expand Israeli control by buying the Palestinians off with such scraps as fewer checkpoints and minor economic incentives. But a growing number of Likud leaders are admitting that the Palestinians will not accept this model of apartheid forever.

Zionist Labor discriminated against Arab workers-- it would not allow Jewish business to employ them. This was as per Herzl's vision:

We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country… expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

And, of course, pre-state Zionist discrimination policies in employment and refusal to let Arabs purchase any Jewish-owned land, caused great animosity on the part of the Arabs -- who most certainly did not have any reason to believe a Jewish state would mean equality for them (which it never has)!

Whether total or partial expulsion, or apartheid, it all was obscene. And what the Palestinians ended up suffering was both expulsion and apartheid. But, again, none of this is allowed to be reflected in an article at RW---Mona- (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Gypsy nationalism[edit]

Argument made by many Zionists: "Jews have suffered horribly in history, therefore they deserve an independent state with a guaranteed permanent Jewish majority". I agree completely that Jews have suffered horribly in history, but they are not the only group who have suffered in this way - Roma/Sinti/gypsies have suffered in a very similar way. ("Who is the bigger victim" is a stupid debate to have, about a question which simply cannot be answered.) So why not an independent Roma/Sinti homeland? If Zionists seriously believe in this argument - as opposed to just special pleading - they will support gypsies having something akin to Israel. (Where should it be located? Well, since it was Germany that took their persecution to its most murderous extreme, a logical answer would be that part of Germany's territory should be given up to form an independent Gypsy state.) Blacke (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This... isn't a terrible idea, given that one sign on to the idea of nation-states in the first place. Are you trying to say that you can demonstrate that mainstream Zionism opposes it, or this just a thought experiment/idea bouncng, or is it just Avenger-baiting, the most enjoyable sport of them all? WalkerWalkerWalker 06:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm opposed to all forms of ethnic/religious nationalism, including Zionism. But, if someone is going to use arguments like the one I've cited to argue in favour of a Jewish state, then one has to support the same sort of arguments for all kinds of other persecuted groups - Gypsies, Yezidis, Sikhs, Samaritans, Druze, Baha'i, you name it. The fact that the vast majority of Zionists don't want to apply the logic of their arguments to peoples other than Jews is a sign of their logical inconsistency. (I'm not saying they frequently speak against such proposals - but when did you hear a Zionist support applying this logic more broadly than Jews? Maybe occasionally to Kurds, but that's about as far as it goes, and Zionist support for Kurdish nationalism is rather patchy) Blacke (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't a part of the US be carved out for the native Americans with a guaranteed ethnic majority? I mean, one could argue that more natives were killed by white colonization than most genocides in history, even Europe. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Very good point, ChrisAmiss. Should part of Australia become an independent state as a home for Aboriginal people? Maybe New Zealand needs to be partitioned to ensure the existence of a Maori majority state? Maybe the Hawaiian islands should be partitioned to ensure a state with a native Hawaiian majority? And I am very concerned about the plight of the Kalash in Pakistan: should they get a state too? Blacke (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I take one slight difference with that argument, Blacke. Where you say one has to support, I would substitute one has to agree, because I don't think agreeing to the fundamental premise of an argument but not actively arguing it is hypocritical. One example that leaps to mind would be a stupid set of accusations on ChrisAmiss's talk page in re Western Sahara. That he doesn't write about it at as great of length as he does Palestine is not in fact hypocritical, because he still agrees with application of the same set of principles. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So how many Zionists agree that Gypsies should have their own state? How many Zionists agree that the US should be partitioned to create an independent homeland for Native Americans? Blacke (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Gypsy nationalism? Man, this is something straight from this awesome comic from Smolderen. Where's the C3C, where's the White Wing, where's the super-onions? No, siriusly, not everyone can play save-every-persecuted-group-eva-one-the-planet, that's what Superman and Internet warriors like you are for *warning, sarcasm*. Seriously, though, I can't remember hearing about Gypsy nationalism for anyone to endorse/oppose, same goes for the Native Americans (you know, how many ethno-linguistic groups are there among the Native Americans? And I also didn't hear about any kind of nationalism of them getting really off the ground).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, Jewish nationalism didn't really get off the ground until the late 19th century, far after antisemitism and expulsions in the Middle Ages. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
So...? Where are these kinda nationalist movements of significance for anyone to (dis)approve? This is all a completely hypothetical question, pulled by Blacke out of his ass to "prove", that Zionists are evel hypocrites and whatnot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Reductio ad absurdum --Blacke (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
QED (rhetoric tricks to "prove", that Zionists are hypocrites by failing to endorse nationalist movements, that do not even exist. Honestly, what kind of goddamn bullshit is that??).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 07:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Think you misunderstood. Not all nationalist movements develop at the same desirable speed as others, including Zionism. Even Palestinian nationalism, thought prevalent after 1917, dissipated between 1948 and 1967, only to emerge again in the early 70s. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear goat, remind me to never seek stimulating discussion without an ulterior motive. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'd be interested in knowing, although I suspect that some people indeed do try to play the "suffered more" game. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This was the point I was raising in the Chomsky page. That Chomsky does not go to great lengths to criticize say Russia or Iran compared to the US does not make him a hypocrite or anti-American. Chomsky may devote more criticism to American foreign policy than say Iran, but it's not the same as blaming the US for everything. Chomsky's critiques of the US are generally grounded in principles of anti-violence/anti-war/anti-intervention which can be applied to any country. That the US does something wrong doesn't equate to support or justification for other countries who happen to be enemies to America as long as you're consistent with your principles (though admittedly he was sort of a propagandist for the Khmer Rouge in the 70's). ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"Shouldn't a part of the US be carved out for the native Americans with a guaranteed ethnic majority?" We've essentially done that. Thru the evolution of several policies, the resulting reservations are such "nations within a nation" in the U.s. Moreover, after WWII the U.S. set up the Indian Claims Commission in an attempt to make financial recompense for all outstanding inequities. The initial atrocities could not be undone, of course, but at last some serious attention was given to compensating the natives and making them as whole as possible. (There's a reason so many Native American groups strongly identify with Palestinians.)---Mona- (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just one stupid question: Where should a "gypsy" state be established? And furthermore - and this now is an honest question I really intend to hear an answer to - Do you think anti-"gypsy" violence would decrease if there was a state explicitly as a home for all people persecuted as gypsies, just like there is a state for all people persecuted as Jews? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Mostly for my own amusement here are the conditions under which I would support the creation of a "gypsy" homeland. That there are proposed borders. That the "gypsies" are a majority within the proposed borders. That 2/3 of EVERYONE within the proposed borders wants to be part of the new state. That the new state's government will be democratic (more democratic than the US system where many are de facto unrepresented). That the newly made minorities in the new state will have protected rights. That the creation of the new state will not cause economic hardship (ex: the new state will be able to continue providing welfare). That the creation of the new "gypsy" homeland will not cause WW3. That the "gypsies" are not guaranteed an ethnic majority in perpetuity or even in a years time, because that sort of thing is fucked up. Hhmm did I forget anything? EDIT: Ahh, I knew I forgot something. I forgot to sign. SolPyre (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Most Moral Army™ in The Only Democracy[edit]

That video of Palestinian women protesters pulling down an Israeli soldier in Nabi Saleh on Friday when he was beating a boy has shocked the world and gone viral. Israel’s culture minister, Miri Regev, has announced that the unarmed protesters should have been shot.

Regev’s twitter account said, "Our soldiers can’t be sent on missions with tied hands."

A former spokesperson for the Israeli army, Regev links to a Facebook statement, which is translated in this somewhat garbled manner, in part:

Anyone who tries to harm Israel’s ובחיילי Idf [Israeli Defense Forces] should know blood in his head.

Need to schedule immediately שמותקף soldier may return fire period.

I call the head of security to put an end to change the standard opening fire immediately!

These daily brutalities and atrocities suffered by the oppressed Palestinian people are the invariable result of ethno-religious supremacy implemented by a state with a top-tier, state-of-the-art military that the United States largely pays for. The obscene reaction by Israeli official(s) is standard. This is Zionism. But no one will learn that reading the Zionism article at RW.---Mona- (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

They would've been shot, if this was any other Middle Eastern country besides Israel (the headline has again almost nothing to do with the content below it. Sensationalist codswallop as usual, I see). Using the unhinged remarks of an Israeli official to suggest, that all Zionists think that way is complete bullshit, too (and the source is shit, too, give us something besides that blog of yours regurgitating stuff from the Daily Heil and similar rags).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
"any other Middle Eastern country" The whataboutery[40], it is strong in this one! ---Mona- (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
This wiki has an article about whataboutism, too and I suggest you use the q-template for quoting ({{q|quote|author}}), it looks better.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
A quote template for quoting a handful of words from the post directly above it? Seems a bit overly templatecrufty. (talk) 17:54, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Even The Times of Israel reports on it. Though unsurprisingly it's slanted rather apologetically of the Israeli soldier. (talk) 17:52, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
I never denied the arrest.
Throwing stones at people and trying to start a brawl with the soldier, who arrests the stone-thrower is a bad idea and it's not, as if they had used excessive force (not even rubber bullets (and no, I do not agree with what this minister said). Normally, even the cops don't react that tame, when attacked by someone when trying to make an arrest).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The Times of Israel is truly special. As Israel was blowing the limbs off of several thousand Gazans last summer -- and turning large chunks of it's residential areas into rubble -- that outlet waxed celebratory: In Tel Aviv, keep calm and tip the sushi guy: In Israel’s cosmopolitan heart, ongoing rocket fire is shaking the public, but not enough to screw up routines.---Mona- (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at the video? (Even the Times article has it, btw.) That's not an arrest, it's an assault. George Zimmerman's lawyers might even say the soldier should've been shot in self-defense (if they're consistent in their reasoning). (talk) 18:18, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Assault"? If the boy wouldn't have throwing stones at people beforehand ("strange", that you weren't in favor of the lawyer's tactics, when you couldn't use them to take a piss on Israel back then during the Trayvon-Martin-case (and no, I'm not giving any opinion regarding the Trayvon-Martin-case. No need to branch out to yet another shitfest)), no-one would've tried to arrest him...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
He (allegedly) brought it all upon himself, therefore it's all perfectly justified? Please. (talk) 18:30, 30 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

How about[edit]

I may just be a foolish optimist, but how about archiving this whole talk page and starting afresh? As it stands, this page is an absolute cluster-fuck of personal abuse and tantrums, and good points that are made are just so badly organised as to make others give up reading. Start afresh and see where that leads. The main protagonists here can then either leave the subject alone for a while or remind themselves of how an article at RW should be edited.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well that would give a (largely) white space on our screens to all of us ZOoRW and of course all of the anti-Zionist cabal that has formed around Mona (neither term is intended to be taken seriously, as I guess you should know). But I don't see how it will achieve anything besides better readability of this talk page for a (probably rather short) period of time Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Most Moral Army™ in The Only Democracy, Part Deux[edit]

Security camera footage establishes the truth of witnesses, and the fact that Israeli Col. Yisrael Shomer told an outright lie when he claimed he feared for his life when he shot dead 17-year-old Muhammad al Kasbah, from the Qalandia refugee camp. Shomer was backed up by his commander, Maj. Gen. Roni Numa, who endorsed the lie that Shomer followed the correct rules of engagement and used lethal force only because he felt himself to be in mortal danger. This was all bullshit as the camera would show. There was no self defense; this was cold-blooded murder. Israeli human rights group B’tselem provided hospital reports corroborating that Kasbah had been shot in the back. Col. Shomer chased the boy, shot him dead, prodded the body and left without calling for medical help. As Lisa Goldman puts it, my emphasis:

Almost invariably, these incidents end with the army investigating and exonerating itself, or perhaps sentencing one or two perpetrators to a month in military prison or even time served — while a soldier who criticizes the army is sentenced to a week in jail, even though he was off duty when he expressed said opinion.

There is no reason to expect this incident will end differently. It’s not as though Kasbeh’s family can pursue a case against Shomer in civil court. They are not citizens of Israel. They are residents of territory under Israel’s military occupation.

A man with a gun was driving in a military vehicle when a boy threw a stone that hit his windshield. The man in the vehicle was not injured, but he was very angry. And he was armed not only with a gun, but with the sense of power and entitlement that comes from being a lord of the land. So he chased and shot the boy, because he lost his temper. And because he could.

Video from security cameras and phones are beginning to make the same dent in this Zionist wall of lies that they have vis-a-vis police brutality and the shooting/choking-to-death unarmed black people by cops in the U.S. But the great crimes and lies of the IDF and other Israelis won't be hinted at in RW articles, because two Zionists won't permit it.---Mona- (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here should need convincing that Israel has a problem with fair treatment of Palestinians. I'll even assert that that is a consequence of Zionism, but as I've stressed elsewhere, not a part thereof. Or in other words, Zionism is [define here] and that happens to, given present geodemographic realities and the choice of location for the establishment of the Jewish state, entail these these and these negative consequences. WalkerWalkerWalker 04:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, can I ask you to hold that thought and let me write a rough draft of what I'm talking about? I suspect the terms I'm framing it in may be... poor. WalkerWalkerWalker 05:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"I'll even assert that that is a consequence of Zionism, but as I've stressed elsewhere, not a part thereof." You can give it a shot, but political Zionism = ethno-religious supremacy. There is no way to maintain a Jewish super-majority in the land that was Palestine -- part of which is now called Israel -- without ethnic cleansing, apartheid, or a combination of both. The facts in support of my position are overwhelming. It was coming to understand this that eroded my decades-long Zionism. But go ahead.---Mona- (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
But I thought the Zionists control the media? How could they let that slip through? (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) If you are addressing me: The Zionist narrative has had a lockhold on the Western media since the 60s or so. Think of it as the "Exodus Syndrome." Jewish and Xtian Zionists have been in the vast majority and there were no Arabs here in the U.S. to speak of. Anglo Pro-Palestinians, like Vanessa Redgrave, were pilloried and mocked in my salad days --I assumed she must believe something very fringe. The dominant narrative pulled me in, and I didn't learn the actual truth of many matters until the Internet took off.---Mona- (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Joint project on this entry at PacWalker's page[edit]

He started it, I added some stuff, and others are talking about it over there. Please consider joining an attempt to edit the Zionism article in a way we could, when done, present as a group to overcome the impasse here. Go here: User:PacWalker/Zionism ---Mona- (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Knock yaselves out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Above I had written that Ari Shavit in his book My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, cites two rabbis reporting about Palestine back to Theodor Herzl, "The bride is beautiful but she is married to another man.” That is likely apocryphal, altho it has some basis in statements actually made as early as 1919.---Mona- (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Who gives a crap? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Do people care that you don't?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Do people care whether you care whether I care? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Does going on this tangent achieve anything aside from adding more bytes to the wiki? (talk) 01:41, 1 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't understand? I always say something when I've discovered I made an erroneous claim. Whether on Twitter, in a comment section, in a blog post -- and now here. Is that frowned upon? How can it notmatter that I said something others could adopt as true, which is NOT true?---Mona- (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Article unprotected, PacWalker and I editing at his user page[edit]

Paravant has announced the unprotecting of the Zionism article, and suggested that I refrain from editing it and remain busy instead editing a version over at PacWalker's user page. This strikes me as an extremely good idea. When I, PacWalker and whoever joins us is done, people can compare and decide which version is most accurate, well-sourced, and the best choice for this wiki. And, I imagine there might be some fusion. People tilting toward my POV -- or who at least aren't as dogmatically Zionist as Avenger and Arisboch are -- are invited to join me/us "over there." I do, btw, advocate what appears to be a bad word at this site, to wit: balance. Not the fallacy, but the practice of including highly relevant facts that are not confirming or supportive of one's biases, and including facts that work against one's POV but which would constitute intellectual malpractice if omitted.---Mona- (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I know I could as well be talking to a wall at this point, but: Truth is not determined in a court of law. Twelves gals and blokes who know jack shit about something are not magically knowledgeable if they heard the drivel and legal maneuvering of "both sides". More often thane not there is more thaen one side. And almost always, the truth resists simplicity. But of course, what do I expect of a (former) lawyer? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


  2. bueno señor, eso estabamos esperando
  3. notably the ability to default on debt
  4. Imitating annoying GPS voice from my last Israel-trip
  5. Yes I know in Dawn of the Dead the only survivor is black... Oops.... Spoiler...
  6. whose blessing are many and whose name shall not be slandered by doubting its wisdom
  7. debatable
  8. I agree with that wholeheartedly; if and only if what follows is not ISIS but something approaching democracy
  9. (free translation)Modern states are nothing but a committee that organizes the common business of the whole bourgeois class
  16. Er hat es heraus gefunden! Verdammt! Bringt ihn nach Bielefeld! Bring ihn in Raum 101!
  18. People living in US territories who can't vote, Ukrainians and Tartars in Crimea, Russians in Ukraine, The "mountain tribes" of South East Asia, "Gypsies" in much of Eastern Europe, shall I continue?
  19. I say this as somebody who of course acknowledges the huge amount of good the ANC has done in fighting actual Apartheid and trying to create a better nation after its end - mostly successfully, especially when compared to Zimbabwe which started out not entirely unlike South Africa
  20. it's really just a string of really badly written nonsensical sentences about eggs and Columbus and foxes and Jews
  21. at least among its Jewish inhabitants
  22. apart of course from Israeli Arabs who can voluntarily serve but don't have to, which just goes to show how "Apartheid" Israel really is
  23. though he probably never did
  24. Thankfully - imagine if it didn't...
  25. the title obviously can be improved upon
  26. vaffanculo
  27. Which would ultimately include a state's right to self-defense on behalf and in representation of its people, as it is derived ultimately from the individual rights of its citizens to self-defense
  28. for the malicious or stupid: This was irony
  29. as you should know in law the younger law usually trumps the older law and the constitution trumps them all
  30. which is sadly the case more often than not
  31. A term I just now coined, referring to people who would describe themselves as neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist and whose attitude towards the Jewish state is roughly: "meh"
  32. a place that prides itself on its tolerance and sophistication
  33. a place that was founded by immigrants and political/religious refugees for crying out loud!
  34. Yes, I am using political figures I dislike as swear-words; got a problem with that?
  35. I know a term: Fox News
  36. If any of that were true, why has Israel not nuked anybody or outright murdered Palestinians by the ten-thousands? After all, Saddam had no problem doing the same with the Kurds, nor did al-Bashir have any qualms doing the same in Darfur, and I don't see people protesting that. Nor do I see people protesting the atrocities of Hamas
  37. When called to do that she did not even respond
  38. implied in your statement
  39. aka the Jewish state, aka the Jew among states, even though its non-Jewish minority is bigger thaen the non-Muslim minority of almost all Arab states with the exception of Lebanon
This discussion was moved to Talk:Kebabs and bankers. - what does that even mean? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Section below the footnotes, to annoy Arisboch[edit]

:P (talk) 21:02, 31 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

I propose an instapermaban for all who do thusly! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for articles such as this[edit]

So, I get that RW is emphatically not an NPOV encyclopedia. That being said, I think it might be helpful to apply a sort of enforced NPOV for a select (very) few articles when it is deemed that opinions of users vary so wildly that an article is in a perpetual edit war between two users or factions of users. Obviously this wouldn't apply to cases where one user (or faction) is an invading group from Conservapedia or Metapedia or someshit, but when all or most of the users on both sides are legitimately good-faith contributors to RW... I think it would resolve issues like this. Just my 2¢. (talk)

First of all, you should sign all edits to talk pages, likes this ~~~~. Furthermore, as we can see with the WP articles on said subject, NPOV does not necessarily diminish edit wars. Though we might give it consideration, especially for articles that are marginal to our mission such as those on Israel Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Won't make any difference. The shit-storms at NPOV WP over controversial articles are even worse than we deal with here.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I always forget to sign. I have a feeling WP's issues with the same result from the rather larger pool of editors there. Also I think we can expect better from our users than on WP. It's just a hunch, granted, but still. (talk)
Not on the issue of Zionism we can't. I mean, there is even debate as to which source are acceptable. Mona won't accept the IDF as a source, most other editors here won't accept electronic intifada or Hamas as sources... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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.)

Well Mona has apparently gone completely bonkers[edit]

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? (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. (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). (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)

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

... 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)

Misleading quote with questionable references[edit]

"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. (talk) 17:13, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Move parts about current Israeli policies[edit]

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)
^ (talk) 17:10, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

A navbox![edit]

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

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

What happened[edit]

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. (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)

Anti-Jabotinsky propaganda[edit]

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)

blood and soil[edit]

Arisboch, see these google results: 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." ---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. (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). >.< (talk) 23:29, 26 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
I wouldn't put it past you.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Apparently. >.> (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: 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? (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)

Before reverting, ask for citation[edit]

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. (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)

While article is protected[edit]

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)

Settler colonialism[edit]

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)