Talk:Anti-Zionism/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Zionism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Untitled

Since this is a new article I have archived the old talk.

This article is a new text which has been developed by me over the past month with input from RK, Danny and Zero - none of whom is responsible for the article as it now stands. Adam 10:44, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would also like to get an answer to why this article isn't marked with The neutrality of this article is disputed. // Liftarn

Ah, I didnt read Talk before my edit. I have added a section on Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism with references to reports by the EUMC. Some of the material contained in the page was interesting. The claim that some Jews are Anti-Zionist therefore Anti-Zionist can not be Anti-Semitic is strange. Some Jews are both Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic, so a Jew or groups of Jew being Anti-Zionist offers no protection from the charge of Anti-Semitism. OneVoice 20:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to only present the zionist's POV on anti-zionism. Many anti-zionists consider zionism a form of racism (as the United Nations did 1975-1991), and anti-zionism a form of anti-racism, and this article is in fact about anti-zionism, so the anti-zionist's point of view is highly relevant. Zw 06:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agree! // Liftarn

Suppose someone holds this position: "I support Israel's right to exist, develop, prosper and be secure, but I oppose the way Israel treats its non-Jewish citizens and especially oppose Israel's behavior in the territories". Is this person an anti-Zionist? I suspect that Adam would answer "no" and Zw would answer "yes". Is this correct? --Zero 11:10, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Such a person is a critic of the Israeli government, not an anti-Zionist (not that I see the relevance of the question). Adam 11:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Persons holding this position often/usually consider themselves anti-zionists. Zw

Perhaps Zero would care to offer a comment on the matters in dispute rather than playing Twenty Questions? Adam 08:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wait until you see the other 19 questions! My own answer would be "no", but Zw's statement is correct. It is true that very many people who identify as anti-Zionists are really critics of Israeli government behaviour. This is actually not so inconsisent with modern usage of "Zionist". For example, people who advocate Jewish settlement throughout the occupied territories usually say they are following Zionist principles, so why shouldn't people who oppose this call themselves anti-Zionist? --Zero 10:53, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the additions Zw has been attempting to make, but I can see his/her point. At the moment the article is written as if anti-Zionism is a pathology to be studied and described, rather than a political position that people come to from some sort of motivation. I hesitate to write this, because the surest way of destroying the article would be to open it to an argument on whether Zionism is right or wrong, but the fact is that one side of that argument is already there as a subtext. If we can't learn from the article that many self-identified anti-Zionists firmly believe their position to be morally just, and why, then the article is inadequate. --Zero 10:53, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the most peple who are against zionism define zionism as a form or racism, but then nearly all forms or nationalism has a racist element in them. This should be included in the article. // Liftarn

violently anti-Israeli rhetoric in the west has certainly escalated over the past decade (and then anti-Zionism flares up again)

References? (btw the link doesn't work) ilya 02:56, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following paragraph is unacceptable:

When the Arabs found themselves in a position of conflict with Zionism, a Jewish movement, over the destiny of Palestine, anti-Semitic sentiment began to spread among Arabs. Most of the Arabs knew little of the events in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s, and even those who did felt entitled to ask why they should be expected to give up their homeland to provide a refuge for the victims of European anti-Semitism. Some Palestinian and other Arab intellectuals soon adopted the ready-made slogans of European anti-Semitism. The spread of literature used by Nazis, including Hitler's Mein Kampf, became accepted. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, eventually became a Nazi collaborator.

because it is partly wrong and wholly misleading. It is not true that "Arabs knew little of the events in Europe", this is just the Arab backwardness stereotype. It is true that some Arabs adopted European anti-Jewish slogans, but not true that this is a fair summary of Arab anti-Zionism of the time. Arab anti-Zionism was based on perceived self-interest and not on theories about Jews. This was true not only in the public consciousness (according to what I've read) but also true in most of the polemic literature produced by Arabs at the time. There were exceptions but they were only exceptions and mostly they were reactive. To oversimplify the situation: a common logic was "The Jews want to steal our country, so they must be evil people". The Zionist presentation of this was "The Arabs say we are evil, that's why they oppose us". We should not repeat this distortion but at the moment we do. --Zero 11:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

...

Who protected this article without announcing it in an edit summary or a Talk page notice? --Zero 11:48, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zero, you raised exactly the same objections to this paragraph months ago. I asked you then to write an alternative, but you didn't. I ask you again to do so. You can post it here until the page is unprotected. I think PMelville protected it. Both Zionism and anti-Zionism have been under sustained attack from the fanatic Zw - I could have used some assistance defending them. Adam 14:22, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whoever placed the tag, this is not about your opinion, adam, or zw or zero. It is about building an enciclopedia. The anti-fanatic argument is feeble, I don't buy it. Placing the NPOV tag in the article means the article is biased, and must be discussed, you obviously did it with another purpose in mind, or else you would add a notice.

The article is biased indeed, it sustains that the Resolution 3379 of the united nations is anti-zionist, contradicting the very definition of anti zionism expressed in the article. The government of Brazil is not opposed to the existence of the state of Israel by no means. And yet we voted in support for the resolution in 1975, and that's the way things are. Live with it.

This situation is unsustainable, and goes against the very concept of a free encyclopedia. If you people dont agree with each other, thats fine, none said you have to make an article. But if you don't agree that this enciclopedia must be free, then place you article somewhere else. User:Manco

since the tag was removed, I deleted the paragraphs concerning resolution 3379 from the article, since it was not an anti zionist resolution, it was simply an anti-racist resolution, and this page is about anti-zionism, not about anti-racism. Those countries voted for this resolution not because they hate Israel or that they want israel to cease to exist ( that would be anti zionism), but because Israel denied full citizenship for people who born within their borders solely because of their genealogy, and that is racism. It was one of the most long standing UN resolutions.

I´m opened to discussion. User:Manco

The EU commissioned a report on the new rise of anti-semitism in Europe. The report found that anti-semitic slogans, characterizations of Jews, and dipictions of Jews, were being adopted by anti-zionist groups. The page does not contain any reference to this work. the page also does not contain any reference to the follow-on conference setup by the EU. both of these should be included in the page as relevant material on understands anti-zionism as it exists today in europe. proposed material for inclusion:

A simple identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is incorrect. Historically some anti-Semites were pro-Zionist. For example, in pre-World War II Germany and Poland, some anti-Semitic politicians advocated the emigration or expulsion of the Jews to Palestine as a solution to the Jewish question.

Nonetheless, the rise of anti-Zionism during the late 1990s and early 2000s, especially in Europe, is linked to a surge in anti-Semitic attacks. Numerous anti-Zionism groups and demonstrators have adopted anti-Semitic slogans, artwork, andchants.[1] In 2003, the level of attacks prompted the European Union (EU) to instruct the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to commission a study of the of anti-Semitism in Europe. This study was led by Berlin's Center for Research on Anti-Semitism (CRA). The report was not released. The report blamed some members of the continent's growing Muslim communities and far-left activists for a rise in anti-Semitic violence and speech in Europe. [2] The report is available. Subsequently, a distinct report The fight against Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia - Bringing Communities together was published by the EUMC.

OneVoice 20:25, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that it's much less relevant to this article than to anti-Semitism. Also, the inclusion of inline external links is frowned upon. Please convert them either to wikilinks or to this format: European Monitoring on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) [3]. --Smack 00:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Its specifically the growing (?) links between popular anti-zionism and anti-semitism that needs to be examined. That connection is the basis for the EU report. The generic EUMC link would not lead people to the study. How should that be done? It is desireable that they should be able to verify for themselves. OneVoice 02:20, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the following, I believe that it should be removed and replaced by alternate text below:

Nevertheless, a simple identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is not possible, for two reasons:

* First, while many, indeed most, self-declared anti-Semites today use the rhetoric of anti-Zionism, historically some anti-Semites were pro-Zionist. In pre-war Germany and Poland, for example, some anti-Semitic politicians advocated the emigration or expulsion of the Jews to Palestine as a solution to the "Jewish question."

This example is anti-semites using Zionism as a means toward ethnic cleansing. This could be retained. It does seem somewhat odd, and begs the question of what policies the Germans and Poles of that period would have persued given control of the region, meaning is this an example of zionism as means of concentrating Jews in once place so that other means may be taken against them more efficiently?

* Second, some Jews are anti-Zionists. Jewish anti-Zionism exists mainly among socialist or radical Jewish intellectuals outside Israel. There is also a minority among ultra-Orthodox Jews, both inside and outside Israel, who reject Zionism as contrary to the will of God. It is true that both these groups are small and are unrepresentative of Jews, but the existence of even a small minority of anti-Zionist Jews is sufficient to show that there is no necessary identification between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Please compare this argument to that regarding the Republican Party in the United States and anti-abortion. The Rupublican Party platform from the 2000 election includes a anti-abortion language, the platform defines the goals of the party for the presidential election cycle. It is expected that the 2004 party platform will include the same goal regarding abortion. The Republican Party has indentifed itself as anti-abortion (pro-life if you prefer) making the identification between that stance and the party indisputable. (We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. [1] please excuse the CNN link, the RNC web site does not seem to have the 2000 party platform available). This is an example that illustrates that the form of the argument above is incorrect. The claim that Republicans != Anti-Abortion/Pro-Life because some Republicans == Pro-Choice/Anti-(Pro-Life) is disproven by example.

Alternate: Anti-Zionism is not indentifiable with Anti-Semitism. (need examples of "pro-semitic" anti-zionist rather than anti-semitic zionists....suggestions for examples?) OneVoice 15:03, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think these two points are quite relevant, since they illustrate two main phenomena:

Historically, some anti-Semites were indeed pro-Zionist. I don't think this was primarily as a way of concentrating them for later further measures, but instead as a way of getting rid of them from western Europe. Many British, French, German, etc. anti-Semites of the late 19th and early 20th centuries primarily had a problem with there being Jews in their own countries, seeing it as diluting their culture or "race"; if the Jews could be moved somewhere far away and given their own country, that was seen by these people as a major improvement. Sort of a "I don't like Jews, so I'd like to deport them somewhere else, and since there's no country currently suitable for deportation, why don't we create one." Kind of like how some American racists say "go back to Mexico" to Hispanic immigrants, only in this case the place to send them "back" to had to first be created.
It is important and should be mentioned that historically, and to a lesser extent presently, some ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups have been anti-Zionist. These groups are not anti-Semitic, but instead consider Zionism incompatible with their theological viewpoint. I don't see why we shouldn't discuss this. It's not comparable to the Republican example, because in that case there is one Republican Party that sets policy. In Judaism there is no one body that sets policy, as far as I know, but several smaller bodies--and several of those smaller bodies are anti-Zionist. It's more analogous to saying "conservatives are anti-abortion", which is not strictly true, since there are pro-choice conservatives.

--Delirium 23:53, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Delirium, I agree with you regarding your statements above. I agree that these groups should be mentioned on the page. What I am disagreeing with is that the way the page is written today, the two reasons cited for not equating anti-zionism to anti-semitism are rather poor: 1. some zionists are anti-semitic and 2. some Jews are anti-zionist.

The anti-semitic zionists are zionist only because they do not live in Zion (Israel) and so have a place to send their Jews. Were they to reside in Zion those anti-semites would be anti-zionist as well. (This was a significant issue regarding Hajj Amin al-Husseini, starting as a anti-zionist, get the Jews out of Palestine send them back to Europe, he became an anti-semite working to support the Nazis and raising Waffen SS battlions from Bosnia Muslims that worked to fulfill the Final Solution in the Balkans.)

Regarding the first reason cited: conservatives are anti-abortion. the comparitively small number of conservatives that are not anti-abortion makes them an identifiable group within the Republican party and a fringe group on the abortion issue. When dealing with large numbers of people, small minorities do not constitute proof by contradiction the way a single counter example does in mathematics. Another example: sickle cell anemia occurs in 1 of 500 African Americans in the USA....that is a large number of people about 71,000 Americans (1/500 of 12.7% of 280 million). And we can equate suffers of sickle cell anemia with African Americans, while we can not equate African Americans with suffers of sickle cell anemia (one is a subset of the other) (If you want larger percentages use Americans and obesity...would one then equate Americans to obese people or obese people to Americans?) And a similar percentage of zionist anti-semites does not demonstrate that anti-zionism is not anti-semitism. The reason is weak without being able to show that a signicifcant percentage of anti-semites are zionists. (which i dont believe that we can do, any one have data on this?)

Regarding the second reason cited: that an/some organized, identifiable group(s) which are indisputably NOT anti-semitic are anti-zionist. The anti-zionist ultra-othrodox are few in number, perhaps 100,000 in Israel and perhaps some similar number elsewhere. The largest populations of ultra-othrodox, orthodox and modern orthodox are either neutral or zionist. Again we should not argue from small percentages of a population.

To meaningful extent (meaningful percentage of the populations): Are anti-zionists a subset of anti-semities? Are anti-semites are subset of anti-zionists? These are questions that must be answered reasonable well to make assertions regarding the two groups, if and how they overlap. Its a human phenomenon that must be observed and counted, not a argument by logic alone ala mathmatics. I agree that one can not equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism regarding individuals. I want to agree that one can not equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism regarding groupings of people, but am having trouble finding supporting material. OneVoice 02:44, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this already addressed within the article? In theory, they are separate phenomenon. In practice, they often overlap. Outside of ultra-Orthodox Judaism and diehard anti-nationalists (who are against all forms of nationalism, not just Jewish nationalism) we find that most dedicated anti-zionists have adopted the rhetoric and position of anti-Semites. (In the Arab world today this is most clearly seen by the popular printings of the Protocols of the Eldars of Zion, and of Hitler's Mein Kapmpf.) RK 04:03, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Why do most Jews believe that most forms of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitism? Here is a mainstream Jewish point of view.

Drop the anti-Semitism. Clean up your act. Do you really hope to win support for the Palestinian cause by proclaiming, as you now do, that the only people in the world not entitled to national self-determination are the Jewish people? Spain and Italy and Argentina can legitimately be states with a predominantly Christian character, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Indonesia can legitimately be states with a predominantly Muslim character, but the Jewish people alone are not entitled to a state in their homeland with a predominantly Jewish character? The behavior of every nation should be the subject of discussion, but why should any nation’s existence be the subject of discussion? Why is it that Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people, is the only country in the world about which anyone could conceivably begin his or her criticism with the words, ‘I believe Israel has a right to exist, but …’? Do you really think that presenting yourselves as racists and anti-Semites will build sympathy for the creation of a Palestinian state? Enough is enough.” (The Jewish Week, January 9, 2004, End The Preoccupation: Campus pro-Israel advocacy is wrong tack, argues Hillel veteran, Michael Brooks)

Well, FWIW, I'd agree with that more if it didn't claim that Jews were the only people whose statehood is thus opposed. The Kurds, for example, are denied statehood by many of the same Muslims who deny the Jews' right to statehood. --Delirium 04:35, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

The quote immediately above talks about existing states...something the Kurds do not have. I agree with you that the Kurds should have a state. The USA missed a chance to convert a state, cobbled together by the British to suit the needs of the British at the end of WWI, into possibly three states: Kurdistan in the north, a Sunni state in the middle and a Shia state in the south. Each would be composed of a self-identifying group that could be nationalistic and therefore build a viable (nation-)state. To date Iraq has been ruled by a variety of strongmen. Indeed, Saddam and a number of Iraqis have claimed that in order to rule Iraq the government needs to have a dicatorial aspect.

But before moving to a new subject, what of replacing the weak reasons cited for Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism above? OneVoice 11:19, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nobody seems to think you have made a case for changing the text of the article. All this other stuff (including the rant Maximus has reverted) is irrelevant to that question. Adam 11:01, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now that this article has been unprotected, I am going to remove the "disputed neutrality" tag unless those who dispute its neutrality identify which bits they object to and offer an alternative (this means you, Zero). Adam 03:51, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No-one having responded to the above invitation after three days, I am removing the tag. Adam 10:19, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text "It follows that anti-Zionism is opposition to these objectives, and that any person, organisation or government that opposes these objectives can in some sense be described as anti-Zionist." that follows the different definitions gets an entierly different meaning if one definition is excluded. That definition isn't included under "Defining anti-Zionism" either. // Liftarn

If you add a "disputed neutrality" tag to an article, you are obliged to show which sections of the article you dispute the neutrality of, what your grounds are for disputing it, and what alternative you propose. If you can't do so I will interpret the tag as a mere debating tactic and remove it. Just because you have opinions about Zionism that you want to write into the article doesn't give you the right to denigrate other people's work. Adam 23:06, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with the article is the one that I mentioned above in the paragraph "I don't like the additions...". It does not report the views of a large fraction of those people who today call themselves "anti-Zionists". On the other hand, the way Liftarn tried to fix this problem is clearly wrong. Nobody defines Zionism as a form of racism; rather, many people hold that opinion about Zionism. The difference is quite important: you wouldn't define "apple" as "something nice to eat" but as a certain type of fruit. However, after establishing the definition, a good article on apples will go on to mention that many people like eating them. --Zero 01:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is the umpteenth time Zero has raised this objection, but he has never suggested alternative or additional text, despite saying that he would. Adam 02:09, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text "It follows that anti-Zionism is opposition to these objectives, and that any person, organisation or government that opposes these objectives can in some sense be described as anti-Zionist." that follows the different definitions gets an entierly different meaning if one definition is excluded. That definition isn't included under "Defining anti-Zionism" either. Let's take this text as an example: "Widgetism is the idea that everybody should live happily. It means that anti-widgetists are in opposition to these objectives." This is clearly POV if the anti-widgetists think that widgetism wants to reach the goal by painting all cars pink. Do you see what I'm getting at? Using the text as an example it would leave people wondering what anti-widgetists have against everybody living happily. It should somehow be noted that many people object to zionism because they are against racism. // Liftarn

Liftarn wrote:

"Widgetism is the idea that everybody should live happily. It means that anti-widgetists are in opposition to these objectives." This is clearly POV if the anti-widgetists think that widgetism wants to reach the goal by painting all cars pink.

in this example both "widgetists" and "anti-widgetists" "want(s) to reach the goal"...that is to reach the same goal. "Wanting to reach the same goal" contradicts the definition of "anti-widgetists".

From the Zionism page we have "Zionism is a political movement among Jews holding that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland". Anti-Zionists are those individuals that oppose any one or more of these statements. Anti-Zionists therefore are 1. those who claim the Jews do not constitute a nation or 2. the Jews are not entitled to a national homeland. Your thoughts on this matter please. OneVoice 16:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Anti-Zionists are those individuals that oppose any one or more of these statements." It's not quite that easy. An anti-zionist can also be one that sees zionism as a form of racism (a choosen people having an exclusive divine right to a certain piece of land, aka "Jewish Supremacism") and opposes zionism because they are against racism. Anti-zionists may simply be against that Jews are entitled to an ethnically cleansed homeland. There are groups in the US that wants a "white homeland". There are anti-zionists that see zionism as just another version of the same concept. // Liftarn

I think Liftarn means that there are different ways of being anti-zionist : first, by disagreeing with the stated goals of zionism (exactly what OneVoice said), but it is also possible to be anti-zionist by disagreeing with the means zionists use (the pink car thing) or by stating that zionists have different and/or more goals than those they broadcast. And if that's not what Liftarn meant, well, I mean it : it's possible to be anti-zionist without opposing the ideas stated in Zionism. slord 16:29, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Grand Mufti

Im an anti-deletionist, unless its not true. That particular fact seems to me needs some checking, but getting in an edit war over it is just an excuse for not bringing facts to the table. I think it should stay - and both must expand upon it - heck, judging from previous articles, it could be an article on its own.

Also, I want to have a consolidated talk page for all of these -- we should do this at Talk:Wikiproject:Arab-Israeli conflict, - a Village pump or better yet a Arab-Israeli conflict/Oasis (Shorties: WP:AIC WP:AICO) -戴&#30505sv 19:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

al-Husayni was never appointed "Grand Mufti" and in fact no such title ever officially existed in Palestine. He was appointed "Mufti". It is true that he often called himself "Grand Mufti" and it seems that he had an off-the-record approval from the British authorities to do so since it indicated his preeminence over other Palestinian muftis. However it was not his real title and shouldn't be used as if it was. --Zero 00:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zero0000, PASSIA.org lists him as Grand Mufti. Should we from here forward discount the accuarcy of PASSIA? Links and discussion at WP:AIC/Oasis OneVoice 10:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Grand Mufti" was a sort of popular title, while his official title was "Mufti of Jerusalem". Earlier Mufti's of Jerusalem were also called "Grand Mufti" sometimes. Every major town in Palestine had a Mufti but the Mufti of Jerusalem was regarded as the most senior, so in popular language he was called "Grand". So calling him Grand Mufti is not a terrible sin even though strictly speaking there was no official position with that title. If you look at British official documents of the time it is hard to find any that call him Grand Mufti but plenty of people quoted in those documents including Muslims and Jews called him that. I have four specialist books that agree with me on this with citation of the original documents. --Zero 11:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please put current debates at the end where people can find them.

since the tag was removed, I deleted the paragraphs concerning resolution 3379 from the article, since it was not an anti zionist resolution, it was simply an anti-racist resolution, and this page is about anti-zionism, not about anti-racism. Those countries voted for this resolution not because they hate Israel or that they want israel to cease to exist ( that would be anti zionism), but because Israel denied full citizenship for people who born within their borders solely because of their genealogy, and that is racism. It was one of the most long standing UN resolutions. User:Manco

I have reverted Manco's deletion of the section in question, since his arguments here in support of it are absurd. Of course the resolution was an expression anti-Zionism: it asserted that Zionism is a form of racism, something which Zionists deny. Adam 23:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But the repeated disappointments of Middle East diplomacy, and the successful portrayal by the Palestinians of themselves as the victims of a western neo-colonialist plot to plant a Jewish settler state in their midst, created a permanent reservoir of anti-Zionist sentiment among western intellectauals, including even some Jews such as Noam Chomsky.

Using Chomsky as an example here is misleading. Chomsky has advocated virtually the same thing for the region since before Israel was a state, up to this day. Neither the 1960s nor Palestinian activism during that era caused Chomsky to take the positions that he does. DanKeshet 03:44, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky was born in 1928 - you are familiar with his views as a teenager? Adam 07:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Without evidence to the contrary, I can only believe what he has to say about his views himself: he says that his vision for the area hasn't changed much since he first lived there in the pre-state days. Read in in A Chomsky Reader, as quoted on Noam Chomsky. Indeed, it would seem strange for somebody so immersed in Zionist culture like Chomsky was to not form an opinion until decades after he had lived in the place. More to the point, though, is there any evidence that the 1960s and the Palestinian movement were the spurs to Chomsky's views? Surely we can find an example of somebody who definitely was so influenced. I thought I had a great quote from Huey P. Newton comparing the black liberation movement to the Palestinian movements, but I can't find it straight away. DanKeshet 07:17, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Huey P Newton is Jewish? Adam 07:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(: Sorry, of course not. I didn't think about how you were looking specifically for Jewish intellectuals, I was just thinking of influential people from the era... :) DanKeshet 08:26, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the sentence ending "a permanent reservoir of anti-Zionist sentiment among western intellectauals, including even some Jews such as Noam Chomsky." If you want to replace Chomsky, you have to nominate another prominent anti-Zionist Jewish intellectual. I don't think Huey P. Newton makes the cut. Adam 11:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If we only want Jews--and I have to ask, why?--then I guess we either have to find another or provide some evidence that Chomsky became an anti-Zionist intellectual because of " the repeated disappointments of Middle East diplomacy, and the successful portrayal by the Palestinians of themselves as the victims of a western neo-colonialist plot to plant a Jewish settler state in their midst". Also, FWIW, Chomsky says that his position (against a Jewish state, for some sort of Jewish homeland) used to be called a Zionist position, but is now called an anti-Zionist one. DanKeshet 18:37, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

This argument is getting much more complicated that in needs to be. If you don't think Chomsky is an appropriate name to put in that sentence, suggest a replacement. Adam 23:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)