Talk:Post-Zionism

NPOV "Post-Zionism as Anti-Zionism" section

I understand there's some debate (and probably honest overlap) on whether post-Zionism is anti-Zionistic or not, or whether only parts of post-Zionist thinking are anti-Zionist, but the section in the article basically says that post-Zionism 'is' anti-Zionism and thus strikes me as blatantly POV, especially considering that the rest of the article maintains that there is a debate on the issue. It's also telling that the post-Zionism == anti-Zionism statement is the only sourced statement in the article, and it's sourced to an op-ed piece in Haaretz. Not necessarily the most neutral source around. --The Centipede (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the New Historians section removed

Hi, All of the links that are posted are critiques of new historians. I have put up links that explain post-zionism, not just from the academia stand-point but from those who suffer under zionism (including Jews of Mizrahi and Sephardic descent) and they are continously removed. I am in support of freedom of speech and am agree that critiques should be posted but what do I do when some right winger with too much time on his/her hands continues to remove links that explain post-zionism? Shame. Discussion is a two way street.

Why was the section mentioning criticism of the New Historians removed? Has it been moved somewhere? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's been replaced with a link within the article to New Historians where the exact same point is made as the one removed. AndyL 23:06, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder why anti-Zionists Jews are not mentioned in the text. They do exist, now, in and outside Israel. They are divided into 2 groups, the Ashcenazi and the Arab-Jews. Ya, same old well known story - if you are a Jew, you can neither oppose Zionism, nor be an Arab at the same time. Thanks a lot Wikipedia!

Hi, does anyone have any citations for the list of post-Zionists given at the bottom of the page? Ilan Pappe, for example: is he really post-Zionist as opposed to anti-Zionist?...

An article about post-Zionism has to reference Laurence Silberstein who wrote, I believe, the book that coined the term or at least created the movement. http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~mskimmer/zion.htm "The Post-Zionism Debates" 1999. Benny Morris is listed as a "Post Zionist" but Morris and many of the others so listed deny that they are post-anything. This is also true of Ilan Pappe and just about all the other so called post Zionists. See my comments on Silberstein's article & an article in Haaretz linked from those comments - http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000247.htm 89.0.186.185- aka Mewnews, not logged in 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I Translated the parralel article from the Hebrew Wikipedia

It is far from being completed - it still needs a lot of grammar corrections and more editing. you are all more than welcome to hjoin and help improve it. Acidburn24m (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew version looks like it has better references? —Ashley Y 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Auto-Antisemitism attribution

The reference cited by Shevashalosh is an article by an Israeli scholar named Alon Dahan. The article does not say that the term Post-Zionism is derived from Auto-Antisemitism, and even if he did, it would only be his POV. While it is true that right-wing Israelis often accuse those they call Post-Zionists of self-hatred, it would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to suggest those terms are objectively similar. Perhaps Dahan's arguments and similar could be added to the "Post-Zionism as Anti-Zionism" section, which could then be renamed "criticism". Any thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had rephrased the cited ref, according to your commnets. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

He uses by the way, the exact phrases of "Auto Anti Sematism" and "Self hatong Jew" - look up at the ref. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"בשנת תשנ"ח פרסם שלמה אהרונסון מאמר בשם 'ציונות ופוסט ציונות: ההקשר ההיסטורי אידיאולוגי' בספר 'בין חזון לרוויזיה'. במאמרו פורס אהרונסון את התשתית הפילוסופית האנטישמית המשותפת לכל אותם חוקרים אוטו אנטישמים הפועלים בישראל כיום והמכונים 'היסטוריונים חדשים'. " --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

ref - "Holocaust deial in Israel": [1] --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to others then Nudve: This ref was brought by Nudve, after a complaint on my ref. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So he cites one person who made the analogy. That does not make those two terms similar. Such claims should be carefully attributed. -- Nudve (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This is an historical view, This article coined the pharse "post zionism" as "Self hating Jew" and the right wing picked upon it happily.

The article "self hating jew", mentions much prior to me bringing "Auto antisemitism", specificlly states that "self hating jew" is being reffered to Post zionists solely for their politicla views (this is not my sentance, this existed in the article "self ahting jew" much prior to my bringing up the subject of "Auto Anti semtism").

You understand me now ? --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you refer to this sentence: "The term is also used by right-wing Jews to refer to the left-wing of Israeli politics in light of the Oslo Accords, and is a charge levied against Post Zionists for being Auto-Anti-Anitsemetic, and Self-Hating Jews[1]." ?

I simply do not understand what it would mean here... : The term [ie Post Zionism] is (...) a charge levied against Post Zionists for being Auto-Anti-Anitsemmetic"... ???

I suggest we remove this. But on the other side, it could be written, somewhere else in the article, that Post-Zionists are attacked by their right-wing political opponents as "self-hating Jews"... and that the reasons are given...

Shevashalosh, do you know (and do you have wp:rs sources) that give the main reasons why they are named as such ?

Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm taliking about Nudve's RS ref, not mine, if asked - I can bring more. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ceedjee. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A message: lets continue this tomorw. I can't be availble now. I will anser all questions tomorow. thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, either. What makes Aharonson's perspective a "historical view"? Most people don't believe that every (Jewish) post-Zionist is by definition a self-hating Jew. Certainly not the post-Zionists themselves. Anyway, since Shevashalosh is logging off, let's take this opportunity to wait for more users to join this discussion. -- Nudve (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Shevashalosh, you were told to get consensus before you added this to the article.

2) I fail to see why such name-calling — even if it passes for political discourse in Israel — is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. For example, every day people say awful things on talk radio about those with whom they disagree, but they don't end up in Wikipedia articles. Can you explain how this is different? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, You are supposed to complain on talk page, and explain. You can't just delete RS by Nudve, Just because you don't like it.

Nudve's done it for you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nudve, give me a minute - I have an anser for you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Nudve (response from your post last night)

I didn't claim "all Jews" think that, to the contrary, I claim is part of the "Israeli political dialogue", and this is why it is relevant in this article, since the right wing uses this to "curse" the liberals. This is why it is attached to the sentence of the fact that the right wing uses it:

1) Coined by the Israeli "right wing" and usage in link to "Auto Anti-Semitism and "self hating Jew" [2] (actually, despite this ref, the article you (Nudve) brought above "coined" the phrase "post Zionism", a new phrase was born into this world, and only then the Israeli "right wing" have adopted this phrase as a "political curse" for "Liberals")

2) Usage in politics as a "political curse" for "Liberals":

Gideon Sa'ar (from rught-wing Likud) to Yuli Tamir (Labour):

Headline of the news-article: " Saar: Tamir is a post Zionist education Minister " [3]

Yossi Beilin (Liberal politician) talking in article talking how the "right wing" classifies the left as "Post Zionists" [4].

Aharon Barak (Judge), who is Known for his liberal Court verdicts - asks, in responding to public opinion: "me ? a post-zionist ? " [5]

3) General perception of the right on post Zionism and their thought of the usage of it in Israeli politics:

Bar Ilan University (A right wing university): "Top Subjects on Israeli Politics" [6]

4) Link to new Historians:

Your (Nudve) ref [7]

haaretz on Tom Segev (hosting in his colum), Yoav Gelber - against post-modernists-post Zionists and Ilan Pappé etc, [8]

Is there any more need of citation!? (If the answer is yes, then I will)

What does all that prove? -- Nudve (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything. I already have. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How does that prove that the post-Zionists are self-hating Jews? And why shouldn't this material be added to the lead instead of a criticism section (which I porposed. Malik Shabazz seems to be opposed to adding it altogether)? -- Nudve (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I hev ansered you already:

I didn't claim "all Jews" think that, to the contrary, I claim is part of the "Israeli political dialogue", and this is why it is relevant in this article, since the right wing uses this to "curse" the liberals. This is why it is attached to the sentence of the fact that the right wing uses it.

It might be moved to "crticism" if you wish. --Shevashalosh (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

General comment about the article:

Post Zionism can mean "Anti Zionism", but not necessarily, and here is the thing:

Post Zionism is a range of opinions:

Begging from the range of Zionists:
1) (Some of the) Zionist Left – claiming that Zionism was founded for the purpose of achieving the Jewish People's national goals – a Jewish State. Since that goal was achieved, and we do have already have our own national aspiration achieved, we need now to concentrate on other goals – like putting our efforts on achieving more peace deals with the Arabs, hence, territorial concession and compromise, those guys are Zionists, but do not believe in Greater Israel (and this is one of the reasons they are accused of being "post Zionists", but not the only reason)

They criticize their own country – Israel, and the right wing for concentrating on "Greater Israel", rather then making peace with arabs– this is why they call themselves – "The Peace Camp" (they specificcly criticize the governments of Israel, right or left, for surrendoring to settlers based on political pressure).

End of range - anti Zionists:
2) Far left (or "new left", and various other names alike, similar to the English term "loony left") – those guys are anti Zionists. They include the "New Historians", Like Ilan pepe etc, who don't see legitimacy in Zionism, but also include all kinds of pacifists etc.

• This is off course more complicated then this, but this is just a short explanation of it all.

Thank you. --Shevashalosh (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shevashalosh,

Did you write here above that Yoav Gelber was a post-Zionist ??? I am not sure you read the article you gave us.

By the way, New Historians are not anti-Zionists and Post-Zionism is not a synonym of Anti-Zionism.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a general comment, not in the article. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Yoav Gelber a Post-Zionist ? Ceedjee (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are asking for general knowlege? yes. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read the question properly. for general knowlege, Tom Segev is Post Zionist and one of the new historians (The one who has the colum). Yoav Gelber is the one who goes against the new Historians in Tom Segev's Colum. correction. --Shevashalosh (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Against Ilan Pappe...

• Yoav Gelber attacked Ilan Pappe (a new historian) virulently;
• Yoav Gelber is a friend of Benny Morris (a new historian);
• Yoav Gelber would rather be referred as a traditionnal historian...

There are more than two faces to the medal... I mean, try to understand the world is not "black" and "white"... Ceedjee (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the use of "left-wing" and "right-wing" aids neutrality or is helpful generally. The terms are not well-defined nor will they be clear to the person without detailed knowledge of Israeli politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.88.222 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Dahan article

Unfortunately my Hebrew language skills are very bad, but it looks to me like the Dahan article is an opinion piece, not a news article. If so, it may be an example of a right-wing Israeli calling post-Zionists self-hating Jews, but it is not a reliable source for the general statement that "Right-wing Israelis have accused the post-Zionists of being self-hating Jews."

A reliable source for a statement like that would be a secondary source, one that describes the phenomenon of right-wing Israelis calling post-Zionists self-hating Jews.

Of course I may be mis-reading the Dahan article and maybe it is a secondary source (a news article as opposed to an opinion column). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. it is an opinion piece, and I suppose better ones can be found (maybe in English, too). On the other hand, he does cite several other right-wing activists who share his view. It's not just him. I'll try to find a better source, but I'm not sure if an actual survey showing that x percent of Israeli right-wingers think that is available. -- Nudve (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've replaced the source. Tell me what you think of the new one. -- Nudve (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't have sources on that topic but my general understanding is that some post-zionists have indeed been accused of being self-hating Jews. In France, it is talked about : "Jewish antisemitism".

What could be interesting for the article is to bring more "factual" critics concerning this. Again in my general understanding, it is not just an insult. right-wing argue why they consider it is so.

I will have a look in fr sources.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the Strenger article I added? -- Nudve (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting.

And the author's analysis can be considered relevant : Carlo Strenger is Professor at the Department of Psychology at Tel Aviv University and a Member of the Permanent Monitoring Panel on Terrorism of the World Federation of Scientists.

I think it's worth adding some of his comments in the "criticism" section. Particularly for what concerns the "war of tags far from arguments". I feel anyway that he is using "straw man argument" against "right-wing", so more care should be taken on that side.

I had found this :

• [9]

Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting column, but it doesn't really say that post-Zionists are accused of being self-hating Jews. -- Nudve (talk) 07:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was for the argumentation side. The source you found is ok for my point of view to justify the sentence in the article.

In France, Alain Finkielkraut has been sued in Justice because he accused an Israeli cineast of "Jewish antisemitism". (I don't think he explicitely linked the cineast with post-Zionism but he attacked his film, that was post-Zionist or post-modernist for an Israeli... I cannot do the job right now but there are numerous sources on the topic in French. Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious lack of citations.

The vast majority of the content in this article is entirely unsourced and comes across as WP:OR, especially the bulleted list of questions Post-Zionists ask. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)