"Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina(a)charter.net> writes:
In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical
reasons many feel
the
term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've
personally substituted "anti
Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
writings.
Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less
confusion as to what exactly
I'm
disagreeing with. :)
It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation. Anti-Zionism
is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah. It is little wonder that nearly every
Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic. I count on one hand
the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.
And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth, isagreement with the
policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
entirely. These issues aren't even related.
Consider America, for example. Just because someone might disagree with the
policy of the current American government on a number of issues does not
mean that they want to destroy America, and that they preach that America
has no right to exist! There is a vast difference between disagreement, and
incitement to destroy a nation.
There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be cognizant of:
Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
Jews. It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
"... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so." (From M.L. King Jr.,
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)
Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all
seem out of place to
spend,
say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a
historically important
person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.
I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
issue.
The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of
it, are to hit on a
person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
of his contribution to German culture. :(
In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's
anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder
of
the article, it should be reduced (and/or the rest of
the article
seriously
built up.) If it's discussed briefly, preferably
with mention of the
historical context, that seems reasonable. Here endeth long-winded
opinion.
I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
study and more detailed treatments.
RK (Robert)