"Rosa Williams" aprilrosanina@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)