Wikipedia Decrees: Israel Has No Right to Exist

 

Existence? Not for Israel, not on Wikipedia 

One of the cliches of the Arab-Israel conflict is that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" roughly line up over the question: "Does Israel have a right to exist?"

Only the most violent rogue states and antisemitic terrorist groups says it does not.

Wikipedia says it does not.

That emerged recently in one of Wikipedia's numerous administrative boards. An administrator named "ScottishFinnishRadish," known usually as "SFR," sought advice from other admins as to whether a user should be sanctioned over that issue.

The user, "Nableezy," is a veteran anti-Israel editor who I've mentioned in several previous blog items. He contended on an article discussion page that Wikipedia cannot say that Israel has a right to exist (see above) in its own voice. That's just a "claim." 

SFR wrote:

I've opened this report to get input from other administrators about the diffs above that say Wikipedia cannot presuppose[s] Israel has a right to exist and that it is something that should not be put in wikivoice. This is a diff showing the content at issue.

In as much as any nation has a right to exist, I think the very least we're looking at a WP:FRINGE viewpoint being used to argue content and against a provided source. I know that I've blocked editors for similar comments on both the existence of Palestine and Israel. I am interested in what other administrators think about these diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What followed was what usually happens when anti-Israel editors are brought up on charges. Members of the "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel editors, and their allies, piled on. 

Of course Israel has no right to exist! No country does, they argued, so therefore Wikipedia cannot say in its own voice that Israel has a right to exist. Even raising the issue is wrong!

Nableezy won the dispute without much effort.

SFR succumbed, withdrawing his query with a humiliating apology to Nableezy.

You really have to savor the double standard at work here.

Wikipedia editors have ruled multiple times that Israel can be raked over the coals in Wikipedia's own voice.

Wikipedia says in its own voice that Israel is an apartheid state.

Wikipedia says in its own voice that Israel commits genocide in Gaza.

Massacres? Of course. There's an entire Wikipedia category of massacres committed by those dastardly Israelis.

All in Wikipedia's voice.

But you daren't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that those genocidal, apartheid-committing massacre-perpetrators have a right to a state of their own. That's disputed. That has to be attributed. It's very much in doubt 

And after reading the way Israel, its people and history are described in thousands of articles by Wikipedia's anti-Israel editors--who dominate the articles on Israel and Jews--you might feel the same way if you approached the subject cold.

You might be persuaded to support Hamas yourself. 

Or worse.

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Decree: The 'Zionism' Article Is 'Neutral'

The 'neutrality is disputed' tag was removed 25 minutes later. Note the anti-Zionist phraseology.

The Wikipedia article on Zionism has prompted widespread outrage for portraying the movement for Jewish self-determination as a "settler colonialist" project. I've written four posts, beginning with this one, documenting how the article was peppered with anti-Zionist propaganda, and the media has been all over the story.

Certainly to say that this widely reviled article's neutrality is not disputed would be delusional. But in the fantasy land of Wikipedia, in which every article related to Israel is controlled by a "flood" of Israel-haters and antisemites, reality doesn't matter. 

Proof of that can be found in a fight underway in the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article. An effort to "tag" the article for possible—I repeat, only possible—lack of neutrality, in violation of a core Wikipedia policy, has been repeatedly thwarted by anti-Zionist editors. Working with an anti-Israel administrator, and organized offsite, the anti-Zionist editors have crushed efforts to remove bias from the article.

The article was first tagged Sept. 29 as part of a broader dispute over the neutrality of the article, especially its lead section. A more recent effort by another editor to tag the article was stymied by the same coterie of editors. As usual, that was followed by talk. Lots of talk, day after day of browbeating and bullying by anti-Israel editors, aimed not to find "consensus" but to wear down the "enemy."

A permalink to the talk page in its current state, showing the various "discussions," can be found here.

The fact that so much energy would be devoted to preventing the insertion of a routine, commonplace "maintenance" tag is emblematic of the power and fanaticism of anti-Israeli editors. 

Such tags have a simple purpose: to alert editors to possible article issues, in this case, lack of neutrality. To quote the instructions for use of the neutrality tag, it is placed on articles that are "reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view." It is extremely common, and is present on some 7,300 articles, as the instructions point out. 

But when editors hostile to the subject of an article control that article, questioning its neutrality is never "reasonable." Doing so can be lethal when an administrator is part of the mob, as is the case here.

The following post by "Stephan rosie," a new recruit to the anti-Zionist "Wikipedia Flood" who has already compiled an impressive block record, summed up the mentality at work here. 

All zionism sub-ideologies agree on the core principles of zionism itself, such as the colonization of a land that is inhabited by other pre-dominantly non-jewish population to establish a jewish majority. This is the essence of the zionist project regardless of which kind of zionism sub-ideology you are talking about as stated in reliable sources. the article lead is talking about the core principle of zionism as a whole regardless of the minor differences as between political zionism vs socialist zionism, such differences is to be detailed in the article body, not the lead. Stephan rostie (talk) 08:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that "Zionism" is spelled in the lower case to showcase his contempt.

To aid the effort to keep that tag off the page, the anti-Israel editor "Valereee," an administrator who cheerfully puts her "tools" at the disposal of her fellow anti-Zionists, weighed into the fray by quoting an essay she selected to support her comrades in the fight against the neutrality tag. 

A few hours later, taking off her "editor" hat and putting on her "administrator" hat, she restricted editing of the Zionism article. It was not the first nor last time she has acted as an administrator in articles on Israel, despite her record of anti-Israel editing.

How can Wikipedia tolerate that? Well, theoretically it doesn't. The rules state that administrators are free to contribute to any article or subject area, but they can't do that and use her "tools" to enforce the rules in that area. But as I've stated many times before, the rules don't apply to the Wikipedia Flood and its allies, especially administrators.

Even though Valereee created and largely wrote an anti-Israel article on the politicization of food in the Middle East, she insisted that she was "uninvolved" in the subject area. Backed by the Wikipedia Flood and by her fellow administrators (who tend to back each other up no matter what), she successfully argued that she should continue to wear both hats in articles relating to Israel, her anti-Israel editing notwithstanding. 

With anti-Zionist editors calling the shots, it's not surprising that they view the Zionism article as "neutral" and any effort to doubt its neutrality as heresy. And with anti-Zionist administrators like "Valleree" on their side, correcting the site's pervasive anti-Israel hate can be deeply inadvisable if you want to keep your editing privileges. 

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, in a post describing a bizarre action by the anti-Israel administrator "Doug Weller," Wikipedia administrators don't have to play by the rules. They set the rules as they go along. So if an anti-Israel administrator like "Vallerree" or "Doug Weller" bars you from articles on Israel or tosses you off Wikipedia altogether, there's not much you can do about it. Administrator actions can be and are reversed—but only for members of the Wikipedia Flood.

Wikipedia Administrators: Toe the Anti-Zionist Line or Be Blocked

'MaskedSinger' is threatened with serious consequences if he continues to do----what?

 The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors could not control articles without the active cooperation of the site's volunteer "administrators," who hold great power over lesser editors. Many of them are anti-Zionist themselves, and use their "tools" with greater impact than dozens of lesser editors.

Administrators can deny you access to the site entirely. They can ban you from topic areas, including everything related to Israel. They are subject to limited oversight and are only rarely removed, no matter how biased or incompetent they may be.

A good example just arose on Sept. 22, when the editor "MaskedSinger" was blocked for two months by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller." As far as I know (please comment or email me if I missed something), no one actually complained about this editor. "Doug Weller" took it upon himself to do this. It is almost unheard-of for anti-Zionist editors to be throttled out of the blue in this manner, and usually they withstand sustained complaints with nothing happening to them.

This user's block was so gratuitous, so outwardly unfair, that it should have been immediately reversed but it was not. This entire process, including the selective and harsh punishment, serves as a warning (intentionally, I believe) to editors coming to the Zionism and other articles to counter anti-Zionist editors: toe the anti-Zionist line or be blocked.

"MaskedSinger" has been active in the Zionism article, which has been rewritten as an anti-Zionist polemic.  As I explained in a previous blog item, this user has pointed out the historical roots of Zionism dating back to antiquity. He has done so on the "talk" or discussion page of the article. A review of the past 1000 edits of the article shows that he has not edited this article for at least the past four years! (My apologies for stating in a previous version of this post that he edited the article. He did not. He just talked about it.)

Did his merely talking about that article prompt this block? What was wrong with what he said on the discussion page? Or was "Doug Weller" just angry about all the negative outside attention this article has received and taking it out on "MaskedSinger"? 

It's plain that his motive was the latter. I say that because "Doug Weller" was laughingly vague, and did not even attempt to be fair or even say with any specificity why he was blocking him. "And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block," "Doug Weller" warned. 

If what continues after he is blocked? He didn't say. In fact, no grounds were stated, but the block record says, without elaboration, "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption." That of course can be said about every single anti-Israel editor. Note that the block record refers to the discussion page ("Talk:Zionism") as well as the article proper, when as I mentioned he has not edited the article.

As typically happens in such situations, other admis backed up "Doug Weller" without a second thought. His lack of providing an explanation was fine with them. "Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to," said the veteran administrator "Bishonen."

An appeal of the block was denied by another administrator, "PhilKnight," and the reason was illuminating: "Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that." 

"MaskedSinger" was not in fact advocating use of the Bible as a "historical source" but as background for explaining the historical roots of Zionism. 

This is a good example of how Wikipedia administrators, due to their own ideological blinders (Doug Weller), bureaucrat rigidity (Bishonen) and simple incompetence ("PhilKnight") stack the deck for the Wikipedia Flood.

Above all it serves as a warning to Wikipedia editors everywhere if they are thinking of countering anti-Zionist editors and their allies in the Wikipedia leadership. Administrators will be watching you. Some of them are themselves anti-Zionist. Their buddies will back them up. 

They will block you or ban you from the topic area for any reason or no reason at all. They will do this even if you haven't actually edited an article and are just talking about it on the discussion page. They will back each other up no matter how wrong they are. They will not even pretend to be fair.