Talk:Zionism

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

Change "Zionism[a] is an ethnocultural nationalist[b] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization[2] of a land outside Europe. With the rejection of alternative proposals for a Jewish state, it focused on the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine,[3] a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism,[4] and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[5] Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.[6]

As a nationalist movement and ideology, the primary goal of the Zionist movement from 1897 to 1948 was to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thereafter to consolidate and maintain it. The movement itself recognized that Zionism's position, that an extraterritorial population had the strongest claim to Palestine, went against the commonly accepted interpretation of the principle of self-determination.[9]"

to

"Zionism is the belief and desire for an independent Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, Israel. While the Zionist movement officially began in late 19th Europe in response to rising anti-semitism, a Jewish presence has endured in the land of Israel for millennia and the desire to return to Zion—referring to both the land of Israel and Jerusalem in biblical terms—has been central to Jewish communal identity since the Romans forcibly seized the land, exiling the Jewish people nearly two thousand years ago.

Modern Zionism began in late 19th century Europe as nationalism was on the rise throughout Europe. Throughout much of history, Jews in Europe were seen as other or "Oriental" by non-Jewish Europeans. Some Jews attempted to assimilate and become more secular through the Reform Movement. However, this did not spare them from the anti-Jewish riots or pogroms that swept Europe in the 19th century. "

Reason for the edit request: The existing text is factually incorrect and has a strong anti-zionist and anti-semitic bias. Much of the article's content is inaccurate and written from an anti-semitic perspective. Zionism is not a colonialist movement as many anti-zionists believe, but it is a decolonialist movement. It is the largest landback movement in history and inspired landback movements for many indigenous tribes in North America. Please fact-check this entire article. The content of this article is extremely harmful to the Jewish people as it is now. F writer935 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Requests to entirely rewrite the lead to have a completely different POV is not really the stuff of edit requests; it is not an uncontroversial edit. There is no consensus for these changes; discussion of changes to the lead is ongoing elsewhere on this page. When you reach WP:XC, you can join them. Levivich (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand the topic is controversial, the lead must at least give both POV to the reader. The lead should match the body of the article and it is not. If you read Wikipedia on this topic in French, German, Deutch, Italian or Spanish none of them has such anti-zionist bias. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also possible that those are wrong and here it is right. To assert anti-zionist bias, you need evidence, not just your personal opinion, I think I mentioned that already. Maybe start by considering what parts of the lead do not represent the article body and then consider what the best sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

1. "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine..."

• Critique: The term "colonization" is problematic because it simplifies Zionism as an imperial or colonial venture, which does not fully reflect the movement's goals. While Zionism did emerge in Europe, its primary purpose was not just "colonization" but rather the creation of a homeland for Jews, motivated by both a historical connection to the land and the need for refuge from persecution. The article details how Zionism was rooted in Jewish self-determination and was a response to centuries of persecution, particularly in Eastern Europe. The idea of colonization is a modern interpretation often linked to the colonial powers of the 19th century, and it does not capture the Zionist vision of re-establishing a Jewish presence in a land historically connected to the Jewish people.
  • Evidence from the article: The article emphasizes Zionism’s focus on national self-determination and refuge, explaining its connection to the Jewish historical experience of exile and persecution, rather than just portraying it as a colonial project.
  • Supporting Source: Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism and Shlomo Avineri's Herzl’s Vision provide insights into Zionism’s foundational goals of Jewish self-determination, distinct from colonialism.

----2. "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."

• Critique: This sentence distills Zionism into a single, reductionist goal of minimizing the Palestinian Arab population. While some Zionist factions did support population transfer, others advocated for peaceful coexistence or were focused primarily on the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jews. The article itself notes the diversity of thought within the Zionist movement, ranging from more extreme forms advocating for population exchanges (e.g., Revisionist Zionism) to those who favored coexistence (e.g., Labor Zionism). The sentence fails to acknowledge this diversity within the movement, which is important for understanding the complexity of Zionist aims.
  • Evidence from the article: The article points out the existence of diverse Zionist groups, including liberal, labor, and revisionist Zionists, and how they had different views on Arab-Jewish relations.
  • Supporting Source: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims discusses differing Zionist strategies regarding Palestinian Arabs, including peaceful coexistence vs. expulsion.

----3. "Zionism initially emerged in Central and Eastern Europe as a secular nationalist movement in the late 19th century, in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and in response to the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment."

• Critique: This sentence provides an incomplete explanation of Zionism’s origins. While antisemitism and the Haskalah were indeed factors, the article provides a more nuanced view by discussing the broader historical context of Jewish suffering over centuries. Zionism was not solely a reaction to modern antisemitism but was also deeply connected to the centuries of Jewish persecution in Europe, including pogroms, expulsions, and a long-standing desire for a return to the land of Israel. The sentence does not address the long-standing history of Jewish displacement and persecution, which is crucial for understanding why Zionism emerged when it did.
  • Evidence from the article: The article describes the broader context of Jewish history and persecution, especially in Eastern Europe, and the development of Jewish nationalist ideas long before modern antisemitism emerged.
  • Supporting Source: Shlomo Avineri's Herzl’s Vision offers an expansive historical context, including earlier Jewish nationalist movements.

----4. "The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."

• Critique: The phrase "widely seen" implies that there is consensus on this point, but this is not fully supported by the article, which notes differing perspectives on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Zionist immigration undoubtedly contributed to tensions, it was part of a larger historical context, including Arab-Jewish relations before Zionism. The article mentions that the arrival of Zionist settlers played a role in the conflict but does not claim it is the sole cause, nor does it suggest a universally accepted view. More nuance is needed here.
  • Evidence from the article: The article explains the conflict in more depth, acknowledging the pre-Zionist tensions between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and how Zionist settlement was one of many factors that contributed to the conflict.
  • Supporting Source: Ian J. Bickerton's Israel’s History and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict explores the multiple causes of the conflict, suggesting that Jewish immigration was part of a larger set of tensions.

----5. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs."

• Critique: This sentence presents the Zionist claim to Palestine as an absolute, disregarding the Palestinians' historical and emotional connection to the land. The article describes the Zionist claim as rooted in both historical connections to the land (the Jewish ancestral connection) and the modern political need for self-determination, which was central to the Zionist movement. Additionally, the article also touches on the Arab historical connection to the land, which this sentence neglects. A more balanced phrasing would reflect the competing historical claims of Jews and Arabs.
  • Evidence from the article: The article discusses both Jewish and Arab historical claims to the land, noting the tension between these claims. It acknowledges that the Zionist claim was framed around the notion of Jewish self-determination, while also recognizing the longstanding Arab presence.
  • Supporting Source: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims examines the competing historical narratives of Jews and Arabs in Palestine.

----6. "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement."

• Critique: While the sentence mentions the diversity of Zionism, it does not provide sufficient explanation of the various ideologies. For example, it does not describe the key differences between Labor Zionism (which emphasized social justice and coexistence) and Revisionist Zionism (which was more nationalistic and sometimes supported forceful measures), nor does it describe the differences between secular and religious Zionism. The article does address these distinctions, but the lead should provide more context to better explain this complexity.
  • Evidence from the article: The article notes the ideological divisions within Zionism, including its various factions, but does not sufficiently elaborate in the lead about the nature of these differences.
  • Supporting Source: Arthur Hertzberg's The Zionist Idea offers a detailed exploration of the various streams within Zionism, including their philosophical and political differences.

----Each of these points in the lead fails to fully represent the complexity and nuance presented in the body of the article, often oversimplifying Zionism and failing to reflect the diversity of views within the movement. A more balanced and detailed approach would give a more accurate representation of Zionism’s multifaceted history and ideology, as discussed in the article. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the second point, I would add that even Jabotinsky opened his 1923 "Iron Wall" with:

I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.
Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.
I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.

In other words, in the early days of Zionism (and, most probably, until the 30s), even the Revisionists, while hoping to achieve Jewish majority, would not subscribe to the "as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" definition. DancingOwl (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Nah, "provided the Jews become the majority" says it all. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"Jewish majority" and "as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" are two very different statements.

But if you consider them equivalent, I suppose you wouldn't mind replacing the second statement with the first one in both the lead and the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section? DancingOwl (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources, not primary sources, are what we summarize. Look at the secondary sources that are cited and how they characterize it; that's how Wikipedia should characterize it. (And no, there isn't a difference between wanting the largest possible Jewish majority and wanting as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible.)

You can use as many accounts as you want to try and get rid of this sentence, but until you bring high quality academic sources equivalent to the dozen or so cited there, and quote from them, you are just wasting your time. Quoting from primary sources won't convince anyone of anything. Levivich (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Jabotinsky didn't say "largest possible Jewish majority" (which, indeed, would be equivalent to "as many Jews and as few Arabs as possible"), but just "provided the Jews become the majority", period.

2. I understand your point about the primacy of secondary sources and I'm currently doing my research to locate the relevant ones

3. Not sure what your comment "You can use as many accounts as you want" is supposed to imply. DancingOwl (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with your point, the lead should reflect the body of the article and it is not. The body uses sources from anti-zionist and zionist sources while the lead mostly uses anti-zionist sources. It must be rewritten. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

the lead mostly uses anti-zionist sources Which ones? And explain why they are anti-zionist, please. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

See my answer to your previous comment. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

As just one example, Adel Manna writes in the intro of the book which is referenced that he hopes his book makes Zionists feel uncomfortable. No sane person can claim that this is an unbiased source about Zionism, but somehow his opinion is being put front and center in the lead as if his opinion was fact.

So can you please explain how that is okay? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point DancingOwl (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That is one reference of many so somehow his opinion is being put front and center in the lead as if his opinion was fact is just untrue. Selfstudier (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

While the statement in question is indeed supported by multiple sources, I’d like to address how these sources are synthesized and the balance of perspectives presented in the lead. Below are specific arguments with corresponding quotes from reliable sources.

----

1. Overgeneralization of Zionist Intent

The phrasing of the claim—"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible"—implies that this was a uniform and overarching goal of all Zionists. However, the historical record shows that Zionism was a diverse movement, with leaders and factions holding varied perspectives on the Arab population.

Supporting Sources:

1. Benny Morris: While Morris acknowledges that some Zionists supported population transfer, he contextualizes this as a response to conflict and the demographic realities of establishing a state.
   • "Ben-Gurion and other leaders did indeed think about transfer, but it was not an explicit policy from the outset. The idea emerged during the course of the 1948 war as an outcome of military necessity and the chaos of conflict." (Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, p. 588)
2. Walter Laqueur:
   • "The early Zionists believed coexistence was possible, and Herzl himself wrote that the Arabs would benefit economically and socially from Jewish immigration." (A History of Zionism, p. 146)

These perspectives highlight that while some leaders may have supported minimizing the Arab population, it was not an uncontested or universal goal.

----

2. Balance of Sources

The list of sources cited for the claim in question includes works by Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, and Adel Manna—authors who are well-known critics of Zionism. While these sources provide valuable perspectives, relying heavily on them risks presenting a skewed narrative.

Supporting Source:

1. Efraim Karsh (a historian critical of Pappé and Khalidi):
   • "Pappé's 'new history' often sacrifices factual accuracy for political goals. The narrative of deliberate ethnic cleansing during the 1948 war has been challenged by primary documents showing that Arab leaders encouraged flight." (Karsh, Fabricating Israeli History, p. 17)
2. Anita Shapira:
   • "Zionist policy before 1948 largely sought coexistence with the Arab population, though tensions escalated with the unfolding conflict." (Israel: A History, p. 243)

A balanced treatment of the topic should include both critical and supportive perspectives, rather than prioritizing one side in the lead.

----

3. Nuanced Presentation in the Lead

The lead should summarize the article neutrally and reflect the diversity of opinions. Presenting the statement in question as an uncontested fact does not align with Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Supporting Source:

1. Wikipedia’s NPOV Guidelines:
   • "Articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View)

Given this policy, a rephrasing is warranted to attribute the claim to specific scholars and avoid implying universal agreement. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

As Michael said, this is only one source, but the rest of these sources are combined as a violation of SYNTH. And while I've only looked into the first source in depth, I believe that all of the sources being used there should be taken as opinion and presented as opinion, instead of fact.

So, I ask you, first of all if you can at all support the use of Adel Manna as a factual source? If not, can we remove that source and take a look at fixing the rest of it at the same time? This look should include the following:

1) Make sure we're not engaged in synth but accurately presenting what sources actually say

2) Make sure that any sources which should be treated as opinion are presented as an opinion

3) Make sure that the correct context is given for any claims made. If a source presents a certain time frame, it cannot be presented as if this was true through out all of history.

This all seems very reasonable. What are your objections to it? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You and others have been invited to open an RFC on this question on multiple occasions and as yet, have not done so. The situation is that the current lead has consensus and constant arguing that it is not NPOV based on personal opinions is not going to wash, the need is to challenge the existing consensus not require comments in support of proposals that have no such consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Lead paragraph wording

The opening sentence mentions Europe twice and Palestine not once, which is absurd. The second sentence oddly mentions fringe proposals ahead of Palestine. I propose to change it to this:

Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism. Alternative locations were proposed, but rejected.

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns generally, but I would write "through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism". Which land does "of a land in Palestine" refer to? Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bitspectator: Of course, my bad copyediting.  Fixed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I would prefer your suggestion to the first two sentences we have now. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the expression "homeland for the Jewish people" is of recent vintage (Balfour?), the Jewish religious connection being instead referred to as "Return to Zion". Regardless, Zionism from it's inception sought a Jewish State, at Basel, in the Declaration of Independence and politically speaking ever since. So I don't agree with that change. I am not bothered about the alternative locations bit, it could be left out altogether. As I said before, nor am I bothered by excluding "a land outside Europe". Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case I am not disposed to agree to anything at all until it is explained in detail what fringe theories exist in the lead just seems like another of the frequent tag shaming attempts afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The fringe theories are that other places ("outside Europe," "alternative proposals") have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's not a fringe theory and nothing in the article suggests other places have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine.

Did you read the talk page before starting this section? There are many lead sections already, why start a new duplicative one instead of joining the discussion already in progress?

The point you're raising is already under discussion in another section above. Same with tagging the article.

Sadly you're not even the first person to tag the article and start a new talk page thread about something that was already being actively discussed in another thread. I never understand why people write before they read.

Anyway, my opinion on this is same as I stated in the other sections. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Presenting other places as more relevant to Zionism than Palestine is of course a fringe theory. And that is what the lead does by mentioning Palestine after other places and outside the opening sentence. I read the talk page, not the archives, before starting this section, and did not find your opinion on the point I raised. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

#Lede problems is literally proposing striking the same "alternative proposals for a Jewish state" language (which I agree with btw) you've raised for discussion here. The language "a region corresponding to ..." has been discussed in Archives 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 [1], are we just going to discuss this over and over? In between August, when you were last here, and today, there's been a bunch of work done. You're welcome to join in the discussions and work, but keeping us stuck on the same place, arguing the same few words/sentences, for months... is not helpful. Look at the RSes, especially the ones in the article and vetted on the talk page (now in the archives), propose something that incorporates other editors' feedback over the last 3 months, or support someone else's proposals. It's like Groundhog Day on this page, with people coming here to argue the same points over and over without ever reading the discussion from the last time. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The original poster in #Lede problems suggested, among other things, moving the "alternative proposals" passage down, which is also a part of my proposal, but the discussion has moved on to other subjects. And I don't dispute the wording of "a region corresponding to ...", but suggest moving it from the second sentence to the first. I'm glad we can address the order of the word Palestine in the lead without getting distracted by other topics, and that a consensus is forming for change. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Boldly made an attempt at rewording the lead [2]. Hopefully other commenters think that this is an improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't so bad altho it seemed a bit like an attempt to keep everybody happy more than anything else. It's been reverted but fwiw, I didn't like the primarily focused on part, it should be something more like initially focused on the homeland thing (nor am I entirely convinced that Zionism was focused on that at all, I think people like the British were focused on that and Zionists just went along with it since it was progress toward a return to Zion/state.). Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed, the new phrasing is misleading. DMH223344 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Tried to address this [3]. Obviously we're never going to have an article that's going to please everyone in every single aspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

We can change "primarily focused" to "focused". DMH223344 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think an improvement, yes Andre🚐 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favor of the current first sentence ending with "...of Palestine." I think "Jewish state in Palestine" is so important to any description of Zionism--such a sine qua non--that it must be in the first sentence, as it is currently. I don't think it's accurate to say that Zionism "primarily" or "mainly" focused on Palestine, because that implies there was a secondary focus on somewhere other than Palestine, as if most Zionists were focused on Palestine but there were also some other Zionists who were busy colonizing somewhere else--that's not true.

More generally, I do not think that "alternative locations" is important enough to be in the first paragraph of the lead, and maybe not even in the lead at all. We have to remember what the Uganda Scheme was in the context of Zionism's overall development. First, remember that Der Judenstaat was published in 1896--I believe this is the starting point of Zionism according to most sources. The first World Zionist Congress was the following year, 1897--this is indisputably the official start of Zionism, and the latest point at which the start of Zionism can be placed. At that 1897 Congress, they adopted the Basel Program, which said "in Palestine"--there can be no dispute that "in Palestine" was a key part of the official Zionist program from their first Congress. Plus, the word "Zion" (the name of a hill in Jerusalem) is the root of "Zionism". There really can be no doubt that Palestine was part of Zionism from the get-go.

The Uganda Scheme happened just 6 years later, in 1903. It came on the heels of various events, like the 1903 Kishinev pogrom and 1899-1902 Second Boer War, as well as problems early Zionists had with the Ottomans. It was an idea by the British and Theodor Herzl. It was proposed and rejected at the Sixth Zionist Congress. As far as I know, never before, and never again, did the Zionists ever seriously consider any place other than Palestine. So we're talking about something that happened six years after the founding of this 125-year-old movement. It was a blip, an oddity. Not a core part of what Zionism is. I don't know why this article should put so much focus on this one-time non-event, so much that it's in the first paragraph of the lead.

I'd be convinced to change my opinion if it can be shown that books about Zionism heavily focus on, or put significant attention or importance upon, the Uganda Scheme or consideration of places other than Palestine generally. I could be wrong, but I do not think this is what they say.

So I think the line "several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement" should be removed from the lead. I don't even think it's true that "several" locations were "proposed" (I think just East Africa was proposed?), and I don't know what the reference to South America is about. This Wikipedia article says nothing about South America being proposed, just that one historian (Penslar) thinks Herzl may have had it in mind at one point, and that is not worthy of including in the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

South America is about the Argentinan proposal as mentioned in Zionism#Territories_considered. I don't see an issue with removing reference to the alternative proposals from the first paragraph (or maybe even entirely) because at least retrospectively they seem like minor asides to the movements clear focus on Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah--thank you for pointing me to that section. I think the section actually reinforces my point. Wikipedia says, as does the cited source, that Herzl considered places other than Palestine and East Africa (source: "Zionism's prophet, Theodor Herzl, considered Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, and the Sinai Peninsula as potential Jewish homelands."), which doesn't mean anyone else in the Zionist movement considered these places. Later in the same paragraph, Wikipedia says (cited to another source) that it's unclear if Herzl seriously considered the Argentina plan. That seems to directly contradict what the lead says ("several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement")... if Herzl considered these, and maybe not even seriously considered them, that doesn't support "proposed and rejected by the movement." AFAIK, and it seems like as far as Wikipedia/the sources say, only East Africa was proposed and rejected by the movement.

So for this reason--that the sentence in the lead isn't supported in the body--I'm going to remove the sentence from the lead. (If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and explain why.)

I'll note as an aside that I think even the body section on "territories considered" seems too long for this high-level summary article--though I wouldn't want to see this content removed from Wikipedia altogether--I wonder if the full detail should be moved to some sub-article, and a shorter summary left in its place. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I made some changes to the first paragraph, hopefully my edit summaries were self-explanatory. Anyone should feel free to tweak/revert/whatever as you see fit. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think your version is fine, and don't intend to make further changes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, let's give that a go, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Glad to see some positive improvements. Nice work everyone. Andre🚐 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Quickly dropping in to say I think "of Palestine" is an EGG link, since Palestine points to State of Palestine, not the linked Palestine (region). We cool switching it to "of the region of Palestine" or "of historic Palestine"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think "region of" is good Andre🚐 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not opposed to it, but to my ears, "region of X" means "in and around X" as opposed to "in X". The meaning we're going for is "inside X", as in "in a part of X" (there is some scholarly debate about whether it was really "in all of X").

Although my real quibble is that Palestine (region) should be moved to Palestine because the thing that existed for 2,000+ years is obviously the primary topic over the thing that was declared less than 40 years ago and doesn't even really fully exist yet right now. But that would be a discussion for another page (and I don't intend on taking it up). Levivich (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

OT Discussion of Palestine DAB
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I didn't really see the problem with Palestine, we often do that kind of thing elsewhere, I suppose you could put Palestine. Anyway there was a recent RM about it. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC) After skimming that RM and the prior one, I see I'm not alone and that makes me rethink taking it up. There have been many unsuccessful State of Palestine RMs recently, but apparently, there hasn't been a Palestine (region) RM in 10 years. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Before, if you wanted to write Palestine, you couldn't, it would throw a DAB error, now it doesn't. It's not simple to deal with. Personally I prefer the current set up. Selfstudier (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC) That won't be a problem if Palestine (region) was moved back to Palestine (where it was before 2015). Here's my RM argument in a nutshell: if you look at the works listed at Bibliography of the Arab–Israeli conflict#Palestine, almost all of them use the word "Palestine" to mean the historical region, not the modern state. This includes what I'd call the "Big 3 Histories": Khalidi's Hundred Years' War on Palestine, Masalha's Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History, and Pappe's A History of Modern Palestine. I'm curious if that changes your mind at all? Levivich (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC) What is Israel occupying is what interests me more. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Israel is occupying about 25% of Palestine (and owns the other 75%). Levivich (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Israel is occupying 100% of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Or Israel is occupying Palestine, full stop. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Illegally. Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Eh, 54% is legal: the world passed a law to allow it. Immoral, sure, but legal. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Occupation of SoP (ie Palestine) is illegal. As for the rest, it was never tested in court and is unlikely to be, so we'll never know. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

agreed about the phrasing. In RS the phrasing is usually "in Palestine", not "in the region of Palestine". DMH223344 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I liked it the way it was to begin with, in different articles it is customary to specify "which" Palestine is meant and I don't really see it as an EGG. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier I didn't see the original link as an MOS:EGG either, but if it had to be changed, I prefer your choice of historic Palestine. It reads better to me personally & seems more concise then the region of Palestine.

I will note however that your change was reverted, so I'd like to ask @האופה why they consider it a "pov term". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit Lead for Clarity

Change "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of the region of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."

to

"Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel."

Helps clarify and is more concise. Original version is too wordy and complicated.

Also would recommend including as a second sentence: The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

This is mentioned in the terminology section, but could be moved to the lead as such:

Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel. The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. SECschol (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and agreed with sentiment in prior request. The incessant attempts to pejoratively paint Zionism as "settler colonialism" are atrocious and a blight upon our encyclopedia. Ekpyros (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

Why is there this section?: Zionism as settler colonialism

But not this section: Zionism as an Indigenous Rights Movement

Zionism has increasingly been understood by some scholars and activists as a movement for the recognition and rights of an indigenous people. Central to this view is the assertion that Jews, as a historically oppressed group with deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the land of Israel, possess indigenous status within the region. This perspective highlights the long-standing Jewish presence in the land of Israel, dating back over 3,000 years, with continuous settlement and cultural development despite successive periods of exile, foreign rule, and persecution. The rise of Zionism in the late 19th century, fueled by the desire to escape rising European antisemitism and the impacts of the Holocaust, was seen by its proponents as a necessary assertion of Jewish self-determination, akin to other indigenous movements around the world fighting for the right to self-govern and protect their cultural heritage. This view aligns with international frameworks on indigenous rights, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their distinct cultural identities, languages, and connection to traditional lands. As the discourse around Zionism continues to evolve, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the understanding of Zionism as an indigenous rights movement remains a contentious but important aspect of the broader conversation on nationalism, self-determination, and the politics of the Middle East.

Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/jewish-roots-land-israelpalestine See Also: Ukashi, Ran (2018) "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25 : No. 1 , Article 7. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2018.1442 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol25/iss1/7

Either delete this section in its entirety: Zionism as settler colonialism

or include the above section to provide a neutral unbiased perspective by providing both sides of the debate. SECschol (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done: There is no consensus for this request. Please review WP:XC. Once your account has reached extended confirmed user status, you can attempt to change consensus. DMH223344 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

DMH223344, has this change been proposed before? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

not as far as I know, have you seen a similar proposal? DMH223344 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

No, so I'm curious why you'd say there's no consensus for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

How will a nonec user work to establish consensus for something they are proposing? DMH223344 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

if consensus is required to fulfill an edit request, doesn't that mean we should summarily decline almost all of them? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits like fixing typos or obvious errors; see WP:EDITXY. Levivich (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty much, unless they are simple and straightforward to implement. As soon as they run into paragraphs, explanations and opinion, then they usually aren't. Or those making the requests haven't read the talkpages/archives, which seems to happen a lot, especially on this page. Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Either delete this section in its entirety: Zionism as settler colonialism That's not going to happen.

or include the above section to provide a neutral unbiased perspective by providing both sides of the debate Nor is this, or at least we will not be simply reflecting a view asserting that Jews are indigeneous, noting also that this is not the same thing as a contrary view to Zionism as settler colonialism. As well the author of the first source given does not appear to be an expert on Zionism while the second source given is from a person who was a PHD candidate at the time so neither of these are particularly great sources.

That said, there may be a case for more properly reflecting (a possibly adjusted) lead of Zionism as settler colonialism in this article in summary style. Note that Penslar (a best source) says (see Talk:Zionism/Archive 25#Penslar on colonialism/settler colonialism):

"There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation." and

""Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities, like a celestial body with an eccentric orbit around its sun." "The questions underlying this chapter, like its predecessor, are about Zionism’s most essential and salient qualities."

Those matters can be dealt with as part of the ongoing discussions about this article by EC editors. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

See Penslar 2007 p. 108: Thus far I have set Zionism against the background of colonialism, anti-colonial movements, and post-colonial states. I have argued that Zionism is not merely a subset of the first and can, like the latter two, be simplified and rendered largely congruent with European nationalism. ... for its strategic value, natural resources, or productive capabilities but rather because of what Jews believed to be historic, religious, and cultural ties to the area known to them as the Land of Israel.... Zionism was based in concepts of return, restoration, and re-inscription. Please read the whole page of course, as I necessarily cannot quote all of it, but it is an extremely nuanced take and there are many surrounding aspects that shed light on this, I can only quote the part responsive to the point I'm making. He acknowledges the parallel to settler-colonialism such as the Puritans, but contrasts it with such: Zionists didn't see the land as a tabula rasa. See also p.111 which he points out that Israel's colonialism should be understood post-1967. Andre🚐 02:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course, there is lots of nuance but the conclusion is as I outlined in the second quote above (from Penslar in 2024 not 2007) "Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities". Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

In the section "Zionism and colonialism" Penslar's coverage of the topic is only partially addressed, I'm happy to have a discussion about what additions or changes you suggest. One aspect that is covered is that some authors frame 67 as a turning point (although penslar is not currently listed as one of those authors). Are you sure you have page 111 correct? DMH223344 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

This is Penslar 2007, not Penslar 2024 that I'm quoting. Andre🚐 18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that source does not say that Zionism became a colonial movement strictly after 1967. Instead he does indeed describe Zionism as a colonial movement (p 108):

Zionism was a product of the age of imperialism; its adherents shared a number of common sensibilities with European advocates of colonial expansion in the Middle East. Yet the movement was more than a form of colonial practice.

Which is consistent with your quote "not merely a subset". Most sources would not deny that there is more to Zionism than that it is a form of colonialism, so there's no contradiction here. Penslar instead argues that Zionism is both a form of colonialism and also "there are lines of continuity between Zionism and anti-colonial political movements, just as the culture of modernizing Jewish intellectuals closely resembled that of colonial intelligentsias in twentieth-century Asia and Africa." For Penslar: "Zionism rooted itself simultaneously in European colonialism and Afro-Asian anti-colonialism."

There's currently a single short paragraph about the framing of Zionism as an anti-colonial movement. Penslar's perspective could fit alongside that discussion. DMH223344 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but we should draw from his newest book, which spends an entire chapter on this specific issue, rather than from his 17-year-old book. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

On the subject, BTW, that paper the OP posted written by the PhD candidate does an interesting job of summarizing views on Zionism-as-settler-colonialism from some wide-ranging sources, from Penslar to Karsh. I agree with Self that the paper isn't a great RS for use in this article, but it's interesting that the conclusions of the paper are basically the same as the conclusions of Penslar (and like everybody else these days) that Zionism was settler colonialism but also had differences from other types of settler colonialism (i.e., the return-to-homeland thing). It was an interesting read. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

He says that the Israeli state transformed into a colonial state in 1967, implying that from 1948-1967 it wasn't. He also addresses the paradox of Zionism being both de-colonial or anti-colonial and its colonial aspects, but he clearly rejects calling it "settler-colonialism" which is not the same as colonialism in general. If you read pp.108-111 in Penslar 2007 he clearly doesn't view Zionism 1948-1967 as settler-colonialism and he explicitly treats, as he does in his later work but in my opinion less on-target for this particular question, as a question and not an answer. Andre🚐 00:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Penslar 2023, p. 89:

Not all critics of Zionism cleave to Veracini’s distinction between colonialism and settler colonialism. Instead, the adjective “colonial” frequently appears in writing about Israel as a blanket pejorative and synonym for oppression. This chapter seeks to correct the imprecise use of this heavily fraught term. A critique of Zionist attitudes and Israeli practices can be factually correct while mistakenly conflating attitudes such as condescension or disregard, as well as actions such as expropriation, exploitation, and expulsion with the particular, time-specific practice of modern Western colonialism. Placing Zionism within the broad sweep of Western colonialism leaves unexplained many of its key aspects, such as the nature of Zionism’s connection with historic Palestine. A nation can engage in both settler-colonial and anticolonial practices.

Andre🚐 21:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the point your making with this quote? DMH223344 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Direct support for what I wrote in the prior section and support from the more recent Penslar work on the nuance regarding colonialism - it should be portrayed as a controversial question and Penslar believes there are problems or limitations with the description. Andre🚐 17:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Penslar says Z should be placed in a settler colonial framework. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sort of, but not exactly. He says:

There are, in fact, good reasons to place Israel within a settler-colonial framework, but that framework requires considerable expansion, both geographic and conceptual, beyond what is commonly found. Signs emerged during the 2010s of a new perspective on post-1967 Israel’s settlements in the Occupied Territories that goes beyond simply describing the process as colonization. First, Veracini claims that a full-blown project of settler colonialism has not occurred because most of the Palestinians in the West Bank, unlike those within the territory that became post-1949 Israel, have remained in place...The discussion thus far demonstrates numerous points of contact and commonality between the formation of national identities in settler-colonial contexts, including the Zionist project....Nonetheless, each of these contexts possesses distinct features or characteristics common to only a portion of the total sample. There are also significant economic differences that have collective psychological consequences....Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities,

My read of that is that he believes that is an inadequate description as commonly used and shouldn't be used without further contextualization. Andre🚐 17:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities I don't see how that can be misinterpreted. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

for Wikipedia's purposes, we shouldn't just full-stop write that Penslar says Zionist is settler-colonial because that's an oversimplification of what he says. He believes there are limitations of how that is commonly used. Since Wikipedia relies on common usage and in ensuring NPOV and avoiding charged or controversial statements in Wikivoice which I believe is consistent with how Penslar treats it, which is to say, delicately and with a bunch of qualifications and exceptions as well as a treatment of varying degrees of agreement by others. Andre🚐 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but all those ifs buts and maybes can go in the article body, all we need to say in the lead is that the characterization is contested. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Unacknowledged Kinships Postcolonial Studies and the Historiography of Zionism Stefan Vogt, Derek J. Penslar and Arieh Saposnik (Eds) Brandeis University Press 2023 is quite a good source. Selfstudier (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We dont say colonialism anywhere in the lead outside the context of antizionism. Also there is a whole body section on "zionism and colonialism" which addresses this point. Is your suggestion that more of this body section should be included in the lead? DMH223344 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we could explain better the differences of different types of Zionism vis colonialism. You're right, the lead isn't devoting too much to this, and I don't think it should be more. The sentence that still bugs me is the one about how some proponents don't reject settler-colonialism. That's true but it's a partial oversimplification. Many proponents do reject it. Andre🚐 17:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposal to Revise the Lead of the Zionism Article

Critique of the Current Lead

The current lead of the Zionism article is not fully neutral. While it addresses criticisms and controversies, it neglects to adequately summarize Zionism's historical and ideological foundations. As per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the lead should provide a concise and balanced overview of the topic, reserving detailed criticisms for the body of the article.

Specifically:

Lack of Context on Zionism's Origins: The lead does not provide sufficient historical background on late 19th-century European nationalism and antisemitism, which catalyzed the Zionist movement. For instance, Theodor Herzl's foundational text, Der Judenstaat (1896), framed Zionism as a response to Jewish persecution and a vision for self-determination.

Source: Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Full text available)

Source: Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel. Schocken Books, 2003.

Omission of Zionism's Ideological Diversity: The lead fails to acknowledge the diversity of thought within the movement, such as Political Zionism, Cultural Zionism, and Religious Zionism. Figures like Ahad Ha’am emphasized cultural and spiritual revival rather than a purely political state.

Source: Hertzberg, Arthur, ed. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Jewish Publication Society, 1997.

Source: Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State. BlueBridge, 2014.

Overemphasis on Controversies: The current lead gives disproportionate weight to criticisms of Zionism. While these are important, they should not dominate the introduction. Instead, the lead should summarize Zionism’s goals, historical development, and major achievements, reserving critiques for later sections.

Source: Penslar, Derek J. Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918. Indiana University Press, 1991.

Source: Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, 2006.

Proposed Revision

I propose the following revision for the lead:

Zionism is a nationalist and political movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic Land of Israel. Emerging in the late 19th century in response to rising antisemitism and European nationalism, Zionism was formalized by Theodor Herzl, whose work Der Judenstaat (1896) laid the groundwork for its political objectives. The movement evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While Zionism achieved its primary goal of a Jewish state, it remains a subject of debate, particularly concerning its impact on Palestinian Arabs and ongoing regional conflicts.

This revised lead provides:

A clear summary of Zionism’s goals and historical roots. Recognition of its diverse ideologies and streams. A neutral mention of controversies, suitable for an introduction.

Supporting Sources

Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Link to text)

Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.

Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel .

Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State.

Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.

I invite feedback and discussion on this proposal to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability standards.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you contribute on the talk page sections already opened on this topic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body not a summary of your personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, indeed the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and the current is far to reflect the body. The topic is controversial and must reflect sources, against zionism but also Zionist, and the lead does not while the body does. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

But the lead already does summarize the origins of Zionism in the second paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

The current second para seems overly wordy and detailed for a lead, but in any event this proposed first paragraph gives a very sharp, uncontroversial concise overview that can then be unpacked in later, less concise paragraphs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Moral support. While I don't see that there will be consensus here today for this change, I think the proposal has a legitimate point. Currently, when I read the lead of Zionism, I read the lead in a lot of matter-of-fact, in fact extensive detail. When any detail is smoothed over to make things flow better, we encounter a dispute. At any rate, the lead is very detailed and it also doesn't really say that Zionism is quite a controversial topic with a lot of debate. That's an important part of Zionism. Not only is Zionism a highly fragmented and multifaceted group of related nationalisms, it is also the subject of heated debate with a range of vitriolic characters at the fringes as well as a heated dispute in the mainstream. An encyclopedia article about Zionism should not engage in this. It should be a very flat description of the major disputes and the major players, events, and conceptual groupings. Andre🚐 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer and moral support, I did not expect to have a consensus with my proposal but to start a debate on this lead. Would you mind drafting something? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

What, in your perspective, (or preferably if you can provide sources) are the aspects of Zionism that are highly debated? The lead does currently mention that supporters of zionism see it as a national liberation movement and that antizionists see it as a settler colonial movement. DMH223344 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, in Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 by Shapira 1999, we're talking about the history of attitudes toward power and the use of armed force within the Zionist movement—from an early period in which most leaders espoused an ideal of peaceful settlement in Palestine, to the acceptance of force as a legitimate tool for achieving a sovereign Jewish state. It was not agreed by all Zionists that it was necessary not to be peaceful. Andre🚐 01:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The idea of the "defensive ethos" is an interesting one which might warrant more attention in the body at least.

p. 126:

Was it possible to settle Palestine peacefully, or was a violent clash between Jews and Arabs inevita­ ble? In the 1920s, all were apparently in agreement that it was too early to arrive at any conclusive answer. For the moment, the necessity of the hour was to push ahead with settlement of the land; and the explanatory line adopted had to be based on principles of the defensive ethos. There were those who honestly believed its principles, while others accepted only a portion of its elements. And there were some who apparently viewed it as, at best, an expedient propaganda line and an important instrument for education.

Shapira's book is full of discussion about a peaceful resolution being preferable to some in the Zionist movement, but not achievable on practical grounds (also noted by Flapan). As she says in her conclusion "At what point did the leadership become aware that there were fallacies in the logical structure of the defensive ethos and that the Zionist movement would not be able to avoid a head-on collision with the Arab national movement?... From the very inception of Jewish colonization in Palestine, the course of ultimate confrontation was inherent in the situation." It's interesting to follow Ben-Gurion on this point; taken from his biography (Teveth):

A careful comparison of Ben-Gurion’s public and private positions leads inexorably to the conclusion that this twenty-year denial of the conflict was a calculated tactic, born of pragmatism rather than profundity of conviction. The idea that Jews and Arabs could reconcile their differences … was a delaying tactic. Once the Yishuv had gained strength, Ben-Gurion abandoned it. This belief in a compromise solution … was also a tactic, designed to win continued British support for Zionism.

As a final note, Shapira also discusses the influence of Stalinist Russia on the Yishuv:

In the final analysis, these expressed a tendency to respond with force to clashes with Arabs. That activism was not the product of Palestinian realities, but had been imported from the Diaspora. The young had not learned national pride in Palestine but had come there as an expression of revolt against the humiliation of the Jew. That activism derived its basic values from Russian revolutionary ide­ ology and practice. Those values included a refusal to acquiesce in accepting the established order of things, a faith in the ability of a small avant-garde to change the course of history, a conviction that a historical mission liberates its bearers from the restrictions of simple morality in the name of higher justice, and a legitimation of the use of force for the sake of generating the desired revolutionary change. They believed that every revolutionary ideology harbors within it the legitimation of the use of violence, since the end justifies the means. Moreover, in every revolution, the active core constitutes a minority within a majority. This scheme represented an acknowledgement of the inevitability of violence.

DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree Shapira's argument about the inevitability of violence in Zionism is worth expanding in the body, along with Slater 2020's counter argument that Zionism didn't require violence to achieve its goals. I'm sure there are others, too (some, eg Morris, already in the article). Levivich (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Support expansion of this in body not in lead BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Why are we using Theodor Herzl as a source here? He is considered the founding figure of Zionism, not exactly a third-party source known for fact-checking. And he died back in 1904, so we can not use him as a source for the last 120 years of bloodshed. Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's a primary source, and doesn't help us figure out how to summarize secondary sources in the article. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposed content works without citing the primary source. Secondary sources are pretty unanimous in saying Herzl and his text provided the foundational ideas. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources listed talk about colonization "in Palestine," but the proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes "Palestine" to "Land of Israel". That's less WP:NPOV, not more, just by the suggested sources themselves--without getting into why that's not a good set of sources upon which to base the lead.

I don't think those sources or others say Herzl "formalized" Zionism, probably more like "organized" or "promoted". He died within the first decade of Zionism's existence, and some (many? most?) of the formal institutions of Zionism, like Histadrut and Haganah, were developed after he died.

I question whether the sources describe the various types of Zionism as "diverse" or the exact opposite--homogenous--or somewhere in the middle, e.g. more alike than different. And also whether the movement "evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams," or whether the sources say it went in exactly the opposite direction: a bunch of different strands of Jewish nationalism coalesced into one thing, Political Zionism. I'm not sure whether the sources would list "political, cultural, and religious" Zionism as the three main types, or whether it would be "Liberal," "Labor" and "Revisionist" (or just one main type: political, or something else).

The last line is particularly whitewashy. The sources accuse Zionism of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes. Such allegations (or widely-agreed facts) are not accurately summarized as a "debate" about Zionism's "impact on Palestinian Arab's."

For these reasons, I don't think the proposed lead is an improvement. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion and clarify my rationale for the proposed changes. Let me address each of your points in turn:

1. "The proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes 'Palestine' to 'Land of Israel.'"

• Clarification: The intention behind using "Land of Israel" instead of "Palestine" is to reflect terminology used within Zionist ideology itself, particularly in historical texts and by figures like Theodor Herzl. However, I understand that this may appear less neutral, and I am open to retaining "Palestine" in the lead, as it is geographically and historically accurate.
• On "colonization": The term "colonization" is used in some sources, but it is not universally accepted or uncontested. Zionism was not purely a colonial movement; it was also a nationalist and self-determination movement responding to Jewish persecution. While colonization was an element of how Jewish settlement occurred, the lead should aim for a balanced description that includes the motivations and historical ties behind these efforts. For example, we could state: "through settlement efforts in Palestine," which reflects the action without the pejorative connotations.

----

2. "Herzl 'formalized' Zionism vs. 'organized' or 'promoted.'"

• Clarification: You’re correct that Herzl did not "formalize" Zionism in its entirety, as many institutions developed after his death. A more accurate phrasing could be: "Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress and laid the groundwork for Zionism as a political movement." This acknowledges his central role while recognizing the ongoing development of Zionism after his death.
• Supporting Sources: Herzl’s role as a key figure in the early Zionist movement is discussed in works like Shlomo Avineri’s Herzl’s Vision, which describes Herzl as the "founder of political Zionism" for his organizational and ideological contributions.

----

3. "Are the types of Zionism described as 'diverse' or the opposite?"

• Clarification: Zionism encompassed a range of ideological streams, which were diverse in approach but united by the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland. The lead could clarify this by stating: "Zionism encompassed various ideological approaches, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their priorities and methods but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination." This phrasing acknowledges diversity while emphasizing shared objectives.
• On alternative categorizations (e.g., Liberal, Labor, Revisionist): These categorizations are more specific to political Zionism in the 20th century and are better suited to the body of the article. The lead should reflect broader distinctions (e.g., political, cultural, religious) that capture the ideological diversity of early Zionism.
• Supporting Sources: Arthur Hertzberg’s The Zionist Idea and Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism describe the multifaceted nature of Zionism, including cultural and religious aspects that preceded the Labor-Revisionist divide.

----

4. "The last line is whitewashy regarding allegations of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes."

• Clarification: The intention of the last line was not to downplay these allegations but to summarize a broader debate about Zionism's legacy. To address your concern, the lead could more explicitly mention these criticisms, e.g., "While some view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement, critics have accused it of contributing to the displacement of Palestinians and violations of human rights, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and colonialism." This phrasing acknowledges the severity of the allegations without overshadowing the entire lead with one perspective.
• On the "debate" framing: It is fair to revise the phrasing to avoid glossing over serious criticisms. However, the lead should also avoid adopting language that presumes consensus on these accusations, as there is substantial disagreement in scholarship and public discourse.
• Supporting Sources: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims and Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage discuss these allegations and the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

----

5. "Sources and neutrality"

• Clarification: The sources cited in the proposal are widely respected in Zionism studies (e.g., Laqueur, Avineri, Hertzberg). However, I acknowledge that additional sources representing critical perspectives (e.g., Khalidi, Pappé) could be incorporated to ensure balance. The lead should aim to reflect the body of the article by presenting both the achievements and criticisms of Zionism in a neutral and proportional manner.

----

Proposed Revision Based on Feedback:

Taking your points into account, here is a revised draft of the lead:

Zionism is a nationalist movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Emerging in Europe in the late 19th century in response to antisemitism and the challenges of assimilation, Zionism was formalized as a political movement by Theodor Herzl, who convened the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The movement encompassed diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination.

Zionist efforts led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement addressing Jewish persecution, critics have accused it of colonialism, the displacement of Palestinians, and human rights violations, including allegations of ethnic cleansing. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism's legacy and its impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

----This version addresses your concerns about colonization, Herzl’s role, ideological diversity, and criticism, while striving for a neutral and balanced tone. Let me know your thoughts! Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Just on the first point, "colonization", emphasis mine:

• Herzl, Der Judenstaat: The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our male colonists ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined ... the Company's colonists ... more prosperous colonists ... the peaceable voluntary departure of colonists ... I don't understand using Der Judenstaat to argue in favor of including "Land of Israel" and excluding "colonization", when Der Judenstaat does not have the word "Israel" in it, but does have the words "colonial" and "colonists."
• Laqueur, p. xxvi: ... up to 1917 the history of the Zionist movement presents no particular problems; it is the story of a somewhat eccentric movement of young idealists who met every other year at a congress and espoused various political, financial, cultural, and colonising activities.
• Hertzberg is a collection of primary-source documents by Zionists, not a history book about Zionism. It has very little historical analysis in it, mostly it's the reproduction of Zionist leaders' works. But in the introduction, p. 16, Hertzberg writes: ... what is classical in Zionism-its eschatological purpose; and what is modern-the necessarily contemporary tools of political effort, colonization, and the definition of Jewry as a nation ...
• Avineri (2008) is a biography of Herzl, not a book about Zionism, but he has lots of quotes of Herzl referring to Jewish colony, Zion colonies, plus discussion of early Zionist institutions like the Jewish Colonization Association and the Jewish Colonial Trust.
• Khalidi, p. xxxiv: This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense. There is no reason why both positions cannot be true: there are multiple examples of national movements, indeed nations, that were colonial in their origins ...
• Morris (2001), p. 13 Muslim attitudes to some degree affected the Zionist colonists in Palestine. They drove the colonists, at least during the early decades of Zionism ..., pp. 38-39 These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country, projecting its power beyond the seas and exploiting Third World natural resources. But the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives., or p. 61 On the most basic level, Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement., there's more like this in that book.

I do not think removing the word "colonization" makes the lead "a balanced description," but rather an unbalanced one that omits this key point that is in all these sources ... the sources you are bringing to this discussion, without considering other (possibly better) sources. Indeed, "colonization" was a compromise over just saying "colonial enterprise", which is what the lead used to say, and the more I read sources about this, the more I think that's probably what the lead should say. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to address your points in detail and explain why I initially proposed modifying the language, while also clarifying that my intent is not to erase the idea of "colonization" but rather to ensure a balanced and nuanced presentation of the term in the lead.

----

1. "Colonization" in Early Zionist Writings

You raise a valid point that early Zionist writings, including Der Judenstaat and other foundational texts, explicitly use terms like "colonists" and "colonial." Herzl himself employed this language to describe the practical settlement efforts required to establish a Jewish homeland. I do not dispute that "colonization" was part of early Zionist discourse, but I think the current lead risks oversimplifying the term without sufficient context.

• Clarification: When Herzl and early Zionist leaders used terms like "colonization," they often did so within the framework of contemporary European nationalist and developmental discourse, not necessarily as a reflection of imperialist ambitions akin to European colonial powers. For example, Herzl’s vision focused on peaceful settlement, voluntary agreements, and the development of land, rather than the exploitation of resources or subjugation of indigenous populations, which are central to many definitions of colonialism.
• Suggested Compromise: Instead of removing "colonization," the lead could clarify the term’s specific context in Zionist thought. For example:
  • "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine through organized settlement and colonization efforts." This phrasing acknowledges the use of "colonization" while avoiding connotations that might inaccurately frame Zionism solely as a colonial enterprise in the imperialist sense.

----

2. Secondary Sources on Colonization

You provide excellent examples from secondary sources, including Laqueur, Khalidi, and Morris, which highlight the colonial aspects of Zionist activities, particularly in their relationship to the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. I do not contest the inclusion of this perspective in the article, but I would argue that these sources also reflect complexity and nuance, which should be conveyed in the lead.

• Morris: While Morris acknowledges the colonial elements of Zionist settlement (e.g., "Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement"), he also distinguishes it from traditional European colonialism, noting that Zionism was not backed by an imperial mother country and was primarily driven by a national liberation ethos.
• Khalidi: Khalidi’s point that Zionism can simultaneously be a national movement and a colonial enterprise is a nuanced position that should inform the lead. This dual characterization could be reflected in a balanced lead, such as:
  • "Zionism has been described as both a national liberation movement for Jewish self-determination and a colonial enterprise that displaced the indigenous Arab population."

----

3. Current Language in the Lead

The current lead uses "colonization" without sufficient explanation, which could mislead readers into equating Zionism entirely with European-style colonialism. This interpretation is incomplete because Zionism also arose from unique historical circumstances, including widespread Jewish persecution, statelessness, and a historical connection to the land.

• Proposed Revision: The lead could expand on the term to capture the complexity of Zionism’s settlement efforts. For example:
  • "Zionism’s efforts to establish a homeland in Palestine involved organized settlement and land acquisition, often described as colonization. These activities were influenced by European nationalist and colonial models but were also shaped by the unique context of Jewish statelessness and historical ties to the region."

This phrasing acknowledges the colonial aspect while providing context that distinguishes Zionism from traditional colonial enterprises.

----

4. Balance and Neutrality

Your point about the importance of retaining "colonization" for balance is well-taken. My initial concern was that the term, as currently presented, risks oversimplifying Zionism’s goals and methods. However, I agree that removing it entirely would also create an imbalance. The key is to provide a nuanced explanation that reflects both the colonial aspects of Zionism and its unique characteristics as a national liberation movement.

• Addressing Neutrality: Including multiple perspectives from sources like Khalidi, Morris, Laqueur, and Avineri can ensure the lead captures the full spectrum of interpretations. For example:
  • "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Its efforts involved colonization and settlement activities, which have been characterized as both a national liberation movement and a colonial enterprise, particularly in their impact on the indigenous Arab population."

----

5. Use of Herzl as a Source

You correctly note that Herzl’s Der Judenstaat frequently uses "colonization" and related terms. While I referenced Herzl to provide historical context for early Zionist ideas, I agree that his writings should not be the sole basis for evaluating Zionism’s methods or impact. Secondary analyses, such as those by Avineri and Laqueur, are essential for contextualizing Herzl’s language and understanding its limitations.

----

Conclusion

Thank you again for your thorough analysis and sources. I propose that we retain "colonization" in the lead but expand its context to reflect the nuances discussed here. By doing so, we can provide a balanced and accurate description that captures both the colonial and national liberation aspects of Zionism, as supported by the sources you and I have referenced. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the article by the way?

Colonization is used by RS and we are using it here to reflect that. DMH223344 (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

On the third point, where does Hertzberg's book or Laqueur's book say that Zionism's "nature" is "multifaceted", or that Zionism "encompassed various ideological approaches", or anything like that? I'm not finding it. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure Engel 2013 says something like that. Andre🚐 01:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. Engel 2013 doesn't seem to mention cultural Zionism at all. It barely make any mention of religious Zionism, except when discussing the post-1967 party. It talks about Labour, Revisionist, General Zionism (as do the other sources), but (like the other sources) describes those as parties, factions, etc. I don't see anything even close to saying there was a diverse, multifaceted, or wide range of Zionist ideologies, etc., just different parties/factions that had control at various times. Maybe I missed it. Levivich (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the ways I know this not an accurate way to summarize Zionism, is that every source I've ever read talks about "the Zionist movement," and never "Zionist movements," or any plural like that. It's always one movement, one organization, one ideology, one group. With infighting, yes, but it's not a collection of ideologies, it's one thing. Levivich (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's not conventional to refer to "Zionisms," plural, but they do talk about "streams of Zionism" in Conforti and Schlinder, and left-and right-wing factions within the Zionist movement. It's more than one group but it is generally referred to as a single ideology or movement, but I wouldn't say one organization. There are many Zionist groups and organizations. Engel 2013 discusses a wide variety of programs, ideas, aims, goals, and tactics. Andre🚐 02:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Can this or that group of Zionist disagree with something, sure, but the WZO/Basel->Jerusalem program seems pretty monolithic to me. For example see American Zionist Movement "All Zionists agree on the set of ideals and principles known as the Jerusalem Program." The philosophy is clearly expressed in the Nation State law as a legalized Jewish state within Israel and settlement as a national ideal. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this is backed up by the most thorough discussion of this topic that I can think of (anecdotal, I know), the one in Penslar 2023, where he spends about 30 pages of Chapter 1 on "Taxonomy of Zionism, Old and New" (pp. 36-64). He lays out 4 "types" of Zionism from pre-WWI: Hibat Tsion, Political Zionism, Practical Zionism, and Cultural Zionism; and 4 "forms" of Zionism during Mandatory Palestine: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, General Zionism, and Religious Zionism. He writes (p. 41):

With the exception of Religious Zionism, ­these forms of pre-1948 Zionism have ­either declined into insignificance or mutated into new forms that are substantively dif­fer­ent from their pre­de­ces­sors. Accordingly, we need more capacious and inclusive categories of Zionist sensibility to include aspects of the Zionist proj­ect from its origins to our own day. Recently, some writers attempted to provide ­these categories ...

He then talks about Chaim Gans's alternative classification and 21st-century Liberal Zionism, and Gil Troy's alternative classifications. Then he lays out his own suggested new classifications of "vari­ous types of Zionism".

Note he calls these "types," "forms," "categories of Zionist sensibility" and "aspects of the Zionist project"; he does not call these "diverse," "multifaceted," or say they are "various ideologies," a "wide variety," or anything like that. He writes (p. 43):

The continued application of classic Zionist categories is problematic not only ­because change over time calls their relevance into question. ­Those in the past who identified with one Zionist camp or another ­were unaware of or reluctant to admit commonalities between them and their mutual influence. This was particularly the case for Labor and Revisionist Zionism during the heyday of their internecine strug­gles during the 1930s and 1940s. The social and economic ideologies of the two movements differed profoundly, but their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance. During the Israeli state’s first de­cades, ­Labor Zionism was still identified with the “Left” and Revisionism with the “Right,” but later in the twentieth ­century, with the triumph of neoliberal economic doctrines the only substantive difference between Left and Right remained the fate of the Occupied Territories and questions of Palestinian statehood. Even then, all but the most extreme positions within the Zionist Left maintained the primacy of Jewish claims to a state within most of historic Palestine and ­were wary of, if not downright hostile to, extensive intermixing with the Arab population. Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal.

This isn't accurately summarized by saying that Zionism evolved into diverse ideological streams. They're not that diverse, according to Penslar, and as time went on, he says there were fewer, not more, ideological differences. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That is all great stuff that we should use, but there are other contrasting viewpoints or more nuance to bear. For example Engel 2013,

p.49

the road to the Jewish state was hardly as smooth as Herzl imagined. Even after his appearance, the Zionist movement remained a coalition of disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented and numerically insignificant. In fact it incorporated three distinct streams – one concerned primarily with settling Palestine, a second with readjusting political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and a third with creating a Jewish ‘national’ culture – and it was not yet clear that all three could work together productively within a single organization,

p.61

In 1905 the Seventh Zionist Congress shelved the matter permanently. Only then did the three principal streams in the Zionist movement – centred respectively about settlement of Palestine, reconstructing political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and creating a secular Jewish culture in Hebrew – come firmly together. However, some of the movement’s greatest stalwarts, for whom political reconstruction eclipsed the other two, broke permanently with the Organization over this issue.

p.184-185, though not directly related to the above 2, talks about the disagreement about the relationship with the diaspora in more recent times: The complication of Israel–diaspora relations and the intensification of multifaceted divisions within the Jewish world since the 1980s have beset the.. which ends with:

disagreement on fundamentals has been a constant feature of Zionist history, and there is no reason to expect that it will be any less so in the future.

I believe there's also relevant material in Stanislawski talking about the liberalism of Zionism: there was a distinct liberal utopian streak in Herzl’s vision of the Jews’ state: most famously, in Der Judenstaat he called for the institution of a seven-hour workday,, as well as touching on the controversial debates of Zionism: This raises one of the most controversial issues that have dominated debates over Zionism from Herzl’s day to the present. And page 31:

Herzl’s success at the First Zionist Congress did not resolve the fundamental ideological divides within the Zionist movement. Thus, there were at least three organized groupings within the Zionist movement that differed from Herzl’s strictly “political” Zionism: First, Ahad Ha’am and his followers soon organized themselves as the “Democratic Faction,” which insisted on a cultural revolution within the Jewish community based on secular Hebrew culture, but also distrusted Herzl personally and opposed what they considered his near-dictatorial control of the movement. Secondly, already in 1899, the first socialist Zionist group was founded, which soon divided into many different groups and subgroups, often based on crucial differences such as acceptance of Marxian or so-called “utopian” socialism, support of Yiddish as well as Hebrew as the national language(s) of the Jewish people, and on solutions to the “Arab problem” in Palestine, and also—like so many other movements on the left—on far subtler disagreements in the theory of socialism. And finally, in 1902 the Mizrachi movement was founded to put forward a synthesis between Orthodox Judaism and Zionism.

Andre🚐 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

So what is your suggestion? To mention pre 1905 streams of zionism in the lead? These quotes dont tell me that Zionism had a "wide variety" of ideological streams. DMH223344 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Right: Engel AFAIK doesn't say these three streams are "diverse" or "wide variety" or anything similar, and note he says the three streams converged into one early in Zionist history (1905)--this contradicts the idea that Zionism evolved into diverse ideologies, and supports the idea that it went the other way: what started as multiple streams came "firmly together" by 1905, according to Engel. This is similar to what Penslar said about post-1948: less diversity, not more, as time goes on. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He says "disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented" which certainly covers "diverse," does it not? I am not arguing that there wasn't less diversity over time: there certainly was particularly with the decline of the left-wing and the rise of revivisionist Zionism. But our article doesn't focus exclusively on the modern day. Andre🚐 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not cover "diverse." We shouldn't use a characterization like "diverse" unless the sources use that same characterization. "Disparate" does not mean "wikt:diverse." "Different" does not mean "diverse." The question to ask yourself is why aren't they using the word "diverse"? Levivich (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Disparate" alone doesn't mean diverse, but "disparate...ideologically fragmented" certainly does. Or "disagreement on fundamentals." That says diversity of ideology. Anyway, it's not true. Engel says this on p.55: The young Zionist movement already incorporated diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, Andre🚐 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Opinions about its purpose and methods" are not "ideologies." And he said they were already incorporated into Zionism early on. No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged around the turn of the 20th century, as Engel says, at which point there were differences in style not substance, which also disappeared (or mutated) by 1948, as Penslar says. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say opinions about a purpose or a method is fairly close to a working example of ideological praxis. And I don't think mutation = disappear. I think Penslar is right to point out the debates became less relevant, certainly the left-wing barely exists today and has had a steady decline, but it was not gone by 1948. Andre🚐 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think most sources are saying it's a diverse movement or a diverse ideology, rather than that it is constituted of diverse movements or diverse ideologies. E.g. Britannica: "Despite the diversity of Zionism as an ideology, which includes iterations that consider the rights of Palestinians to be fundamental to Zionism’s success". Or Seidler 2012 "the conflicting founding designs, which express the formative ideological background underlying the very idea of the State of Israel". Boyarin, in a section called "Zionisms and the state" says "What we call Zionism, despite the existence of a World Zionist Organization and then a Zionst state, is in fact a catchall for numerous, often contradictory currents of thought.

But some do talk about multiple Zionisms. Colin Shindler in a section called "A Plethora of Zionisms" says "Zionism was never a monolithic movement. It would be more correct to speak of a range of different varieties of Zionism. Herzl's General Zionism immediately began to flow into different ideological streams." Stanlislawski has a chapter called "Socialist and Revisionist Zionisms. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is true and a good point which I agree with. Andre🚐 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, so now I am back to specifying time periods, there's the history and there's the now and they are nothing like each other. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, and it's important our lead covers both not just one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First the body should cover both, no? DMH223344 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. Body needs improvement, but they are both in body already no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism today (or even since 67) is not really covered DMH223344 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead should cover the mainstream and possibly mention some notable ideas outside the mainstream (which it currently does). DMH223344 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I am mainly arguing that the lead and the body alike should portray the many inter- or intra-Zionist debates and not portray it as a monolith. I think "disagreement on fundamentals" being a constant feature gets at the variety within Zionism, no? For example, p.180: The religious–secular and the Israel–diaspora fissures continued to widen over the quarter century Reading the article now we'd have little idea of the deep fissures. The quotes I've given support that in the time periods covered in the article's history of Zionism, there was disagreement about various topics, for example, what to do about Palestinians. Andre🚐 19:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead and body do this already. The last paragraph of the lead is "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians." This seems like an accurate summary of, e.g., Engel and Penslar. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos" is an accurate statement nor does that appear in Engel or Penslar. Penslar thinks Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real. Andre🚐 19:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal., is what Penslar wrote. He also wrote their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance ("more in style than substance" = "wikt:epiphenomenal", aka "Being of secondary consequence to a causal chain of processes, but playing no causal role in the process of interest"). Penslar is saying their differences are real but ever-changing and they didn't much matter (didn't play a causal role in Zionism). Levivich (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't say they didn't play a causal role. He's saying they're less relevant today than they were in the past. Thus the use of present tense. Andre🚐 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Secular-religious divide is already discussed in the lead. What in your opinion is missing from the section?

The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians.

It covers that Zionism has a mainstream and has also had dissident factions which were still considered part of the movement. The body does not use a description such as "wide range" or "diverse" to describe Zionist ideology. Whatever new content you are proposing we include should first be incorporated into the body. DMH223344 (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Here are the current changes that I think are incremental improvements: [4] Andre🚐 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"Modern form"? RS do not use that terminology when talking about the movement that developed in the 19th century. There is no such thing as pre 19th century Zionism. Maybe RS say "protozionist", but they dont say "zionist" to describe such movements.

The comment about why those fleeing russia went to palestine is well sourced, see the body.

I removed the last sentence you added because we should discuss how to represent transfer in the lead. Also, religious zionism is already mentioned (ie not all zionists were secular) and debates about relationship with diaspora does not seem leadworthy DMH223344 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I think something about "modern" belongs in the lead and body. Maybe not that exact wording For example Stanislawski refers to Zionism coming out of "modern Jewish nationalism": Zionists today regard Zionism as a natural continuation of two millennia of Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel,.. a redefinition of Jewishness that resulted from a broader ideological innovation in Jewish history: the creation of modern Jewish nationalism. Indeed, in most ways Zionism followed the common pattern of modern nationalist movements,, ..his version of modern Jewish nationalism was dubbed “spiritual” or “cultural Zionism,” as opposed to “political Zionism.” To understand these terms, we must move beyond the invention of modern Jewish nationalism and its early embodiment in movements such as the Bilu and Lovers of Zion to the creation of the Zionist movement itself. Andre🚐 20:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"modern Jewish nationalism" is fine. I would have suggested to add it to the opening sentence but it is already very long. DMH223344 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean adding the word "modern" in the sense of "a modern movement" DMH223344 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. Andre🚐 21:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to note that the lead of the Britannica article (which also uses both Palestine and land of Israel, the latter in quote marks)

"Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”)." BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to expand somewhere in the body about Ahad Ha'am's criticism of Herzl's Zionism (ie "Jewish state" vs "state of the Jews"). DMH223344 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Taking into account criticism on colonization and the debate on zionisms, I suggest the following lead :

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination. The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people, critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this accurately summarizes the sources. I suggest, for each change you want to make (or start by just picking one change), you quote the sources that say something different than what the article currently says. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Penslar 2023 p.91

The Hebraic Zionism of Ahad Ha-Am was noncolonial in that it condemned Jewish sovereign authority in Palestine and displayed little interest in improving the lot of the natives in a Western paternalistic fashion. Yet a passion for Hebraic culture and hawkish political views could easily coexist, as was the case for Joseph Klausner, a scholar of Jewish history and Hebrew literature who during the interwar period was a committed Revisionist Zionist... Of all the varieties of Zionism discussed in the first chapter, Statist Zionism is most clearly linked with colonialism

Andre🚐 21:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you think there is a compelling reason to discuss Ahad Ha'am's criticism of Zionism in the lead? If so, we should work on the body first, then decide how to incorporate those changes into the lead (if at all). DMH223344 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'll work on the body when I have some free time and a clear head. But I think the point about the lead is that it should not elide the differences between different schools of Zionist thought. They aren't all violent or colonial. Andre🚐 17:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A link to a relevant article would suffice. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed completely - the lead has improved somewhat, but still makes it sound like all Zionists today support further violence/transfer of Palestinians, rather than simply the continued existence of Israel in a two-state solution. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought this edit was being faithful to the suggestion made by Levivich above, No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged. [5][6] Is the qualifier the issue with that text? Andre🚐 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What I said: No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged around the turn of the 20th century, as Engel says, at which point there were differences in style not substance, which also disappeared (or mutated) by 1948, as Penslar says.

What I removed: Zionism had numerous internal debates and divisions, and early on there were diverse opinions about its purposes and methods, which later converged to some extent.

What the lead already says that I didn't remove: The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Mainstream Zionist groups for the most part differ more in style than substance, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians.

The sentence I removed said things that I think are contradicted by the sources or are characterizations that aren't in the sources (e.g. "numerous," "to some extent"), and I don't think that sentence adds anything to what's already there. Levivich (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think adding Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged adds something that isn't there now. Is there a version of that sentence you'd be comfortable adding? Andre🚐 04:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that's not in the body. It could be, but it needs to be added, with sources, with the nuance and characterizations used in the sources cited, etc., and then there would be some version of that sentence that should be added to the lead, but I'm not really sure what it is now, without closely examining what multiple sources say about it--not just Engel and Penslar, because everybody who writes an overview of Zionism talks about "types of Zionism," so the question is what do they say exactly? Probably they say the same thing as Engel and Penslar, but maybe not.

BTW I noticed that in some of your recent edits, you changed the article prose but didn't add a source, and while I think everything you added is easily sourced (probably to Penslar or Engel or somebody we've discussed here), I'm not sure if the pre-existing sources in the article source the stuff that you added. Just a heads up, I think you might need to add citations to what you added. Levivich (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Good catch, I added the cite to Penslar quote, which is p. 59-60 in the edition I have. Regarding adding some distillation of the material in this section to the body, I will attempt to do that if there is no objection, though not at this very moment. Andre🚐 04:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

On the Use of "Colonization" in Zionist History

Many sources explicitly use the term "colonization" when describing Zionist activities, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these same sources often emphasize that Zionist colonization was distinct from European imperialist colonialism. Zionist leaders and organizations framed colonization as a means of fulfilling Jewish self-determination and re-establishing a historical connection to the land, rather than as an imperial venture exploiting local populations for the benefit of a distant mother country.

Here are some relevant sources and how they address "colonization":

1. Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat:
   • Herzl explicitly uses the term "colonists" and "colonization" to describe the practical process of Jewish settlement in Palestine. However, his focus is on peaceful settlement and voluntary agreements.
   • Example Quote: “The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined.”
   • This supports retaining "colonization" in the lead but underscores that early Zionist leaders envisioned it as a developmental and peaceful effort, rather than an imperial project.
2. Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism:
   • Laqueur acknowledges the colonial aspects of Zionist activities but distinguishes them from traditional colonial enterprises.
   • Example Quote: “These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country ... but the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives.”
   • This nuanced description suggests that "colonization" was part of Zionist history but needs context to distinguish it from imperialist colonialism.
3. Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage:
   • Khalidi emphasizes the colonial relationship between Zionism and the indigenous Arab population but acknowledges Zionism’s dual character as both a colonial enterprise and a national movement.
   • Example Quote: “This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense.”
   • Khalidi’s position supports including "colonization" in the lead but also highlights the tension between Zionism’s colonial and nationalist dimensions.
4. Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims:
   • Morris discusses Zionist colonization efforts, particularly during the First Aliyah and Second Aliyah periods, but notes that Zionism was not supported by a European imperial power.
   • Example Quote: “Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement,” but “these Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country.”
   • This source supports the use of "colonization" while distinguishing it from traditional colonial enterprises.

So I believe I have now provided all the necessary sources and evidence to substantiate the points raised in our discussion. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to read some of the talk page archives here. Selfstudier (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don't answer what in my current proposal is not well sourced and explained and what does not make a consensus. The current lead is far to respect Wikipedia requirement : Neutrality, Balance of perspective, speculative assertion, ... Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Because many of these points have already been discussed and dealt with. If it were as simple as you say, it would have been done already, no? Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It’s as simple as I stated. The current lead is not neutral, and you know it. Please respond to my arguments instead of simply saying 'no, there is no consensus.' There is no consensus on the current lead either, and many people have provided strong arguments. We should work together to create a more balanced lead." Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The current lead has consensus, your opinion does not. The need is to demonstrate that the current lead does not have consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How can you reasonably claim that the current lead has consensus? At least six (and likely many more) editors have requested changes to it, providing valuable arguments. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

See the RFC on the question that has just been opened. You may comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

One advantage of Michael B's proposed lead is the removal of the sentence starting "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine... " As Penslar, for example, makes clear, the aspiration for statehood grew slowly and was far from a defining feature of early Zionism, which focused on a home or homeland, as in the wording of the Balfour Declaration. The Jerusalem Program cited by Selfstudier, for instance, was not drafted until 1951, after the state was a reality; the Nation state law, also cited by Selfstudier, is a mere six years old and opposed by many calling themselves Zionist (including nearly half the Knesset). It's telling that the footnote (4) to that paragraph, the quotes that mention the word "state" almost all refer to the 1948+ period. In other words, it's anachronistic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to do a better job of separating the historical stuff. There's the pre-20th century stuff, the 1930s and 1940s, 1948-1967, and 1967-present at the least. Andre🚐 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See the new author (section at the bottom, not saying I think this is a best source or anything but at least it's new) "Zionism is a movement that aspired to the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. Having emerged at the end of the 19th century, the Zionist ambition was achieved in 1948 with the founding of the state of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

And as you already pointed out, Britannica says much the same as do lots and lots of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That source centres the state, as does Britannica, but also highlights diversity on other questions: "Despite this basic unity of purpose, Zionism was not a monolithic ideology. Factions differed on substantial issues like the rate and implementation of the immigration to Palestine, or even on whether the “Holy Land” should be the site upon which to fulfill the movement’s goals. Cultural Zionism, for example, understood the “Land of Israel” as the irreplaceable spiritual center of Jewish life and Hebrew culture, while Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) and political Zionism focused on securing imperial approval for a territorial grant to the Jewish people." I think we need the maximum broad definition as the opener, and only then say something like that the aspiration for statehood became a central element especially after 1917 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

There should probably be a reasonable treatment of Cultural Zionism in the body first, right? Probably a full paragraph would be reasonable. DMH223344 (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That's just not true, the aspiration for a state begins with Herzl and the whole disguised "homeland" version of that aspiration is very well documented, just read the Balfour Declaration article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#The_%22national_home_for_the_Jewish_people%22_vs._Jewish_state Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your support, I am not that familiar with Wikipedia editing, do you know how to come to a consensus to have a more balanced lead with neutral presentation and streamlined focus on key historical point? Should we ask for an arbitration process? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

First port of call, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the boilerplate. All I would say is that, on WP, trying to do everything at once usually doesn't work.Selfstudier (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"those who went to Palestine were driven primarily by a sense of self-determination and Jewish identity, rather than in response to pogroms or economic insecurity"

@DMH223344, you said this is well-sourced, but the cites in that portion of the body, Avineri and Rabkin, have no page numbers, so I can't verify. The statement seems inaccurate on the face of it and not an appropriate summary for the lead. Andre🚐 20:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

From the introduction of avineri:

Those Jews who were seeking just survival and economic security emigrated to America in the wake of pogroms and pauperization. Those who, on the other hand, went to Palestine did not just flee from pogroms nor were they bent on economic safety and success—Ottoman Palestine was hardly an economic paradise. They were seeking self-determination, identity, liberation within the terms of post-1789 European culture, and their own newly awakened self-consciousness.

DMH223344 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't say they weren't fleeing pogroms, but that it was not just from pogroms, making the current statement in the article at best an oversimplification. Andre🚐 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good edit fixing this. Andre🚐 22:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Transfer/expulsion

Article is missing the perspective provided by Morris, and reflects overweight on what he calls "metanarrative, that offered in traditional Arab historiography."

The Palestinian refugee problem was born of the 1948 war, the first war between Israel and the Arabs. It was not the product of a preconceived master plan or, indeed, of a governmental policy decision or of a blanket, systematic implementation of a policy of expulsion. The overwhelming majority of the 700,000 Arabs who were displaced from their homes fled as a result of battle or encroaching battle. Most moved to other parts of Palestine (and, in this sense, they were not really refugees at all) rather than to neighbouring countries (the minority, some 300,000, reached and resettled in Lebanon, Syria, and Transjordan). They fled as the shells landed or, they feared, were about to land on their towns and villages. Many were driven by the economic privations of war-unemployment, soaring prices, and lack of food or fuel. Some left because their local leaders, military and political, urged or ordered them to leave, for military or political reasons. Many fled because of an accumulation of reasons. And some were expelled by advancing Israeli troops, primarily out of military calculation. ... generally, when speaking and writing about transfer, and they did so rarely, partly because the subject was sensitive, Zionist leaders such as Artur Ruppin and Leo Motzkin, and pro-Zionist writers such as Israel Zangwill, talked in terms of a voluntary agreed transfer of the Arabs out of Palestine, with compensation, rather than a coerced expulsion. Second, the idea of transfer was never adopted as part of the Zionist movement's platform, nor as part of the programme or platform of any of the main Zionist parties, not in the nineteenth century and not in the twentieth century. And, in general, the Zionist leaders looked to massive Jewish immigration, primarily from Russia and Europe, as the means of establishing and then assuring a Jewish majority in Palestine or whatever part of it was to be earmarked for Jewish statehood. But around 1929 and, with even greater frequency, during the late 1930s and early 1940s, Zionist leaders began to talk, in ever-wider, less discreet forums, about the desirability and possibility of transferring Arabs or 'the Arabs'. Both of twentieth-century Zionism's main leaders, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) and Israel's founding Prime Minister, and Chaim Weizmann, the head of the World Zionist Organization and Israel's first President, repeatedly during these years referred approvingly to the idea. But, again, it is worth noting, this talk never translated into the co-option of the idea into official mainstream Zionist ideology or its advocacy in the movement's programme or in that of any of its chief component parties, the socialist Mapai, Hashomer Hatza'ir, and Ahdut Ha'avoda, the liberal General Zionists and Progressives, or the right-wing Revisionist Movement

[7][8] Andre🚐 17:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I copy edited the related edit, which was not agreed "in talk", based on https://shs.cairn.info/journal-naqd-2005-1-page-37?lang=en "Of the approximately 900,000 Palestinians living in the territories designated by the UN as a Jewish state only 100,000 remained on, or near their lands and houses. Those who remained became the Palestinian minority in Israel. The rest were expelled, or fled under the threat of expulsion, and a few thousand died in massacres." Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No objection to the edit. Andre🚐 19:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and this perspective is also missing from the much-disputed definition of "...as few Palestinian Arabs as possible", that appears both in the lead and the body of the article.

In particular, it ignores that fact that the idea of transfer hasn't been discussed by the mainstream Zionist leadership until the 30s, as Morris' quote above shows, and Jabotinsky, for example, vehemently opposed the idea until 1939. DancingOwl (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, the current phrasing "Zionists used the term 'transfer' as a euphemism for the removal, or ethnic cleansing, of the Arab Palestinian population" is ahistorical - "population transfer" was an accepted term in the interwar period, used in the context of several other ethnic conflicts. DancingOwl (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

References

The shift in the meaning of the terms "colony"/"colonization"

I see that a significant part of the discussions above are concerned with the use of the the word "colony" and its derivatives, and quotes of early Zionists using those terms are framed as proof of "colonial"(in the modern sense of the word) nature of the Zionist project. However, what is missing from those discussions, in my view, is an acknowledgment of the fact that the meaning of those words has shifted over time, and their use in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not necessarily carry the imperialist connotations attached to them today.

For example, here are several excerpts from George Antonius's "The Arab Awakening" (1938):

• "colony" in the sense of "community":

  It was during this Turco-Arab honeymoon that the first Arab society was founded under the name of al-Ikha’ al-‘Arabi al-‘Uthmani. At a large meeting of the Arab colony in Constantinople, held on the 2nd of September, and attended by members of the C.U.P., the society was formally and enthusiastically inaugurated.

  — p. 102

• "colony" in the sense of "settlement":

  ... Its central feature was the settlement of nomads on the soil. An area of land adjoining a well or some other source of water was assigned in freehold to a tribal group, to be their fixed and permanent home. Henceforth they were to live there as an agricultural and pastoral community. They were to be provided with housing, implements and guidance in the arts of systematic cultivation and cattle-breeding; and each of those new colonies was intended in course of time to become a village unit, more or less self-contained in its local administration and economy. The scheme had been initiated in Najd in 1910 when the first colony was founded, and the process had gone on in such rapid strides that, by the time Ibn Sa‘ud came to the Hejaz, there were already over seventy colonies (of a size ranging from 400 to 6,000 inhabitants) in various parts of Najd.

  — p. 348

• "colonization" in the sense of "settlement":

  His attitude was still that which he had defined to Commander Hogarth at Jedda in January 1918: while not opposed, but indeed agreeable, to a regulated Jewish colonisation on humanitarian grounds, he could only consent to it on the clear understanding that all legitimate Arab rights would be respected.

  — p. 333

Here are few more examples from other sources, that use those terms in the context of Arab settlement(s):

• We are considering a parallel Arab colonization. Thus, we are planning to buy land in the regions of Homs, Aleppo etc. which we will sell under easy terms to those Palestinian fellahin who have been harmed by our land purchases

  — Letter of Arthur Ruppin to Dr. Victor Jacobson, 1914 (quoted in Etan Bloom, ed. (2011). Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Pre-Israeli Culture. p. 303.)

• Colonization work for Arabs in Palestine was undertaken by the Moslem Supreme Council, a religious body.
  It was announced that the Council will establish an Arab colony at Rubin, near Jaffa, on a strip of land of 32,500 dunams. The land is Wakf land, religious property bequeathed to the Moslem religious authorities. The Council plans to establish the first Arab agricultural school there.

  — "Moslem Supreme Council Begins Arab Colonization". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. September 21, 1926.

• From time immemorial the desert nomads lived in the greatest poverty and illiteracy, in continuous insecurity and want. The transition from nomad to settled life means, however poor the condition of the settled Arab may seem to a Western observer, a distinct gain in security and in wealth. It gives the possibility of bringing him education and the elements of civilization in the proper sense of the word, the fundamentals of civic life. The settled colonies were founded around wells and springs, the soil was irrigated, the elements of agriculture taught, in the midst a mosque was built, the center of religious and social life and teaching.

  — H. Kohn (1934). "The Unification of Arabia". Foreign Affairs. 13 (1): 94.

• An exchange of populations is proposed following the precedent of the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. The chief difficulty would be placement of the Arabs to be moved. The poor hill country holds little promise for colonization. On the other hand, the Beersheba Sub-District and the Ghor would be in Arab hands, and, as M. Gottmann's article informs us, the possibilities of these regions are worth exploring.
  
  ARAB COLONIZATION
  In southern Palestine, the Ghor, and Trans-Jordan the great problem is the problem of water. Referring to the present status in Beersheba the Commission observes: "The Beersheba question is a very difficult problem, ..."
  There are difficulties in the way of settling Arab peasants on new lands. "'First, there is the deeply-rooted aversion which all Arab peasants have shown in the past to leaving the lands which they have cultivated for many generations..."

  — "The Problem of Palestine: A Note on the Report of the Royal Commission". Geographical Review. 27 (4): 571. 1937.

All those examples show that in the early days of Zionism movement, up to WWII, the words "colony"/"colonization" were not necessarily related to colonialism and/or imperialism, and consequently injecting them, with all the modern (negative) connotations, into this article, may be misleading.

PS I realize that those observations may be considered WP:OR, and hence don't suggest adding anything of the above into the main article, but I do think that it's an important context that should be taken into account in our discussions here. DancingOwl (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is a point well taken in my view... as I've argued previously, "colonialism," "settler-colonialism," and "colonization" are 3 different meanings. Andre🚐 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that it even goes beyond the distinction you make between those 3 things - the word "colonization" itself today has a somewhat different meaning to what it had a hundred years ago, when it was used in the primary sources quoted by the secondary sources used in several of the discussions above.

Unfortunately, I didn't encounter any RS making this observation, so it cannot make it into the main article, but at the very least we should take it into account when discussing the appropriateness of using the word "colonization", in its modern meaning, when describing an ideology/movement established in the end of 19th century. DancingOwl (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No, if there are no RS making this observation, it's probably because it's not true. We should not take into account a claim or interpretation that is unverified. Levivich (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Above, there is a long list of primary sources demonstrating this point - a lack of secondary sources making this claim doesn't make it "unverified", but rather a synth, which is explicitly permitted by WP policy for discussions on talk pages." DancingOwl (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference is mostly the connotation. Today, it has a vastly more negative connotation, because of its association with colonialism and the fact that there isn't much colonization happening, other than I guess, potentially extraterrestrially as a science fiction or far-future concept. Since there's no terra incognita today and there really wasn't then either, but there were the establishment of agricultural colonies, not all of which were negatively viewed or in any way subjugatory, such as the Baron Hirsch agricultural colonies[9]. Still, I think you're right that colonization has a more negative connotation today than it would have. I think the meaning today of colonization in terms of the literal denotation, is general with more than one sense, and there's a 2nd sense implying some subjugation that may not have been present in the past definition. You might be able to find a source talking about this. Andre🚐 00:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So far, surprisingly,I didn't find any source talking about this - if you do encounter something like this, I'd really appreciate it if you could share it. DancingOwl (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I realize that those observations may be considered WP:OR The definition of synth. Please find a source stating the conclusion that is not present in any of the given sources. Selfstudier (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, this falls under definition of synth, which is why I don't suggest putting any of it in the main article.

But since synth is not directly applicable to talk pages, I believe those observations could be useful in the discussions here. DancingOwl (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As many people here I fully support your assertion and believe the lead must be balanced. I already proposed something that can be improved but is a good start :

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination. The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people, critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removing well sourced material from the existing lead with no justification except opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models.[1, 2, 3] Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.[4]

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination.[1, 2, 5] The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.[2, 6] While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people,[1, 2] critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict.[6, 7] These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations.[6, 7]

----Sources

1. Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader (1997), Jewish Publication Society, p. 15. ISBN: 978-0-8276-0433-4. "Political Zionism sought statehood; cultural Zionism emphasized the spiritual and cultural revival of the Jewish people; religious Zionism viewed the return to the land as a religious duty."
2. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (2003), Schocken Books, pp. 10-12. ISBN: 978-0-8052-4176-8. "The ideological differences between the Labor and Revisionist factions within Zionism reflected deeper disagreements about how the Jewish state should be created and what its society should look like."
3. Shlomo Avineri, Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State (2008), BlueBridge, pp. 34-36. ISBN: 978-1-933346-30-4. "Herzl envisaged the Jewish homeland not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews, addressing their persecution and statelessness in Europe."
4. Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat (1896), Dover Publications, pp. 29-31. ISBN: 978-0-486-44710-1. "The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined ... the Company's colonists ... more prosperous colonists."
5. Yehoshua Conforti, Zionism and the Land of Israel: Religion, Nationalism, and the Making of Modern Jewish Politics (2018), Indiana University Press, pp. 56-58. ISBN: 978-0-253-03680-2. "Streams of Zionism coexisted, reflecting different priorities for cultural renewal, political sovereignty, and religious revival."
6. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 (2001), Vintage, pp. 123-126. ISBN: 978-0-679-74475-7. "These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country ... but the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives."
7. Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (2006), Beacon Press, pp. 19-21. ISBN: 978-0-8070-0308-0. "This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense."

Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RS use the term colonization, so we do as well. It's that simple. DMH223344 (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

LLM garbage ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On the Use of "Colonization" in Zionist History Many sources explicitly use the term "colonization" when describing Zionist activities, especially in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these same sources often emphasize that Zionist colonization was distinct from European imperialist colonialism. Zionist leaders and organizations framed colonization as a means of fulfilling Jewish self-determination and re-establishing a historical connection to the land, rather than as an imperial venture exploiting local populations for the benefit of a distant mother country. Here are some relevant sources and how they address "colonization": Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat: Herzl explicitly uses the term "colonists" and "colonization" to describe the practical process of Jewish settlement in Palestine. However, his focus is on peaceful settlement and voluntary agreements. Example Quote: “The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined.” This supports retaining "colonization" in the lead but underscores that early Zionist leaders envisioned it as a developmental and peaceful effort, rather than an imperial project. Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism: Laqueur acknowledges the colonial aspects of Zionist activities but distinguishes them from traditional colonial enterprises. Example Quote: “These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country ... but the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives.” This nuanced description suggests that "colonization" was part of Zionist history but needs context to distinguish it from imperialist colonialism. Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage: Khalidi emphasizes the colonial relationship between Zionism and the indigenous Arab population but acknowledges Zionism’s dual character as both a colonial enterprise and a national movement. Example Quote: “This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense.” Khalidi’s position supports including "colonization" in the lead but also highlights the tension between Zionism’s colonial and nationalist dimensions. Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims: Morris discusses Zionist colonization efforts, particularly during the First Aliyah and Second Aliyah periods, but notes that Zionism was not supported by a European imperial power. Example Quote: “Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement,” but “these Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country.” This source supports the use of "colonization" while distinguishing it from traditional colonial enterprises. Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Once again, have you read the body of this article? DMH223344 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Yes, but please answer to my arguments Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC) The sources you're presenting agree that "colonization" is an appropriate term. We do not describe Zionism as colonial in wikivoice anywhere and describe the debate over its use in the body of the article. DMH223344 (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC) While I agree that "colonization" appears in the sources, its use in the lead must be contextualized to reflect the nuances highlighted by these same sources. "Colonization" in Context: The sources I cited—Herzl, Laqueur, Morris, and Khalidi—all recognize that Zionist colonization differed fundamentally from imperialist colonialism. Herzl explicitly frames colonization as a peaceful and voluntary effort tied to Jewish self-determination. Laqueur and Morris distinguish Zionist settlement from imperial models, noting the absence of exploitation for the benefit of a distant mother country. Khalidi acknowledges Zionism’s dual nature as both a national and a colonial enterprise. These nuances are crucial to accurately summarizing the topic. Balance and Neutrality: The lead must provide a balanced overview of Zionism as a movement, reflecting its diverse motivations and practices. Overemphasizing "colonization" risks skewing the narrative, especially given the significant differences between Zionist settlement and traditional colonial enterprises. As Morris and Laqueur note, Zionism was not supported by imperial powers, and its primary goal was self-determination in response to antisemitism. Representation of the Article Body: The article’s body does discuss the debate over the term "colonization," but it also addresses other critical aspects of Zionism, such as its responses to antisemitism, Jewish cultural revival, and nation-building efforts. The lead should reflect this diversity rather than foregrounding a term that the sources themselves treat with nuance. Wikivoice and Attribution: As you mentioned, the article does not describe Zionism as colonial in wikivoice but instead presents the debate in the body. If "colonization" is retained in the lead, it should be attributed clearly to scholars and contextualized to distinguish Zionist settlement from imperial colonialism. In summary, while "colonization" has a place in the discussion of Zionism, its inclusion in the lead requires careful framing to avoid misrepresentation. I propose rephrasing the lead to reflect the dual character of Zionism, balancing its colonial aspects with its motivations for self-determination and cultural revival. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC) "all recognize that Zionist colonization differed fundamentally from imperialist colonialism." but they don't qualify every statement about colonization with a matching statement emphasizing that it wasn't colonialism. So there's no reason for us to do that here. If "colonization" is retained in the lead, it should be attributed clearly to scholars and contextualized to distinguish Zionist settlement from imperial colonialism. I still dont think you realize that "colonization" and "colonialism" are two different terms. And actually, plenty of scholars do think that Zionist settlement served imperial interests. We haven't "misrepresented" anything here, we are plainly describing the methods used by Zionism. Zionism sought to (and did) use colonization as the main method of attaining a Jewish a demographic majority. DMH223344 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence about Zionism wanting as few Palestinian Arabs is misleading

The main point of Zionism is to have as many Jews as possible in Israel. However, that does not mean that there should be as few Palestinians in Israel as possible. The demographic changes in Israel during the 40s and 50s were due to Arab and Jewish migration. Also, many of the sources come from authors who have published blatant propaganda, like Rashid Khalidi. Thusly, it would improve the factualness of this article if that section was removed. Thank you Pyramids09 (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The statement has thirteen citations, most of which look, at a glance, to be very high-quality and well-summarized; you've only raised an objection to one of them, and you haven't actually presented any other sources that disagree with them, just your own personal analysis of what you believe the main point of Zionism to be. If you want to change that statement, you'll need to either break down each of the sources and list your objections to each; or present other sources of comparable quality that contradict them (and in the latter case that might not result in it being removed, just attributed as contested opinion. But, again, you'd have to actually show that it's contested by high-quality sources to get even that far, rather than just disagreeing with it yourself.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The citations are mostly from Palestine studies authors. Just because it's well cited doesn't mean it EXTREMELY biased. If I had an article on the history of the Soviet economy and I cited various different Marxist academic journals, it might be a well cited point but it still would be heavily biased and might give a misleading image of how functional the Soviet economy was. Same thing if I only cited Conservative of Libertarian academic journals. Do you have a greater diversity of sources for this claim? MagyarNavy1918 (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Kindly demonstrate rather than assert that the sources presented are unreliable (all sources are biased). Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, like Morris, Lustick, Cohen, Lentin, and Engels. List all the sources and tell us which are "Palestinian Studies authors". Levivich (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I support your statement I already proposed a more balanced lead :

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models. Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination. The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people, critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Do you agree with it? Or at least do you consider it better than the current one ? Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Repeating your proposal in every section is WP:BLUDGEONING. Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Because my proposal makes sense in every topic Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. The movement arose in response to antisemitism, Jewish persecution, and the challenges of assimilation in Europe, drawing on both historical connections to the region and contemporary nationalist and colonial models.[1, 2, 3] Early Zionist leaders, including Theodor Herzl, framed settlement and colonization as central to the movement’s efforts to create a Jewish homeland.[4]

Zionism encompassed distinct ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their approaches but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination.[1, 2, 5] The movement led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and the development of Zionist institutions, culminating in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.[2, 6] While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate national liberation movement for the Jewish people,[1, 2] critics argue that it contributed to the displacement of Palestinians and ongoing regional conflict.[6, 7] These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism’s legacy and its impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations.[6, 7]

----Sources

1. Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader (1997), Jewish Publication Society, p. 15. ISBN: 978-0-8276-0433-4. "Political Zionism sought statehood; cultural Zionism emphasized the spiritual and cultural revival of the Jewish people; religious Zionism viewed the return to the land as a religious duty."
2. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (2003), Schocken Books, pp. 10-12. ISBN: 978-0-8052-4176-8. "The ideological differences between the Labor and Revisionist factions within Zionism reflected deeper disagreements about how the Jewish state should be created and what its society should look like."
3. Shlomo Avineri, Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State (2008), BlueBridge, pp. 34-36. ISBN: 978-1-933346-30-4. "Herzl envisaged the Jewish homeland not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews, addressing their persecution and statelessness in Europe."
4. Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat (1896), Dover Publications, pp. 29-31. ISBN: 978-0-486-44710-1. "The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined ... the Company's colonists ... more prosperous colonists."
5. Yehoshua Conforti, Zionism and the Land of Israel: Religion, Nationalism, and the Making of Modern Jewish Politics (2018), Indiana University Press, pp. 56-58. ISBN: 978-0-253-03680-2. "Streams of Zionism coexisted, reflecting different priorities for cultural renewal, political sovereignty, and religious revival."
6. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 (2001), Vintage, pp. 123-126. ISBN: 978-0-679-74475-7. "These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country ... but the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives."
7. Rashid Khalidi, The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood (2006), Beacon Press, pp. 19-21. ISBN: 978-0-8070-0308-0. "This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense."

Michael Boutboul (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

No and no. M.Bitton (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body?

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Please specify the RFCbefore discussions, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that the text is preceded in the article lead by the following hidden comment "The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change." This hidden text was added by an admin as noted at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 38#Full protection at Zionism where RFC opener discussed this question previously. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes an admin labeled this sentence as having consensus. That decision was made only after a few days of discussion with only a few editors weighing in on the topic.

This issue has been discussed heavily on the talk page with no resolution. You actually suggested creating a RFC to discuss it [10], and bringing in a bunch more voices on whether or not this sentence violates NPOV seems very appropriate. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I posted this and I strongly support removing it. 'Consensus' was rushed through without waiting a reasonable amount of time for comment and it has a huge number of issues:

1) It presents opinions as if they were fact

2) It presents opinions from authors who are hostile towards Zionists as if their views on Zionism were fact

3) Synth issues, combining things like "Zionist leaders" or "some zionists" into "Zionists"

4) Stripping important context away like "by 1948" to imply this was true of all Zionists throughout all of history

5) Cherry picking when an author says something which agrees with this claim, but ignoring when the same author contradicts.

I've only reviewed the very reference in depth depth, but here are some of the problems.

In the into to his book, Manna is pretty clear that he's hostile toward Zionists:

""This author hopes that the dis-comfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will drive them to seek out the truth ...""

The claim which was put into the article has the time frame was stripped from it:

"...in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"

In the same book the author say that some history "refutes" the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing, but this is ignored:

"the history of the Palestinians who remained in the Galilee both attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times."

The second source Khalidi is presented as an opinion elsewhere in the article, but somehow in just this one place is presented as fact. I didn't review all of the other sources, these first two seem like more than enough reason to remove this sentence from the lead and body of the article.

This sentence seems to have some many issues it doesn't seem possible to fix it. It should be removed. Then it can be replaced relying on the 'best sources' which are being collectively compiled. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is currently sourced as follows Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've read through the hidden text and the visible text. The claim that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" should be removed to restore NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Which hidden text? Bitspectator ⛩️ 03:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

LLM generated arguments and taking the bait. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Relying solely on sources that portray Zionism as aiming to minimize the Arab presence risks cherry-picking and oversimplifying a complex historical movement. While some scholars emphasize demographic goals, many prominent historians, including Benny Morris, Anita Shapira, Walter Laqueur, and Shlomo Avineri, highlight the diversity within Zionism. These historians show that Zionist leaders also pursued peaceful coexistence, economic cooperation, and cultural revival. Ignoring these perspectives skews the narrative and fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and balance. A comprehensive view requires incorporating the full spectrum of scholarly interpretations. 1. Benny Morris In Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001, Benny Morris discusses Zionist leaders’ views on coexistence: “From early on, the Zionist leadership sought ways to coexist with the Arab population. They acknowledged the Arabs' attachment to the land but believed that a demographic Jewish majority was necessary for self-determination. This did not preclude peaceful relations with the Arab population.” Source: Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001. Vintage Books, 2001, pp. 45–47. ---- 2. Anita Shapira In Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948, Anita Shapira explores the transition in Zionist strategies: “Initially, the Zionist movement sought peaceful coexistence, with an emphasis on agricultural development and cultural revival. The shift toward a more militant stance was a response to increasing hostility and rejection by the Arab leadership.” Source: Shapira, Anita. Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948. Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 118–120. ---- 3. Walter Laqueur Walter Laqueur, in A History of Zionism, highlights the diversity of Zionist attitudes: “Not all Zionist leaders viewed the Arab population as an obstacle. Many believed in the possibility of coexistence and sought alliances with moderate Arab leaders. The idea of a shared future was integral to some streams of Zionist thought.” Source: Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. Schocken Books, 2003, p. 78. ---- 4. Shlomo Avineri In The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, Shlomo Avineri discusses Herzl’s inclusive vision: “Herzl envisioned the Jewish state not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews and a place where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed economic development would benefit all inhabitants of Palestine.” Source: Avineri, Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. Basic Books, 1981, pp. 126–128. ---- 5. Itamar Rabinovich In The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Rabinovich critiques one-sided interpretations: “The Zionist leadership was divided over how to deal with the Arab population. While some leaders emphasized demographic dominance, others promoted coexistence and even federation with the Arabs.” Source: Rabinovich, Itamar. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 34–36. ---- These sources illustrate that while some Zionist leaders prioritized creating a Jewish majority, others emphasized peaceful coexistence and collaboration with the Arab population. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC) What diverse sources! Levivich (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC) These sources make it clear that the Zionist leaders and thinkers had different opinions about this topic. The sentence in question presents opinions as fact and violates WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC) C'mon Alaexis. Look at the dates of the sources. Look at who's writing them. You know this doesn't represent modern scholarship. And let's not enable the obvious socks please with "I agree" statements. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC) No responsible editor can miss that these sources don't even come close to outweighing the 12+ modern authors in the citations. We've got to stop playing these bullshit games. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC) @Levivich Regarding those 12 modern authors in the citations, should their views be included in the article as opinion or as fact? Start with the first source. Manna says he hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort, so it certainly appears he has anti-Zionist bias. Can you explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? Bob drobbs (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Thank you for your input, Levivich. I understand your concerns, but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the sources I presented do not represent valuable scholarship or that they are outdated. On the Sources' Dates and Relevance: The sources I referenced—Laqueur, Morris, and others—remain foundational to the historiography of Zionism. While some are not "modern" in the strictest sense, their contributions are widely cited and continue to influence contemporary scholarship. Moreover, more recent works, such as Anita Shapira’s Israel: A History (2012) and Shlomo Avineri’s Herzl's Vision (2014), build on these foundational sources and offer nuanced insights: Anita Shapira emphasizes that Zionism's primary goal was self-determination, noting, "The goal of Zionism was not to displace Arabs but to create a refuge for Jews. While demographic concerns influenced policy, many Zionist leaders sought coexistence with the Arab population, particularly in the early stages of the movement" (Israel: A History, p. 102). Shlomo Avineri clarifies that Herzl envisioned a model of mutual benefit, writing, "Herzl’s vision was one of mutual benefit and coexistence. He believed that economic development and modernization would serve both Jews and Arabs, rather than aiming to marginalize or exclude the Arab population" (Herzl's Vision, p. 147). These works demonstrate that scholarship on Zionism is diverse, and earlier foundational texts continue to inform modern interpretations. Balancing Modern and Foundational Sources: While recent sources contribute new perspectives, Wikipedia's policies emphasize representing a range of views, including foundational works. Modern interpretations are essential, but they do not "outweigh" or negate the contributions of earlier, seminal scholars. Excluding these works risks skewing the historiographical balance. Neutrality and Avoiding Cherry-Picking: The current lead risks over-relying on critical perspectives from modern authors like Khalidi and Pappé, which frame Zionism as a colonialist movement. My intention in referencing sources such as Shapira and Avineri is to ensure balance and to reflect the diversity of Zionist motivations—self-determination, cultural revival, and responses to antisemitism—alongside its contested aspects. Avoiding Personal Criticism: I encourage us to focus on the substance of the sources and their interpretations rather than implying bad faith or dismissing arguments as "games." Constructive engagement helps ensure the article aligns with Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) @Boutboul Apologies, but despite your citations, I seem to be having issues finding these quotes (It's probably on me, but I'd like to clarify regardless). “From early on, the Zionist leadership sought ways to coexist with the Arab population. They acknowledged the Arabs' attachment to the land but believed that a demographic Jewish majority was necessary for self-determination. This did not preclude peaceful relations with the Arab population.” I can't find a version of Anita Shapira's Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948 online, so I can't comment there. “Not all Zionist leaders viewed the Arab population as an obstacle. Many believed in the possibility of coexistence and sought alliances with moderate Arab leaders. The idea of a shared future was integral to some streams of Zionist thought.” “Herzl envisioned the Jewish state not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews and a place where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed economic development would benefit all inhabitants of Palestine.” “The Zionist leadership was divided over how to deal with the Arab population. While some leaders emphasized demographic dominance, others promoted coexistence and even federation with the Arabs.” Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding these 12 sources, how many (if any) should be treated as if their views are factual vs. given as opinion?

Again, starting with Manna, in the intro to his book he says hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort. He certainly appears to have an anti-Zionist bias. Maybe he should be included as an opinion, but can anyone explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

1. If we exclude anti-Zionists like Manna, does that mean we exclude pro-Zionists like Morris, too? 2. Fact/opinion is a false dichotomy. We state opinions in Wikivoice when they're mainstream opinions (eg Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players of all time). Levivich (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

From the references, do you think that Morris presents the mainstream opinion here?

"underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority"

The article has an entire section on "demographic majority", and I suspect that if we were to use the best sources on the topic, instead of a collection of biased sources synthensized into nonsense, we'd see the mainstream opinion is that Zionists, certainly by 1948, wanted a clear demographic majority, not necessarily "as few Palestinians as possible". Bob drobbs (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Framing of the term "transfer" as "euphemism for the removal, or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population."

The framing of the term "transfer" as "euphemism" used by Zionists appears several times in the article.

This phrasing seems to be a verbatim quote from Nur Masalha (2023). "The Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionist Thinking and Practice: Historical Roots and Contemporary Challenges". Institute for Palestine Studies. and is not WP:NPOV.

"Population transfer" is not an "euphemism" invented by Zionists, but an accepted term that was used in the interwar period in the context of several other ethnic conflicts.

DancingOwl (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We didnt say it was invented by zionists. But it certainly is a euphemism. DMH223344 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" and "population transfer" are related, but not identical concepts.

In addition, "Ethnic cleansing" is a much more recent concept, derived from etničko čišćenje in Serbian/Croatian, and it only gained global recognition during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s,, while "population transfer" has been an accepted term way before that, so calling the latter an "euphemism" for the former is simply ahistorical.

Finally, DancingOwl (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

You may like to read some of the scholarship on the various population transfers and how they are viewed now. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How does this change the fact that "population transfer" and "ethnic cleansing" are two distinct concepts? DancingOwl (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not just Masalha's 2023 paper:

• Masalha 2012 p. 28: "In the 1930s and 1940s the Zionist leadership found it expedient to euphemise, using the term ‘transfer’ or ha‘avarah — the Hebrew euphemism for ethnic cleansing — one of the most enduring themes of Zionist colonisation of Palestine."

And not just Masalha:

• Wolfe 2012, p. 150: "‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."
• Shlaim 2009 pp. 55-56: "‘Transfer’ is a euphemism for the expulsion or organised removal of the indigenous population of Palestine to the neighbouring Arab countries. In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia."
• Slater 2020 p. 47: "“transferred”—the preferred Zionist euphemism—out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary. The scholarship on transfer, especially by Israeli historians, leaves no doubt about its importance in the thinking of every major Zionist leader before and after Israel became a state.", this is in a six-page section called "'Transfer'"
• Pappe 2006 p. 250: "'voluntary transfer' - their euphemism for ethnic cleansing"

Wikipedia says the same ("euphemism") at Israeli–Palestinian conflict following consensus in several threads at Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict/Archive 21 (ctrl+f "euphemism") based on examination of sources (where the same examples were posted).

To which we can add:

• Sa'di & Abu-Lughod 2007, p. 291: "It also enabled them to incorporate into its implementation the transfer (a euphemism for what we now call ethnic cleansing) of the Palestinians residing within the boundaries of the Jewish state."
• Khalidi 2006 (Iron Cage):
  • p. 5: "The very term “transfer,” still occasionally used in Israeli public discourse, is an Orwellian euphemism for the violent removal of a people from a country, in order to create new demographic, and therefore national, realities. It is what today would be called “ethnic cleansing,” but that is a term that is rarely applied to what happened in 1948, most parties to the discussion inside Israel favoring “trans- fer” or some other sanitized and neutral designation." [nb: "rarely applied" in 2006, but today, commonly used]
  • p. 188 "As discussed in Chapter 4, most leaders of the Zionist movement eventually came to understand that the only means to create a state in Palestine with institutions whose nature would be determined, and fully controlled, by a Jewish majority, was to engage in what today is called ethnic cleansing. The neutral, bland term “transfer” was the Orwellian euphemism employed at that time to describe what amounted to an act of politicide. The idea of transfer, which is still employed in Israeli political discourse, was discussed only privately in Zionist circles until 1937, when it became more respectable after being suggested in the report of the Peel Commission. It was quietly acknowledged by most of these leaders that this process would necessarily have to be carried out by force, against the will of the majority of the population. If the British were not going to do this for the Zionist movement, as had become clear by 1939, the Zionists would have to do it themselves."
• Schulz 2003, p. 30, quoting Walid Khalidi 1988 p. 5: " To be sure, he [Benny Morris] mentions discussions before 1948 in the highest Zionist circles of the ‘transfer’ (euphemism for expulsion) of the Arab population, but he sees no link between this and Plan Dalet."

"Transfer" was, according to multiple RS, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Levivich (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Semi-protected edit request

For the intro sentence, where it mentions “the ethnocultural movement”, please replace the with “an” as there have been multiple ethnocultural movements throughout the 19th century (Zionism is just one of them). Also for the portion and “aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine”, please replace “and” with “which”. It would make more grammatical sense to add either that or which for this portion. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:E879:81B4:EADF:A345 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done changed "the" to "an" since it wasn't the only one, but I'm not sure about "and" or "which," someone else can decide that. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)