Talk:Zionism/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions about Zionism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit restored a bunch of tangential digression into the history of the Jewish people. In the context of the page here, all so much material is WP:SYNTH unless expressly contained within sources on Zionism or alongside a discourse on Zionism and its historical origins. None of this material appears on the History of Zionism child article either, and for obvious reasons, which is that it is a basic violation of WP:OR, which is policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of sourced content.  // Timothy :: talk  23:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  @TimothyBlue why? إيان (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  You're going to need a better reason than that to explain why there should be some sort of exception to WP:SYNTH here. WP:OR is policy remember? Iskandar323 (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support removing WP:SYNTH to keep article focused and on topic, per @Iskandar323's reasoning.

إيان (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The modern Zionist movement was at least partially inspired in the original return to Zion from the Babylonian exile. Obviously related to background. Dovidroth (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to keep it, source it with refs that aren't WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The history of the Jewish people in ancient times is a critical background for understanding the history of modern Zionism, which called for the return of the Jews to their ancestral land. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  See above note that the sourcing needs to not be WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd do the History section with these subsections, each subsection like 3 paragraphs or so:

• Biblical background - Jews, the Bible, that basic stuff
• Pre-Ottoman Empire - (historical) ancient Jewish kingdoms, Romans, etc.
• Ottoman history to 19th c. (currently "Pre-Zionist initiatives")
• Tanzimat to First Aliyah (currently the beginning of "Establishment of the Zionist movement")
• Second Aliyah to Balfour Declaration (currently the rest of "Establishment of the Zionist movement")
• Balfour to WWII
• WWII to Israel
• Israel to present

Levivich (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: The "voting" here is all very well and good, but this isn't an RFC, or really a vote of any kind. No one will close it. It's just a talk page thread, about WP:SYNTH. I suppose you can all keep edit reverting the WP:SYNTH back in, and I'm probably not going to escalate it elsewhere, but until this section is actually properly sourced and abides by Wikipedia's core policy of WP:OR, the tag that I have now added will remain unaddressed. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Complete Removal of content that did have existing sources, (perhaps not enough sources) seemed a bit exaggerated. Furthermore, clear there is importance in historical context of a national movement. Thus per se that Zionism for Jews, is considered the return to an ancient homeland and the reestablishment of sovereignty. It is worthwhile historical context to include history of Jewish sovereignty in the region. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, not a vote and not what WP:SYNTH refers to. This isn't about whether feel it is related to the subject; it is about whether there are sources supporting it - if not, it's adrift from policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Your edits show your POV, Zionist. You really didn't need to say anything. 142.126.191.102 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delete footnote #11. The reason is that the footnote is blank. There is no source for the quotation. Can the last sentence of the first paragraph stay in if it doesn't have a source? If so, keep the text of the last sentence but remove the quotation marks. If not, the whole sentence should be deleted. Dustmouse3 (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. Reference is present, there is a formatting issue, but refrence is present and supports quote.  // Timothy :: talk  18:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There's something wrong with this text, at the start of the 3rd para:

Edward Said and Michael Prior claim that the notion of expelling the Palestinians was an early component of Zionism, citing Herzl's diary from 1895 which states "we shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed—the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly." He describes it as "a feature of Palestinian propaganda", writing that Herzl was referring to the voluntary resettlement of ...

Who is "He" (at the start of the second sentence)? Misha Wolf (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Presumably Edward Said or Michael Prior, or possible both? 74.130.130.3 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I strongly recommend at least a passing mention in the introduction section of the existing Palestinian Arab majority in Ottoman/British Palestine at the time of the Zionist-sponsored migrations. Something like this:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a large number of Jews immigrated to first Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine, at that time home to a Palestinian Arab majority; at the same time, diplomatic attempts were made to gain worldwide recognition and support. Evaporation123 (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Being a political majority or minority only matters in democratic forms of government. The second feature of democratic government is that political minorities have the same political rights as the majority. This is the point on which scholars engage critically with Zionism. Would something like this address:

"Zionism is a secular nationalist ideology committed to a Jewish-majority national home-state, and has been criticized by some scholars for negating the political rights of non-Jewish ethnoreligious groups." Ben Azura (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like that belongs at the end of the intro (and now that I'm looking at it, the mention of Jews as "indigenous" seems extremely controversial and should probably be revised). But anyways, what I'd like to see is just a mention of the demographic reality at the time the Zionist movement was going on. Not necessarily as a pointed critique of Zionism, just so the lead doesn't imply the incorrect idea that the land was empty as Jewish migration was occurring.

Here's my revised proposal for the addition:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a large number of Jews immigrated to first Ottoman and later Mandatory Palestine, at that time sparsely populated but home to a Palestinian Arab majority. At the same time, diplomatic attempts were made to gain worldwide recognition and support. Evaporation123 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Christ Wikipedia isn’t supposed to be biased get lost 95.144.44.26 (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Relax man, my suggestion is literally to help the article be more balanced. Evaporation123 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The Palestinian nationality was only created and started to gain momentum in the mid 20th century and most of the Arab population of modern day Palestine were actually from foreign lands. 77.137.73.225 (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hence why I am saying "Palestinian Arabs", not referring to "Palestinian" in the ethnic/national sense that it largely refers to today. Pre-Israel there were also Palestinian Jews. Evaporation123 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this change, because it elides the point the Jewish settlement in the area predates Zionism. Andre🚐 22:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose mentioning that as well. It would be good to include something along the lines of Zionists choosing Palestine for its historical/religious importance with regards to ancient Israel, etc. Evaporation123 (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That would address the objection. Andre🚐 04:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

213.233.108.0 (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

please change the opening paragraph as this entails historically incorrect statements.

original: Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist[fn 1] movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine,[3][4][5][6] a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

My historically correct fix: Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist[fn 1] movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel (formerly known as british mandate for palestine as named by the romans to spite the jews after their expulsion from israel by naming it after phillistines (macedonian-greeks), their biblical nemesis,[3][4][5][6] a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

 Not done Sorry, but this proposal has multiple problems, historical, balance and grammar. Zero^talk 03:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

213.233.108.0 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist[fn 1] movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Israel (formerly known as british mandate for palestine as named by the romans to spite the jews after their expulsion from israel by naming it after phillistines (macedonian-greek), their biblical nemesis,[3][4][5][6] a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As stated, the initial definition as ‘Jewish homeland in Palestine’ is incorrect. Originally it was a movement to establish a Jewish homeland anywhere, this is shown later in the article when alternative locations for a homeland, such as Ethopia and Argentina, are discussed. A better definition would be one more along the lines of Harvard’s ‘The Pluralism Project.’ 2603:8001:6501:4C82:2536:1527:575C:871E (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The body states: "The common denominator among all Zionists has been a claim to Palestine, a land traditionally known in Jewish writings as the Land of Israel ("Eretz Israel") as a national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for Jewish national self-determination."

Isn't this incorrect? After all Herzl himself pushed for a jewish state in uganda. DMH43 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Google is lying on the concept of “zionism “ altering the real history about Israel 2600:1700:F990:F080:84A4:DE02:5035:1BED (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You do realize that the whole section is unsourced, and not just the self-defense claim, right? @Arminden: Makeandtoss (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. First, good point, self-defense is POV and after reading up, it doesn't cover Bar Giora of the early ones, and it's probably controversial for the Hagana & Palmach of the later ones.

Second, re. "unsourced": not true, it's a list with 2 subsets - the "Direct precursors of the IDF" are all linked enWiki articles with piles of sources, and "Unrelated" has sources for each item.

Third, I'm not interested in any conflict here, I've researched for myself (was interested in the early Jewish policing outfits which didn't make it into the official Israeli narrative, like Magen, Noter, Mahane Yehuda) and put the result on Wiki for the common good; as un-ideological, if you mean by that: selective Zionist narrative, as you can hope for. So not interested in picking up any fight and don't wish to invest any more time in this.

Thank you for your understanding. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arminden: Not here to pick a fight either, but I found "self-defense" was a bit too much. Enjoy your day. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: great, same to you! Arminden (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to include Jewish Emancipation as part of Zionism to better explain the Jews' exclusion in European countries and to further the understanding of seeking their own nation. Jewish emancipation - Wikipedia 2600:100E:B062:8D23:4871:BC86:E362:F2D8 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Right now the lede says "Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports "the development and protection of the State of Israel"."

This seems incomplete to me, since Zionism today isn't just about the State of Israel, it is about the State of Israel as a Jewish state. DMH43 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

This is now done DMH43 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add European'Jewish Problem' as a reason for the support for Zionism. Cite: https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/final-solution-term-and-plan.html 142.115.235.13 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not done: unclear what is being requested.  // Timothy :: talk  15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflation of the two into a single section is OR and this section will have to be broken into two. Will commence shortly, but encourage anyone willing to start the process. Mistamystery (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The colonialist characterization is closely linked with the racist characterization, see for example morris:

The settlers, especially in the moshavot, and the natives quickly developed “normal” colonial relations based on stereotyped images and behavior patterns; exploitation; and mutual dependence, contempt, racism, hatred, and fear.

DMH43 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Still, not grounds to conflate two definitionally different concepts. There will be appropriate places within each section to discuss crossover. Mistamystery (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a flag in the Historical and religious background which warns of synth. I see some. I'm suggesting:

1. delete the first 3 paragraphs in this section
2. improve sourcing for the last 2 paragraphs. I think these can be properly sourced, but I don't know for sure. In the process I think they need to be rewritten to, in a way that relates it to zionism.

DMH43 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Outline specifically please what you are saying is synth (especially proposed deletions). Mistamystery (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

From the first paragraph, only the reference Garaudy is related to zionism (i dont mean its not relevant, but neither the writing or the sources relate the content to zionism) and it is only cited for one statement. From the second paragraph none of it is related to zionism. From the third, the only related statement is "These actions are seen by many scholars as an attempt to disconnect the Jewish people from their homeland".

In any case, it just seems like way too much background which is disconnected from the specific topic of the article. DMH43 (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Too much background is different from synth, and I would disagree squarely on the point that Zionism is essentially connected to (the concept at least) of Jews attempting to restore themselves to their ancestral homeland. I don’t see how anything connected to Jewish history in the region is not relevant to the overall topic. Mistamystery (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources don't connect this background to zionism, so it's synth.

"Zionism is essentially connected to (the concept at least) of Jews attempting to restore themselves to their ancestral homeland" did you mean to say: "Zionism is essentially disconnected to (the concept at least) of Jews attempting to restore themselves to their ancestral homeland"? DMH43 (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This does not require a tendentious and literal parsing of sources to back up what is blatant and undisputed in the basic concept. It is not synth to insist a movement around restoration of Jewish people to the land in which Jews originated is somehow connected to the history of Jews in said homeland.

Or are you insisting that Zionism is merely a modern concept disconnected from anything to do with history? What is the definition of the topic you are operating from? Mistamystery (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that these paragraphs dont relate to Zionist ideology at all. There should be at least some discussion relating this background to the article, but there isnt. DMH43 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The article describes zionism as a colonialist ideology only in the perspective of critics of zionism. But this is just not true, especially with regard to the early zionists who were obviously proud to be colonialists. See for example any writing from Benny Morris on the time. DMH43 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Settler colonialism also relevant Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, it's not my personal assessment, it's the assessment of well respected historians. DMH43 (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a perspective, not the entirety of perspectives or historical analysis, so to characterize it as such would be complete POV. Longhornsg (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide me some sources that argue this? There are many historians on this history whose writing has been shown to be false, so just because a perspective exists doesn't mean it is notable. For example, some traditionalist israeli historians write that the arab population left palestine because of announcements from invading arab armies. This has been demonstrated repeatedly to be false. DMH43 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

See also: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ze%27ev_Jabotinsky IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This article has too many issues to be considered a B-class article IMO. It's messily organized in places, has too many ^{[citation needed]} tags, and could do with some major copyediting. Cessaune [talk] 07:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This recent edit [1] should be discussed. @Zanahary

The source added [2] doesn't seem to support the change, in fact it seems to contradict it, as it begins with the text: "The Jewish tradition of peoplehood, in combination with the age-old yearning to return to Zion (the ancient Hebrew name for the holy mountaintop in Jerusalem), have produced the modern ideological movement of Jewish nationalism: Zionism."

-IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You’re right about the source—I added it expecting a discussion to be initiated, but actually I regret not just adding a high-quality source for it. Pardon, and maybe it should be reverted pending discussion. I just think there’s something contradictory in defining it in relation to the present-day region of Israel when the article details a whole slew of proposed Jewish lands, and “Zionist” as an adjective has been applied to lots of Jewish migration movements that sought statehood or population security around the world, including in Madagascar. Zanahary (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The paragraphs in the Arab Conflict section have been delete and reposted multiple times. The material is disputed and should not be included. The distract from the main purpose of the article. 12.74.53.144 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Please delete the entire Arab Conflict section. 2601:189:8001:2470:9000:3E32:F731:BD53 (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Feel free to discuss that text here on the talk page but as there is clearly dispute over that text, out of scope for an edit request Cannolis (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donbodo please explain what about the section "Role in the Arab-Israeli conflict" requires a POV tag. DMH223344 (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like you mentioned in a previous post a concern with over reliance on a single source. DMH223344 (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Two sources are currently cited in that section, Morris and Finkelstein. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are not cited directly from the sources, but are simply cited from Finkelstein. What is expressed here is only Finkelstein's POV. Don Bodo (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add that, in a recent live debate on the Lex Fridman podcast, Morris told Finkelstein that he was misconstruing his words. Don Bodo (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The tag has been changed from 'POV' to 'one source'. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

How can we say Zionism aims for establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, when this was clearly not the case for early Zionist thinkers? I mean sure, it has been mainly so, but it would be misleading to include that in the overarching definition. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean? In what way was seeking the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine "not the case for early Zionist thinkers"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Per body:

If the founder of Zionism himself was not sure about choosing Palestine; how can we say that Zionism aimed for establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine? It doesn't make sense, therefore, Zionism should be correctly redefined without relation to Palestine, i.e. seeking the establishment of a Jewish homeland generally. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We would need to see high quality reliable sources for the proposed changes. It may be the case that there wasn't a single proposal among early Zionist thinkers. Many of them were from Salonica and Ukraine and there was real and serious discussion over the fate of Salonica. It was the "New York of the Ottoman Empire" or the "Jerusalem of the Balkans" — and it is quite disturbing that the memory has been all but been erased from the history.

As for disputing the significance of Palestine as central to the Zionist movement, I don't support changes along these lines. There may have been different or multiple proposals under discussion, and so, I have some doubts about how we are reading Uganda. Was it proposed as an alternative to a Jewish national home in Palestine, or simply a practical proposal for a "temporary refuge" for the Jewish refugees of the pograms, as Al Jazeera and others claim? Ben Azura (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This makes sense but you'll have to show that reliable sources define Zionism in this way, although I suspect RSs define it as this article does and indeed Zion refers to Palestine/Jerusalem.

Herzl was a Zionist in that he supported establishing a Judenstaat in Palestine. He also considered other places since "a major concern and driving reason for considering other territories was the Russian pogroms, in particular the Kishinev massacre, and the resulting need for quick resettlement in a safer place."

If early Zionists such as Herzl were not fully certain or committed to establishing a state in Palestine only, I don't think that means they weren't Zionists at all. The sentence "Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, there were several instances where some Zionist figures, including Herzl, supported a Jewish state in places outside Palestine", can be understood as "early Zionists were unsure about the feasibility of establishing a state in Palestine and considered other options for Jewish settlement."

We also have separate articles on Jewish territorialism and proposals for a Jewish state.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ben Azura: As @IOHANNVSVERVS: has pointed out, Proposals for a Jewish state article shows that most of them were proposals for a Jewish homeland outside of Palestine, including the Uganda Scheme, which was presented by Theodor himself at the 1903 Sixth Zionist Congress. Obviously this change would require finding what RS; but as an initial observation, doesn't it seem illogical to claim that the founder of Zionism was unZionist? At first glance, wouldn't you agree that it is not so accurate to limit Zionism to Palestine? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"Doesn't it seem illogical to claim that the founder of Zionism was unZionist?"

Imagine a sentence like "early Zionists were not strictly or fully committed to the ideology and considered alternatives."

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But they did not consider alternative ideologies; they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of Zionism-when Zionism is defined broadly as supporting creation of a Jewish homeland. Obviously the fact that alternatives to Palestine can be mentioned in the lede as a summary of the body; but here we are talking about the opening sentence; whether Palestine should be included in it or not. If it should, that risks "de-Zionizing" Herzl. But then again, we should find what RS say about this. My only aim to bringing this up here is to gather the momentum for this research journey. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"But they did not consider alternative ideologies; they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of Zionism-when Zionism is defined broadly as supporting creation of a Jewish homeland."

I would rather say that "they considered alternative strategies for the same ideology of supporting the creation of a Jewish state, but had a strong preference for Zionism."

Seemingly Herzl and some of the early Zionists may have been Judenstaatists first and Zionists second, but they were still Zionists.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

But you have a preconceived assumption that Zionism by definition relates to Palestine and anything other than Palestine would be "Judenstaatists", which is apparently untrue. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Both broad and narrow definitions exist. The best thing is to find good sources for both and present both. Zero^talk 13:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

+1, some different varieties to boot. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

From the moment the first Zionist settlers entered Palestine, Zionism became inseparable from its effect on the Palestinian Arab people, especially through the pernicious fiction of "a land without a people for a people without a land". Even if one accepts the strange decision to relegate to the very last paragraph of the lead section the critique of Zionism as settler-colonial, which is as fundamental to it as it is to the idea of Manifest destiny (and check out how soon that article mentions settler-colonialism), the omission of any explicit mention in the lead of the actual people affected by the ideology is a bridge too far.

49.36.11.98 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, will try to be addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC on whether to include Nakba in the lede of Israel. You're very welcome to discuss but please refrain from polemical arguing and WP:Assume good faith. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change:

XAdamZion (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Zionism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New Section

Criticism

Jews are not genetically distinct from non-Jews.

Jews are not from a limited set of lineages originating solely in Palestine.

Jewish immigrants to Palestine are not indigenous to Palestine.

^[1]

^[2] 2601:444:300:B070:F9EE:7B8A:A564:1D43 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Giving a heads up for anyone who wants to issue corrections before improperly cited items items are excised.

Please feel free to restore any appropriate items with the correct and detailed citations. Mistamystery (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be specific. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I added some citations to the content you recently objected to. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 183 (Morris) is still deadlinked. Mistamystery (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Inconsequenntial as a link is not needed anyway. If you like you can remove or replace the link. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the dead link. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't require links. They don't even have to be on the internet. Zero^talk 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s not about links. There were citations that were poorly and improperly created by an editor, so will do a review. Beyond this, have a general concern about dishonest edits and mischaracterization of sources so will have a look-see.Mistamystery (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: Can you please clarify what APC stands for? I couldn't understand your revert summary without knowing that. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

American Palestine Committee. You said it was "pro-Israel" but it was not operating when Israel was in existence. Mistamystery (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok that makes sense. Its stance wasn't totally clear from the text, being prefaced by the vague (and unsourced) claim it was "highly effective", in addition to the name which is a bit misleading at a glance. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't explain why Mistamystery also removed a large quotation from Ben-Gurion giving a reason or even mentioning it in the edit summary. Zero^talk 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thought this was already restored with the minor correction requested. I'll just do it for him now. Scratch that. Upon review, he distorted, as well as mischaracterized the quote (which is probably why he has yet to restore it). I'll wait for him to give explanation. Mistamystery (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In what way was the quote mischaracterized? Also you removed the citation needed from "the impact of Nazi propaganda aimed at the Arab world fostered the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine." Which reference supports this? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from Flapan's book, with the editors "selects" in bold:

I want to destroy first of all the illusion among our comrades that the [Arab] terror is a matter of a few gangs, financed from abroad ... We are facing not terror but a war. It is a national war declared upon us by the Arabs. Terror is one of the means of war ... This is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews — that's why they fight. Behind the terrorists is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self-sacrifice. From the time of Sheikh Izz al din al Qassam it was dear to me that we were facing a new phenomenon among the Arabs. This is not Nashashibi, not the Mufti, not a matter of a political career or money. Sheikh Al Qassam was a zealot ready to sacrifice his life for an ideal. Today we have not one, but hundreds perhaps thousands [like him]. Behind them is the Arab people. In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities. The acknowledgement of this truth leads to inevitable and serious conclusions regarding our work in Palestine ... let us not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If some get tired, others will replace them. A people which fights against the usurpation of its land will not tire so easily ... it is easier for them to continue the war and not get tired than it is for us ... The Palestinian Arabs are not alone. The Syrians are coming to help. From our point of view, they are strangers; in the point of law they are foreigners; but to the Arabs, they are not foreigners at all... The centre of the war is in Palestine but its dimensions are much wider. When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves — this is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not bad. We can face the gangs . . . and were we allowed to mobilize all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand . . . but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases ... let us not think that the terror is a result of Hitler's or Mussolini’s propaganda — this helps but the source of opposition is there among the Arabs.

In no way does this quote support the assertion that "the main source of fear for Zionists was the defensive strength of Palestinians." This is pure POV cherry pick (that also seems to have been pulled from a talking point site like this one). Mistamystery (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You are correct that the selection and summary are not good. However, this quote (presumably in abbreviated form) does belong. Zero^talk 01:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the quote belongs. And Morris even quotes it in Righteous Victims as "When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves—that is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves.… But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." This passage immediately precedes Morris' quote in this article saying that "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it all depends on what "the quote" is and how it is framed. It seems that many parties over the years have taken to extract little slices of a juicily worded, but complex speech, for their own purposes.

I'm also concerned about the English translation used in the Flapan's book, which seems generally to be the mother source for most modern citations.

Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand" doesn't make any sense..there's something amiss here.

I kind of want to see the full original speech and in Hebrew, as well as see if the speech has been alternately translated since. Mistamystery (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not that complex and is rather straightforward. Avi Shlaim even says of Ben-Gurion: "Because ideologically less hidebound than his colleagues, he was willing to admit that in political terms they were the aggressors while the Arabs were defending themselves." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

MM, I don't see anything strange about that sentence. Anyway, you can check if the Minutes of the Mapai Political Committee of July 6, 1938 are online at the Labor Party Archives where the original is held. Zero^talk 11:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What a find. Thank you.

Re: meaning, what is your take on this sentence in general then? Is there a direct meaning to be taken, or is he being poetic via a series of contradictions? Politically they’re the aggressors but the other side is superior? They’re militarily defensive but have the upper hand?

”And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand . . . but in the political sphere they are superior”

Mistamystery (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense read literally and I don't understand why you have a problem with it. Zero^talk 04:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

"Morris describes the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine as necessarily displacing and dispossessing the Arab population."

Exact quote from Morris please? Mistamystery (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't add that sentence but perhaps "The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It was added by @DMH223344: on 2 February. However on the same day, another editor removed Finkelstein "According to Morris, the idea of ethnically cleansing the land of Palestine was to play a large role in Zionist ideology from the inception of the movement. He explains that "transfer" was "inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" and that a land which was primarily Arab could not be transformed into a Jewish state without displacing the Arab population. Further, the stability of the Jewish state could not be ensured given the Arab population's fear of displacement. He explains that this would be the primary source of conflict between the Zionist movement and the Arab population.^[3]" which supports the statement. Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The removing editor has been sock blocked. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That reminds me that I just added a footnote to that info a few days ago reading: Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (2003) "Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgive my delayed response, had been away and only just realized the conversation's liveliness. Just to be clear, I didn't mean to distort any of the quote's meaning, but I did frame it a certain way given that the subsection focuses on the rise of Nazism. It's probably better not to try to make the quote fit the subsection, and just paraphrase it, which I think can be done without discarding too much of my original edit attempt. Obviously, because it's Wikipedia, feel free to work on the revision. UpdateNerd (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "Zionism (/ˈzaɪ.ənɪzəm/ ZY-ə-niz-əm; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, romanized: Ṣīyyonūt, IPA: [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement" but isnt "ethnic-nationalist" more accurate. After all, in Israel there is no such thing as an Israeli national--only Jewish nationals. DMH223344 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any widespread definitions of Zionism in RS that go beyond the current theoretical scope of "creating and maintaining a Jewish state", i.e. more practical ones relating to its expansionism? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Another try. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There is the description of benny morris: "Zionist ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist" DMH223344 (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Something more factual and less of what would appear as an opinion? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for statements from israeli officials? DMH223344 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No, but factual encyclopedia style definitions within the scope of it being Israel's national ideology; i.e. expansionist, settler-ist, etc. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

From Israel Shahak:

Zionism is an ideology. Its political/national form, with which this essay is concerned, is the foundation for the State of Israel’s national character. It dictates much of Israel’s foreign and domestic conduct. In the state’s international policies, Zionism is a major consideration along with the state’s militarism in shaping Israel’s territorial aspirations. In domestic affairs, the state’s “fundamental” or “basic” laws are predicated upon the basic Zionist concept that “the Jewish people” is included in Israel’s nationality constituency.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Also from this same collection of essays. ROSELLE TEKINER:

Israel was constructed on a model provided by political Zionism, the basic premise of which is that Israel is “the state of the Jews.”

DMH223344 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The following line is OR and UNDUE for lede and should be removed:

"Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist."

The sources provided merely cite usage of those words, and do not clearly articulate non-rejection of the characterization as per its contemporary use. As per previous (unjustifiably reverted) edit, the usage of the words "settler" and "colonial" do not automatically confer "settler colonialism" by modern usage and definition. (Further reading and refs here re: widespread rejection of the application of the term by zionist commentators).

To the second point, the Finkelstein quote is in response to a *single* commentator. To invoke "proponents" would need more than reference to a single voice. Mistamystery (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't say I understand your objection to this content. Although probably we should specify that Zionists describing Zionism as colonialism was more common in the past and has fallen out of favour due to having negative connotations/reception today. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Sourced material is OR? Since when? Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Better wording and sources is possible, and I'm not sure what point is being made. Up to about the second half of the mandate period, Zionists nearly always referred to their enterprise as colonialist. That is true in all the Zionist Congressus up to at least 1937 (as far as I have the protocols). The 1937 protocols have about 100 uses of different forms of the word. The reason they were free with this description is that they didn't consider colonialism to be a negative thing. The attempt to whitewash this by claiming that the meaning of "colonialism" was different then fails for having no basis in fact. The meaning of the word is the same then and now; only the attitude of the world towards the practice has changed. The imperfect division of colonialism into settler and exploitative forms is a modern analysis, so we can't say that early Zionists called their enterprise settler-colonialist. Zero^talk 02:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's BC and AD. No reason to change it except if you are offended by it's reference to Jesus. Using BC and AD doesn't mean you believe in Jesus. It's still the same point in time and by rejecting it's origin intentionally says alot about the lack of tolerance of those that change it. Woodmiser (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:BCE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"doesn't mean you believe in Jesus" Actually it does... the the B one implies a claim to who J is, while the A one is a claim that J is ones lord. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This added section appears simply to be taken from only one source (political activist Norman Finkelstein). Even the quotations from Ben-Gurion and Morris are merely taken from Finkelstein and represent his selections and interpretations of their words.

"Following the establishment of the modern state of Israel, Zionism became an ideology that supports the development and protection of the State of Israel as a Jewish state." this isn't an accurate definition of modern Zionism. Some varying definitions: the national ideology of Israel Vox Anyone has others that could be considered? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Very interestingly Pappe calls Zionism a state ideology which I personally think is a perfect characterization, that is certainly better and more reflective of reality than the “development and protection of Israel.” Any other sources have mentioned similar definitions? Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Where did you find this? DMH223344 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm only just starting to flip through the book, but "Zionism: an emotional state" by Penslar and the citations within looks like it could be useful here. DMH223344 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

It was a podcast so not very relevant, should have been clearer. But is still in my opinion a perfect definition, not sure yet if it is supported by RS or not. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

"Political ideology" is very well represented in sources. "Development and protection" seems not quite right, the modern idea as I understand it is that Jews are a people or a nation and the State is supposed to be their "home", a sort of Jewish nationalism. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds right, and is consistent historically as well. If you have specific sources I would appreciate if you could share. No need for page numbers. DMH223344 (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There have been different sorts of Zionism over the years, supposedly secular, the version with a religious overlay has a hold these days. Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

On sourcing, idk where to start, there is plenty of it around, maybe start with Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion - Dmitry Shumsky Intro and conclusions. Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Saw that you added a vox citation for this. The author is zach beauchamp who also once wrote in vox that there is a bridge for palestinians to travel between the west bank and gaza. I don't think we should cite his work on this topic. DMH223344 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this section needs more ideological variety, one example is Ho Chi Minh who frequently communicated with Ben-Gurion as shown here; [3] Another example is Civil rights Icon Bayard Rustin; [4], [5]https://www.jns.org/rustin-sowell-and-renewing-black-jewish-relations/

I am sure there are many others but I have to go, and It would be hard to find several at the current moment. Thank you for your patience.

You should also include Ber Borochov and Meir Vilner in the variants section, for the rare Communist Zionism. Emma Lazarus was also a Zionist.

Two more sources for Kurds and Mandeanism; 70.23.5.67 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

https://escholarship.org/content/qt2ds1052b/qt2ds1052b_noSplash_b0b0087d30def88f05e48b5dc022997b.pdf?t=py0wm5 I meant this 70.23.5.67 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Not done, unclear, please make edit requests in the form change X to Y, sourced appropriately.Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Why is settler colonialism mentioned as a criticism of Zionism rather than how it is defined? It seems even Israeli historian Benny Morris has labelled it as such, and that its early proponents understood it as such. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed the description as a settler colonialist project should not be limited to the criticism section. DMH223344 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Especially because before it went out of date, early Zionists explicitly referred to their ideology as colonial The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree settler colonialism shouldn't be limited to the criticism section. But remember that "colonial" is not the same thing as "settler colonial"; Zionists referred to themselves as colonial, not settler colonial. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

They did refer to themselves as settlers though. DMH223344 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes and that's where confusion comes in. They described themselves as settlers and their venture as colonialism, but that is not an admission that Zionism is settler colonialism. Settler colonialism is a specific theory developed by Patrick Wolfe and others, and popularized in his 2006 paper, it's a term of art. People saying "we are settlers and colonists" 100 years before that aren't talking about Patrick Wolfe's theory; today, people who talk about settler colonialism are talking about Wolfe's theory. What I'm saying is we shouldn't confuse the words for the concept.

In fact, the reality is sort of the reverse: it's not that Zionists thought of themselves as settler-colonialists and Wolfe documented it; it's more the opposite, Wolfe used the term "settler colonialism" to describe Zionism and other similar colonialism (e.g. USA, Europe) and to distinguish it from "regular" or traditional colonialism (the non-settling kind of colonialism). Because settler colonialism is a 21st-century concept, 19th-century uses of the words "settler" and "colonialism," even used together, are not and cannot be a reference to the 21st-century concept.

BTW, to be clear, that doesn't mean Zionism isn't settler colonialism, it just means that Zionists couldn't have described themselves as settler colonialists because the concept had not been invented yet. Can't use 19th-century writing as an admission of a 21st-century concept. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I see, was not aware of that. Would it then be more technical to simply refer to it as “colonial” in this case? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think so. There was discussion about this recently on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, and consensus to refer to Zionism as both "immigration" and "colonization", and Zionists as both "immigrants" and "settlers", because sources seem to use all that language interchangeably. Levivich (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Immigrants? What type of immigrant starts a revolution and creates a political regime supported by its own military forces? Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Not quite like that and the British/allied powers helped things along. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Jews who moved to Palestine/Israel were all "settlers" before 1948 and "immigrants" after 1948, but the sources don't agree with me. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

However, under current terminology settlers who seek to colonize and harbour the intent to displace the local population are settler colonialists, not conventional colonialists, who preeminently seek to extract resources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually disagree with the dependence on Wolfe's theory of settler colonialism especially considering there are other conceptions of settler colonialism. See Englert:

For instance, in explaining the difference between settler and franchise colonies, Wolfe wrote: ���In contrast to the kind of colonial formation that Cabral or Fanon confronted, settler colonies were not primarily established to extract surplus value from indigenous labour. Rather, they are premised on displacing indigenes from (or replacing them on) the land.’24 A striking issue with this formulation is that Algeria – the colonial formation confronted by Fanon – was a French settler colony. Similarly, Veracini, in his Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, writes, ‘while the suppression of indigenous and exogenous alterities characterises both colonial and settler colonial formations, the former can be summarised as domination for the purpose of exploitation, the latter as domination for the purpose of transfer.’

Which also explains that there are fundamental aspects of settler vs franchise colonialism that can apply, even if we don't take eg Wolfe's theory exactly. DMH223344 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

The diverging colonial approaches seem pretty well understood in the literature, regardless of the precise terminology used. It seems clear that the concept preceded the term, just as the concept of colonialism in general preceded 20th-century colonial studies. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Some sources referring to Zionism as settler-colonialism:

Masalha:

Zionist settler-colonialism is at the heart of the conflict in Palestine; settler-colonialism is a structure not an episode (Wolfe 2006). Zionist settler-colonialism is deeply rooted in European colonialism. Ignoring the existence and rights of indigenous peoples, British colonialists often saw large parts of the earth as terra nullius, ‘nobody’s land’. This (originally Roman legal) expression was used to describe territory which was not subject to the sovereignty of any European state – sovereignty over territory which is terra nullius may be acquired through occupation and/or settler-colonisation.

Cleveland:

Zionism was a settler colonial movement, very much like the movement of other Europeans who moved to the Americas, parts of Africa as well as Australia and New Zealand.

Pappe:

Zionism as a settler colonial movement was able to colonize Palestine almost in its entirety regardless of its demographic minority.

Shlaim:

The Zionist movement was a settler-colonial movement, which had its roots in late nineteenth-century Europe, as a response to the problem of European antisemitism.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You are quoting sources famously known for their critical view of Zionism, they do not represent the mainstream view of the movement. HaOfa (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You can add Al-Haq and 90 Palestinian and international organisations that "sent a joint submission to the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory examining Zionist settler colonialism and apartheid as the root causes of Israel’s ongoing violations of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."

Not entirely sure what you mean by "mainstream" (or when) but the settler colonial paradigm is clearly a significant view that cannot be blithely dismissed. Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Selfstudier, you seem like an experienced editor, and at this point I suppose it should be clear that advocacy organizations are not reliable sources. I also agree with the above: Ilan Pappe, Nur Masalha, and Avi Shlaim are known for their critical analysis, often presenting fringe views, of Zionism and Israel. Pappe himself was a central figure in Hadash, a far-left party in Israel, and multiple reliable sources label him a controversial figure. I see no reason to change the current lead, which accurately portrays the settler-colonialist view as a critical view. I'm really noticing more and more of these fringe views taking center stage in these articles, and honestly, it's starting to be really concerning. ABHammad (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Critical analysis" is a set term that doesn't mean what I think you think it does; "critical analysis" means that their efforts are thorough and in-depth, and it's a compliment. Critical analysis is exactly what we would want here. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You understood what I meant. ABHammad (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the reason why "critical analysis" contains the word "critical" is because the obvious truth that only true "critics" tend to provide the most thorough, in-depth and no-holds barred analysis. In the analysis and assessment of an ideology, ideological insiders are hardly going to provide the most fullsome or critical analysis. Who would you have do the analysis here? What's the mainstream, and how do you define it? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, the "critical" in "critical analysis" is a reference to critical thinking, not criticism. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You are at liberty to add contradictory sourcing, dismissing sourcing that you don't like as fringe is insufficient. If it is fringe, then finding a reliable source saying that should be possible. Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

This is Levivich comment from Nakba talk page:

"FYI see sources/quotes at Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism/Archive 2#Sources, including this one: Pappe 2020 (free): Still, despite a body of scholarship and research that frames the Zionist movement as a settler-colonial project—including the relatively new Settler Colonial Studies, a journal that, at this writing, has already devoted two special issues to Palestine—such a depiction is not accepted in mainstream academia (or the media generally). By and large, Israel/Palestine is still perceived as a conflict between two national movements that are equally responsible for violence—one of them a Western-style democracy that occasionally resorts to excessive power, and the other an Arab society endowed with a violent political culture. Of course there are other views (and maybe even a more recent one from Pappe, idk), but the complications are that: some RS say it's colonialism, some say it's settler-colonialism, some say neither, some say it was one of those things at some points in time and another one at other points in time, some say it's a mixture, etc."

So Pappe thinks it is but at least in 2020 admits it is not "mainstream". It is still a significant view though and is not anyway a criticism as such, it's a description.

Sabbagh-Khoury (2022) says "For now, the settler colonial paradigm is the work of a relatively small group of scholars, but their numbers are increasing rapidly, in part because it is becoming a project of collective study carried out in cooperation with international scholars, not the theoretical occupation of few isolated individuals." Clearly not fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Your quote explicitly says "small group of scholars" (with the rest all crystal ball) and then you say "clearly not fringe". What's the point in quoting a source if you're ignoring what it says? HaOfa (talk) 08:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

And what is the point in ignoring the rest of the sentence? Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Crystal ball claims, the current situation is what it is, a small group of scholars promoting this view. It totally doesn't matter if there is a cooperation with international scholars (as opposed to Palestinian ones), they could be part of a fringe group as well.

Pappe is a former politician associated with a far-left group who openly identifies as anti-Zionist, while he is entitled to his opinions, his stance doesn't necessarily indicate a mainstream following. There's zero base for this whole thing... HaOfa (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You are aware that the article Zionism as settler colonialism exists? In other words, it is a notable subject. Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Notable, maybe, but again that doesn't change the fact it is a fringe view. There is an article on Modern flat Earth beliefs, does that make it a mainstream view? HaOfa (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it means that it is a notable subject, that is, there is a sufficiency of reliable sources dealing with the topic. I'm still waiting for anyone with an actual source saying that ZaSC is fringe as opposed to merely expressing their own opinion that it is. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

this is unwise, when a theory is fringe, you won't find many sources that would say it is fringe - they would just ignore it. In this way we will just perpetuate fringe views. HaOfa (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Poppycock. Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wolfe's seminal 2006 paper on this has 7,500+ Google scholar cites. "Fringe"? Lol. Levivich (talk) 13:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Who said we are quoting what the movement says about itself? We are quoting what reliable sources are saying; reliable sources by scholars. Pappe and Shlaim are two of the most prominent historians in the field and can certainly not be dismissed as "fringe". Makeandtoss (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

it is said that Napoleon Bonaparte advocated for zionism. and the source is just an article at haaretz with a quote of theodor herzl, which slightly refers to Bonaparte. very weak proof, Napoleon should be deleted from that paragraph. Mouhibay (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for bringing this up. The source points out that Napoleon's plan to resettle Jews in Jerusalem was short-lived and he later changed his mind and preferred integrating Jews in France.

Noting here that I removed the entire paragraph as being unsourced and WP:UNDUE. No doubt there is plenty to be said about non-Jewish support for Zionism, and even support for Zionist ideas (return to Israel) that pre-dates the rise of Zionism in the late 19th century. But this content needs to be sourced to history books about Zionism, and ideally should include the context that much of this support was due to antisemitism (people wanted Jews to go to Israel because they wanted Jews to leave where they were). However, the paragraph was just a bunch of unsourced name-dropping. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

thank you very much Mouhibay (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To whom does the pronoun "he" refer in this paragraph, Ha'am or Herzl? The name should be used to avoid the ambiguity.

"Starting early on, Zionism had its critics, the cultural Zionist Ahad Ha'am in the early 20th century wrote that there was no creativity in Herzl's Zionist movement, and that its culture was European and specifically German. He viewed the movement as depicting Jews as simple transmitters of imperialist European culture." 69.166.116.114 (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000, can you explain why you had removed the quote "It has also been described as Israel's national or state ideology.^[1]"?

I don't necessarily disagree with a rephrasing or elaboration, or perhaps using a better source. But I wanted to understand why you removed the quote. DMH223344 (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Zero but that sentence appears rather redundant (and simplistic) given the preceding one? Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Simplistic (and also vague) I agree. Although I think it contrasts with the previous sentence which says "development and protection", so I disagree that it's redundant. "State ideology" suggests a much larger role (which I think is more accurate than just "development and protection"). DMH223344 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't that sentence which prompted my revert and I won't object if some version of it is restored. What I objected to was stuff like "It is based on the deep historical connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel, a land central to Jewish national identity, religion, and history for millennia." which sounds like it came from a Zionist coloring book. Further, it was presented with a quote from Cleveland that seems to position Zionism as a religious movement, when every scholarly treatment shows that it was a secular movement that was vehemently opposed by the religious establishment in Europe. I also objected to someone removing sourced text with a claim that it doesn't have consensus (which I dispute) and at the same time adding pov material for which no consensus had even been attempted. Zero^talk 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I restored the line but anyone should feel free to edit it/move it/etc. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "through the colonization of a land outside of Europe" uniquely characterizes Zionism, but it may not fully capture the initial ambitions of the movement. This wording implies:

1. Colonizers are sent on behalf of an empire. According the article on colonialism, "Colonialism is the pursuing, establishing, and maintaining of control and exploitation of people and resources by a foreign group."

2. The Jewish community has existed continuously in the Land of Israel for thousands of years.

The phrase "with an eventual focus on Palestine" is accurate in noting that Zionist leaders considered other locations. However, this wording might suggest that Zionists were arbitrarily seeking places to colonize, rather than emphasizing Israel as the only agreed-upon location for historical reasons. Israel was chosen primarily due to its historical and religious significance, which was a key reason for rejecting other potential locations.

The statement "corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition" is also worth reconsidering. There are thousands of archaeological artifacts and historical texts that demonstrate the real connection of Jews to the Land of Israel. Using the word "tradition" as the sole reason for this connection can imply that it is merely a part of nationalist narrative rather than a historically documented fact.

It's important to note that this critique does not deny the existence and rights of other nations and communities in the region, both historically and today.

I suggest the following: Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century in response to centuries of persecution, aiming for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the return to their ancestral land in Palestine due to its historical and religious significance to the Jewish people, a region corresponding to the historical and cultural Land of Israel. Stoic reader (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are conflating colonization with colonialism. Colonization is a much broader term with a longer and less specific history than colonialism, so arguments against the wording currently in the lead should be directed toward colonization more broadly, not merely modern European colonialism. That being said, the idea that Zionism is/was not deeply connected to 19th and 20th century European colonialism does not stand up to historical scrutiny. Only modern historians seeking to launder Israel's image by retelling its history in a way suitable for a largely post-colonial era make this claim. Unbandito (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITXY explains how to write edit requests. WP:LEAD explains how the lead sections of article work. WP:V provides ways to ensure accuracy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OP needs to redo as simple straightforward request(s) per WP:EDITXY and provide appropriate sourcing of which there is none above, just personal opinion.Selfstudier (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems curiously popular at the moment. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This article seems curiously popular at the moment. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

indeed..... DMH223344 (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No sources provided to support the requested change. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As amused as I am by the sock/new account swarm and the tried-and-true victory by exhaustion technique on display, how has Jabotinsky not come up yet?Dan Murphy (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Jabotinsky came up (maybe not with direct reference to his name) further up on the talk page. As you said "victory by exhaustion technique" DMH223344 (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking at RSes, I see an emphasis on 3 types of zionism: religious, political and cultural. RSes describe the variations of political zionism to being fundamentally similar with each other. There are of course variations in the ideology of political zionism, but the fundamental aspects are described by RSes as being the same (ie striving for/maintaining a jewish homeland in palestine). This article should present the same overarching classification, rather than present zionism as a completely fragmented ideology that has no commonality that can be pinpointed.

As an example, the recently removed and then reverted text:

Zionism has never been a uniform movement. Its leaders, parties, and ideologies frequently diverged from one another. Compromises and concessions were made in order to achieve a shared cultural and political objective. A variety of types of Zionism have emerged, including political, liberal, labor, revisionist, cultural and religious Zionism.

is inconsistent with RSes which tend to emphasize the commonality between branches of political zionism, which are contrasted with religious and cultural zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the proper solution is to find a source that specifies such diversity, even if it remains true that Zionism has been from beginning to end uniform in its single-minded goal, replacing the indigenous population with Jews. These distinctions don't matter much historically. Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Which diversity are you referring to? Do you mean diversity beyond religious, political and cultural? DMH223344 (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Grammatically, the 'such' qualifying 'diversity' refers to the 'varieties' mentioned earlier.Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

There is for example `Zionism: an emotional state` page 36, section title "taxonomies, old and new" DMH223344 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

TBH I saw the edits and I didn't love them, as they seem to recast the lead from "Zionism has many different types" to "Zionism is all one type." Yeah, they all strive for a Jewish homeland (not all of them in Palestine necessarily, but most), but that's like saying there's only one type of religion because they all believe in God. My view is there is a really very significant difference between religious and political Zionism, and between Labor and Revisionist Zionism. But I haven't read the sources closely enough to know exactly how they treat the different types of Zionism (i.e., "how different are they, according to RS?"), but generally speaking, I agree with Nish's partial revert, and I agree with DMH's prior removals. In other words, I don't know much but it seems like this is the right balance. Levivich (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to suggest that they are all one type, so I appreciate yall's attention here. My main point is that this page should be a treatment of the zionist branches discussed in RS when explaining what zionism is (which from my reading is typically broken down into political, religious and cultural)--not a discussion of every (or even most) political party that is considered zionist.

To be clear, I do think my edit could have been more thoughtful than just deleting the text. I'll propose an alternative. DMH223344 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track in terms of paring the old text down and bringing some clarity about the types of Zionism, and thank you for your efforts in this regard. FWIW, and this is just like my opinion and not based on a reading of sources, but I've always thought of it as a tiered branch or like a tree. The first split is between religious and political. Religious includes Religious Zionism, Christian Zionism, etc. Political Zionism splits into Liberal Zionism v. Labor Zionism v. Revisionist Zionism, and those are the "old" splits. More recently, neo-Zionism v. Reform Zionism. So my own impression is that there is a religious and a political version, and the political version breaks up into liberal and conservative branches. Idk if the sources frame it that way, though. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

A first go at this:

Modern political Zionism, being distinct from religious Zionism, is a movement composed of various political groups. Ideologically, the consensus amongst mainstream Zionist factions has been support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine. Liberal, labor, revisionist and cultural Zionism have historically each been part of the Zionist mainstream, while groups such as Brit-Shalom and Ihud have comprised dissident groups within the Zionist movement.

after which I would continue with:

Advocates of Zionism have viewed...

DMH223344 (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources represented here: Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs; Penslar, Zionism; Righteous Victims; Fateful Triangle; Iron Wall.

I wanted to also check the list of sources on Zionism mentioned in Iron Wall.

If you have other sources/authors you think I should check please send them my way. DMH223344 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Types of Zionism lists ten varieties, but a simpler approach would be to look at antithetical strains in the movement, the contrasting thrusts of liberal/enlightened versus neo-romantic Zionism (though Lev's political/religious divide also has cogency). In political and social terms, the former has always lost out to the latter, as one would expect, given that formatively, and in its doctrinal core, Zionism in practice remains true to its ethnonationalistic origins.

Any ideology that endures will exhibit multiple versions, as, to use Lev's metaphor, it branches out according to different interests and adapts to changing historical circumstances, so Zionism is no different from what one would expect. Christianity, Islam, Judaism all have their major and minor currents (and currents reminds me of Marxism, Leszek Kolakowski entitled his magisterial 3 volume survey of Marx's heritage, Main Currents of Marxism(1978) It is easy to get conceptually overwhelmed by the terminological variety, so that nuanced aspects of a general principle take on the shape of major shades. Brit Shalom is an historical relic, -like Socinianism – and was really just a short-lived extension of Cultural Zionism, itself a fossilized residue.

Just looking around, I see that leads emphasize diversity in their descriptions of such movements, save for Islam.

Marxism has developed over time into various branches and schools of thought, and as a result, there is no single, definitive Marxist theory.Marxism

Jewish religious doctrine encompasses a wide body of texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Judaism

Christianity remains culturally diverse in its Western and Eastern branches, and doctrinally diverse concerning justification and the nature of salvation, ecclesiology, ordination, and Christology. Christianity

Not unexpectedly, at least for me, the same nuancing of diversity is absent from the article on Islam, which just gives us the simplistic Sunni/Shiite divide.

Rather than work up a significant amount of text to plunge into the aspectual details, I think the above three formulations, in lieu of a couple of synthetic authoritative sources that cover this diversity, provide a narrative template to craft the statement needed for Zionism.Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Emphasizing diversity in the movement seems fine. I will spend some time to see how the literature does it.

The more I read, the more I see sources (both which I would consider "pro-Zionist" and "anti-Zionist") which emphasize the similarities between the allegedly very different branches of Zionism. For example from Penslar: "Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal.", from Shapira: "Along with this, there were some who noted that what distinguished between the method of the Labor movement and that of the IZL was no longer a difference between self-sacrifice in work and defense and self-sac­rifice in war and bloodshed, as in the past. Rather, now it became a fine distinction between two types of war and bloodshed: Though one was more “civilized” than the other, they did not differ in essential respects.", Shlaim: "So in the final analysis the gap was not all that great: Labor leaders, too, came to rely increasingly on the strategy of the iron wall.", Chomsky: "In essence, then, the two programs are not very different. Their difference lies primarily in style.".

Even Ben-Ami describes the differences between Labor and Revisionist to be mostly political: "At the root of the differences lay, as so often, a struggle for political hegemony, but the questions of substance that divided these two major strands of Zionist politics were considerable." and from the prelude of Scars of War:

Zionist democratic diversity did not mean that there was no commonground between the major segments of the movement. Initially, Ben-Gurion preferred an ‘iron wall of workers’, namely settlements and Jewish infrastructure, on Jabotinsky’s call for an iron wall of military might and deterrence... he even lashed out against what he defined as Jabotinsky’s ‘perverted national fanaticism’, and against the Revisionists’‘worthless prattle of sham heroes, whose lips becloud the moral purity of our national movement. . .’ Eventually, however, under the growing chal-lenge of Arab nationalism and especially with the growth in the Yishuv of a collective mood of sacred Jewish nationalism following the Holocaust,the Labour Zionists, chief among them David Ben-Gurion, accepted forall practical purposes Jabotinsky’s iron-wall strategy. The Jewish State could only emerge, and force the Arabs to accept it, if it erected around it an impregnable wall of Jewish might and deterrence.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

My compliments for your diligence in the pursuit of high quality sources. I think you have enough to craft a brief accurate summary of this diversity within a common framework, and footnotes never hurt. Regards Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RS stress diversity politically, and tend to explain similarities in strategy, esp across the spectrum of right to left. RS do not explain the diversity in a similar way to the quotes introducing Christianity, Judaism and Marxism--I did not find an emphasis on variety in doctrine, ideology, schools of thought or positions.

In summarizing the body of the text, I thought it was also important to mention a point of emphasis I did find, which was in the use of violence against Palestinians common in the strategy from right to left in the mainstream zionist movements that dominated.

The term "Zionism" has been applied to various approaches to addressing issues faced by European Jews in the late 19th century. Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine. 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 adopted similar political strategies and approaches to dealing with the local Palestinian population, especially regarding the use of violence and compulsory transfer.

I will of course add footnotes, but only after the text has solidified a bit (or if someone asks for them up front).

I am open to excluding explicit mention of Brit-Shalom and Ihud, as most RS do tend to treat them in an almost dismissive manor as movements that were not able to sustain traction. DMH223344 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't edit the article myself but in this article it says "pqroponents" instead of proponents. 2001:8003:382D:9200:13B:F1F1:C70:3C2E (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" section has a quote from Nur Masalha. The information in this quote is not just his assessment, but is also the scholarly consensus on zionism and as anita shapira calls it the "resort to force".

I will propose a version which changes the quote into a discussion with references to relevant sources. DMH223344 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

This is now done. @IOHANNVSVERVS you might want to review it. DMH223344 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I prefer keeping the quote as it is very well said and contains a lot of information regarding the specific people and groups. Not to say your added analysis should be removed but why not still include the quote additionally? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

One can always conserve the quote in a footnote.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out the specific points that you think are missing? I know the mention of names is now gone (maybe we can preserve the most notable ones as I've done with bengurion) but I do agree that a footnote works well for that.

I'm mostly concerned with readability and don't want to misrepresent the content as the analysis of a single (or even just a handful) of scholars. DMH223344 (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not "misrepresenting the content as the analysis of a single scholar", it's just presenting a succinct quotation to summarize the facts. The quotation is very brief for how much informtion it contains and I doubt we can convey that information any better ourselves. I don't see any reason not to include the quotation. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

But DMH223344 has already accepted the compromise, locating the full quote in a footnote.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I agree (but maybe you could convince me). I think it's more important to get the main points across while also demonstrating that these were indeed the consensus in the movement and that scholars do indeed agree on this. Following up the paragraph with the extended quote seems like WP:QUOTEFARM and I think would risk overwhelming readers with somewhat of a repetition.

Could we instead pick out portions of the quote and work them into the body instead of using blockquote? DMH223344 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it either way. Thanks for the courtesy of pinging me about this DMH and thank you for including the quotation in a footnote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

got it, no problem, thanks for discussing DMH223344 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)