Talk:Zionism

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: [1] 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. [2][3] 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)

I'm not sure this is a dispute exactly, so much as a lack of consensus. I believe three editors argued for a need to change the lead to make it (as we see it) less historically presentist and more neutral, while three editors argued for it to remain as it is, with both groups providing policy-based arguments and sources to back their cases, but neither convincing the other. In such a context, the status quo remains in place, but Michael should feel free to present new arguments or new sources in the future to keep the proposal alive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a dispute and its been running a while now, at least we have one RFC on the go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 2 December 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

[4][5] 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)

Yes, although it would be accurate to say that most contemporary scholars see population transfer (the paradigmatic cases being Greece/Turkey and later the Indian Partition) as related to ethnic cleansing, Finkelstein is right that it was not a "euphemism" but that was literally the common term used in that period. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about them being related, but still those terms are not interchangeable, as several references quoted above show. DancingOwl (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Transfer, expulsion, forced displacement, yada yada, since 1948, easy to source. And why we are having separate discussions about the same thing, no idea. Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the point you are trying to make here (apart from saying that you seem to have already participated in similar discussions before).

Are you saying that those terms ARE interchangeable? DancingOwl (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am saying they are all ways to ensure "...as few Palestinian Arabs as possible", the exact terminology used for this or other event tending to produce this outcome is not the real issue. Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean - indeed, those distinctions are less relevant in the context of discussion about the "...as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part.

However, there is an additional discussion, for which I created a separate topic after making the initial comment above, about the question whether the claim "transfer is an euphemism for ethnic cleansing" is accurate. DancingOwl (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

It is the fact that most "population transfers" are regarded as campaigns of ethnic cleansing during the period you specified in the scholarship. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not accurate - "population transfers", or rather "forced population transfers", are often regarded as part of ethnic cleansing campaigns, but the two terms are not synonymous - see my elaborate response below. DancingOwl (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

My statement is not mutually exclusive to ethnic cleansing and population transfers being conceptually different. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

if they are conceptually different, then one cannot say that one is a "euphemism" for another. DancingOwl (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Except, they can be, and in various cases are. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but the question here is whether it is historically accurate to a priori frame an idea of population transfer per se as "ethnic cleansing". DancingOwl (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing. That is pro-Hamas antisemitic propaganda used to distract from the truth. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:10, 6 December 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)

• I didn't say that Masalha's 2023 paper is the only source making this claim, but that the current phrasing seems to be a verbatim quote from that paper.
  Compare "a euphemism for the removal, or ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population." ('The concept of "transfer"' section) or "a euphemism for the removal, or ethnic cleansing, of the Arab Palestinian population" ('Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict' section)" with phrasing in that article: "a euphemism denoting ethnic cleansing and the organized removal of the Palestinian population.".
• The second Khalidi's quote - "The neutral, bland term “transfer” was the Orwellian euphemism employed at that time to describe what amounted to an act of politicide" - makes the same point I'm trying to make here - that the use of the term "population transfer" was not unique to Zionists, but was an accepted term used at the time, contrary to what the current phrasing implies.
• I wouldn't object to changing the phrasing to something like "a euphemism used at that time to denote organized removal of ethnic population", but the words "ethnic cleansing" should be removed, since the term "population transfer" is still in use today and, while there is some overlap between the two concepts, they are not synonymous:

Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced population transfer, but involves an additional element of the use of 'terror-inspiring violence.'

— "Forced Population Transfers As A Crime Against Humanity". hrw.org. 2008-04-14. Archived from the original on 2008-04-14. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

Population transfer is a practice or policy having the purpose or effect of moving persons into or out of an area, either within or across an international border, or within, into or out of an occupied territory, without the free and informed consent of the transferred population and any receiving population. It involves collective expulsions or deportations and often ethnic cleansing.

— "Enforced population transfer as a human rights violation". Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. 2012.

The term 'ethnic cleansing' is sporadically used throughout the text, particularly with reference to the situation in the former Yugoslavia. However, the author thinks that in many cases where a policy of 'ethnic cleansing' is pursued it would be more clear to refer to the different elements comprising this practice, many of which are established notions under international law, such as, for instance, population transfer or deportation.

— Meindersma, C. (1994). "Legal Issues Surrounding Population Transfers in Conflict Situations". Netherlands International Law Review. 41 (1): 36.

• As a sidenote, Wikipedia has two separate articles for ethnic cleansing and population transfer, and, ironically, the only time the word "euphemism" is used in the second article is in a direct quote from Orwell, of all people:

Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness... Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers.

DancingOwl (talk) 10:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

All very interesting and doesn't change the fact of transfer used as euphemism for ethnic cleansing. Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "fact", but rather a framing used by several partisan authors, while on the other hand you have a list of RSs clearly saying that "population transfer" and "ethnic cleansing" are two distinct concepts. DancingOwl (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias != Unreliability. And I am not talking about population transfer. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

"Population transfer" is the full term that was used - for example, here are just a few excerpts from Masalha, Nur (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of "Transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948.:

For example, Arthur Ruppin, a socialist whose pioneer­ing role in promoting Jewish settlement and land acquisition makes him a pivotal figure in Zionism, proposed in a May 1911 memorandum to the Zionist Executive, the executive organ of the Zionist Organization, “a limited population transfer" of the Arab peasants from Palestine to the northern Syrian districts of Aleppo and Homs.

— pp. 10-11

At these meetings the idea of a population transfer was promoted in conjunction with the partition of the country, the partition idea apparently was first suggested by a member of the Commission itself. Professor Reginald Coupland, during a private meeting with Weizmann in Palestine.

— p. 55

After receiving a telegram about the content of the report, he [Shertok] told participants at a Mapai Center meeting on 5 June in Tel Aviv:
"Many assumptions that have been made by the Commission will constitute very important assets for our political activities. Of these I will point out the matter of the population transfer. The Commission not only does not see something fundamentally wrong in removing people who have lived here for many generations: but it says to the Arabs that if there is a need to move out—they should move out....it points out that after the population transfer between Greece and Turkey, good relations once again prevailed between the two countries."

— p. 64

Berl Katznelson, for instance, the most important Labor leader to oppose partition, viewed it as an inadequate quid pro quo. in a speech on 2 August, he declared:
"The matter of population transfer has provoked a debate among us: is it permitted or forbidden? My conscience is absolutely clear in this respect. A remote neighbour is better than a close enemy. They will not lose from being transferred and we most certainly will not lose from it. in the final analysis, this is a political and settlement reform for the benefit of both parties."

— p. 71

DancingOwl (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

What was it referring to, the removals of non Jews from Palestine, or allowing them to stay? Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Your question sounds rhetorical, unless I'm missing something. DancingOwl (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Not really as the issue is, was this ethnic cleansing, Let's ask it another way (as the answer to the first question is yes, they did intend to shift them). Are any of the other examples of nations doing (today) described as ETHNIC CLEANSING? As that seems to me the real issue, was that back then the concept did not exist, but was it still a euphemism to hide an unpleasant reality, whose ethnic depopulation? We have RS saying it was, do we have any RS actialy saying it was not (in fact) ethnic cleaning or was not a Eupermism? Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

In my response above, I quote several RSs showing that the term "population transfer", which is still in use today, is not synonymous to "ethnic cleansing". DancingOwl (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not seeing where any of these sources say THIS was not ethnic cleansing, so care to provide the quote where they say that directly. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two separate questions here:

1. Would the pre-WWII population transfer plans discussed by the Zionists, in particular the earlier versions of voluntary population transfer of fellahin (but not the the urban Arabs) with compensation, qualify today as "ethnic cleansing"?

2. Does what actually happened in 1948 qualify as "ethnic cleansing"?

There are convincing arguments for giving a positive answer to the second question. At the same time, the modern definitions of 'ethnic cleansing' would not apply to the pre-war plans, certainly not to the earlier versions formulated before the Peel Commission. DancingOwl (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No there is one, do any RS contest the claim this was a euphemism, wp:syntasis can't be used to argue "it's like A so A applies". We go by that RS say, not our wp:or. The source actually has to say that this plan was not euphemistic, not that any other plan in any other place was not (and it must say "not euphemistic" not "a better term should be used", they have to contest the claim, not merely not use it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course, but the controversy here is not about the question whether the word "euphemism" per se is appropriate here, but

1) Whom should this euphemism be attributed to?

2) What it denotes exactly?

Regarding the first question - while some of the RSs mentioned above talk specifically about Zionists, other sources refer to the use of this term in other contexts, and Orwell, for example, also explicitly calls the use of this term "euphemism". Consequently, framing it as "euphemism used by Zionists", rather than as more general "euphemism employed at that time" (as in Khalidi 2006, p. 188) would be a clear violation of NPOV.

Now, regarding the second question - what did this euphemism denote?

Here are some of the quotes from the RS above:

• Slater 2020, p.46: "...'transfer'—meaning the emigration or expulsion'..."
  
  
• 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. He does then goes on to say "In today’s world, the closest equivalent to ‘transfer’ is the ethnic cleansing practised by the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.", but he doesn't say explicitly that "transfer is an euphemism for ethnic cleansing", so claiming that he supports this framing would be wp:synth.
  
  
• the same applies to Khalidi 2006, p. 5, where he says "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”.
  
  
• 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
  
  

• Notably, in Masalha 2012, quoted by @Levivich above, there is another passages on p.5 - "‘transfer’ (a euphemism for the removal of Palestinians from the land)" and then on p. 62: "The above-cited works show that the idea of ‘transferring’ the Palestinians — a euphemism denoting the organised removal of the Palestinians to neighbouring or distant countries — was held widely in mainstream Zionism", where the words "ethnic cleansing" are not mentioned.

To summarize, only a part of RS explicitly claim that "transfer is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing" - others only imply it indirectly or assign to it a different meaning that is not as far-reaching as "ethnic cleansing". Given this fact, insisting on presenting the most extreme of the existing interpretations would be, once again, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. DancingOwl (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Your point is that Slater says that transfer means emigration or expulsion and so we shouldn't use the term "ethnic cleansing"? DMH223344 (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My point is that there is no consensus in the RSs about "transfer" (or "population transfer") being an euphemism for "ethnic cleansing".

Which means that we either should use a less charged terminology, like "expulsion/removal" for which such consensus does exist, or, alternatively, explicitly frame this as claim made by specific scholars, rather than a factual statement. DancingOwl (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The above quotes show consensus that transfer is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, which is the same thing as expulsion/removal of Palestinians. Levivich (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"ethnic cleansing" is a legal term that is not synonymous to simply "expulsion/removal" - see the references above. Consequently, claiming that all those sources talk about ethnic cleansing would be wp:synth DancingOwl (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic cleansing is not a legal term https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/interview/2024/01/24/israel-palestine-gaza-ethnic-cleansing-isnt-crime-should-it-be Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You are right - I should've just said "term", not "legal term".

However, it doesn't change my key point - this term is not synonymous with "expulsion/removal". DancingOwl (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which brings us back to sources and what they say, if they make that equation, then so can we. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources make that equation, but some don't, so we cannot claim that the current phrasing represents a consensus between all the sources. DancingOwl (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that in order to make a claim on wikipedia, *every* source must use the exact same terminology? DMH223344 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm under the impression that if some sources use more charged/dramatic terminology, and others- more neutral one, the NPOV would be using the neutral one. DancingOwl (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's just a long way of saying that every source must use the exact same terminology. DMH223344 (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Again - no.

Your formulation implies that if different terminology is used by different sources, then one cannot deduce any claims at all from those sources, which is clearly absurd

My formulation implies that if different terminology is used by different sources, the claim should use the more neutral/less extreme terminology, as per NPOV principle.

To give a related example - if source X refers to a something as a "war crime", and source Y describes it as "war crime of genocide", you cannot claim that both X and Y agree that it's a genocide - you need to either use the term "war crime" or, if you still want to talk about genocide, phrase it as "according to Y". DancingOwl (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well that's just not true, we say things in wikivoice when they are the mainstream narrative. In this case, it is the mainstream narrative to describe "transfer" as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. DMH223344 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

But this is exactly what this discussion is about - whether this is a mainstream narrative or not.

And as I explained above - it is not.

It is, indeed, a narrative promoted by some of the sources, but saying that it's "mainstream" would be SYNTH, at best. DancingOwl (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=UeMWJs6vdy0C&pg=PA206&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

"Transfer is the term used in Israel to indicate what in other parts of the world is currently called ethnic cleansing" Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=-1LEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA22 Selfstudier (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"...elaboration of the concept of 'transfer' by Zionist leaders, a term used to refer to the expulsion of Palestinian Arabs"

Notice that the words "ethnic cleansing" are not used in this definition.

And in the next sentence she says "A policy that was pursued in particular during the 1930s and 1940s, and which allowed for a systematic and well-planned ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arab population between 1948 and 1949" - in other words, transfer was used as part of what she considers to be "ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian Arab population", but she doesn't equates the two.

This is consistent with HRW's definition I quoted above. DancingOwl (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you are getting too hung up on what you believe to be a "definition". The situation is simply that writers are juxtaposing the ideas (they are synthing if you like but they are allowed to). It's very clear that many sources do this. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The nature of that juxtaposition is important - for example, in the last quote we discussed the relationship between the two ideas is one of causality, not of equivalence. DancingOwl (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

All of those sources you listed (Slater, Wolf, Shlaim, Khalidi, Schulz, Masalha) say it was ethnic cleansing. Please don't misrepresent sources. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, some of them say "ethnic cleansing", some use different terms.

Making a leap and claiming they all mean ethnic cleansing is SYNTH. DancingOwl (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Which ones don't describe the Nakba as ethnic cleansing? Levivich (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

but we are not talking about Nakba here, but about the meaning of the term "(population) transfer". DancingOwl (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing, the thing transfer is a euphemism for. They all say that and if you disagree, say which one you think doesn't say that and I'll drop a quote from that source. Levivich (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You are conflating the events of 1948 with the earlier discussions about possibility of population transfer, inspired by the 1923 Lausanne Convention between Greece and Turkey. DancingOwl (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Slater, Wolfe, Shlaim, Khalidi, Schulz, and Masalha all say that the expulsion of Arabs was "ethnic cleansing" (their exact words), and that "transfer" was the Zionist "euphemism" (their exact word) for it. If you don't believe it, tell me which one you think doesn't use the words "ethnic cleansing", "transfer", and "euphemism", and I will drop the quote. Pick one. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, Slater doesn't say that transfer is an euphemism for ethnic cleansing - his phrasing on page 47 is:

...the Palestinians could be “transferred”— the preferred Zionist euphemism — out of the country, preferably voluntarily, but by force if necessary

on page 52:

...a euphemism for transferring the Arabs out of the area of the Jewish state-to-be.

on, finally, on page 348:

...their leaders repeatedly discussed the means by which most of the Palestinians could be expelled or induced to flee; the euphemism they employed was “transfer.”

Deducing that any of those mean "euphemism for ethnic cleansing" would be SYNTH. DancingOwl (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, Wolf says:

"‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine)."

The fact that he uses the words "ethnic cleansing" elsewhere is irrelevant - he doesn't use it here, and implying that he actually means "euphemism for ethnic cleansing" is also synth. DancingOwl (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting both those sources through selective quotation. Both authors are extremely clear about their feelings on this:

For example, Slater p. 83 (italics original, bold mine):

In my view, the evidence supports a stronger conclusion: from the UN partition proclamation through the 1948 war, Ben-​Gurion and other Zionist leaders deliberately implemented the long-​held Zionist goal of “transfer” by driving hundreds of thousands of Palestinians out of Israel ... The fact that not all the Palestinians fled or were driven out of their homes, lands, and villages—​though over 80 percent of them were—​is often cited by Zionist apologists as proof that no “ethnic cleansing” took place. However, what that demonstrates is that there was no genocide, not that there was no ethnic cleansing.

He also talks about it on pp. 46-54 (a section entitled "'Transfer'", in quotes), 82, 84-91 (a section entitled Was Ethnic Cleansing “Necessary”?), and again in the conclusion at 348-350.

Wolfe 2012, pp. 159-160:

In the absence of that context, the Nakba would make no sense. We might even agree with Benny Morris that ethnic cleansing was a spontaneous aberration that took place in the heat of warfare. ... The Nakba simply accelerated, very radically, the slow-motion means to those ends that had been the only means available to Zionists while they were still building their colonial state.

If, in the 1930s, Palestinians had fled their homes instead of rising up against British rule, there would not have been enough Jews to fill them. The same can be said for the dream of ‘transfer’ (the Zionist euphemism for removing the Natives from Palestine) ...

... To understand the Nakba, therefore, we have to keep in mind the crucial fact that it was Zionism’s first opportunity. The fact that the emergent Jewish state seized this opportunity with such devastating effectiveness was both a testament to and a legacy of its preparedness. As we have seen, the creation of the Jewish state and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine were two sides of the same coin.

If A = B and A = C, then B = C. If "transfer" = "euphemism", and "transfer" = "ethnic cleansing", then "transfer" is a "euphemism" for "ethnic cleansing." That's not WP:SYNTH, that's just reading comprehension. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The "transfer"="ethnic cleansing" part is SYNTH, because a more careful reading shows that he doesn't consider the two to be equivalent.

On p. 85 he says (emphasis mine):

If we drop the assumption that Israeli “security” required expansion into the areas designated for an Arab state, then only about 250,000 Arabs— not 750,000— would have to have been “transferred” out of the Jewish state (as designated by the UN) in order to create an 80 percent Jewish majority. But not necessarily by violence, let alone by the extensive violence that deserves the name “ethnic cleansing.”

In other words, he doesn't consider the "transfer" in and by itself to be necessarily an "ethnic cleansing", but only transfer accompanied by "extensive violence". DancingOwl (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that he uses the words "ethnic cleansing" elsewhere is irrelevant - it's extremely relevant when the elsewhere is on the same damn page. Levivich (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Easily remedied, plenty of sources say that, including most recently https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/01/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-yaalon.html Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

+1. The separate question business is simply a distraction. Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources

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[6]. 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)

None of the 13 (actually fewer, as Sand and Engel aren't used for this point) sources are unreliable, although they are not all as strong as they could be. However, the key point is that in relation to this quote, many are talking about very specific moments in Zionist history (i.e. the Nakba and maybe the period leading up to it) and/or about some or many Zionist leaders (specifically the political Zionists in the case of Khalidi or of the Labour Zionists of Ben Gurion's generation in the case of Lustick and Berkman and Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury), and not about Zionism in general. A couple describe it as the esoteric, inherent or secret logic of Zionism rather than its explicit policy (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury, Pappe, Morris, Lentin). So the only sources here that come close to saying this was generally true are Segev (we quote him as saying this is the Zionist dream from the start but I've not got the book and the google snippet is too small to see the context) and Slater (but he is a weaker source, not a historian, let alone of Zionism, who frames his book as a contrarian revision of what we know). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I debunk this argument with quotes in the RFC below. Levivich (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think copying extremely abridged quotes "debunk" the idea that the current wording lacks necessary contextualization. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll respond in the RFC. Levivich (talk) 04:49, 3 December 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

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." 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." 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." 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." 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." 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." 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)

Discussion (RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism)

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 [7], 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)

Sources

yes 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)

Some lists required expanding. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Allthemilescombined1 I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean, so I'll echo @Bitspectator's question in hopes of understanding. What do you mean when you say that you've "read through the hidden text"? What "hidden text" are you referring to? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

One example is: 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.) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply] Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:25, 2 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)

• Lacks impartial tone. While it's literally true that Zionists wanted to have a Jewish majority, and were concerned about the risk of a growing Arab minority as a potential threat due to the risk of conflict between the peoples and the clear antipathy between the peoples, not without plenty of history already, the phrasing continues to be awkward. The idea of "as few Arabs as possible" is not the clearest way to explain "the largest feasible majority Jewish state." It creates an implication that Zionists perhaps wanted that number to be 0, but we know that not to be the case. "Lowest possible" is not the best summary of the sources. I think we can do a better job of explaining that Zionists sought to create a Jewish majority state, without implying that expulsion was an express goal of Zionism. Andre🚐 06:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia says:

  • as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible

  The cited sources say:

  • maximum territory, minimum Arabs - Segev
  • maximum land and minimum Arabs - Masalha
  • the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible - Shlaim
  • as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible - Pappé
  • as few Arabs as possible ... the smallest possible number of Palestinians ... fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers - Manna
  • as much of Palestine as was feasible ... a large Jewish majority ... as few Arabs as possible ... a Jewish state in all of “Palestine,” ... appropriate additional territory - Slater
  • increase the Jewish population of Palestine ... expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive ... in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights ... more expansive borders ... the smallest possible minorities ... ‘Jewish’ ... by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants ... non-Jews ... numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal ... as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible - Engel
  • increase the Jewish space ... dispossess the Palestinians - Lentin
  • a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible - Cohen
  • as few Arabs as possible - Stanislawski
  • getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... demographic elimination - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
  • transformed most of Palestine from ... a majority Arab country—into ... a substantial Jewish majority ... the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas ... and the theft of Palestinian land and property ... There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority ... Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land. - Khalidi
  • on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions ... an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions - Lustick & Berkman
  • displacement of Arabs ... to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority. - Morris

  Wikipedia is using the same language as the cited sources. Levivich (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  IMPARTIAL: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. I'm not disputing the facts, just the tone. You'll note that many of the best sources refer to the "majority" and "minority" language, which is different from how the article does. Andre🚐 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• yes no it does seem to be the case, so this looks very much like a blue sky situation, their own pronouncements stated they wanted a Jewish State (hell Israel is even called that now, sometimes).We have WP:FALSEBALANCE for a reason. So yes we can say this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven: The way the RFC is phrased requires a No if you think the sentence should be kept? Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks I think the problem was trying to word "it is not neutral but does not violate NPOV, as it is what is said by zionists". It is almost an Ish question. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Bad RfC as it fails to neutrally discuss the sources that support the statement and instead editorializes about the assumed politics of just one of the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what issues you see with rfc which is just a question. But one of the many issues, is that the text engages in a SYTH of different claims, and each case seems to cherry pick whatever paints the most number of Zionists to look as bad as possible.

  As a few examples, in the reference Morris says "overwhelming Jewish majority" but the text says "as few Palestinians as possible" Shlaim says "Most Zionist leaders" but the text just says "Zionists".

  Looking at this same set of references someone could have also written "Most Zionist leaders wanted a demographic majority". Bob drobbs (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, you might write that, I wouldn't. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not really, when we (and RS) say "Zionists" or "Zionism" we mean the mainstream movement and its leadership. DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia says:

  • Zionists ...

  The cited sources say:

  • the Zionist leadership ... Zionists of all inclinations ... The Zionists - Manna
  • the Zionists ... all the major leaders ... The Zionist movement in general ... Zionism - Slater
  • the Zionist movement ... the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion ... the Zionist project ... the Zionist movement - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
  • Zionist ideology ... Zionist praxis - Morris
  • the core of Zionism - Pappé
  • the Zionist dream - Segev
  • the Zionist Yishuv - Masalha
  • the Israeli desire - Stanislawski
  • Ben-Gurion ... 'Our ...' ... Zionism - Lustick & Berkman
  • political Zionism - Khalidi
  • Zionism ... the ZO ... Haganah ... their leaders ... Israel ... the state’s leaders ... most Zionists ... Zionist imaginations ... the bulk of the Zionist leadership ... Israel’s leaders ... Israel ... the state - Engel
  • many [Zionist activists] ... Zionist leaders and activists - Cohen
  • the Zionist leadership - Lentin
  • most Zionist leaders - Shlaim

  The word "Zionists" (or "Zionism") is the right word to summarize those sources. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The RfC was constructed, and advertised, non-neutrally. It's a bad RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• No. This is not biased wording, since it is in marked agreement with the pertinent sourcing. I don't have a substantial objection to rewording it somehow anyway, but this present wording is not actually "broken" at all. I also agree that this was not really a proper RfC because WP:RFCBEFORE wasn't followed and the question posed is not neutrally phrased. But the horse is already out of the barn with the level of input so far, so we might as well proceed (especially since the evidence presented contradicts the RfC opener's apparent position against this language being used; that is, the non-neutrality of the OP has had no effect except perhaps short-circuiting their own proposal).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• This is a really badly formed RfC but I would say that the sentence, especially in the first para, is problematic. This is the comment I just wrote in what I guess is now the RFCBEFORE discussion, a couple of sections up this page: None of the 13 (actually fewer, as Sand and Engel aren't used for this point) sources are unreliable, although they are not all as strong as they could be. However, the key point is that in relation to this quote, many are talking about very specific moments in Zionist history (i.e. the Nakba and maybe the period leading up to it) and/or about some or many Zionist leaders (specifically the political Zionists in the case of Khalidi or of the Labour Zionists of Ben Gurion's generation in the case of Lustick and Berkman and Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury), and not about Zionism in general. A couple describe it as the esoteric, inherent or secret logic of Zionism rather than its explicit policy (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury, Pappe, Morris, Lentin). So the only sources here that come close to saying this was generally true are Segev (we quote him as saying this is the Zionist dream from the start but I've not got the book and the google snippet is too small to see the context) and Slater (but he is a weaker source, not a historian, let alone of Zionism, who frames his book as a contrarian revision of what we know). BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think this is really the key problem with the current phrasing - it totally removes the context that is present in at least in some of the references and generalizes their claims to Zionism as a whole since its very inception.

  The overgeneralization also leads to ignoring the RSs that contradict this claim, if the chronology is taken into account - e.g., Rubin (2018). "Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine", that talks about Jabotinsky's initial opposition to the idea of population transfer of Palestinian Arabs (i.e., the " as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part) and his change of heart around 1939. DancingOwl (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The lead is a summary. Specifically, it is a summary of the mainstream Zionist movement with some brief coverage of dissident's within the movement. We summarize in the same way that RS do. You want the lead to cover jabotinsky's change in positions in the lead? That's obviously undue for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The summary should summarise accurately. If it says "all Zionists" when the sources say "some Zionists" (or even "most Zionists") then that's not accurate. If it says "Zionism want x" when the sources say "in the 1930s Zionists wanted x" then that's not accurate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  The disputed content states "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" (Emphasis mine). Wanted, past tense, & as Levivich showed above, that is reliably sourced to cover the mainstream movements at the time. There will always be outliers in every category, but outliers are generally removed from summaries for succinctness, then described later in the more detailed analysis.

  We could have a separate line describing these outliers &/or that in modern times, some movements have diverged from the original mainstream, but that doesn't contradict the current line in question. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  it doesnt say "all zionists" DMH223344 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• No/Bad RFC - discussion has been had before, also no RFCBEFORE done and RFC is poorly formatted overall. I think SMcCandlish describes it best. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• No - of the 14 sources are cited:
  1. All were published within the last 20 years
  2. All written by experts in the field (11 historians, 2 political scientists, 1 sociologist), including Palestinians and Israelis, left-of-center and right-of-center
  3. 10 are published by academic presses, 2 by "leftist" presses (Zed, Verso), 2 by mainstream publishers (Farrar, Oneworld)
  4. 1 expressly says all Zionists; 10 say "Zionists," "Zionist movement", "Zionism", or "Zionist activists"; 2 say Zionist leaders; 1 says "political Zionism" (see 2nd set of quotes I posted above)
  5. 10/14 convey the idea of maximum land
  6. 7/14 convey maximum Jews
  7. 10/14 convey minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)
  8. 12/14 juxtapose land and demographics (see 1st set of quotes above)
  9. 11/14 say "always", "from the start", "inherent" or similar (see third set of quotes below)

Other words could be used to express the same meaning, of course, but WP:NPOV means the article should say that Zionism sought maximum territory with minimum Arabs. Levivich (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ETA Levivich (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..

No, those are two different claims - "maximum Jews" implies maximizing Jewish immigration, "minimum Arabs" implies population transfer of Palestinian Arabs - those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means. DancingOwl (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Do please source that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I will look for relevant sources, though I'm curious - what would you consider to be a source for "...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..."? DancingOwl (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means is what I would like to see sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes,I understand - I just asked whether you think that the opposite claim conflating those two goals also needs to be sourced, and if it does - what would be the best source for that. DancingOwl (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, we already have sources doing that but no sources doing what you suggest so I am asking for some. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration. For just one example of a source saying this, here's Benny Morris:

The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: There could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants, who opposed its emergence and would constitute an active or potential fifth column in its midst. This logic was understood, and enunciated, before and during 1948, by Zionist, Arab and British leaders and officials ... Both before and during 1948 all understood the logic of transfer: Given Arab opposition to the very idea and existence of a Jewish state, it could not and would not be established, as a viable, lasting entity, without the displacement of the bulk of its Arab inhabitants.
— [8]

Levivich (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Morris doesn't mention Jewish immigration here, but rather links the idea of transfer to Arab opposition to the very existence of Jewish state. DancingOwl (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, here's Morris in Birth (aka "Morris 2004", one of the 14 citations for the sentence under discussion in this RFC), which has an entire chapter (ch. 2) about 'transfer', and which specifically talks about Jewish immigration (bold added):

Pages 40-41:

The same persuasive logic pertained already before the turn of the century, at the start of the Zionist enterprise. There may have been those, among Zionists and Gentile philo-Zionists, who believed, or at least argued, that Palestine was ‘an empty land’ eagerly awaiting the arrival of waves of Jewish settlers.5 But, in truth, on the eve of the Zionist influx the country had a population of about 450,000 Arabs (and 20,000 Jews), almost all of them living in its more fertile, northern half. How was the Zionist movement to turn Palestine into a ‘Jewish’ state if the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants were Arabs? And if, over the years, by means of massive Jewish immigration, the Jews were at last to attain a majority, how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority, whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’?

The obvious, logical solution lay in Arab emigration or ‘transfer’. Such a transfer could be carried out by force, i.e., expulsion, or it could be engineered voluntarily, with the transferees leaving on their own steam and by agreement, or by some amalgam of the two methods.

Page 43:

Rather, the Zionist public catechism, at the turn of the century, and well into the 1940s, remained that there was room enough in Palestine for both peoples; there need not be a displacement of Arabs to make way for Zionist immigrants or a Jewish state. There was no need for a transfer of the Arabs and on no account must the idea be incorporated in the movement’s ideological–political platform.

But the logic of a transfer solution to the ‘Arab problem’ remained ineluctable; without some sort of massive displacement of Arabs from the area of the Jewish state-to-be, there could be no viable ‘Jewish’ state.

Page 45:

To be sure, the Zionist leaders, in public, continued to repeat the old refrain – that there was enough room in the country for the two peoples and that Zionist immigration did not necessitate Arab displacement ... But by 1936, the mainstream Zionist leaders were more forthright in their support of transfer.

Pages 59-60:

What emerges from the foregoing is that the Zionist leaders, from the inception of the movement, toyed with the idea of transferring ‘the Arabs’ or a substantial number of Arabs out of Palestine, or any part of Palestine that was to become Jewish, as a way of solving the problem posed by the existence of an Arab majority or, down the road, a large Arab minority that was opposed to the existence of a Jewish state or to living in it. As Arab opposition, including violent resistance, to Zionism grew in the 1920s and 1930s, and as this opposition resulted in periodic British clampdowns on Jewish immigration, a consensus or near-consensus formed among the Zionist leaders around the idea of transfer as the natural, efficient and even moral solution to the demographic dilemma. The Peel Commission’s proposals, which included partition and transfer, only reinforced Zionist advocacy of the idea. All understood that there was no way of carving up Palestine which would not leave in the Jewish-designated area a large Arab minority (or an Arab majority) – and that no partition settlement with such a demographic basis could work. The onset of the Second World War and the Holocaust increased Zionist desperation to attain a safe haven in Palestine for Europe’s persecuted Jews – and reinforced their readiness to adopt transfer as a way of instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe.

* * *

But 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.

Is that enough to establish that Morris says that Zionists believed "transfer" of Arabs was necessary to make room for Jews, that it was an inherent and inevitable part of Zionism? He wrote an entire chapter proving this point. It's one of the things Morris is famous for. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Not quite - in all but one quote above the necessity of transfer is explained by Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state:

p. 41:

...how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority, whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’?

The obvious, logical solution lay in Arab emigration or ‘transfer’.

on p. 43, immediately after the part you quoted Morris says:

The need for transfer became more acute with the increase in violent Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise during the 1920s and 1930s. The violence demonstrated that a disaffected, hostile Arab majority or large minority would inevitably struggle against the very existence of the Jewish state

on p.45, before the part you quoted, there is the following passage:

The outbreak of the Arab Revolt in April 1936 opened the floodgates; the revolt implied that, from the Arabs’ perspective, there could be no compromise, and that they would never agree to live in (or, indeed, next to) a Jewish state.

as a sidenote, the part you omitted from this page's quote says:

Jabotinsky, the leader of the Revisionist movement, had generally supported transfer. But in 1931 he had said: ‘We don’t want to evict even one Arab from the left or right banks of the Jordan. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally’; and six years later he had testified before the Peel Commission that ‘there was no question at all of expelling the Arabs. On the contrary, the idea was that the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan [i.e., Palestine and Transjordan] would [ultimately] contain the Arabs . . . and many millions of Jews . . .’ – though he admitted that the Arabs would become a ‘minority.’

which shows that the idea of population transfer was far from being a consensus among Zionist leadership.

on p. 59 Morris once again talks about

...the problem posed by the existence of an Arab majority or, down the road, a large Arab minority that was opposed to the existence of a Jewish state or to living in it.

This page's quote is the only place where he makes a connection between Jewish immigration and transfer, but notice that this connection appears only following the beginning of WWII and the Holocaust, that is, more than 40 years after establishment of the Zionist movement:

The onset of the Second World War and the Holocaust increased Zionist desperation to attain a safe haven in Palestine for Europe’s persecuted Jews – and reinforced their readiness to adopt transfer as a way of instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe.

One more quote that you didn't mention, but is highly relevant in context of the wider discussion about transfer:

The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives:
In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;...

In other words, according to Morris, the idea of transfer wasn't some "built-in" feature of Zionist ideology from its very inception, but an historical development that followed Arab violent response to the Zionist project. Moreover, Zionists were not the only ones who arrived at this conclusion; the same sentiment was equally shared by many within the British and Arab leadership:

By the mid-1940s, the logic and necessity of transfer was also accepted by many British officials and various Arab leaders, including Jordan’s King Abdullah and Prime Minister Ibrahim Pasha Hashim and by Iraq’s Nuri Said. Not the Holocaust was uppermost in their minds. They were motivated mainly by the calculation that partition was the only sensible, ultimately viable and relatively just solution to the Palestine conundrum, and that a partition settlement would only be lasting if it was accompanied by a massive transfer of Arab inhabitants out of the Jewish state-to-be; a large and resentful Arab minority in the future Jewish state would be a recipe for most probably instantaneous and certainly future destabilisation and disaster.

DancingOwl (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"In other words, according to Morris, the idea of transfer wasn't some "built-in" feature of Zionist ideology" is synth. Morris literally says: "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" DMH223344 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, "built-in" wasn't the best characterization and I should've used a different word - my point is that according to Morris the "inevitability" of transfer was a result of Arab hostility, rather some a priori ideology, and that it was a reaction, not a pre-planned action.

See the full passage, from which the "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" quote was taken:

My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But 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."

DancingOwl (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"rather than some a priori ideology" what is this supposed to mean? That "transfer" was purely a practical solution, rather than an ideological one?

Morris:

The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs; their enterprise, however justified in terms of Jewish suffering and desperation, was tainted by a measure of moral dubiousness.

Indeed Arabs were hostile towards a movement which was "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing" them. What you're saying is that if the Arabs had accepted their dispossession, then "transfer" would not have been a consideration of the Zionist movement? DMH223344 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

The RFC is not about whether there was Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I know - I brough up this point in response to the claim that, according to Morris, "you can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration", while the actual quotes above show he links the need for Arab emigration to Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state, not to Jewish immigration. DancingOwl (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• No I am keeping it short, since other editors have already argued about this above and in older discussions. This topic appears to have already reached consensus not too long ago. The content also seems to be very adequately sourced. Piccco (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to remind editors here of recent additions to WP:CT/A-I, specifically "Editors limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion – all participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion." - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, there was some discussion of not including quoted material in the word count limit. I tend to agree. @ScottishFinnishRadish, was this your understanding of the final outcome there? Valereee (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  This probably needs an ARCA (or wrap it up in the current case). At any rate, it seems unreasonable to include refs/quotes. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's also this. I don't think anyone has to worry about quoted sources putting them over the limit. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that it isn't necessary to convince everyone in a discussion, just convince enough people to establish consensus. If consensus clearly favors your position there's really no need to go back and forth with someone who's likely never going to agree with you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of rewording the lead, including the second part of that sentence. But I really don't see here any substantiated, good justification for it. Actually, the excellent comments left by Levivich have made me more in favor of keeping the current wording. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• No. The sourcing is clear-cut, high-quality, and covers authors writing from diverse perspectives; nor has anyone actually presented anything contradicting it to substantiate the idea that it's even controversial. The sources make it clear that it is simply not controversial to state that a core component of Zionism has historically been to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel at any cost, including keeping the Arab population to a minimum. Some aspects of the topic are esoteric or complex, but this one is extremely basic and uncontroversial - hence why it was so easy to find broad, high-quality sourcing for it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, on net. Some issues have been well explained by Andre above. Additionally, this sentence, like others, makes a sweeping and politically contentious claim but fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time - for example, do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel? The sentence implies that they do, despite this being a completely novel claim as far as I can tell. Pointing to sources about historical Zionism isn't enough to address this issue since this isn't a purely historical subject. If it applies to the time period prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, it should say so and the lead should then say how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time - Because the sources say it didn't change over time:

  • as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century (Morris 2002) and inherent in Zionist ideology ... in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise ... during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement (Morris 2004)
  • The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present - Shlaim
  • always - Lentin
  • From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period ... always - Masalha
  • From the outset of the Zionist movement ... During every round of the national conflict over Palestine, which is the longest running conflict of its kind in the modern era - Slater
  • From the outset - Engel
  • from its inception - Khalidi
  • from the start - Segev
  • for years - Cohen
  • an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
  • the core of Zionism - Pappe
  • Lustick & Berkman are discussing pre-state Zionism specifically
  • Stanislawski is discussing 1948 specifically
  • Manna's book is about early Israel (1948-1956) specifically

  The Wikipedia article says Zionists wanted, past tense, not "want", present tense, but the sources support the meaning of "always" or "from the beginning", except for 3 that are talking about specific time periods (from the beginning to 1948, in 1948, and during the early Israeli state 1948-1956). The other 11 says "always" or "from the start" or "inherent" in the very idea or similar. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  A list consisting mostly of one-to-four word quotes is less than convincing that all the relevant sources are indeed imputing this POV to all of Israel's history and all factions of Zionism today. Again: do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel? The sentence implies that they do. And I still have yet to see a policy-based justification for the article failing to include how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel and how they relate to the proposed solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. You've clearly read a lot about this topic, so I ask directly: Why is this not being included? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The statement is in past tense, so no it does not imply that. DMH223344 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  It is immediately followed by a statement that Zionism is the state ideology of Israel, which is a present fact, so yes, it does imply that. Especially when there remains no mention of any subsequent change. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  But that isn't the right conclusion to make at all, especially considering that the next sentence starts with "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948," DMH223344 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Yes - the current phrasing is problematic in several respects:

1. Unlike the wide consensus that Zionists wanted to achieve significant Jewish majority, the claim about "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is controversial and is contested, for example, by Morris in context of 1948 war.
2. The use of past tense and sentence's placement before "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948" implies it supposed to be a general description of mainstream Zionism from its inception till 1948. However, it ignores major difference in attitude between different Zionist fractions (e.g., Jabotinsky's pre-1939 vehement objection to the idea of population transfer), as well as between earlier proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation and later pragmatic approach formed in reaction to Arab violent opposition to the very existence of Jewish state.
3. The qualifier "as much/few... as possible" does a lot of heavy lifting here, by masking the major differences mentioned above, and by allowing to dismiss every evidence of attitudes inconsistent with any part of the current phrasing by saying "well, that's what X considered to be possible". So, while formally true, the phrasing is misleading on substantial level.

Sources

DancingOwl (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of your first four citations are. No one here is disputing their desire for a Jewish majority. Your citations [5], [6], and [10] are all to Morris, with the one most explicitly making the argument you're making being from 33 years ago. I have no idea what the purpose of [10] is. Because "the need for transfer became more acute" in the 1920s, they didn't actually want as few Arabs as possible? I'm not sure what you want us to be looking at in [9]. [7] and [8] are primary sources.

This is completely incomparable to Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001000-AndreJustAndre-20241201062000 and Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001500-Bob_drobbs-20241201171200. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• The purpose of my first four citations is to show that the phrasing "wanted a Jewish majority" would be much more NPOV-compliant than the current one
• Regarding the thesis that there haven't been any pre-planned coordinated campaign to leave "as few Arabs as possible", Morris is far from being the only one making this claim - here another example from Efraim Karsh.
• [10] shows that the idea of transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership before late 1920s - Morris explicitly talks about

  "...transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s..."

  and states that:

  The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives: In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;..

In other words, while the theoretical idea of minimizing the number of Arabs through population transfer was floated by some Zionists for some time, it only began to be seriously discussed by Zionist leadership and reached a consensual status in the 1930s.

• [7] and [9] are not primary sources

DancingOwl (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of my first four citations is to show that the phrasing "wanted a Jewish majority" would be much more NPOV-compliant than the current one

They don't show that. Most BESTSOURCES say "Jewish majority" and "as many Jews as possible". You say we should remove "as many Jews as possible" because there are some sources that say "Jewish majority" without disputing "as many Jews as possible". Your [4] is Finkelstein. Do you think he disputes "as many Jews as possible"? The argument doesn't make sense. And your [3] is Morris again.

Morris is far from being the only one making this claim

Then find every BESTSOURCE that makes it, and we can compare to Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001000-AndreJustAndre-20241201062000.

here another example from Efraim Karsh

This is an opinion article from a magazine from 24 years ago. This is not a BESTSOURCE.

shows that the idea of transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership before late 1920s

It literally doesn't. It says "the need for transfer became more acute". Became more acute. Not "wasn't seriously considered". It does not say that.

In other words, while the theoretical idea of minimizing the number of Arabs through population transfer was floated by some Zionists for some time, it only began to be seriously discussed by Zionist leadership and reached a consensual status in the 1930s.

Definitively answered by Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241205175800-Crossroads-20241204223400.

[7] and [9] are not primary sources

I didn't say [9] was. I said [7] and [8] were. [7] is a direct quote from Jabotinsky with no commentary other than a straightforward description of the context the quote was said in.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation unless you can provide an alternate wording citing secondary BESTSOURCES on Zionism in which they dispute the points the current wording is making, and it gets anywhere to the same level as Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001000-AndreJustAndre-20241201062000. If you or anyone else can do that I will !vote yes. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Most BESTSOURCES say "Jewish majority" and "as many Jews as possible". You say we should remove "as many Jews as possible" because there are some sources that say "Jewish majority" without disputing "as many Jews as possible". Your [4] is Finkelstein. Do you think he disputes "as many Jews as possible"? The argument doesn't make sense

The most non-NPOV part is "as few Arabs as possible" - I'll do my best to put together a list of RSs that talk about "Jewish majority" and yet refute the claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-1948 period - hopefully will have the time to do it over the weekend. DancingOwl (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly what I, and I think some others, are looking for. That would be appreciated. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, this sentence is well sourced and captures the mainstream narrative regarding the mainstream zionist movement's objectives. DMH223344 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, not as a matter of policy, but it may be best to reword anyway. Wikipedia is a website anyone can edit, and readers, knowing this, are likely to see such an accusatory claim in the lede as dubious. What may avert this is to move this language to the body, where it can be backed up with all the sourcing justifying it, and soften the tone in the corresponding lede sentence. ByVarying | talk 03:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• No the sentence is supported by the best sources, from authors having differing viewpoints. No one has presented sources with sufficient weight to contradict the sources used which support the sentence. Per WP:DUE, "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. TarnishedPath^talk 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging @Selfstudier, @XDanielx, @Levivich, @DMH223344, @Dan Murphy, @Nishidani, @Jeppiz, @Theleekycauldron, @Mawer10, @IOHANNVSVERVS and @nableezy as editors who were involved in the discussion at Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Revert where that sentence was discussed. TarnishedPath^talk 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I'm not sure if the same weight should be given to sources who are Zionist and sources who are anti-Zionist within the ideological definition of the movement. From a personal experience, the majority of the people I know are Zionists, and have in fact asked me as an editor to remove that blood libel (I received about 16 different requests, an amount I've never encountered before). None of them want to have as few Palestinians as possible in Israel, but Wikipedia says they do. I told them Wikipedia turned into a weapon for spreading propaganda and there's nothing I can do about it. Bar Harel (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

Enjoy

Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel,

• 'A powerful group of editors is hijacking Wikipedia, pushing pro-palestinian propaganda, erasing key facts about hamas, and reshaping the narrative around israel with alarming influence… We are urging all of our members in Israel to join the session to learn how to edit Wikipedia. We are going to work to plan a session for our American base as well.'
• 'Only last night I attended Wikipedia 101 Zoom meeting where the editing structure was explained, and how to also ascend the ranks of Wikipedia editors to trusted user.'

Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As with most of such recent pieces the "research" is utterly laughable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As just one example Wikipedia's main article on Hamas omits mention that Hamas' 1988 charter calls for jihad and the destruction of Israel., when in fact the 1988 charter is explicitly mentioned in the third paragraph of the lede, and in the subsection Antisemitism of the section Policies towards Israel and Palestine discusses the call for jihad against Jews and explicitly states how this has been described as genocidal. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if the usual suspects are concerned with this off-wiki canvassing and coordination. Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not a wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not soapboxing. This is the kind of information required to make a decision. The decision will be whether to request that the talk page be locked down to disconnect it from what is happening externally and restrict it to extended confirmed editors. It may become necessary to do that at some point given the amount of chatter about this article in the bullshitosphere and the endless supply of people with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation. Fortunately, we are only dealing with people. Maybe next year it will be AI agents. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is why I raised it at ANI, do we need to take preventative steps? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess we just need to wait and see whether anyone can get their influence operations-game together. So far, although there have been major spikes in pageviews that presumably track various external things, the onsite effects have been fairly mild. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would agree that a systemic bias is present, but it is mostly due to the bias existing in mainstream external sources on these subjects. Let's say that the coverage by CNN is very biased (I believe it is), and we are using CNN publications... This is not a problem per WP:NPOV assuming that the external bias is faithfully reflected on our pages. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2024 (2)

Change:

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

To:

"Zionism as a political ideology is wide and varied; liberal Zionism is non-exclusionary to Palestinian Arabs living among and within the land of Israel. Kahanist Zionism seeks to create a Jewish state in Palestine absent of Palestinian Arabs."

Carlo Strenger, Liberal Zionism Archived April 2, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Haaretz (May 26, 2010) Carlo Strenger, Israel today: a society without a center Archived July 2, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Haaretz (March 7, 2015) Manna 2022, pp. 2 Hsilvers (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is ongoing discussion on this in multiple sections above. Please thoroughly read all current discussion sections before making an edit request. Note that you may not participate in such discussions until you have made 500 edits over a period of 30 days. Valereee (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Antisemetism

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This page is atrocious, and opinionated not factual. Totally undermines the reliability and validity of Wikipedia. Shame. 2601:281:8580:1690:DC4E:59CE:F5D:38D4 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Maybe telling us exactly what's wrong with it so it can be changed would be a better idea than commenting on how biased the article is without providing details. ZZZ'S 00:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Tag on Race and Genetics section

Can someone explain the tag on the Race and Genetics section? Why is it there? DMH223344 (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)