Talk:Zionism/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Split

I am not sensitive, but 1rr exists for a reason. I inserted the tag because clearly there is a question of neutrality, a fair opinion no? I have no problem with the "indigenous peoples" citation, though I don't think this is the appropriate article for such language. I am being very clear here - the sources above are referring to the actions (or allegations of) by Zionists, not Zionism. I don't have access to the 10+ books listed under the source but I have a hard time believing all confirm the same sentence, since nothing is actually quoted in the article. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spinoza

As a reader I know of no grounds for saying that B. de Spinoza was a follower of Sh. Zvi, a Jewish messiah-claimant, so I removed the reference to him that said he was. Caleb004 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb004 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian Empire's long history of genocide?

Russia is home to 180 ethnic and racial groups, with the Russian population making up 80% of those. Not a single group was ever genocided and any such claims are false at best, Russophobic stereotypes at worst. My Jewish great grandfather, who had served 25 years in the Tsar's army, was given a farm, as a gift from the Tsar, for service, loyalty and bravery in combat. This land was taken way from him by the Bolsheviks. He was not an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.114.7.20 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationalist movement

It's obvious that Zionism is nationalist political movement. I do not understand why this fact with the reference provided to Encyclopedia Britanica has to be removed in only 1 minute after I added it?U109 (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Evangelical role

The role of Protestant Evangelicals has been well downgraded in the article. I doubt that "Zionism" prior to the late 19th century was any more than a somewhat forlorn "next year in Jerusalem" toast, if that. With the support of England, and the English and American Evangelicals, nada, IMO. It should be mentioned in the lead since it antedates the Jewish movement. (It was the Evangelical hope to "bring about the Millennium" which they "discovered" in Revelations:20 in the early 19th century. (wouldn't be surprised to find this had been discussed earlier, but couldn't search archives to prove it). So for the Evangelicals it was religious, even if secular for the Jewish adherents. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is intended to be covered in Christian_Zionism? --Flexdream (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only completely agree with Flexdream. --Mdphddr (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion about post 19th century Evangelical involvement in Zionism, but my understanding is that no serious steps were ever taken towards the establishment of a separate Jewish state until the early 19th century Evangelicals. Before then, nada. I am not talking about, specifically, the Evangelical perception of Zionism, but the Jewish movement itself owes a major debt to being a serious movement to a specific British Evangelical or two in the early 19th century, at the height of British Imperialism. Sure, the religious ramifications can be dismissed or forked or "see also" for this article, but not the founding as a serious enterprise. IMO this should be included in the lead and higher levels of the article.

And, yes, some of this is indeed covered in both articles. Eventually. Student7 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed: Naser al-Din Shah

Footnote 49's link is broken. A trustworthy reference is needed or the whole sentence should be erased. --Maš Mânú (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

POV edits by AndresHerutJaim and Marokwitz

Hi Andres. Your edits violate common sense. I need only link these 1, 2, to illustrate what I am talking about. Enough with this now. I suppose you are quite sure that Zionism is not a colonialist, racist movement. However, that does not mean that other people do not think it is so. Could you please clarify the reasoning behind your editing? Like many Zionists, it looks like you're simply trying to pretend that Zionism is not opposed by anyone, that the entire (Jewish and non-Jewish) world loves Zionism and adores the State of Israel. Well, guess what - that's not the case. So please stop your disruptive editing, NOW. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I've added the sources you requested for the "Critics of Zionism call it a colonialist/racist movement" statement. Now we have links to the best and foremost anti-Semitic sites right there in the introduction. Apparently that's what you wanted; that's what I was trying to avoid. It is completely common to knowledge to any and all involved people that there ARE people around who DO believe that Zionism is a racist and colonialist movement. I'd much rather see that statement without links to the most vile anti-Semitic sites on the web, apparently you like having links to "radioislam" in the article's introduction. I really, really question your judgment. -Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, never mind. I'm not going to enter ideological wars with Zionists here. It's not worth the headache for me. Keep it out, you won. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism category

This edit was reverted because of POV concerns, see WP:TERRORIST. Due to 1RR I can't revert this, but do not think that this is a fitting category.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Herzl quote

The "colonial idea" quote was removed from the text as allegedly undue weight. The article says e.g. "The political movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl", so why his views on Zionism would be undue isn't entirely clear to me. Searching for "colonial idea" Herzl in Google Books produces 84 hits, it's probably not useful to copy all the links here, but the first one is the source in the edit we're discussing. So, as an answer to the specific question posed: it's not undue since it's an opinion of a founder of the movement and because there are dozens of sources. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

As you have used the source you probably have it,so it would not be the problem to provide us a full context of the quote, the best would be a of course a scanned page.--Shrike (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talking about colonization, I think the statement in the lead "Critics of Zionism consider it a colonialist" is probably a bit misleading. To Zionist leaders like Ze'ev Jabotinsky, it was colonization, as his Iron Wall piece from 1923 makes clear. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As I'm sure some of you understand, the term "colonization" did not have the same connotations 100 years ago as it does now. How about you find a fairly recent reliable source that interprets these quotes in the way you're trying to lead a modern reader to understand them? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Colonization meant exactly the same thing then as it does now and you can be sure that there was a diversity of opinion about the rights and wrongs, or the connotations, as you say, then, just as there are now. The fact of the matter is that some Zionist leaders saw it as colonization and that's fine. For them, it wasn't negative. The modern reader needs to be informed of that in the same way that we inform them about the colonization of the Moon. We can discuss how the connotations of the term have changed, if we can find sources for that which I assume probably isn't difficult, but we shouldn't be rewriting history. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have another quote to add to mix; "Berl Katznelson, the main ideologue of the mainstream Labour movement, had acknowledged in the wake of the 1929 Arab riots that ‘the Zionist enterprise is an enterprise of conquest’." Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2006) Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy. Oxford University Press pp 12. Also Herzl is quoted on two separate occasions equating Zionism with colonialism in this book [1]. Dlv999 (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

John Quigley is a lawyer and politician he is not even an academic so he can't be reliable source on those mater.Ben Ami Shlomo is better do you have a link so we can see a full context?--Shrike (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

"John B. Quigley is a professor of law at the Moritz College of Law at the Ohio State University, where he is the Presidents' Club Professor of Law. In 1995 he was recipient of The Ohio State University Distinguished Scholar Award. Before joining the Ohio State faculty in 1969, Professor Quigley was a research scholar at Moscow State University, and a research associate in comparative law at Harvard Law School. Professor Quigley teaches International Law and Comparative Law. Professor Quigley holds an adjunct appointment in the Political Science Department.[1]" - Note that he holds an appointment in the political science department, he has published numerous times on the Palestine/zionism topic and he certainly is a reliable source for the quotes. I believe you can view a preview of Ben Ami's work on google books. Dlv999 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

John Quigley (academic) seems like exactly the kind of source we should be using more of in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It's important to keep in mind WP:PRIMARY. I'm concerned about using a quote from Herzl without a secondary source interpreting what that original quote means. Jacques Kornberg, for instance, discusses the quote and argues that, while there were colonialist aspects of Herzl's ideas, he wasn't really an ideologue - he borrowed particular phrases from socialist or imperialist discourse when he thought it would help his own unique cause. The following is from "Theodore Herzl: A Reevaluation", Jacques Kornberg, The Journal of Modern History , Vol. 52, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 226-252

“ Herzl sometimes purveyed an imperialist vision. As he claimed: "The English were the first to recognize the necessity of colonial expansion in the modern world. Therefore, the flag of Great Britain is flying across the seas. And, therefore, I believe, the Zionist idea, which is a colonial idea, must be understood in England easily and quickly." England's reluctant occupation of Egypt, practically forced upon it by the breakdown of the Khedivate in the Egyptian revolution of 1879-82 was raised by Herzl to the status of a historic civilizing mission. "The role of the English here is superb. They are cleaning up the Orient: they bring light and air into its dens of filth; they break up old tyrannies and destroy ancient abuses." Engaged in these historic tasks, the English would find in the Jews their good right arm. Herzl argued for the advantages to England of Jewish battalions in El Arish, during the jihad against the British proclaimed by Arabi and his colonels and the Sudanese revolt against Egypt led by the Mahdi Mohammed Ahmed. Gladstone had abandoned the Sudan, resolved to cut Anglo-Egyptian losses. Herzl held out the prospect of what could have been a more favorable outcome, aided by Jewish bayonets. ”

“ It is possible, however, to erase the imperialist taint and emphasize Herzl's progressive vision, sketched in his novel Altneuland. The new land created by the Jews is an anarchist's dream. As Elon perceptively points out: the new society lacks the attributes of sovereignty and power; it is a network of voluntary associations organized as producers' cooperatives. An autonomous enclave within the Ottoman Empire, the Jewish homeland prides itself on having no army. With its system of economic planning geared to manipulating private incentives, the new commonwealth guarentees both economic liberty and well-being. Capitalist exploitation has been forever eliminated. We may range along this point statements by Herzl, recoiling at the thought of expropriating and disinheriting others. "If many small owners attached to the soil don't want to sell," Herzl had written, "we'll simply leave them there and develop in other areas belonging to us." Often quoted too is Herzl's remark in Altneuland that Zionism will be a model for Negro self-determination. ”

“ Moreover, Herzl's Chartered Company bears only a superficial resemblance to Rhodes's South African Company... Though Herzl promised that shareholders in the company would reap large profits, his economic model was not a colonialist one, resting on a base of cheap native labor. The company was to be relentless in preventing the introduction of "non-Jewish wage slaves." ... ”

“ Lacking a power base, a population centred in a piece of native geography, Herzl adopted the traditional role of Shtadlan, trading Jewish services for Christian intercession. Herzl was no ideologue. He grasped at slogans, compelling images from the camps of both socialism and imperialism for whatever cast an aura of imminent success around the national movement or fostered a sense of its possibilities. Assistance par le travail - the seven-hour day - the "Zionists of the 'Chartered Company' " - were all phrased pulled out of the European political nexus to unleash Jewish energies in a new cause. ... ”

The discussion here seems to be a binary choice of whether or not to say that Herzl saw Zionism as colonialist. At least according to Kornberg, the truth is a bit more complex. GabrielF (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you can view the source in Google Books, but the full quote is also posted above by GabrielIF. Concerning GabrielIF's post, I'm not clear about the intent - is it that we shouldn't mention Herzl's ideas in the article at all if he isn't an "ideologue"? On the other hand if we do mention him, perhaps we should also mention that he felt Zionism was a colonial idea, since otherwise we'd be cherry-picking. The criticism section may not be the right place though since he probably didn't mention to criticise Zionism. --Dailycare (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, my point isn't that Herzl shouldn't be mentioned, but that you shouldn't rely entirely on a primary source without using a secondary source - you are making an interpretive claim - that Herzl thought of Zionism as "colonialist" based on an interpretation of a primary source - you're saying that because of one quote, Herzl must have thought a certain way. That's clearly against WP:PRIMARY. What you need to do is look at a secondary source and how it analyzes the quote. In this case the secondary source is saying that Herzl appealed to contemporary colonialist thinking in promoting Zionism, and that his conception of Zionism had certain colonialist aspects (the idea of "cultivating" and "bringing light and air" to an area perceived to be backwards - to use Herzl's quote about the British occupation of Egypt), but that it isn't tenable to interpret Herzl's Zionism as a purely colonialist idea because his conception of Zionism differed in key aspects - he wasn't interested in the economic policies of colonialists, where a minority exploits a native majority - his economic ideas seem anti-colonialist. You also have to take into account the question of whether Herzl was really just playing to contemporary feelings in order to gain support, regardless of his actual beliefs. The point is that you can't include a quote from Herzl saying that Zionism was a colonial idea without explaining how secondary sources interpret Herzl's position. GabrielF (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your own source says that "Herzl sometimes purveyed an imperialist vision.", the quote itself and others by Herzl clearly equate zionism with colonialism. That is a significant opinion that should be included in the article. I haven't seen anyone try to directly cite a primary source so I don't know why you are harping on about that. It seems a bit of a red herring to me. Dlv999 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You're completely missing the point. Kornberg is trying to reconcile the aspects of Herzl's writing that "purveyed an imperialist vision" with the aspects that portrayed a vision that is incompatible with imperialism. You can't just take the "colonial idea" piece without also taking the elements of Herzl's ideas that don't fit into a "colonial idea". Also, if you're taking a quote that somebody said about his own ideas, that's a primary source, regardless of whether you found it in a biography or not. GabrielF (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Gabriel the cherry-picking is not acceptable--Shrike (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, a book on Herzl written by Josef Fraenkel isn't a primary source. Here is another secondary source, see page 7, which also includes text from a letter to Cecil Rhodes. Concerning Kornberg, he's only one person who shouldn't alone decide what the article says as that would give him undue weight. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at how you are using the source. You aren't including any of Fraenkel's analysis or commentary, you are just repeating a direct quote from Herzl himself. What does Fraenkel say about the quote? Does he feel that its a valid reflection of Herzl's ideology? If all you're getting out of a source is a quote from somebody about their own personal ideas and experience than you aren't using it as a secondary source, you're using it as a primary source. GabrielF (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, the text says that Herzl approached Britain because Britain understood the need for colonial expansion, and Herzl felt that Zionism is a colonial idea. Assuming, arguendo, that using a quotation from Herzl in a secondary source would be using the source as a primary source, then wouldn't you still agree that Herzl is a reliable source for his own opinions? WP:PRIMARY says: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." So, if Herzl said that he felt Zionism is a colonial idea, and thus the British would be likely to support, what problem do you see in using the information on wikipedia? Kornberg's statement that Herzl's Chartered Company didn't operate in a colonial way doesn't seem to have direct import on what he thought about Zionism overall. The article is about Zionism. We have Herzl himself saying that Zionism is 1) a "colonial idea" and 2) "something colonial". Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your answer is in the policy that you quote. You're making the assumption that we should take Herzl's statement at face value. Kornberg is saying that it is "untenable" to do so because Herzl was saying things to a colonialist audience that were diametrically opposed to the things that he was saying to a socialist audience. If you want to include Herzl's statement that Zionism is a colonial idea, than you also have to include the reasons why secondary sources don't think this statement should be taken at face value. At this point, if you want to pursue the matter further, I would recommend taking it to the reliable sources noticeboard or a similar venue. GabrielF (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, why do state that "Kornberg is saying that it is "untenable" to do so", I see no evidence of that in the quotes you have cited, he certainly never uses the word "untenable", that would justify you quoting the word in your previous comment. What he actually says is "It is possible, however, to erase the imperialist taint and emphasize Herzl's progressive vision". Just because it is "possible" to do something, that in no way means it is "untenable" not to do it. Kornberg represents a more complex picture, which is worthy of reporting in the article, but it does not mean we should not still report the times when Herzl categorically equated Zionism with Colonialism. Dlv999 (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"To view the Uganda affair as the outgrowth of calculated colonialism is untenable." pg 249. GabrielF (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Uganda affair was conceived in 1903, the "colonial idea" quote we are discussing was published in Die Welt in 1899 and was not made in relation to that affair (which was not even proposed to Herzl until 4 years later). Dlv999 (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Kornberg is clearly stating that Herzl's conception of Zionism was sui generis and not colonialist, that he borrowed phrasing from ideologies that were prevalent at the time without committing to any of them. At this point I reiterate my recommendation that the discussion be transferred to the noticeboard. GabrielF (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I entered this in the noticeboard here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

<- Following on from GabrielF's points about how Herzl's language was adapted to the target audience, this may be of interest, from Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, p.4-5

• "..his preference for playing the game of high politics was unmistakable...In each case Herzl presented his project in a manner best calculated to appeal to the listener: to the sultan he promised Jewish capital, to the kaiser he intimated that the Jewish territory would be an outpost of Berlin, to Chamberlin he held out the prospect that the Jewish territory would be a colony of the British Empire."

Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

What conclusion should we draw from the RSN discussion and this one? Participation in RSN wasn't very high, but of the uninvolved editors commenting 2 expressed support and 1 opposition to this idea. RolandR made an interesting point concerning the "Jewish Colonial Trust" which obviously is a related issue. --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2012

The definition of zionism on the first line is given as "Jewish political movement that, in its broadest sense, has supported the self-determination of the Jewish people in a sovereign Jewish national homeland."

It misses out the point that it has to be in biblical israel.

As was stated in the 27th congress, 1978: "The Congress also amended the Jerusalem program of 1951 which had defined Zionist goals. The new text read as follows:

“The aims of Zionism are: The unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in its life; the ingathering of the Jewish people in its historical homeland, Eretz Yisrael, through aliyah from all lands; the strengthening of the State of Israel founded on the prophetic ideals of justice and peace; the preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values; the protection of Jewish rights everywhere.”

It is a very focal point that the state in is the historical homeland and it grossly incorrect that this point was left out. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionnow.html

93.172.230.254 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Given this article's probationary sanctions, I'm disinclined to make this change without consensus. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Western European bourgeois World Zionist Organization is not the end-all be-all of Zionism. There are many currents, mostly deriving from Eastern Europe that were intentionally marginalized out of the WZO at the First Zionist Congress. See also: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/haam2.html and the writings of Bernard Lazare. 138.238.28.165 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are absolutely no sources for the controversial statements in the "Nationalist Zionism" section

The section titled "Nationalist Zionism" makes claims that Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky lived in Fascist Italy with Mussolini's support and only left after Hitler demanded it. There is no source nor any evidence presented that Jabotinsky lived in Italy. It makes other controversial claims without sources as well. The section either needs to get reliable sources or it needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten with reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Betar Naval Academy might have some sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41 is right. In fact, most of the Organization section is completely unsourced and contains quite a bit of incorrect information. I suggest commenting out the whole thing leaving only links to main articles, until someone provides sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In WP:ARBPIA area poorly/not sourced could be removed if someone want to provide a source he welcome to do so.--Shrike (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sean Soyland's post is what I was asking for. Thank you Sean for providing a link to material on the Betar Naval Academy being located in Italy from 1934 to 1938 under an agreement between Benito Mussolini and Ze'ev Jabotinsky. I for one can assure you that I am not trying to deny that there were fascist connections with militant revisionist Zionists, I know that Betar openly praised Mussolini and the fascist form of government in Italy at that time, and I know that there was a small officially fascist revisionist Zionist movement called Brit HaBirionim. I did not however want unverified claims making associations with fascism.--R-41 (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the History of zionism should be merged into this article?

any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.110.147.62 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone objects i shall be integrating the History of Zionism into this article. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why merge? --Frederico1234 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

book reference to no book in critisisms of zionism

Zionism had also been opposed by some Jews for other reasons even before the establishment of the state of Israel because "Zionism constitutes a danger, spiritual and physical, to the existence of our people.'."[77]. The book also states "The booklet which we are publishing here, 'Serufay. Ha Kivshbnim Maashimim' ('The Holocaust Victims Accuse'), serves as an attempt to show, by means of testimonies., documents and reports, how Zionism and its high-level organizations brought a catastrophe upon our people during the era of the Nazi holocaust."

I think there's an edit messed up somewhere here. what book? none is mentioned. 124.149.66.20 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The "book" and the "booklet" in the quote from the book are one and the same, namely "The Holocaust Victims Accuse" by Reb Moshe Shonfeld. Some copy-editing is needed. Zero^talk 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be "Serufay Hakivshanim Maashimim" (literally "those burnt in the ovens accuse"). There's an extra period and an "a" that turned into a "b" there. I'd probably use an "i" instead of a "y" too, but whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request re: location of Jewish homeland according to Zionism, 12 October 2012

The article currently claims that Zionism "supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel." However, it is only after the creation of the state of Israel that Zionism came to be popularly associated exclusively with this region as the single possible location for the Jewish homeland. Theodor Herzl, one of the founders of Zionism, stated of the possible site of the Jewish homeland he envisioned: "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by public opinion." http://www.mideastweb.org/jewishstate.pdf (see p. 2 of document) Another source, citing the definition of Zionism in various English-language dictionaries from the 1890s and early 20th century, as well the the periodical the Jewish Chronicle from 1896, demonstrates that "[...]these dictionaries, then, reflect the fact that, while there was a preference for Palestine on religious and historical grounds, it was by no means a foregone conclusion that this would be the location of the future Jewish state." Indeed, Chambers's 20th Century Dictionary maintained a definition of Zionism not restricted to a specific territory (Zionism defined as "a movement for securing national privileges and territory (esp. in Palestine) for the Jews”) through 1964. For its part, the Jewish Chronicle in 1896 stated that "Zionism does not necessarily aim at the formation of a Jewish State in Palestine." http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/06/meijs_blackwell/ Currently there is a brief reference further down in the article to Herzl's consideration of East Africa as a site for a Jewish homeland (actually it was Uganda specifically, on offer from the British)--his proposal to settle in Uganda was actually passed by the Sixth Zionist Congress but not seriously pursued after Herzl's death in 1904. http://www.mideastweb.org/jewishstate.pdf (see p. 2) This existing reference in the article contradicts the very definition of Zionism given at the start of the article relying on territory "defined as the Land of Israel." According to this definition in the current Wikipedia entry for Zionism, Theodor Herzl--defined as "the father of modern political Zionism" in his own Wikipedia entry--was not a Zionist because he did not consider it essential that the Jewish homeland be located in the biblical "Land of Israel". To eliminate this contradiction from the entry, the initial definition of Zionism should be rewritten to say something like "Zionism is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state with its own territory." Such a definition would incorporate both the original historical understandings of Zionism as well as present-day associations with the state of Israel. Further clarification could be provided in this article as to how the definition of the word Zionism has evolved over time. SaudadeMelhor (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

support for Jewish demographic majority is not clearly racist

The section on "Zionism as racism" used to end with a statement by Herzog asserting that Zionism was not racist, followed by a supposedly counterbalancing statement from Netanyahu expressing preference for a Jewish majority in Israel, with the clear implication that Netanyahu's statement is racist. To me this is not clear at all, and putting this in is a clear case of disallowed WP:SYNTH. If you want to make such a point, you need to find a reliable secondary source that asserts that preference for a Jewish majority is racist, and clearly indicate the source with an "XXX claims that ..." etc. Many politicians in many parts of the world want to see their own ethnic groups preserved, but somehow no one claims that this is racism unless it's specifically tied in with Israel. To me, talk of a demographic threat is coming from the fears of people who have seen the strong hostility to Israel and Jews coming from the Arab world and do not think that Jews can remain safe if they don't maintain an electoral majority; i.e. it's a security issue not racism. More generally, support for one's own ethnic group is hardly racism, otherwise we'd have to declare every nationalist movement (Polish nationalism, Kurdish nationalism, Kosovo nationalism, Tibetan nationalism, etc. etc.) as racist. Benwing (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The Haaretz source that was cited contained a number of reactions to Netanyahu's statements that regarded them as racist, so I don't think WP:SYNTH would apply if this were the Racism in Israel article. The content could probably be rewritten so that it reflects the views expressed in the source. However, this article is about Zionism so I'm not sure that the content belongs here. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Benwing, this isn't a forum to discuss the issue at large beyond what is necessary for editing the article, but you seem to be a bti confused as to what racism is. Polish nationalism isn't racist, but Polish nationalism that wants to exclude those Poles who are coloured, or Protestants, from Poland is racist. Similarly if, say, the Republicans in the US would endorse a policy to maintain a white majority in the United States, that would correctly be denounced as racism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

" Polish nationalism that wants to exclude those Poles who are coloured, or Protestants, from Poland is racist" if thats true, then by simular logic if the Republicans in the US would endorse a white majority and white nationalism, then aslong as it does not "exclude those non whites" then it wouldnt be racist. aslong as the majority and its cultural identity is white and rule then its fine. but it must remain a white country like africa is an african black country, china is a asian ruled country. they would never agree to let non-asians rule or non-blacks rule.

thus jews should have equal rights like european white countries have now that anti-immigrant parties have been on the rise and the majority of the people decided to vote for the majority.whites that is, and being against racist-anti whites. so yes, jewish people should have the same right means that the content of this article must be equal to other nationalist and patriotic movements about nationalism.

unquality among articles is not accepted, http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/African_nationalism

the word race, racism or racist does not appear here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.225.103.247 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

racism : 1 a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 racial prejudice or discrimination - Merriam-Webster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.67.4.213 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

On the topic of Zionism and its support for a Jewish state:

The definition of Zionism in Wikipedia is given as "a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel". Also, in the article's section "Particularities of Zionist beliefs", it is stated that "Zionism was established with the goal of creating a Jewish state". However, renowned scholar Noam Chomsky disputes this assertion. In an interview on November 7, 2011, he pointed out that "it's not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state".

The full interview can be found here: http://chomsky.info/interviews/20111107.htm

So a way of incorporating this in the definition may be as follows: Zionism (Hebrew: ציונות‎, Tsiyonut) is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in territory defined as the Land of Israel, "although until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state"(Chomsky*). In the article's section "Particularities of Zionist beliefs", an addition to the text may be as follows: Zionism was established with the goal of creating a Jewish state, ""although until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state"(Chomsky*).

Chomsky*: http://chomsky.info/interviews/20111107.htm

201.141.148.148 (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Militant Zionist groups

Where is the appropriate place to put this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:Militant_Zionist_groups ? Also, looking for a section to place this: American Zionist Movement

Twillisjr (talk) 03:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I have removed recent edition [2] of pappe to the lead though Pappe view might notable currently without attribution and proper context of other views it WP:NPOV violation.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I previously reverted the content on the basis that the material appears to be RS and this shouldn't be edit warred over. However, viewed as content, the text in question does seem to be rather rhetorically-charged, and its presence in the lede smells NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Pappe is already mentioned twice in the proper place.--MelissaLond (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The content certainly shouldn't be in the lead but it should have been moved to the "proper place" and attributed rather than deleted. I assume someone will do that at some point without violating WP:1RR. If not, I will do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The article already has "Ilan Pappe argued that Zionism results in ethnic cleansing.[86]" ... does it really need more?

The material that was removed says "Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated this with the colonization of Palestine. According to Zionist thinking Palestine was occupied by strangers." It isn't about ethnic cleansing. It's about the history of Zionism. The first sentence is a broad statement about it's history and might even be suitable for the lead or somewhere else. It's not controversial. Of course Zionism became about the colonization of Palestine. Settlements were often called colonies without anyone being concerned about the word at that time. The second sentence is about the attitude of (some) Zionists towards the locals, which I also don't think is controversial, although it could do with further details as statements like "Zionists thought X" are always going to be an oversimplification. I can't think of any reason, aside from wanting to rewrite history, to exclude this material. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, MelissaLond is almost certainly a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Pappe regarded as an extreme anti-Zionist commentator (so my wife tells me; I know little of this topic)? - his views certainly seem pungently expressed and so smell to me like the kind of things which need to be treated consensually and carefully given the controversial nature of this topic. Transposing extreme commentators' views into the article (from whatever "side") wouldn't strike me as a good way forward ... Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's less extreme in his views than many editors in the topic area in my experience. :) He's not a commentator, he's an academic. See Ilan Pappé. He's been discussed at RSN several times. See here for example. Unfortunately the discussions are always disrupted by nationalists and sockpuppets as is almost everything in the topic area. I really don't see a problem with this material. The first sentence could have been written by any historian. The second probably needs attribution to Pappe and expansion from other sources to give a broadly overview. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so this is one of those articles is it? ;-) Got a few of those on my watchlist ...

(After again talking to my wife) I'm not sure that Pappe's wording is so neutral as to be used without care. For example he says "colonization"; but wouldn't people "from the other side" say that was a loaded/odd word, and ask what was the new place was a colony of? So perhaps one way forward here would be ask: what information is the article missing that you want to include? Is there a way to include it with more temperate wording? Alexbrn (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see these words as particularly problematic. Being concerned about the word colonization is just revisionism in my view. Zionists like Ze'ev Jabotinsky used it quite happily. See The Iron Wall for example (Iron Wall (essay)). That's what it was, colonization of "a land without a people for a people without a land" for some, not colonialism by a nation state. It's a simple fact that Zionism became about the colonization of Palestine to establish a Jewish homeland. And regarding Palestinians as "strangers", again, not controversial, that is still the case for some, see "Some ministers have blatantly described Palestinians as 'strangers to this land" in Robert I. Rotberg's Israeli And Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History's Double Helix. It's also not just some Zionists or the State of Israel that treated Palestinians as strangers in their land but that isn't relevant to this article. As for what should be included, I think the lead should include a summary statement functionally equivalent to Pappe's about how Zionism became about establishing Jewish colonies in Palestine and the colonization of Palestine. The lead shouldn't just present the Zionist narrative that it was the "return of Jews to Israel". It should describe what actually happened according to historians. The history is covered in the body of the article in the Zionism#History section from "In the 19th century, a current in Judaism supporting a return to Zion grew in popularity..." onwards so it should be summarized in the lead. Something should be included about the attitudes of Zionists towards the "native population" to quote Jabotinsky, including what Pappe has written, but not just Pappe as I'm sure there were a wide variety of views...not in the lead though. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there some centre ground between "the rightful return of the Jews to their homeland" and "genocidal colonization" (not exactly the terms in play, but you get the gist)? "settlement" would strike me as a less rhetorically leveraged word than colonization. Looking at the text in dispute, it reads: Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in central and eastern Europe as a national revival movement and soon after this most leaders of the movement associated this with the colonization of Palestine. According to Zionist thinking Palestine was occupied by strangers. I think the sentiment of the first sentence seems reasonable (if sourced) but the word "colonization" - as I've said - strikes me a problematic. Just doing a quick Google book search I find this "In Israeli historiography, 1882 is considered the year in which the Zionist settlement in Palestine began" [3], which seems more like the sort of thing that might go down better. As for the second sentence, it strikes me that "Zionist thinking" is, at the very least, going to be a contested/tricky topic ... one that I personally wouldn't try and nail down or adduce in a lede. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the middle way is the kind of approach I can understand. Settlement and colonization are both fine for me, both terms are used interchangeably in this context I think. I must admit though, the word colonization means colonization to me i.e. nothing to get excited about, and definitely not to be confused with colonialism which is certainly a rhetorically leveraged word. I guess anything about "Zionist thinking" concerning the people already living in Palestine probably needs hammering out on the talk page with a variety of sources before it goes in the article. I'm not sure where it would go either, perhaps the "Particularities of Zionist beliefs" section or maybe in the history section. Anyway, no rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion is a bit off-topic. What should be decided as far as I can tell, is whether Pappe is a reliable source for those two sentences. If yes, there is no problem with those sentences, if no then the sentences should be left out. If there are other sources that are reliable for a conflicting or substantially alternative statement, then both views should be presented with attribution. FWIW, I don't see why Pappe (as an academic with experience in the field) wouldn't be reliable for those two sentences. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Pappe view is one of the many it doesn't belong in current form in the WP:LEAD.Much like opinion of Karsh or Morris.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is so, then you're right, but we need sources to establish that. If there are no sources that say Pappe's view isn't universally shared, we're probably to assume it is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you read the text of the "Basle program", which was adopted by the first Zionist Congress in 1897, number one on the list of things to do is promote Jewish colonization of Palestine, so I would be very surprised if you could find a historian that would say colonization of Palestine was not a primary concern of the movement at that time. Dlv999 (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Citing that source in the lead in addition to (or even instead of) Pappe could be a good idea. --Dailycare (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Googling around, the word that has been translated (from that Congress resolution) as colonization is besiedlung – which seems to have rather a less precise focus than that, meaning e.g. "inhabit", "populate" and "settle" as well as "colonize"; it doesn't appear to have the same meaning "colonize" (with all its negative resonances) has in modern times. Many of the translations seem to pick "settle". See here for the evidence. Alexbrn (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I think concerns over the word colonization are probably inappropriate and serve no purpose. It was colonization and sources naturally refer to it that way. The New Jewish Encyclopedia uses it in their entry on Zionism.(p. 536). Settle/colonize, makes no difference to me, but I am concerned when words that are used without any problems by quality sources are altered in Wikipedia based on transformation rules that are opaque/subjective and absent from the sources themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There are already statement about colonization in the lead I don't think we need further emphasis on that.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no statement about colonization in the lead. There is a reference to colonialism. Not the same thing. Colonization is a description of what happened. It is a neutral fact. The view that it was colonialist or colonialism is an opinion about the objectives and nature of the colonization. Colonization is like saying a company carried out exploration in country X. Colonialist/colonialism is like saying that the exploration amounted to exploitation of country X. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the uncontroversial details with extra sourcing. No one has produced any sources that contradict the statement that Zionism emerged in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 19th Century and that early on in the movement Jewish colonization of Palestine became a primary goal of the movement. These are basic (sourced) facts about the topic, that should be in the lead, if any editor wants to dispute any of the details please provide RS to support your position. Dlv999 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to say that in the lead I think the word order is wrong at the very end "and alleged racism and violence against Palestinians." In my view it should be "violence against Palestinians and alleged racism." The reason is that violence against Palestinians is a fact and is not alleged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

History

The first two paragraphs of this section are almost entirely unsourced. The sources that are cited do not discuss or even mention the topic of this article, nor can I find any sources in the parent article relating this material to the topic of this article. Dlv999 (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Merger with History of Zionism

zionism sa movement which is fluid and changes over time. I stronly advise you to merge this article with the History fo Zionism. At present the article is not very useful.Telaviv1 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Long record of Russian Genocide

I read this sentence in the article:

"The Russian Empire, with its long record of state organized genocide and ethnic cleansing ("pogroms") was widely regarded as the historic enemy of the Jewish people."

Russian pogroms began in 1881 in retribution for the assassination of Alexander II. Prior to 1881, the relationship between Russians and Jews can fairly be said to be distant, since 95% of the Jewish population was relegated to the Pale of Settlement, with the remaining 5% (about 300,000 people) constituting an elite that was permitted to live in Russia proper.

I hope that the author might re-consider the phrasing, I would suggest stating that the Russian government engaged in segregation and denial of equal opportunity to the Jews in the Pale of Settlement, in a manner roughly equivalent to African Americans under Jim Crow. I don't think that charges of genocide, or equating the term "pogrom" with the highly charged term "ethnic cleansing" are supported by the facts of history.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.127.28 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Correcting opinions in Wikipedia's voice

I removed the last part (italics) of this sentence yesterday: "Some criticisms of Zionism specifically identify Judaism's notion of the "chosen people" as the source of racism in Zionism,[99] despite that being a religious concept unrelated to Zionism" - partly because it at that time was unsourced, but mainly because I saw it as polemic: Correcting an opinion in Wikipedia's voice. It's now been reinserted with source. I think it should be rewritten if not removed, maybe also writing "claim" instead of identify in the first part of the sentence. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it for now since zionism-israel.com doesn't qualify as an RS (and changed identify to claim). I assume the content can probably be replaced with a WP:V-compliant source but it has to avoid WP:SYNTH i.e. the source needs to make this "religious concept unrelated to Zionism" point to refute/challenge the claims. It can't be a Wikipedia editor combining multiple sources to refute/challenge the claims. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I just changed the source. It's from a book, and it refutes very clearly the claim that religious concept of "God's chosen people" is related to Zionism.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't think it's right to correct arguments/opinions etc. in Wikipedia's voice. The correction should be attributed to someone (individuals, "most scholars" or similar). Even if a professor claimed the globe was square, I don't think it would be correct Wikipedia style to write a sentence saying "Professor Wright claims the globe is square, allthough it is round." Iselilja (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay and avoids synth. I think Iselilja is right about the narrative voice and attribution. Also, don't forget, this article is covered by WP:1RR and your edit is a technical violation, not that I care because your edit was constructive, but someone might. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Iranit Greenburg's edit is inconsistent with WP:NPOV. We have several academic sources that say one thing that is attributed "Some criticisms of Zionism claim", then we have another source introduced by IG that contradicts the first set of sources, but instead of being attributed it is used for facts in the wikipedia voice. SH, you may say this edit is "constructive", but if you have an editor in the topic area who consistently ignores the 1rr rules and also ignores core policies of the encyclopedia then that is a big problem, because editors who do follow policy will not be able to fix the problems created by the editor as they are constrained by the 1rr regulations. Dlv999 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Div999 is correct about the edit. An opinion attributed to one source can't be refuted in Wikipedia's voice but only in the voice of another source. I'm not too sure that the source is reliable either. The quoted words "the biblical concept of 'Chosen People' is part of Judaism; Zionism has nothing to do with it" are actually bizarre; scores of Zionist theorists will be very surprised to learn that Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism. Zero^talk 09:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

@Dlv999, I don't disagree with anything you have said there but my remarks were deliberately limited in scope to this article with respect to IranitGreenberg's editing and I think the NPOV issues can easily be resolved here. What's more important I think is for IranitGreenberg to curb their enthusiasm a bit, be able to see the NPOV violation, understand the role of attribution and when not to use Wikipedia's neutral unattributed narrative voice. I could say a lot more about their editing in general in the topic area, which appears rather aggressive and inconsistent with WP:NOTADVOCATE, but it seems to take time for some people to learn that Wikipedia policy is more important here than their personal beliefs as you know. They haven't been editing for very long. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes in the lead and elsewhere

I made the changes for the following reasons: These are perceptions or opinions, not indisputable facts (just like 'what they see as an abandoned homeland'): Israel is not an Apartheid country and many Arab refugees in 1948 fled, weren't expelled. So these things are views or opinions. On the other hand, I restored relevant historic episodes in the "History" section (1920, 1921, 1929 riots were very important) and restored criticism of anti-Zionism in the proper place per NPOV, since anti-Zionist views are included in the lead, despite they belong to the "criticism" or "anti-Zionism" sections or articles... although perhaps the entire anti-Zionist/pro-Zionist views should be removed from the lead, they are already in the proper section and in other articles, but removing only one of them is flagrant POV.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a forum, per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Israel is not an Apartheid country". POV, I feel! Hendrik Verwoerd, the initiator of apartheid, is said to have agreed that Israel was an apartheid state.Arrivisto (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) No, it's the only democracy in the region. The antisemitic Afrikaner racist said that in 1961, precisely in retaliation for an Israeli vote against South African apartheid at the United Nations. Being insulted by Verwoerd should be a compliment for Israel, nothing more.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The pre-Mandela apartheid South Africa was also a democracy, albeit one where only whites could vote. Israel is a democracy whose similarly skewed suffrage denies residency (let alone a vote) to displaced Palestinians, while granting both benefits to any non-Israeli who can call himself a Jew. Arabs are not integrated into Israeli society, but are marginalised into "Bantustans" within Israel's borders. Meanwhile Israel continues (in the face of universal global criticism) to build illegal settlements in the West Bank. Not so different from apartheid! Arrivisto (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 1) Jews building homes in their native homeland cannot possibly be illegal, despite what anti-Semitic UN says. 2) Whites were colonist foreigners in South Africa, but Jews are the natives in Israel. The colonist foreigners are the illegal settlers from Arabia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girtbauds (talk • contribs) 06:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Arrivisto claims he teaches "Maritime Law at an English university." He is lucky he is anonymous because such blatantly racist lies could get him fired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girtbauds (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph regarding the 1975 UN Resolution needs details

The UN resolution that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination was not supported by a single _civilized_ country (and I emphasize that word with all of the colonialist implications you can think of), and it should be noted that in the _civilized_ countries, there was widespread condemnation of the resolution, and moreover, that US support for the United Nations began to erode because the UN gave up its (already dodgy) moral authority. The resolution was passed by the arab states and the Soviet-aligned countries. As it is now, the resolution sits unanswered as though any nations that actually _matter_ voted in favor of it. And yes, I am shouting from the hilltops that the opinions of nazi-inspired autocracies and the warlord-led kleptocracies of africa are of no consequence and should have been expelled from the United Nations since their inclusion simply takes away any kind of moral authority that an international body can have. 174.44.174.192 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism meme inserted into the lead

I would argue that this is undue and not suitable for inclusion in the lead. If it remains in the lead I will insist that counter arguments to the claim are also included per RS. For instance notable liberal Zionist Peter Beinhart quotes Foxman: "most of the current attacks on Israel and Zionism are not, at bottom, about policies and conduct of a particular nation-state. They are about Jews... When other countries and people pursue policies that are similar (or far worse than) those of Israel, do the critics condemn them? If so, do they condemn them with the same fervor as they condemn Israel? If not, it's hard to deny that anti-Antisemitism explains the discrepancy."

To which Beinhart responds: In their effort to inoculate Israeli policy from criticisms, American Jewish organizations have stretched anti-Antisemitism's definition to the point of absurdity. And many in the organized Jewish world know it. "on a Daily basis", notes Jodi Ochstein, who worked in the ADL's Washington office from 2006 to 2010, "people thought it [the charge of anti-Antisemitism] was over the top. It would be one of those eye -rolling days; you were embarrassed to be working there on those days." But rarely does embarrassment translate into empathy for the people unfairly charged with one of the most damning epithets in contemporary America. (Beinhart 2012 pp55-58 [4]).

It is wp:undue in the lead.

This article concerns Zionism. So we can give the mind of pro-Zionists and anti-Zionists but not in more some particular critics against anti-Zionist. That would be a basic case of unaccepable pov-pushing given it discredits these critics (true or not).

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this is alos WP:UNDUE : "Defenders of Zionism say it is a national movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland.[5][6][7] Critics of Zionism say it is a colonialist[8] or racist[9] ideology. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied and include the confiscation of land from indigenous Palestinians and their ensuing expulsions, racism and violence against Palestinians, and a refutation of the Zionist claim of a Jewish scriptural entitlement to the Holy Land.[10][11][12]"

Zionism is an historical movement. No need to talk about current controversies that are more linked to the current I-P conflict than to the debate at the time even if there were already opposition at the time. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your version gives anti-Zionist opinions much more prominence over pro-Zionist views. Let me give you an example: anti-Zionist words and accusations have 349 characters against 160 characters of pro-Zionist opinions. It's clear POV and undue weight. However, I do believe the entire paragraph should be removed, since the lead must be only a descriptive text, while the negative criticism belongs to "anti-Zionism" section (in addition to an entire article about it).

Pro-Zionist views:

Defenders of Zionism say it is a national movement for the repatriation of a dispersed socio-religious group to what they see as an abandoned homeland.[5][6][7]

Anti-Zionist views:

Critics of Zionism say it is a colonialist[8] or racist[9] ideology. Reasons for opposing Zionism are varied and include the confiscation of land from indigenous Palestinians and their ensuing expulsions, racism and violence against Palestinians, and a refutation of the Zionist claim of a Jewish scriptural entitlement to the Holy Land.[10][11][12]

I just wrote a more balanced text. But if you want to remove the entire paragraph, I have no problem with it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the current version (after new revisions) is fine. It's one line about the position of zionist defenders and an about equally long sentence about criticims, and I think those two sentences adequately summarize the main positions. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that when counting characters (if that's seen as useful) should include characters in the first lead paragraph that portray Zionism in a rather positive light. Or, should we lace that too with "balancing" refutations? --Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The first lead paragraph is an historical description (information), not a subjective point of view or opinion.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph is a part of the lead in the same way as the second paragraph is, and the same principles apply to it as do to the second paragraph. --Dailycare (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with IranitGreenberg. The edits made by Pluto violated 1rr on 12/05/2013 so I asked him for immediate self revert.--Tritomex (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I really wonder which ones ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]--Tritomex (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the lead should be a little more balanced and NPOV by saying Critics of Zionism see it as a colonialist[8] or racist[9] ideology that led to what they see as a denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the indigenous population of Palestine.[10][11][12][13]. After all, I don't think Zionism is responsible for such things (the cause of the conflict and refugees is Arab refusal to accept the Jewish state's right to exist), but I also believe anti-Zionism is a valid opinion that should be reflected as long as we clarify it's a subjective point of view, not indisputable facts, just like “what they see as an abandoned homeland”.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV means accurately reflecting reliable sources. It is not about opinions of editors. Telling us your opinions on the topic bears no relation to the article. Dlv999 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are reliable to reflect anti-Zionist opinions (Ilan Pappe, Edward Said, Abdul Wahhab Kayyali, etc), not indisputable facts. Per NPOV we should use the same language for both points of view.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually I checked the sources for the "abandoned homeland" claim and none of them support it (cite not 6 for example has a whole section discussing the interaction between the Jewish colonists and the indigenous population of Palestine). This kind of claim is Joan Peters territory. I suggest deleting the "abandoned homeland" claim altogether as unsourced. The second sentence should remain as is: the views are already attributed to "critics of Zionism" so your suggestion is unnecessary. The "abandoned homeland" idea is more of a historical concept that was used by some to promote Zionism, but I doubt you would find any serious modern scholarship supporting the notion, though you are welcome to look for yourself. Dlv999 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Eretz Israel was the Jewish birthplace since Biblical times (where were the Palestinian Arab colonists then? perhaps in the Arabian peninsula), but if you want a specific source to claim that Jews around world consider Eretz Israel their ancient national homeland (before and after Herzl), I can give you this one as an example. The alleged "denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the indigenous population" are not facts (denial of rights?? dispossession? most of 1948 refugees weren't "expelled" by Israeli soldiers)... "what they see as" is completely necessary. Per NPOV we use the same language for both opinions or we don't use it at all.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg, wikipedia is not a forum but an encyclopaedia.

We are not here to discuss politics. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrite--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please cite a page reference for the "abandoned homeland" claim. Dlv999 (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Here. I'm going to include "what the see as" in the anti-Zionist point of view.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is not a WP:RS source for this topic that was widely covered by historians.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a serious reference, published by a serious newspaper, and it meets all the requirements of WP:RS. You do not get to ignore anything you dislike. I brought a source, and I'm entitled to use it in the article.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't support the claim. Dlv999 (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

But I'm going to add "what they see" as soon as I can, per NPOV. See also Israelites. Jewish connection to this land dates back from thousands of years.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there are two separate points here. The idea of a Jewish connection to Palestine in Zionist thought - which of course i would not dispute that this is an important idea in Zionist political ideology. Second is the notion of an "abandoned homeland" - that there was no-one in Palestine prior to Zionist colonization. The second idea was historically used by some who supported Zionism, but I don't think it would be a claim made today in RS. Your source would support the first idea being a part of Zionist thought but not the "abandoned homeland" claim. Regarding your stated intention to edit war content into the article ASAP, rather than seeking to find consensus - I would advise against it. Dlv999 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea of "Zionist colonization" of Palestine Is dangerously one sided view in complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict held by small group of extremist and equals the idea that Palestine was empty in the begging of 19th century. While the first idea is based o fact that the population of what would be determined by Brits to become Mandatory Palestine a century letter had only about 200 000 inhabitants in 1800 of numerous ethnicity or just 2% of today population, it neglects the fact that Palestine was not empty. The second idea is based on fact that most of Israelis today are descendants of immigrants from Middle Eastern and European countries. This is one sided presentation neglects that Palestine is historically the birth place of Hebrew language and the Jewish people-something which has been recognized by almost all non Arab countries. In this context I do not see IranitGreenberg edits as "edit war" but as a constructive balancing of article. Both views should be left out (better proposition) or presented by WP:NPOV with criticism as they are not opinions supported by the mainstream uninvolved to this conflict.--Tritomex (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Zionist colonization of Palestine is uncontroversial in the literature. See e.g. cite note 6, which is being used as a reference for the opinion of defenders of zionism. Or look at the "Basel program" ratified at the first Zionist congress. One of the primary concerns was "The promotion, on suitable lines, of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers"(cite note 3). Or cite note 2, Referring to the 6th Zionist congress: "Palestine was affirmed as the 'old new land' of Zionist colonization". It's kind of tedious to have to go through this with you as it has been discussed before. I would ask you to stop making claims that are not supported by sources and also to read the sources in the article, which will allow you to make a useful contribution to the page. Dlv999 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear and avoid confusion: Colonization occurs whenever any one or more species populate an area. Colonization refers strictly to migration. Certainly Zionism promoted colonization of Palestine by Jewish immigrants to create an independent Jewish state in a former Ottoman colony. Colonialism, on the other hand, is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another home territory. A clear example of modern colonialism are European domains in Africa. Jewish immigrants didn't seek to use Palestine as a colony from which to extract raw material on behalf of Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Yemen or any other country/empire where they were persecuted. Anti-Zionists say Zionism is a "colonialist" movement (not a "movement promoting colonization in Palestine", which is not the same). Therefore, is a (false) opinion, not a fact, and should be presented that way.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay so, leaving aside your soapboxing, I think there is some agreement here on the content issues. Zionist colonization of Palestine is an uncontroversial fact and should be expressed as such per WP:NPOV - it used to be in the lead but seems to have been removed somewhere along the line an should be re-added as it is described as one of the primary goals and activities of Zionism. That Zionism is a colonialist ideology is a significant opinion, and should be included as a significant opinion per WP:NPOV. The current article says "Critics of Zionism see it as a colonialist[8]...." As it stands this is consistent with policy and the sources, so no need for any amendment. Dlv999 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The alleged responsibility of Zionism for "denial of rights, dispossession and expulsion of the indigenous population of Palestine" (instead of Arab hostility and brutal attacks since 1920 or a war to exterminate the Jewish state in 1947/48 that led to Arab exodus) is also an opinion and should be presented as such. "What they see as" must be added, per NPOV we can't accept that the article says "what they see as" an abandoned homeland in the case of defenders of Zionism, but not "what they see as" in the case of several accusations by anti-Zionists. Add both or remove both. It's very simple. On the other hand, I prefer to write, in any case, "Zionism promoted Aliyah or Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel", because "colonization" is a term that might be misunderstood or confusing (despite being different from "colonialism").--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The "abandoned homeland" claim is not supported by the current sources and no-one has so far produced a sourcce that would support it. So unless a source is produced to support it that should simply be removed. Regarding your second point. Wikipedia is not written based on the personal preference of individual editors it is based on WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and wikipedia policy. Colonization is the term used by the Zionists themselves as well as scholarly sources including those supportive of Zionism (as documented in my previous post to you). It is not particularly persuasive you telling me your personal preference after I have cited to you Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say. Dlv999 (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The early Zionists were in fact upset that the land was already inhabited and not "empty" at all. This web page describes some sources on this - I'm not suggesting we use this page as a source in the article, but the information there is indicative of how things lie in this aspect. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Terms such as "colonization" and "occupation" in this instance are justified as this is how the Anti-Zionist opposition view their opponents, and so their views, while not necessarily fact like the Zionists, are as valid as the Zionist opinion (once again, not necessarily fact) that anti-Zionists are out to "destroy" Israel, or that Arabs were initially motivated by "anti-Semitism", both of these subject to debate.

As far as "Abandoned Homeland", I don't think any of the original Zionists would agree with such a view: in fact, that would be contradictory to Zionist policy, as wouldn't that just embolden Palestinian claims that they even had a homeland located where contemporary Palestine was to "abandon" in the first place?

Solntsa90 (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that Zionism would be a colonial ideology is also subject to debate and is not a fact among scholars. I don't have the reference under hand but I could find them if you are not convinced.

Some scholars point out that in other forms of colonialism :

• there is no historical link with the land that is colonalized ;
• local population is not expected to be rejected but it is used and exploited ;
• regarding West Bank's situation today, they point out that the "metropol" is usually far away from the "colonized" land.
• there is no legitimaty in colonialism whereas there is some in zionsim.

Of course these arguments can be debated too but it is not a "fact" that zionism would be a colonialist ideology.

Pluto2012 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

First, regarding "what they see as" in the case of anti-Zionist accusations, I don't see objections, so I'll add it. About the "abandoned homeland", I understand the problem (Jews were expelled by the Romans, but in any case it's a controversial topic among scholars and historians), so I propose to replace it with the words "ancient homeland" based on this source by the Central Conference of American Rabbis: "The restoration of Am Yisrael to its ancestral homeland after nearly two thousand years of statelessness and powerlessness represents an historic triumph of the Jewish people, providing a physical refuge, the possibility of religious and cultural renewal on its own soil, and the realization of God's promise to Abraham: "to your offspring I assign this land" . From that distant moment until today, the intense love between Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael has not subsided.". Just to make it clear, "Am Yisrael" is "People of Israel" in Hebrew (it refers to Jews around world).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Central Conference of American Rabbis, as well as Talmud and Torah, are not reliable sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To describe pro-Zionist points of view? Yes, there are. More than Walid Salem or Nur Masalha (?) to express anti-Zionist opinions. In any case, I could easily find other reliable sources (not only pro-Zionist) explaining the Land of Israel is an ancient homeland of the Jewish people: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Are these enough for you? Or the Encyclopædia Britannica is another "unreliable fake"?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Except Britannica and Nur Masalha (I don't know Walid Salem) there is no reliable source among the links that you give.

Britannica is poor source because it is a tertiary source that doesn't provide her own sources and if possible better should be found.

The link between The Land of Israel and the Jewish People is reported in numerous books. For this article, I suggest Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism.

Pluto2012 (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm gonna add your book too, but the rest of the sources are reliable. You didn't explain why they are not. They describe very well the Zionist point of view. You can't ignore anything you dislike by simply saying "they are not RS". I brought several serious sources, and I'm entitled to use them in the article.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

My book ? I meant that you should read this first.

Websites are not sources of enough quality for this article. Read WP:RS.

We don't google to find arguments to legitimate Israel and discreditate her opponents. We develop an encyclopaedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

To illustrate pro-Zionist points of view regarding an "ancient homeland", these sources are more than enough. This article is full of websites used as references. It is not possible that all of them aren't RS. Please explain me why these references are not reliable to express the Zionist point of view:[14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained this to you just before your answer. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

What makes Nkusa org (Neturei Karta) reliable and Central Conference of American Rabbis unreliable source? --Tritomex (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nkusa.org is not wp:rs source except to report Naturei Karta point of view when this can be considered as notorious, which should not the case in the article Zionism.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish virtual library, ADL and Encyclopedia Britannica are reliable sources. Tertiary sources are not disqualified from WP.Zionism-israel is reliable only to the claims related to Zionist views.--Tritomex (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Saying the JVL is an RS is overstating it and it's inconsistent with many discussions at the RS noticeboard. It's like saying the internet is a reliable source. By default JVL is not an RS. A particular piece of content in JVL might qualify as an RS but it needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland I hope you're aware of the fact that you just commented on an irrelevant discussion from almost a year ago, and that what you said is not even true - the Jewish Virtual Library by AICE would be considered a reliable source in most cases. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Sean is right.

JVL is not a wp:rs by default but could be in some cases (even if I don't have any in mind).

The case is even worse fro AICE.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can read date stamps. I commented because the statement is inaccurate, as is yours. My statement is consistent with the discussions that have taken place at the RS noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Is Zionism compatible with democracy? >> Arab League rejects Israel as Jewish state>> Recognising the Jewish state(Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)).

Okay, and? -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Zionism is not Nationalism

The lead sentence of this article says that Zionism is a form of nationalism. However, not all forms of Zionism are based upon or are rooted in Nationalism. Therefore, Zionism is not (exclusively) a form of Nationalism. Therefore, Zionism doesn't equal Nationalism. Seeing no disagreement from you self-indifferent such and such's, I will correct the lead of this article. Thanks folks. -Teetotaler 11 November, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.129.34 (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The claim is supported by a citation, so it stays. — Richard BB 14:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a good reference from a Columbia U PhD. But one credible reference to the contrary should suffice. -Teetotaler 11 Novmeber, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just for starters but may not be a reliable source, discussion of the origins of "anarcho-zionism". http://www.anti-semitism.net/zionism/anarcho-zionism-turn-left.php Teetotaler 11 November, 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I don't understand how this article was put together. How is nationalism respected so much in this article? Any other nation that uses such premises to move their nationalist agenda moved forward gets labelled right away, and gets attacked to xenophobia. This article, and I am assuming because it's directly associated to jews, embellishes nationalism as a means of survival, I guess this is the only case where nationalism is acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.24.223 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian Zionism

Too much has been made of the dispensational foundation of pro-Zionist Christians. I have added one ref who claims this strongly, but also added some evidence which counterbalanaces the thesis. Strong support antedated Darby, and still follows it in non-dispensational as well as well dispensationalist circles. Spurgeon for example said of dispensationalism, 'It is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed one at a time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement'.Cpsoper (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)