Talk:Zionism/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

issues for potential RFC

It was mentioned in the above sections (language in the lead consensus, NPOV balance issues in lead, best sources list, and how some sources describe Zionism, now archived to Zionism/Archive_25 Zionism/Archive_26 Zionism/Archive_27 I think, see [1]) that several editors do feel there is a balance issue with several sentences in the lead. Here are a few of my ideas for the potential multi-part RFC which should be modeled after the one at Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024 which I'd say is an exemplary discussion on a very contentious topic, i.e. a series of constructive propositions or resolutions, with binary support or oppose for each. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but in some cases would result in a change that would make another one weaker or unnecessary.

1. Include "colonization" in the lead? Line 1
2. Include "colonization" in the lead? Paragraph 2 (mutually exclusive with #1)
3. Include "settler-colonialism" in the lead?
4. Include "exceptionalism" in the lead?
5. Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "Jewish majority"?
6. Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "largest Jewish majority possible" (mutually exclusive with #5)?
7. Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing a view toward violence?
8. Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing territorial displacement?
9. Include "homeland" in the lead?
10. Include "national home" in the lead?
11. Include "self-determination"?
12. Include "democratic" in the lead?
13. Include "pluralistic" in the lead?

Andre🚐 20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

As has been commented previously, this is slightly backwards, the lead should follow the body and we should be asking the question, "Does it?" and where necessary, fixing it up with good sources. Maybe we should start with the colonialism sections of the article given that there has been some recent editing on that per below section. Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The problems exist in the lead right now, so this is where I think an RFC might be useful. As discussed by others, the lead is often the only part that people read of the article anyway. an RFC doesn't have to happen if we are having productive discussion, but you mentioned earlier you were waiting for an RFC, and progress seemed to have stalled out. An RFC for the lead wouldn't preclude progress in the body. Anyway, I appreciate any substantive critique or discussion of the 13 points above that I see as worthy of discussion, but feel free to propose different ones. Andre🚐 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In that case, pass. Selfstudier (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan, in your 13 item list, you left out adverbs, conjunctions, commas, and dozens of other substantives. No person in his right mind could regard a proposal of this kind to be anything other than a recipé for wasting years of time on a talk page that has been, so far, consistently inconclusive on just one or two of those terms. It is a recipé for editorial stagnation, with zero value.Nishidani (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, Selfstudier, that's fine, and it's your prerogative, but you also indicated you were waiting for an RFC before. What did you think the RFC was going to be about if not the wording of the lead section? I mean I suppose we could have just a general RFC about whether the article itself is NPOV before even proceeding to any substance, but that would take 30 or 60 days to produce a NOCON probably. Whereas we could have a bunch of substantive constructive questions all at once and then after 30 or 60 days either make changes to the lead or have some consensus that it's fine as-is. Obviously if I'm the only one who feels that way it's a waste of time, but we had several users such as Bob, and I forgot who else, opining on the archived pages. They may not be active at this very moment so it should provide plenty of time for discussion or to refocus the discussion, though I'd say for users who are happy with the current page, I'd say that's a blind spot to the issues that others have also agreed are present, particularly in the lead. Andre🚐 22:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

In the section where I said I was waiting for an RFC it was either about Line 1 which everybody seemed to give up on, I know not why, or it was about colonization, which was what the convo had turned into by the time I commented. In other words it was yet another circuitous undirected affair. I don't mind if you want to have an RFC like the one described, when I said pass, I just meant don't expect me to buy into it.

You can have more than one RFC, you know that, and the RFC doesn't have to be about "the lead", it could just be about a sentence, say, and ask the question should (sentence) be in the lead, that's just an example. At any rate, if we go down the RFC route, I think it needs a more focused approach. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

13 is way too many, I don't think all of these are even live issues, and I don't really agree with even the entire idea of asking "should <word or phrase> be in the lead?" for a series of words and phrases. I think a more productive approach would be for editors who want to change something (and who get reverted after boldly making the change) to put forward their case, with sources, quotes, etc., as to why the change should be made, and to limit the number of simultaneous changes that need to be discussed. For example, this week, we added "criticized," "democratic," and "pluralistic", each of which apparently need a discussion... I don't know about everyone else, but I absolutely cannot keep up with this volume of discussion. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It was 13 points but not 13 discussions. Maybe clearer if I group it into 4 or 5 groups each having several sub-options. Andre🚐 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, agree. Bitspectator ⛩️ 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the sentence about as much land as possible and as few Palestinians as possible is so badly done with cherry picked quotes out of context and biased sources presented as fact that a RFC should be If it should be removed from the article entirety.

Bob drobbs (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that sentence should be rephrased or removed. I think a phrasing about the "Jewish majority" wanted by Zionists is how better sources frame it. That's why I included that as an option for an RFC proposal. Everyone said my proposal was too long, but if we condense it down or somehow make it shorter and simpler maybe we can start there. Andre🚐 22:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Scope

Since the preceding section has once again been derailed, let's get back on track, what is the WP:SCOPE of this article?

Currently:

Zionism[a] is an ethno-cultural nationalist[1][fn 1] movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe.[4][5][6] With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine,[7][8] a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism,[9][10] and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[11] Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.[12][7][13]

Andrevan suggestion:

Zionism is the nationalist movement that emerged in its modern form during the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish state in the historical region of Palestine, known as the Holy Land or the biblical Eretz Yisrael. This took for the form of small agricultural colonies and land purchases prior to the Ottoman Empire giving way to British administration and partition which formally drew lines for the Jews and Arabs of Mandate Palestine. Zionism arose in response to growing anti-Semitism in Europe, and the failure of Jewish emancipation efforts. Formulated into political Zionism by such figures as Herzl, Pinsker, the movement's core ideology centered on the "negation of the diaspora" and the belief that Jews needed a sovereign state with a Hebrew national culture. Early Zionists such as Ahad Ha'am drew on historical and religious ties in the revival of Hebrew and historical Jewish traditions of aliyah to create a new secular modern identity. With the support of Western powers, the movement ultimately succeeded in establishing the State of Israel in 1948. Today, Zionism remains a complex and controversial ideology, with supporters viewing it as a national liberation movement for self-determination and opponents criticizing it as a form of ethnonationalism.

Selfstudier version (response to Andrevan):

Zionism is a complex and controversial ideology, with supporters viewing it as a national liberation movement for self-determination (this is was?) and opponents criticizing it as a form of ethnonationalism pursuing colonial settlement and expropriation. It emerged during the late 19th century in response to growing antisemitism in Europe, and the failure of Jewish emancipation efforts (?), with the goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Supported by Western powers, the movement succeeded in establishing the State of Israel in 1948. Since then...?

Anyone may feel free to insert their versions of what they think Zionism is...

Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly against the first sentence being of the form "supporters think __ critics think __". Zionism is not a mystery, we can define it in explicit terms. In any case, I'll repeat what I said above which is that the mainstream zionist narrative is that zionism is ethnic nationalism (they sometimes also throw in "cultural").

"critics" of zionism describe it similar to masalha:

Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general.

with key emphasis on "racist" and "fascist" and Israel's role as a regional and global actor. DMH223344 (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Each person proposing their own version seems like the wrong way to do this. Let the two editors who think the lead is not balanced propose specific suggestions with specific justifications and we can discuss them individually. DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

One sentence at a time. We will never agree in this way. DMH223344 (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, we are not agreeing any other way either so might as well give it a go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

My take was that it's because the complaining editors have jumped directly to proposing their own versions and assumed we agree a full rewrite is necessary. I don't think a full rewrite is necessary. It's so much simpler to just discuss one sentence at a time. That's how we were able to reach a consensus on the use of "colonization" and the sentence: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible"

Andre and bit are taking us back to square one, as nish pointed out above, framing zionism from a purely zionist perspective. The motivation being the vague claim that we focus too much on "critical" aspects. Andre was specific about what he considered missing from the lead, but most of it was actually already there. But somehow he is arguing that now all those aspects need to be present in the first paragraph, not just in the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I said I don't think a rewrite is necessary. I really don't think I'm framing Zionism from a purely Zionist perspective. Is that what you read from my version? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please stay away from assuming other editors' motivations and just focus on the edits themselves. You may privately think another editor's motivation is to present the topic from a particular point of view, and that's fine, you're welcome to think it privately. :D It really isn't productive to say it. You can say the edit presents the topic from a particular point of view. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion below is only about the first sentence, actually the first part of the first sentence, what's your take on that? Selfstudier (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Have we identified any specific issues with the first sentence, other than the use of jargon? The initial discussion was about NPOV, but i dont think that has been mentioned for the first sentence specifically. DMH223344 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think those who disagree have indeed argued that the first sentence and first paragraph are not NPOV due to DUE, WEIGHT, IMPARTIAL, BALASP. I'm not claiming my version is perfect or even good, but there are issues with the current one, and I don't want to keep repeating it; the only reason why I'm saying it now is because for some reason editors insist on saying that those that disagree haven't raised issues when they have been raised; it's uncharitable. Andre🚐 21:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to talk about the first sentence, let's do that. Let's stay focused on that then. What is missing from the first sentence, or what is included in the first sentence that you disagree with? DMH223344 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence should be a basic, uncontroversial description that pro- and anti-Zionists would agree on. It should mention the most salient aspects of the BESTSOURCES' description. Then sentences 2 and 3 can contrast the ranges of views. For example, formlated in Stanislawski. Zionism—the nationalist movement calling for the establishment and support of an independent state for the Jewish people in its ancient homeland—is today one of the most controversial ideologies in the world. Its supporters see it as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people that came to fruition in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Its opponents regard it as one of the last forms of colonial oppression in the world, defined by Israel’s occupation of the West Bank in the name of a racist ideology increasingly turning Israel into an apartheid state. As it is right now we have an anti-Zionist view as the definition. Andre🚐 21:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

What is exclusively an antizionist perspective about the first sentence as it is?

Looking at just your first sentence here, you've swapped out a concrete definition of what zionism is about (answering where, when and how) with a less informative one which uses explicitly zionist terminology without qualification ("ancient homeland"). Also, emphasizing the "controversial" aspect misses that there is wide agreement on what Zionism is in a scholarly context. See my additions to the Beliefs section which where written mostly using Zionist or non-Zionist sources: Avineri, Shimoni, Shapira, Penslar. Antizionists frequently agree on the basics: Finkelstein, Masalha, Rabkin. I'm happy to go through that exercise with you to confirm that. DMH223344 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"Ancient homeland" is verbatim from Black, Stanislawski, and Laqueur, with other variations in others, such as the discussion in Engel. We did not include Avineri, Shimoni, Finkelstein, or Rabkin in the list of BESTSOURCES, though I agree they are very good sources, it's contrary to the purpose of the exercise and distorting. Almost every source does say Zionism is controversial, too. Can you make a draft, using the agreed-upon list of bestsources, describing what you think are the salient points for sentence 1 or para1? The current one doesn't match and that is the nature of weight issue. Andre🚐 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Steven1991 (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Am I one of those two? I was responding to the source survey where there seems to be more weight on anti-Semitism, the concept of the Jewish diaspora, language, and culture than we currently have. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitspectator deluxe version: Zionism is an ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a specific land. Zionism developed in the context of anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been persistent since the formation of the Jewish diaspora. Zionism was seen as an alternative to failing efforts to achieve Jewish emancipation across Europe. With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. Early Zionists drew on these historical and religious ties in order to create a new secular identity, carrying out a revival of Hebrew and adopting it as an official language. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

'anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been persistent since the formation of the Jewish diaspora.' Sigh. Patience. The Jewish diaspora began well over 2,000 years ago, before 'Europe' in anything other than a geographical entity existed. And you would have an extremely hard task finding evidence of 'anti-semitism' as we understand it in Europe for the Ist millennium (as opposed to anti-Judaism). Apart from quietly reading some books on Zionism specifically, perhaps you might profit from browsing Simon Schama's 2 volume (so far) The Story of the Jews to get some basic perspective and background.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Your opposition to "anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been persistent since the formation of the Jewish diaspora" is:

1) The Jewish diaspora began over 2000 years ago.

Okay. And?

2) Europe only existed as a geographic entity.

Okay? It's being used as a geographic term.

3) Anti-Semitism for most of that time could not be distinguished from anti-Judaism.

Okay? The term doesn't only refer to racial anti-Semitism.

Is your position that there should be no reference to anti-Semitism in the opening paragraph, or that only my specific wording is wrong? Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The sentence was uninformed by any precise knowledge of the topic,-be it Zionism, Jewish history or the history of antisemitism and therefore replying to what I take to be tongue-in-cheeky comebacks is pointless. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"You are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about". That's your position? Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Bitspectator. Andre🚐 21:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Several of the sources on our list (and others that aren't) specifically dispute that Zionism arose in response to, or primarily in response to, a rise in antisemitism in Europe, characterizing that as a Zionist myth. I don't think we should say that in the lead, or at least we need to be more careful about how we say it. Levivich (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I had changed the wording to "developed in the context of anti-Semitism in Europe" to try and avoid that point while still making a connection to anti-Semitism. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, please? Because almost all of the BESTSOURCES I saw said antisemitism right there in the first or 2nd sentence. Andre🚐 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Stanislawski 2017, pp. 9-10:

But here one must be very precise about chronology: the all-too-frequent claim that modern Jewish nationalism was born in response to anti-Semitism or to the outbreak of violent attacks (“pogroms”) against the Jews which began in the Russian Empire in 1881–82 is quite simply wrong: the first expressions of this new ideology were published well before the spread of the new anti-Semitic ideology and before the pogroms of the early 1880s. This is not to deny that the pogroms and the spread of anti-Semitic ideology convinced many Jews of the veracity of the modern nationalist, including the Zionist, solutions to the “Jewish problem.” But once more, it is essential to understand that the fundamental cause of the emergence of modern Jewish nationalism was the rise, on the part of Jews themselves, of new ideologies that applied the basic tenets of modern nationalism to the Jews, and not a response to persecution.

Indeed, the rise of anti-Semitism even in its most virulent forms did not lead the vast majority of Jews worldwide to abandon their belief in Judaism as a religious faith, whether in its traditional or modernist versions, or their belief that legal emancipation—and its corollary of upward economic and social mobility—would solve the problem of the Jews. Thus, even in the face of the rise of anti-Semitism, for most of its history Zionism remained a distinctly minority view in Jewish communities around the world, opposed by the vast majority of rabbinic and lay leaders. This situation changed only after the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust, when the need for an independent Jewish state to serve as a safe haven for Jews became not only widespread but central to Jewish consciousness throughout the world.

Edelheit 2000 pp. xv-xvi:

It would be wrong, therefore, to emphasize only external factors in the rise of Zionism. Although antisemitism played an important role in the origin of some nationalist schemes for the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, the external catalyst could (and in fact did) drive Jews away from Zionism and toward other ideologies that offered -- or seemed to offer -- a solution for the "Jewish Problem." ... Zionism must thus be viewed as deriving in part from an external catalyst (antisemitism) but representing developments of an inner dynamic within the Jewish people at the end of the nineteenth century.

Levivich (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed quotes, but these seem to simply temper the statement or add a bit of nuance and not refute it outright; while Stanislawski does clearly say "simply wrong" he appears to be responding to the idea that modern Jewish nationalism was not born of antisemitism, but not that antisemitism was a major factor. Also, when there is a conflict of equally reliable sources, e.g. some which do flatly make the statement that Stanislawski believes to be incorrect, such as Forriol, Wikipedia should not take sides unless there is a clear academic consensus, but portray the range of scholarly opinion. Edelheit says "antisemitism played an important role" and Stanislawski says "the pogroms and the spread of anti-Semitic ideology convinced many Jews of the veracity of the modern nationalist, including the Zionist, solutions." Applying this principle to the quotes here would yield a statement along the lines of, my phrasing, "While many scholars have described Zionism as a response to antisemitic persecution, others point out that it predated the pogroms of the 1880s, and therefore should be understood as an ideological growth of modern nationalism, to which the response to antisemitism was a factor, but Zionism is best understood as,..." and then I would go into something like this from Penslar: the belief that Jews constitute a nation that has a right and need to pursue collec-tive self-determination within historic Palestine. Like other forms of nationalism, Zionism is both an ideology—a coherent, sustained inter-pretation of experience in terms of fundamental values—and a move-ment: a set of practices designed to realize ideological goals. Andre🚐 22:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Stanislawski (who attempts to make his book a little contrarian to justify its place on the market, imho) acknowledges that a connection is made with antisemitism in many sources when he makes the point that they say this all too frequently. His version of it - a direct causal connection from antisemitism to Zionism - is a bit of a straw man, and we'd definitely want something more nuanced than that. His claim that antisemitism didn't get going until after Zionism was formulated seems to be contradicted by the best sources on antisemitism, which definitely don't start it with the Russian pogroms. I think Bitspectator's "developed in the context of antisemitism in Europe" might be the best way to address this issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Anybody besides me think that "ethno-cultural nationalist movement", while accurate, is WP:JARGON that will be completely meaningless to 99% of readers? Levivich (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

'Ethno-cultural nationalism' is pointless. Ethnonationalism covers things like the defense of 'a national culture' against minorities, immigrant or other, who are perceived as not (as they frequently are) assimilating, but as bearers of an alien culture and identity. The other reason is that the compression of three things, which are often fluid, excludes religion, as is descriptions of 'ethno-religious' statehood. But we are unfortunately slipping away from the original effort to resolve problems, as has been noted, by generating every editor's favoured version. This is getting to look like a chaotic waste of our time here.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be spawning some discussion. How would you like me to rephrase my comments? Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But isn't that what we were doing anyway? (I'm just looking back up this page, never mind all the stuff we just archived). Selfstudier (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it.

1) Ethnic nationalist 2) Ethnonationalist 3) Cultural nationalist 4) Nationalist

Which do you prefer? Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait -- do you think those are four different things, or all the same thing? If they're different, I prefer the one that's correct :-) Levivich (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think they are different but all can be used to describe Zionism. I think Zionism is "ethno-cultural nationalist". I lean against (3) because I think that is a lesser component of Zionism. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe "ethno-nationalism" because that is what critics accuse it of, namely, ethnocentrism. "ethno-cultural nationalism" is less clear though perhaps more technically accurate. Andre🚐 21:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Helpful wl, Ethnic nationalism Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We should look at the refs as well, Conforti, Gans and Medding for the current phrasing. Selfstudier (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

We have both Gans and Conforti (another 2021 by them here espousing the ethnocultural nationalism, as Gans puts it "Nonetheless, Zionism is fundamentally an ethnocultural nationalism" (which is just a variety of ethnic nationalism) so I think we do not need Medding. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better to link ethnocultural nationalist as ethnocultural nationalist. I hover over "ethnocultural" expecting to see a description for that concept (pairing of ethnicity and culture?) but instead see a description for "ethnic nationalism". Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, did that. Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, think the term is jargony and not less supported by the scholarly consensus than simply "nationalist". Nationalist encompasses the range from political nationalism (Herzl) to cultural nationalism (Ha'am) to ethnic nationalism (the Revisionists) without making any of them the defining form. Yes, a couple of scholars use terms like "ethnocultural", but most do not. All of them, however, use the word "nationalist". BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that it makes a general-audience article less readable. Certainly there are many good sources that don't use this language. Best to say 'nationalist' in the lede with discussion of flavors and details in the body. – SJ + 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bitspectator deluxe version: "...colonization of a specific land...eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine"? Are you rolling territorialism or all of Jewish nationalism under Zionism? fiveby(zero) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think territorialism is described as part of Zionism. I don't think all forms of Jewish nationalism are described as being part of Zionism. How would you phrase those lines? Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this Bitspectator's version starts good. Early Zionism didn't call for a state and it didn't only look at Palestine, but it clearly headed both directions over time.

But this sentence needs to be deleted: ""Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948"

The first source it's based on says in the preface that he hopes his book makes Zionists uncomfortable: This author hopes that the discomfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will drive them...

We have absolutely no place using this source as if it was factual and non-biased. The claims used in this sentence are also cherry picked, ignoring the when the same sources detail cases where Zionists did not seek to create a state with as few Palestinians as possible. We cannot use this source to claim that Zionists wanted as few Palestinians as possible, but while ignoring the author detailing counter-examples:

...attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times ... These and other examples demonstrate that cases of “non-expulsion” ...

The entire sentence should be struck and replaced with what the best sources say about Zionist goals. Bob drobbs (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems to be a framing from Masalha and appears in others who quote him, but doesn't represent most iterations of the ism or most descriptions of it. Not appropriate in [wiki voice] for the article overall, and out of place in the lede. – SJ + 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Some "Zionism is..." quotes

Penslar 2023, p. 1: Zionism, in turn, is the belief that Jews constitute a nation that has a right and need to pursue collective self-determination within historic Palestine. Like other forms of nationalism, Zionism is both an ideology— a coherent, sustained interpretation of experience in terms of fundamental values—and a movement: a set of practices designed to realize ideological goals. Engel 2013, "To the reader": Indeed, neutral descriptions are hard to find. To its many advocates the name suggests a genuinely democratic and progressive movement of national liberation that has given an oppressed and homeless people the freedom, security and dignity denied it for two thousand years. Its opponents, in contrast, claim that in pursuing their aims Zionists have actually created a new oppressed and homeless people. Moreover, they charge, the sources of Zionism are the same ones that bred western colonialism and racism, meaning that its ideas must be rejected by all right-thinking human beings. Halperin 2021, pp. 21-29: [p. 21] Zionism, as the term suggests, is an ideology ... [p. 28] The movement began in late-nineteenth-century Central and Eastern Europe ... [pp. 28-29] Core aspects of Zionism, including Jews’ historical experiences of discrimination and violence, engagement in minority politics within multinational empires, efforts to modernize and teach Hebrew as a national language, and affinity with but also ambivalence toward imperial powers, cannot be appreciated outside an ethnonational framework ... [p. 29] But Zionist memory also has a core feature that is not especially amenable to these comparisons: its emphasis on histories of rural agricultural settlement in a distant and, despite its symbolic importance, unfamiliar land. Stanislawski 2017, p. 1: Zionism—the nationalist movement calling for the establishment and support of an independent state for the Jewish people in its ancient homeland—is today one of the most controversial ideologies in the world. Its supporters see it as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people that came to fruition in the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Its opponents regard it as one of the last forms of colonial oppression in the world today, defined by Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and its millions of Palestinian residents in the name of a racist ideology increasingly turning Israel into an apartheid state. Alam 2009, pp. 3-4: We focus on the germ of the Zionist idea, its core ambition—clearly discernible at its launching—to create a Jewish state in the Middle East by displacing the natives ... The Zionists proposed to lead the Jews—who had been for millennia a global religious community—into Palestine and turn them into a nation with a land and state of their own. In the early years of the movement, most Jews dismissed Zionism as utopian adventurism, since the Jews lacked the basic prerequisites of a nation state. They were not a nation, as commonly understood; nor did they possess a national territory. In order to overcome these grave deficiencies, the Zionists would have to find a surrogate mother country, seize Palestine, persuade Western Jews to colonize this land, and empty Palestine of its native population.

Above are some quotes I found for "Zionism is..."-type statements, or summaries of what Zionism is or its core features are. Based on this, I think the first sentence should say (1) ideology, (2) movement, (3) nationalism, (4) late 19th c., (5) Europe, (6) Jewish state, (7) Palestine. Levivich (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it unreasonable to at least try to do the survey for 10 and not 5 sources? Don't they all at least include such a sentence? Do you want someone else, such as myself, to do the other 5? Andre🚐 23:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes that would be great, thank you. Levivich (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I also quoted more Penslar since you didn't really let him finish his thought. and the Engel quote is not from Ch1 but the foreword so here is a different Engel quote. These sources talk about the return to the biblical homeland and the messianic motivations of Zionism along with the secular haskalah.

Some Zionism is... quotes, part 2

more Penslar, p. 2-3 Until 1948 Zionism’s goal was to create a Jewish homeland in a territory with which Jewish civilization was intimately linked: the ancient Land of Israel. Zion is a biblical word that refers to a hill in Jerusalem and, by extension, to the city of Jerusalem and thence to the entirety of the ancient Land of Israel. Because it was tied to a specific territory, Zionism had a common vocabulary with other nationalisms, which were all territo-rially based. Unlike other nationalisms, however, pre-1948 Zionism’s claim on territory was aspirational, based in ancient memories and future hopes. Until well into the twentieth century, a negligible number of Jews lived in the Land of Israel. Even after the State of Israel was created, its population grew into the millions, and it became a regional military superpower, Zionism retained a sense of fragility, vulnerability, and incompleteness.These feelings account for the ongoing salience of Zionism, a word that connotes more than an idea or movement. It is a belief that Jews have a moral right and historic need for self-determination within his-toric Palestine. It is a project to gather Jews from throughout the world, to ensure that they dwell in safety, and to nurture a homeland that is in turn a source of inspiration for Jews everywhere. To the extent that Israeli Jews and Israel’s supporters abroad see this project as incomplete, Zionism still has relevance. Engel, chapter 1, "The idea of a Jewish state. Let's start with basics" (page is unmarked but I assume p.1) During the 1890s 'Zionism' began to be used as a designation for certain activities aimed at encouraging Jews from different parts of the world to settle Forriol p. 21-22 Zionism as a political movement is an ethnic and organic nationalism. One has to start from the idea contrary to what Jewish nationalism maintains, the nation is a relatively recent historical construct, not having existed since biblical times. But the rabbinic vision of their religion reinforced their ethnic consciousness. Persecution in Europe due to anti-Semitism and the longing for Zion (the belief in a homeland to which they were destined to return when their exile ended), both of which were religious in nature, facilitated the development of Zionism. This ideology emerged in the late 19th century in a context of nationalist effervescence in Europe, influenced by it, and because its promoters instrumentalised the biblical paradigm of 'the promised land - the chosen people' as a mobilising slogan for the Jewish community abroad, whose aim was to seize the entire Palestinian land or at least the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. This official ideological and political movement of the state of Israel carries three fundamental connotations: nationalism, racism and colonialism, which will determine what happens to the Palestinian people and the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Edelheit, p. 3: Whereas Zionism is, at its root, a secular nationalist movement framed as a modern revolution against elements of the Jewish past, from its inception Zionism also harked back to a two-millennia! tradition of hope for the restoration of Jewry to its ancestral homeland. Therefore, examining the Jewish understanding of concepts of land, statehood, nationalism, and national sovereignty will, therefore, provide key data for understanding Zionism's appeal and its meaning. At the outset, a few basic premises must be understood. First, the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly be- tween religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. Second, nonetheless, a strong sense of bondedness exists throughout the Jewish tradition and is expressed in terms of peoplehood or, in modern terminology, as 3 a concept of nationality (OJJ, Am). Third, that from the very beginning this sense of people- hood was identified with the Land of Israel, or (to use the traditional Jewish term) Eretz Israel. The fact that Eretz Israel was not seen as just a homeland, but also as a land of destiny, was intimately related to this sense of peoplehood and meant that Eretz Israel was always seen as central to Jewish life, in theory if not in practice. Finally, throughout the long years of exile Jews always hoped for some form of redemption and return to their ancestral homeland, with a small settlement existing almost continuously. Dieckhoff, p. 3 Zionism, however, was only a special and belated expression of a multifacted national mobilisation arising from the crisis in Jewish society in the eighteenth century. Amar-Dahl, p. 4 Zionism emerged in Europe in the middle of the nineteenth century with the defined goal of terminating the “abnormal” political situation of the Jewish diaspora, that is, statelessness of the Jews, and of creating a mode of collective life based on a national state. Arising from the emergency situation posed by an increasingly rampant racist anti-Semitism in Europe, Jewish nationalism was funneled into a movement, with the “negation of the diaspora” forming the core of its ideology and the starting point of its politics. Wagner, p. unmarked but it's a few pages into the introduction, a footnote marked 7 and quoted as the "thesis of the present volume." Zionism is a doctrine that provides the State of Israel with a firm—even dogmatic—religio-national identity justified by an appeal to God's will, to historical memory, and to mythical racial ancestry Brenner, introduction, p.4: Zionism aimed to overcome this sense of otherness by forc- ing the Jews to fit into categories valid in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Once they were universally regarded as a nation and had their own state, they would no longer be vul- nerable to assaults against their alleged uniqueness and cease to be victims of antisemitic attacks. The Zionist Joseph Heller summarized this attitude when he wrote shortly before the State of Israel was founded: “A nation, like an individual, is normal and healthy only when it is able to use all forms of innate gifts and harmoniously to unfold all forms of economic and cultural creativeness. For this purpose the nation needs political freedom and the right to utilize the natural resources of the soil as the basis of its economic growth. The task of normalization means for the Jews a real ‘transvaluation of values,’ because of the unquestioned hegemony of the spirit throughout Diaspora history. . . . Above all, the nation must ‘return to the soil’ not only in the physical sense but also in the psychological.”6 Seventy years after the establishment of the State of Israel, Israel has achieved many goals of the Zionist movement

Andre🚐 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To expand a bit on the Engel quote, the full sentence is During the 1890s ‘Zionism’ began to be used as a designation for certain activities aimed at encouraging Jews from different parts of the world to settle close to Jerusalem, in a region many called Palestine., then he briefly mentions the establishment of the Zionist Organization (ZO) in 1897, the establishment of Israel in 1948, and the ZO's redefinition of Zionism in 1951, 1968, and 2004. The next paragraph is If you think those facts tell a simple story, think again! Actually, they raise questions whose answers are not simple at all. The rest of Chapter 1 asks and answers these questions:

First, what exactly is ‘the Jewish people’ for whom the ZO sought a home? ... Similarly, it isn’t obvious at all what the phrase ‘a Jewish state’ signifies. ... There is also a historical problem. Does the fact that the word ‘Zionism’ first came to be widely used at a relatively recent moment in historical time (the 1890s) mean that the basic idea the word came to signify – that Jews from different parts of the world ought to settle in Palestine and seek a ‘home’ there ‘secured by public law’ – is itself only a bit more than a century old? ... What does it mean to say that ‘the Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people’? ... But what of the Declaration’s next assertion: ‘Exiled from the Land of Israel, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the countries of their dispersion, never ceasing to pray and hope for their return and the restoration of their national freedom’? ... What happened to Jews in the nineteenth century that could have prompted the new direction that the founding of the ZO signified?

Engel concludes the chapter with (italics in the original):

This was the basic idea of Zionism. Its fundamental impulse was less an ancient Jewish religious imperative than fear that the large majority of the world’s Jews would soon find themselves without adequate protection for their lives and livelihoods. That fear had a real basis in the spread of national movements in nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. By adopting the premisses of those movements instead of fighting them, Zionists hoped to make the nationalist current work to Jews’ advantage instead of their detriment. In other words, had the concept of national states not taken root in Europe towards the end of the nineteenth century, it is doubtful that a body like the ZO would have come into being at that time. Similarly, the language of Israel’s Declaration of Independence – which asserted that ‘it is the natural right of the Jewish people to lead, as do all other nations, an independent existence in its sovereign State’ – must be understood first of all in light of basic nineteenth-century European concepts of states, nations and citizenship.

Those concepts cannot explain everything in the Declaration, however. For one thing, the idea that, in a world of national states, it was incumbent upon Jews to resettle in a territory where they could form a majority and create a national state of their own does not tell us why that territory had to be Palestine. Indeed, some early Zionists thought about other territories as well. Were traditional Jewish religious imperatives central in directing Zionist attentions to Palestine specifically, or did more immediate historical developments play a decisive role in this feature of the movement as well?

I think this sets out some of (what Engel views as) the basic features or aspects of "what is Zionism?" Levivich (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

and the ZO's redefinition of Zionism in 1951, 1968, and 2004 Thank you, I am quite interested in this ie what is Z now (post Israel) as opposed to what it was to start with. Selfstudier (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Program has the 1951 and 2004 but not the 1968, which is at the History of Zionism article (but not the other two).

From the not so great JVL source in the former "Questions also emerged concerning the relationship of the new State with the Zionist Organization. The Congress adopted a resolution calling on the State of Israel to recognize the WZO as the representative body of the Jewish people in all matters that involved the organized participation of Diaspora Jewry in the upbuilding of Israel. In 1952 the Knesset acted upon this resolution, when it passed the WZO and Jewish Agency for Israel (Status) Law. Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Self, in the book, Engel cites the American Zionist Movement's website for reproductions of the revisions to the Jerusalem program:

• 1897 (Basel Program): "...establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine..."
• 1951 (Jerusalem Program): "...the consolidation of the State of Israel..."
• 1968 (Revised Jerusalem Program): "...strengthening of the State of Israel..."
• 2004 (current version, I think back to just calling it "Jerusalem Program", like it never changed), which added some, um, details, like "...and Jerusalem, its capital..." and other pro-Zionist stuff

Levivich (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the tangent, but Engel is alas one of those who mistranslate the first sentence of the Basel Program, perhaps due to not knowing that public law is a thing. It says nothing about "publicly". Rather it says "öffentlich-rechtlich gesicherten" which is a standard German legal phrase meaning "secured under public law". I wrote a long analysis at Talk:Basel Program with a list of sources that use "under public law". Recently I noticed that the constitution of the World Zionist Organization also cites the Basel Program as "under public law" [2]. Zero^talk 09:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I still do not see why the phrase “as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” often criticised here is still in the introduction. It does not reflect a consensus among the cited sources, some of the sources just speak of a minority, some speak of a “small minority”. The mainstream of Zionists in the 20s to 40s aimed at a State in the region of Palestine with a Jewish population majority and minority rights for the minorities (i.e. mainly Arabs) living in this State. Generally speaking they prefered a clear majority over a tight majority, but how is this accounted for by the phrase “as few Palestinian Arabs as possible”? And there was no consensus concerning territorial claims, maximalist revisionists even wanted to claim lands on the other side of the Jordan, others agreed to the division plan of the Peel commission. How is this reflected by the phrase “as much land as possible”? It is not backed by the sources, which only aim at the processes of land acquisition and expansion. And what das “as many Jews as possible” mean? In fact there were debates among Zionists in the 1920s concerning which Jews should be accepted into their societies in Palestine, and Zionism accepted that there would continue to be a diaspora. We of course do not have to account for the politically not very significant binationalist or cultural Zionists, but at least the ambitions of mainstream labour, revisionist and religious Zionists of the time should be adequately reflected. I would suggest the following phrase: “The mainstream of Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in the region of Palestine with a Jewish population majority and only a smaller Arab minority population and encouraged Jews from the diaspora to emigrate to Palestine”. @Levivich: --Chricho ∀ (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but probably the next step is an RFC. I tried to start drafting this in the section this page, "issues for potential RFC." I don't think it's a great use of time to just have the RFC be about that one sentence, but that is clearly a big part of the current dispute and controversy. Andre🚐 22:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We can keep on talking and talking and every so often somebody new will join in but since it is subject to the consensus required provision then, yea, it needs an RFC if y'all not able to come up with something more persuasive than OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Generally speaking they prefered a clear majority over a tight majority, but how is this accounted for by the phrase “as few Palestinian Arabs as possible”

What is the difference between wanting a clear majority of undefined size (Ben-Gurion mentioned at least 80%) and "as few Palestinians as possible"?

And there was no consensus concerning territorial claims

The statement here is "as much land... as possible" which accurately captures mainstream Zionism's expansionism. As for the comment about the the east bank, Weizmann also wanted that land. The point is that the sources support that mainstream Zionism was expansionist and territorially maximalist. DMH223344 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

“Clear majority” is accurate with respect to mainstream Zionism and clear and can be understood easily. When I read “as few as possible” I do not even know what that means—zero would be the mathematical minimum… The “as much land” part is not covered by any of the provided sources. Yes, Zionism sought to gradually acquire more land and to have more Zionist immigrants, this land and this people should be the basis for the State. “As much as possible” would be the whole world? Or from Nile to Euphrates? Although there were (and are) ambitions concerning the whole of mandatory Palestine or even parts of Transjordan, these were not absolute claims, but interest in greater territory was weighed against other interests. Concerning Weizmann: Yes, he had wished for Jewish settlement in the East Bank (since he had really wild expectations concerning the British, far removed from reality), but he accepted that it would be off limit after the Cairo conference. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

When I read “as few as possible” I do not even know what that means—zero would be the mathematical minimum

It pretty obviously means as few as possible [given the constraints]. That's the dominant English usage. I want as much money as possible. What do you think I mean by that?

“As much as possible” would be the whole world?

The article says:

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land... as possible

Palestine previously linked to Palestine (region). You interpret this sentence as saying that Zionists wanted to acquire the territory of the entire world? What does "in Palestine" mean to you? Bitspectator ⛩️ 02:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The “as much land” part is not covered by any of the provided sources.

• Lentin 2010, p. 7 "determined to increase the Jewish space"
• Lustick & Berkman 2017, pp. 47-48 (quoting Ben-Gurion) "both sides of the Jordan River"
• Manna 2022, p. 33 "more land in the hands of the settlers"
• Masalha 2012, p. 38 "maximum land"
• Pappe 2006, "as much of Palestine as possible"
• Segev 2019, p. 418 "maximum territory"
• Shlaim 2009, p. 56 "the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine"

Those provided sources cover the "as much land" part. Levivich (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

FAQ?

How do people feel about a FAQ for this page, answering, e.g., about why it says "colonization" in the lead, etc.? I would take a stab at writing it but I don't think I can do it in a diplomatic way :-) Do folks think a FAQ is a good idea? Bad idea? Any suggestions about questions and answers? Levivich (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

By 'colonization' the article lead is following our best sources, the article body, and most dictionary definitions. The migration to and settlement of an area and in order to establish political control. This does not mean that there might not be other reasons for settlement nor does it deny any historical connection of the people to that area. For a fuller explanation please see the "Colonization" section. fiveby(zero) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

We need a FAQ on how to respond to nonsense in the press, taking ur name in vain, @DMH223344:. Never mind, its the JP, what would you expect? Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Accurate article to be fair. KronosAlight (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. The very first thing they say is wrong. DMH didn't add "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinians as possible" to this article, I did. But it wouldn't align with JPost's narrative if they had to report that "User:Levivich" was the one who added that line to this Wikipedia article.

Then there's the part where they say: "On July 3, the first paragraph read "... [quoting lead that doesn't mention colonization] ..." As of Monday, the first line reads, "... [includes colonization]"..." That's also wrong. On July 3, the lead included "colonization". It was only taken out on July 3 in this edit by a now-blocked WP:LTA, which was quickly reverted. But it doesn't help JPost's narrative to report that "colonization" has been there for a long time, or that's it was removed by LTAs. Considering the version without "colonization" had only been on the page on July 3 for less than an hour, one wonders how the JPost reporter even found it. Did they go diff-by-diff and just cherrypick this one revision? Or did the LTA--who has a history of giving interviews to the media (in fairness, so do I)--point them to it?

And then there's this: OF THE sources cited by DMH223344 on the Zionism page, the majority are by Palestinian or anti-Zionist historians. Patently false, just look at the reference list, it's clearly not a majority of "Palestinian or anti-Zionist historians". JPost mentions Manna, Khalidi, Rouhana, and Masalha. But they don't mention--get ready for this list--Abramson, Alroey, Avineri, Baker, Beauchamp, Ben-Ami, Biger, Bloom, Burton, Busbridge, Cohen, Collins, Conforti, Dieckhoff, Dowty, Karsh, Falk, Flapan, Gans, Gelvin, Gorny, Hacohen, Hazony, Hirsch, Hirst, Laqueur, LeVine, Lustick, Massad, McGonigle, Medoff, Morris, Motyl, Olson, Penslar, Rabkin, Robinson, Safrai, Sela, Shafir, Shapira, Shillony, Shimoni, Shlaim, Slater, Sternberg, Sternhell, Taylor, White, Wolfe, Yadgar, Cleveland, Quigley, Roy, Goldman, Almong, or Britannica. That's a long list of non-Palestinian names! Some of those are probably anti-Zionist, but definitely not a majority. Of course it doesn't support JPost's narrative to report that the article uses these sources.

Those are just three examples of falsehoods or material omissions from the JPost article. I could keep going. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And another thing: JPost doesn't report that Benny Morris (2004) wrote that "the displacement of Arabs from Palestine or from the areas of Palestine that would become the Jewish State was inherent in Zionist ideology and, in microcosm, in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise ... the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." They don't report that Anita Shapira (1992) called Zionism "colonial" thirty years ago. They don't report that Yoav Gelber (2007), who disputes that it's "colonialism," nevertheless calls it "colonization." They don't report that Zionists created institutions with names like "Palestine Jewish Colonization Association" and "Jewish Colonial Trust". Because none of that would fit their narrative that these claims are only made by Palestinians and anti-Zionists. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, i don't know that your two examples pointing to use by early Zionists can go very far. The word a bit more complex meaning today. But the use by historians today of course does. fiveby(zero) 21:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

100% agree, it'd be WP:OR if it was just based on use by early Zionists, it's the modern historian sources that make it WP:NPOV-compliant. Levivich (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't expect nuanced critique on Wiki process from JPost, and it's not solely or even primarily DMH's fault, but the problem with the article though is that we don't report that Gelber and Pappe have a significant disagreement. The article devotes precious little time to explaining that Zionism is a controversial and contested ideology and that there are a number of different camps among scholars that don't all agree. Instead, we spend most of the time oversimplifying the disagreements among scholars and presenting it as though it's basically a consensus view of Zionism. Not to mention extensive WP:SYNTH in the summaries. The current lead says that defenders of Zionism don't dispute its status as settler-colonialism. Some don't, and some do. Andre🚐 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily... looks reworded without checking the citations. Which is it, something proponents "do not necessarily reject" today or "did not necessarily reject" then? Is this historical present (had to look that one up). fiveby(zero) 22:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Most newspapers seem to mistake Wikipedia processes and get them wrong.

Heck I have 3000 edits and I still consider myself noob enough to get them wrong sometimes too, while the most senior editors who know the most do so only have years of editting and 10x more edits... Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I’m opposed. In general I find FAQs to not really do their jobs (preventing repetitive/similar questions and arguments from recurring) in contentious areas, and instead, per @Coretheapple, imply marching orders and unlitigatable consensus. I don’t believe our target editor here—who feels strongly enough to want to comment, who is ECR-confirmed or would ignore the ECR Talk rules, but reads a very brief nutshell explanation in a banner at the top of the page and is no longer compelled to say anything—exists. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, VRT is currently getting multiple emails a day (I've answered about 5-10 today myself). It would be great if a short FAQ were created to cover specific points which are currently being the taget of media coverage. Using "normal" boilerplate answers is not cutting it regarding this article. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that even among Wikipedians there's a good amount of disagreement and discussion. Creating an FAQ would be fine for a stable consensus, but I would say we don't have one right now. There are open issues and the article has gone through a lot of changes. The media coverage may not be pinpointing the problems in a way that would meet our standards but all the smoke is obscuring the active discussion that in my opinion isn't ripe for codification as an FAQ. We did an extensive BESTSOURCE exercise and I'd say the current article is quite a large deviation from the consensus scholarly opinions in BESTSOURCES. Right now, there are significant NPOV and WEIGHT issues. Andre🚐 22:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the lack of a stable consensus complicates things, but the current version of the article still presents itself as "correct" and based on published, reliable sources. Since this is the live version, it’s being treated as such in responses to inquiries.

If there are ongoing discussions that might result in changes, a short, reusable statement (e.g., "There are ongoing discussions regarding the usage of X, and the article may change when consensus is reached...") would be really helpful for VRT. This way, we can ensure we're communicating accurately without misleading readers. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Now I sound like a customer support agent with no Wikipedia knowledge...but it’s hard to follow all the talk page discussions, and with the talk page protected, I’m forced to defend the current version without being able to easily point people to join discussions. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Josve05a: last month you gave as examples of VRT FAQs:

1. why do we use the word "colonizer" and not "de-colonizer"
2. why have we recently rewritten the entire article

Are these still frequently asked? Any others? Levivich (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are the primary ones, as well as the phrase “as many Jews and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Then the answers are:_

(a1)Because the term 'colonization' is endemic in Zionist literature for the first half century, as secondary sources note, while references to 'decolonization' in that formative period, if they exist, are very rare.

(b1) Apart from FA articles, most articles are under constant revision. Since most edits are tweaks, from time to time it is necessary to overhaul the often repetitive or poorly organized page in order to improve the article as a whole.

(c1) Because simultaneously with the first years of Zionism and the Basel Programme, Zionists were well aware of the fact that the population of Palestine around the 1900s was 95% Arabs and 5% Jews, and the creation of a Jewish state required that ratio to be, if not reversed, then radically altered to achieve a strong majority based on the prospective inflow of European immigrants. Through the history of Zionism, as numerous best sources attest, transferring the indigenous Arabs elsewhere to make room for Jews was a core concern of the movement, as many histories, starting with that of Nur Masalha, document. Nishidani (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

In response to @Nishidani’s answer to b1, I think a valid counter-argument would be that Zionism as a historically significant active movement predates the decision to go with Israel as the “Jewish homeland” (Uganda was seriously considered, etc.). From the perspective of Zionists, the marginalization of Palestinians was something that happened as a byproduct of the way things played out later in the history of the movement, rather than a core tenant of said movement, and there are still many self-proclaimed Zionists (especially in religious Jewish communities) who argue that the modern state of Israel is not reflective of the “true” Zionist perspective or whatever. Additionally, there was a subset of early Zionists who viewed their goal as being merely giving Jews a safe space in Israel (rather than the installation of an exclusively Jewish government), which didn’t inherently require the removal of Palestinians. (Not looking to make a moral argument here obviously, just trying to convey that POV.) As such, I think it’s a good idea to reword that line from the opening paragraph to be more inclusive of the many forms that Zionism has taken (and continues to take) over the years. Yitz (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I'm not sure it is wise to create a dependency between what is often going to be a reader's susceptibility to misinformation/manipulation and the amount of energy editors expend, if you want a test subject, maybe reach out to this guy, to see what would help them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• My problem with "FAQs" as manifested in other articles is that they often, perhaps most of the time, become vehicles for WP:OWNership of the articles by specific factions of editors with specific POVs on the subject matter. They tend to function as "engraved in stone" marching orders for new editors venturing into a subject matter. That danger cannot be discounted here and therefore I'd oppose created a "FAQ" Coretheapple (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
• Meh, there is a FAQ at Mandatory Palestine to deal with one recurring irritation and it doesn't prevent it, presumably because no-one bothers to read it. I suspect that would happen here too, since we have plentiful evidence of failure to read the talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

FAQ template on a Talk page only works for media/independent folks that has a WP:CLUE, and most do not. Maybe press release from wikimedia foundation, but that would be also problematic for foundation to directly address content that is supposed to be self-policed by editor community. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Old second paragraph was better

Over the past couple weeks, there has been conflict over the second paragraph in this page, with two major versions. Let's call them Version one (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1254484900) and Version two (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Zionism&oldid=1254602937). Version one explains the alternate locations considered before Palestine, as well as some of the reasons why Zionists justified it (ex:Kibbutz Galuyot). Version two is just copied and pasted from deep within the article, and goes into too much detail for a lead. It also removes the statement about the aforementioned ingathering of exiles justification, as well as the status of Palestine as being a part of the Ottoman Empire. Version one was much better alltogether, and should be restored. I am postng this to gain a consensus. Thank you. Pyramids09 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How about we just lay them out so it's easy to see:

Your version:

During this period, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire.

The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Throughout the first decade of the Zionist movement, some Zionist figures, including the movement's founder Theodor Herzl, considered alternatives to Palestine, such as under the "Uganda Scheme" (then part of British East Africa, and today in Kenya), or in Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, or the Sinai Peninsula, but this was rejected by most of the movement. The process of Jewish settlement in the region now containing the states of Israel and Palestine was seen by the emerging Zionist movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by returning the Jewish people to their historic homeland.

Existing version:

During this period, as Jewish assimilation in Europe was progressing, some Jewish intellectuals framed assimilation as a humiliating negation of Jewish cultural distinctiveness. The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor. In Zionism, the dangers and limitations associated with minority status in Europe meant that Jews had an existential need for a state where they would constitute a demographic majority. Assimilation progressed more slowly in Tsarist Russia where pogroms and official Russian policies led to the emigration of three million Jews between 1882 and 1914, only 1% of which went to Palestine. 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. The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs.

References

Selfstudier (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH in lead

I also removed several conclusions that are WP:SYNTH and failed verification which you appear to have reverted [3] [4] [5] These claims and conclusions do not appear in the sources. Can you show me how the sources support those? Andre🚐 13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I can reword that to say Zionists called their efforts colonization if the wording is a problem for you, but I don’t see synth there. nableezy - 14:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There were 3 removals that you reverted. SYNTH is making a conclusion unless explicitly stated in source. The first, Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization., was not in the Alroey source at all. The 2nd, Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence and compulsory transfer to deal with the presence of the local Palestinian, non-Jewish population. has several citations, none of which contain that text. And finally, Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist., which does not appear in the sources cited, which say "colonization" and do not say anything about settler-colonial or exceptionalist, which is not at all the same thing. Andre🚐 19:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Since this is not really about Line 1, how about take it to its own section? Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

That's true. Can do. Andre🚐 21:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The first two are supported by the body. I'm pretty confident the citations for the second one do in fact support that claim (although the page number for ben-ami 2007 might be wrong). If you really want, I can pull out quotes or sections. It shouldnt be necessary since this content is covered in the body of the article. DMH223344 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Quotes or sections would be helpful. Remember, a conclusion is different from a summary. Can you explain what quotes from which sources and what parts of the body support these synthetic conclusions? Andre🚐 22:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

See "Claim to a Jewish demographic majority and a Jewish state in Palestine" for the first claim. See the section "Labor Zionism" for the second, also see the introduction to Shlaim's book. DMH223344 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

In all cases those are conclusions not made by any source, but we are being asked to make, an improperly synthetic conclusion. 1. That does not contain a source explicitly making the conclusion made here, that all types of Zionism support "territorial concentration" "through colonization." 2. That section does not contain a source explicitly claiming that differences lie in presentation and ethos but all support "violence" and compulsory transfer." 3. ?. in each case, unless a specific source, or really several sources, use something with a commonly-understood meaning that is analogous to those sentences, you're drawing conclusions. Andre🚐 23:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, it's not a problem to take more than 4 minutes to read and then write a response.

The claim is about "mainstream Zionist groups". As for the use of the term "colonization," we can discuss that. It's not controversial that the methods used by Zionism included "colonization." DMH223344 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? You have a burden of proof to show the quotes that make these conclusions. You appear to be doing WP:SYNTH, namely you're reading all the descriptions of the types of Zionism an saying "yeah they don't differ." Nowhere is it written that they all share the same tenets vis. relocation or violence. I didn't object to "colonization." But the sentence in the article says "settler-colonialism" which is not the 1:1 map to colonization. Andre🚐 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing claims about "all types of Zionism" and "mainstream Zionist groups". DMH223344 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Either way, there's a rebuttable demand for specific, explicit usage of these conceptual strokes, otherwise it's textbook SYNTH. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Text–source_integrity. Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein Andre🚐 23:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I get Andre's point in a couple of these cases, because it isn't always possible to point to a straightforward correspondence between the claims we make and any single source text. However, it's important to remember that this is a lead, which would ordinarily summarise the body, which should carefully spell out its claims with sources. (Leads are rarely as thoroughly sourced as this one.) The work of summarising necessarily means that text won't simply reproduce source texts. I think most of these passages do a good job of summarising large quantities of source material, via the sections in the body.

However, I agree to some extent with Andre on the current final sentence of the lead: Proponents of Zionism do not necessarily reject the characterization of Zionism as settler-colonial or exceptionalist. To me this is very clunky and murky, trying to concisely summarise too many heterogeneous points. Personally, I'd just delete that sentence in the lead, and make sure the points are addressed in the body. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Some Zionists past tense did indeed label their actions "colonialism". I'm not sure how that is relevant when the context is "modern Zionism" and present tense "mainstream factions":

" Modern political Zionism, different from religious Zionism, is a movement made up of diverse political groups whose strategies and tactics have changed over time. The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine, through colonization. "

So unless there are solid sources which say that the common ideology among mainstream Zionists today is "colonialism", then this claim does seem to be rather blatant SYNTH.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the term "modern" confuses more than helps here. To be clear, its meaning here is not the same as "contemporary" DMH223344 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this text is fine. To me, it's clear "modern" in this context means the period in which there has been a movement named Zionism, but I know lots of people take "modern" to mean "nowdays" so it wouldn't hurt to find a way to be slightly clearer. Otherwise, I think there is enough in the body to support "colonization". BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't object to "colonization," but "settler-colonialism" and "exceptionalism" not necessarily being rejected by proponents of Zionism? Colonization is not the same thing as settler-colonialism, and that's very much contested characterization, one that is agreed by left-wing critics of Zionism, but not by proponents at all - nor does a source say this conclusion that I have found. That's weaselly worded, doesn't appear in any source per se, nor does "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence. Most Labor Zionist kibbutzniks, which while not what it once was, was once a very mainstream branch of Zionism historically, would probably disagree with the strategies or the use of violence used by Political/Revisionist, i.e. more right-wing Zionism. But more importantly, which source actually makes that conclusion? Andre🚐 20:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to crosspost this thread to WP:NORN, since judging by current participation, there isn't a consensus whether this is SYNTH, and maybe an RFC would be good too after that, if that doesn't help. Andre🚐 23:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

and, crickets... Andre🚐 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just waiting for the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis on the colonialist perspective in the first sentence is editorializing and may not present a neutral point of view. The early Zionists used colonialist terminology within the context of their time, and they often referred to the establishment of agricultural communities and the return to their ancestral homeland as a response to anti-Semitism in Europe. The modern connotations of this term do not accurately reflect their intentions and motivations. Heptor (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Modern sources use the term, and the term in the first sentence is "colonization" not "colonialist". Levivich (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"In Israel, where the prospect of driving settlers 'into the sea' appears very real, the language of settler colonialism falsifies history in order to dehumanize Israeli Jews and celebrate their deaths. The Hamas attacks of October 7 were a document of barbarism, if anything ever was; yet to the ideology of settler colonialism they were praiseworthy, because they were seen as an attempt to rectify historical injustice". Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

"(R) Non-diplomatic Transfer: when the settler entity retains paramount control but ostensibly relinquishes responsibility for a specific area (e.g., post-disengagement Gaza). In this case, as in the previous one, a territorial section of the settler-controlled locale is seemingly excised from the settler body politic, and Indigenous peoples are transferred outside of the settler entity’s population economy. Then again, Israel retained exclusive control of the Gaza population registry despite an ostensible withdrawal; settler sovereign control of the population economy was never relinquished, as the terrifying events of,2023-24 demonstrate."

That one is from Lorenzo Veracini

Here is a critique of Adam Kirsch's effort. Who does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint.

In any case, picking out a source saying what you want it to say is not that hard, thing is to run it past best sources, overall and in the relevant discipline, then see what's what. Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Zionism is not an example of colonialism because 1) Jews have maintained a continual presence in the land that is now Israel for thousands of years, 2) following the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the land by Romans, some Jews remained in the land by retreating to the hills, while those exiled prayed to return; 3) Palestinian representatives at the first Congress of Muslim and Christian organizations in Jerusalem declared themselves part of Arab Syria; 4) on the portion of land allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN Resolution, Jews and Arabs were present in roughly equal numbers; 4) colonization involves theft, while Jewish settlement in Israel involved neither theft nor fraud; 5) in May 1948 after the British withdrawal, when five Arab armies invaded the new Jewish state, Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League, called for “an immense massacre” that will be discussed “as much as the massacres of Mongolia and the Crusades”, and other Arab religious and political leaders made similar calls.(page 82), 6) most Arabs who left were not expelled by the new Jewish state but were either fleeing the war zone or were heeding the call of the “High Command of Volunteers for the Liberation of Palestine” to vacate temporarily pending the destruction of the new Jewish state, and 7) Britain resisted the disruption of its empire, by limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine and blocking land purchases by Jews when it could; General Allenby stated in 1917, “Palestine will be neither Jewish nor Arab; it will be English”. Israel’s creation epitomized the dissolution of empires (Ottoman, then British) and anti-imperialism, not imperialism. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I read it. We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics. Not to mention the plain errors of fact (misquote of Azzam, nonsense about Deir Yassin, etc). Zero^talk 11:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2024

Hydo truth speaker (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Zionism is the right of the jewish people to have self-determination in their historically homeland which is the the land of Israel/mandatory Palestine region. Zionism nowadays also uses by local Israeli jews as another definition of patriotism towards the state of Israel.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request

• What I think should be changed

−

Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.[5]

+

• Why it should be changed:

The same exact sentence appears in the article twice - in the lead and in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. I suggest it should be removed from the lead, because the specific topic section is the more appropriate context for it, and the lead is already too long as it is.

Zlmark (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done, being discussed by EC editors above. Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The concept is important enough that it should be mentioned in the lead. It is fundamental to the thinking of some, maybe many, Zionists. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The current text treats it as fundamental to all Zionists (i.e. it speaks in general), so if it is merely some, that should be clarified. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The quotes in the citation don't say it is merely some. Levivich (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Crossroads, it is a poorly worded sentence and not really supported by the sources. It is challenged very often on the talk page by edit requests and EC editors. It would require a great of effort to change with much opposition. Also consider this, if the sentence were removed and the P&G's were followed by summarizing sources in the body and then building the lead from there, what would be the result? I think that a similar statement would then be necessary (and prominent) in the lead. If you'd like to see the wording here changed, then sure so would i and probably many others, but it would be quite a bit of work to make that happen. fiveby(zero) 09:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A proposal should be developed and RfC should be done, and the proposal can be developed mainly by those who favor change even though others advocate for the status quo; the latter's input can be heard at the RfC itself, and their argument not to change it shouldn't forestall development of an alternative. Per WP:APPNOTE, I would like to pinged if an RfC is done. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Zionist symbols and modernizing of Jews

"Zionist ideology rejected traditional Judaic definitions of what it means to be Jewish and viewed religion as an essentially negative factor. Zionism maintained the outward symbols of Jewish tradition but redefined them in secular-nationalistic terms. In this way, Zionism saw itself as bringing Jews into the modern world by reshaping Jewish identity in terms of identification with a sovereign state, as opposed to Judaic faith and tradition."

was recently added and then removed from the lead. the edit summary removing the addition was "reverting some bold addition to lead that I think are overly stated and not npov"

The first sentence I think is uncontroversial. The statement from the body of the text cites Yadgar 2017 but there are plenty of other RS that describe the negation of the diaspora in similar terms.

The second sentence is supported by discussion in the body which cites Rabkin, which I believe some editors took issue with because of his antizionist perspective. Although I dont think it is controversial to describe Zionism as reframing Jewish tradition and symbolism in nationalist terms.

The last sentence of this addition is one of the main points from the introduction of Shlomo Avineri's "The Making of Modern Zionism" (ie, Zionism as a modernizing force). Avineri's conception of Zionism is a mainstream conception, and when scholars want to analyze Zionist ideology they often refer to Avineri as an authoritative source.

I suggest we revert this removal. DMH223344 (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's actually quite controversial, it conflates secularism with Zionism as a whole, and it I assume is relying heavily on Yadgar, a critic of Zionism. It needs to contrast with other sources and how they treat this. Rabkin is also an antizionist as you said. Zionism does not view religion as a negative. I think you should quote the verbatim from the page - and please add page numbers - so we can contextualize the information. For example, Religious Zionism obviously didn't view religion as a negative. For example in Yadgar, Religious-Zionist proclaimed adherence to Judaism as a religion (as opposed to the secularist Zionist camp, which proclaims itself either indifferent or outright hostile to this religion) We need to take a proper cross section. What happened to the BESTSOURCES list for framing lead weight? Andre🚐 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

From section "Zionism, Jewish Religion, and Secularism": In its dominant iterations, the Zionist idea stresses this distinction to clarify that the secular, national aspect of this identity must gain precedence over the religious, or theological aspect of Judaism, in order to remain loyal to the notion of a nation-state of Jews. Similarly, influential streams in Zionist ideology tended to view that same Jewish “religion” as essentially negative, being, in their reading, an inhibiting agent that suffocates the national vitality. Indeed, for them, Jewish religion is responsible for what they viewed as the diminishing of the Jewish people in “exile.”

As for the comment, "it conflates secularism with Zionism as a whole," Zionism developed as a secular movement and the dominant strains have been secular. When RS describe "Zionism", they usually mean these mainstream formulations of zionism. If they are referring to religious zionism, they usually (if not always) say "religious zionism." DMH223344 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That quote is careful to qualify it as the secularist stream of Zionism as one of the mainstream streams of Zionism but we shouldn't paint with such a broad brush in the article summary. We also need to see what other sources say that might be different and portray the range of opinions in weight in reliable sources, not only take speciic sources for summarizing the lead. We shouldn't oversimplify that by saying that is all Zionism as it ignored Religious Zionism. As you can see in the other Yadgar quote, some were simply indifferent to the religious aspect. Andre🚐 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

"That quote is careful to qualify it as the secularist stream of Zionism" is that true? it says "mainstream" and "influential" which is exactly what we mean when we talk about "Zionism" as a whole. RS do not typically qualify every claim they make as applying to all of Zionism or just to mainstream Zionism or to just religious zionism. It makes sense to do the same here, so when we say "Zionism" we mean the mainstream zionist movement and ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's careful to distinguish different "iterations" of Zionism and "influential streams." That is your clue there are other streams that need to be considered. Andre🚐 18:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, in this case I don't think it decreases readability to rephrase as: "Mainstream Zionist ideology rejected traditional Judaic definitions of what it means to be Jewish and viewed religion as an essentially negative factor." DMH223344 (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I still object to the framing and its inclusion in the lead for the reasons I already stated. Andre🚐 22:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

So is the primary issue with the choice of the word "negative"? Or do you not agree about inclusion of rejecting tradition?

What about the points about redefining identity? DMH223344 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this is glossing over the various strains of Zionism. Religious Zionists don't fit under that, and other secular Zionists were indifferent. A wording that reflects that would be more balanced. Andre🚐 22:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it glossing over the various strains if it specifies that this applies to mainstream zionism? DMH223344 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It's just not the case, it's focusing overly much on a specific piece of the story. It also conflates modern with historical. Most people who identify as Zionists today wouldn't say that they view religion as essentially negative. That should be obviously not verifiable by inspection. It's referring to the Zionist revolutionaries and their secular outlook. A lot has happened since the 1940s. Andre🚐 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It does not conflate modern with historical. The discussion is in the context of the development of the zionist movement. DMH223344 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The point of these three lines is to express the sense in which Zionism was a "revolt against tradition," which is a main feature of Zionism as described in RS.

What aspects of Zionism as a "revolt against tradition" are missing here? DMH223344 (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Zionism was both a revolt against tradition and a return to it. Zionism created new traditions even as it imported existing traditions and gave new meaning to others. Andre🚐 04:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

So Zionism was black and white, good and bad, salvation and ruin, etc.etc.etc. One cannot approach a definition of anything by establishing a paradigm that embraces everything in terms of antitheses, though this is extremely fashionable in popular 'national characteristics' literature (I can provide massive references for that assertion,) Nishidani (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Most complex human phenomena such as multifacted, Big Tent movements and ideologies are good and bad and contain contradictions. Nuance, perspective, and contested narratives. "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress." Niels Bohr. Andre🚐 07:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The emphasis in the literature is much greater (almost entirely) on the revolt and redefinition aspect. Even when discussing rediscovery, Avineri emphasizes the redefinition aspect for example:

the modern Jew has lost his old identity, yet the new identity does not sit well with him. Zionism is, to Nordau, the re-creation of a collective, communal Jewish identity, its rediscovery in terms relevant to the modern age. It is a return to Jewish identity from the atomized anomie of Emancipation—a return necessitated by the impact of liberalism and nationalism. In an article, “On Zionism” (1902), Nordau sharply distinguishes Zionism from the traditional, religious Jewish messianic yearnings. “Zionism rejects all mysticism, does not believe in a Return to Zion through miracles and wonderous happenings, but sets out to create it through its own efforts.”11 Zionism, according to Nordau, grew out of the pressures and social forces of the modern age, and its solution to the Jewish question is a modern one, within the context of contemporary nationalism

In introducing Zionism, Avineri:

Zionism was the most fundamental revolution in Jewish life. It substituted a secular self-identity of the Jews as a nation for the traditional and Orthodox self-identity in religious terms. It changed a passive, quietistic, and pious hope of the Return to Zion into an effective social force, moving millions of people to Israel. It transformed a language relegated to mere religious usage into a modern, secular mode of intercourse of a nation-state.

DMH223344 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, it is an absolutely crucial fact that in the history of Zionism from Herzl to Netanyahu, not one single leader of the movement or prime minister of the state has been a believing and observant Jew: not Herzl, Nordau, Weizmann, Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion, Sharett, Eshkol, Peres, Shamir, Rabin, Sharon, Barak, Olmert, or Netanyahu; even Begin, who displayed a more respectful stance on religion and observance, was by no means a practicing Jew.
— Stanislawski, Michael (2017). Zionism: A Very Short Introduction. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press. p. 116. ISBN 978-0-19-976604-8.

This passage seemed relevant to "secular". Levivich (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but once again there is glossing over the differences between the rank and file and leaders, and political with the cultural. There are many other Zionists than those listed. The article talks about them, Kook is mentioned several times. So it's an oversimplification to say that Zionism was anti-religious. Yes, Zionist political leaders or at least the famous ones and the ones mentioned there, were almost all secular to some degree. Yehuda Amital was not, on the left, Dov Lior is not, on the right. Naftali Bennett is a more contemporary and well-known example of a religious Zionist.[6] The example of Bennett, who was prime minister for a brief period after Stanislawski wrote that, makes his statement out of date.Andre🚐 07:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

Lede problems

1- Opening sentence is too specific and contains chronology

2- Lede overall is too long and overdetailed

3- Lede has more of an editorial complex/philosophical style rather than a series of facts

Opening sentence

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

First struckthrough part is too specific for the opening paragraph, it belongs in the second as a narrative on Zionism's inception. The second part is overly specific. I think these two should be removed from opening paragraph, and moved down.

Length

The lede is currently around 800 words, at least double more than the WP standard.

Style

During this period, as Jewish assimilation in Europe was progressing, some Jewish intellectuals framed assimilation as a humiliating negation of Jewish cultural distinctiveness. The development of Zionism and other Jewish nationalist movements grew out of these sentiments, which began to emerge even before the appearance of modern antisemitism as a major factor. In Zionism, the dangers and limitations associated with minority status in Europe meant that Jews had an existential need for a state where they would constitute a demographic majority. Assimilation progressed more slowly in Tsarist Russia where pogroms and official Russian policies led to the emigration of three million Jews between 1882 and 1914, only 1% of which went to Palestine.

This is more of an unattributed series of complex philosophical opinions relating to something very sepcific and not very relevant to Zionism generally, rather than simple series of facts, to cite one example. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with the suggested removals Andre🚐 17:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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

What is overly specific about this? It is describing the goals of the Zionist movement.

This is more of an unattributed series of complex philosophical opinions relating to something very sepcific and not very relevant to Zionism generally, rather than simple series of facts, to cite one example.

I dont understand what you're saying here. Is your issue with the style of this quote (as your heading would suggest) or the content? This quote is describing the factors that led to the development of Zionism, I really dont see how you can claim that it is "not very relevant to Zionism" DMH223344 (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relating to as much land as few Palestinians; this is a viewpoint and not a tangible fact, so it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, which must be kept general and neutral.

The content and style of the quote is very philosophical/editorial and not factual; it's not encylopaedic. WP:ENCSTYLE Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about that line isn't tangible. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, if not factual; it's not encylopaedic wouldn't it still be that after being moved down? Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph has special considerations to be as neutral and general as possible. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously biased on the issue of that sentence, so take my 2c with a grain of salt: It's basically the definition of Zionism. Zionism is, in my words, the idea of taking land from the people who live around Jerusalem and giving it to Jews for a Jewish state. Zionism calls that "restore the Jewish homeland" but that's a euphemism. In that phrase, the word "restore" means "export non-Jews (specifically, Palestinian Arabs, who made up the vast demographic majority) and import Jews". Everyone from Morris to Manna and in between recognize this maximum-land-with-minimum-Arabs concept as the inherent, unavoidable, core of what Zionism is, and what it must be (how else could one possibly create a Jewish state other then by taking land and displacing the people who live there?). Should be in the first paragraph, if not first sentence. Levivich (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Bingo! Levivich says it well. That explains the expressed desire of the most rabid Zionists to kill all Palestinian males over 13 and the illegal seizure of land from Palestinians. It's a form of lebensraum and leads one to think of who did this first, and to whom. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Let's not get too FORUMy here. Bitspectator ⛩️ 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a bit beyond the pale. Even if you believe that those "rabid" folks represent the mainstream, there certainly aren't reliable sources that should have weight saying that about the overall movement, or it's at best contradicted and debated. I will accept that the most left-wing critics of Zionism probably would make that analogy, but that isn't NPOV for the article. Andre🚐 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan, you surprise me. I am only referring to the most extreme Zionists, such as "labor Zionism's use of violence against Palestinians" and the "uninhibited use of terror", "mass indiscriminate killings of the aged, women and children" (quotes from this article). I said nothing that should lead anyone to think I "believe that those 'rabid' folks represent the mainstream" or that my words apply to "the overall movement". Most Zionists are pretty normal and sensible people who don't support the current Gaza genocide. They know it's counterproductive to their cause and to the welfare of all Jews. What happened to AGF and not taking my words out of context? My statement, like the discussion comments of most editors, was not for the article. If I intended it to be for the article, it would be worded much more carefully and properly sourced. It just provided part of the context for the intersection of this topic and fanaticism, and there are dangerously fanatical Zionists who are and should be described in this article. Anyone who defends them harms all Jews. (I am not saying you are defending them.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are objecting to my invocation of the word "lebensraum", traditionally applied to the German practice during World War Two, the concept is also applied to certain practices by the State of Israel, and the lebensraum article mentions such use.

The United Nations also does it. See The Question of Palestine: Study on the Legality of the Israeli Occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem. Search that page for the word "lebensraum". You'll find it used once in the context of section three that describes the occupational practices by the State of Israel, which are synonymous with the word "lebensraum", and the UN condemns those practices by Israel. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You know I esteem and value your contributions, but I don't agree here, and I think there's unfortunately a bit of conflation or misleading information. I would say that unfortunate phrasing or framing is an example of pseudo-Holocaust inversion, and the UN should be considered an attributed primary source and not authoritative, and the sources given are not the best sources for the lead or the article as a whole. And most Zionists don't agree that genocide is the right word for the war or at least believe that if Hamas were to surrender and release the hostages, the hostilities in Gaza would have no reason to continue. The question of settlement in the West Bank is different post-1967, but in general, they're talking about 1948 and earlier in the lead, where there was a UN-approved plan to give land to Israel and Palestine both. There are plenty of examples of atrocities that can be laid at the feet of the Jews and the Arabs alike, and NPOV tells us we need to survey the sources accurately without cherrypicking or focusing too much weight on criticism, because not all mainstream historians agree that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is a reasonable thing to do, and there are also reliable Zionist historians! Andre🚐 17:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, I learn from you! Thanks for that link to Holocaust inversion. I wasn't aware of that article. I think we can agree that there is an unfortunate "baggage" problem with using the word lebensraum, as it is associated with the Germans and the Holocaust, and the State of Israel and Zionists should not be associated with the worst Nazi excesses (beyond the horrors of normal warfare) that occurred. There are no death camps in Israel! Whew! (Death camps are unnecessary as they just kill far too many civilians.)

We need to use a synonym for lebensraum that doesn't carry that death camp/Holocaust baggage. "Illegal occupation" is what I am (and the UN) striving to describe. The Germans used it as an excuse for their "illegal occupations" of Eastern European countries. The Israelis are using it as an excuse for their "illegal occupations" of Palestinian properties AND their killings of non-combatant Palestinians. When strictly limited to that, the actions and consequences are the same: "Kill them and take their land." A difference is that Israel doesn't use death camps, it just allows normal, non-military, Israelis to murder their Palestinian neighbors and take their property.

BTW, I think we need to recognize the inherent COI of Zionists and their historians. We can't take their word as accurate or objective, any more than we can trust the IDF spokesmen on TV, because, in keeping with all Middle Eastern peoples, lying, exaggeration, and propaganda are parts of normal communication (including the writers of the Tanakh/Old Testament), and it is not considered wrong there. But, you are right that "comparing Israel to Nazi Germany" is NOT "a reasonable thing to do", and I never did that. I only meant to use the German word itself, strictly according to its translated meaning, without all the Nazi baggage, but that was apparently not a well-thought-through strategy. . Sorry about that. So let's discuss it in terms of "illegal occupation". (Maybe that isn't really a good topic to discuss in this thread as it gets too far afield.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

"Illegal occupation" is indeed a fair characterization that most people would be forced to conclude is true. But that applies to the West Bank, and not to all of Israel. Andre🚐 18:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

How about you two chat one or other of your talk pages? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I support this removal. The second crossed-out sentence also lacks important context - to what time period does this apply, for example? Similar issues exist with other statements in the lead as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What removal? The two sentences are not being suggested for removal, just to be moved down to the next para. There is an in place consensus for the second sentence. Then the only way to demonstrate a different consensus is an RFC, which for reasons unclear to me, none of those objecting care to open. Perhaps you might give it a go? Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposal merely says to "move down" the "second part". Also, I don't see where this consensus is. Consensus can change, in any case. An RfC is not necessarily required unless it was previously an RfC, but no evidence of that has been presented. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Search for the sentence in the talk page archives and you'll find the discussion where consensus was established. Levivich (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Why not simply link the discussion? Seems odd. A quick look finds that there has been a ton of controversy over this sentence even from established editors, with many different adjustments suggested at various points based on sources. It should really be RfC'ed. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the hidden text indicating an inplace consensus, there are relevant discussions in Archives 24 and 25. It's not too much too ask editors to do a bit of work and search the archives. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The proposal is moving it down, not removing it. This discussion has unexpectedly grown. Where did the involved editors opinions converge? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources