Talk:Zionism/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2018

The definition of Zionism is incorrectly written in the Wikipedia introductory paragraphs. It also presents Zionism as a fight for liberation, which it is not. I think it would be pertinent on such a controversial page to keep biases to a minimum. Please could you edit the introduction to truly capture the meaning of Zionism without invoking language that stirs patriotic emotions. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That's not really a "change X to Y because Z" format as much as "change something I'm not specifying because of how I feel about it." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Insult

Why does Antisemites, Neo-Nazis annd Muslims ironically use Zionist as an insult and justification of hatered against Jews and Non-Jewish people for supporting Israel? 03/16/19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.146.226.227 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point. People often say hateful things about Hindu nationalists and white nationalists as well. All forms of ethnic nationalism should be acceptable. --JRizzled (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a WP:FORUM question. Here we focus the discussion on changes to the article. See Zionist entity, where the use of the term Zionism as an insult is described. “WarKosign” 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think this is meant as a forum question.

It is true that the term “Zionist” has been perceived to be used in a negative or perjorative sense. “Zionist entity” is just one example.

Our “Anti-Zionism” section in this article is mostly describing left-wing or Palestinian opposition to Zionism. But OP’s point is broader.

I think this article would benefit from a sourced discussion of this topic.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

addition of a subsection "neo nationalist" (request for comment on terminology) for the non-jewish support section

It would reason that section could be added under the non-jewish support section for nationalist support of zionism. for example, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israeli-nation-state-law-backed-by-white-nationalist-richard-spencer-1.6295314 this article claims that the famous neo-nationalist (or neo-nazi if you want to be contentious) richard spencer's support for zionism. many neo nationalists believe that the state of israel should be a blueprint for european ethnostates, and a common argument I've heard made is that if it is 'politically correct to be pro zionism but politically incorrect to be for ethnonationalism, isn't that a contradiction in terms?' or something thereabouts. I think it is a sufficiently popular sentiment for neo-nationalists and deserves to have its own section under the support for zionism section, and seeing that the anti zionism section has a section for anti-semitism, which is often linked to neo-nationalism, I think this justifies the addition of such a section.

note, I'm quite new to wikipedia so I'm not sure how the process for editing a locked article like this is, so if I'm missing anything let me know please.Jamesthefrank (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Where does this article say that Richard B Spencer supports Zionism ? In a different article he says "You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. Just like you want a secure homeland in Israel." He only uses Zionism as an analogy and does not say that he supports it. “WarKosign” 15:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2019

"A religious variety of Zionism supports Jews upholding their Jewish identity defined as adherence to religious Judaism, opposes the assimilation of Jews into other societies, and has advocated the return of Jews to Israel as a means for Jews to be a majority nation in their own state."

2601:2C2:900:2FB:4DFC:4EEC:8657:7A2 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please specify what exactly you propose to change in this article, with relevant reliable sources. “WarKosign” 11:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic nationalism

@Nableezy: The link to ethnic nationalism is very misleading. If Zionism is ethnic, why did Israel spend millions of shekels and Mossad agents risk their lives in Operation Solomon and Operation Moses? Your "source" (more of an opinion piece) is also very unreliable. I also think it's a bit of a dick move to sneak it into the article's first sentence by using the word national but linking to ethnic nationalism, so that fewer editors will notice the error and be able to correct it (this is more of a general statement than a personal accusation, as you're not the one who originally added it). M . M 22:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

A book published by Oxford University Press is "more of an opinion piece" and "very unreliable"? You want to base that on something? Because WP:RS seems to say something about books published by university presses. I think it calls it "scholarship". And reliable. I dont think I need to answer WP:OR with anything other than saying if reliable sources say that the nationalism expressed by Zionism is ethnic based then so to should Wikipedia. As far as the "dick move", I have no problem removing the piping and making it read ethno-nationalist. nableezy - 23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do. Would you care to make a wager? I bet 50 trillion kg of uranium-235 that someone will remove it within 24 h. (But if you add it now, it will technically constitute a violation of the WP:1RR, so you'll have to do it on your own risk.) M . M 23:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is apparently very unpatrolled by most editors. I'm glad you didn't accept the wager, or I'd be out of almost all my fissible uranium stockpile. Anyway, I've added footnote with a more neuanced approach now, citing both your soruce and this [1] Oxford source. M . M 08:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Irredentism

Add Category:Irredentism. -ApexUnderground (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Grammar fix

I don’t have the rights to edit this article, so I’m gonna recommend something; in the first paragraph, there’s a part that says “and an response”. Change the “an” to “a”. YeetZmeN (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, it said “and as an response”. YeetZmeN (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"...and maintenance"

An editor has edit warred to keep their inclusion of the phrase "and maintenance" into the phrase "...supports the re-establishment and maintenance of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel..."

I have two questions about this:

(1) What is source that the editor is relying on to add "and maintenance"? Where in the historical documents of Zionism is this concept covered?

(2) Is the editor implying that Zionism equates to support for all the policies of the state of Israel, which the Israelis, presumably, feel are necessary for he maintenance of that country? If not, then what isw the purpose of adding "and maintenance"?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Support for continuous existence of Israel is a major part of definition of Zionism:

From Merriam-Webster: "an international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel"

From Britannica: "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews"

Logically, once state of Israel has been established, for Zionism to continue existing it can't be only about establishing the state.

Support for existence of the state most certainly does not mean support for all the policies of a particular government. Most of the political fractions within Israel are Zionists, and yet there are wide disagreements on the policies that should be in place.

“WarKosign” 10:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Neither a dictionary, nor a general encyclopedia is an adequate WP:RS for the intricacies of what Zionism is and isn't. Please provide citations from reliable academic studies on Zionism which support the contention that Zionism is not simply about the establishment of a Jewish homeland, but also about its ongoing maintenance. Nothing else is acceptable, and if no sources are provided, I will be reverting the current edits once the requisite 24 hours is up. On the other hand, if real sources are provided, I have no problem with stepping aside and allowing the edit to stand. Wiithout a citation from a reliable source, the edit appears to me to be WP:OR, and possibly antisemitic as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

So far this is the only source I found: [2]: "...and thus support for the modern state of Israel". I did not see any source contradicting the claim, though. It could be a case of WP:BLUE - it's so obvious that Zionism is about supporting Israel that people don't bother to mention it. Even WZO's mission statement implies (and certainly doesn't contradict) it, but doesn't state it outright. Does anyone else have a solid source? “WarKosign” 14:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this quote from WZO will do: "Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state"“WarKosign” 14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me; but I don't think it's reasonable to equate "Zionist state" or "Jewish state" with "democratic state". And if that prose is included, then Wikipedia will perpetrate a contradiction in terms. WP:Reliable Sources are not sufficient grounds for Wikipedia to utter in its own voice an oxymoron. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The key part of this quote is "Strengthening Israel" as one of WZO's goals. "Jewish and democratic state" is how Israel is defined in its declaration of independence, so they just support Israel as it's defined. Why do you think that saying that the Zionism movement supports Israel means endorsing this support or making any statement about the nature of Israel in Wikipedia voice? “WarKosign” 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That's sufficient for defining WZO's definition of Zionism, but it's not sufficient for an article which is about Zionism in general. WZO is one organization alone, and doesn't speak for all Zionists. If we say that "Zionism is X", that definition should cover Zionism at all times, historically and in the modern age.

To raise another issue: what the heck does "maintenance" mean anyway? It's an extremely vague word subject to multiple interpretations. For this reason alone, adding it to the article is a very bad idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As I'm the editor who included the term "maintenance" to begin with, it perhaps it falls upon me to propose a way out. Though actually, it seems that WarKosign has done that for me, for which s/he has my thanks, by providing a reference. WarKosign also reasoned, as I did, that it would be foolish to exclude an addition to the currently sole aim (per par.1 of the lede) for Zionism, being (merely) the creation of the State of Israel, because it has been in existence for over 70 years. This is very obvious, being logical in the extreme, and therefore it is legitimate under WP:BLUE (thank you again, WarKosign) for there to be no RS requirement. However, and despite the fact that the lede should really not include citations at all, it being a summary of the article as a whole, we have another editor who may disagree with this and not accept mere reliance on a Wikipedia guideline. So, the BBC saying that Zionism stands (in addition) for the support of the modern state of Israel will be cited.

I propose making the following edit: replace: "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland..." with "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment and support of a Jewish homeland..."

I'll leave it for 24 hours or so before making the change. Boscaswell talk 09:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thats a whole bunch of non-policy based argumentation. I too oppose using definitions cobbled together by random people on the internet (ie you). If you want to include maintenance as part of the definition of Zionism then get solid reliable sources that do so. If you change it without doing so I will revert it as a non-RS based edit. nableezy - 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ll take that as acceptance of the use of the word “support” but not “maintenance”, since I advocated the former in the comment immediately preceding that little angry outburst.Boscaswell talk 10:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there anyone disputing that Zionism today is about supporting State of Israel? (Note, accepting that this is what Zionists think does not mean agreeing with them or endorsing their position). If you think it is disputed, please provide rational, preferably sourced, for this dispute. I agree that the article should have sources even if the statement is not disputed and not likely to be disputed. I found it surprisingly hard to find sources, here are two: [3]: "Since the 1948 establishment of Israel, Zionism refers to advocacy on behalf of Israel". [4]: "...it takes for granted its own morality, especially the right of Jews over their homeland and their right to defend their sovereignty by all means possible." “WarKosign” 10:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to "support". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The term “re-establishment” is POV. In the early Zionist Organization drafts of the Balfour Declaration, the equivalent word “reconstituted” was used; the British removed the word because it is ahistorical. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Correction: the British removed it because in their opinion, that is the opinion of the then-current colonial occupier, it was ahistorical :). NPOV wikipedia does not comment on what is "historical" or even by doing so imply that historicity is some sort of source of legitimacy -- either would be an NPOV breach, by the way. In any case, this dispute is kind of a case of bizarre BLUESKY. It's not really necessary to say Zionists support maintaining Israel, though at the same time does anyone seriously think that they were about creating Israel but you know, not caring if it continued to exist? No, that is actually hilarious. --Calthinus (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"support for a Jewish state" is a simpler formulation - it includes establishing, maintaining, and usually implies support for Israel (as the current Jewish state). Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, so Icewhiz, you're suggesting something a little different?

We currently have "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as..."

I had proposed "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment and support of a Jewish homeland...", but this wouldn't have worked, although only because it should be "support for" and not "support of".

Therefore, the proposal I had would have become OPTION 1 "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment of and support[citation] for a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as..."

You're suggesting something new, OPTION 2 "...is the nationalist[fn 1] movement of the Jewish people that espouses the support[no citation] for a Jewish state in the territory defined as..." The term re-establishment drops out altogether and the word "homeland" is replaced by "state".

I'd be happy with that - it is as you say much simpler. But if the thinking around the objections to my original recommendation were to be re-applied, then some might say that your phrase "it includes establishing, maintaining, and usually implies support" is synth, that it should have an RS, etc. Further, I had been going to include the BBC ref.[5] which WarKosign put up, but that says that Zionism is both re-establishment (it uses the word "create") and support. So I'd not include a citation with this option.

I prefer the term "state" instead of "homeland", so maybe people could please indicate a preference for either OPTION 1 homeland, OPTION 1 state or OPTION 2? Or even something else (groan). If the results are something like 2 for OPTION 1 homeland, 1 for OPTION 1 state and 2 for OPTION 2. then OPTION 1 homeland would "win", as OPTION 1 has 3 votes overall. I'll give it another 48 hours. Over to you. Boscaswell talk 10:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Jewish "State" or "national entity" may be more accurate - though need to check source usage (homeland has quite a bit of use). I think we can find a citation for "support"..... At present the article in the lead details sub-goals on the Zionist movement (e.g. prior to establishing a state - establishing (or re-establishing) one, after - supporting or maintaining). These sub-goals are obviously relevant, however they miss out on the defining goal - a "Jewish national entity" (at times - also outside of the historic land of Israel). In this sense - "that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland..." -> "that supports a Jewish homeland..." is simpler and more encompassing phrasing.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m confused, Icewhiz, because at the beginning of your latest comment you seem to prefer “state” over “homeland”, but then later on homeland seems to get the nod from you, after all. This is dragging on, so please state your preference. Thanks. Also, if you have an RS for support and not re-establishment and support, please give it. Thanks. Boscaswell talk 11:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well clearly this was the most important potential edit there could have been. All that jumping up and down that I had to put up with. *sigh* Not inconsiderable. I've been accused, and on my Talk page, worse. And in the end, interest fizzled out, people suggest things, I'm responsive, but they don't follow through. So I just went ahead and made the edit. Dealing with this has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my time on Wikipedia. Boscaswell talk 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Boscaswell: welcome to WP:A/I/PIA, where you can't make a simple straightforward edit without a lengthy negotiation. “WarKosign” 07:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Efraim Karsh

Karsh is being quoted here for a piece he wrote for Middle East Forum, a think tank run by Daniel Pipes (via its journal, Middle East Quarterly, which was previously not peer reviewed at all and now claims to be peer reviewed in an extremely selective way, unambiguously stating they use only reviewers that align with them ideologically.) This is not a mainstream publication; placing Karsh's opinions in that part of the article effectively weights the position of a think tank against the position of the entire scholarly mainstream, which is plainly WP:UNDUE. I am particularly concerned by the edit requesting that he be retained "for balance." Balance is about portraying scholarship in accordance with its weight, not about deciding that you dislike the scholarly consensus and digging up one guy from a think tank who says otherwise. This looks to me like textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. If Karsh's opinions are widely-held, it should be easy to find other people who hold them, published in more mainstream journals with more traditional peer-review, and to find broader summaries of that line of thought that are actually worthy of being weighted against the rest of that paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Can you see where in the article Karsh makes the claim being referenced in our article? I can’t see it. It would be helpful to understand what Karsh based his claim on. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the original insertion of the text and sources by TheTimesAreAChanging.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Karsh's article "Rewriting Israel¡s history" is part of his ongoing polemic against the New Historians. I think they all replied to his article, Shlaim's rebuttal reply is here https://www.meforum.org/92/a-totalitarian-concept-of-history. As far as I am aware, it is now generally accepted that the running away/orders narrative is not an accurate portrayal of history.Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the debate is captured at Efraim_Karsh#Palestine_Betrayed and 1948_Palestinian_exodus#Changes_after_the_advent_of_the_"New_Historians"_–_Late_1980s

I believe this is really a fringe theory.

Most importantly though, its relevance to this article is tangential, so it needs to cross a high hurdle to be due weight here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Karsh is not so much "post revisionist" as he is "counter-revisionist", and his opinion -- even if properly sourced -- doesn't carry much weight against the narrative which has been well-developed by the New Historians. As I said in an edit summary, if a bunch of historian can be found who agree with Karshs reversion, then they can be put into the mix and perhaps the counter-claim would become DUE. As it is now though, it's Karsh vs. everyone else, and it should be removed from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems we have consensus here. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, New_Historians#Criticism is one place to look. Karsh is not some fringe fellow. He is the founding professor of a King's College department. The reason why nobody is debating here, is because there is no point in doing so in the IP conflict area, the "other side" has the numbers , and that is how it works in Wikipedia. That's why you can't use Wikipedia as a valid source for your college thesis or journal, it's biased. Same here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

His theory as to the running away/orders narrative is no longer the accepted narrative. The debate has moved on from denial to "we had a good excuse for doing what we did". That's the new battleground, Karsh's stuff is Old Historian.(that's not the same as saying he is fringe).Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Selfstudier, read the criticism section of the New Historian, especially the part that Morris himself criticized the New Historians and reversed his own writings. I know Karsh isn't going to go in, but let's not fool ourselves and say New Historians aren't ideologues and are pushing an agenda, and Wikipedia's articles in this area are biased. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have read it and Morris. Morris has not reversed himself (the conclusions in Birth are still the same conclusions), he has simply decided, post Intifada, that the behavior he uncovered was justifiable and that is where the argument is now. There isn't a club of card carrying New Historians nowadays, what there is is a lot of follow on scholarship from Newer Historians that have endorsed most, if not all, of the earlier findings. I don't actually care myself whether Karsh is included here or there because most people know he's not relevant on this sort of thing, I just don't really know what it has to do with "Zionism", nothing at all as far as I can see.Selfstudier (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

[EC] @Sir Joseph, Nobody is arguing that Karsh is "some fringe fellow". We have a decision to make, however. Fairly outlining the different positions would involve going into detail and fairly considerable length. At the end of the day, it's questionable whether it would be worth doing that in a general article on Zionism, questionable because, at least in the view of some editors, it would inevitably make the traditional Zionist version of events, as championed by Karsh, look like propaganda. In fairness, the choice about whether to go down that route should be given to you. I shouldn't think that the end result would be as you might hope, though.

Here's what David Hirst wrote in The Gun and the Olive Branch, the first edition of which came out in 1977, more than ten years before Morris coined the term "New Historians" (page 260 and following, chapter "Gun Zionism"):

"Moreover, when it comes to the all-important question of the Palestinian refugees, the Zionists profess that their consciences are equially clear, for it was not they who drove them out, but their own leaders who ordered them to flee.

"The Zionist version of the Palestinian exodus is a myth manufactured after the cataclysm took place. If the Zionists could show that the refugees had really fled without cause, at the express instructions of their own politicians, they would greatly erode the world's sympathy for their plight - and, in consequence, the pressure on themselves to allow them to return. Thus in public speeches and scholarly-looking pamphlets they peddled this myth the world over. It was not until 1959 that the Palestinian scholar, Walid Khalidi, exposed it for what is is. His painstaking researches were independently corroborated by an Irish scholar, Erskine Childers, two years later. Together they demonstrated that the myth was not just a gross misrepresentation of accepted or even plausible facts; the very 'facts' themselves had been invented. Orders for the evacuation of the civilian population had not simply been issued, the Zionists said, they had been broadcast over over Arab radio stations. One had come from the Mufti himself. This was the cornerstone of the Zionist case. Yet when these two scholars took the trouble to examine the record - to go through the specially opened archives of Arab governments, contemporary Arabic newspapers and the radio monitoring reports of the both the BBC and the CIA - they found that no such orders had been issued, let alone broadcast, and that when challenged to produce chapter-and-verse evidence, the date and origin of just one such order, the Zionists, with all the apparatus of the State of Israel now at their disposal, were quite unable to do so. They found, on the contrary, that Arab and Palestinian authorities had repeatedly called on the people to stay put and that the Arab radio servies had consistently belittled the true extent of Zionist attrocities. Indeed, it appears that, if anything, they expected of the civilian population, helpless before the Zionist onslaught, a much greater fortitude than they legirimately should have. Far from urging his people to flee, the Mufti was so alarmed at the incipient exodus that he sent this cable to one of his staff: "The emigration of children and others from Palestine to Syria is detrimental to our interest. Contact the proper authorities in Damascus and Birut to prevent it ..." Arab governments took steps to forcibly repatriate able-bodied Palestinians who had left the country, and Arab newspapers grew positively insulting about them. All this was corroborated by the Zionist radio services themselves. From time to time they carried reports of Arab efforts to prevent an exodus; when the exodus took place they duly reported it without mention of evacuation orders, and even when they came to refuting Arab claims that the Palestinians had been physically driven from their homes, they used all manner of argument except the one in question.

"It was only a year later, when the refugee problem was beginning to impinge upon the world's conscience, the the Zionists began to develop their whole post facto thesis. Professor Khalidi traces its first elaborate appearance to two mimeographed pamphlets - almost certainly the work of Joseph Schechtman, the Irgun-Revisionist biographer of Jabotinsky - which were disseminated by the Israeli Information Office in New York and subsequently incorporated in a memorandum submitted by by nineteen prominent Americans, including the poest Macleish and Niebuhr the theologian, to the UN."

    ←   ZScarpia   18:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I have those pamphlets. No author appears on them but Schechtman's authorship was proved by Rafael Medoff (Militant Zionism in America, pp214–215.) Medoff says they "served as the American Zionist leadership's staple literature for years to come". Also see Nur Masalha in Holy Land Studies, 2.2 (2004) 188–197. The standard set of misleading quotations originated here (Archbishop Hakim, etc), though they got even "better" with repeated retelling. Zero^talk 01:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

immigration certificates

Immigration Certificates to Palestine for one month in 1946

This was disputed, though no valid reason for disputing it was given:

At the end of the five-year period in 1944, only 51,000 of the 75,000 immigration certificates provided for had been utilized. In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed and legal immigration was permitted to continue indefinitely at the rate of 18,000 a year.

The "51,000" could use a better source but there is no reason to doubt it. The 18,000 per year is a correct report of the number of immigration certificates allotted per year for Jewish immigrants. The quota was published every month from the end of the war to the end of the Mandate. An example is shown here.

I added a source showing 10,938 remaining at war's end so the 51,000 could well be right in that case.Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A valid reason was given - the self-serving claims of the British in their white paper are obviously false - they claim "In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed" - and the case of SS Exodus proves this is false. Read WP:BRD and WP:ONUS and dO not add contested material to the article unless you get consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"In circumstances where Jewish refugees from Europe were fleeing violence and persecution, the White Paper's limits were relaxed". This statement is not false, both parts of it are obviously true.

I assume that what you mean is that the immigration limits were not relaxed enough to satisfy Zionist demands. The details of their demands and the actions they were taking to try and force their demands through (including the Exodus) are in the second source that I added although like a lot of material in this article, I don't really see what it has to do with Zionism per se.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The official annoucement of the 18,000/year quota is here: [6] Zero^talk 05:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The source you recently added to the article (Kochavi) directly contradicts the claim that the 18.000/year would continue indefinitely. It states "Whitehall decided to extend the date until the quota was filled" and later "...British offer of 1.500 visas per month to be charged against the remaining White Paper certificates". Accordingly I am removing your falsification of sources. Do not re-add them until you have consensus. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I quoted the first source directly so I falsified nothing, nor was it contradicted by the second source; it is equally clear from your comments that you have not actually bothered to read the second source I provided ie what actually happened after the number of certificates was reduced to 400 at the end of 1945 but as I have said, it has little or nothing to do with Zionism and doesn't belong in the article in any case.Selfstudier (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You inserted into the article, without consensus, a false statement that said the British offered to allow immigration of 18,000/year indefinitely. That is directly contradicted by the source you used which states that "Whitehall decided to extend the date until the quota was filled" and that "...British offer of 1.500 visas per month to be charged against the remaining White Paper certificates". that is - not indefinitely, and at most for another 10 months, and more likely for 6-7 months. Do not insert false information into the article, and do not re-insert material which has been challenged until you have consensus for it. Here come the Suns (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

You really have to cleanse your head of the idea that "without consensus" is the same as "without Here come the Suns' agreement". It isn't. It would also be a good idea to read sources more carefully. The words you quote refer to 1944, but on page 151 there is "Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Whitehall decided on the continuation of a provisional allocation of 1,500 immigration certificates per month." referring to 1946. The White Paper allocation had by then been exhausted (see page 149). I also provided two items of documentary evidence above including the public announcement of the new policy in January 1946. The allocation of 1,500 certificates per month continued until the end of the mandate. The allocation for April 15, 1948 to May 14, 1948 appears in Supplement 2 of the Palestine Gazette No. 1661 on page 578 and is basically identical to the 1946 example in the image above. As far as secondary sources go, the 1946 announcement and the continued provision of certificates after the exhaustion of the White Paper quota appears on pages 15 onwards of "Supplement to Survey of Palestine" of June 1947, with statistics up to March 1947. Zero^talk 00:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

"Given Russia's anti-semitism, at the start of World War I, most Jews (and Zionists) supported Germany in its war with Russia.[citation needed]"

This sentence should be redacted it draws upon more historically cited notions surrounding anti-semetism in Russia prior to the start of WW1 but deviates into unsubstantiated and opinionated nonsense. It implies most Jews are Zionists at the time and location and concludes that this supposed majority supported Germany against the Russian Empire.

Of the 13,200,000-13,600,000 total German military personal employed during World War 1 approximately 12,000 volunteers were Jewish. Additionally according to German Jewish veterans in responding to accusations of the lack of patriotism via "information leaflet" [7] I can approximate 70,000~ Jewish military personnel total during World War 1 (if the translation comes through correctly)

When comparing these numbers with the recorded 6million+ Jewish victims of the holocaust in Germany 25~ years later i'm finding discrepancies in the Jewish population comparative to military involvement during world war 1.

Nevertheless, this sentence should be redacted as the "[citation needed]" will never come to fruition. AUSrogue (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done It has been tagged with CN for over 4 years at this point, and I can't find one that seems usable, so I removed the entire sentence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Population of Palestine by ethno-religious groups

the population statistics from 1931 doesn't make sense, muslim population remained almost unchanged for 9 years!! in the source it says:

The 1931 census revealed that there were 66,000 nomadic Bedouins; today they are estimated to number 90,000. Little is known demographically about the people and no account is taken of them in the statistics of this chapter, which deal only with the settled population.

also, the total population in 1931 in the source is wrong, and it's different from the total on the table in thes article because the summation of populations in the source is incorrect, which is another reason why I don't think it is a reliable source at least not for year 1931

a better source I found is the Jewish Virtual Library here http://web.archive.org/web/20200410075602/https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present the numbers makes more sense to me

I'm not used to editing in wikipedia, could someone please check the sources and change the table if it needs to be changed? thank you.

Thanks for noticing this. The given source doesn't even agree with its own source or the censuses. JVL is not reliable though. I'll replace the numbers using the 1946 Survey of Palestine. Zero^talk 09:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I found the explanation. The original document has 693,147 for the number of Muslims in 1931 but it has been scanned as 493,147 in making the text version. The original can be found by searching for symbol "A/364(SUPP)" at https://documents.un.org/prod/ods.nsf/home.xsp . Zero^talk 10:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Summary : ideology

The summary is inaccurate, Zionism is a movement not an ideology. The ref that you use do not say that it is an ideology and at the same time a movement. It's a movement, and as an organised movement it has an ideology. Actually the term ideolgy is controversial as it is difficult to describe.

To sum it up, it's a national movement with ideological goals. But it is certainly not a political ideology as socialism. Claiming it's an ideology is actually a point of view. As you can see in the ref cited, mainly critical of the notion of Jewish nation.--Vanlister (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe Zionism is an ideology (according to Britannica, an ideology is "a form of social or political philosophy, or a system of ideas"). Whereas "a movement" denotes turning beliefs\ideas into some sort of action\activism. But as far as I am aware of, Zionism can be purely philosophical, and not necessarily actively political. - Daveout(talk) 16:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That's all right, but it is your own deduction. Virtually any human conceptualization can be purely philosophical, the point is, it is not a vague concept, as it is expressively a national movement. As all the national movements are based on 'ideology', there is no objective reason to mention the concept "ideology". In fact, the term Zionism was coined by the national movement itself. Even more striking, the movement was not defined around one only ideology ( collectivism, nationalism,... ). If you think more, you can describe Zionism in many many ways, not only ideology and political movement. And Btw, I don't recommend to make assumptions in political science based on a Britannica definition. --Vanlister (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Systematic discussion & lists of reference

Zionism was intended by Herzl to be run as a company modelled on colonial companies such as those who had been active in India and Africa. It is very useful to have centralised, short paragraphs concisely presenting the structures and linking to the many already existing articles. As of now, before I have added such overview paragraphs, we only had long, convoluted paragraphs, hard to use by people who don't have the need or patience to read through them, who disagree to their approach, or who simply need specific info and start from the main page, Zionism, but only in order to quickly and efficiently find access to their specific topics of interest.

Some might consider I was too bold, but pls don't remove. I am 100% sure that Wiki users will have a major benefit from using the additions I have made today. Fixing my mistakes & adding to the overviews goes w/o saying, and I'm looking fw to see how they'll evolve. Cheers & stay well, Arminden (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Zionism is an ideology "

Hello, the first assertion is based on an original work of cherry picking sentences in selected references. A definition must be holistic and should comprise a broad and concise definition. There is no references that state that Zionism "is both an ideology and a national movement".

Zionism is a movement, and as a political movement it is based upon ideologies.--Yael dess (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

Add citation (https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/87/1/289/5280103) to last paragraph of the first section of history, where the second citation needed tag is. A Tree In A Box (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done — TGHL ↗ (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request - Removal of Unreliable Source

Please change "Tashbih Sayyed, a Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, and author.[reference 144]" to "Tashbih Sayyed, a Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, and author." The Islam Watch website, which is now defunct, was never known to be a website with a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy per WP:RS and was much like Jihad Watch, an anti-Muslim website. Snuish2 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you doubting that this person was "Pakistani-American scholar, journalist, and author"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am merely saying that we need to delete the source. Snuish2 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

well, if you're not doubting that Sayyed is what he's listed as being, why would that statement need a CN tag? I don't really understand what you're getting at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The CN tag would be for a source supporting his inclusion on this page as a supporter of Zionism, just like all of the other individuals listed in the same sentence. Snuish2 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I have added two refs which say that Sayyed was a supporter of Israel. I did not remove the original citation, because I have not evaluated whether "Islam Watch" is a reliable source or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• If you believe that Islam Watch and Stand With Us are not reliable sources, either get a consensus for such here on this talk page, or on WP:RS/N. Do not remove them from the article without again without such a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't particularly difficult. Neither source has any editorial oversight. See WP:QUESTIONABLE. Is it your position that these sources are reliable or that consensus is required before any change is made to the article? Snuish (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is required when any change to an article is disputed. I've reverted your edit, so it is disputed. Now, you find a consensus. If it's as obvious as you are saying that they are not reliable sources, then finding a consensus to remove them should be easy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The burden is typically on editors who restore the material, which in this case is you. See WP:BURDEN. Some modicum of research on your part may be more prudent than reflexively reverting editors or asking editors to jump through hoops. Islam Watch has been previously discussed here and StandWithUs is a well-known advocacy organization, useful as a source on its own opinions but not much else. Snuish (talk) 07:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Snuish2 is correct here; these are not acceptable sources. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Islamm-watch is a. a hate site, b. wholly unreliable. StandWithUs is an ultra-partisan blog that is likewise unreliable. Neither of those are reliable sources, and the idea that one must get a consensus to remove such sources as opposed to getting a consensus to restore them goes directly against WP:ONUS and WP:RS. nableezy - 17:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

"but whose borders as the Land of Israel would encompass a much larger area"

This is in the very beginning of this article, but none of the four sources given say this. The borders of Israel are not maximalist for most forms of Zionism. This phrase sounds like the greater Israel conspiracy, not the stated policy of Zionist Meretz, Labour or Likud. This sentence doesn't real mean anything either. What does it mean to not control land but borders encompass a larger area? One thing, and thats taking over more land then Israel, which is not a mainstay of any form of Zionism, which is explicitly focused on Israel.

The way this ignores the Mizrahi Zionist movement in the opening and Mizrahi Jewish nationalism is also horrid (though that happens a lot).

As Judaism has the idea of Jews returning to Israel as a tenant of it, the modern Zionist movement spoken of here, led by the WZO's vision of a secular state, could be better characterized as secular zionism, which became the founding form in Israel. 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:5107:ab2e:801c:616a 02:04, 2 April 2021‎ (UTC)

 Done If the claim is not in the sources it should not be in the article. If it is in the sources contrary to what IP editor claims, please point out where (and reproduce relevant quote here for offline source.) I've checked the back history and at least four of those five sources were there before the "borders would encompass" statement was added. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gideon Biger quote

The one extra source, a Gideon Biger quote, was cited as including the text "embracing territories beyond Palestine proper just as Herzl envisaged." which I have been unable to locate in the source as linked. I have therefore removed the unsupported text. For what it's worth, the general gist of the five pages cited and the quotes in context is not that there was any plan for expansionism beyond roughly the historical Canaan, but that the issue of borders should be determined by pragmatic economic needs rather than sentimental demands for historically-based borders.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request: "Non-Hasidic Haredi Jews are represented by Agudat Yisrael/UTJ"

In the section about Haredi Jews' relationship to Zionism, the article claims that Non-Hasidic/Lithuanian Haredi Jews are represented by "Agudat Yisrael/UTJ." This is incorrect. Agudat Yisrael is the party which is controlled by and represents Hasidic Jews, the Lithuanian party is known as Degel Hatorah. UTJ is the name of the political alliance that the Hasidic Agudat Yisrael and the Lithuanian Degel Hatorah parties have formed to prevent vote wasting in the Israeli elections. Neither Agudat Yisrael nor UTJ is the correct name of a party that represents Non-Hasidic Haredi/Lithuanian Jews, the correct name of the party is Degel Hatorah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.10.195 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

{{|edit extended-protected|Zionism|}}

please change "However, other Zionists emphasized the memory, emotion and myth linking Jews to the Land of Israel." to "However, other early Zionist leaders emphasized that Jewish history; the Torah tenet that calls on the Jewish people to return to Zion; and the commandment to dwell in the Land of Israel, all irrevocably link Jews to the Land of Israel."

Location: Territories Considered

Explanation for proposed change: The connection of Jews to the Land of Israel is not and was not described by Zionist leaders as a "myth." The return to Zion, and the imperative to dwell in the biblical land of Israel are precepts enshrined in Jewish law.

"What's the Truth About . . . the Uganda Plan?". Jewish Action. Jewish Action. January 1, 2008. Retrieved May 3, 2021.

"Zionist Leaders-Chaim Weizman". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. October 11, 1999. Retrieved May 3, 2021.

Naor (January 1, 2002). "Zionism. The First 120 Years. Timeline, Articles, Documents, Glossary". Central Zionist Archives. The Jewish Agency for Israel, The Publishing House of The Zionist Library. Retrieved May 2, 2021.

Medoff, Rafael; Waxman, Chaim I (January 2, 2009). "The A to Z of Zionism" (PDF). The Scarecrow Press. Retrieved May 3, 2021.}

"The Mitzvah of Settling the Land of Israel". Peninei Halakha. April 5, 2001. Retrieved May 3, 2021.} Epavard (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Epavard (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC) 13:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Epavard (talk)

 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. This request is unintelligible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed it a bit since the source did not use "myth" as the edit implied. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Why is there no link between this very misleading article and the facts about the origins of Zionism laid out in this article? https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Christian_Zionism As a Jewish person, I find it very problematic that Wikipedia upholds the myth that Zionism represents all Jews or even Judaism at all. 74.57.164.141 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The article has an entire section on "Christian Zionism", which includes a link to that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Land of Israel being the Home of the Jews is the #1 Principle of Zionism

MODERATOR - "Canaan, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine." The Land of Israel needs to be included in the opening paragraph. 2601:589:4801:5660:619D:1CD1:FA2B:BB8F (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The Holy Land is essentially Israeli - see that article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no.

Arbitration enforcement. Fences&Windows 11:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding ... http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Zionism&type=revision&diff=1024791953&oldid=1023078805 See ... http://www.biblaridion.info/video/ethnogenesis.pdf See ... http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Eran_Elhaik "... are Jews a race or not a race. Ostrer and his camp say Jews are a race, they are more homogenous than not, they are closely related, and they are mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant. Elhaik, Yardumian and Schurr say no, Jews are not a race, they are more heterogenous than not, they are not closely related, they are not mostly the descendants from the Ancient Hebrew in the Levant, but are mostly the descendants of converts to Judaism outside of the the Levant. Elhaik is a Zionist but is not biased in his research, he says his intention was not to disprove a connection to biblical Jews, but rather "to eliminate the racist underpinnings of anti-Semitism in Europe". Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA." SteveBenassi (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Claim about Jewish population size in Israel

By the early 21st century, more than 40% of the world's Jews lived in Israel, more than in any other country.

According to this Israel hosts the second largest Jewish population (30%), after the US (51%). Although it does mention some potential ambiguity in counting, it's very unclear that Israel is home to the largest Jewish population in the world, and this entry should probably reflect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutme Nayme (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The sources are conflicting. According to this, for example, "Israel, which already has the largest Jewish community in the world, will soon be home to a majority of the world’s Jews."

Of course the numbers vary wildly depending on the definition of Who is a Jew?. “WarKosign” 04:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Indigeneity

This with regard to Jews in Palestine is a highly controversial issue and cannot be written as a neutral fact, as the two polemical texts adduced try to state. In 1905 the Jews were 5% of the population of Palestine, and these Palestinian Jews constituted 0.25% of the Jewish world population at that period. Jews were 'indigenous' historically in the common acceptance of that term all over Europe, the Middle East and not only in Palestine, for millennia. The language also talked of an indigenous state: states are not indigenous. In describing Zionism as a project, one must use the language of that time, which didn't assert Jews are indigenous to Palestine (contrafactual to the realities of that time) but that all Jews, the 99.75& who lived elsewhere had their ancestral origins millennia before in that land. Indigenous in English means 'native to' as opposed to 'arriving from elsewhere'. The Jews may have been 'native to' Palestine millennia ago, but Zionism argued that all Jews elsewhere were to have the right of arrival, aliyah, which is a different concept.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is controversial, but there are guidelines.

For one thing, the size of the Jewish community does not negate indigeneity. According to Canadian historian and former government adviser on aboriginal issues, Alan Hertz, "North American Indian tribes...are still among the aboriginal Peoples of Canada, though some Indian bands now number only a few hundred individuals"

I am not familiar with indigeneity being purely a function of time or how that is the "common acceptance of the term". One definition of indigenous is the one by Prof. Jose R. Martinez Cobo, the UN Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. In his 1986 study on the "Problem of Discrimination against Indigenous Populations," defines indigeneity in terms of ancestral land, language and culture (quoted here), criteria that do apply to the Jewish connection to Israel. See also World Bank 1991 definition.

True, states are not indigenous -- I was trying to fit the word into the existing sentence without rewriting it or making it too unwieldy, and applied the term incorrectly to describe the land instead of the people. However, I'm not sure I agree that the word cannot be used here or is contra factual. It does have a meaning that carries with it cultural/language ties that go beyond mere history and to that extent makes a distinction between the ties Jews have to Israel and their ties to Europe. Yes, according to Zionism, Jews from around the world have the right to live in Israel, because they are returning to the land to which they have maintained their bond. In fact, according to the English meaning of native (which you give as the definition of indigenous), it refers to "a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not." Living elsewhere does not negate indigeneity.

Finally, the article is on the ideology/philosophy of Zionism. Zionism holds there is a Jewish bond to the land. One can argue, as you do, how indigenous Jews are -- or aren't -- to Israel. But the point of the article is to explain what Zionism stands for, not to prove whether or not it's assumptions are correct. UClaudius (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Zionism is an ideology (fascinating because the general consensus is that 'ideologies' in the West died on their feet as a consequence of the events in 1989- and in the high discourse of modernity, several major works affirmed that we had reached 'the end of ideology'), and therefore in describing it one cannot adopt language that implies its doctrines are not mere statements of belief but descriptions of reality. Your edit was strange for several reasons

In writing 'movement primarily among the Jewish people that espouses the re-establishment and support for the indigenous . .Jewish state',

• you erred in attributing 'indigeneity' to a state.(as you admit)
• in using the definite article 'the' the semantic implication is that such an 'indigenous' state exists (compare 'support for an indigenous state', where the indefinite article makes that state a concept.
• In 'reestablishment of the indigenous Jewish state', the implied model is the Hasmonean dynasty, I guess. But ancient 'states' are not what modern states are, and the specific model proposed by Herzl was a nation state where ethnicity and polity overlap, which was not the case in ancient Jewish historical examples. Herzl's Zionism proposed a secular concept of state utterly out of keeping with the intense religious dynamics of ancient forms of Jewish polity, and therefore the word 're-establishment' engenders all sorts of confusions. The Hasmoneans forced conversion on other ethnic groups: Herzl's Zionism at least in its public form, had no intention of transforming the dominant Arab majority into converted Jews.
• 'indigenous' , as I stated elsewhere, implies that Jews immigrating in millions from all over the globe were, by virtue of being Jews, 'indigenous' to the land where they took up residence. If you had said in the 1890s down to the 1990s, that French or German Jews are 'indigenous' to Palestine/Israel, people would laugh at you, the assertion is so patently silly.
• We simply don't use the word 'indigenous', except in a certain kind of chic academic thesifying, for stable traditional modern populations ('I'm an indigenous Englishman/Chinese/Canadian'). To the contrary, the overwhelming drift of usage, as I stated, is to contrast a difference within the historic population between a majority whose language and culture is expressed as the basic nature of the society (English etc.) and residual/minority groups who maintain liens to an earlier, now marginalized people with a different language and culture from that of the dominant group (Welsh etc).
• 'Indigeneity' is out of whack with Zionist usage. In Zionism for half a century, it was openly admitted that their project was a 'colonial' one, establishing an immigrant majority over the 'indigenous' Arabs (the 'existing population'. To retroactively state that Zionism sought an indigenous Jewish state is question-begging. But it does have a rhetorical valency whose use outweighs any mere technical analysis.
• Indigeneity arguments like the one asserted in that embarrassingly immature paper you cited (whose premise is peace won't be obtained until Palestinians recognize Israel's Jewish population as 'indigenous' and therefore with historic claims on a par with the population its establishment aimed to dispossess, an extraordinary premise because a part of Zionism's ideology is to assert that the Palestinians have never existed as a people, a remark a comment of yours on my page repeated, signaling that you actually believe this tripe:'Palestinian Arab culture and language are tied to Arabia. Of course, you can argue that we are seeing the development of a Palestinian Arab indigenous bond to the land right before our eyes.' By that token, logically, most Jews mutatis mutandis were tied to the languages and cultures of the countries their historic communities variously dwelt in)
• Specifically the 'indigeneity' gambit is the 4th, as far as I know, circulating since 1948. When one talking point is confuted or loses its use-by-date utility, another crops up.

Every historian knows in 1948 there was a 'displacement' of a huge part of the traditional Palestinian population from Israel, and in larger terms, Palestine as a result of war. There was no 'displacement' of Jews - to the contrary, they consolidated, legitimately in terms of their aims, their presence by massive immigration, as they had for 30 years under the Mandate.

This stark distinction between immigration of settlers and expulsion/displacement of Palestinians looked bad. The first strategy to counter the negative fallout of this historical contrast was

• (a) assert that Arabs were to blame for broadcasting pleas for Palestinians to abandon their territory briefly to enable the invading armies clear ground: this propaganda meme collapsed in 1961 when the evidence came out no such Arab tactical calls for temporary evacuation took place. It was a concocted lie.
• (b) Then there was the Peters' thesis in the early 80s (and attempts are still being made to revive it on wikipedia), that in fact Palestinians were more immigrant than early Zionists, rushing to cross the borders to enjoy the fruits of Zionist modernization. In theory this lasted about 3 years, until the fraudulence of her evidence was exposed.
• (c) Then we had the parallel gambit: admit the truth, Palestinians had been expelled from Palestine by Israel, but at the same time, raise the talking point that, contemporaneously, massive number of Jews also had been expelled from Arab countries. We have numerous articles affirming this parallel in 'exodus/expulsion'. That is still quite effective, even if, as historians know, since they are required to analyses causality and follow chronological reasoning, (i) 1948 occurred before the wave of expulsions/emigrations in Arab lands (ii) It was a core Zionist programme before 12948 to 'gather in' the putative 'exiles' and Zionists had been active in Iraq and elsewhere since the 1940s trying to get Jewish communities in several Arab lands to come to Palestine/Israel. It was integral to Zionism that Jewish diaspora communities leave their homes in the diaspora regardless of local political conditions. (c)The impact of what occurred to Palestinians on Arab opinion was profound, and certainly, esp. in the wake of 1956, 1967, 1973, created a situation of great difficulty for the numerous Jewish communities across the Arab world, incentivizing them to make aliyah (though many chose other destinations).
• The indigeneity meme arose as a fourth element, an outrider of the preceding, in response to the diffuse acceptance of the historical fact that Zionism made its proposal re Palestine when 95% of the resident and ancient population was Muslim/Christian Arab. As what critics call the 'chic' of indigenous studies took hold, Palestinians were seen as a notable part of the picture, a local population massively thrust out of its traditional territory by a colonial project, much as aboriginal populations the world round had been.
• The hasbara spin was to consolidate the religious story that (i) the Bible authenticated proper title by divine writ (effective in the Christian world that counted geopolitically)(ii) that the Jews in diaspora were there historically not by virtue of choice, but due to the catastrophio effect of expulsion from Israel by imperial Rome, with the Assyrian/Babylonian precedents. (iii) a generic reminder of how, at the core of Judaism, and therefore Jewish cultural sentiment over millennia, the God-given homeland was an object of passionate attachment and a general aspiration to return when conditions permitted. Theological title is no warrant; history from the earliest time shows the Jews actively creating communities, without constraint, beyond Palestine, which remained the religious heartland, but where, by the time of the Romans, was no longer arguably the homeland of the majority of Jews; evidence of a Roman ethnic cleansing is non-existent; even when Zionism emerged in Europe, it took decades for it to inflect to any significant degree common Jewish sensibility - the orthodox view was that it was an atheistical secular heresy, the American view was that the new Zion lay elsewhere, in the US (an idea that suffered a blow in 1924) for one, with most European Jews considering emigration aspiring to move West, not to Palestine.
• The appropriation of the native peoples/indigeneity notion is designed to reestablish 'parity' at a discursive level: yes, sure, Palestinians were 'indigenous' ('sort of) but we are equally so because our ancestors from whom we descend uniquely in a relatively pure line of descent, lived there once for hundreds of years before Titus and Hadrian expelled us. This fourth usage is a matter of repackaging a tired meme whose effectiveness has expired.

So. One must make a sharp distinction between Zionism's ideological claims (and most scholarship has disposed of them) and historical realities. Indigeneity, like 'return', is a loaded word used as a chic subterfuge for ensuring an afterlife for the dead meme it is designed to replace.

'Return' doctrine is I note, once more being brandished. The first meme was that all Jews immigrating to Palestine were engaged in a 'return'. It doesn't wash historically or genetically. Today one reads of the censorship of British textbooks on the I/P conflict which explain that 'settlements' consist in Jews 'returning' to villages they were expelled from in 1948. I'm sure everyone asserting that knows it is an outrageous piece of counterfactual hasbara, but it rings that comfortable 'bell' about the Jews reclaiming what they were dispossessed of.*

Chalcraft says that while the original version “reasonably describes Jewish settlers as those who live in new settlements built on the West Bank and Gaza”, the revised version defines them as Jews returned to villages from which they were expelled in 1948, among others. “This definition is a nonsense in regards to the overwhelming majority of Jewish settlers who were not expelled in 1948,” he says.'

Encyclopedic work deals in scholarship, not the endorsing of ideology, and articles on the latter must sharply distinguish historical realities from propagandistic spinning, even in the lamentably uninformed sources you cited:Joffe, Dr. Alex (3 September 2017). "Palestinian Settler-Colonialism". The Begin–Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.:Ukashi, Ran (2018). "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis". Peace and Conflict Studies. 25 (1): 5. Retrieved 6 June 2021., neither of which stand up to a minute's scrutiny.Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• "a" vs the: "the" indicates a specific, non-arbitrary location for the state. Areas other than then-Palestine were considered, to a large degree because of the pressing issue of pogroms, as Herzl himself specifically indicated.

• "reestablishment of the indigenous Jewish state" has nothing to do with Hasmoneans. It merely indicates the connection and continuity between the current state and the earlier one.

• "If you had said in the 1890s down to the 1990s, that French or German Jews are 'indigenous' to Palestine/Israel, people would laugh at you, the assertion is so patently silly." From my perspective, this is not relevant. The goal is to present the Zionism perspective on its own terms.

• "We simply don't use the word 'indigenous'" -- I do not agree. If the UN has a working definition, the World Bank has a definition and we can see the word "indigenous" bandied about on social media (including in reference to Palestinian Arabs), then it is a word that can and should be used. And if its definition includes language and culture in addition to history, then it serves the purpose of distinguishing the connection of Jews to Israel as opposed to England

• "In Zionism for half a century, it was openly admitted that their project was a 'colonial' one, establishing an immigrant majority over the 'indigenous' Arabs (the 'existing population)'". Actually, Ben-Gurion was clear in 1937 in saying that was not the case:

"Jews coming to Palestine do not regard themselves as immigrants: they are returning as of right to their historic homeland...the right of Jews to enter Palestine and to re-establish there their National Home."

There is also the issue of the existing Jewish population there which never ceased to exist.

• Again, much of what you write (and expended a good deal of time, which I appreciate) is outside the issue of what Zionism is. The issue in an encyclopedia is to present the topic, in this case the Zionist movement, as it saw itself. The choice of then-Palestine was based on ties of history, culture and language as well as an uninterrupted presence and the ongoing remembering and reference to Israel and Jerusalem in prayers and on holidays.

• By all means, talk about the Palestinian Arabs. But an encyclopedia article on Zionism should start off by presenting Zionism as it sees itself -- and that is not endorsing an ideology. And while "Encyclopedic work deals in scholarship," -- this is Wikipedia, and while you may not find them up to snuff, I do not see any reason to justify my selection of sources (BTW, I don't see you attacking Hertz).UClaudius (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you find evidence that the theorists of Zionism used language of the kind 'the Jewish people are the indigenous people' of Palestine, let me know. What you are repeating is a Zionist meme, related to prayer moments in the so-called diaspora, as occurs in all Abrahamic faiths and is not something exceptional within Judaism. For 2000 years Christians have had an uninterrupted presence (historically far stronger than Jews until recent times) and have sung with equal frequency of the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Most Jews spoke no more Hebrew than Christians spoke Latin, and for women prayers were in Yiddish. From that, one could make the same artificial ideological arguments that you find in Zionism. The Crusaders did, and wrecked their putative 'Holy' Land after which, we all grew up celebrating Christmas and Easter, trained to reconfigure ourselves imaginatively into Palestine 2000 years ago, but not converting the dream into a warrant for colonial 'return.' Sure Zionism asserts this claptrap, but it is ideological, non-factual. There were zero impediments to making aliyah for most of the 2,000 years: those who did, as down to the 1880s did so predominantly in order to find comfort for their last years in their Eretz Israel (according to the Hope Simpson report). In reaction to the standard eastern European pogroms in the 1880s, 99.99% of emigrating Jews never considered for a moment moving to Palestine. You can get indirect evidence by scouring all of the wonderful Yiddish novels and short stories about East European Jews of the pre-war period by Issac Bashevis Singer. The homeland refrain and longing is very rare, as rare as it is in those beautifully allusive passages in Bloom's nostalgic moments as he walks the streets of Dublin. Singer was writing about the realities of Jewish life as remembered minutely, not fiddling with it for ideological purposes. You however believe the memes. Encyclopedic work means suspending one's convictions and looking for documentary evidence (of the kind so egregiously absent in the two sources you brought to bear).Zionist leaders had great difficulty for decades in convincing Jewish communities the world over to join their project, which the orthodox rabbis regarded as virtually blasphemous. What you are retailing/retelling is what Zionists have spun as the core of Jewishness, when it wasn't. It's doctrinaire. Indeed, the fact that for a decade, Zionists thought of several different places from Uganda to Argentina, as a future 'homeland' is evidence enough that the driving vision was not 'indigeneity' as much as securing, understandably, a national haven anywhere for their poorer classes (few of the elite considered relocating from Europe). A correct introduction would emphasize a homeland, and then specify the precise moment Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not for this Wikipedia article to decide if Jews are indigenous -- it is to depict 'Zionism' and its ideology accurately

You can certainly address this issue and the opposing side within the Zionism article, but in the introductory paragraph, it is proper to depict the Zionist position on the Jewish connection to Israel. I have no problem with giving both sides.

As for Elhaik being reliable, I have no idea if that is true. What I do know, from this article in Forbes in 2013 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2013/05/16/israeli-researcher-challenges-jewish-dna-links-to-israel-calls-those-who-disagree-nazi-sympathizers/?sh=53b6d80928bc): "While Elhaik’s work has provided ideological support for those seeking the destruction of Israel, it’s fallen flat among established scientists, who peer-reviewed his work and found it sloppy at best and political at worst."

The title of that article: Israeli Researcher Challenges Jewish DNA links to Israel, Calls Those Who Disagree 'Nazi Sympathizers' UClaudius (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

He is just recycling the old “khazar hypothesis” which is heavily discredited or a fringe theory at most. “Nazi Sympathisers” is gaslighting bullshit.2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:58AB:EAFB:76C9:5119 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence on the modern purpose of Zionism

It says that since the creation of the Jewish state in 1948, the continued Zionist movement has been focused on “threats to Israel’s security and status as a nation.” There is no citation for this, as noted. If the wiki is going to posit this theory, the neutral way to counter it is to include that critics of modern Zionism reject that Israel faces any legitimate threat to its existence as a nation by Palestinians. In fact, critics of modern Zionism would go further and say that the purpose of modern day Zionism is merely the oppression of the Palestinian people. 96.234.74.233 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

The first mention of a person in the body of a any well-written article, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, should indicate both the first and last names of that person. It is acceptable in subsequent references within the body of the piece to use the person's last name only. However, the first instance of Theodor Herzl in the body of this Wikipedia article is "Herzl," not "Theodor Herzl." Larryyelen (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's done. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Lovers of Zion/Hovevei Zion

The Lovers of Zion mention and reference in the article's current 3rd paragraph and the "Lovers of Zion" mention and reference in section 1 Terminology need changing to Hovevei Zion. Maybe the 3rd paragraph mention should be moved to 4.3.1 Organization where Hovevei Zion is mentioned, and expanded. Mcljlm (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ideology

The first sentence of the article's current 3rd paragraph - "Its ideology posited a negation of the Diaspora and, until 1948 perceived its primary goal as an ideal ingathering of exiles (kibbutz galuyot) in the ancient heartland of the Jewish people, and, through a unique variation on the principle of national self-determination or the establishment of a sovereign state, the liberation of Jews from the massacres, persecutions and antisemitism they had been subject to." - is awkward. How could it be improved? Mcljlm (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Zionist ideology consisted in a negation of Jewish life in the Diaspora. From 1897 to 1948, the primary goal was to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thereafter to consolidate it. In a unique variation of the principle of self-determination, it viewed this process as an 'ingathering of exiles'(kibbutz galuyot) whereby Jews everywhere would have the right to emigrate to historical Palestine, as a haven from persecution, an area which Moses in the Bible stated was the land of their forefathers. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I like it. -Daveout(talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to see the changes from your original suggestion at 08:32 to your latest at 8:40 (though the current timestamp doesn't indicate that). I agree that your final suggestion is better than "From 1904" and "state", especially since after being notified of your original change I spent time trying to find when a state was openly called for.

After looking at https://blog.harwardcommunications.com/2014/06/11/the-difference-between-consist-of-and-consist-in/, https://ourenglishblog.com/grammar/consist-of-or-consist-in/and https://grammarhow.com/consist-in-vs-consist-of/ I'm not sure "in" following "consisted" is correct rather than "of". Mcljlm (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

The link to "Operation Magic Carpet" is incorrect. It is to the WWII operation. It should be to the "Operation Magic Carpet (Yemen)" link. Sabrtbi (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

9 February 2023

Drsmoo, why shouldn't the history of Palestine be included in in the "Main" template under the sub-heading "historical and religious background" as I had it? إيان (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The article “History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel” covers the same region, but with a focus on Jewish history relevant to the historical and religious background of Zionism. Drsmoo (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Should all three articles in the template focus on Jewish history? Is the history of Palestine, including Jewish history in Palestine, not substantively relevant to a discussion of the historical and religious background of Zionism? إيان (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok I’ll re-add it, but without the removal of Jewish history. Drsmoo (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Ironically, the edit you made is the one I first set out to make myself, but the visual editor only gave me three slots for the template. إيان (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Zionist ideology

@User:Dovidroth If the "controversial" inclusion of the settler colonialism category must go, then the equally controversial and pro-Zionist inclusion of the category for National liberation movements must go too. Either they both stay or they both go. The alternative is a blatant promotion of Zionism. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2023

The "Establishment of the Zionist movement" section is clunky and needs proofreading. Two specifics: In the paragraph beginning "The Reformed Jews," please change "The Reformed Jews" to "Reform Judaism," change "reformed Judaism" later in the paragraph to "Reform Judaism," and provide a Wikipedia link to the denomination it references - http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Reform_Judaism Thank you. Plakern99 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Already done It appears the text already more or less says what you want ("Reformed Jews opposed..." with a link to the denomination, and "the Messianic idea of Reform Judaism" appears later, but doesn't need linking a second time because it's already linked). Lizthegrey (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks like the changes were essentially made since I made the request above, as I don't see "Reformed Jews" anymore and I believe the link is newly added, thank you Plakern99 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm the culprit, and forgot to add the fact I had acted on your request, causing Lizthegrey to waste her time. Thanks for the suggestion.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

All good! Thanks, y'all. Lizthegrey (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Plakern99 (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2023

Hi, The final sentence in the "Overview" section ("Opposition to Zionism (being against a Jewish state), according to historian Geoffrey Alderman, can be legitimately described as racist.[39][40]") should be deleted along with the 39-40 citations. I do not know Wikipedia standards, and since this suggestion is obviously in the interest of the readers, the topic, and future discussion, a decision almost all can agree upon (except perhaps for Geoffrey and some of his cousins), I hope someone with the appropriate privileges proceeds. The statement is borne of no real context; it seems like Geoffrey searched for an idea articulated somewhere in a previous paragraph, found it, could not determine how to integrate his assertion in an appropriate manner, and just stuck it at the end of the section. It is self- and ideology-motivated. It is not an historical fact, as all other sentences are. If it serves a value, it should be discussed wherever it adds value -- and at appropriate depth. As it is, this sentence just ... hangs. It distracts the reader. It does not innovate upon ideas from previous sentences (even paragraphs). It is laughably subjective; It seems like some guy wants to get his name out there ... And this is an awkward and weird way to get a (questionable) reputation. In summary, it is weird, self-interested, does no good, and does harm.

Really, please consider deleting it. Thanks in advance for tolerating the disorderliness of my suggestion. (It seems like this edit should not require significantly more eloquent articulation of very careful rationale.) Cheers. Yourlocalsuperhero (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done It is bad editing to provide just one opinion on a serious issue. Moreover, the fact that the opinion comes from someone who supports killing of civilians (see his article) makes it even more inappropriate. Zero^talk 03:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

As heinous as I find Alderman's views -- that according to Jewish religious law, Palestinian civilians are legitimate targets to be killed simply for having voted for Hamas -- I'm also very uncomfortable with this being used as a rationale for removing his comment from the article. The man appears to me to be a legitimate historian. Is the controversy of those remarks sufficient to undermine his credence as a historian to the extent that "anti-Zionism is racism" is removed from the article?

I would suggest restoring the material, restoring the WP:STATUSQUO, and opening an RfC on whether it should be included or not. At this point, we have only one complaint and an editor acting on that complaint without any additional discussion from within the community. Let's hear from others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

If personal opinions are to be inserted at that point in the article, we are required to include a balanced selection of opinions. We don't need an RfC to decide whether to obey NPOV. I think it would be better to not go down that road but rather just report the facts. Zero^talk 07:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both the sources removed were opinion pieces in addition to any other issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

It's flawed technically, as it would be were we to note the passing of the Mabo Judgment that recognized aboriginal land rights. and then immediately add '(but) the historian Geoffrey Blainey contested the Supreme Court's decision. A legal judgment or institutional decision forms part of an historical narrative, opinions about it are properly placed, if important and relevant, elsewhere. Events are one thing, opinions about them another, unless the secondary comment itself, when stated, had an influential impact on the original decision's implementation etc. In rhetorical terms, the addition deleted aimed, in my view ineptly. to balance by drawing on one notable historian's view expressed decades later, as if his personal opinion undermined the credibility of the UN resolution. Do that, as has been noted, and you only invite a counter-move to document that the historian Arnold Toynbee expressed this view a decade before the UN, and Zygmunt Bauman in 1979 likewise considered Israel's behaviour in the occupied territories racist, a possible prelude to a future Shoah redivivus, (imagine then a clutter of eminent comments messing up the historical narrative at this juncture as editors warred to find endorsements or disclaimers for the declaration). The proper position for Alderman's comment, if among the tsunami of notable people and scholars who have an opinion about this, would be on the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379. Nishidani (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Points taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Hi, I'd like to request that the 11 instances of the use of the term "anti-Semitism" be edited to reflect the correct, unhyphenated spelling, "antisemitism." Hyphenation of this term lends itself to confusion about its meaning, and is considered incorrect by the IHRA and other institutions: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/antisemitism/spelling-antisemitism

Thank you. JustLilEdits (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: When quoting from original sources verbatim, those sources must be respected; while we can switch to "antisemitism" when paraphrasing, if a source says "anti-Semitism", then we have to follow what it says exactly when quoting. Can you identify the specific paragraphs that are not quotes that need to be changed over? lizthegrey (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that insight. The specific, non-quote locations are:

- 2 locations in the "Overview" section, in the 2nd and 4th paragraphs

- Once at the end of the "Haredi Judaism and Zionism" section

Additionally, at the very end of the "Anti-Zionism or antisemitism" section, it seems that there is a missing quotation mark that would close the quote from Norman Finkelstein? Thanks again! JustLilEdits (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done: At the end of "Haredi Judaism and Zionism", it doesn't exactly have "anti-Semitism", but it does have "anti-Semite". I'm assuming that's what you are referring to, so I've changed it to "antisemite". Is this correct?

There is a missing quotation mark, at the end of the quote, so I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)