Misplaced Pages

Talk:Zionism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:10, 22 October 2024 editKronosAlight (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,756 edits →Details in Lead: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:42, 23 December 2024 edit undoDMH223344 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,821 edits →Discussion (RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism): ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-protected|small=yes}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement|consensus-required=y|placed-date=2024-08-13}} {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement|consensus-required=y|placed-date=2024-08-13}}
Line 92: Line 91:
|archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |archivedate6 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate6 = October 22, 2024 |accessdate6 = October 22, 2024
|author7 = Shlomit Aharoni Lir
|title7 = The crime of the century? Bias in the English Misplaced Pages article on Zionism
|date7 = November 5, 2024
|org7 = ]
|url7 = https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syf5kylb1g
|lang7 =
|quote7 =
|archiveurl7 =
|archivedate7 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate7 = November 5, 2024
|author8 = Jo Elizabeth
|title8 = Your professor was right, don’t rely on Misplaced Pages: Anti-Israel bias intensifies after October 7
|date8 = November 8, 2024
|org8 = ]
|url8 = https://allisrael.com/your-professor-was-right-don-t-rely-on-wikipedia-anti-israel-bias-intensifies-after-october-7
|lang8 =
|quote8 =
|archiveurl8 =
|archivedate8 = <!-- do not wikilink -->
|accessdate8 = November 8, 2024

|author9 = Shraga Simmons
|title9 = Weaponizing Misplaced Pages against Israel: How the global information pipeline is being hijacked by digital jihadists.
|date9 = November 11, 2024
|org9 = ]
|url9 = https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
|lang9 =
|quote9 =
|archiveurl9 = https://web.archive.org/web/20241113082217/https://aish.com/weaponizing-wikipedia-against-israel/
|archivedate9 = November 13, 2024
|accessdate9 = December 1, 2024
|author10 = Debbie Weiss
|title10 = Misplaced Pages’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative
|date10 = December 4, 2024
|org10 = ]
|url10 = https://www.algemeiner.com/2024/12/04/wikipedias-quiet-revolution-how-coordinated-group-editors-reshaped-israeli-palestinian-narrative/
|lang10 =
|quote10 =
|archiveurl10 =
|archivedate10 =
|accessdate10 = December 5, 2024
}} }}
{{High traffic|date=16 September 2024|url=http://archive.today/2024.09.18-060458/https://x.com/rochelruns1836/status/1835735925499806030|site=Twitter}} {{High traffic|date=16 September 2024|url=http://archive.today/2024.09.18-060458/https://x.com/rochelruns1836/status/1835735925499806030|site=Twitter}}
Line 97: Line 140:
| algo = old(15d) | algo = old(15d)
| archive = Talk:Zionism/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Zionism/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 27 | counter = 31
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
Line 106: Line 149:
__TOC__ __TOC__


== RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism ==
== Scope ==


<!-- ] 19:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1736017267}}
Since the preceding section has once again been derailed, let's get back on track, what is the ] of this article?
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=DED27B2}}
Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body?


"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" ] (]) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Currently:


=== Discussion (RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism) ===
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 land outside 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. 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.
:Please specify the RFCbefore discussions, thank you. ] (]) 18:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Note that the text is preceded in the article lead by the following hidden comment "The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change." This hidden text was added by an admin as noted at ] where RFC opener discussed this question previously. ] (]) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes an admin labeled this sentence as having consensus. That decision was made only after a few days of discussion with only a few editors weighing in on the topic.
:::This issue has been discussed heavily on the talk page with no resolution. You actually suggested creating a RFC to discuss it , and bringing in a bunch more voices on whether or not this sentence violates NPOV seems very appropriate. ] (]) 23:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:I posted this and I strongly support removing it. 'Consensus' was rushed through without waiting a reasonable amount of time for comment and it has a huge number of issues:
:: 1) It presents opinions as if they were fact
:: 2) It presents opinions from authors who are hostile towards Zionists as if their views on Zionism were fact
:: 3) Synth issues, combining things like "Zionist leaders" or "some zionists" into "Zionists"
:: 4) Stripping important context away like "by 1948" to imply this was true of all Zionists throughout all of history
:: 5) Cherry picking when an author says something which agrees with this claim, but ignoring when the same author contradicts.
:I've only reviewed the very reference in depth depth, but here are some of the problems.
:In the into to his book, Manna is pretty clear that he's hostile toward Zionists:
:: ''""This author hopes that the dis-comfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will drive them to seek out the truth ...""''
:The claim which was put into the article has the time frame was stripped from it:
:: ''"...in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"''
:In the same book the author say that some history "refutes" the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing, but this is ignored:
:: ''"the history of the Palestinians who remained in the Galilee both attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times."''
:The second source Khalidi is presented as an opinion elsewhere in the article, but somehow in just this one place is presented as fact. I didn't review all of the other sources, these first two seem like more than enough reason to remove this sentence from the lead and body of the article.
:This sentence seems to have some many issues it doesn't seem possible to fix it. It should be removed. Then it can be replaced relying on the 'best sources' which are being collectively compiled. ] (]) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
The sentence is currently sourced as follows<ref name="ZionistLandJewsArabs">{{multiref
|{{harvnb|Manna|2022|ps=, pp. 2 ("the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state"), 4 ("in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"), and 33 ("The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers.")}};
|{{harvnb|Khalidi|2020|p=76|ps=: "The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium—a majority Arab country—into a new state that had a substantial Jewish majority. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land."}};
|{{harvnb|Slater|2020|ps=, pp. 49 ("There were three arguments for the moral acceptability of some form of transfer. The main one—certainly for the Zionists but not only for them—was the alleged necessity of establishing a secure and stable Jewish state in as much of Palestine as was feasible, which was understood to require a large Jewish majority."), 81 ("From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state"), 87 ("The Zionist movement in general and David Ben-Gurion in particular had long sought to establish a Jewish state in all of “Palestine,” which in their view included the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria."), and 92 ("As Israeli historian ] wrote: 'During every round of the national conflict over Palestine, which is the longest running conflict of its kind in the modern era, Zionism has tried to appropriate additional territory.'")}};
|{{harvnb|Segev|2019|p=418|ps=, "the Zionist dream from the start—maximum territory, minimum Arabs"}};
|{{harvnb|Cohen|2017|p=78|ps=, "As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years."}};
|{{harvnb|Lustick|Berkman|2017|pp=47–48|ps=, "As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). ''Ipso facto'', this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."}};
|{{harvnb|Stanislawski|2017|p=65|ps=, "The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony."}}
|{{harvnb|Rouhana|Sabbagh-Khoury|2014|p=6|ps=, "It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement—certainly to the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion, that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... Following Wolfe, we argue that the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement."}};
|{{harvnb|Engel|2013|ps=, pp. 96 ("From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine ..."), 121 ("... the ZO sought ways to expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive ... Haganah undertook to ensconce small groups of Jews in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights ... their leaders had hoped for more expansive borders ..."), and 138 ("The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ in 1948: non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal. Israel’s leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947–48 ... the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.")}}
|{{harvnb|Masalha|2012|p=38|ps=, "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period the demographic and land policies of the Zionist Yishuv in Palestine continued to evolve. But its demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' (Masalha 1992, 1997, 2000)."}};
|{{harvnb|Lentin|2010|p=7|ps=, "'the Zionist leadership was always determined to increase the Jewish space ... Both land purchases in and around the villages, and military preparations, were all designed to dispossess the Palestinians from the area of the future Jewish state' (Pappe 2008: 94)."}};
|{{harvnb|Shlaim|2009|p=56|ps=, "That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question."}};
|{{harvnb|Pappé|2006|p=250|ps=, "In other words, ''hitkansut'' is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible."}};
|{{harvnb|Morris|2004|p=588|ps=, "But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority."}}}}</ref> ] (]) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{st}}
'''yes''' I've read through the hidden text and the visible text. The claim that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" should be removed to restore NPOV. ] (]) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Which hidden text? ] ] 03:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Some lists required expanding. ] (]) 00:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean, so I'll echo @]'s question in hopes of understanding. What do you mean when you say that you've ''"read through the hidden text"''? What ''"hidden text"'' are you referring to? ] (]) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::One example is: Note that the text is preceded in the article lead by the following hidden comment "The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change." This hidden text was added by an admin as noted at ] where RFC opener discussed this question previously.) ]]] ] (]) 01:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you for the clarification. ] (]) 01:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)


{{hat|LLM generated arguments and taking the bait. ] (]) 00:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Andrevan suggestion:


:Relying solely on sources that portray Zionism as aiming to minimize the Arab presence risks cherry-picking and oversimplifying a complex historical movement. While some scholars emphasize demographic goals, many prominent historians, including Benny Morris, Anita Shapira, Walter Laqueur, and Shlomo Avineri, highlight the diversity within Zionism. These historians show that Zionist leaders also pursued peaceful coexistence, economic cooperation, and cultural revival. Ignoring these perspectives skews the narrative and fails to meet Misplaced Pages's standards of neutrality and balance. A comprehensive view requires incorporating the full spectrum of scholarly interpretations.
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.
:1. Benny Morris
:In ''Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001'', Benny Morris discusses Zionist leaders’ views on coexistence:
:<blockquote>“From early on, the Zionist leadership sought ways to coexist with the Arab population. They acknowledged the Arabs' attachment to the land but believed that a demographic Jewish majority was necessary for self-determination. This did not preclude peaceful relations with the Arab population.” '''Source:''' Morris, Benny. ''Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001.'' Vintage Books, 2001, pp. 45–47.</blockquote>
: ----
:2. Anita Shapira
:In ''Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948'', Anita Shapira explores the transition in Zionist strategies:
:<blockquote>“Initially, the Zionist movement sought peaceful coexistence, with an emphasis on agricultural development and cultural revival. The shift toward a more militant stance was a response to increasing hostility and rejection by the Arab leadership.” '''Source:''' Shapira, Anita. ''Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948.'' Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 118–120.</blockquote>
: ----
:3. Walter Laqueur
:Walter Laqueur, in ''A History of Zionism'', highlights the diversity of Zionist attitudes:
:<blockquote>“Not all Zionist leaders viewed the Arab population as an obstacle. Many believed in the possibility of coexistence and sought alliances with moderate Arab leaders. The idea of a shared future was integral to some streams of Zionist thought.” '''Source:''' Laqueur, Walter. ''A History of Zionism.'' Schocken Books, 2003, p. 78.</blockquote>
: ----
:4. Shlomo Avineri
:In ''The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State'', Shlomo Avineri discusses Herzl’s inclusive vision:
:<blockquote>“Herzl envisioned the Jewish state not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews and a place where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed economic development would benefit all inhabitants of Palestine.” '''Source:''' Avineri, Shlomo. ''The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State.'' Basic Books, 1981, pp. 126–128.</blockquote>
: ----
:5. Itamar Rabinovich
:In ''The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948'', Rabinovich critiques one-sided interpretations:
:<blockquote>“The Zionist leadership was divided over how to deal with the Arab population. While some leaders emphasized demographic dominance, others promoted coexistence and even federation with the Arabs.” '''Source:''' Rabinovich, Itamar. ''The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948.'' Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 34–36.</blockquote>
: ----
:These sources illustrate that while some Zionist leaders prioritized creating a Jewish majority, others emphasized peaceful coexistence and collaboration with the Arab population. ] (]) 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::What diverse sources! ] (]) 19:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::These sources make it clear that the Zionist leaders and thinkers had different opinions about this topic. The sentence in question presents opinions as fact and violates WP:NPOV. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::C'mon Alaexis. Look at the dates of the sources. Look at who's writing them. You know this doesn't represent modern scholarship. And let's not enable the obvious socks please with "I agree" statements. ] (]) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::No responsible editor can miss that these sources don't even come close to outweighing the 12+ modern authors in the citations. We've got to stop playing these bullshit games. ] (]) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@] Regarding those 12 modern authors in the citations, should their views be included in the article as opinion or as fact?
::::Start with the first source. Manna says he hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort, so it certainly appears he has anti-Zionist bias. Can you explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? ] (]) 23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your input, Levivich. I understand your concerns, but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the sources I presented do not represent valuable scholarship or that they are outdated.
::::'''On the Sources' Dates and Relevance:'''
::::The sources I referenced—Laqueur, Morris, and others—remain foundational to the historiography of Zionism. While some are not "modern" in the strictest sense, their contributions are widely cited and continue to influence contemporary scholarship. Moreover, more recent works, such as Anita Shapira’s ''Israel: A History'' (2012) and Shlomo Avineri’s ''Herzl's Vision'' (2014), build on these foundational sources and offer nuanced insights:
::::* Anita Shapira emphasizes that Zionism's primary goal was self-determination, noting, "The goal of Zionism was not to displace Arabs but to create a refuge for Jews. While demographic concerns influenced policy, many Zionist leaders sought coexistence with the Arab population, particularly in the early stages of the movement" (''Israel: A History'', p. 102).
::::* Shlomo Avineri clarifies that Herzl envisioned a model of mutual benefit, writing, "Herzl’s vision was one of mutual benefit and coexistence. He believed that economic development and modernization would serve both Jews and Arabs, rather than aiming to marginalize or exclude the Arab population" (''Herzl's Vision'', p. 147).
::::These works demonstrate that scholarship on Zionism is diverse, and earlier foundational texts continue to inform modern interpretations.
::::'''Balancing Modern and Foundational Sources:'''
::::While recent sources contribute new perspectives, Misplaced Pages's policies emphasize representing a range of views, including foundational works. Modern interpretations are essential, but they do not "outweigh" or negate the contributions of earlier, seminal scholars. Excluding these works risks skewing the historiographical balance.
::::'''Neutrality and Avoiding Cherry-Picking:'''
::::The current lead risks over-relying on critical perspectives from modern authors like Khalidi and Pappé, which frame Zionism as a colonialist movement. My intention in referencing sources such as Shapira and Avineri is to ensure balance and to reflect the diversity of Zionist motivations—self-determination, cultural revival, and responses to antisemitism—alongside its contested aspects.
::::'''Avoiding Personal Criticism:'''
::::I encourage us to focus on the substance of the sources and their interpretations rather than implying bad faith or dismissing arguments as "games." Constructive engagement helps ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages's neutrality and verifiability standards. ] (]) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::@] Apologies, but despite your citations, I seem to be having issues finding these quotes ''(It's probably on me, but I'd like to clarify regardless)''.
::
::''I can't find a version of Anita Shapira's Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948 online, so I can't comment there.''
::
::
:: ] (]) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
: Regarding these 12 sources, how many (if any) should be treated as if their views are factual vs. given as opinion?
: Again, starting with Manna, in the intro to his book he says hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort. He certainly appears to have an anti-Zionist bias. Maybe he should be included as an opinion, but can anyone explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? -- ] (]) 02:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::1. If we exclude anti-Zionists like Manna, does that mean we exclude pro-Zionists like Morris, too? 2. Fact/opinion is a false dichotomy. We state opinions in Wikivoice when they're mainstream opinions (eg Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players of all time). ] (]) 03:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::From the references, do you think that Morris presents the mainstream opinion here?
::::''"underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an '''overwhelming Jewish majority'''"''
:::The article has an entire section on "demographic majority", and I suspect that if we were to use the best sources on the topic, instead of a collection of biased sources synthensized into nonsense, we'd see the mainstream opinion is that Zionists, certainly by 1948, wanted a clear demographic majority, not necessarily "as few Palestinians as possible". ] (]) 03:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Responded on your talk page. ] (]) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::'''No.''' Levivich lays it out well. If we wanted to quibble, we could opt for something like {{tq|At least by 1948,}} at the beginning of the sentence. But that would probably require a footnote to further explain what we mean by that and give the range of dates given by experts. At the moment the wording implies that anyway without the debate over when exactly it is/was/becomes true. ] (]) 22:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Lacks impartial tone'''. While it's literally true that Zionists wanted to have a Jewish majority, and were concerned about the risk of a growing Arab minority as a potential threat due to the risk of conflict between the peoples and the clear antipathy between the peoples, not without plenty of history already, the phrasing continues to be awkward. The idea of "as few Arabs as ''possible''" is not the clearest way to explain "the largest feasible majority Jewish state." It creates an implication that Zionists perhaps wanted that number to be 0, but we know that not to be the case. "Lowest possible" is not the best summary of the sources. I think we can do a better job of explaining that Zionists sought to create a Jewish majority state, without implying that expulsion was an express goal of Zionism. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Misplaced Pages says:
*:* {{tqq|as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible}}
*:The cited sources say:
*:* {{tqq|maximum territory, minimum Arabs}} - Segev
*:* {{tqq|maximum land and minimum Arabs}} - Masalha
*:* {{tqq|the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible}} - Shlaim
*:* {{tqq|as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible}} - Pappé
*:* {{tqq|as few Arabs as possible ... the smallest possible number of Palestinians ... fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers}} - Manna
*:* {{tqq|as much of Palestine as was feasible ... a large Jewish majority ... as few Arabs as possible ... a Jewish state in all of “Palestine,” ... appropriate additional territory}} - Slater
*:* {{tqq|increase the Jewish population of Palestine ... expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive ... in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights ... more expansive borders ... the smallest possible minorities ... ‘Jewish’ ... by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants ... non-Jews ... numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal ... as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible}} - Engel
*:* {{tqq|increase the Jewish space ... dispossess the Palestinians}} - Lentin
*:* {{tqq|a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible}} - Cohen
*:* {{tqq|as few Arabs as possible}} - Stanislawski
*:* {{tqq|getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... demographic elimination}} - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
*:* {{tqq|transformed most of Palestine from ... a majority Arab country—into ... a substantial Jewish majority ... the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas ... and the theft of Palestinian land and property ... There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority ... Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land.}} - Khalidi
*:* {{tqq|on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions ... an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions}} - Lustick & Berkman
*:* {{tqq|displacement of Arabs ... to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority.}} - Morris
*:Misplaced Pages is using the same language as the cited sources. ] (]) 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::IMPARTIAL: {{tq|Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized}}. I'm not disputing the facts, just the tone. You'll note that many of the best sources refer to the "majority" and "minority" language, which is different from how the article does. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''<s>yes</s> no''' it does seem to be the case, so this looks very much like a blue sky situation, their own pronouncements stated they wanted a Jewish State (hell Israel is even called that now, sometimes).We have ] for a reason. So yes we can say this. ] (]) 11:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{Re|Slatersteven}} The way the RFC is phrased requires a '''No''' if you think the sentence should be kept? ] (]) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks I think the problem was trying to word "it is not neutral but does not violate NPOV, as it is what is said by zionists". It is almost an Ish question. ] (]) 11:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Bad RfC''' as it fails to neutrally discuss the sources that support the statement and instead editorializes about the assumed politics of just one of the sources. ] (]) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm not sure what issues you see with rfc which is just a question. But one of the many issues, is that the text engages in a SYTH of different claims, and each case seems to cherry pick whatever paints the most number of Zionists to look as bad as possible.
*:As a few examples, in the reference Morris says "overwhelming Jewish majority" but the text says "as few Palestinians as possible" Shlaim says "Most Zionist leaders" but the text just says "Zionists".
*:Looking at this same set of references someone could have also written "Most Zionist leaders wanted a demographic majority". ] (]) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Well, you might write that, I wouldn't. ] (]) 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Not really, when we (and RS) say "Zionists" or "Zionism" we mean the mainstream movement and its leadership. ] (]) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Misplaced Pages says:
*::*{{tqq|Zionists ...}}
*::The cited sources say:
*::* {{tqq|the Zionist leadership ... Zionists of all inclinations ... The Zionists}} - Manna
*::* {{tqq|the Zionists ... all the major leaders ... The Zionist movement in general ... Zionism}} - Slater
*::* {{tqq|the Zionist movement ... the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion ... the Zionist project ... the Zionist movement}} - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
*::* {{tqq|Zionist ideology ... Zionist praxis}} - Morris
*::* {{tqq|the core of Zionism}} - Pappé
*::* {{tqq|the Zionist dream}} - Segev
*::* {{tqq|the Zionist Yishuv}} - Masalha
*::* {{tqq|the Israeli desire}} - Stanislawski
*::* {{tqq|Ben-Gurion ... 'Our ...' ... Zionism}} - Lustick & Berkman
*::* {{tqq|political Zionism}} - Khalidi
*::* {{tqq|Zionism ... the ZO ... Haganah ... their leaders ... Israel ... the state’s leaders ... most Zionists ... Zionist imaginations ... the bulk of the Zionist leadership ... Israel’s leaders ... Israel ... the state}} - Engel
*::* {{tqq|many ... Zionist leaders and activists}} - Cohen
*::* {{tqq|the Zionist leadership}} - Lentin
*::* {{tqq|most Zionist leaders}} - Shlaim
*::The word "Zionists" (or "Zionism") is the right word to summarize those sources. ] (]) 00:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The RfC was constructed, and advertised, non-neutrally. It's a bad RfC. ] (]) 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No.''' This is not biased wording, since it is in marked agreement with the pertinent sourcing. I don't have a substantial objection to rewording it somehow anyway, but this present wording is not actually "broken" at all. I also agree that this was not really a proper RfC because ] wasn't followed and the question posed is not neutrally phrased. But the horse is already out of the barn with the level of input so far, so we might as well proceed (especially since the evidence presented contradicts the RfC opener's apparent position against this language being used; that is, the non-neutrality of the OP has had no effect except perhaps short-circuiting their own proposal). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*This is a really badly formed RfC but I would say that the sentence, especially in the first para, is problematic. This is the comment I just wrote in what I guess is now the RFCBEFORE discussion, a couple of sections up this page: None of the 13 (actually fewer, as Sand and Engel aren't used for this point) sources are unreliable, although they are not all as strong as they could be. However, the key point is that in relation to this quote, many are talking about very specific moments in Zionist history (i.e. the Nakba and maybe the period leading up to it) and/or about some or many Zionist leaders (specifically the political Zionists in the case of Khalidi or of the Labour Zionists of Ben Gurion's generation in the case of Lustick and Berkman and Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury), and not about Zionism in general. A couple describe it as the esoteric, inherent or secret logic of Zionism rather than its explicit policy (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury, Pappe, Morris, Lentin). So the only sources here that come close to saying this was generally true are Segev (we quote him as saying this is the Zionist dream from the start but I've not got the book and the google snippet is too small to see the context) and Slater (but he is a weaker source, not a historian, let alone of Zionism, who frames his book as a contrarian revision of what we know). ] (]) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I think this is really the key problem with the current phrasing - it totally removes the context that is present in at least in some of the references and generalizes their claims to Zionism as a whole since its very inception.
*:The overgeneralization also leads to ignoring the RSs that contradict this claim, if the chronology is taken into account - e.g., Rubin (2018). "Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine", that talks about Jabotinsky's initial opposition to the idea of population transfer of Palestinian Arabs (i.e., the " as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part) and his change of heart around 1939. ] (]) 20:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The lead is a summary. Specifically, it is a summary of the mainstream Zionist movement with some brief coverage of dissident's within the movement. We summarize in the same way that RS do. You want the lead to cover jabotinsky's change in positions in the lead? That's obviously undue for the lead. ] (]) 20:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The summary should summarise accurately. If it says "all Zionists" when the sources say "some Zionists" (or even "most Zionists") then that's not accurate. If it says "Zionism want x" when the sources say "in the 1930s Zionists wanted x" then that's not accurate. ] (]) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::The disputed content states "Zionists '''wanted''' to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many ], and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" ''(Emphasis mine)''. Wanted, past tense, & as ], that is reliably sourced to cover the mainstream movements at the time. There will always be outliers in every category, but outliers are generally removed from summaries for succinctness, then described later in the more detailed analysis.
*::::We could have a separate line describing these outliers &/or that in modern times, some movements have diverged from the original mainstream, but that doesn't contradict the current line in question. ] (]) 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::it doesnt say "all zionists" ] (]) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No/Bad RFC''' - discussion has been had before, also no RFCBEFORE done and RFC is poorly formatted overall. I think SMcCandlish describes it best. ] (]) 23:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' - of the 14 sources are cited:
*#All were published within the last 20 years
*#All written by experts in the field (11 historians, 2 political scientists, 1 sociologist), including Palestinians and Israelis, left-of-center and right-of-center
*#10 are published by academic presses, 2 by "leftist" presses (Zed, Verso), 2 by mainstream publishers (Farrar, Oneworld)
*#1 expressly says all Zionists; 10 say "Zionists," "Zionist movement", "Zionism", or "Zionist activists"; 2 say Zionist leaders; 1 says "political Zionism" (see 2nd set of quotes I posted above)
*#10/14 convey the idea of ''maximum land''
*#7/14 convey ''maximum Jews''
*#10/14 convey ''minimum Arabs'' (which is just another way of saying ''maximum Jews'')
*#12/14 juxtapose land and demographics (see 1st set of quotes above)
*#<u>11/14 say "always", "from the start", "inherent" or similar (see third set of quotes below)</u>
:Other words could be used to express the same meaning, of course, but ] means the article should say that Zionism sought maximum territory with minimum Arabs. ] (]) 06:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) <u>ETA ] (]) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)</u>
::{{tq|...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..}}
::No, those are two different claims - "maximum Jews" implies maximizing Jewish immigration, "minimum Arabs" implies population transfer of Palestinian Arabs - those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means. ] (]) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Do please source that opinion. ] (]) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I will look for relevant sources, though I'm curious - what would you consider to be a source for "...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..."? ] (]) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means}} is what I would like to see sourced. ] (]) 13:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes,I understand - I just asked whether you think that the opposite claim conflating those two goals also needs to be sourced, and if it does - what would be the best source for that. ] (]) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well, we already have sources doing that but no sources doing what you suggest so I am asking for some. ] (]) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::You can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration. For just one example of a source saying this, here's ]: {{tq2|The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century. And driving it was an iron logic: There could be no viable Jewish state in all or part of Palestine unless there was a mass displacement of Arab inhabitants, who opposed its emergence and would constitute an active or potential fifth column in its midst. This logic was understood, and enunciated, before and during 1948, by Zionist, Arab and British leaders and officials ... Both before and during 1948 all understood the logic of transfer: Given Arab opposition to the very idea and existence of a Jewish state, it could not and would not be established, as a viable, lasting entity, without the displacement of the bulk of its Arab inhabitants.|source=}} ] (]) 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Morris doesn't mention Jewish immigration here, but rather links the idea of transfer to Arab opposition to the very existence of Jewish state. ] (]) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::OK, here's Morris in ''Birth'' (aka "Morris 2004", one of the 14 citations for the sentence under discussion in this RFC), which has an entire chapter (ch. 2) about 'transfer', and which specifically talks about Jewish immigration (bold added):
:::::: {{tq2| The same persuasive logic pertained already before the turn of the century, at the start of the Zionist enterprise. There may have been those, among Zionists and Gentile philo-Zionists, who believed, or at least argued, that Palestine was ‘an empty land’ eagerly awaiting the arrival of waves of Jewish settlers.5 But, in truth, on the eve of the Zionist influx the country had a population of about 450,000 Arabs (and 20,000 Jews), almost all of them living in its more fertile, northern half. How was the Zionist movement to turn Palestine into a ‘Jewish’ state if the overwhelming majority of its inhabitants were Arabs? And '''if, over the years, by means of massive Jewish immigration, the Jews were at last to attain a majority, how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority''', whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’? <p>'''The obvious, logical solution lay in Arab emigration or ‘transfer’.''' Such a transfer could be carried out by force, i.e., expulsion, or it could be engineered voluntarily, with the transferees leaving on their own steam and by agreement, or by some amalgam of the two methods.}}
:::::: {{tq2|Rather, the Zionist public catechism, at the turn of the century, and well into the 1940s, remained that there was room enough in Palestine for both peoples; there need not be a displacement of Arabs to make way for Zionist immigrants or a Jewish state. There was no need for a transfer of the Arabs and on no account must the idea be incorporated in the movement’s ideological–political platform. <p>'''But the logic of a transfer solution to the ‘Arab problem’ remained ineluctable; without some sort of massive displacement of Arabs from the area of the Jewish state-to-be, there could be no viable ‘Jewish’ state.'''}}
:::::: {{tq2|To be sure, the Zionist leaders, in public, continued to repeat '''the old refrain''' – that there was enough room in the country for the two peoples and '''that Zionist immigration did not necessitate Arab displacement ... But by 1936, the mainstream Zionist leaders were more forthright in their support of transfer'''.}}
:::::: {{tq2|What emerges from the foregoing is that the Zionist leaders, from the inception of the movement, toyed with the idea of transferring ‘the Arabs’ or a substantial number of Arabs out of Palestine, or any part of Palestine that was to become Jewish, as a way of solving the problem posed by the existence of an Arab majority or, down the road, a large Arab minority that was opposed to the existence of a Jewish state or to living in it. As Arab opposition, including violent resistance, to Zionism grew in the 1920s and 1930s, and '''as this opposition resulted in periodic British clampdowns on Jewish immigration, a consensus or near-consensus formed among the Zionist leaders around the idea of transfer as the natural, efficient and even moral solution to the demographic dilemma'''. The Peel Commission’s proposals, which included partition and transfer, only reinforced Zionist advocacy of the idea. All understood that there was no way of carving up Palestine which would not leave in the Jewish-designated area a large Arab minority (or an Arab majority) – and that no partition settlement with such a demographic basis could work. The onset of the Second World War and the Holocaust increased Zionist desperation to attain a safe haven in Palestine for Europe’s persecuted Jews – and reinforced their readiness to adopt '''transfer as a way of instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe'''. <p>* * *<p>But '''transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population'''; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure.}}
:::::Is that enough to establish that Morris says that Zionists believed "transfer" of Arabs was necessary to make room for Jews, that it was an inherent and inevitable part of Zionism? He wrote an entire chapter proving this point. It's one of the things Morris is famous for. ] (]) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Not quite - in all but one quote above the necessity of transfer is explained by Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state:
::::::p. 41:
::::::{{tq2| ...how could a truly ‘Jewish’ and stable polity be established '''containing a very large, and possibly disaffected, Arab minority''', whose birth rate was much higher than the Jews’?<br/><br/> The obvious, logical solution lay in Arab emigration or ‘transfer’.}}<br/>
::::::on p. 43, immediately after the part you quoted Morris says:
::::::{{tq2| The need for transfer became more acute with the increase in violent Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise during the 1920s and 1930s. The violence demonstrated that a '''disaffected, hostile Arab majority or large minority would inevitably struggle against the very existence of the Jewish state'''}}<br/>
::::::on p.45, before the part you quoted, there is the following passage:
::::::{{tq2|The outbreak of the Arab Revolt in April 1936 opened the floodgates; the revolt implied that, '''from the Arabs’ perspective, there could be no compromise, and that they would never agree to live in (or, indeed, next to) a Jewish state'''.}}
::::::as a sidenote, the part you omitted from this page's quote says:
::::::{{tq2|Jabotinsky, the leader of the Revisionist movement, had generally supported transfer. But in 1931 he had said: ‘'''We don’t want to evict even one Arab from the left or right banks of the Jordan. We want them to prosper both economically and culturally'''’; and six years later he had testified before the Peel Commission that ‘'''there was no question at all of expelling the Arabs'''. On the contrary, the idea was that the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan would contain the Arabs . . . and many millions of Jews . . .’ – though he admitted that the Arabs would become a ‘minority.’}}
::::::which shows that the idea of population transfer was far from being a consensus among Zionist leadership. <br/>
::::::on p. 59 Morris once again talks about
::::::{{tq2|...the problem posed by the existence of an Arab majority or, down the road, a large Arab minority '''that was opposed to the existence of a Jewish state or to living in it'''.}}
::::::This page's quote is the only place where he makes a connection between Jewish immigration and transfer, but notice that this connection appears only following the beginning of WWII and the Holocaust, that is, '''more than 40 years after establishment of the Zionist movement''':
::::::{{tq2|The onset of the Second World War and the Holocaust increased Zionist desperation to attain a safe haven in Palestine for Europe’s persecuted Jews – and reinforced their readiness to adopt transfer as a way of instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe.}}<br/>
::::::One more quote that you didn't mention, but is highly relevant in context of the wider discussion about transfer:
::::::{{tq2|The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but '''in response to external factors or initiatives''':<br/>In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a '''by-product of Arab violence''' and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was '''triggered by the Arab revolt''' and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;...}}
::::::In other words, according to Morris, the idea of transfer wasn't some "built-in" feature of Zionist ideology from its very inception, but an historical development that followed Arab violent response to the Zionist project. Moreover, Zionists were not the only ones who arrived at this conclusion; the same sentiment was equally shared by many within the British and Arab leadership:
::::::{{Tq2|By the mid-1940s, the logic and necessity of transfer was also accepted by many British officials and various Arab leaders, including Jordan’s King Abdullah and Prime Minister Ibrahim Pasha Hashim and by Iraq’s Nuri Said. Not the Holocaust was uppermost in their minds. They were motivated mainly by the calculation that partition was the only sensible, ultimately viable and relatively just solution to the Palestine conundrum, and that a partition settlement would only be lasting if it was accompanied by a massive transfer of Arab inhabitants out of the Jewish state-to-be; '''a large and resentful Arab minority in the future Jewish state would be a recipe for most probably instantaneous and certainly future destabilisation and disaster'''.}} ] (]) 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|"In other words, according to Morris, the idea of transfer wasn't some "built-in" feature of Zionist ideology"}} is synth. Morris literally says: "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" ] (]) 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Perhaps, "built-in" wasn't the best characterization and I should've used a different word - my point is that according to Morris the "inevitability" of transfer was a result of Arab hostility, rather some a priori ideology, and that it was a reaction, not a pre-planned action.
::::::::See the full passage, from which the "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" quote was taken:
::::::::{{tq2|My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that '''a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure'''."}} ] (]) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"rather than some a priori ideology" what is this supposed to mean? That "transfer" was purely a practical solution, rather than an ideological one?
:::::::::Morris:
:::::::::{{tq2| The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs; their enterprise, however justified in terms of Jewish suffering and desperation, was tainted by a measure of moral dubiousness.}}
:::::::::Indeed Arabs were hostile towards a movement which was "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing" them. What you're saying is that if the Arabs had accepted their dispossession, then "transfer" would not have been a consideration of the Zionist movement? ] (]) 21:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The RFC is not about whether there was {{tq| Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state}} ] (]) 19:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I know - I brough up this point in response to the claim that, according to Morris, "you can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration", while the actual quotes above show he links the need for Arab emigration to Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state, not to Jewish immigration. ] (]) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No ''' I am keeping it short, since other editors have already argued about this above and in older discussions. This topic appears to have already reached consensus not too long ago. The content also seems to be very adequately sourced. ] (]) 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'd like to remind editors here of recent additions to ], specifically ''"Editors limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion – all participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion."'' - ] (]) 20:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:FWIW, there was ] of not including quoted material in the word count limit. I tend to agree. @], was this your understanding of the final outcome there? ] (]) 12:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:: probably needs an ARCA (or wrap it up in the current case). At any rate, it seems unreasonable to include refs/quotes. ] (]) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::There's also ]. I don't think anyone has to worry about quoted sources putting them over the limit. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that it isn't necessary to convince everyone in a discussion, just convince enough people to establish consensus. If consensus clearly favors your position there's really no need to go back and forth with someone who's likely never going to agree with you. ] (]) 13:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of rewording the lead, including the second part of that sentence. But I really don't see here any substantiated, good justification for it. Actually, the excellent comments left by Levivich have made me more in favor of keeping the current wording. ] ] 01:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The sourcing is clear-cut, high-quality, and covers authors writing from diverse perspectives; nor has anyone actually presented anything ''contradicting'' it to substantiate the idea that it's even controversial. The sources make it clear that it is simply not controversial to state that a core component of Zionism has historically been to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel at any cost, including keeping the Arab population to a minimum. Some aspects of the topic are esoteric or complex, but this one is extremely basic and uncontroversial - hence why it was so easy to find broad, high-quality sourcing for it. --] (]) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', on net. Some issues have been well explained by Andre above. Additionally, this sentence, like others, makes a sweeping and politically contentious claim but fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time - for example, do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of ]? The sentence implies that they do, despite this being a completely novel claim as far as I can tell. Pointing to sources about historical Zionism isn't enough to address this issue since this isn't a purely historical subject. If it applies to the time period prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, it should say so and the lead should then say how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tqq|fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time}} - Because the sources say it ''didn't'' change over time:
*:* {{tqq|as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century}} (Morris 2002) and {{tqq|inherent in Zionist ideology ... in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise ... during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement}} (Morris 2004)
*:* {{tqq|The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present}} - Shlaim
*:* {{tqq|always}} - Lentin
*:* {{tqq|From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period ... always}} - Masalha
*:* {{tqq|From the outset of the Zionist movement ... During every round of the national conflict over Palestine, which is the longest running conflict of its kind in the modern era}} - Slater
*:* {{tqq|From the outset}} - Engel
*:* {{tqq|from its inception}} - Khalidi
*:* {{tqq|from the start}} - Segev
*:* {{tqq|for years}} - Cohen
*:* {{tqq|an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement}} - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
*:* {{tqq|the core of Zionism}} - Pappe
*:* Lustick & Berkman are discussing pre-state Zionism specifically
*:* Stanislawski is discussing 1948 specifically
*:* Manna's book is about early Israel (1948-1956) specifically
*:The Misplaced Pages article says {{tqq|Zionists wanted}}, past tense, not "want", present tense, but the sources support the meaning of "always" or "from the beginning", except for 3 that are talking about specific time periods (from the beginning to 1948, in 1948, and during the early Israeli state 1948-1956). The other 11 says "always" or "from the start" or "inherent" in the very idea or similar. ] (]) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*::A list consisting mostly of one-to-four word quotes is less than convincing that all the relevant sources are indeed imputing this POV to ''all'' of Israel's history and ''all'' factions of Zionism today. Again: {{tq|do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel? The sentence implies that they do}}. And I still have yet to see a policy-based justification for the article failing to include {{tq|how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel}} and how they relate to the ] ] to the Israel-Palestine conflict. You've clearly read a lot about this topic, so I ask directly: '''Why is this not being included?''' <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 22:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::The statement is in past tense, so no it does not imply that. ] (]) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It is immediately followed by a statement that Zionism is the state ideology of Israel, which is a present fact, so yes, it does imply that. Especially when there remains no mention of any subsequent change. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::But that isn't the right conclusion to make at all, especially considering that the next sentence starts with "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948," ] (]) 01:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)


* '''Yes''' - the current phrasing is problematic in several respects:
Selfstudier version (response to Andrevan):
# Unlike the wide consensus that Zionists wanted to achieve significant Jewish majority,<ref>{{cite book |last=Gorny |first=Yosef |author-link=Yosef Gorny |title=Zionism and the Arabs, 1882–1948: A Study of Ideology |date=1987 | page=2 | quote="Thus, the desire for a Jewish majority was the key issue in the implementation of Zionism..." }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Benny |author-link=Benny Morris |title=Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999 |year=1999 |page=682| quote=Zionism had always looked to the day when a Jewish majority would enable the movement to gain control over the country...}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Ben-Ami |first=Shlomo |author-link=Shlomo Ben-Ami |date=2007 |title=Scars of War, Wounds of Peace | pages=22-23 | quote="Zionism is both a struggle for land and a demographic race; in essence, the aspiration for a territory with a Jewish majority..."}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict |last=Finkelstein |first=Norman G. |author-link=Norman Finkelstein |year=2003 | page=7 |quote="Within the Zionist ideological consensus there coexisted three relatively distinct tendencies—political Zionism, labor Zionism and cultural Zionism. Each was wedded to the demand for a Jewish majority, but not for entirely the same reasons."}}</ref> the claim about "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is controversial and is contested, for example, by Morris<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Morris |first=Benny |date=1991 |title=Response to Finkelstein and Masalha |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/2537368 |journal=Journal of Palestine Studies |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=98–114 |doi=10.2307/2537368 |issn=0377-919X |quote=Why is it, then - if a policy of expulsion was in place and being implemented - that more than half of the pocket's inhabitants, many of them Muslims, were left in place? Even in (Muslim) villages where atrocities had been committed - Majd al Kurum, Bi'na, Deir al Assad-the inhabitants were not driven out. Why is it - if there was an "overt" policy of expulsion, "executed with ruthless efficiency," according to Finkelstein - that Northern Front Command's brigades failed to order out onto the roads the (Muslim) villagers of Arrabe, Deir Khanam, Sakhnin, and so on?}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | author = Benny Morris | title = Gideon Levy Is Wrong About the Past, the Present, and I Believe the Future as Well| publisher = Haaretz | date = January 21, 2019 | url = https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2019-01-21/ty-article-opinion/.premium/eventually-there-will-be-one-state-between-the-mediterranean-and-the-jordan/0000017f-e7a0-d97e-a37f-f7e5c55d0000 | quote=...there was no policy of “expulsion of the Arabs,” and so some 160,000 Arabs remained, about one-fifth of the country’s total population.}}</ref> in context of 1948 war.
# The use of past tense and sentence's placement before "''Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948''" implies it supposed to be a general description of mainstream Zionism from its inception till 1948. However, it ignores major difference in attitude between different Zionist fractions (e.g., Jabotinsky's pre-1939 vehement objection to the idea of population transfer),<ref>{{cite journal | last=Rubin | first=Gil S. | title=Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine | journal=The Historical Journal | volume=62 | issue=2 | pages=1–23 | year=2018 | quote=When a paper misquoted Jabotinsky as speaking in favour of the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine, Jabotinsky quickly sent a letter of correction to the editor. ‘I did not say those words or any words that could be interpreted along these lines.’ ‘My opinion’, Jabotinsky emphasized, is the contrary ‘that if anyone tried to push the Arabs out of Palestine, all or a part of them – he would be doing, first of all, something immoral and – impossible’.}}</ref> as well as between earlier proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation<ref>{{cite book|url=http://passia.org/media/filer_public/18/bd/18bd9c6f-c597-47e6-bc27-bad3ab88c960/cd_vol1.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240723094618/http://passia.org/media/filer_public/18/bd/18bd9c6f-c597-47e6-bc27-bad3ab88c960/cd_vol1.pdf|archive-date= 23 Jul 2024|title=Documents on Palestine, Volume 1 (until 1947) | chapter=Resolution Passed At The 12th Zionist Congress, Proposal For An Arab-jewish Entente, Carlsbad, 4 December 1921|pages=97-98| quote=We do thereby reaffirm our desire to attain a durable understanding which shall enable the Arab and Jewish peoples to live together in Palestine on terms of mutual respect and co-operate in making the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which will assure to each of these peoples an undisturbed national development.}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Gorny |first=Yosef |title=From Binational Society to Jewish State |date=2006 |work= |url=https://brill.com/display/title/12577 |access-date= |publisher=Brill |language=en |isbn=978-90-474-1161-1}}</ref> and later pragmatic approach formed in reaction to Arab violent opposition to the very existence of Jewish state.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Morris |first=Benny |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/birth-of-the-palestinian-refugee-problem-revisited/8AE72A6813CEA7DDDE8F9386313F0D97 |title=The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited |date=2003 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-81120-0 |edition=2 |series=Cambridge Middle East Studies |location=Cambridge |pages=43 |quote=The need for transfer became more acute with the increase in violent Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise during the 1920s and 1930s. The violence demonstrated that a disaffected, hostile Arab majority or large minority would inevitably struggle against the very existence of the Jewish state.}}</ref>
# The qualifier "as much/few... as possible" does a lot of heavy lifting here, by masking the major differences mentioned above, and by allowing to dismiss every evidence of attitudes inconsistent with any part of the current phrasing by saying "well, that's what X considered to be possible". So, while formally true, the phrasing is misleading on substantial level.
:{{Sources-talk}} ] (]) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not sure what the purpose of your first four citations are. No one here is disputing their desire for a Jewish majority. Your citations , , and are all to Morris, with the one most explicitly making the argument you're making being from 33 years ago. I have no idea what the purpose of is. Because "the need for transfer became more acute" in the 1920s, they didn't actually want as few Arabs as possible? I'm not sure what you want us to be looking at in . and are primary sources.
::This is completely incomparable to ] and ]. ] ] 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::* The purpose of my first four citations is to show that the phrasing "wanted a Jewish majority" would be much more NPOV-compliant than the current one
:::* Regarding the thesis that there haven't been any pre-planned coordinated campaign to leave "as few Arabs as possible", Morris is far from being the only one making this claim - here from ].
:::* shows that the idea of transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership before late 1920s - Morris explicitly talks about {{tq2|"...transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s..."}} and states that:{{tq2| The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives: In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;.. }}
:::In other words, while the theoretical idea of minimizing the number of Arabs through population transfer was floated by some Zionists for some time, it only began to be seriously discussed by Zionist leadership and reached a consensual status in the 1930s.
:::* and are not primary sources
:::] (]) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq2|The purpose of my first four citations is to show that the phrasing "wanted a Jewish majority" would be much more NPOV-compliant than the current one}}
::::They don't show that. Most BESTSOURCES say "Jewish majority" ''and'' "as many Jews as possible". You say we should remove "as many Jews as possible" because there are some sources that say "Jewish majority" ''without disputing'' "as many Jews as possible". Your is Finkelstein. Do you think he disputes "as many Jews as possible"? The argument doesn't make sense. And your is Morris again.
::::{{tq2|Morris is far from being the only one making this claim}}
::::Then find every BESTSOURCE that makes it, and we can compare to ].
::::{{tq2|here another example from Efraim Karsh}}
::::This is an opinion article from a magazine from 24 years ago. This is not a BESTSOURCE.
::::{{tq2|shows that the idea of transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership before late 1920s}}
::::It literally doesn't. It says "the need for transfer became more acute". Became more acute. Not "wasn't seriously considered". It does not say that.
::::{{tq2|In other words, while the theoretical idea of minimizing the number of Arabs through population transfer was floated by some Zionists for some time, it only began to be seriously discussed by Zionist leadership and reached a consensual status in the 1930s.}}
::::Definitively answered by ].
::::{{tq2| and are not primary sources}}
::::I didn't say was. I said and were. is a direct quote from Jabotinsky with no commentary other than a straightforward description of the context the quote was said in.
::::I'm not interested in continuing this conversation unless you can provide an alternate wording citing secondary BESTSOURCES on Zionism in which they dispute the points the current wording is making, and it gets anywhere to the same level as ]. If you or anyone else can do that I will !vote yes. ] ] 21:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq2|Most BESTSOURCES say "Jewish majority" and "as many Jews as possible". You say we should remove "as many Jews as possible" because there are some sources that say "Jewish majority" without disputing "as many Jews as possible". Your is Finkelstein. Do you think he disputes "as many Jews as possible"? The argument doesn't make sense}}
:::::The most non-NPOV part is "as few Arabs as possible" - I'll do my best to put together a list of RSs that talk about "Jewish majority" and yet refute the claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-1948 period - hopefully will have the time to do it over the weekend. ] (]) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's exactly what I, and I think some others, are looking for. That would be appreciated. ] ] 21:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Just finished compiling the list, along with analysis of the currently used sources - due to the length constraints, I posted it as a separate topic:
:::::::] ] (]) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you. I will !vote '''Yes''' to reward you for this effort. I have some criticisms of what you've written, which I will leave in that thread, but I'm happy to keep the door open to a rewording. ] ] 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


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


*'''No''', not as a matter of policy, but it may be best to reword anyway. Misplaced Pages is a website anyone can edit, and readers, knowing this, are likely to see such an accusatory claim in the lede as dubious. What may avert this is to move this language to the body, where it can be backed up with all the sourcing justifying it, and soften the tone in the corresponding lede sentence. ] &#124; ] 03:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Anyone may feel free to insert their versions of what they think '''Zionism is...'''
*:This sentence already appears verbatim in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section, in addition to the lead ] (]) 12:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::so? '']''<sup>]</sup> 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@] suggested to move the current sentence to the body and rewrite the lede sentence - I just pointed out that the current sentence already appears verbatim in the body, in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. ] (]) 17:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::We could change what's in the body so as to more properly reflect the whole bunch of sources saying this one way or another and leave the lead as the summary, if you like. ] (]) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I'm currently preparing an in-depth overview of the currently cited sources, showing that they DON'T support the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the current phrasing. In addition, I collected a list of RS, which haven't been cited yet and that contest this claim - I need a bit more time to write it up in a organized and readable form - it should be ready by tomorrow.
*::::Hopefully, it will convince you and the others that both the lead and the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section need to be rephrased, and I do agree that that section could be the right place to elaborate about the controversy and the different POVs. ] (]) 17:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' the sentence is supported by the best sources, from authors having differing viewpoints. No one has presented sources with sufficient weight to contradict the sources used which support the sentence. Per ], "{{tq|neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views}}. '']''<sup>]</sup> 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*Pinging @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @] and @] as editors who were involved in the discussion at ] where that sentence was discussed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' I'm not sure if the same weight should be given to sources who are Zionist and sources who are anti-Zionist within the ideological definition of the movement. From a personal experience, the majority of the people I know are Zionists, and have in fact asked me as an editor to remove that blood libel (I received about 16 different requests, an amount I've never encountered before). None of them want to have as few Palestinians as possible in Israel, but Misplaced Pages says they do. I told them Misplaced Pages turned into a weapon for spreading propaganda and there's nothing I can do about it. ] (]) 09:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Moreover, you have plenty of news articles spawning just about this sentence claiming it is a provocative propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are written by Zionists. How often do you have news articles spawning about "facts" in Misplaced Pages being non NPOV propaganda? At minimum it is highly controversial. But it's fine, Misplaced Pages knows better about Zionists than what the Zionists believe in, so carry on. ] (]) 09:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::Sensationalist reporting in the press doesn't dictate how we interpret our policies. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::No, but if you have heavy reporting in numerous reliable sources, it means that maybe our statements are not as mainstream as we claim they are. Discounting so many press reports and adding only the sources supporting one theory can be seen as POV-pushing. More so when it is brought at the opening paragraph as the actual definition. ] (]) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Those "reliable sources" haven't presented any evidence to the contrary either, just a lot of noise. ] (]) 12:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I'm not sure what evidence is expected, that Zionism as an ideology does not strive for as few Palestinians as possible? If there are 10 papers over 130 years of the existence of the Zionist movement claiming such a thing, majority of them not by Zionists whatsoever, I highly doubt you'll find a research article claiming the opposite.
*:::::In essence, a researcher can state that Zionists enjoy eating hamburgers. You will not find any research stating that Zionism has nothing to do with hamburgers. Does that make his statement true because there's no opposition? ] (]) 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::These aren't 10 papers from the last 130 years, these are 14 books from the last 20 years written by the world's leading experts on the history of Zionism. You really think your Zionist friends know more than ], ], ], and ] (and 10 others) about what happened in Israel before 1948? ] (]) 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::+1 ] (]) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::Seems like some were refuted below, and their quotes were actually ]ed, while the rest of the text stated the opposite. ] (]) 13:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::We go with the best sources, not noise in what is often sensationalist reporting. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::So today's news media is more likely to write complimentary things about Zionism than the well-researched RS (e.g., academic books of history) used in this article. The latter are still better sources. ] &#124; ] 17:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No'''. The statement is well sourced and other sources can easily be added if needed. It literally took me seconds to find these reliable sources:
:{{talkquote|The objective of Zionism was and remains the exclusive control of historic Palestine through incremental removal of the Palestinians, replacing them with Jewish settlements.]}}<br>
:{{talkquote|From its inception the Zionist movement and ideology has been colonial and eliminationist in its essence aimed at the removal of the indigenous population and replacement of Palestinians with the exogenous colonial settler population from Europe.]}} ] (]) 10:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I highly doubt it took you seconds to find these "reliable sources". Your second link is a ("Journal of oriental studies") that is not ranked or cited on journal ranking system I have searched in, including SJR, JCR, and can't be found on Google Scholars either. Basically I couldn't have found it even if I wanted. In fact, not only it's not listed or cited anywhere, but if you'll go to the journal's it claims that they're listed on citefactor, but when you click the link they take you to a different journal of claiming that it's the same journal. I don't know how you found that gem... ] (]) 12:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It did take seconds to find the first, I just forgot to adjust the statement for the second source that I added ].
:::{{tq|it claims that they're listed on citefactor|q=yes}} .
:::{{tq|can't be found on Google Scholars|q=yes}} it's there. Search for "The historical-ideological roots of the Zionist-Israeli settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestine" and you'll find it. the journal's editorial team (if you're interested) and a list of books and papers that have been published by and indexed by Google Scholar.
:::Obviously, both sources are solid RS. ] (]) 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The citefactor link is still a different journal and ] is well-known to be nonselective in what "journals" it includes, such as predatory journals. (e.g. ) <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I repeat: the two sources are solid RS and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. ] (]) 21:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm usually very accurate with what I write. Please show me the journal ranking in . ] (]) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::So am I, and no, I don't need to prove anything to you. I said what I needed to say. If you still feel that the sources are unreliable, then ] is that way. Best of luck to you. ] (]) 23:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' The latest claim based on sourcing produced well after this RFC began appear to be directed principally at excising the phrase "as few Arabs as possible" on the grounds that it would be more NPOV to say that "a state with a significant Jewish majority" was what Zionism/Zionistts wanted. It is difficult to see how in all the circumstances a significant Jewish majority could be obtained without Arab displacement and in fact this is what has actually occurred (and continues to occur for that matter). Can the wording of the lead be improved in regard to issues of temporality, perhaps but the RFC question addresses the removal of an entire sentence well supported in high quality sourcing. A subsequent RFC with less ambitious goals might produce a different outcome. ] (]) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Meh'''. The sentence tries to cram too much into a few words. I would stretch it out a little. After thinking for at least 30 seconds: "{{tq|Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. The latter was to be achieved by massive Jewish immigration, removal of Palestinian Arabs, or both.}}" I left out "as many Jews as possible" because almost all the early Zionists were selective in the type of Jew they wanted in the first generations. See ] for a hint of that large literature. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:+1. I think this phrasing both reads well & presents a proper level of nuance. ] (]) 17:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:This is a great alternative. ] (]) 18:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:It's definitely better than the current phrasing - I'd suggest to add a word "partial" before "removal", because otherwise it can be read as implying "complete removal". ] (]) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The phrase is "removal of Palestinian Arabs," not "removal of '''the'' Palestinian Arabs." ] (]) 18:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I know, but if even someone as intelligent as Eduard Said managed to misquote "a land without a people for a people without a land" and turn it into "without people", there is a considerable chance some readers will similarly misinterpret the suggested phrasing. ] (]) 19:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::: The extent of the desired transfer varied between Zionists, so it is better to not insert words that imply an extent. As DMH wrote, the absence of "the" already indicates that "all" is not implied. It doesn't refer to "''the'' Jews" either. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Right, the best we can do is to be precise and clear. Trying, in addition, to be robust to possible misinterpretations due to misreading the sentence will guarantee we make no progress. ] (]) 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Tag on Race and Genetics section ==
] (]) 17:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


Can someone explain the tag on the Race and Genetics section? Why is it there? ] (]) 06:19, 7 December 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:
:{{tq2|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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::One sentence at a time. We will never agree in this way. ] (]) 18:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, we are not agreeing any other way either so might as well give it a go. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] ] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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? ] (]) 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. {{tq|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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with you. ] (]) 23:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::Am I one of those two? I was responding to the ] where there seems to be more weight on anti-Semitism, the concept of the Jewish diaspora, language, and culture than we currently have. ] ] 19:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:That tag along with multiple others was added by {{u|Qualiesin}} with no meaningful explanation in ] to this article or its talk page. This feels like drive-by tagging of one of Misplaced Pages's most contentious articles, Qualiesin. Can you please discuss? ] (]) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Bitspectator deluxe version:
::I am simply trying to restore some semblance of NPOV to this article that has become a vehicle for strongly biased views. ] (]) 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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. ] ] 18:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Aight, @]. Well, for the record, drive-by tagging is seldom helpful anywhere, and in a CTOP even less so, and at one of the project's most contentious articles it's almost inexcusable from an editor with 20K edits over five years. Please consider in future actually reading discussions and participating instead of dropping tags with no meaningful explanation onto CTOP articles where you have had zero talk page participation. That's disruptive on its face. ] (]) 18:14, 11 December 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 ]'s 2 volume (so far) ''The Story of the Jews'' to get some basic perspective and background.] (]) 20:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Is this supposed to make me want to participate in these discussions? Knowing that my edits will be functionally ineffective and reverted, unless I wade through tens of thousands of words of argument? ] (]) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Your opposition to "anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been persistent since the formation of the Jewish diaspora" is:
:::::@], I do understand how daunting it is. It totally sucks that so many article talks in contentious topics -- and at this article in particular, one of the most contentious on the entire site -- are so difficult to keep up with, but doing so is important ''if you want to contribute in any meaningful way'' and also if you want to avoid being disruptive to the process of other editors trying to do so.
::::1) The Jewish diaspora began over 2000 years ago.
:::::The point of reading the talk page of a highly contentious article before editing the article directly (or opening a new talk page section) is to get yourself up to speed, in order to avoid being disruptive to the process because you're unfamiliar with sourcing/previous discussions.
::::Okay. And?
:::::Editors here can see you're an experienced editor in general, with multiple article creations, so you probably understand sourcing and multiple other policies well. You would quite likely be valuable here. We do want you to participate. But if you aren't willing to familiarize yourself with sources and previous discussions, your contributions are likely to be unproductive at best and disruptive at worst. Does it suck that means a daunting amount of reading? Yes. ] (]) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::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? ] ] 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. ] (]) 21:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::"You are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about". That's your position? ] ] 21:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Concur with Bitspectator. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Stanislawski 2017, pp. 9-10: {{tq2|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. <p>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: {{tq2|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.}} ] (]) 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, Misplaced Pages 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: {{tq|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.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 15:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Anybody besides me think that "ethno-cultural nationalist movement", while accurate, is ] that will be completely meaningless to 99% of readers? ] (]) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::'Ethno-cultural nationalism' is pointless. ] 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.] (]) 19:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::It seems to be spawning some discussion. How would you like me to rephrase my comments? ] ] 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). ] (]) 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? ] ] 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 :-) ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Helpful wl, ] ] (]) 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::We should look at the refs as well, Conforti, Gans and Medding for the current phrasing. ] (]) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::We have both Gans and Conforti (another 2021 by them 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. ] (]) 18:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I think it's better to link ]cultural nationalist as ]. 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". ] ] 14:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, did that. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 15:09, 8 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 ] or all of ] under Zionism? ](]) 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? ] ] 19:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:I think it is unbalanced as too focused on genetics but {{tq|This re-conceptualization of Jewishness...}} is really important. It's a nation for a ''people''. Maybe too focused on a particular present debate/look at 'people'? Need {{u|Nishidani}}'s input here i think. Might look better as part of "Jewish nationalism and emancipation"? Article seems light on 'nationalism'. ](]) 15:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Some "Zionism is..." quotes}}
::Originally the main ] was titled ] but here we still have that (in effect), maybe retitle the section "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity". ] (]) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Penslar 2023, p. 1: {{tq2|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.}}
:::Not that the issue is not important today and also for earlier conceptions, just reads odd and i don't think a novice reader would be able to understand the section. ](]) 15:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Also don't think a reader has been provided with enough to understand the McGonigle quote at this point in the article. Really covering a lot of ground with that quote. As i recall he is a sociologist looking at current use of genetics for conceptions of peoples? Probably not a best source for covering all that ground. ](]) 15:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


== "as few Arabs as possible" - sources contesting this framing + analysis of the existing sources ==
Engel 2013, "To the reader": {{tq2|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.}}


Following the ] discussion above, I carried out a thorough analysis of the sources allegedly supporting current phrasing, and also compiled a list of sources contesting the claim that Zionists wanted "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".
Halperin 2021, pp. 21-29: {{tq2| Zionism, as the term suggests, is an ideology ... The movement began in late-nineteenth-century Central and Eastern Europe ... 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 ... 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.}}


Due to the length constraints, I post this as a separate topic, rather than a response in the RFC discussion:
Stanislawski 2017, p. 1: {{tq2|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.}}


The current phrasing is "''Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible''". - the use of past tense and sentence's placement before "''Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948...''" implies that this is supposed to be a general description of mainstream Zionist core goals before 1948.
Alam 2009, pp. 3-4: {{tq2|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.}}
{{cob}}


==== However, as I show below, about half of the sources quoted DON'T support the claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core Zionist goal since its inception till 1948, and several sources were quoted in a way that omits critical context or even completely distort actual author's position. ====
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. ] (]) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


* For example, in ], p.78, the following quote is used:
: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? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|{{Talk quote block|text="As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years."}}<br>
::{{lol}} Yes that would be great, thank you. ] (]) 23:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
But immediately after that the author says: {{Talk quote block|text="However, in the post–World War II political context, the Zionist leadership <u>was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state</u> and its declared position was that it would enjoy civil equality, collective rights, and the allocation of resources as outlined by the UN Partition Plan."}}<br/>
:::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''.
Moreover, on p. 73 he adds: {{Talk quote block|text=“ the Zionist leadership seriously considered following the guidelines stipulated by the Partition Plan and to enable the existence of '''a large Arab minority within the Jewish state'''”}}<br/>
{{cot|Some Zionism is... quotes, part 2}}
on p. 75: {{Talk quote block|text=“Some historians, such as Ilan Pappé (2006) and Nur Masalha (1992), claim that the Zionist movement from the very beginning sought to expel Arabs from the Jewish national homeland, and that in 1948 the Jewish military forces followed an existing plan to implement this goal. One source that Pappé (2006) uses to support this argument in his book is a widespread survey of the Arab villages undertaken by the Haganah’s intelligence services between the end of the 1930s and the eve of the 1948 war. '''This does not, in my opinion, constitute an irrefutable evidence base''', as armies are known to '''prepare contingency plans for worst-case scenarios''' without intending to implement them unless forced to do so. I would argue that the Zionist leadership had considered several possible scenarios and that an all-out war was only one of them. More important to our discussion is the fact that at the same time, the Jewish Agency prepared for the contingency of '''a large Arab minority''' and explored ways to integrate it into the future state. This is the conclusion we can draw from documents that are much less known to both the general public and historians; I will present them here briefly.”}}<br/>
more Penslar, p. 2-3 {{tq2|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.}}
and on p. 77:{{Talk quote block|text=“In my view, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the Zionist leadership prepared itself – among other options – for a peaceful implementation of the partition resolution and for the existence of '''a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state'''. Moreover, in such a scenario, there were elements within the Jewish leadership who '''pushed toward improving Arab conditions and Arab-Jewish relations in the new state.'''"}}<br/>
Engel, chapter 1, "The idea of a Jewish state. Let's start with basics" (page is unmarked but I assume p.1) {{tq2|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}}
That is, Cohen is <u>contesting</u> the quoted claims made by Masalha and Morris, not agreeing with them, as the truncated quotation tries to imply.}}
Forriol p. 21-22 {{tq2|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: {{tq2|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 {{tq2|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 {{tq2|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." {{tq2|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: {{tq2|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}}
{{cob}}
:::''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::To expand a bit on the Engel quote, the full sentence is {{tqq|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 ] (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 {{tqq|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: {{tq2|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 ]’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): {{tq2|''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. <p>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?" ] (]) 01:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|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. ] (]) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The ] has the 1951 and 2004 but not the 1968, which is at the ] 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. ] (]) 15:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@Self, in the book, Engel cites the ]'s website for reproductions of the revisions to the Jerusalem program:
::::::* (]): "...establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine..."
::::::* (]): "...the consolidation of the State of Israel..."
::::::* (]): "...strengthening of the State of Israel..."
::::::* (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
::::::] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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" . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


* The quote from ], p. 250 actually refers to the “Realignment plan” promoted by Ehud Olmert '''in 2006''', not to pre-1948 Zionism goals (the truncated quote used in the reference is in italic):
== Use of "best sources" list ==
{{block indent|{{tq2| “Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, knows that if Israel decides to stay in the Occupied Territories and its inhabitants become officially part of Israel’s population, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within fifteen years. Thus he
has opted for what he calls hitkansut, Hebrew for convergence’ or, better, ‘ingathering’, a policy that aims at annexing large parts of the West Bank, but at the same time leaves several populous Palestinian areas outside direct Israeli control. ''In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.''”}}}}


* in ], p.2, the quote is taken from the part that says:
I had thought we had decided on a list of "best sources" on which to base the outline of the article and how much weight to give to each aspect. Somehow it seems we're also restricting the lead to be based on that same source list? I dont think we agreed on that. ] (]) 05:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|{{tq2|"It is clear that “non-expulsion” in northern Palestine was not arbitrary, but was the result of high-level orders and policy on the part of the Israeli leadership. Saying this does not contradict ''the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state'', since the exception due to special reasons and circumstances proves the rule.”}}
===== In other words, the statement is made specifically in the context of 1947-48 war and not as a general characterization of Zionist goals. =====


The same applies to the second quote from ], p. 4:
:I wouldn't put it quite as categorically as that. We first decided to compile a list and see where we got to and whether there was even any agreement on that. Atm, we have restricted the best sources list to after 2000 (originally it was academic presses but that seems to have been dispensed with). There have not been any restrictions on sources for the article body, to the contrary, we decided that such sources would be necessary for detail. Ultimately the lead should be a summary of the body and without any citations, the idea being that summary statements in the lead should reflect the article body (as usual) but that issues of weight should be resolved by reference to the best sources.
{{tq2|"'''in the 1948 war''', when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"}}
:Idk if that makes sense? ] (]) 09:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
as well as the third quote from p. 33:
::Yes it makes sense. But above the editors have done the exercise of looking at the first chapter of these books and are proposing to rewrite the first paragraph of the lead based only on those. I disagree with that approach. The lead summarizes the body. For a definition of zionism, we should first agree on body content, then summarize that for the lead. ] (]) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|To spur Palestinians to leave their cities and villages was an objective that the Jewish side implemented as part of the Zionist operation to uproot and occupy. ''The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers''. The argument between so-called extremists and moderates was not about fundamental differences, but rather a question of the timing and evaluation of the negative consequences of some terrorist activities carried out by Jewish organizations. Indeed, '''at the end of December 1947''' there were several attacks on Arab villages in the middle of the country, particularly in the vicinity of major cities where there were concentrations of Jews.}}
:::Yep, that's right usually, these are slightly peculiar circumstances tho, maybe we can do it in tandem. ] (]) 15:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm fine with either lead-first, body-first, or tandem. In theory there shouldn't be a conflict. For example, if the sources suggest the body should have sections X, Y, and Z, then the lead should also summarize X, Y, and Z. ] (]) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


and also to the quote from ], p. 65:
:Why all this concentration on the lead when the body of the article is in such rough shape? Following the antisemitism discussion for the lead above we might take for instance Laqueur's first thesis: "Zionism is a response to antisemitism." and argue about that as a source and a conclusion in the lead, but that would be a pretty useless effort as far as actually informing the reader goes. More productive might be to look at what ''else'' he says on the matter and seek agreement across multiple "best sources" to improve the text and citations for the next to last paragraph of the "Overview" section. I don't wish to reignite any "colonization" debates or on specific wording in the lead, but for many of these hotly debated issues there seems to often be a lack of article content giving tools to the reader to understand the conclusions argued over. For instance the article introduces to the reader that there was another people living on the ground as "Zionists wanted...as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." Greater understanding for the reader might come from something like presenting the counter-example of ]'s within the body. ](]) 14:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|"...on the Israeli side there has been in recent years a dramatic revision of the interpretation of '''1948''', acknowledging that Palestinians had indeed been expelled from various parts of the country...
::In principle, I don't disagree, except that I still think an effort ought to be made at the ] page in addition, which is what the antisemitism thing relates to but there is no mention of it in the lead there, which should then be summarized in this article. ] (]) 15:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
...what happened in Israel was a combination of forced expulsions, panicked flight, and utter chaos. ''The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony''.}}}}
::I agree we should first focus on the body, and the lead should summarize it. My attention to the lead comes from the recent discussion about whether it has npov issues. ] (]) 15:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Part of the issue with the lead is that many readers read it and get no further. Their entire opinion is formed by the lead. And somehow the lead of this article has become a mess that contradicts itself, with rushed through "consensus" using misrepresented sources. Did Zionists want:
:::''A) Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible ... ''
:::''B) The common ideology among mainstream Zionist factions is support for territorial concentration and a Jewish demographic majority in Palestine''
:::We currently claim both things within differing parts of the lead.
:::I'd like to make sure that if we have any instances especially in the lead, but also the rest of the article where the best sources say one thing ("demographic majority") and a list of other sources claim something else ("as few Palestinian Arabs as possible") that we have a clear understanding of how we're going to handle it.
:::P.S. Sorry for duplicating this topic below. I didn't see this one before making my comment.
:::-- ] (]) ] (]) 23:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::::How do these contradict each other? They are not mutually exclusive. ] (]) 23:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::They are clearly different goals. "As few Palestinian as possible" is one one of achieving a demographic majority, but seeking a demographic majority does not in any way imply "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".
:::::If the best sources say one thing and a set of some other sources say something different, we should give little weight to the sources which differ from the best sources (particularly in the lead), right?
:::::-- ] (]) 00:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Is there a contradiction between:
::::::A) they wanted it to be as much a square as possible
::::::B) they all want it to be a rectangle ] ] 01:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Journal articles are an example of sourcing that we may wish to include, though not all such articles are necessarily good, need to weigh author, number of citation, citations by best sources, etcetera. This is usual anyway, the only thing we might be doing differently is using the best sources for a sanity check on other sources. ] (]) 08:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


* '''Several of the sources talk about "Jewish majority/Arab minority", not "as few Arabs as possible"''' (claiming that the two are equivalent would be a clear ])''':'''
== The rest of Line 1? ==
{{block indent|], p. 76:
{{tq2|"The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium — a majority Arab country — into a new state that had a substantial '''Jewish majority'''. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve '''a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception'''. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land.";}}<br/>
], pp.&nbsp;47–48:
{{tq2|"As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). ''Ipso facto'', this meant Zionism's success would produce an '''Arab minority''' in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."}}}}


* Similarly, ] talks about "desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine" and explicitly says that until the late 1930s, that is '''for most of the pre-1948 period''', most Zionists just wanted "Jewish majority", not “as few Arabs as possible”, and the change only came following a suggestion coming from the Peel Commission:
The first part of sentence one is cleared up (I hope) so what about the rest of it? {{tq|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}}
{{block indent|p. 96:
I suppose the contested part is the last bit..."through the colonization of a land outside Europe"? ] (]) 14:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|"From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common '''desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine'''}}
p. 138:
{{tq2|"The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, '''until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim;''' the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ '''in 1948''': non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal. Israel’s leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947–48 ... the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.")
}}}}


* Finally, while ], p. 588, does say in the conclusion section:
:I found "a land outside Europe" to be a weird phrasing. Is "outside Europe" an essential part of Zionism? Could someone substantiate this? I don't clearly see that in the quotes in the refs. A few possible different wordings:
{{block indent|{{tq2|"But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the '''underlying thrust of the ideology''', which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." }}
:1) Establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a specific land.
:2) Establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of land.
:3) Establishment of a Jewish state through colonization.
:I like (1) and (3). ] ] 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


a more careful reading of the book shows that his position is much more nuanced and that, in his view, this "underlying thrust of the ideology" '''only turned into an actual goal/"want" in the 1930s, that is in the second half of the pre-state period''' , and it only happened in response to external factors or initiatives:
:I don't understand the purpose behind this avoidance of Palestine, what source is this based upon when so many list as a central idea? Is there a need to collect sources here for this and reworking the "Territories considered" section? ](]) 14:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::The next line is: "With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine". I'm okay with "establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine" so as long as the rest of the paragraph accommodates. ] ] 14:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::+1 "establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of Palestine". ] (]) 15:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{quote|(Heb. ''tsiyyonut'') denotes the modern movement of the return of Jews to Erets Yisra’el (''shivat tsiyyon'', the return to Zion)|source={{cite encyclopedia|editor=Berlin, Adele|editor-link=Adele Berlin|year=2011|title=The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion|edition=2nd|entry=Zionism|entry-url=https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780199730049.001.0001/acref-9780199730049-e-3528}}}}
:::{{quote|International, political, and ideological movement dedicated to restoring Erez Israel to the Jewish people.|source={{cite encyclopedia|editor=Bowker, John|editor-link=John Bowker (theologian)|year=2000|title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions|entry=Zionism|entry-url=https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780192800947.001.0001/acref-9780192800947-e-8212}}}}
:::{{quote|The movement that arose at the end of the nineteenth century with the aim of establishing a homeland for Jews in Palestine, as it then was.|source={{cite encyclopedia|editor=Jacobs, Louis|editor-link=Louis Jacobs|year=1999|title=A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion|publisher=Oxford University Press|entry=Zionism|entry-url=https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780192800886.001.0001/acref-9780192800886-e-795}}}}
:::(ec, re Bitspectator)Got a source for confusing the reader with such a departure from the norm. Territorialism is often discussed ''alongside'' Zionism, and certainly after 1903 in opposition to Zionism. ](]) 15:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not against "of Palestine". ] ] 15:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Penslar p 37 has "In 1890, a young Viennese Jewish activist named Nathan Birnbaum coined both the word “Zionism,” by which he meant a Palestine-centered Jewish nationalism, and the term "political Zionism," which meant a public political campaign on behalf of the attainment of Zionist goals.38 Theodor Herzl had never heard of either term when he underwent a conversion to Jewish nationalism in the spring of 1895..." ] (]) 15:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I lean "of Palestine" now. I'm just thinking of the phrasing of the next lines. Should contain and ? ] ] 15:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Not in the first sentence. I'm not sure that the "some briefly considered other places" is even worthy of including in the lead at all (it's worth including in the body of course), it seems like trivia to me in the context of an overview of Zionism. ] (]) 16:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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 Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history.
::::::::This is a pretty cozy first sentence to me. I would change the first "and" to "that" though. ] ] 16:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm not opposed to it, in the sense that I don't think it's misleading or anything, but I would shorten the first sentence and let the rest of the first paragraph do some of the work:
::::::::::'''Zionism''' is an ] movement for the establishment of a Jewish state in the ], the ancient Jewish homeland in ]. Emerging in Europe in the late 19th century and led by the ], Zionists launched a program of colonization of Palestine that culminated in the establishment of the state of ] following the ]. Zionism continues to be the official state ideology of Israel, although its platform has been redefined several times since inception.
:::::::::Something like that is what I'd write for first paragraph. (Sorry to stray beyond 1st sentence, but it's hard to divorce the 1st sentence from the rest of the 1st paragraph.) ] (]) 17:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I dislike this for putting "Land of Israel" and "ancient Jewish homeland" before "Palestine". I think the Zionist (or even Jewish) understanding of the territory should come after the most impartial description of what the territory is ("the Levant" would also be okay). Is your point that "Land of Israel"/"ancient Jewish homeland" is not exactly synonymous with "Palestine"?
::::::::::
::::::::::I also find it objectionable that Wikivoice definitively describes "the ancient Jewish homeland" as "in Palestine". Previously it just acknowledged a correspondence between "Palestine" and "Land of Israel", I think for obvious NPOV reasons. ] ] 17:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Shlomo has a lot to say about "Land of Israel" and post 48, it is an anachronism (Israel is not equal to Land of Israel). At the very least we need to set the usage in its time period (initially sought or something like that and then dispense with it, maybe should be some sort of efn). ] (]) 18:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I wouldn't be opposed to saying, somewhere in the lead, that Israel has expanded its borders beyond the borders of the Land of Israel. I'm not sure if that should be in the first paragraph or elsewhere in the lead. But I don't think that fact contradicts that Zionists wanted to establish a Jewish state in the place where the historic Land of Israel was located. ] (]) 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Over at ], LoI is not directly mentioned in the lead, we have instead "At the core of the Zionist ideology was the traditional aspiration for a Jewish national home through the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine" with the last mouthful wikilinked to ]. ] (]) 18:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't think "Land of Israel" or "ancient Jewish homeland" is the Zionist/Jewish understanding, that's ''everybody's'' understanding. Like, nobody disputes that Jews originated in the Levant, or that they call that place "the Land of Israel." Judaism didn't come from Africa or Antarctica or something, everybody knows where it came from. And I think whether one term for the place ("Land of Israel") or another ("Palestine") is first in the sentence, is a petty consideration.
:::::::::::I would say this: "the Land of Israel was in Palestine" is not a sentence that, in my view, any reasonable person would ever question. Only die-hard partisans would be like, "You can't call it that! It's only!!" IMO we get really tripped up on this, what I'd call silliness, across many articles.
:::::::::::"ancient Jewish homeland" might be a little on the nose, in that it may imply a historic right to the land, which is of course a hotly contested issue.
:::::::::::That said, I'd be fine with all sorts of variations, like: {{tqq|in Palestine, where Judaism originated, and which Jews called the Land of Israel}} or {{Tqq|in the Land of Israel (modern Palestine)}} or {{tqq|in the place where Judaism originated}} or {{tqq|in the birthplace of Judaism}}, etc. etc. ] (]) 18:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::''I don't think "Land of Israel" or "ancient Jewish homeland" is the Zionist/Jewish understanding, that's everybody's understanding. Like, nobody disputes that Jews originated in the Levant, or that they call that place "the Land of Israel."''
::::::::::::It's no more disputed that Palestinians originate from the Levant... ] ] 18:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::100% agree, and I'd say the same exact thing about people who say "It's not called 'Palestine'!" ] (]) 18:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::But Land of Israel has never been a common English name for the region. Thats why it shouldnt be used in place of Palestine in an English language encyclopedia article. ''']''' - 21:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::"Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."? ] ] 18:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::How about we hold up for a bit and wait for some oppositional buy-in? ] (]) 18:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Sure. ] ] 18:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Makes sense :-) ] (]) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::"Corresponding to" strikes me as wordy. What's wrong with, "the Land of Israel, in modern-day Palestine"?
:::::::::::::"of central importance" is vague, why not just say what that central importance was: where Judaism originated, something like "birthplace of Judaism"?
:::::::::::::Again, I don't really ''oppose'' your language, I'm just saying I think we can be clearer and more direct. My opposition is to dancing around basic facts in order to satisfy extreme partisans on either side (and I don't mean you or anybody else here, I mean those who deny that Israel is in Palestine, or that this region is the origin of both Jews and Palestinians). ] (]) 18:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::What additional information does "Land of Israel" add? I think if anything it just confuses since it doesnt have well defined borders. ] (]) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It explains ''why'' Zionists wanted to form a Jewish state in Palestine, and not somewhere else. I'd be fine with "a Jewish state in ], where Judaism ]," or "a Jewish state in the ] in ]," or "a Jewish state in the ] (in modern ])" or "a Jewish state in the ], where Judaism originated, then known as ]." ] (]) 18:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::But i dont think its widely accepted that that's why Palestine was chosen, no? It also encourages misunderstanding it as a religiously motivated movement, which it was certainly not, with many traditionalist authorities opposing collective settlement in Palestine. ] (]) 18:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think it's definitely widely accepted. Even undisputed. Why would they have sent people to Palestine if not because that's where the Land of Israel was? I mean, what is the alternative explanation for why Palestine was the destination? I don't think it's complicated or controversial to say that Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine because that's where Judaism comes from. ] (]) 19:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Ok I think there's something subtle here which is the distinction between "Judaism" and "the Jewish people". I agree one of the motivations of Zionism choosing palestine was they claimed a historic title to the land, but the movement was not motivated by religion (although that would have of course played a factor). ] (]) 19:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::See the paragraph in Shimoni talking about the zionist organization's claim to palestine specifically: https://archive.org/details/zionistideology0000shim/page/353/mode/1up?view=theater
:::::::::::::::::Which includes a justification based on the utility to western powers ] (]) 19:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::All that is to say that I think we should be careful to make it very clear that zionism developed as a secular movement, not one driven by religion or tradition. As many authors emphasize, it was a radical break from tradition. ] (]) 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I agree with Levivich in this case. "ancient homeland" comes verbatim out of several BESTSOURCES. I agree that it's an important motivation and that it's hard to mount a reasonable argument to question the fact that Zionism went to Palestine because that's where the Land of Israel is in Judaism. I like Bitspectator's frame, "Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::I don't see any issues with "Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history." ] (]) 20:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Seems like this formulation has consensus? ] (]) 21:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
"Judaism originated in Palestine" is a historical statement, not a religious one. Just like "Islam originated in Mecca" or "Christianity originated near Jerusalem". To me, saying that, or saying that Zionism wanted to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because that's where Judaism originated, does not say to me that it was ''religiously'' motivated. But in any event, I think distinguishing ] from ], and the fact that the former was secular, and that the former became the mainstream, is worth saying somewhere in the lead. ] (]) 19:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)


p. 44:
:I agree it is a historical statement, I just dont think an emphasis on "judaism" (rather than the "jewish people") is warranted here. Im pretty confident most sources focus on the origins of the people, not the religion in this context.
{{tq2|“Hence, if during the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century Zionist advocacy of transfer was uninsistent, low-key and occasional, '''by the early 1930s a full-throated near-consensus in support of the idea <u>began to emerge</u> among the movement’s leaders'''. Each major bout of Arab violence triggered renewed Zionist interest in a transfer solution.”}}
:I agree about mentioning the distinction. The body is currently lacking a real discussion of this distinction or of the nature of religious zionism as a melding of religious conservatism and secular nationalism following the efforts of kook. ] (]) 19:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
p. 59:
::I'd be fine with not mentioning the Judaism/Jewish people thing explicitly. That's why I'd be fine with something like "a Jewish state in the ] in ]" or "a Jewish state in the ] (in modern ])". You asked what does "Land of Israel" add; well, that's what it adds: in Palestine ''because that's where the Land of Israel was''. We can leave it up to the reader to click on the link (or read the body of this article) and learn about the nuances of what and where the Land of Israel was, exactly, and what it means for Judaism and for the "Jewish people" (whoever they are, as we know, a complicated question in itself). (I think saying that the Land of Israel was the origin of the Jewish people is problematic given research about the disapora and the whole "who exactly are the Jewish people?" question). I think the lead needn't go into any detail further than "in Palestine because that's where the Land of Israel was," or alternatively, "in the Land of Israel, which is in Palestine", or something like that. ] (]) 20:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|“The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually '''came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives''': In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;”}}
:::I don't agree that 'Judaism' originated in Palestine, anymore than I concur with the view that Christianity originated near Jerusalem. For in both cases the question is what Judaism/what Christianity? Like most statements that are eminently reasonable for being commonsensical, they begin to crumble if you analyse the terms that constitute them. Sorry for being a spoilsport.] (]) 20:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I could elaborate, but I see the article ] does indeed give some of the reasoning behind my elliptical obiter dictum. The formation of Judaism, as we understand it today, was a very long historical process, which took a decisive inchoate turn in Babylon during the exile, was distilled by Ezra and Nehemiah on their return to Judea, and achieved something like a defining value with the ] of the Mishnah, meaning a span of several centuries extending over the work of Jewish religious figures, not only in Palestine (the ]) but also throughout the 'diaspora'. It was a product ''ante litteram'' of the ] as much as it was the outcome of Jewish religious thought and practice in Palestine itself in the formative nationalist periods. The essential thing about all this is the '''symbolic''' order constituted by the Biblical narratives (which were themselves not a product just of 'Palestinian' Jews) with its figuring of that region as the core of Yahweh's promised land and the site where the people coalesced into Israelites. This obvious point is often ignored in even excellent RS. As always, our problem in assessing RS is to see what parts of them conserve standard narratives, and what part show genuine advances in our historical understanding (something I think ignored above in these endless threads over what to pick from an ever expanding source base - also perhaps because there are no wiki guidelines to tell us how to undertake those assessments, other than articles and books which review the ongoing works in the field).] (]) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe the discussion could be more rigorous if we look at all the bestsource quotes rather than simply off-the-cuff opining on the arcane particulars. Most of them talk about Judaism and also the secularization. Stanislawski, as was pointed out, contrasts this view, but in doing so also fleshes it out. Penslar: {{tq|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.}} Edelheit: {{tq|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. ... First, the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between 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 a concept of nationality. Third, that from the very beginning this sense of peoplehood 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.}} Forriol: {{tq|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}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::<blockquote>simply off-the-cuff opining on the arcane particulars</blockquote>
::::Thanks for the sneer contextually thrown my way but, aside from the fact that there is nothing off-the-cuff there - it's in the scholarship, ''der Teufel steckt im Detail'' (the devil is in the details) or more aptly, we can get virtually any number of mutually conflicting formulations from dozens of good solid RS, and use them to whatever purpose we like. To allude once more to that gentleman I mentioned above:'The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose'. The particulars I mentioned are not 'arcane' - they pertain to the essence of any discussion or use of the term Judaism. The point I hinted at is that most good scholarly books of this kind of genre (and I have in mind several kinds of nations in descriptive works) hover between recycled ideas and fresh thinking. Several of the phrases above are questionable ('from its inception'; 'the Jewish religious tradition does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities'; ('''A''') 'Eretz Israel was '''always seen''' as central to Jewish life; 'Persecution in Europe due to anti-Semitism and the longing for Zion' (that unfortunate phrasing grammatically, by the way, suggests that ('''b''') 'longing for Zion' was due to persecution in Europe, whereas 'longing for Zion' in numerous RS is said to be a bilmillennial part of Jewish identity, (compare '''a''' and '''b''') etc.) Of course, other things there are unobjectionable. ] (]) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not intended as a sneer, but do you want to cite a source for your opinions? So far in this thread I can't see what source you are citing. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::You often ask me whether I have a source for 'opinions' you contest. I write things like the above with the assumption that editors here do know their stuff, namely on things like the history of early Judaism. If one is not familiar with that scholarship, then it's not my job to mentor, but editors to read broadly in that topic area as well. Nothing I said was in the least controversial, or unfamiliar to anyone who studies that past.] (]) 21:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Your job is to cite sources for ] and per ] and ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Instead of rushing to reply, could you every now and then withhold snippy immediate reactions (4 minutes above) and reflect a little about what your interlocutors are saying? It is again none of your business to suggest paternalistically you know what my job is, for my editing history has established that. This is a talk page, not an article where editors must contribute sources with WP:Due and WP:RS in mind. If you were surprised to see my reply to Levivich clarifying an implicit ambiguity in associating the birth of Judaism within just one territory, that means you were not familiar with the history of Judaism. If you ask me for sources when I made a second comment, it means you want me to refer you to the immediately accessible results of any google search, which would, if you had downloaded a dozen papers fromn Zeitlin and Neusner onwards, underwritten that generalization. Not broadening one's background knowledge leads to far too much ephemeral backchat. Reply if you like, but methodological cautions and familiarity with a culture are a lesson all should take on board. And consensus is better secured if we adopt the principle that we should spend more time in the study than on wikipedia as a talkback venue if articles are eventually to be written with encyclopedic stability and precision. '''Finis''' ] (]) 07:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Talk pages indeed expect a constructive approach to editing pages, some amount of generalization permitted, but if you're contradicting stuff from the most reliable sources, one would expect you are going to bring an equally reliable source (which, as you know, is not the ]). Uncharitable to suggest I don't understand, just focus on the fact that you don't agree. I'm well aware of Judaism's relationship to Babylon, Persia, and Egypt; still, you need to cite sources, not just say stuff. I quoted several of the BESTSOURCES, and you are still just stating stuff without a link in sight. You need evidence for claims. Yes, the exile was critical to the development of Judaism, but most Jewish people trace their culture and religion to the ], not the ]. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not contradicting reliable sources. And I am not making 'claims'. It appears to you to be a claim simply because you seem to be unfamiliar with the obvious, which normally on wikipedia does not require RS documentation. You are referring to RS on Zionism as reliable on 'Judaism', I'm referring to works on the history of Judaism which make the assumption about 'Judaism' in the former look superficial. Since you won't follow my advice, or don't appear to grasp my point by a careful reading, I'll give you a leg-up. Read ]'s August 2007 ''Journal for the Study of Judaism'', vol. 38, issue 4-5 pp.457-512 and then ]'s ] 2018 {{isbn|978-0-813-57161-4}}. Please don't come back on this. It would take several hours of concentrated study to get through just those two excellent references, but the time spent would be in your worthwhile.] (]) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think this formulation makes some basic errors, Zionism's goal was to establish a Jewish state. Zionis'''ts''' later coalesced on creating that Jewish state in Palestine. ''']''' - 21:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::But by that argument, "outside of Europe" is also not accurate. Zionism wanted a Jewish state and considered alternatives, like Uganda. But is there a bestsource that they needed to be "outside of Europe"? During the phase where they would have taken anything, why not Europe? Also, what is the source, because the sources above clearly attribute that goal to Zionism, not Zionists, (see above) ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::What are the dates you'd put on that? What's the date that Zionism began or that Zionism set a goal of establishing a Jewish state (if those two dates are different), and what's the date that it coalesced around Palestine? ] (]) 21:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::We can of course put a date on both. Herzl's Jewish state in Palestine was proposed in February 1896, and the ]'s formal acceptance of Palestine dates to late August 1897. The Uganda 'alternative' was not a Zionist proposal, but one made by an outsider, Joseph Chamberlain, 4 years later. None of the vaunted 'alternatives' that from time to time arose -Angola, Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Cuba, Cyrenaica, El Arish, Kenya, Kimberley, Manchuria, Madagasgar, Mesopotamia, Nevada, Paraguay, Siberia inflected seriously the early decision to go for Palestine. Any other alternative created deep rifts within Zionism, esp among the majority Eastern Jews. The irony of the Uganda plan is that the British colonialists already established there were interviewed and voiced strenuous opposition which was taken into account for its political risks, something avoided later with the Balfour Declaration, which never considered indigenous Palestinian opinion or opposition. They were Arabs. ] (]) 08:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't think it's possible to put a date on that, and I'm not happy about presenting the history as if it was "anywhere" first and "only Palestine" later. It wasn't as simple as that. Palestine was the emotional favorite from the beginning, but some saw it as unavailable or unsuitable for some other reason. Some Zionists wanted to hold out for Palestine, others were prepared to consider anywhere that was available. The latter stream became fringe when the ITO split off and faded. I would drop "outside Europe" even though it is true, because the answer to "why not Europe?" is that nobody ever suggested a location in Europe that was available and suitable. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree it was the favored destination, but my understanding is that Zionism at its core was Jewish nationalism and the goal to establish a Jewish state. The where mattered, and while Palestine was the emotional favorite the initial goal was much less dependent on the where than on the what (the what being a Jewish state). ''']''' - 16:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding "Palestine" versus "Eretz Israel", I think we should follow the terminology used by the Zionists themselves. This was overwhelmingly "Palestine" until well into the mandate period. Without evidence, I suspect this reflects the secular nature of the project. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:Palestine is indisputably the most common name used by Zionists and many others for the region in the premodern period, ''Eretz Yisrael'' is more of a concept than a geographic place name. However, the most common name for the place in the premodern period, largely due to Christian usage, was () "Holy Land" (or even more common, but sometimes not used geographically, "Promised Land") One exception would be ] who refers to the area as both "Eretz Yisrael" and "Zion." Also, it's worth noting that in the pre-modern period, Israel generally referred to the people, ie the Children of Israel, or as Pinsker says in Auto-Emancipation the "people of Israel." Personally I think we should mostly consider how commonly sources in the modern-day describe things, with an eye to clarification and everyday usage. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::If I am following the above, we more or less agree "a land outside Europe" can go
::"...that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of ], a region corresponding to (known as?) the Land of Israel in Judaism, "
::and we are currently at something like the above? Or not? ] (]) 10:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That's where I'm at 🙂 ] ] 12:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::+1. I like your tweaks, too, "known as" and I think the "importance" bit is unnecessary if Land of Israel is linked--that already communicates importance, but I'm good with it either way. One other tweak I'd suggest: "pursued" instead of "aimed for." ] (]) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I'm perplexed since this is both unpolemic, innocuous and historically accurate, and I don't see any cogency in taking an exception to what is a very standard phrase in accounts of Zionism. This is a palmary example of spending a lot of chat to rid text of a phrase which lacks any reason to be expunged. Most recently, in a gloss the translation of the fundamental document of early Zionism, we have
::::*Judenstaat offers a plan to make a Jewish Palestine into an outpost of European “civilization” amid the “barbarism” of the orient, and recognizes that such a colony would remain dependent on Europe to guarantee its security. Herzl argues that Europeans should held the Zionists achieve their goals because '''a Jewish state outside Europe''' was a solution to the Jewish problem inside Europe, but would also function as a pan-European colony. Michael J.Reimer, ] 2019 {{isbn| 978-1-438-47314-7}} p.29
::::*'His concern was with the anti-Semitism of which Jews were victims. Its solution was the establishment of '''a state outside Europe's boundaries'''.' ], ''Zionism: The Birth and Transformation of an Ideal,'' ] 2016 i] p.30
::::*'Herzl used the case of Dreyfus to stress that European nationalism was steeped in racism against Jews, and as such, argued for the need for a national '''Jewish state outside Europe'''.’ Amneh Badran, ] 2009 {{isbn|978-1-1352-7582-2}} p.71
::::*‘certain anti-Semitic movements and governments applied the very same concept to justify a sympathetic handling of Zionism, insofar as the project of setting up '''a Jewish state outside Europe''' would solve the local ‘Jewish Question’ through a voluntary withdrawal of all these undesirable “aliens.” Victor Karady, ] 2004 {{isbn|978-9-639-24152-7}} p.337
::::*'Zionism can thus be defined as an attempt to solve the Jewish question’ (a term used preominently by Theodor Herzl and other Zionist leaders) not through assimilation but through the creation of '''a Jewish state outside Europe'''. Oliver Zimmer, ] 2003 {{isbn|978-1-403-94388-0}} p.74
::::*'Even before the appearance of definitive proof that emancipation was reversible, however, a sober minority among the "modernists" confronted the logic of ethnic nationalism and set out on the sole possible path to survival in the modern world: the creation of '''a Jewish nation-state outside Europe''' Benjamin Nathans, ], Vol. 96, No. 2 Spring 2006, pp. 288-295 p.289
::::That 'outside Europe' is a scholarly commonplace, but very important because it links not only to the specific European antisemitism that generated in part a Zionist consensus, but also to wider themes in Zionism: the repudiation of Europe, yet the need for tutelary arrangements with the Great powers, and the witting self-image of the projected state as a forward frontierpost of European civilization against Asiatic barbarism. ] (]) 14:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree that it's accurate. But those paragraphs are mostly talking about anti-Semitism in Europe. It makes sense to mention that the Zionist designs were for outside Europe in that context. I previously encouraged mentioning anti-Semitism in the first paragraph. The question is whether to use "outside Europe" in the first sentence of an article describing Zionism. I don't see that (or similar) in the ] introductions. ] ] 14:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::"known as" and "corresponding to" seem dont seem accurate enough, considering some definitions include land up to the litani river (and also cyprus). ] (]) 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::How would you phrase it? ] ] 16:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I personally would not in the opening. Later when discussing why Palestine was chosen would be a place to include {{xt|due to the historical connections between Judaism and the region of Palestine, roughly corresponding with the area referred to by the traditional Jewish name of ] (''Eretz Yisrael'' in Hebrew).}} ''']''' - 16:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would just say "Palestine" like so many sources do, and like the early zionists did ] (]) 16:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::So just move it to Line 2 as it is now? ] (]) 16:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Nableezy used "roughly" above, which I think should be included. And I agree that presenting this info in the second sentence as the lead currently does is the right way to do it. Zionism was a modern secular movement, and our first sentence should be very clear, and not imply in any way that it was motivated by religion. ] (]) 16:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::] was a minority position then? ] (]) 17:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes. Also, I'm less familiar with the literature on religious zionism, but I think we can also say that religious zionism is an attempt to bridge secular nationalism with religious conservatism. Religious zionism did not necessarily oppose it's secular counterpart. ] (]) 17:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Something like:
::::::::{{tq2|Zionism is an ethno-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. By the turn of the century, the mainstream Zionist movement was focused on the establishment of a Jewish state specifically in Palestine. Zionism developed as a secular movement and was in many ways a rejection of Jewish tradition; the movement's selection of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history, was made on the basis of practical and strategic considerations.}} ] (]) 17:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I have to say I am with those that are not keen on the "outside Europe" phrasing. Mainly because it sounds a bit odd out of context and the putative best sources don't tackle it like that, I prefer just saying Palestine in line 1. I think they settled on Palestine before the turn of the century, right? 1896/7 per Nishidani. I would like to settle line 1 before moving on to Line 2/3 altho they are obviously connected. ] (]) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Not keen either, but i think enough objection from {{u|Nishidani}} and {{u|nableezy}} and i think {{u|DMH223344}} for more work towards a real consensus.
::::::::::*{{cite journal|last=Alroey|first=Gur|year=2011|title="Zionism without Zion"? Territorialist Ideology and the Zionist Movement, 1882–1956|journal=Jewish Social Studies|volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=1–32 |publisher=Indiana University Press|doi=10.2979/jewisocistud.18.1.1 |jstor=10.2979/jewisocistud.18.1.1}}
::::::::::*and his book {{cite book|last=Alroey|first=Gur|year=2016|title=Zionism without Zion : the Jewish Territorial Organization and its conflict with the Zionist Organization|publisher=Wayne State University Press|oclc=921867796}}
::::::::::*maybe {{cite book|last=Rovner|first=Adam|year=2014|title=In the shadow of Zion : promised lands before Israel|publisher=NYU Press|oclc=896188426}}
::::::::::Don't know if they feel that needs done now or can be deferred, or just worked on within the body? ](]) 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Worked on in the body opens up to more sources and it might throw up the answer we are looking for. ] has in its lead "first arose in 1903 in response to the British Uganda Scheme, but only institutionalized in 1905. Its main goal was to find an alternative territory to that of Palestine, which was preferred by the Zionist movement, for the creation of a Jewish homeland." ] (]) 18:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Just as a reminder, what the lead "used to say":-
:::::::::"Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsiyyonut after Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to espouse support for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition." ] (]) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::And fwiw, Britannica updated to "Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”)." ] (]) 18:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You removed cultural after I had replied, I thought we already resolved that above and the refs (both best source authors) are to suit. ] (]) 18:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::ah yeah sorry about that, im fine with it's inclusion, i just think it sounds kind of silly. ] (]) 18:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::It's linked to ethnic nationalism for the curious (fwiw, WP articles on the various branches are not that great, see ] "It is contrasted with "political" nationalism, which refers to specific movements for national self-determination through the establishment of a nation-state." Hum.). ] (]) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I agree with keeping "cultural" and removing "outside Europe." I feel like we're making good progress. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Took a swag at implementing the latest Selfstudier-Bitspectator special deluxe edition ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I reverted, there have been several objections to Land of Israel and your phrasing on establishing a state and a homeland makes close to no sense. ''']''' - 10:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)]
::::Again, an edit summary WP:SYNTH (ergo removal) is not enough. My practice is to show on the talk page what the synth you claim is there consists of. Inferences from sources, ergo WP:OR etc? Other editors simply do not know unless you spend some time explaining what is wrong with the text. Bulleted points are useful to this end. So please clarify.] (]) 14:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
"aimed for the creation of a Jewish state and establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people" is confusing, which is it? Or perhaps one could say something like "...a Jewish state by way of establishing a homeland..."? ] (]) 09:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


This, along with the fact that even when discussing "transfer", Morris still speaks in terms of "majority/minority" and never talks about "as few Arabs as possible/minimum Arabs" or any equivalent, shows that framing his position as support for the claim that Zionist core goal was "as few Arabs as possible" would be SYNTH.}}
We are back to trying to get agreement on Line 1, there appear to be three issues on which consensus is required, a) state or homeland and b) outside Europe or Palestine and c) Linking to the second sentence. For me, it's a) state (that's what was really wanted) and b ) Palestine (going by the dates above, that's what the mainstream wanted) and c) Sentence should stand on its own with no link to second sentence. ] (]) 13:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:If dates are a consideration for (b) then 1903 is probably better to call out: from Alroey's paper {{tq|..the resolutions of the Seventh Congress to reject the British proposal and to prevent discussion of similar proposals in the future was a formative event in the history of the Zionist movement, the territorialist movement, and the Jewish people in general.}} But ITO lived on till Balfour, and territorialism reemerged in the '30s and '40s Frayland-lige. ](]) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)


"Home" is neutral (and incidentally matches both the Basel Program and the Balfour Declaration). "Homeland" carries the connotation of "native land" (look at a dictionary), so it is not neutral. Regarding Self's (a)-(c), there is a third alternative for (b) namely to not mention a destination at all. The destination issue can be better described in several sentences later than trying to nail it in a few words. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:I agree 'homeland' is prejudicial, and 'home' better, though I'm comfortable with 'state' because Herzl and his contemporaries were. re (b) saying 'outside Europe' is not specifying any 'destination', but rather defining it for what it was, i.e., an 'exit strategy' away from Europe where Jews could not exercise an imitation of the nationalisms that were consolidating themselves, and also a flight from, and putative cure for, antisemitism. Re Fiveby's note, I think being tied up by alluding to the Uganda/territorialism variants is unnecessary: as with 'cultural nationalism', which got some late wind from Chaim Gans' strange book (and reflects a very minority tradition associated with Ahad and the negligible if honourable Brit Shalom) Uganda was raised and dismissed virtually in one year, and was an English proposal, quickly trashed, while territorialism, notwithstanding its regional importance sometime later, was almost totally ignored over a century of Zionist historiography (per Astour and Alroey).
:My impression is that most wiki disputes are inordinately focused on leads because editors tend to think that's about as far as most modern readers go. Which means the actual body of the article, which should take precedence because only when the sections are done can one accurately précis them in the lead, per policy. At the moment, ] is the only one trying to thoroughly revisit the whole text. ] (]) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::The old lead and the current one are supposedly from the same body, good trick:) And all the complaints are about the lead, so needs must. ] (]) 17:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::Oh i agree, many of the points raised in these discussions show fertile ground for content work, and sometimes a surprising lack of existing content. But that is a multi-day commitment of time and also involves the detestable task of, well, ''writing''. Understand Selfstudier's "needs must" tho. ](]) 17:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:For (b), check out my comment ]. Would you go with (3)? ] ] 23:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::personally I have 0 objection to "Jewish national home" if that is a compromise that helps. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Wrong thread? ] ] 23:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The discussion of "home" versus "homeland" in the first message that starts this thread by Zero above. As far as the Jewish state, I think it should mention the Jewish state as well as the idea of a Jewish national home, those 2 are related, but not identical. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Shlaim in particular "The Basel Program deliberately spoke of a home rather than a state for the Jewish people, but from the Basel Congress onward the clear and consistent aim of the Zionist movement was to create a state for the Jewish people in Palestine. In his diary Herzl confided, 'At Basel I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it."
:::::Then it would seem that "home", "homeland" and the rest was mere posturing for political effect and a disguise for the real intention, a state. One can see this in the negotiations over the Balfour Declaration, the attempt to upgrade "home" to "commonwealth", for example, see https://cojs.org/quotes_by_lord_george_nathaniel_curzon-_british_foreign_secretary-_regarding_the_establishment_of_the_palestine_mandate-_march_1920/ ] (]) 10:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: I believe that is correct analysis. The immediate reason that the Basel Program said "home" and not "state" is that they were hoping for a concession from the Sublime Porte and they knew that the least hint of wanting sovereignty would kill the possibility. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think it matters whether the home or homeland was posturing, which obviously would be disputed. You can characterize what Zionist organizations or leaders said or thought, and then immediately provide the counter-critique. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)


Now, before I move to additional sources that not currently mentioned in the article and that refute the "as few Arabs as possible" claim, I just want to point out that two of the quoted sources - ], p. 6, and ], p. 7 - are actually citations from ] and a Hebrew article published by Pappé in 2008, respectively, hence they are, in fact, tertiary sources, and given the complex and controversial nature of this issue, shouldn't have been used in this context, as per ].
==] in lead==
I also removed several conclusions that are ] and failed verification which you appear to have reverted These claims and conclusions do not appear in the sources. Can you show me how the sources support those? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ''']''' - 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, {{tq|Modern political Zionism, different from ], 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, {{tq|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, {{tq|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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Since this is not really about Line 1, how about take it to its own section? ] (]) 21:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::That's true. Can do. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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." ] (]) 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 ], 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You are confusing claims about "all types of Zionism" and "mainstream Zionist groups". ] (]) 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 ]. ] ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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: {{tq|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. ] (]) 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.
::-- ] (]) 23:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe the term "]" confuses more than helps here. To be clear, its meaning here is not the same as "contemporary" ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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 "{{tq|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? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm going to crosspost this thread to ], 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::and, crickets... ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Just waiting for the RFC. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Modern sources use the term, and the term in the first sentence is "colonization" not "colonialist". ] (]) 20:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


=== Now, here are several additional sources that refute the "as few Arabs as possible" framing: ===
== Some bibliographic work ==


* {{cite book |last=Laqueur |first=Walter |authorlink=Walter Laqueur|url=https://books.google.co.il/books/about/A_History_of_Zionism.html?id=hEt5PWCTMJMC&redir_esc=y |title=A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel |year=2009}}
I'd like to go through all the refs and notes in an attempt to standardize and clean up: full cites, find page numbers, etc. I can see there's been a lot of effort here towards a nice clean bibliography, but more could be done. Any preferences as to how to the mix of sfn and ref and notes which run 1-5 ''and'' a-t? Also like to standardize the cite template entries so the all look the same and have appropriate links where available. For instance place of publication for everything or nothing, which identifiers of ISBN, OCLC, DOI, ISSN, JSTOR, capitalization style in titles, etc. Links to archived versions for web cites or no or both? I hate Google Book and will remove all those URL's unless somebody says different.
{{block indent|p. 232 (context: pre-WWI proposals of “limited population transfer”):
{{tq2|“...the idea of a population transfer '''was never official Zionist policy'''. Ben Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs they would not make use of it. '''Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs''' following the industrialisation of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture…”}}}}


* {{cite book |last=Ther |first=Philipp|author-link=Philipp Ther |url=https://books.google.co.il/books?id=jHEXAwAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s |title=The Dark Side of Nation-States: Ethnic Cleansing in Modern Europe |year=2014}}
There are some citations i would like to remove or tag in passing while doing this, but i think better to refrain right now? I will probably be guessing at the editor's intention for page numbers some so might end up adding some page needed tags. ](]) 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|p. 191:
{{tq2| “The extent to which the Zionists advanced the idea of population transfers during World War II is much disputed in the secondary literature. Palestinian authors such as Nur Masalha and advocates of “new history” in Israel have supported the argument that the Zionists had a master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the start. '''There is little evidence to support this claim'''.”}}}}


* {{cite journal |last=Heller |first=J. |author-link=Joseph Heller (historian) |year=2006 |title=Alternative narratives and collective memories: Israel’s New Historians and the use of historical context |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/4284476 |journal=Middle Eastern Studies |volume=42 |issue=4 |pages=571–586}}
:Thanks for taking this on. I don't know where {{u|DMH223344}} is with their rewrite/merger, but if DMH is planning to replace some of the current content with new content, it may not be worth gnoming the existing refs for content that's about to be replaced. IMO "notes" should be limited to explanatory notes not refs. I find Google URLs to be helpful because of the free previews; I don't think she should be removed unless they're replaced with something more helpful (like free versions of the source, if available). My personal pref is to exclude archive links except for dead URLs (there's a discussion at the pump or somewhere about this). I find place of publication to be useless and outdated; we have ISBNs now and we don't have to worry about two publishers with the same name in two locations like in the olden days. But if you're doing the gnoming work I'd defer to your decisions on these preference issues (except please leave the Google URLs for the free previews if there's nothing better to link to). ] (]) 03:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|p. 573:
::I will pick up the merging next month. ] (]) 04:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|“In spite of its realistic base we see a two-fold weakness in Morris’s thesis. First, it goes back to Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, as the supposed creator of the idea of transfer. In reality, like everybody else in European politics in his day, Herzl was ignorant of the existence of Arab nationalism. '''At one point he noted briefly that transfer of the poor native population was possible for economic reasons, only to reject it a little later'''… <br/>
:::Unless anyone objects i'm also going to do , if all the footnote does is directly quote a source move it to <nowiki>{{sfn}}</nowiki> with a postscript parameter. If there is explanatory text added by an editor (such as ) leave it in an <nowiki>{{efn}}</nowiki>. ](]) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Until the Royal Commission, better known as the Peel Commission of 1937, proposed the partition solution, with its corollary of population transfer, the Zionist decision-making agenda was preoccupied with one theme: the consolidation of power in terms of demography, economics and culture, leaving the military responsibility to the British authorities. '''Since the British government adopted the transfer idea only for a short period of time, the Zionists, too, shelved it''', adopting the other British option – partition."}}
P. 574-575:
{{tq2|
“...one must conclude that it was the partition plan that was at the top on the Zionist agenda, and not transfer, even though both plans were inspired by the Peel Commission…
… ‘The '''fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas''' in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions’. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of ‘operative ideology’ '''not of ‘fundamental ideology’'''. Arab ethnic cleansing was therefore not more than '''an option of last resort in the event of war'''."}}
P. 584
{{tq2|“Morris’s '''concept of transfer of the Arabs as the focus of Zionist decision making has no basis in political reality'''. “ }}}}


* {{cite book |last=Galnoor |first=Itzhak |url=https://books.google.co.il/books?id=MAbY8v1UkDEC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s |title=The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement |year=1995}}
:Anyone have an idea of what is going on with #9? Wouldn't think there is a need for three reference for Palestine part of Ottoman empire at the end of the 19th century. Cohen is Russian emigration, Gevin is Herzl, and i only have an epub for Pappe so no page#'s. Probably got misplaced somehow but can't figure out what the three have in common. Also, said i wasn't going to remove any refs but have already started . ](]) 03:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|pp. 179-180
::I support your work ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq2|“The commission investigated the possibility of voluntary populations and land exchanges and the prospects of finding solutions for those who would be moved and reached the conclusion that it is "impossible to assume that the minority problem will be solved by a voluntary transfer of population." Incidentally, the commission also concluded that '''the Jews opposed forced transfer'''.
Transfer as a concrete political possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report - it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the United Nations partition plan of 1947. '''Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past'''.”}}}}


* {{cite news |last=Karsh |first=Efraim|author-link=Efraim Karsh |date=2019 |title=Book Review: 'A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion' |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-a-state-at-any-cost-the-life-of-david-ben-gurion-11570221998 |work=The Wall Street Journal}} (review of Tom Segev's book)
== The lead? ==
{{block indent|{{tq2|“The truth is that, far from seeking to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs as claimed by Mr. Segev, the Zionist movement had always been amenable to the existence of a '''substantial Arab minority''' in the prospective Jewish state. No less than Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of the faction that was the forebear of today’s Likud Party, voiced his readiness (in a famous 1923 essay) “to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.” And if this was the position of the more “militant” faction of the Jewish national movement, small wonder that mainstream Zionism took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the prospective Jewish state…


Ignoring these facts altogether, Mr. Segev accuses Ben-Gurion of using the partition resolution as a springboard for implementing the age-old “Zionist dream” of “maximum territory, minimum Arabs,” though '''he brings no evidence for this supposed behavior beyond a small number of statements that are either taken out of context or simply distorted or misrepresented'''.” }}}}
I feel like the lede of the article, before major edit warring on both sides due to the war, did its job of being fair, neutral, accurate and balanced. ] (]) 00:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


* {{cite book |last=Karsh |first=Efraim|author-link=Efraim Karsh |title=Palestine Betrayed |publisher=Yale University Press |year=2010}}
:I think you're right, the current lead emerged not only due to the war but due to edit warring of a contested phrasing that never reached clear consensus. This is why the article hasn't been stable for the last couple of months but those who pushed for the changed controversial edits now seem to label their changes as a consensus. ] (]) 08:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{{block indent|{{tq2|“...the recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British mandate and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record, and one that is completely at odds with the anti-Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day. They reveal … '''that the claim of premeditated dispossession is not only baseless but the inverse of the truth'''; and that far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who, from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival which culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place, for the simple reason that '''the Zionist movement was amenable both to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state''' on an equal footing, and to the two-state solution, raised for the first time in 1937 by a British commission of inquiry and
::These matters are already being discussed above, another section is not necessary. ] (]) 08:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
reiterated by the partition resolution.”}}}}
:I think you're 100% right. There are big problems in the lead. Parts of it rely on overtly biased sources and falsely represents their claims. That should be completely unacceptable but some people seem to want it to stand.
:Andre, CoreTheApple, and I have been calling for a POV tag to be added to the article.
:@] and @], what do you think about two ideas:
:1) Should we add a POV bias tag until these issues are resolved?
:2) Should do a re-write of the lead based on the best sources which are being defined as recent books, about Zionism, by subject matter experts, and published by academic presses.
:-- ] (]) 18:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree with the observations folks have made and have said similar things above. I'm not sure if the discussion has stalled out. There was a pretty robust discussion about Line 1 and I thought we were making good progress. I also posted a separate section about the perception of SYNTH and would appreciate others' thoughts since it was a 2-person convo. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
::Agree with both 1 and 2 ] (]) 11:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:Based on what ?
:Specialized reliable sources are what determine NPOV, i find the current lead neutral and balanced as per the reliable sources. ] (]) 11:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::I can't help but agree with {{u|Stephan rostie}}. The lead is full of high-quality reliable sources backing up everything it says in pretty meticulous detail (maybe this wasn't like that when this discussion was opened 12 days ago?). Misplaced Pages is not censored, and that includes historical revisionism based on placation. <b>]</b> ] 02:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


* {{cite book |last=Shapira |first=Anita|author-link=Anita Shapira |url=https://books.google.co.il/books?id=jaghEQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s |title=Israel: A History |publisher=Brandeis University Press |year=2014}}
There is currently an ongoing process, which I support, to come up with a list of the best sources.
{{block indent|p. 161
{{tq2|“Pro-Palestinian researchers present Plan D as the draft of a preplanned, total population transfer of the Arabs of Palestine. But as the plan text shows, while it did order commanders to destroy
villages and expel the inhabitants if they resisted, it also instructed commanders to leave them where they were if they did not resist, while ensuring Jewish control of the village. '''There is a great difference between an order for total expulsion and a selective order, which assumes that Arab villages will be able to live in peace in the Jewish state'''."}}}}To summarize, only about half of the currently used sources claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core goal of Zionism movement throughout the pre-1948 period and several of them actually refute this claim. In addition, there are multiple RS - some of which I listed above - that contest this claim.


This makes the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the current phrasing '''non-NPOV-compliant''', and careful examination of the sources shows that a much more accurate reflection of the academic consensus would be to say '''"a state with a significant Jewish majority"'''. ] (]) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to see if we can come to agreement that after this process is done, we will do a re-write of the lead to make sure that the lead relies primarily on these sources.


:Okay. There are 12 sources for the statement: Manna, Khalidi, Slater, Cohen, Lustick & Berkman, Stanislawski, Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury, Engel, Masalha, Lentin, Pappé, Morris. You are attempting to illustrate that about half of these sources don't actually support "as few Arabs as possible". I'll go through each.
This will include any big changes made to the article in the past few months, even if they currently are labeled as having "consensus".
:'''Cohen:'''
:You use {{tq|was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state}} as evidence that they didn't want as few Arabs as possible. I don't quite buy this, because I interpret "as few Arabs as possible" as meaning as few Arabs as possible . That they reluctantly accepted some doesn't contradict that for me.
:The p. 73 quote is about something they {{tq|seriously considered}}, implying that this wasn't their main line of thought, not what they really wanted. This is actually validated by the p. 75 quote you share: {{tq|the Jewish Agency prepared for the contingency of a large Arab minority}}. Contingency? It seems like they didn't want it. Same point for the p. 77 quote.
:So, I think the Cohen quote of {{tq|As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years}} is accurate. I don't see how he is "contesting" Masalha and Morris. I think Cohen supports "as few Arabs as possible".
:'''Pappé:'''
:I think you're right. "as few Arabs as possible" is about before the establishment of the state of Israel, this quote is imprecise and could be about modern Zionism. I don't think this should be used.
:'''Manna:'''
:I'm not seeing how p. 2 says {{tq|the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible}} is only about 1947-48. In p. 4 {{tq|in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians}} doesn't imply to me that it wasn't the main opinion pre-1948, just that it became unanimous in 1948. And even if Manna was saying that the idea only came about in 1948, I don't think it couldn't be used to justify "as few Arabs as possible", which is about the period up to the establishment of the state of Israel. The primary expulsions took place in 1948, and Israel was founded in 1948.
:I don't see your argument with p. 33: {{tq|The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers... Indeed, at the end of December 1947}}. Okay, this just means they had the objective in 1947. So? I think Manna supports "as few Arabs as possible".
:''' Stanislawski:'''
:Again, you're just saying that Zionists wanted as few Arabs as possible in 1948, therefore they couldn't have wanted that before 1948? It doesn't say that. I think Stanislawski supports "as few Arabs as possible".
:'''Khalidi:'''
:Agreed, I don't think this should be used. "Majority" is not strong enough IMO.
:'''Lustick & Berkman:'''
:Agreed, I don't think this should be used. "Minority" is not strong enough IMO.
:'''Engel:'''
:This one is mixed. I think it can probably be used to support "as many Jews as possible", but it doesn't support "as few Arabs as possible". The p. 138 quote again brings up the issue of when expulsion became the consensus idea. It concedes that eventually it did. This is interesting, but really doesn't refute that Zionists wanted "as few Arabs as possible". I guess there could be a rewording to include this nuance, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
:'''Morris:'''
:Again, the timing issue. See above. I do think {{tq|displacement of Arabs from Palestine}} cannot be used support "as few Arabs as possible", but {{tq|overwhelming Jewish majority}} is enough to support "as many Jews as possible" IMO.
:'''Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury and Lentin:'''
:I don't think these are tertiary just because they cite Pappé. I'm not sure if Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury is a BESTSOURCE though.
:---
:I will need a little bit more time to go though the new sources you brought. But to address your thesis:
:{{tq2|a much more accurate reflection of the academic consensus would be to say "a state with a significant Jewish majority"}}
:I don't see that. Your proposed new statement is weaker than Morris' {{tq|overwhelming Jewish majority}}, and Morris clearly leans a certain way on this. And it replaces the part about Arabs with nothing, even though there are not yet addressed BESTSOURCES clearly saying it (Slater, Segev, Shlaim), in addition to Cohen, Manna, and Stanislawski, which I don't think you have nullified. I really do appreciate the effort though. This is a great thing for Misplaced Pages to have. ] ] 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for the feedback - looking forward for your comments regarding the newly added sources.
::Regarding the chronology - I think the question of if and when the idea of transfer became more or less consensual within Zionist leadership is key in context of a correct phrasing in the lead, because the lead should reflect the '''core Zionist goals''' - what Heller refers to as "'''‘fundamental ideology'''" - throughout the whole of the pre-state period. If this idea was adopted only towards the end of the period, and if - as Heller describes it - it was only "operational", rather than "fundamental" - then this might be too specific to be mentioned in the lead, let alone in the opening paragraph, and should rather be deferred to the body. ] (]) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is a very detailed analysis. Based on this, I think "significant Jewish majority" would be a better framing. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Agreed. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::@]: I'm curious as to your and others' views of temporal sourcing of statements in Wikivoice: If some sources say this was the case from the beginning until the present (Morris, Shlaim, Lentin, Slater), some say from the beginning without specifying an end date (Engel, Khalidi, Segev, Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury), two say from the start until the creation of Israel (Masalha, Lustick & Berkman), one says "for years" without being more specific (Cohen), one says in 1948 (Stanislawski), one says in the first decade after the creation of Israel (Manna), and one says it's the "core of Zionism" until the present day (Pappe)... don't these, taken together, support the idea of "always"? Especially when not a single source says anything like "...until time period X, when it changed"? ] (]) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I don't think it matters for the lead. But you should clarify whether those temporalities are for "as many Jews as possible" or are for "as few Arabs as possible". I think @]'s arguments about this just relate to "as few Arabs as possible". ] ] 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for the work you've put into this. This is conflating the notion of political consensus with the notion of desirability. To be clear, within the Zionist movement, the arguments made against transfer were made primarily on a practical basis, not because transfer was not desirable. The only quote put forward which denies the desirability of "as few Arabs" is Karsh 2019, a book review.
:{{tq2|a more careful reading of the book shows that his position is much more nuanced and that, in his view, this "underlying thrust of the ideology" only turned into an actual goal/"want" in the 1930s, that is in the second half of the pre-state period , and it only happened in response to external factors or initiatives}}
:This is synth, since morris does not say anything about the "want" developing in the 30s, only that the political consensus became strong during this period. The "external factors" are in this case fundamental to the situation which comes with, as Morris says, the zionist goal of "politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." That's why transfer was {{tq|"transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure"}} ] (]) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think we're painting all Zionists with too broad of a brush. We know that many Zionists including Herzl had dismissive views toward the Arabs and were OK with a transfer - though they often thought the transfer would happen through economic means, for example. Others didn't consider the Arab inhabitants or thought there weren't many, and still others did know about them but thought they would welcome them. Consider Bregman 2002<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bregman |first=Ahron |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_s_Wars/YlA2UM1r2gIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA3&printsec=frontcover&dq=some%20of%20the%20Zionist%20leaders|title=Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947 |date=2002 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-28715-9 |language=en|page=3}}</ref>. While not one of the absolute best sources, it's a decent enough source and I happened across this passage while perusing it on p.3. (and p.1 {{tq|Palestine was in fact a barren, rocky, neglected and inhospitable land with malaria-infested swamps.}}) The passage on p.3: {{tq|scrutinizing the speeches and writings of Zionist leaders of the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that some of the Zionist leaders did truly believe that Palestine was derelict and empty – ‘A land without a people waiting for a people without a land’. This, it is worth noting, was not an unusual thought, for some early Zionists suffered from the common Eurocentric illusion that ‘territories outside Europe were in a state of political vacuum’. But there were also Zionists who did realize that an Arab community existed in Palestine – working the land, bringing up children, living and dying – however, they took it for granted that the native Arabs would welcome the new arrivals, whose zeal and skill and, of course, money would help develop the barren land for the benefit of all of its inhabitants.}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, this doesn't say anything about the desirability of "as few Arabs as possible" ] (]) 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq2|This is conflating the notion of political consensus with the notion of desirability.}}
::This is a fair point, but it, in turn, leads to several additional questions:
::# Is the lead the right place to make this distinction?
::# If it is, shouldn't we also make a distinction between what Heller refers to as operative vs fundamental ideologies:
::{{block indent|1={{tq|'The fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions'. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of 'operative ideology' not of 'fundamental ideology'.}} <br/>and let the lead describe fundamental ideology, while deferring the discussion of the operative ideology to the relevant section(s) in the body? }}<br/>
::{{tq2|The only quote put forward which denies the desirability of "as few Arabs" is Karsh 2019, a book review}}
::I've just added one more source that makes this point, and I also have a few more that talk about opposition to the idea on moral grounds - will hopefully have the time to add them tomorrow.<br/><br/>
::{{tq2|The "external factors" are in this case fundamental to the situation which comes with, as Morris says, the zionist goal of "politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."}}
::This is, indeed, how Morris describes this, but other sources - e.g. Gorny (2006) that I added today - offer a different perspective, and several other RS discussed above consider "as few Arabs as possible"/"transfer" ideas to be secondary in Zionist thinking. At the very least raises the question of whether discussing it in the opening paragraph is justified, as per ]. ] (]) 21:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:Here's an additional source that provides an important perspective on Zionist ideology, in particular, in its fundamental approach towards Jewish-Arab relationships and Zionist demographic goals, and also clearly contradicts the "as few Arabs as possible" framing:
:{{cite book |last=Gorny |first=Yosef |title=From Binational Society to Jewish State: Federal Concepts in Zionist Political Thought, 1920-1990, and the Jewish People |publisher=BRILL |year=2006 |url=https://books.google.co.il/books?id=rIZSEAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gbs_navlinks_s}}
:'''<big>Two key points:</big>'''
:* Zionism's goals included <u>both</u> Jewish majority and cooperation with Arabs
:{{block indent|1=P. 6-7:{{tq2|“Therefore, national values such as return to the soil, Jewish labor, the renaissance of Hebrew culture, and the '''aspiration to a Jewish majority''' became '''political fundamentals in Zionism'''...<br/> Zionist policy from Herzl’s time to the establishment of the State of Israel had three dimensions… <br/>The second dimension, the intercommunal, included Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine in all their senses. In an attempt to work out joint arrangements, if only partial and provisional, that would allow them to coexist with the Arab population of the country, '''the Zionists aspired to cooperation''' in municipal government, an arrangement for relations between Jewish and Arab labor organizations, general agrarian reform, and other matters.<br/> The third dimension was reflected in the Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of '''fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs''', who were embroiled in struggle for the same piece of land. By the very fact of having such plans, the movement signaled its intention to replace side-by-side existence with coexistence. It is in this sense that Zionist policy was informed by '''a Utopian element''' tempered by political realism, a policy that recognized its limits as a national force and, usually, knew how to exploit political opportunities that the era created.<br/>At first glance, our remarks here point to a material clash between the Utopian inclination and the pragmatic consideration in Zionist policy. It is not so. The entire intent of this study is to note that the '''Utopian element in Zionist policy was neither a marginal and unimportant appendage nor an artificial embellishment with which politicians could adorn themselves. In fact, it was a structural and intrinsic feature of the policy.''' It was embedded in the policymakers’ personalities; it played a role in long-term plans for the regularization of Jewish-Arab relations; it influenced the aspiration to align the political solutions with Jews’ and Arabs’ national ideals and rights; and it served as a moral yardstick for use in distinguishing between permissible and forbidden ways and means of prosecuting the armed conflict. It was this characteristic that gave the movement and its leaders the strength to cling to a political vision that clashed with the existing conditions.<br/>Viewed from this perspective, '''the Zionist reality was charged with Utopian meaning'''. It is for this reason that I define the relationship between reality and vision as “Utopian realism.” This seeming oxymoron, in my opinion, is '''one of the keys to understanding Zionism as a national idea and as a social and political doctrine that fulfilled itself'''.}}<br/>p. 11: {{tq2|“I use the term “Zionist consensus” to denote the ideological common denominator among all Zionist Movement intellectual currents and political entities, which disagreed severely on all other topics. The consensus was made up of four basic principles: an unbreakable bond between the Jewish nation and the Eretz Israel; '''a Jewish majority in Eretz Israel'''; changing the socioeconomic structure of the Jewish people as part of a comprehensive national effort; and the revival of the Hebrew language and culture.“}} }}
:<br/>
:* Zionists viewed Jewish emigration as the primary vehicle for obtaining Jewish majority<br/>
:{{block indent|1=p. 33: {{tq2|“From the Jewish standpoint, the onset of the Fourth Aliya heralded the emergence of the Zionist Movement from the crisis that had engulfed it at the end of the Third Aliya. '''The Jewish masses that began to reach Palestine instilled hope, for the first time after the Balfour Declaration, of the possibility of attaining a Jewish majority in Palestine'''.”}} <br/> p. 65: {{tq2|“For Ben-Gurion, in contrast, the '''Fifth Aliya—which infused Zionism with new hope and made the Jewish majority a realistic goal''' — was a basis for a broad-based federal settlement between Jews and Arabs at both the local and the regional levels.”}} <br/> Also, the words 'transfer/transferring,' in the sense of 'population transfer,' are mentioned only four times, and only in passing, and one of the four instances actually refers to Jewish immigration. On the other hand, actual long-term plans assumed continued growth of Arab population - for example, see description of Jabotinsky’s 1940 constitution proposal that talks about Arab minority of two million (twice its size in 1940).<br/> p. 102: {{tq2|“In his background remarks to the proposal, Jabotinsky based himself solely on examples of federative regimes that had passed the test of political durability and met human and social moral standards. He disputed the argument that the Arabs of Palestine would become a nationally oppressed group after they became '''a minority of two million amid five million Jews, as his proposal envisaged'''.”}} }}<br/> &nbsp; ] (]) 20:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::I don't have a copy of that book of Gorny's, but here is a relevant quote from his 87 book in the context of discussing the Zionist conception of the Arab question:
::{{tq2| It was generally accepted among Zionists that the eventual solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Arabs by force, because of their obduracy, which precluded negotiations and compromise for the foreseeable future.}}
::Also, I'm familiar with Gorny's other writing on Zionist utopia, and his definition of "utopia" is certainly not "utopia, an ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist under seemingly perfect conditions.":
::{{tq2|I am aware that utopias are not ideal regimes even when their intentions are the best, and that they are not free of totalitarian tendencies, which can lead at times to excessive and even abhorrent oppression of individuals. Zionist utopias have not escaped this flaw.}}
::Lastly, these quotes are also not claiming that "as few Arabs" was not desired by the movement. ] (]) 05:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq2|I don't have a copy of that book of Gorny's, but here is a relevant quote from his 87 book in the context of discussing the Zionist conception of the Arab question:<br/> "It was generally accepted among Zionists that the eventual solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Arabs by force, because of their obduracy, which precluded negotiations and compromise for the foreseeable future.<br/>When the war ended, and the full truth became evident, the Zionists clung to what remained of their political expectations: a Jewish state in a , divided Palestine."}}
:::The sentence preceding this quote is {{tq|"When the war ended, and the full truth became evident, the Zionists clung to what remained of their political expectations: a Jewish state in a , divided Palestine."}}, that is the quote describes the Zionist attitude at specific point int time, after WWII.<br/>&nbsp;
:::{{tq2|Lastly, these quotes are also not claiming that "as few Arabs" was not desired by the movement.}}
:::The first quote talks about coexistence and cooperation and the last one talks about doubling of Arab population - the exact opposite "as few Arabs as possible".<br/>&nbsp; ] (]) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq2|The first quote talks about coexistence and cooperation and the last one talks about doubling of Arab population - the exact opposite "as few Arabs as possible".}}
::::That's definitely not the same as wanting the opposite of "as few Arabs as possible". Did the Zionists accept an Arab minority, of course, did they want it? Also no. They specifically wanted as few as possible, as shown by the long list of quotes cited by the claim in the article. ] (]) 02:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Only 2 of the sources - Slater and Shlaim - talk about "wanting" as few Arabs as possible.
:::::To that we can add Stanislawski that uses the word "desire" and Segev, who talks about "dream". ] (]) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
Thanks. I'm not sure any of the sources give different temporalities for the two; they say the temporality, they say the actor/subject, and then they say one, two, or three out of "more land/many Jews/few Arabs". Here's a table:
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! Source !! time !! who !! "as much land" !! "as many Jews" !! "as few Arabs"
|-
| Manna 2022 || doesn't specify || "The Zionists", "Zionists of all inclinations", "the Zionist leadership" || "more land in the hands of the settlers" || || "as few Arabs as possible", "the smallest possible number of Palestinians", "fewer Arabs in the country"
|-
| Khalidi 2020 || "from its inception" || "political Zionism" || "seizures of land", "theft of Palestinian land and property" || "a substantial Jewish majority" || "systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas"
|-
| Slater 2020 || "From the outset of the Zionist movement ... During every round of the national conflict over Palestine" || "the Zionists", "Zionism", "The Zionist movement in general", "all the major leaders" || "as much of Palestine as was feasible", "a Jewish state in all of 'Palestine'", "appropriate additional territory" || "a large Jewish majority" || "as few Arabs as possible"
|-
| Segev 2019 || "from the start" || "the Zionist dream" || "maximum territory" || || "minimum Arabs"
|-
| Cohen 2017 || "for years" || "many ", "Zionist leaders and activists" || || || "without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible"
|-
| Lustick & Berkman 2017 || doesn't specify || "Zionism", "Ben-Gurion" || "on both sides of the Jordan River" || "not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" || "an Arab minority in Palestine"
|-
| Stanislawski 2017 || 1948 || "the Israeli desire" || || || "as few Arabs as possible"
|-
| Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014 || "an inherent component ... since the founding of the Zionist movement" || "the Zionist movement", "the Zionist project", "the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion" || || || "getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... demographic elimination"
|-
| Engel 2013 || "From the outset" || "most Zionists", "Zionist imaginations", "Zionism", "the ZO", "Israel", "the state", "their leaders", "the state’s leaders", "the bulk of the Zionist leadership", "Israel’s leaders", "Haganah" || "expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive", "in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights", "more expansive borders" || "increase the Jewish population of Palestine", "‘Jewish’ ... by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants", "as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible" || "the smallest possible minorities", "non-Jews ... numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal"
|-
| Masalha 2012 || "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period" || "the Zionist Yishuv" || "maximum land" || || "minimum Arabs"
|-
| Lentin 2010 || "always" || "the Zionist leadership" || "increase the Jewish space" || || "dispossess the Palestinians"
|-
| Shlaim 2009 || "from the earliest days to the present" || "most Zionist leaders" || "the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine" || || "with as few Arabs inside it as possible"
|-
| Pappe 2006 || "the core of Zionism" || "Zionism" || "as much of Palestine as possible" || || "with as few Palestinians as possible"
|-
| Morris 2004 || "inherent ... from the start of the enterprise" (Morris 2002: "as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century") || "Zionist ideology", "Zionist praxis" || Morris 2001: "Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" || "an overwhelming Jewish majority", "massive Jewish immigration" || "massive displacement of Arabs", "instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe"
|}
I agree this could be expanded with more nuance in the body; it already is, but could of course be further expanded. ] (]) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree with some of your points here. I am confused about some of these readings though.
:'''First sources''':
:Are you sure that you have not reversed the intended "exception" and "rule" in the Manna p. 2 quote? I think more context is needed there about the "non-expulsion" in northern Palestine. I don't see how the other Manna quotes contradict the current wording in the article.
:—
:I also don't understand why Stanislawski 2017 p. 65 is supposed to help your argument. It's hard to see how that characterization of Israeli desires for the future state can be read to apply only to the "heat of the moment" of 1948.
:—
:For the sources supporting that "as few Arabs as possible" arose late in the pre-1948 period, what change in the wording of the article do these warrant? After all, if you're conceding that this was policy after sometime around then, that would mean it was policy from the beginning of the existence of the State of Israel.
:'''New sources''':
:I had thought that the sentence in the lede was saying Zionists wanted as small an Arab minority as possible in whatever territory the state was to encompass. So Heller 2006, talking about "partitioning" the former mandate into a Jewish part and an Arab part, doesn't contradict that. ] &#124; ] 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq2|For the sources supporting that "as few Arabs as possible" arose late in the pre-1948 period, what change in the wording of the article do these warrant? After all, if you're conceding that this was policy after sometime around then, that would mean it was policy from the beginning of the existence of the State of Israel.}}
::The lead section, and the opening paragraph, in particular, should provide a general description of the Zionism ideology as a whole, and not just its realization during a particular period. And since the sentence in question is formulated in past tense and appears immediately before "''Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948''...", it is implied that this is supposed to be a general description of the core goals of Zionism since its inception and till 1948.
::However, if those ideas became mainstream only towards the end of the pre-1948 period, this means that framing is as a general characteristic of the Zionism throughout that period would be inaccurate and misleading.
::I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.
::{{tq2|I had thought that the sentence in the lede was saying Zionists wanted as small an Arab minority as possible in whatever territory the state was to encompass. So Heller 2006, talking about "partitioning" the former mandate into a Jewish part and an Arab part, doesn't contradict that.}}
::Heller makes several important points:
::1) First, he makes a critical distinction between ‘operative ideology’ and ‘fundamental ideology’, and argues that that both transfer and partition were expressions of the former. And the lead should be focused on the fundamental ideology, described by Heller as {{tq|"the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas"}}, and the discussion of operative ideology, that is the specific ways in which those "final goals and grand vistas" were realized in practice, should be deferred to the body.
::2) Second, he -as well as several other sources I quoted above - disputes the framing of "transfer" (which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim) as the focus of Zionist decision making. Which means that even as "operative ideology" the transfer thinking wasn't as prominent in his view, as Morris and several other authors currently quoted in the article, claim it to be. So, again, while this is something that could be discussed in the body, the opening paragraphs is not the right place for this discussion. ] (]) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}} {{u|Levivich}}, since the discussed sentence is a synthesis of numerous statements dispersed across the cited sources, putting partial quotes in the table is misleading, because this obscures the different contexts to which those quotes belong - for example, several quoted temporal statements refer to the "as much land" part, but not to the "as few Arabs" part etc.


In order to get a clear understanding of what the sources are REALLY saying, one needs to look at the full quotes - I've prepared a table that does exactly that, while focusing on the two more controversial claims - "as many Jews" and "as few Arabs".
Does everyone support this idea?


In the second part of the table I also put several additional sources that offer a significantly different perspective on those claims:
Edit -- Instead of a full rewrite, it might make more sense to just do a review and make sure that everything stated in the lead is supported by the best sources.
{{anchor|SourcesTable}}
{| class="wikitable sortable"
! scope="col" width="10%" | Source
! scope="col" width="45%" | full quote
! scope="col" width="15%" | time
! scope="col" width="15%" | "as many Jews"
! scope="col" width="15%" | "as few Arabs"
|-
| Manna 2022 || P.2; ” It is clear that “non-expulsion” in northern Palestine was not arbitrary, but was the result of high-level orders and policy on the part of the Israeli leadership. Saying this does not contradict ''the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state'', since the exception due to special reasons and circumstances proves the rule.”


P.4 “That is what also happened ''in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians''.”
-- ] (]) 18:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


p. 33 "To spur Palestinians to leave their cities and villages was an objective that the Jewish side implemented as part of the Zionist operation to uproot and occupy. ''The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers''"
:This was already in process before you..ah..returned. This is another unnecessary section. Do feel free to participate in any of the ongoing discussions. ] (]) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
|| 1947-1948 || not mentioned
::In one other section we are discussing best sources. In another section were are discussing POV tag which I and others feel needs to be in place until some issues in the lead are resolved.
|| {{center|{{tick}} }}
::But I'm not sure that there is any actual agreement that ''after'' we come up with a list of best sources the lead will be rewritten based on the best sources including some sections being labeled as having existing "consensus".
|-
::Are you saying that we already have agreement that this rewrite will happen, and I just missed it?
| Khalidi 2020 || p. 75:
::-- ] (]) 18:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
"The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium—a majority Arab country—into a new state that had '''a substantial Jewish majority'''. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized '''during the war'''; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve '''a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception'''. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land."
:::I haven't a crystal ball, there are ongoing discussions and what will be will be. One should not attempt to prejudge the outcome. Also many, if not all, of the issues you have raised have already been discussed ad nauseum, check the archives. ] (]) 18:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
|
:::For instance, there is an ongoing discussion about Line 1 of the lead (which might also impact on Line 2). If we can't make progress on that relatively simple matter, it seems difficult to imagine progress elsewhere. If you feel that objections are being ignored or that there isn't "really" a consensus about something, an RFC (or even multiple RFCs) are always possible. I find it interesting that through all of the interminable discussions that have taken place, objectors such as yourself persistently fail to take advantage of this possibility, instead resorting to repeating the complaints time after time as if that will give them greater substance (it doesn't). ] (]) 18:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
* "from its inception" refers to the goal of achieving Jewish majority
::::I agree an RFC might be helpful if there's disagreement about whether the present lead is POV or needs a rewrite. Just note that an RFC will probably further stall progress rather than helping it, but it can be useful if we're at an impasse. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
* "ethnic cleansing" refers to 1948
:::::'''I think we absolutely need a POV tag.'''
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
:::::When an article has been cited by not one but several news sources as antisemitic (See '''This article has been''' ] above) and there is fervent disagreement on it, it would be wrong to NOT tag a particularly controversial rendition as POV unless and until we can agree on a neutral POV.
:::::To NOT put a POV tag on it suggests that there is strong wikipedia consensus on an extremely controversial (and many have said, offensive) point of view. Frankly, it makes wikipedia look bad. ] (]) 17:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's of course not an antisemitic article. No one here is even making that charge. ] (]) 18:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You say it's "of course not an antisemitic article." But when multiple respected media sources say it is, we have to give them their point of view too. You can't write off a widely-held opinion with a wave of your hand and an "of course."
:::::::I don't believe this article as written is based on consensus. The talk page makes that perfectly clear. And I do believe it is antisemitic. But it doesn't matter what I think. I think it's best when there's sufficient consensus to keep a Misplaced Pages article from being widely criticized as biased and hateful.
:::::::Therefore, I think "Criticism of this Misplaced Pages Article" may be a relevant addition to the article, citing the many sources in the media arguing this is a biased article (and that it is antisemitic and outrageous and their reasons why), at least until a consensus can be arrived on this article or it is returned to a more neutral formulation such as existed prior to October 7, 2023.
:::::::That way we show both sides of the controversy, both (a) the views of a select group of wikipedia editors that have changed the article in the last year but failed to reach consensus and (b) those many critics on and off wikipedia that condemn this particular formulation as not only biased but also antisemitic and outrageous.] (]) 19:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::FWIW, just clarifying because GreekParadise seems to address me, in case there was some doubt about my message, yes, I do think the article has NPOV balance issues, particularly in the lead, and I've explained why in other sections above. However, I do not think you need to go so far as invoking the media organizations calling the article antisemitic to see what the POV issues are in the article, and it might be tough to defend that using Misplaced Pages's policies and processes, so better to stake out a position that's more moderate and defensible in my view. To wit, the article unduly focuses on critique of Zionism such as that of being settler-colonialism, and it characterizes all the differing subtypes of Zionism with a broad brush, which is ] in this case. To balance the article we should look at the summaries of Zionism in the best sources, which we've started doing in the other sections here. I think that analysis clearly substantiates the balance issue and points a way forward to a lead rewrite or refactor and other improvements. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I agree, Andre, that fixing the article is better than leaving it alone and putting in the criticisms. I only offer that suggestion as a temporary one until a consensus can be re-reached. That way, folks can read the many sharp criticisms of those who agree with us that the article in its current form is demonstrably biased.
:::::::For those interested in fixing the article, here's why I believe it is antisemitic as currently written.
:::::::The article implies that Zionism is entirely a new idea. While Modern Zionism dates back to the late 19th century, the 3500-year-old desire of the Jews to return to their ancestral land from before the Exodus in Egypt through the Babylonian Exile and since the Roman exile in 70 is, I believe, the longest lasting successful movement of an exiled people to return to their homeland in human history. That's why I put it in the lede that DHM removed in his second reversion (arguably. third, since he also removed Bob's POV tag)
:::::::The article fails to mention 3500 years of Jewish history and prayers and thought and writing from before the Bible was written and in millions of writings since then, from before the Hebrew Bible was written through the Torah, Prophets, Writings, the Mishna and the Gomorra (Talmud), and thousands of responsa, kabbala, and returns to the land through the present day. Every single day from 70 to the present, every religious Jew has prayed for the return to their homeland at least a dozen times a day. I'm aware of no exiled people and no religion on planet earth, with the one possible exception of the Islamic devotion to Mecca, that has mentioned its homeland and the land of its origin as often. So yes, I think excluding this unimpeachable narrative, backed by millions of unimpeachable sources, from the article is antisemitic.
:::::::The wikipedia article Zionism as it was written before Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, had a long detailed accurate and undisputed account in the '''Historical and religious background'''. I think we should at the very least return this prior consensus to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zionism&oldid=1177123269
:::::::The article as written today gives short shrift to the 3500-year Jewish connection to Israel. That's what makes it non-neutral and especially wrong in the context of an article on Zionism, a movement based on that Jewish legacy. That's why the formulations in this wikipedia article are mocked and criticized as obviously biased. See, e.g. https://www.jewishpress.com/news/media/social-media/war-over-wikipedias-definition-of-zionism-pits-provoked-users-against-biased-editors/2024/09/17/ which cites <b>Brittanica</b> for a clear neutral lede.
:::::::<blockquote>“Zionism, a Jewish nationalist movement with the goal of the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient attachment of the Jews and the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine. According to Judaism, Zion, one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem, is the place where God dwells.”</blockquote>
:::::::Did some Jews/Israelites think they would never return to Judaea (which gave "Jews" its name)? Certainly true. But they repeatedly prayed for it. For thousands of years, the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel and desire to return to it never went away, even if some thought it required Messianic direction to happen. This has been part of the Jewish religion and Jewish people for 3500 years. There are thousands of sources for this, including the standard Jewish prayer book, the Jewish prayer over the meals, all the Jewish holy books, etc. This necessary context should be in the article. Brittanica is right. Any text that excludes this undeniable truth is hopelessly antisemitic.] (]) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::GreekParadise, I'm sympathetic to your points and I think that the article could do a better job explaining both the religious as well as cultural ties between Judaism and Israel, which are definitely discussed extensively in the best sources such as Edelheit and Engel. I just think you'll have an easier time making that case using NPOV and the language of Misplaced Pages rather than calling it antisemitic which could be unintentionally interpreted as a personal attack of some sort. I would say the article has critical-of-Zionism lean. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::By the way, I agree with that first point. ] ] 20:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I know - you said as much earlier. I thought we were doing so great with that superdeluxe version earlier. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::No POV tag needed here. The material in the article is obviously supported by reliable sources. Please read ] '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't think so. We don't just don't tag an article because we don't agree with what it says. If there are specific concerns, then they need to be raised and justified using our policies. ] (]) 13:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)


the goal is formulated as "(substantial) Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"
:{{u|LivinAWestLife}} Would you be able to link to the last stable, widely accepted version? ] (]) 12:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
::The last edits on October 6 2023, I suppose ] (]) 20:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
no mention of "as few Arabs" (deducing it from "ethnic cleansing" is SYNTH)
:::I would support either returning the article to its state as it was on October 6, 2023
|-
:::and/or putting a POV tag on it along with a link to the many news articles denouncing this wikipedia article in its current state as "antisemitic", "outrageous", etc. ] (]) 18:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
| Slater 2020 || p. 49
::::It also appears that ] has violated the 1-rr rule by making two revisions today yesterday an hour apart from one another.
"There were three arguments for the moral acceptability of some form of transfer. The main one—certainly for the Zionists but not only for them—was the alleged necessity of establishing a secure and stable Jewish state in as much of Palestine as was feasible, which was understood to require '''a large Jewish majority'''."),
::::Perhaps the last rendition should be undone on that basis alone. It would also return the POV tag.] (]) 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
p. 81 ("From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state")
:::::@], it does look like you made two reversions yesterday. Can you please explain? ] (]) 19:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
| From the outset of the Zionist movement
::::::Sure, the first one was actually agreed upon by the person who's edit i reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DMH223344#%E2%80%9Cwhy_delete_this_instead_of_put_it_in_quotes?%E2%80%9D
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
::::::(their edit was based on copyright grounds, I just kept the footnote and wrapped it in quotes with an appropriate citation).
the goal is formulated as "large Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"
::::::I did indeed revert a second edit within 24hr to remove the pov tag. The justification for the tag was apparently that only an anti zionist source supported the claim about "max land, min palestinians", but as I showed, at least 2 non antizionist sources also say the same thing explicitly. That edit also added a lot of content to the lead that's inconsistent with most RS on zionism and not present anywhere in the body (we actually reached a consensus to remove similar content from the body a couple weeks ago). ] (]) 19:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
|{{center|{{tick}} }}
:::::::@], you confirm that the revert was with your agreement? ] (]) 19:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
|-
::::::::To be clear, i did not ask for their agreement. But they did post on my talk page with what I interpreted as their agreement. ] (]) 19:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
| Segev 2019 || p. 418, "the Zionist dream from the start—maximum territory, minimum Arabs"; || "from the start" ||not mentioned
::::::::I'm sorry, are allotted reverts transferrable now? (Hint, no, they're not an allotment.) I'll give mine to Bob. 1RR on CTOPs is a bright-line rule. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
|{{center|{{tick}} }}
:::::::::Yes, but a bright-line doesn't mean a block is required. For me the intention of the other editor is worth at least trying to understand when deciding whether to warn ("Hey, even if the other edit says yes, you can't revert them; ask them to revert themselves") or to block ("That was not even what they were telling you!"), and also whether to revert that most recent edit when the article is protected. The first is moot now, but the article is still fully protected so the second isn't. Stephan hasn't edited since being pinged. ] (]) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
|-
::::If outrage were sufficient to have content removed from Misplaced Pages, there would be no Israel-Palestine articles. Bestsources > opinions. ] ] 20:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
| Cohen 2017 || P. 75: “Some historians, such as Ilan Pappé (2006) and Nur Masalha (1992), claim that the Zionist movement from the very beginning sought to expel Arabs from the Jewish national homeland, and that in 1948 the Jewish military forces followed an existing plan to implement this goal. One source that Pappé (2006) uses to support this argument in his book is a widespread survey of the Arab villages undertaken by the Haganah’s intelligence services between the end of the 1930s and the eve of the 1948 war. '''This does not, in my opinion, constitute an irrefutable evidence base,''' as armies are known to prepare contingency plans for worst-case scenarios without intending to implement them unless forced to do so. I would argue that the Zionist leadership had '''considered several possible scenarios''' and that an all-out war was only one of them."
::::Reverting the work of multiple editors (who have improved the article) is a terrible idea. ] (]) 13:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
P. 77: “In my view, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the Zionist leadership prepared itself – among other options – for a peaceful implementation of the partition resolution and for the '''existence of a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state'''. Moreover, in such a scenario, there were elements within the Jewish leadership who pushed toward '''improving Arab conditions and Arab– Jewish relations in the new state'''. Such an analysis would become even more plausible if we consider a parallel committee that was established by the Yishuv leadership to deal with the Jewish settlements situated in areas designated to be incorporated into the Arab state. This view should not come as a surprise, as it goes hand in hand with what remained official Zionist policy for years. In 1943, i.e., after the Jewish Agency had adopted the idea of a Jewish state as an urgent political demand, Ben-Gurion said that the Zionist aspiration was to reach '''a Jewish majority''' in the Land of Israel in the shortest period possible."


p. 78 "One should bear in mind, though, that the democratic, equality-oriented, inclusive position was not the only one considered by Zionist activists. As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years. However, in the post–World War II political context, the '''Zionist leadership was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state''' and its declared position was that it would enjoy civil equality, collective rights, and the allocation of resources as outlined by the UN Partition Plan"
I am curious why so many erroneous statements are in the article. ] (]) 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
|"from the very beginning" and "for years" are not Cohen's own claims, but are attributed to Pappe/Masalha/Morris, and most of the article is dedicated to critically assessing their claims
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
the goal is formulated as "Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"
|{{center|{{hmmm}} }}
Cohen disputes Pappe/Masalha claims about existing plan to expel. He does recognize the fact the having a large Arab minority was not "ideal', as far as Zionist leadership was concerned, but at the same time points out preparations for existence of such large minority.
|-
| Lustick & Berkman 2017 || pp. 47–48, "As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). ''Ipso facto'', this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."; || early 1930s || {{center|{{cross}} }}
the goal is formulated as majority "numbering millions", not "as many Jews as possible"
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
"Arab minority", not "as few Arabs as possible"
|-
| Stanislawski 2017 || p. 65, "The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony." || 1948 || not mentioned
|{{center|{{tick}} }}
|-
| Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014 || p. 6, ""It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement—certainly to the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion, that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible,³³”... ''(33. Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.)'' ...
Following Wolfe, we argue that the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement.";
| not specified
("inherent component" doesn't provide a clear indication regarding temporality)
| not mentioned
|{{center|{{tick}} }}{{center|{{hmmm}} }}
the authors quote Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source
|-
| Engel 2013 || p. 96 "From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to '''increase the Jewish population of Palestine''' ..."),
p. 138 "To be sure, '''until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim'''; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But '''in 1937''' the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ '''in 1948''': non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal…")
| Explicitly considers two distinct periods - before and after the Peel Commission (1937)
| {{center|{{cross}} }} Before the Peel Commission the goal was "any majority, no matter how slim".
<br/>
{{center|{{tick}} }}By 1948 - "virtually all of its inhabitants"
| {{center|{{cross}} }}Before the Peel Commission the goal was just minority
<br/>
{{center|{{tick}} }} The Peel Commission proposed "smallest possible minorities"
<br/>
{{center|{{tick}} }} 1948 - " small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal"
|-
| Masalha 2012 || p. 38, "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period the demographic and land policies of the Zionist Yishuv in Palestine continued to evolve. But its demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' || "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period" || not mentioned
|"minimum Arabs"{{center|{{tick}} }}
|-
| Lentin 2010 || p. 7, "'the Zionist leadership was always determined to increase the Jewish space ... Both land purchases in and around the villages, and military preparations, were all designed to dispossess the Palestinians from the area of the future Jewish state' (Pappe 2008: 94)."; || "always" || not mentioned
|{{center|{{tick}} }}{{center|{{hmmm}} }}
the author is not a historian, but a sociologist and the claims are direct quotes from Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source
|-
| Shlaim 2009 || p. 56, "That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question."; || || not mentioned
|{{center|{{tick}} }}
|-
| Pappe 2006 || p. 250: “Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, knows that if Israel decides to stay in the Occupied Territories and its inhabitants become officially part of Israel’s population, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within fifteen years. Thus he has opted for what he calls hitkansut, Hebrew for ‘convergence’ or, better, ‘ingathering’, a policy that aims at annexing large parts of the West Bank, but at the same time leaves several populous Palestinian areas outside direct Israeli control. In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.” || colspan="3" | {{center|{{cross}} }}
talks about “Realignment plan” promoted by Ehud Olmert in 2006 - '''not relevant to the discussion of the pre-1948 period'''
|-
| Morris 2004 || p. 588, "But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority"
p. 44: “Hence, if during the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century Zionist advocacy of transfer was uninsistent, low-key and occasional, '''by the early 1930s a full-throated near-consensus in support of the idea began to emerge among the movement’s leaders'''. Each major bout of Arab violence triggered renewed Zionist interest in a transfer solution.”


p. 59: “The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives: '''In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence''' and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;”
:]? Not a reply to anyone, source free statement, no specification of anything "erroneous". ] (]) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:: {{tq| Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.}} Erroneous, ''in Palestine'', Palestine didn't exist in the format of the said sentence. ''as few Palestinian Arabs as possible.'' Erroneous, as Arabs, were Bedu, from Arabia, Jordan and Iraq. The Turks were pushed out of the Levant region. This was the Turkish '''Ottoman empire'''. I truly despise this article. It's as if no historians were involved in writing this article. ] (]) 17:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::When the term Palestine is first used, what Wiki article does it link to? ] ] 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome to disagree with reliable sources, but don't expect anyone on Misplaced Pages to care. ] (]) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::], which is the first link, is in fact showing modern borders. The article fails to promote the ancient border changes. The problem with all these articles, they relegate the conquests of the different kingdoms. Borders are constantly changing, this article relegates the conquest. Zionism is a type of conquest. It's mentioned six times in the article, but doesn't mention it in the lead. It's a movement and a conquest, the land is already has settlement, constant settlement. It had Jews there for hundreds of years, the very first sentence is using the idea of colonisation, which is ''control over foreign territories''. However the territory was never foreign to the Jewish people. So many of the citations used on the article are opinion pieces and not all are factual based. This in turn allows total corrupt writings to imbed into this article. It's no-where near neutral. ] (]) 19:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You said that "Palestine didn't exist in the format of the said sentence". But it's referring to a historical region. So in what way did that not "exist in the format of the said sentence"? ] ] 20:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::This convo is a waste of time. ] (]) 21:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::Besides, didn't Zionism already happen? The sentence above ''wanted to create'' well it did happen, surely the sentence needs to be adjusted. :/ ] (]) 21:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] ] ] 21:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I basically agree that there is a balance problem, and the lead focuses on specific things at the expense of other informative things. Zionism was a historically successful movement, and what is called Zionism today is conflated with general support of Israel's existence or its right to defend itself. While the lead does say that, not as clear as it could or in so many words, and it gets confused because you could interpret Zionism broadly or narrowly, but as written, it implies that Zionism is a modern settler movement or that Likud/Revisionism/Political Zionism are Zionism, but it's actually a broad, cultural, and religious, and multifaceted movement. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree. I'm repeating this so anyone who wants the article to change understands that I and other editors are not trying to stonewall. It's just that when we're presented with "I feel upset, so please change statements that are backed by dozens of RS" we have to say no. ] ] 22:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::No objection to changing that sentence to "Zionists succeeded in creating a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." ] (]) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, I think it'd be ''possible'' for there to have been fewer Arabs, right? There are about 2 million Arab citizens in Israel today. Don't you think that isn't the minimum possible number that could have been reached by Zionism et al? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::How about: "Zionists succeeded in creating a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as they could." ] (]) 23:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I still think they ''could've'' had fewer Arabs. I'm not disputing that many of the earliest Zionists wanted to create as large of a Jewish majority as possible. But, over time, I'm not sure that's the best summary statement. ] could have, in theory, all been deported, right? If Turkey created a new state full of Turks and Armenians, they could've deported all the Armenians. But instead the ] tries to both be a Jewish state and a democratic state with equality of social and political rights, irrespective of religion, race, or sex, and a set of basic laws that protect the rights of the minorities in Israel be they Druze, Circassian, Bedouins, African migrants, etc. I'm not negating the many concerns about the plight of various groups or the civil rights concerns that may be legitimate which should also be mentioned. However, I just don't think that 20% of the population was the lowest possible number of Arabs they could have obtained. Couldn't they have just deported nearly all the Arabs and reduced the population to less than 1%? Obviously, that'd be wrong and bad, but we're already kind of criticizing Zionism as being wrong and bad in that way, right? They've had since 1948 or earlier to get the population down below 20% but I just don't agree that this is a goal of the state. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, I see no need to change the phrasing in the article. They wanted to, but ultimately didn't. ] ] 23:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Because it's taking a 1930s view and presenting it like it still applies. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::"wanted" is past tense. ] ] 23:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::It is, but the rest of the lead doesn't explain what ended up happening. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The next sentence is "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 ..." ] (]) 23:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::The next line is about the establishment of the state of Israel. ] ] 23:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yes, but I'm saying it doesn't explain that in fact, they didn't get as few Arabs as possible, and in fact, they established a democratic pluralitic state, the only one in the region. In fact it implies the opposite, by establishing Zionism as an ethnocentric exclusionary ideology (which was just one branch of Zionism), and then saying it became the state ideology of Israel, it implies that Israel continued that program and not that there was actually a ] to oppose the Jabotinsky tendencies. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Should there be a line about ]? ] ] 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Does the article on the ] talk about ] or ]'s views on slavery? The lead is hyperfocused on critical aspects of Zionism. There are separate articles for all of these subaspects including the detailed history. This one is supposed to be a balanced overview. Should we look again at how the best sources introduce this? Do any of them introduce Zionism with apartheid? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Zionism as leading to an apartheid of Arabs is the counterbalance for Zionism as leading to a "democratic pluralitic state, the only one in the region". Is your suggestion that we add only the latter? ] ] 00:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Oh, I see what you mean. I think that's more controversial than it is balancing, but I'd support something like with continued civil rights issues for the Arab minority who according to many scholars are second class citizens and whose status has been fraught since the founding, or something like that. Which is really what you mean, because Arabs citizens in Israel, unlike the vicitims of the South African apartheid, can run for office and serve in the parliament, and own a business or land. The second-classness of the stateless people in Palestine is a separate problem, but not one that arose specifically because Zionists wanted that, but because of the division and the status of the West Bank and Gaza changes later, such as in 1967. Anyway, a better analogy than the Democratic-Republicans is ]. This is the article about Zionism, and not the history of Israel post-1948. While overlapping, they are different. This is an article about an ideology, one that predates Israel, and exists today, and has many forms. I'm not looking to present a pro-Israel position, I'm looking to refocus the article on what it is actually about, which is a movement that was successful, and a set of historiography that has a certain viewpoint, and a set of thinkers and political actors that have a shared ideological underpinning, but many Zionists, such as those who had a ] on the plight of the Arab population, so it's not fair to the movement to characterize it all based on Jabotinsky. Ben Gurion hated Jabotinsky, he called him "Vladimir Hitler," and wouldn't even allow his bones to be reburied in the country. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::{{tqq|I'd support something like with continued civil rights issues for the Arab minority who according to many scholars are second class citizens and whose status has been fraught since the founding, or something like that}} Why? This is this intro for an article about Zionism. ] ] 00:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Well, ] means ], so throwing a bone is pretty common in leads I think. I was trying to summarize what I think of the Israeli apartheid discussion, what I think people really mean when they say that. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Do you think it's necessary to include "something like with continued civil rights issues for the Arab minority who according to many scholars are second class citizens and whose status has been fraught since the founding" in an intro to Zionism? ] ] 00:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I wouldn't say it's necessary. I'm trying to find a balance and a compromise to express all POVs, so something like that seems like a good substitution for the view that you were trying to espouse. But if you don't like it, I'm certainly not attached to that phrasing. "Something like" shouldn't be in the quote btw, that was me speaking. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::I agree, I don't think it's necessary. So it follows that I don't think the opposite POV version is necessary. ] ] 01:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I'd say that's an argument to removing the "Zionists wanted... " ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::Why? We agreed that this article isn't about Israel post-1948. It's about Zionism. So: Zionists wanted... ] ] 01:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::Zionists wanted a lot of things - a national homeland, a Hebrew culture, a sovereign nation, to drain a malarial swamp, to build new institutions, to achieve technological progress, better farms, to live in peace, to escape persecution. They also tried to negotiate with the Mufti. The problem with this particular want is not that it's false but the way it's phrased (most best sources say large Jewish majority not as few Arabs as possible), and the focus of weight at the expense of their other, fuller wants that are less controversial and less focused on the plight of the Arab refugees post 1948. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::The line is not about "the plight of the Arab refugees post 1948". ] ] 01:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Zionism isn't a political party. ] does, indeed, mention Jim Crow, Jeffrson, and slavery. (Not that Misplaced Pages is an RS anyway.) ] (]) 00:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{tqq|they established a democratic pluralitic state}} No they didn't, wtf? They put the Arabs under military rule until 1967, when the occupations began. Democratic? Pluralistic? No, they created an ethnocracy. ] (]) 00:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I wasn't citing Misplaced Pages as an RS. You have to be specific as there are several different groups. I was referring to the Arab citizens of Israel who have had the right to vote in Israeli elections since the first Israeli elections in 1949 ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::In the same way that Black Americans had the right to vote since the American Civil War ended in 1865. Those Arab citizens of Israel were subject to military rule until 1966, look up literally any history book at all. ] (]) 00:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Black Americans got the right to vote in 1870 which is when the 15th amendment was ratified. And wasn't America still a democratic pluralistic state all through Jim Crow? Contrast with a monarchy or a state without any form of democratic pluralism? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::No, and I'm laughing out loud because like, lol no, Jim Crow America (for about 100 years after the civil war) was ''not'' a democratic or pluralistic state. It claimed to be but it was in fact an apartheid state, which had two classes of citizens based on race. ] (]) 00:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::I think that's where we're getting into semantics. A flawed democracy is still considered, by most historians AFAIK, a democracy. A pluralistic state doesn't mean one without flaws. It's true that voting rights protections were still being passed until desegregation and later, but I mean, there's still racial gerrymandering and disenfranchisement today, so are we a democratic pluralistic country now? I think we need to take our cues from what historians say. AFAIK, historians don't say that the civil rights and voting rights that were lacking mean that America wasn't still a democratic republic or that it wasn't pluralistic if a flawed, racist, unfair pluralism until arguably, still today. Pluralism just means that after 1870 there was a right enshrined for the right to vote that couldn't be abridged based on color. Did that fix everything? Of course not. But show me the historians that say America wasn't democratic or pluralistic at all until 1965? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Legal scholars will have to do: {{tqq|There is no definition of democracy that the United States, pre-1965, actually meets. Any working definition of democracy includes the full right to vote for all citizens.}} {{Cite journal |last1=Kalb |first1=Johanna |last2=Kuo |first2=Didi |date=2018 |title=Reassessing American Democracy: The Enduring Challenge of Racial Exclusion |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr_online/vol117/iss1/3/ |journal=Michigan Law Review Online |volume=117 |issue=1 |page=56 |doi=10.36644/mlr.online.117.reassessing}} ] (]) 02:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::That source doesn't pass the smell test. I wouldn't really call that law review article an authoritative source by a historian. Far from it. Contrast with ''Democracy as a way of life in America: A history'', which starts in like 1786 and covers 3 distinct waves of democracy in American history. <ref>{{Cite book |last1=Schneirov |first1=Richard |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yQoiAQAAQBAJ |title=Democracy as a Way of Life in America: A History |last2=Fernandez |first2=Gaston A. |date=2013-10-01 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-135-04603-3 |language=en|authorlink=Richard Schneirov}}</ref> Pluralism is generally associated with ] and the ].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Kernell |first=Samuel |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sAdxs_4DcvgC |title=James Madison: The Theory and Practice of Republican Government |date=2003 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-8047-5230-5 |language=en}}</ref> I realize this gets pretty far off track a discussion of Zionism, but aren't you the guy who advocates for well-cited scholarly books that are specifically about the topic? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::Allow me to introduce you to , dean of a law school and an expert in the law of democracy, and , of Stanford's Center on Democracy. I think they're qualified to say what a democracy is. ] (]) 06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::They're lawyers. Kalb is a constitutional lawyer. That's the same specialty as Dershowitz. And surely you don't think that law review article is somehow representing the consensus view of historians. I really do not think any historians say that American democracy began in 1965. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Are you trying to employ American law on another country that isn't America? That seems way off base here. ] (]) 08:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
<!--


| "inherent" or "underlying thrust"≠ explicit "want", therefore temporality of "want" is not defined in the currently used quote
-->
:I do not think that is what anyone is doing. The discussion led to an analogy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{talkquote|before 1948, religious Zionists were legal pluralists: that is, that they imagined the state being run by several parallel legal regimes, of which only one would be halakha, traditional Jewish law as interpreted by the rabbis. They were willing to accept a democratic legislature and did not call for halakha to rule Israel. This legal pluralism drew on a very long history of Jewish law and was congruent with the way that Jews had organized their legal institutions for centuries. Thinkers who adopted this position included ], ] (Goren), ], and ].}}<ref>{{Citation |last=Kaye |first=Alexander |title=The Pluralistic Roots of Religious Zionism |date=2020-04-16 |work=The Invention of Jewish Theocracy |pages=24–50 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/36630/chapter-abstract/321620796?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=2024-10-17 |publisher=Oxford University PressNew York |doi=10.1093/oso/9780190922740.003.0002 |isbn=978-0-19-092274-0}}</ref> ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC) ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 06:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I would probably summarize that quote as
:::{{talkquote|Religious Zionists did not demand that rabbinical authorities govern Israel, and they were willing to accept democratic rule in parallel to religious courts.}}
:::not as:
:::{{talkquote|Zionism is pluralistic.}}
:::because:
:::1) The desire for a state to preference a specific religion is pretty antithetical to what most readers will probably understand the word "pluralistic" to mean.
:::2) It clearly isn't trying to describe ethnic or racial pluralism.
:::3) It's just talking about religious Zionists.
:::I think the point about religious Zionists not demanding religious law is pretty interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean by pluralism and in what way it would be leadworthy. ] ] 22:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::That is fair and well-reasoned. The quote is about Religious Zionists accepting a democratic legislature (political) and a pluralistic system (religious/cultural), but you are correct it does not pertain to race or ethnicity. So far in this dicussion, I've been using pluralism in the history sense, meaning, I think, primarily ''political'' pluralism, but you are right to broaden it, as Levivich did earlier, to include race since that's a very important lens of history too along with cultural/religious as in my quote. However, we do know that Zionists of all stripes also wanted a pluralistic racial and cultural state (cites to come later). Even Pappe agrees with this. For example, although this is talking about political pluralism, in ''The Idea of Israel'' p. 219 {{tq|e Downfall – Dispensing with Political Plurality Although post-Zionism had no political representation as such – possibly apart from the Communist Party and the two Palestinian national parties whose political agendas were similar – it produced a certain pluralism in the political discourse of 1990s Israel. That pluralism vanished}}<ref>{{Cite book |last=Pappe |first=Ilan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4BVPEAAAQBAJ&q=pappe+ideas+of+israel |title=The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge |date=2016-01-05 |publisher=Verso Books |isbn=978-1-78478-201-6 |language=en}}</ref> Pappe separately cites a source "Shmuel Almog, ‘Pluralism in the History of the Yishuv and Zionism’, in Moshe Zimmermann et al., ed., Studies in Historiography, Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Centre, 1978, p. 202 (Hebrew)." Which I haven't gotten a hold of yet, as well as "Sammy Smooha, Israel, Pluralism and Conflict, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1978, p. 31"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Smooha |first=Sammy |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rdoR9qnEIKUC&q=Sammy+Smooha,+Israel,+Pluralism+and+Conflict |title=Israel: Pluralism and Conflict |date=1978-01-01 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-02722-0 |language=en}}</ref> Even if we disagree if Zionism or Israel are pluralistic in any of the ways, do we at least agree that the issue of any pluralism is an important issue worth discussing and seeing what the sources say about? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think it's up to you to justify pluralism as leadworthy (that's what you're suggesting, right?). I think it's worth mentioning that what's leadworthy for an article on Israel won't necessarily be for an article on Zionism, and visa versa. ] ] 22:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What's the relevance of this quote? ] (]) 23:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::You are overcommenting, and saying far too many disparate things that are unfocused, arbitrary, and only lead to rebuttals (pluralistic democracy thread above) which you sidestep byshifting the goalposts, ergo more argufying. As per the above comment. We began with the assertion that Israel was born as a democratic and pluralist country, and the successive anomalies in this terminology against the facts of history were duly pointed out. Now you reply by citing pluralism in the rabbinate, which of course just compels one to remind you that the term is inappropriate, because the law discriminates against rabbinical pluralism:-
::<blockquote> Israel must no longer remain the sole democracy in the world that sanctions legal discrimination against Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews (and increasingly Modern Orthodox Jews as well). In denying them the right to engage in State-recognized life cycle ceremonies, in accordance with their conscience, performed by their rabbis, on the same basis as most Orthodox Jews; in denying their Jewish institutions the same support that most Orthodox institutions receive, their fundamental rights are violated, and Israel’s democratic character is diminished. ], ] 3 May 2024</blockquote>
::You have made 78 comments on this talk page, often multiple responses to one interlocutor apiece, and I doubt whether anyone can keep up with the attritional barrage of misdirections that arise when you walk around a focused reply.] (]) 08:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I have not made 78 comments, there are 78 occurrences on my name on the page, including the times that others used my name. The number of comments judging by a ctrl+F of my signature was actually 63 when you wrote that (not including the duplicate signatures in the previous comment), which is comparable to other participants that have ~50 comments, and is a factor of the archiving of other sections that I didn't participate in while some of those I did remain on the page. See ] for the rules of thumb that do not characterize my behavior or activity level at this time. Many of my comments are just quotes from sources which are intended to be constructive and productive, such as in the best sources list section for the lead. If you have a problem with my behavior, this isn't the forum to comment on that, and could be considered uncivil to do so, so please refrain from doing so in the future in this way. It's not good faith to say I'm engaging in misdirection because I am not doing that, I am engaging on the basis of the discussion, which you happen to disagree with and have a strong view about, but that doesn't mean that I am doing something deceptive or dishonest because I have not done so.
:::As to the substance of your message, it still refers to Israel as a democracy. The issue at hand was whether Zionism should discuss the imperative to be a democratic and pluralistic state. At the very least, surely those who disagree would admit that many sources do describe Israel as a democratic and pluralistic state and the Zionists' goal to create that as a disputed topic among scholars, even if some do not feel it meets that definition, if enough others do that is worthy of inclusion by NPOV. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


On the other hand, two additional quotes from p. 44 and p. 59 point to '''early 1930s''' as the time when such explicit near-consensual "want" began to form
== NPOV tag dispute ==
| {{center|{{cross}} }}
the goal is formulated as "overwhelming Jewish majority", not "as many Jews as possible"
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
- "piecemeal eviction" or "displacement" ≠ "as few Arabs as possible" - claiming they are equivalent would be SYNTH.
|-
| colspan="5" |'''<big>Additional sources</big>'''
|-
|
|p. 351 " '''the idea of transfer was never adopted as part of the Zionist movement's platform''', nor as part of the programme or platform of any of the main Zionist parties, not in the nineteenth century and not in the twentieth century. And, in general, the Zionist leaders looked to '''massive Jewish immigration,''' primarily from Russia and Europe, '''as the means of establishing and then assuring a Jewish majority''' in Palestine or whatever part of it was to be earmarked for Jewish statehood.
|until 1929
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
the goal is formulated as "a Jewish majority"
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
Jewish majority was expected to be established through massive Jewish immigration, not "transfer"
|-
|
|p. 232: “...the idea of a population transfer '''was never official Zionist policy'''. Ben Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs they would not make use of it. '''Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs''' following the industrialisation of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture…”
|pre-WWI period
|
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
mainstream rejection of transfer proposals


"sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs"
There's an essay at ] that directly discusses disputes over NPOV tags. Realize this is an ''essay'', not policy. It's useful in understanding how others are interpreting policy and deciding how to resolve the issue. ] (]) 13:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
|-
|
|p. 191: “The extent to which the Zionists advanced the idea of population transfers during World War II is much disputed in the secondary literature. Palestinian authors such as Nur Masalha and advocates of “new history” in Israel have supported the argument that the Zionists had a master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the start. '''There is little evidence to support this claim'''.”
|WWII
|
|{{center|{{hmmm}} }}
This source casts doubt on the claims about "master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine", which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim


|-
:My reading is that there is consensus against the NPOV tag. More importantly as the addition of the tag has been challenged by reversion this is now covered by active arbitration remedies, namely that "<b>hanges challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page</b>". '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
|
::I'm wondering if this might actually need an RfC? This is a toggle-switch situation, not an area that can be compromised on, tweaked, differences ironed out. It's either tagged, or it isn't. ] (]) 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
|p. 573: “In spite of its realistic base we see a two-fold weakness in Morris’s thesis. First, it goes back to Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, as the supposed creator of the idea of transfer. In reality, like everybody else in European politics in his day, Herzl was ignorant of the existence of Arab nationalism. '''At one point he noted briefly that transfer of the poor native population was possible for economic reasons, only to reject it a little later'''…"
:::That depends on whether the tag can actually be justified using the policies. ] (]) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
P. 574-575: “...one must conclude that it was the partition plan that was at the top on the Zionist agenda, and not transfer, even though both plans were inspired by the Peel Commission…
:::Seems RFC is only way to make any progress, supporters/objects can then formally make the arguments for and against and we can restart conversations in a month. ] (]) 14:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Commonsense would be that one should not tag a whole article if one dislikes a word, phrase or a single sentence, esp. in the lead. Before being once mired down in endless talk and argufying, which so far has produced no result but has wasted enormous energies (for the simple reason that those who opposed the very well-attested term 'colonization' don't appear to accept anything but the disappearance of the term, but I may be wrong), editors who wish the term to mark the article should give a bulleted list of specific, emendable terms, phrases or whatever, whose entry into the article they consider, (''in context'', because NPOV is balanced in contexts) a violation of neutrality. That way, practical editors can deal with each point, rationally, by referring to arguments already covering the point in the archives, and fixing the issues. This is what is done at GA and we should adopt that criterion. ] (]) 16:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::@] I don't think that's commonsense at all.
:::::If the page on Palestinians was somehow manipulated such that the lead said "Palestinians seek to mass murder Jews" would you argue that doesn't justify a NPOV tag until it's clarified?
:::::Anything distorting the truth and presenting a blatantly biased perspective, especially in the lead, should merit a NPOV tag until it's resolved. ] (]) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm responding to a ping only because I saw that, to cite one of numerous examples, I saw our Levivich responding with enormous, meticulous analysis, by diff citations and bibliographical referrals just below minutes back. The huge waffling here, without any sense of precision, evidence-based analysis, is getting this page nowhere. Everytime I see such hard dedicated, dialogic and rational work here, I feel like apologizing to those, like Levivich, who do it despite the messy idleness of unfocused chat which embraces the page in a stifling hug, with the end result that airheaded editorialists on a second-rate rag like the JP pocket their salaries skewing these complexities to spin a voyeuristic narrative of bias, when what gets them in the craw is the witness of persevering intelligence to master a topic and get an article solidly grounded in evidence, evidence many here appear not to want to see because it is uncomfortable with a national fairy tale which had its day decades ago, thanks mainly to Israeli scholarship.] (]) 18:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's just your opinion, in any case this constant repetition is bordering on ]. ] (]) 18:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The reason why this is unusual is because of the additional consensus required restriction, a discretionary sanction in effect. Normally, a tag is added when a discussion begins and is removed when the discussion ends and there is a consensus. Removing the tag is against the norms and in some cases the rules. However, given the consensus required restriction, any change challenged by reversion cannot be reinstated, which would seem to include tags. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 23:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Makes sense though, if the idea is to insist on consensus, tags don't really help, at least not in this article, pretty sure we had several rounds of tagging previously. ] (]) 09:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The usual function of tags is to plaster them and then walk away, without any logical or evidential warrant for them. They apply not to the articles overall, but to one or two phrases or a contested line at the most. ] (]) 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::@] Do you think it's appropriate to use a source in the lead where the author says his hope is that the book will make Zionists uncomfortable? And that this as source isn't being used in an opinion but as supposedly presenting a factual non-biased definition of the goals of Zionists?
::::::If a book in one place says that "Zionists want X" and in other places the same book says there are tons of counter examples which disprove this, do you think it's appropriate to cherry pick the first half and totally ignore the 2nd part?
::::::We've repeatedly shared problems here, and it seems you're both standing in the way of solving the problems and also standing in the way of putting up a NPOV tag telling the world there are issues.
::::::So... I'm hoping that you'll either work to solve these issues, or stop standing in the way preventing the NPOV tag from going up. ] (]) 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::@] I don't know how on earth that you can claim that there is consensus against the NPOV tag. Yes, _some_ authors including yourself are opposed to it. Quite a few other authors have spelled in detail why they support the NPOV tag.
::As just one example, blatantly biased sources in the lead are being used to define Zionism and beyond that they're being poorly referenced using misleading cherry picked quotes.
::The article about NPOV does not speak about requiring consensus for their being a NPOV tag. It just says that a single author must see POV issues:
::: '' This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.''
::It also says that editors should work together to solve these issues. So I'm asking if you're willing to work with some of us on the other side to get rid of issues like using authors who hope their books make Zionists uncomfortable as supposedly credible non-biased sources to define it. ] (]) 17:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


‘The '''fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas''' in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions’. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of ‘operative ideology’ '''not of ‘fundamental ideology’'''. Arab ethnic cleansing was therefore not more than '''an option of last resort in the event of war'''."
== RS opinion on “colonialism" ==


P. 584 “Morris’s '''concept of transfer of the Arabs as the focus of Zionist decision making has no basis in political reality'''. “
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 return of Jewish refugees from Europe and Middle Eastern countries to the ancestral Jewish homeland, in a manner that has been described by some as colonialism but disputed by others. According to The New York Times, Israel was "peopled not by colonial forces" but by refugees from persecution in Europe and Arab lands.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Cohen |first1=Roger |title=In a World Changed by Oct. 7, Hatred Is Winning |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/world/middleeast/israel-palestinians-war.html |work=The New York Times |date=October 7, 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 02:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
|
|
|{{center|{{cross}} }}


Heller disputes the framing of "transfer" (which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim) as one of Zionist core goals
:It's not "According to The New York Times," it's according to ], and an analysis in a newspaper isn't ]. There are plenty of high-quality academic books about Zionism to summarize; the views of individual journalists aren't significant enough for a high-level summary article of a topic with as much available scholarship as this one, not when compared to the views of scholars in the field. We could have 100 "According to ..." statements in this article if we did that. And besides, no individual -- scholar or journalist -- is so important that their view should be stated in the lead of this article (or almost any Misplaced Pages article). I agree with the revert. ] (]) 02:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Roger Cohen is not an expert in any discipline relevant to this article. His opinion damn sure doesn't belong in the lede, where you tried to place it. And frankly, not that my experience is any more relevant, it's kind of absurd. I have family who emigrated to Israel. I wouldn't call them "refugees from New Jersey."] (]) 02:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::This handwave to another POV:
::"The war has seen another significant shift: the broad embrace of the Palestinian cause as an extension of movements for racial and social justice in the United States. It has also been adopted by the Global Majority, sometimes known as the Global South, as an expression of the battle of Indigenous peoples — read Palestinians — against white colonial oppressors and interlopers."
::and this hyperbole:
::"Across the world, from the Americas to Africa, the quest to create a state of Palestine supplanting Israel has become the North Star of many young people. Israeli “colonialism” is increasingly shorthand for the Zionist project of establishing a homeland for the Jewish people after their millennial persecution, rather than for Israel’s post-1967 colonial settlement of the occupied West Bank."
::Followed by a desultory "Not all the protesters think this way, of course. They are appalled by Israel’s conduct of the war but do not dispute its right to exist".
::"News analysis" is stretching things, plainly a lot of opinion in this piece and certainly not leadworthy. ] (]) 09:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reftalk}}
These are good points.
Currently, "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" does not show NPOV.


|-
Academic sources relevant to the discussion include:
|
::"Zionism declared that it had no desire to rule others (i.e. Arabs), and was not willing to have others rule it. The Zionist position was that Arab demands should be met in the framework of autonomy. The Zionist Congress of 1921 defined Palestine as a 'common land' and talked about undisturbed nationalist development of the Jews and the Arabs. The following Congress, in 1923, spoke of the integration of the Jewish people in the revival of the east...
|pp. 179-180 “The commission investigated the possibility of voluntary populations and land exchanges and the prospects of finding solutions for those who would be moved and reached the conclusion that it is "impossible to assume that the minority problem will be solved by a voluntary transfer of population." Incidentally, the commission also concluded that '''the Jews opposed forced transfer'''. Transfer as a concrete political possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report - it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the United Nations partition plan of 1947. '''Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past'''.”
::Foregoing Jewish majority rule in Palestine, willingness to grant full Arab autonomy in Palestine and support for the movement of Arab independence and unity - all considered by the Jews to be far-reaching concessions- did not satisfy the Arabs. They demanded institutions that would guarantee Arab majority rule".<ref>{{cite journal | last=Katz | first=Yossi | title=Status and rights of the Arab minority in the Nascent Jewish state | journal=Middle Eastern Studies | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=33 | issue=3 | year=1997 | issn=0026-3206 | doi=10.1080/00263209708701168 | pages=537–538}}</ref>
|
|
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
According to Galnor, transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership either before Peel Commission's proposal or after it, and it wasn't an inherent part of mainstream Zionist thinking.


|-
::"Documents indicate that the American Zionist leaders went beyond the question of Jewish-Arab relations: they proposed plans that dealt with such questions as water, the future refugee problem, regional economic cooperation and the role of international organizations in the Middle East, with a view to assuring Jewish-Arab coexistence and cooperation".<ref>{{cite journal | last=Segev | first=Zohar | title=Struggle for cooperation and integration: American Zionists and Arab oil, 1940s | journal=Middle Eastern Studies | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=42 | issue=5 | year=2006 | issn=0026-3206 | doi=10.1080/00263200600828089 | page=819}}</ref>
|
|p. 5: “...the recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British mandate and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record, and one that is completely at odds with the anti-Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day. They reveal … that '''the claim of premeditated dispossession is not only baseless but the inverse of the truth'''; and that far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who, from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival which culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place, for the simple reason that '''the Zionist movement was amenable both to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state''' on an equal footing, and to the two-state solution, raised for the first time in 1937 by a British commission of inquiry and reiterated by the partition resolution.”


|
::"Palestine under the Mandate knew not only years of violence and hostility but also partnerships and the creation of understanding, mostly as a result of the wish to realize joint interests. The working of the Haifa municipal council at the time of the Mandate reflects this well. The cooperation that crystalized in it was a breakthrough with respect to the possibility of administering a mixed city in conditions of national conflict".<ref>{{cite journal | last=Goren | first=Tamir | title=&quot;Cooperation Is the Guiding Principle&quot;: Jews and Arabs in the Haifa Municipality During the British Mandate | journal=Israel Studies | publisher=Indiana University Press | volume=11 | issue=3 | year=2006 | issn=1527-201X | doi=10.1353/is.2006.0027 | page=109}}</ref>
|
] (]) 23:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
<!--
"the Zionist movement was amenable ...to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state "


--> |-
|
:Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them? ] (]) 23:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
|p. 6: “Therefore, national values such as return to the soil, Jewish labor, the renaissance of Hebrew culture, and the '''aspiration to a Jewish majority''' became '''political fundamentals in Zionism'''...
::They show that unlike the British mandate, which represented colonialism, the British had somewhere to go back to, compared to Jews who (in addition to fleeing persecution and returning to their indigenous homeland) had no intention of colonizing Palestine but rather had intentions of coexistence with Arabs. American Zionists then attempted to further regional cooperation, which was exemplified by the working of the Haifa municipal council. Academic sources were requested in the comment "There are plenty of high-quality academic books about Zionism to summarize; the views of individual journalists aren't significant enough for a high-level summary article of a topic with as much available scholarship as this one, not when compared to the views of scholars in the field." ] (]) 00:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Zionist policy from Herzl’s time to the establishment of the State of Israel had three dimensions…
:::None of these three sources are books. They're not even widely-cited papers; less than 10 citations each (and that's after 20-25 years of publication). The journals have low impact factor (for whatever that's worth). They're all Israeli -- don't you think we should consider non-Israeli sources as well as Israeli sources, like the Misplaced Pages article currently does? One is geographer, another is an archaeologist (Segev is a historian). I'm not sure why you think these obscure papers are "high-quality academic books." ] (]) 00:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The second dimension, the intercommunal, included Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine in all their senses. In an attempt to work out joint arrangements, if only partial and provisional, that would allow them to coexist with the Arab population of the country, '''the Zionists aspired to cooperation''' in municipal government, an arrangement for relations between Jewish and Arab labor organizations, general agrarian reform, and other matters.
:OK forget that question, I just read the first one, Katz. Your quotation omitted the words "During these years," at the beginning, before "Zionism declared that it had no desire to rule others". And then there's this part, a couple pages later, emphasis added: {{tq2|Chances of reaching an agreement were remote from the outset, since as soon as the Zionist enterprise launched its campaign to change the balance of demography and settlement in Palestine in favour of the Jews, Arab nationalists felt compelled to halt or impede this process. Agreement would be completely antithetical to Arab interests, as Arabs would have to concede vital issues such as land and immigration in any agreement with the Jews. Similarly, the Jews could not abide any significant concessions on these two issues, as they ran counter to the fundamental principle of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine. <p>In 1936-37, the official Zionist leadership despaired of reaching any agreement with the Arabs, although they had nurtured this hope for many years. Yet deep in their hearts, they had known since the 1920s that the conflict with the Arabs would be ongoing, as Zionist and Arab interests were fundamentally opposed to each other. In practice, they denied the inevitability of the conflict - for purposes of public consumption, to ease their liberal and socialist conscience, and also in the hope or delusion that the Arabs, despite everything, would agree to an accommodation. Like Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, who headed the Jewish Agency Executive from 1935 and had fervently believed in the possibility of an agreement at the outset of his career, also lost hope in 1936-37 and accepted the inescapability of violence, becoming the symbol of 'anti-Arabism' and advocating the need for a Jewish majority and Jewish force of arms to realize the Zionist vision. Thus, the Zionist leadership reached the conclusion that a mutually agreeable solution was out of reach: objectively, the conflict could not be resolved in a way that would fully satisfy both sides. '''Achieving the goal of Zionism - a state in Palestine - inevitably entailed injury to the Arabs, and therefore every Zionist attempt to come to agreement with the Arabs without conceding their objectives would be doomed to failure.'''}}
:That part seems pretty relevant, eh? How come you didn't read Katz and were like, "oh, wow, that Misplaced Pages article is spot on-- it says the same thing this geographer Katz wrote 25 years ago in an obscure paper with 6 citations in a journal with an impact factor 0.4!" I'm not going to read the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says. ] (]) 00:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::That is uncivil. I humbly request your good faith attention. As I stated, "Zionism... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe" does not show NPOV. I propose "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 return of Jewish refugees from Europe and Middle Eastern countries to the ancestral Jewish homeland, in a manner that has been described by some as colonialism but disputed by others". If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed. ] (]) 00:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], FWIW, you've come into a highly contentious topic and started making suggestions that seem to indicate you haven't read this talk page thoroughly enough. Editors here have been working very hard for months to find some area of compromise for this article, even though many of them disagree with one another on many things, including sourcing. I'm sure they're all trying to be patient with less-experienced editors coming in, but tempers do get frayed. IMO that was a pretty mild sarcasm that doesn't rise to actual incivility. Not particularly helpful, but not uncivil.
:::If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly (I'd recommend including the most recent archive, ], too, as you can see that even with this talk archiving after fifteen days it has a dozen active discussions) so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions. ] (]) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I’m not casting aspersions at anyone in this chat, but although I’ve been welcomed kindly by some editors, to whom I’m grateful, I’ve also experienced contentious editors. I’ve noticed editors who have made mild-mannered prickly comments as a means of wearing down dissenting editors and making the edit (and larger space) feel like it is hostile and inhospitable. I personally see sarcasm as thinly veiled intention, so I will not accept the notion that a mountain of microaggressions is acceptable in a space that is supposed to, principally, be AGF. Encouraging sarcasm is a slippery slope to AGF evaporating in the long term. Said with all respect, but we must admit that things add up, and no one would be left feeling antagonized in the long run if we were doing a good job at being kind to each other consistently. ] (]) 16:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I'm not encouraging sarcasm. To be clear, I think it's seldom persuasive. But I've never found slippery slope arguments -- a logical fallacy, btw -- compelling. Yes, in an ideal world, everyone would be able to communicate 100% of the time without making {{xt|mild-mannered prickly comments}}. This is a contentious topic. Tempers get frayed. Patience gets tried. If you'd like to argue this sidebar further, let's take it to your talk or mine. ] (]) 20:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}


The third dimension was reflected in the Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of '''fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs''', who were embroiled in struggle for the same piece of land. By the very fact of having such plans, the movement signaled its intention to replace side-by-side existence with '''coexistence'''."
== issues for potential RFC ==
p. 102: “In his background remarks to the proposal, Jabotinsky based himself solely on examples of federative regimes that had passed the test of political durability and met human and social moral standards. He disputed the argument that the Arabs of Palestine would become a nationally oppressed group after they became '''a minority of two million amid five million Jews, as his proposal envisaged'''.” (description of Jabotinsky’s 1940 constitution proposal)
|
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
"aspiration to a Jewish majority"
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
"the Zionists aspired to '''cooperation'''"
"Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of '''fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs"'''


constitution proposal envisioning two million Arabs in future state - '''double their number in 1940,''' when the proposal was written
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 ] ] ] I think, see ) 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 ] 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.
#Include "colonization" in the lead? Line 1
#Include "colonization" in the lead? Paragraph 2 (mutually exclusive with #1)
#Include "settler-colonialism" in the lead?
#Include "exceptionalism" in the lead?
#Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "Jewish majority"?
#Change "as few Arabs as possible" to "largest Jewish majority possible" (mutually exclusive with #5)?
#Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing a view toward violence?
#Remove summary about different mainstream types of Zionism sharing territorial displacement?
#Include "homeland" in the lead?
#Include "national home" in the lead?
#Include "self-determination"?
#Include "democratic" in the lead?
#Include "pluralistic" in the lead?
''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
|p. 497: "Jabotinsky’s commitment to minority rights in Europe also shaped his outlook on the future of Palestine. From 1917 until the outbreak of the Second World War, Jabotinsky envisioned '''a majority Jewish state in Palestine with elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority'''. This vision was premised on a major moral leap that characterized many Zionist leaders – conceiving of Palestine’s Arab majority as a '''future minority subject to minority protections'''"
:::In that case, pass. ] (]) 21:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
p. 506 "...Jabotinsky also rejected the plan on moral grounds, '''fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine'''. Jabotinsky underscored this point in several letters and speeches from 1937..."
::::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.] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah, agree. ] ] 22:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)


p. 508 "Zionist leaders had mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine during the First World War"
== Is zionism "considered" settler colonialism, or is it "criticized" as such? ==
|Jabotinsky's position until the outbreak of WWII
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
"a majority Jewish state"
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
"elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority"


"fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine'''"'''
The characterization of Zionism as settler-colonialism is not necessarily criticism, so I suggest that we adopt the phrasing "considered" or "described" rather than "criticized". Recent edits started using "criticized" instead, which I disagree with. ] (]) 22:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Not necessarily probably, but those authors are few and far between. It's popularity is certainly due to it's presumed effectiveness as a vehicle of criticism. {{cite journal|last=Sabbagh-Khoury|first=Areej|year=2022|title=Tracing Settler Colonialism|journal=Politics & Society|doi=10.1177/0032329221999906 |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329221999906}} ](]) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:Saying that descriptions in RS that are factual per the RS are intrinsically criticism of something renders their descriptions as something other than that they literally say. We don't do that in any other context, like saying people who describe the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or the Holodomor, as merely "criticizing" these things, we say that they are being described.
:And since we are dealing with scholarly consensus, we should not do otherwise here. I support the prior longstanding text, and I believe it should be restored until consensus is obtained to say otherwise. ] (]) 11:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::See ] where I lifted some relevant quotes when I thought we were going to discuss this issue. Penslar is willing to see it as settler colonialism but does say there is a "deep divide" among scholars. So not "criticism" but a matter of scholarly debate (what you said, Andrevan...).
::Note that he also says "Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation." so it's a recurring theme according to Penslar. ] (]) 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::To clarify, I meant there is scholarly consensus concerning the colonial aspects of Zionism, even among its supporters or those who believe that those aspects are justifiable, about which there is disagreement. I have not seen any reliable scholarly source saying that for example the Nakba did not happen and pushing the "a land without people for a people without a land" argument in recent reliable scholarship, let's say post 2000.
:::That goes the point @] raised that we'll then have to end up saying "criticized or praised as", but I think it's best to avoid that language altogether. ] (]) 12:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::While this can indeed be intended as criticism, alternative descriptions of Zionism can be intended as praise. Either we say "criticised as" and "praised as" in balanced fashion, or we say neither. I vote for neither. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::All histories of Zionism allow that (a) Palestine was settled by (b) a huge number of emigrés from other countries and (c) that, from its formative years down to the 1950s, the term commonly used for this project was 'colonisation'. Those are the facts. What objectors protest is the use of the term, ], as applicable to Israel, as opposed to many other colonial adventures of a similar type. The single objection to this is that all Jews were emotionally/symbolically attached to Palestine as the homeland of their forefathers, unlike the other examples. The error in all of this is to take a cultural value as the decisive consideration in describing why and how historical facts occurred. In Marxist terms, adopting a superstructural feature to explain the material, economic, sociological factors which constitute the substructure of the historical process. To simplify illustratively, it is a bit like explaining the emergence of ancient Israel in terms, not of archaeology, the collapse of prior empires under climate changes, demographic marauding as populations collapse, etc.etc., but as a result of the belief, developed cultically among people who came together and called themselves Israelites, that their Yahweh has promised them that land, and thus the subsequent history consisted in their implementing this belief. Collective emotions can at times tip the scales of history, but the fundamental forces are not emotional or ideological.
:::Since no one can doubt modern Israel arose out of a project of colonization, that word must stand. All one needs to add is 'though whether it has been a variety of ] or not is disputed.'(with an array of illustrative statements from RS in the notes/or a link to the precise wiki page discussing the former. One cannot say nothing, because the topic is thoroughly debated, and the text must not shy from controversy, but simply state it succinctly.] (]) 12:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes this is a good point, there is indeed scholarly dispute over settler-colonialism, but not colonialism, and removed its usage in the latter sense from the "Characterization as colonialist and racist" section. That should be restored, and for the in the "Zionism as settler colonialism" @]'s addition should be included after its restoration. ] (]) 13:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::We are dangerously close to igniting another long and unproductive thread on 'colonization'. Do see your "what objectors protest is..." at work on the talk page of course. The other day {{u|Levivich}} was trying to explain colonization and colonialism to an editor. A failure of this article is that one can't, in that situation, simply say "go read the article section". I think more care and more reader focus is warranted. It might seem sometimes like writing to, what, an early secondary school level? I sometimes wonder, if some of the comments here are an indication of the ], whether the lead needs to state plainly that there where more than a half-million Arabs living there at the turn of the century? Anyway not all objections based on the issues you point to. All this discussion moves too fast, without ample consideration and doesn't seem to result in anything productive. Hell, i'm still thinking about your "outside Europe" vs. "in Palestine".
::::To {{u|Zero0000}} point, there are many superseded nationalist histories of course, i thought practice was already that these should only be used in very limited ways and if they are to somehow alert the reader to whats going on? Where you thinking of a different category of sources which "praise" Zionism? ](]) 14:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think the audience point is insightful and it's worth trying to explicitly cover more of the basics in the lead. ] (]) 06:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::My remarks were not aimed to start another futile thread, but to sum the scholarship versus feelings which has been, in my view, characteristic of these humongous episodes, and provide a compromise. If there are people out there who baulk at 'colonization' tout court, then they are not interested in the scholarship but in a 'compromise' which elides the very term so commonly used in the best studies. If they follow the scholarly debate, then (a) settler colonialism is increasingly the default term in colonialization theories, but has been questioned or worried over (by Zionists), and therefore one mentions setcol with the appropriate qualifying remarks. Despite our endless chatting, the text here in any version is straightforward, not abstruse. And while dumbingdown so that the hypothetical 'audience' may grasp the issues more easily (they can do that with the article, the problems arise on the talk page), any familiarity with what audiences are presented with on the IP issues tells us that it is already so thoroughly dumbdowned and surveilled for political correctness in the newspapery/TV mainstream , that most of what historians know is lost on 'them' (or it would be 'news' to them). I don't know how many times in random conversations (not started by myself) with well-educated people, usually where newspapers are being read, I drop a remark on this (e.g. 'when Zionism was launched 95% of the population of Palestine was Arab', a core fact for the lead), I prefer statistics and meet with raised eyebrows and astonished looks. The obvious is not mentioned.* I even note that our text has sources that most Jews reject settler colonialism. The two sources do not state that, and it is impossible to ascertain because (a) most people, Jews included, are unfamiliar with the term and (b) there has been no global polling to determine what percentage of Jewish people reject the term. The simplest of commonsensical tweaks in phrasing can settle this, if there is a willingness to accept both the obviousness of colonialism as objective, and the contentiousness of settler colonialism as an adequate descriptive theory.
*<small>A few nights ago in a TV debate, someone touched on UNWRA's difficulties in getting aid to starving people, and ] sunk him relentlessly by repeating something like: 'It is a terrorist organization, there were 6 members whom Israel identified as Hamas operatives! 'No one replied. It was such a devastating 'fact'. I thought:'is there no one there, among many journalists, who know that UNWRA employs 30,000 people, and therefore Belpietro's persuasive gobbledegook should be exposed for its monumentally tendentious fallaciousness that 6 members of Hamas's social organizations, constituting 0.02% of UNWRA means that UNWRA is a pro-Hamas facilitator of terrorism He got away with it, because even journalists either keep mum or don't do their homework, which wiki must do for them.] (]) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::::Agree mostly on scholarship versus feelings, which again clearly on display at this talk page. Failed to take into account your final sentence as a compromise wording for including 'colonialism'. Think i probably prefer {{u|Selfstudier}}'s pointing to Penslar as a way out of this mess, if a way out is to be found. ](]) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::There seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion between "colonization," "colonialism" and "settler-colonialism," which is one of the big problems with the article right now. Zionism was indisputably a movement involving colonization. The agricultural colonies by land purchasing primarily. ] is a term of art in history and post-colonial studies. It usually focuses on the British imperial colonialism in North America and Australia. While a number of sources do describe Israel in similar terms, it is a minority of sources that use "settler-colonialism," and usually if not universally critically - it's a critical view, which should be clear from the sources that do so, and not the academic consensus view. Colonization is, as I said, not really up for dispute, the problem is conflating these related but distinct concepts. Particularly, Israel lacked a parent country, and is seen by others as a form of ''de''colonization since it entailed Britain giving land back to local Arabs and Jews, the latter of whom had a long connection and several rather long-lived colonies in the Yishuv, and were arguably basing their claim on being indigenous to the area thousands of years ago. Whether or not someone who disagrees finds that to be rubbish is really not the point. The point is that the article is not NPOV is we simply treat "settler-colonialism" as a consensus aspect of Zionism, since that isn't the case in reliable sources, there's quite a critical aspect and is itself subject to critical dispute. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::There is no confusion (unless you find it all confusing), but it is pointless repeating what has been said and resaid. What concept do you think covers a proposal (Zionist) and then enactment to change a 95% Arab majority in a country into one with a Jewish demographic majority (who as the present government states '“have an '''exclusive''' and inalienable '''right''' to '''all areas''' of the Land of Israel”) primarily by promotion of mass immigration into that country by Jews all around the world? ] (]) 21:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not sure what you mean by "a consensus aspect of Zionism". Most authors will point out what the consider the core aspects of Zionism or at various times what was the "Zionist consensus". I'd think we would be hard pressed to find one that did not consider a demographic majority in Palestine and eventual state part of that. Sure there was some debate as to whether 'colonialism' fit, so we've got 'settler-colonialism'. In order to ''decolonize'' one needs a ''colonialism'' to undo. As Sabbagh-Khoury makes clear the basis of it's ''popularity'' is politics and the aim single state, right of return, etc. I think we might be able to find a consensus that the definition mostly fits (what's your opinion on Penslar?) tho it is fairly new. I don't know why would would expect or be able to ever see some consensus that the paradigm is ''useful''. Not including if there is room for it in the article would be passing over a great deal of literature. The section right now is short, does attempt to alert the reader to what's going on with Rachel Busbridge (whoever she might be) probably generally the right approach? All the colonialism content in the body is a bunch of throw-away "according to X" and "Y says" so hard to tell. ](]) 14:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with what Selfstudier said about Penslar: a matter of scholarly debate, not a consensus. As to the colonialism to undo, it was the Ottoman and British who controlled the area. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::what do you mean by the second sentence? I don't know what you are talking about when you link a colonialism '''to undo''' with the respective Ottoman empire and the British mandate period.] (]) 19:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::the unwinding of Ottoman and British imperial rule. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::So what you means is
:::::::::::<blockquote>As to the colonialism to undo, (that was) the unwinding of Ottoman and British imperial rule?</blockquote>
:::::::::::I still don't know what on earth you mean by that. The Ottoman empire had nothing to do with colonialism in Palestine, and Britain was not a colonial power in Palestine but the executor of a mandate '''for the colonization''' of Palestine by Jews. Sheesh] (]) 21:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|colonial development during the mandate period was the culmination of a longer running process that stretched back well into the Ottoman period. Contrary to British colonial rhetoric, the districts of the Ottoman Empire that later formed the Palestine Mandate were undergoing rapid change in the decades before the First World War as they were increasingly incorporated into global networks of trade and political reform, all under the umbrella of a centralizing Ottoman state.}} <ref>{{Citation |last=Norris |first=Jacob |title=Ottoman Colonial Development Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean |date=2013-04-11 |work=Land of Progress |pages=26–62 |url=https://academic.oup.com/book/33098/chapter-abstract/282493080?redirectedFrom=fulltext |access-date=2024-10-18 |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669363.003.0002|isbn=978-0-19-966936-3 }}</ref> ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh dearie me, more slippage from the gravamen of what is being discussed. The 'colonialism' we were supposed to discuss is related to the 'colonization' of another land and the exploitation of its resources to the detriment of the indigenous population (here majority). The Ottoman Empire did not 'subjugate' the population of Palestine and do so by populating that land with Turks. The British did not conquer by subjugating Palestinians, but by overthrowing the Turkish army and taking on a LoN mandate to bring that country to independence - by definition not ''stricto sensu'' an extension of the British Empire's dominians to include Palestine, since the terms of its interim rule were subject to a higher authority, the League of Nations. The expression 'undo (Ottoman and British ) colonialism', means, to take up Fiveby's word, a process of 'decolonization' of the foreign power controlling a territory to achieve self-determination for a people, here, who were neither Turkish nor English. To now cite a snippet from the googled abstract of Jacob Norris's book that both the Ottoman and British were engaged in 'colonialism' (in the general sense of that word) in developing the infrastructure of Palestine is muddying things: the former developed infrastructure to include Palestine within the empire's trade and commercial network; the latter supervised institutional growth there to (b) provide 'administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone", and (b) favour Jewish immigration to create a pro-British Jewish homeland (to the detriment of the interests of the indigenous population in practice). Neither of these fit the standard definition of colonialism as vide the ] cited above. The fact that the infrastructural improvements were designed to extract resources advantages to the large external economies of the two empires is typically 'colonial', as exemplified by ]'s creation of the ], which Norris's book studies closely. But, had you read the book, you would not have talked about 'undoing' this kind of colonial heritage, since it formed an important basis, as the fourth largest producer of potash in the world, for the nascent Israeli economy. Is that what had to be 'undone'? It was not British colonialism that was undone: one could argue, and this is how your expression struck me as implying, the overthrow of its administrative presence to enable its proxy, the Zionist leadership, to create a colonial society in Palestine, umhampered by external constraints. ] (]) 11:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Nishidani}} as an aside, was looking for more sources here and got distracted by , p. 613 paragraph begining "Israeli historians hesitate...", do you happen to know where he is referring to with "as I argue elsewhere"? ](]) 12:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::At a guess, Ethnic cleansing of Palestine? ] (]) 12:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::You're right, that was 2006, thinking it was later for some reason. Probably tho? ](]) 13:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Mainly the editor for that one. ] (]) 14:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Pappé's position has changed several times (no bad sign: it means he is less ideological (immune to developments in scholarship)than he is usually taken to be). He did assume from the 1980s that , and this is still present in his ''The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,'' 2006 Oneworld 978-1-851-68467-0 pp.8, 10-14, but a sea-change emerges in the (excellent and neglected) 2008 paper you cite, where nationalist impulses come to the fore over a simplistic colonialism mode. Sorry not to be able to be more helpful. ] (]) 16:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks, maybe not useful for the article but was a little surprised to see it. He gets a big black mark from me tho for failing to cite. ](]) 22:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::: {{tqq|Zionism was a settler colonial movement, very much like the movement of other Europeans who moved to the Americas, parts of Africa as well as Australia and New Zealand.}} ] (]) 00:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::, still with the settler colonial construct, can't really see where the nationalist thing comes from unless referring to the 48 war. ] (]) 10:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::"Pappe explains that he "will argue that Zionist settlers—indeed Zionist thought and praxis—were motivated by a national impulse but acted as pure colonialists." Notice the term "pure colonialist", which is especially odd given that the title of the article refers to "diluted colonialism" ”.He accepts that the main models of settler colonialism will not work for Zionism and Palestine, as normally "nationals were sent by a mother country". (Colonialism ] Israel Studies Vol. 24, No. 2, Word Crimes; Reclaiming The Language of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Summer 2019), pp. 33-44, p.39) ] (]) 10:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Strawson's paper has to be handled with care. He's right to note the shifts in Pappé's views, but only in a somewhat one-sided focus on BDS's use of colonialist language, and is totally silent on the numerous parallels with colonialism drawn by Israeli and diaspora scholarship also in the last decades, something with which he shows no such intimacy. His paper promotes the idea that this discourse is about 'fringe politics' and he 'picks on' Pappé, but the latter is not, in any case, one of our best sources (he's a good thinker, the problem we have always here by IP consensus is that he does not sufficiently document his arguments with detailed sourcing footnotes, so that it is difficult for editors to thresh out personal interpretation from facts). Since Strawson mentions ], with whose views I have considerable sympathy, I suggest editors read Rodinson for background. He can't be used on this because of our 'decent scholarship' criterion. But he thought on his own two feet before this rhetorical battle became known and battled over, and his range of knowledge, of politics, sources and history on that area, was dauntingly formidable. ] (]) 11:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The response attacks my use of research, as though using search tools to find sources is a bad thing(?), without providing much to bear for assertions, or really refuting the claim, I don't see any sources cited pertaining to the topic. This conflates settler-colonialism, colonialism, and colonization. Zionists were colonizing, as in colonization, the land in the 1880s. Those agricultural colonies were often based on land purchases which were not subjugatory in nature, and not colonial since they weren't acting as forward settlers of Britain, and at that time displacement was also not yet part of the picture. Nor is subjugation a necessary condition of ''colonization''. Colonization is the most general term and simply refers to the range of establishment of colonies. Colonialism, referring to a system or style of governing a polity, as we've also established, often involves ''exploitation'', generally to enrich the mother country, which indeed the Ottomans were doing, as Norris illustrates in depth. The Ottomans and the British were both colonial empires that extracted labor and raw materials from their colonies, though of course the British are more generally considered colonial and engaged in extensive settler-colonial activities. The Ottomans didn't have settler-colonialism or colonization, but they did have a colonial and expansionist empire. The Arab ] were also exploited, and the Ottomans waged several wars, notably against the Mamluks and Byzantines. The connection with trade with intimate, such as for example the British commercial monopolies in India for tea and spices. Not all colonies were settled by the empire. That is usually in reference to Australia or North America where factors led to a good number of Dutch, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, etc., seeking imperial conquest and also setting up "New Spains" or "New Yorks." The Ottomans were also a colonial empire.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Türesay |first=Özgür |date=2013 |title=The Ottoman Empire Seen through the Lens of Postcolonial Studies: A Recent Historiographical Turn |url=https://shs.cairn.info/journal-revue-d-histoire-moderne-et-contemporaine-2013-2-page-127?lang=en |journal=Revue d’histoire moderne & contemporaine |language=fr |volume=602 |issue=2 |pages=127–145 |issn=0048-8003}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Minawi |first=Mostafa |url=https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ottoman_Scramble_for_Africa/jisKDAAAQBAJ |title=The Ottoman Scramble for Africa: Empire and Diplomacy in the Sahara and the Hijaz |date=2016-06-15 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-0-8047-9929-4 |language=en}}</ref> It didn't have colonization, but it had colonialism, it has metropolitan imperial rule and expansionism. There were no "New Istanbuls," but Istanbul itself was Constantinople, and the Mamluks and Byzantines also controlled Palestine before the 600s and 1500s. Palestine was a colonial province of these large imperial concerns even though it wasn't the subject of settler-colonialism at that time. There was also a continuous Jewish population from the Middle Ages and repeated attempts of groups of Jews to settle there. This type of colonization did not have a mother country and did not involve enriching the mother country through trade and exploitation of raw materials. Because the Ottomans and the British ''were'' engaged in colonialism, that's why the granting of the land to the Jews and Arabs, because ''both'' received land in the 1947 partition plan, was an unwinding of colonialism, similar to the independence of other former British holdings such as in Africa, which was explicitly made comparison to. <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kaplan |first=A. |date=2013-12-01 |title=Zionism as Anticolonialism: The Case of Exodus |url=https://academic.oup.com/alh/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/alh/ajt042 |journal=American Literary History |language=en |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=870–895 |doi=10.1093/alh/ajt042 |issn=0896-7148}}</ref> Subsequently, one can look at the West Bank as settler-colonialism, but in 1948, the West Bank was Jordan and Gaza was Egypt. Also, this New Historian view is not the dominant view in all the reliable sources, but a revisionist modern and indeed critical view. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::A ]-type gaunt précis mingling random aspects of 3 '''concepts''' (colonialism, colonization, colony) regarding 2 empires over several centuries gets us nowhere (except if one takes up the gambit and starts several threads parsing the inadequacy of these epitomes, in which case we go everywhere on this talk page for the next decade). I asked you a simple question earlier and you ignored it bec ause it bears '''directly''' on the issue we are discussing here. I'll repost it.
::::::::::<blockquote>'What concept do you think covers a proposal (Zionist) and then enactment to change a 95% Arab majority in a country into one with a Jewish demographic majority (who as the present government states '“have an '''exclusive''' and inalienable '''right''' to '''all areas''' of the Land of Israel”) primarily by promotion of mass immigration into that country by Jews all around the world? 17 October 2024)</blockquote>
::::::::::Spoiler alert. If, unlike numerous sources already surveyed, you don't have a concept under which that process can be described, then you are claiming Zionism belongs to a class of its own, a singularity in history (in which the event(s) can be narrated but not conceptualized except on its own terms as 'Zionism').] (]) 08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


"mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine"
::More time spent reading sources thoroughly, rather than clipping abstracts to ad-libs distractive answers to the topic's essential issues, would enable us to get somewhere here.
:I agree "described"/"considered" is better than "praised"/"criticized" (absent a showing that RS are using the word "criticized"), and have reverted the edits. Also, @Andrevan, please don't use "ce" as the edit summary for edits like this, which change the meaning of the sentence. If you're going to change a neutral word ("considered") to a word that has a positive or negative meaning (eg "criticized"), it's better to just write in the edit summary that you changed "considered"->"criticized" than "ce," as I think copyedits, by definition, are edits like grammatical changes, fixing typos, changes that don't change meaning or connotation. ] (]) 17:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, that's a bit of wikijargon, but I'll make my edit summary more clear in the future. In the extra-wiki world, ] also includes changing word choice for accuracy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Or inaccuracy, presumably. ] (]) 08:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::C'mon. ] ] 13:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{tq|"Because the Ottomans and the British were engaged in colonialism, that's why the granting of the land to the Jews and Arabs, because both received land in the 1947 partition plan, was an unwinding of colonialism"}} — Actually the 1947 plan in total proposed to take land away from Arabs and give it to Jews. Moreover, it's disappointing to see a resurrection of the broken old argument that a small number of Jews in Palestine served as stand-ins for the Jews of the world. If the British plan was to seize Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and hand it over to the inhabitants, an argument could be made that it was a decolonisation plan. However, that was not the British plan and it sure as hell was not the Zionist plan. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


|-
:I didn't say the 1947 plan was fair or equitable, but it can still be post-colonial despite that. It dismantled the colonial instrument of power and replaced it with at least in part, an independent, self-governing, multiethnic, democratically legislated state. While it's true that the 1947 plan allocated more land area (56%) to the Jewish state even though the Arab state had a larger population, and that the Zionists accepted the plan while the Arabs did not, it is also true that the reason why the international community including the UN enacted the plan ''was'' because they intended the Jews of the world, or more specifically ], to move there, which they did, ] by many of the Jews of the Muslim world as well after the 1948 war. So in terms of handing it over to the inhabitants, they did, but the Zionists had already set up a system of self-governance, while the Arabs had not. The Arab population was disorganized politically, suffering economically, and socially divided. Many willingly sold their land as they were in dire straits. The 1948 war led to other events. The Arabs, who rejected the plan, were promised to be able to return. The Arabs also indicated they would reject ''any'' partition plan. They immediately rejected the internationally adopted plan by the UN and defied the resolution and resorted to force to defy it. Either way, the British Mandate ceased to exist and the British forces withdrew. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
|
:: None of this supports a decolonisation thesis. Actually it reads like it comes from ''Myths and Facts''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
|p. 67 "There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to '''clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project'''—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, '''open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?'''..."
:::<blockquote>I didn't say the 1947 plan was fair or equitable</blockquote>
|
:::And no one asked that of you. You were questioned over the statement
|
:::<blockquote>the granting of the land to the Jews and Arabs, because both received land in the 1947 partition plan,</blockquote>
|{{center|{{cross}} }}
:::All the language there is POV-packed and distortive. The idea that the Partition plan consisted of a ] wherein a sovereign power cedes part of its territory to two ethnic constituencies within it is a non-starter. The Arabs certainly did not 'receive'* land : Jewish purchases from 1896 to 1948 amounted to 5.7-6% of Palestine, the rest remained available, by 1947, to the Arabs who lived and worked on it. The partition plan sanctioned 31% of the population taking possession of 56% of Palestine, and the ensuing war ended up with Zionists achieving 78% of the land, and declaring the massive Arab infrastructure 'enemy property', a legal gimmick which led to its expropriation. It is these fundamental facts, demographics, economics - the statistical realities, not the narrative spin, which your repeated suggestions continue to sweep under the carpet. And it is that factual reality which underlines what studies on colonialism in this area do. ] (]) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
points out that the narrative of "as few Arabs as possible" is just one side of the scholarly debate about Zionism and is far from being a consensus
::::'receive' in that context only makes sense for one party if one remembers the term ]. One doesn't use that loaded negative term any more than one should 'euphemise' the hard historical realities, which in my view is what most of these proposals are doing. ] (]) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Noting the beginning of this thread, "The characterization of Zionism as ...", instead of 'considered', 'described', or 'criticized', may one ask would it be ok to say 'characterized'?] (]) 08:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


|}
:That would be an improvement. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 19:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


As can be seen from the table, several of the existing sources '''don't support''' the "as many Jews, as few Arabs as possible" framing, and some of them support it only as '''description of a particular period''', rather than a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-state period.
===references===
{{ref list}}
{{ref end}}


And the additional sources either dispute the "as few Arabs" part entirely, or at least acknowledge that there is no scholarly consensus about it.
== natural punctuation; insert commas ==
] (]) 10:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


{{u|Levivich}}, i really like thinking about your table, am renaming columns and adding lots more. I am also deleting the "more Jews" and "fewer Arabs" columns tho and don't agree with the table's intent.
I have inserted a pair of commas, as natural punctuation, for ease of reading. No change of meaning. ] (]) 15:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)


The result of the ideology and praxis, the movement, was not only moving Jewish people in but also moving Palestinian people out. "fewer Arabs" needs said somehow and prominently in the lead. I don't think there is any real question here except how to say it. ](]) 13:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Highlight and better source needed in first sentence? ==


:well, actually, if you consider the totality of different RS - like ] - it becomes clear that there is no consensus on this question.
Can someone explain the highlight and the BSN template in the first sentence? ] (]) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:There is a very wide spectrum of opinions, ranging from the claim that Zionists wanted to expel Arabs from the very start, through the views that this was considered only during particular periods in response to Arab violence and were never one of the Zionist core goals, and to the claims that from the early days of Zionism and till establishment of Israel Zionist were looking for ways to peacefully coexist with Arabs in Palestine.
:The current phrasing only represents one extreme end of this spectrum, hence clearly violating the NPOV principle, so the question is what is the appropriate weight that the "fewer Arabs" thesis should receive in this article - in particular, whether it should be addressed in the lead at all, and if it should - what phrasing would reflect the spectrum of opinions in a most balanced way. ] (]) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::I think DancingOwl has shown a reasonable enough doubt that we need to reflect minority and alternate POVs and address the lack of an impartial tone. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq2|claims that from the early days of Zionism and till establishment of Israel Zionist were looking for ways to peacefully coexist with Arabs in Palestine.}}
::This is not the opposite end of {{tq|the claim that Zionists wanted to expel Arabs from the very start}}. ] (]) 02:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't say that this claim is the opposite of the "always wanted to expel" claim, but that there is a spectrum of opinions and this claim is on the other end of the spectrum.
:::Or did you mean to say that you'd define the other end of the spectrum differently? ] (]) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::My point is that the movement planning for existing alongside an Arab minority does not mean that they did not want as small a minority as possible. The two are not mutually exclusive in any sense. ] (]) 04:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::They are not mutually exclusive, if you interpret the "as few Arabs as possible" claim as a neutral statement about preferences, rather than a core goal determining the policy.
:::::However, if you consider it in context and look at the sentence in its entirety, it's a clear expression of the "separatism/expropriation" end of the spectrum that Penslar talks about in the last quote in the table, and the other end of the spectrum is not represented at all. ] (]) 05:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Certainly Zionism was not open to arab self-determination in Palestine at the expense of Jewish self-determination. No one argues that. And neither does Penslar actually argue that the mainstream Zionism perspective was that Arabs and Jews could have self-determination in Palestine. In Zionism, Palestine is for the Jews, and the Arabs can be at most inhabitants without national rights. ] (]) 05:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What you are describing is not "the mainstream Zionist perspective", but mainly Jabotinsky's views, and even his views evolved with time - for example, in the early 1920s he proposed a Jewish-Arab federative state. As a sidenote, for most of his life Jabotinsky's also vehemently opposed the idea of population transfer (i.e., "as few Arabs as possible") and only changed his position after the WWII broke out.
:::::::As to the rest of the Zionist movement, several models of bi-national or federalist state have been considered throughout the pre-1948 period (including several variants proposed by Ben Gurion) - Gorny describes them at length in his 2006 book and also gives an short overview .
:::::::Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "actually argue that the mainstream Zionism perspective was that Arabs and Jews could have self-determination in Palestine", given the fact that most of Zionist leaders accepted the partition principle proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, as well as the UN Partition Plan in 1947. ] (]) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Are you sure? Finkelstein:
::::::::{{tq2|The cultural Zionist Ahad Ha’am was (in Gorny’s words) ‘firm in his insistence that both peoples in Palestine be treated justly’, but he ‘saw the historical rights of the Jews outweighing the Arabs’ residential rights in Palestine’ (pp. 103–4). Max Nordau declared that Palestine was the ‘legal and historical inheritance’ of the Jewish nation, ‘of which they were robbed 1900 years ago by the Roman aggressors’; the Palestinian Arabs had only ‘possession rights’ (p. 157). Jabotinsky asserted that since the Arab nation incorporated ‘large stretches of land’, it would be an ‘act of justice’ to requisition Palestine ‘in order to make a home for a wandering people’; the Palestinian Arabs would still have a place to call their own, indeed, any of fully nine countries to the east and west of the Suez (pp. 166, 168–9). In Ben-Gurion’s view, Palestine had a ‘national’ significance for Jews and thus ‘belonged’ to them; in contrast, Palestinian Arabs, as constituents of the great Arab nation, regarded not Palestine, but Iraq, Syria and the Arabian peninsula as their ‘historical’ homeland – Palestine was of only ‘individual’ importance to them, the locale where they happened to dwell presently. The Jewish people were therefore entitled to concentrate in Palestine whereas the Palestinian Arab community should enjoy merely those rights redounding on residents (pp. 210–12, 217–18).16}}
::::::::As for Jabotinsky, he was well within the mainstream Zionist movement (and Gorny treats him and his revisionists that way):
::::::::{{tq2|As a member of the Zionist Executive in 1921-3, he soon discovered that what divided him from his col­leagues in the Zionist leadership was not political differences, but mainly his style of political action}}
::::::::It's well established that partition was accepted to enable the eventual control of all of Palestine. Morris on the Peel commission partition principle:
::::::::{{tq2| But leaders like Ben-Gurion, while saying yes, continued to entertain in their hearts the vision of “the Whole Land of Israel” (“Greater Israel,” as it was later to be called). Ben-Gurion repeatedly declared (though not in front of the British) that the ministate London was offering would serve merely as the springboard for future Jewish conquest of the whole land: Palestine was to be taken over in stages.}} ] (]) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, this all supports the existing wording too. ] (]) 19:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, I'm sure. (sorry for the delayed response - turned out that the text below, which I thought I published already, remained in drafts).
:::::::::For example take the passage about Ahad Ha’am that Finkelstein is quoting from Gorny - the next sentence in Gorny's books is:
:::::::::{{tq2|But his further claim that continued Jewish national existence depended on the creation of a Jewish majority in Palestine '''did not conflict with the Arab demand for justice'''. Moreover, in insisting on ‘historical rights’, Ahad Ha'Am was implying the superiority of '''spiritual aspirations''' over material existence.}}
:::::::::and just before that, on pages 101-102, Gorny says:
:::::::::{{tq2|We have seen that Ahad Ha'Am’s general outlook was based on the following principles: special political status for the Jews in Palestine '''as a small minority within the Arab population'''; recognition of the need to find ways of achieving peaceful co-operation with the Arabs;...<br/> ... He pointed to the fact that the phrase ‘building a national home in Palestine’ was not a mere question of semantics. The Government did not in fact intend to hand over all of Palestine to the Jews. It had guaranteed to respect the rights of the local population and hence its insistence that the granting of rights to the Jews did not annul the rights of other residents. We noted above Ahad Ha'Am’s emphatic demand that Weizmann stress the historical right of the Jews to Palestine. Here he attempts to explain the significance of this concept under prevailing conditions. '''‘The historical right of a people to a country settled by others’, he explains, ‘means only one thing: the right to return to settle in the land of their fathers, to cultivate it and to develop its potential uninterruptedly.’''' This right is not only theoretical but also practical, because it helps the returning people to withstand the opposition of the local population...<br/> ‘But’, Ahad Ha'Am cautions, ‘'''this historical right does not abolish the right of the other residents of the country''', who have enjoyed the real right to reside and labour in the country for generations past. This country is their national home as well and they too have the right to develop their national powers to the best of their ability.’ The conclusion is unequivocal. ‘This situation renders Palestine '''the joint home of various peoples, each endeavouring to build its national home there'''.’
:::::::::}}
:::::::::In other words, the sentence quoted by Finkestein doesn't mean that Ahad Ha’am thought 'historical rights' of the Jews negate Arabs' rights for self-determination, but only that they grants the Jews the right to build their national home in Palestine, side by side with Arabs, '''despite Arab opposition'''.
:::::::::Similarly, the full quote about Nordau says:
:::::::::{{tq2|The Jewish people, Nordau believed, had received international recognition as a nation, and this implied ‘'''the right to Jewish possession''' of their legal and historical inheritance, the land of their fathers, of which they were robbed 1900 years ago by the Roman aggressors’. His conclusion was that the term ‘national home’ could have only one meaning: ‘an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine, and nothing else’. As a positivist, he was aware, however, that if the ‘historical right’ was to become ‘historical reality’, some forceful ‘historic deed’ was required, i.e. mass Jewish immigration, accompanied by vast capital investment. '''As long as the Jews constituted the minority, their moral and historical proprietorship was in question'''. As for the Arabs of Palestine, they had ‘possession rights’ to Palestine, and '''their existence attested to the fact that they were a separate national and anthropological entity.'''}}
:::::::::So the meaning of the full passage is '''exactly opposite''' to how Finkelstein tries to frame it using out-of-context truncated quotes - Gorny saya here that, for Nordau, the rights of Arabs of Palestine were '''self-evident''', stemming from their very existence in this land as "a separate national and anthropological entity", whereas the right of the Jews, on the other hand, "was in question", as long as they remained a minority in Palestine.
:::::::::In other words, for Nordau, "historical rights" were not superior to "possession rights", but on the contrary - the former were nothing more than a potentiality, while the latter was the real thing, and Arabs already had it as given, while Jews still had to "earn" it.
:::::::::With Jabotinsky, again, Finkelstein misrepresents what Gorny is actually saying.
:::::::::Here is the full quote from p. 167:
:::::::::{{tq2| Requisition of an area of land from a nation with large stretches of territory in order to make a home for a wandering people is an act of justice, and if the land-owning nation does not wish to cede it (and this is completely natural) it must be compelled. A sacred truth, for whose realization the use of force is essential, does not cease thereby to be a sacred truth. '''This is the basis of our stand on Arab opposition; and we shall talk of a settlement only when they are ready to discuss it.'''}}
:::::::::Now, notice what Gorny says just before that, on page 166:
:::::::::{{tq2|To control Palestine through military might did not inevitably imply a perpetual struggle between the two peoples. According to Jabotinsky’s dialectical approach, the reverse was true. He was not suggesting that it was impossible to arrive at a settlement: ‘ What is impossible is voluntary agreement’, because ‘as long as there lingers in the heart of the Arabs even '''the faintest hope that they may succeed in ridding themselves of us''', there are no blandishments or promises in the world which have the power to persuade them to renounce their hope — precisely because they are not a mob, but '''a living nation'''.’ Only when the wave of adamant opposition was shattered against the ‘iron wall’ would moderate response and more practical and measured elements come to the fore. When these forces took up the reins of power, '''the road would be open to negotiations based on mutual concessions, respect for the rights of the local population, and protection of this population from discrimination and dispossession.'''}}
:::::::::and also what he says on p. 168:
:::::::::{{tq2|In the political context, however, such indifference could not be maintained, because he was well aware that they were a permanent element in Palestine, and '''regarded their expulsion from the country as ‘totally unthinkable’'''. Thus, any solution of the Arab problem must be based on '''recognition of their national rights''', and not only of their civil rights.}}
:::::::::If you read this in its entirety, it becomes clear that Jabotinsky doesn't talk about dispossession of Palestinian Arabs or denial of their national rights, but about standing firm against Arab denial of Jewish national rights.
:::::::::Finkelstein's presentation of Ben-Gurion's views is similarly full of omissions and distortions. For example, Finkelstein's implication that Palestine "belonged" to Jews and not to Arabs is directly contradicted by what Gorny says on p. 210, in the beginning of the passage on which Finkelstein allegedly bases his claims:
:::::::::{{tq2|This plan was based on several underlying assumptions: (a) ‘'''Palestine belongs to the Jewish people and to the Arabs who reside therein'''’.}}
:::::::::Moreover Gorny continues:
:::::::::{{tq2|Ben-Gurion sought to establish a constitutional regime in Palestine in which '''Jews and Arabs as individuals and as communities would enjoy equal rights'''. It would be based on the principle that neither people had the right to dominate the other. ‘It is essential to establish just relations between Jews and Arabs, irrespective of majority-minority relations. It must at all times guarantee to both peoples the possibility of undisturbed development and '''full national independence''', in such fashion that at no time will Arabs rule Jews or Jews Arabs.}}
:::::::::The passage about "Iraq, Syria and the Arabian peninsula", which Finkelstein misattributes to Ben-Gurion, in fact belongs to Moshe Beilinson, who said (p. 214):
:::::::::{{tq2|"...The Arab community is not the sole proprietor of this country. It '''also''' belongs to the Jewish people, as their homeland...<br/> ...the Jewish people should not be deprived of their right to existence because of the need to guarantee the right to self-determination of the Arab inhabitants of the country ... There is a fundamental and decisive difference between the situation of the Arabs as a nation and that of the Jews as a nation. Palestine is not needed by the Arabs from the national point of view. They are bound to other centres. There, in Syria, in Iraq, in the ; Arabian Peninsula lies the homeland of the Arab people.}}
:::::::::In other words, the context here is, once again, assertion of Jewish right to build a national home in Palestine, not a denial of Palestinian Arabs' rights.
:::::::::Finally, here's the full passage about Jewish people's right "to concentrate in Palestine" (p. 218):
:::::::::{{tq2|Palestine was important to the Jews as a nation and to the Arabs as individuals, and hence the right of the Jewish people to concentrate in Palestine, a right which was not due to the Arabs. This idea of inequality of status was partially amended in his constitutional plan through the self-administration he proposed, aimed at '''ensuring political equality for the Arab majority (which would some day become a minority)'''.}}
:::::::::Here again, Gorny talks about political equality for Arabs, contrary to what Finkelstein tries to imply using a truncated quote. ] (]) 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::None of that contradicts that the Zionist perspective was that {{tq|the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance.}} (Gorny's words) ] (]) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Once again, you omit critical context:
:::::::::::1. Gorny is not making a general statement about Zionism, but talks specifically about Beilinson
:::::::::::2. The passage refers specifically to partition discussions following the Peel Commission proposal
:::::::::::3. The next paragraph reads:
:::::::::::{{tq2|Despite his gloomy, even tragic perception of the situation, Beilinson called for public avowal that the future Jewish state would grant the Arabs full equal political status through a constitutional regime based on parity.}} ] (]) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::No he's not talking specifically about Beilinson, that's why the paragraph I quoted from starts with {{tq|This was perhaps the ultimate expression of the theory of the necessity of force, accepted by most trends of Zionism.}} ] (]) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So this discussion applies to Zionism as a whole, not just Beilinson. ] (]) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Let's look at the full quote:
:::::::::::::{{tq2| '''Two months after violence erupted''' (and shortly before his death), Beilinson asked:<br/><small>Till when? Till when is the Zionist movement condemned to fight and to struggle '''for its existence'''? Until the might of the Jewish people in their own land will, a priori, spell defeat for any adversary who attacks us; until the most ardent and most daring within the enemy camp, wherever they may I be, realize that there is no means of breaking the spirit of the Jewish people in their own land, for theirs is a living need and a living truth and there is no alternative but to accept them. This is the meaning of the struggle.</small><br/>This was perhaps the ultimate expression of the theory of the necessity of force, accepted by most trends of Zionism. It was accompanied by the assumption that the struggle of the Jewish people, for Palestine was a question of '''basic survival''', ’while for the Arab people, whatever their motives, the fight is not a question of life or I death’. Consequently, the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance. These remarks were based on belief in moral relativity in historical development, but their dangerous implications were tempered by Beilinson’s social democratic value system.<br/>Despite his gloomy, even tragic perception of the situation, Beilinson called for public avowal that the future Jewish state would grant the Arabs '''full equal political status''' through a constitutional regime based on parity.}}
:::::::::::::So while the sentence about "the necessity of force" does refer to Zionist views '''after the Arab Revolt''' in general, the part about "moral or historical significance" that you quoted initially is a Gorny's paraphrase of Beilinson's words he quoted earlier.
:::::::::::::More importantly, as the last quoted sentence shows, this view didn't entail a negation of Arabs' political rights, but only an insistence on assertion of Jewish right to self-determination, despite violent Arab resistance.
:::::::::::::This distinction is critical and, as I showed earlier, it also applies to all the passages that Finkelstein selectively quotes from Gorny - when you look at the full passages, it becomes clear that the discussion was never about negating Arab's right to self-determination, but about Jews '''also''' having the same right. ] (]) 11:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Beilinson's quote does not even mention the arabs, so how could it be a paraphrase? ] (]) 17:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::He wrote this two month after the Arab revolt broke out - whom do you think he refers to by {{tq|"adversary who attacks us"}}? ] (]) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Also note that the comment about "full equal political status" is based on the assumption that the Arabs would be a small minority. ] (]) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::What in Gorny's text suggests that Beilinson was making this assumption as a pre-requisite for equal political status? ] (]) 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::On parity:
::::::::::::::::{{tq|The intention was to guarantee the '''civil status''' of the Arabs in the light of the future expansion of the Jewish population and to consolidate the '''national rights''' of the Jews in the face of the existing Arab majority.}} ] (]) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::And along those same lines, {{tq|Ben-Gurion advocated a bi-national regime in which the Jewish people would have '''ownership rights''' over Palestine and the Arab community would have the '''right to reside '''therein}} ] (]) 19:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::We were talking about Beilinson's ideas regarding parity - but the first quote is about Weizmann, the second - about Ben-Gurion, so it doesn't address my question. ] (]) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::No, I'm talking about Zionism as a whole. The leadership of the movement and its mainstream ideology. ] (]) 16:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I know you do, but in order to analyze their positions in a meaningful way, we need to look at each of them in context, taking into account the evolution of their views.
::::::::::::::::::::Mixing quotes referring to different leaders at different time periods obscures important controversies within the Zionist movement, as well as the evolution of both the personal views of the leaders and of the general consensus. ] (]) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::We can make a section in the article about all the arguments Zionists had with each other (and when they had them). ] (]) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


{{collapse top|title=Discussion of editors rather than content}}
:@] ] ] 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The DancingOwl account only got started on Nov. 4, 2024.
::Is it possible to provide better sources for the claim or classification? Because it looks totally different from how it was before 7 October 2023. ] (]) 22:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Top 10 editors to this talk page, measured in bytes:
:::Working on it, it appears that some references have been misplaced, Conforti 2024 also . ](]) 22:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you for your information. ] (]) 23:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::What's wrong with Gans? The quote seems appropriate. ] (]) 22:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I thought the problem was with when i looked, but only tagging page needed right now. Some of the cites are a muddle, but it happens. ](]) 22:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::conforti doesnt seem to support the claim at all, why not just remove it? ] (]) 23:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::], if i started removing cites i thought were inappropriate there would be a whole lot more fights on the talk page. ](]) 23:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{u|DMH223344}}, regarding , alphabetical by author but don't worry about it as long as they are inside the refbegin/refend templates. Just throw 'em in there, probably a bot that formats and alphabetizes around somewhere. ](]) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Conforti was in there to support the cultural nationalism claim but that was removed in favor of ethonocultural nationalism so unnecessary now. ] (]) 09:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Can the claim in the introduction of the article be referenced, preferably in exact wording, to the publication of the cited author? ] (]) 23:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:Is there some technical reason that people perhaps aren't seeing the full bullet list of 10 sources for the 'most land/fewest Arabs' line? Does the template not render on some platforms or something? I've checked it on desktop and mobile and can see it just fine, but a number of people seem to just not see the sources for some reason. ] (]) 00:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::I've been changing them to ], but look fine here. Will log out and look tho. Looks fine logged out. ](]) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)


Levivich, 14.9%. AndreJustAndre, 14.5%. Nishidani, 14%. Selfstudier, 11.5%. BrandonYusufToropov, 11.2%.
== Political Zionists ==
Jayjg, 8.6%. '''DancingOwl, 7.2%'''. DMH223344, 7.1%. 1.122.113.194, 6%. Vegan416, 5%.


I'm not even mad. This is frankly amazing. (On the substance, the DancingOwl account is wrong. Very, very wrong.)] (]) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many ], and as few ] as possible."


:1. I started a year ago
Should the article be specified that it was mainly political Zionists who believed this? Many Cultural Zionists, including the founder of that section of Zionism, ], was a strong critic of political Zionism. Ha'am believed the solution was to bring Jews to Palestine much more gradually, while turning it into a cultural center. At the same time, he said it'd be necessary for Zionism to inspire a revival of Jewish national life in the diaspora. Ha'am criticized political Zionism as unoriginal and merely a thinly veiled transplantation of European imperialism. He supported "a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews". Many followers of his ideology, such as ] and ], were adamantly in favor of a binational state and lobbied against a partition of Palestine. ] (]) 16:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:2. Not sure what conclusions need to be drawn, in your view, from the fact that I made two large edits with thorough analysis of the referenced sources
:3. Will be happy to hear which part of what I wrote is "very, very wrong" ] (]) 20:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:: The DancingOwl account's first edit to this talk page was not a year ago. It was on November 4 2024.. You appear to believe a blizzard of edits and swamping the talk page is the way to victory. But there are no gold stars for the prolix. You should give it a rest.
:Is there a source(s) saying that? It's likely true but no one cares what I think, need RS saying so. ] (]) 17:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
::I think yes if needed, Laquere and Gorny probably. Some territorialists also, they wanted "as few Arabs as possible" so suggested elsewhere and were worried about lions. Problem as i see it is "Zionist consensus", what authors say are the core aspects, how rational some of these views were, how to present to reader, and a best sources look for how much content to include? I think maybe all groups outside the pale were told they were ''not'' really Zionists, but maybe responded with: no, we are the ''real'' Zionists. ](]) 17:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::Any suggestion that it was not an existential issue for Zionists/Zionism to drastically limit the Arab/Palestinian population in Israel is nonsense, as the scholarly literature shows.] (]) 20:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::''Brit Shalom'' and Ihud are mentioned in the lead, but no real content and what there is under "Beliefs" is i think misleading. Laquere frames as internal criticism, mostly minority and if i recall on Palestinian question: "rare". ](]) 17:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, Lightiggy. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC) :::There's a difference between the obvious cross-interests and animosity versus "as few as possible." This wording really suggests that Zionists were out to make that number 0, and we know that's not true. If they did want it to be 0 it would be by now presumably. Yet the Arab population of Israel is about 20% or over 2 million people. In 1948, that was like 150,000, so if Israel wants that number to be as low as possible, they're very bad at this aim. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Not to get too FORUMy, but this kind of argument should also consider the pre-Zionism demography. If the Zionist movement reduced the Arab population in what would become Israel from (say) 95% to 20%, the 20% means something different. ] ] 21:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:As in RS, when we say "Zionism" or "Zionists", we mean the mainstream. Brit Shalom and Ihud were outside this mainstream and as benny morris says brit shalom was "ultimately marginal" and had a very limited membership in terms of numbers. Gorny traces the development of political differences, highlighting that before the arab revolt there was more flexibility, although the ideological framework still constrained differences in tactics (after the arab revolt, the zionist factions were more unified politically and tactically). While Gorny traces the development, since that is the main interest of his book, other authors speak more broadly and decisively about Zionist intentions; for example
:::::Not FORUMy, a good point. Bickerton Klausner has diagrams of the land ownership changes. We know that the total population was changing and the relative populations of Arabs and Jews were changing. AFAIK, there were always many more Arabs, and the Jewish population small but increasing enough that it causes unrest. Actually, I was just reading Bregman and it talks about this somewhere in the first 4 or 5 pages. The number was changing because both groups were moving around prior to any of the formal displacement writ large, which was a discontinuous break. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:slater: {{tq|"From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state; if all other means failed, they were to be “transferred” by one means or another, including, if necessary, by force."}}
:::I like DancingOwl's comments. ] ] 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Similarly, Morris describes Zionism as "elementally expansionist" and {{tq|"Zionism was politically expansionist in the sense that from the start, its aim was to turn all of Palestine (and in the movement's pre-1921 maps, the East Bank of the Jordan and the area south of the Litani River as well) into a Jewish state."}} and separately describes the desire for as small an Arab population as possible (I dont seem him doing that in the same context, but he does also say {{tq| "The Zionists were intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs"}} in the same passage.) ] (]) 19:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks ] (]) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:Zionism changed drastically over the last 70 years, so Zionism back in the days of Ahad Ha'am is definitely not the same Zionism of today. Today, there are different flows of Zionism that advocate for different things. while I think the majority want to keep the status quo, some do fall under different values. ] (]) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The table I published earlier shows that the scholarly literature contains a very wide range of perspectives in this question.
::The sources that are cited for this were all written in the 21st century, so presumably they know how Zionism changed over the course of the 20th century. They would say if this aspect of Zionism had meaningfully changed. ] (]) 14:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You are welcome to address my argument on its merits, instead of taking the ad hominem route. ] (]) 21:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:From my reading, what the sources have to say about that, is that political Zionism quickly became mainstream Zionism, and the other forms of Zionism--including those that wanted some other arrangement with Palestinians--were a small minority. In other words, political Zionism is the only kind of Zionism that matters, it's the kind of Zionism that established and governed Israel. ] (]) 14:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed, the Dan Murphy account's contribution is snarky and unhelpful. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:: An interesting read: {{tq|“Karsh has a point,” Morris wrote to The Times Literary Supplement. “My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial.” He also acknowledged my refutation of his misinterpretation of an important speech made by David Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947: " is probably right in rejecting the ‘transfer interpretation’ I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in that speech.”13 He also admitted elsewhere that “Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I ‘stretched’ the evidence to make my point.”14}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Having spent some time reading all of the evidence presented here, I am very convinced that we cannot say in our voice that "Zionists wanted ...as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" especially in the very start of the lead. It is a gross over-generalisation that is at odds with the complex reality. We simply can't say "Xs wanted Y" if a significant non-fringe part of the literature says that's not true and if most of the sources say something like "Some Xs wanted Y" or "In some periods most Xs wanted Y". It is also clear to me that enough editors have the same view such that there is no longer a consensus for including this in the lead, so it should be removed.
:Personally, I think the proposed alternative "with a Jewish majority" works well and is supported by the literature, so I hope we can get consensus for adding that. ] (]) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq2|We simply can't say "Xs wanted Y" if a significant non-fringe part of the literature says that's not true}}
::Which BESTSOURCES say that it's not true?
::{{tq2|I think the proposed alternative "with a Jewish majority" works well}}
::Why would the compromise be weaker than Morris' {{tq|overwhelming Jewish majority}}? ] ] 14:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq2|Which BESTSOURCES say that it's not true?}}
:::Did you have a chance to look at ] I published a few days ago?
:::{{tq2|Why would the compromise be weaker than Morris' overwhelming Jewish majority?}}
:::Morris uses this phrase as description of what he calls "underlying thrust of the ideology", which is substantially different from '''explicit goal/want'''. And if you look at all the BESTSOURCES listed in the table, you can see that most of them use similar descriptions of the goals/wants only with regard to the later part of the pre-1948 period (mostly forties and late thirties). ] (]) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I saw the table. The basic problem is that there is a difference between a source making a weaker claim ("Jewish majority") and a source saying "as many" is not true. For the latter I only see Karsh, and Laqueur, who qualifies it as a pre-WWI position. The Laqueur book was also originally written in 1972. ] ] 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq2|The basic problem is that there is a difference between a source making a weaker claim ("Jewish majority") and a source saying "as many" is not true}}
:::::You are absolutely right about the difference, but explicit refutal is not required in order to show that the current phrasing is not the best reflection of the scholarly consensus.
:::::If the statement in the lead makes a certain - very strong - claim, it needs to be supported by a clear consensus among ALL the BESTSOURCES, not just some of them. And if we have an alternative phrasing that is supported by a larger number of explicit quotes from BESTSOURCES, then the second phrasing is clearly preferable, as far as NPOV is concerned. ] (]) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::The tables above very clearly show that there are BESTSOURCES saying it's not true. There simply isn't a scholarly consensus for "as few Arabs as possible"; there IS a scholarly consensus for "a Jewish majority". I could live with "overwhelming Jewish majority" as closer to the scholarly consensus but it still exceeds it. ] (]) 15:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Penslars Herzl and the Palestinian Arabs: Myth and Counter-Myth, Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, 24:1, 65-77, DOI: 10.1080/13531040500040263 is interesting:
::::"Intriguingly, very few scholars writing from a Zionist perspective have engaged Herzl’s diary entry of 12 June 1895, in which he writes:
::::We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly. The property owners may believe that they are cheating us, selling to us at more than worth. But nothing will be sold back to them.
::::This text, we shall see, is central to anti-Zionist propaganda and even to respectable recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective. But it is not addressed in any of the standard biographies of Herzl5 and in most literature by Israeli scholars on early Zionism’s approach to the Arabs." ] (]) 19:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::ibid, p. 70:
:::::{{tq2|...The association between Herzl and transfer is not limited to polemics but has recently crept into the work of serious historians such as Lockman, who claims that Herzl’s diary entry specifically envisioned “dispossessing and displacing Palestine’s Arab peasantry,”''' although in fact at that time Herzl had not determined the location of the Jewish state'''...<br/><br/>Stewart admits that at the time of the writing of these passages Herzl was unsure where the Jewish state would be established and believes '''he was leaning towards Latin America'''...}}
:::::p. 71-72:
:::::{{tq2|Consider Herzl’s rationale for opposing in May 1903 the proposal, made by the Zionist opposition that favored immediate settlement activity, to purchase lands in the Jezreel Valley made available for sale by the Sursuk family. He displayed not only principled opposition to “infiltration” but also conviction that, according to his first biographer, Adolf Friedmann, '''“Poor Arab farmers must not be driven off their land.”''' Two months previously, after visiting the pyramids near Cairo, Herzl jotted in his diary that “the misery of the fellahin by the road is indescribable. I resolve to think of the fellahin too, once I have the power.” This statement could be easily dismissed as yet another puerile fantasy of power and control, but if one is going to approach the diaries in a fundamentally skeptical fashion, consistency should be maintained regardless of the orientation of the entry in question.}}
:::::p. 74:
:::::{{tq2|By 1901 Herzl had come to believe that in the interests of state building '''some''' native landowners might need to be coaxed to cede their property and move elsewhere. But this charter, drawn up after years of negotiation and politicking both within the Zionist movement and among the crowned heads of Europe, is '''a far cry from the program for total expropriation jotted down in the late spring of 1895, before Herzl had even effectively formulated a Zionist program.'''}} ] (]) 20:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::: goes into it as well, linking it to transfer. ] (]) 12:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::And goes to great lengths criticizing the fact that Morris also omitted critical context:
:::::::{{tq2|Morris’s only ‘evidence’ for this claim is '''a truncated paragraph''' from Herzl’s 12 June 1895 diary entry, which had been a feature of Palestinian propaganda for decades prior to its ‘discovery’ by Morris. But this entry is not enough to support such a claim, given contradictory evidence. There was no trace of such a belief in either Herzl’s famous political treatise ''The Jewish State'' (1896) or his 1902 Zionist novel ''Altneuland'' (Old-New Land). Nor for that matter is there any allusion to ‘transfer’ in Herzl’s public writings, private correspondence, or his speeches and political and diplomatic discussions. '''Morris simply discards the canon of Herzl’s life’s work in favour of a single, isolated quote'''. <br/>But what did Herzl actually write in his diary? Here is the complete text, with the passages omitted by Morris in italics:<br/><br/> <small>''When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us.'' We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly ... <br/>''It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honour, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example ... Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas , we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us''.</small>.<br/><br/>By omitting the opening sentence, Morris hides the fact that Herzl viewed Jewish settlement as beneficial to the indigenous population and that he did not conceive of the new Jewish entity as comprising this country in its entirety. This is further underscored by Herzl’s confinement of the envisaged expropriation of private property to ‘the estates assigned to us’ – another fact omitted by Morris. Any discussion of relocation was clearly limited to the specific lands assigned to the Jews, rather to the entire territory. Had Herzl envisaged the mass expulsion of the population, as claimed by Morris, there would have been no need to discuss its position in the Jewish entity. <br/>'''Most importantly, Herzl’s diary entry makes no mention of either Arabs or Palestine, and for good reason. A careful reading of Herzl’s diary entries for June 1895 reveals that he considered Argentina, rather than Palestine, to be the future site of Jewish resettlement'''...<br/> ‘I am assuming that we shall go to Argentina’, Herzl recorded in his diary on 13 June. ... Indeed, as vividly illustrated by Herzl’s diary entries during the same month, all political and diplomatic activities for the creation of the future Jewish state, including the question of the land and its settlement, were conceived in the Latin American context...<br/> In short, Morris based his arguments on a red herring. He not only misrepresents a quote to distort its original meaning, but he ignores the context, which '''had nothing to do with Palestine or Arabs'''.}} ] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Uh huh, I'm sticking with best sources tho, I can pull up any number of sources if we open it up to Karsh type sourcing (ie polemical). ] (]) 15:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::1. Karsh is a professional historian and "Israel Affairs" is a peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis - so his article definitely qualifies for inclusion in BESTSOURCES.
:::::::::2. Penslar says very similar things in the paper that you yourself quoted. ] (]) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::No objections to using Penslar, he was on the bestsources list we drew up a while back and I am not saying that Karsh cannot be used, Idk how reliable but I would at least start there if I was going to look into the matter. ] (]) 16:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I find this characterization of Karsh rather ironic, in context of the ongoing RFC about the lead: :)
:::::::::::{{tq2|"...focusing on sources which support his argument, whilst failing to engage with the full range of evidence...}} ] (]) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::More importantly, Penslar - whom you quoted as allegedly supporting the interpretation that Herzl wanted "as few Arabs as possible" - is actually disputing this interpretation, if you look at his article in full. ] (]) 16:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Then why mention Karsh at all? ] (]) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::because you mentioned Morris using the same quote ] (]) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::So your idea is that Karsh refutes Morris? ] (]) 16:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::He definitely disputes Morris' interpretation, and I don't think it's our job as editors to try determine whose interpretation is "better" - we just need to take into account the fact the such a controversy among the experts exists. ] (]) 17:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::It depends, on what it is you want to cite Karsh for, I might not be disposed to accept what he says as due, whereas I would have much less difficulty in accepting what Morris says as being due. ] (]) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::could you elaborate why you consider that Morris' thesis is due and Karsh's is not? ] (]) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::That's not what I said either, I said it depends on what you want to cite Karsh for. ] (]) 18:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::{{tq|whom you quoted as allegedly supporting the interpretation that Herzl wanted "as few Arabs as possible"}} That's not what I did, look again. ] (]) 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::ok, perhaps I misunderstood - what was the point you wanted to make with this Penslar's quote? ] (]) 16:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I will repeat a part of what I quoted already {{tq|This text, we shall see, is central to anti-Zionist propaganda and even to respectable recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective. But it is not addressed in any of the standard biographies of Herzl and in most literature by Israeli scholars on early Zionism’s approach to the Arabs."}}
::::::::::::::My interest lies more in this type of statement rather than (some historian) thinks (whatever they think), which is just the view of one historian. ] (]) 16:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::ok, got it - I agree that such meta-statements are important, but first of all, after making this statement, Penslar himself undertakes the task of critically addressing this quote, hence - at least partially - filling the gap he pointed to.
:::::::::::::::And second, here is another meta-statement from his 2023 book, that is highly relevant to this whole discussion:
:::::::::::::::{{tq2|"There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to '''clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project'''—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, '''open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?'''..."}}
:::::::::::::::And, as I said earlier, this is the core point of my criticism of the current phrasing about 'as few Arabs as possible.' It's not that this perspective is not a valid POV held by several important scholars — it certainly is. However, it reflects just one side of the spectrum, rather than a broad scholarly consensus on the essence of the Zionist project. ] (]) 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::And you have determined this broad scholarly consensus how, exactly? ] (]) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::1. Using Penslar's definition of the two side of the spectrum
:::::::::::::::::2. By examining what multiple RS belonging to '''different''' parts of the spectrum have to say about core Zionist goals regarding Jewish-Arab relationships and demographic balance (see table above). ] (]) 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Those sources you brought earlier are only to do with the few Arabs as possible thing not the "essence of the Zionist project". Penslar (again, one historian) says of the essence, return or colonialism, perhaps it is both and how much of each is open to debate, Idk. Then two key questions...inclusive or separatist? And ME integration (the continuation that you omitted). We are not going to get very far with this if all we do is pick out bits of quotes that we like. ] (]) 19:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::It's a good point, here Penslar is talking about "essence" specifically, not about whether it is and has been "inclusive or separatist." ] (]) 19:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::He talks about scholarly debates regarding this "essence", and then elaborates:
::::::::::::::::::::{{tq2|Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land? And second, has Israel been willing to integrate into the Arab Middle East, or is it determined to dwell in isolation, buttressed by alliances and cultural ties with Western powers?"}}
::::::::::::::::::::The first of those question - {{tq|...is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, '''open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?'''}} - is directly related to the discussion we are having about the "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part of the lead. ] (]) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::And the answer is? ] (]) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::Those are the questions being discussed as part of the debate Penslar describes, and naturally each side of the debate gives a different answer to those questions. ] (]) 19:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::The sentence being discussed in RFC describes core Zionist goal as "create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".
:::::::::::::::::::My claim is that at least the "as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part is not a reflection of scholarly consensus, which why the table above focuses only on those two aspects, with particular emphasis on the "as few Arabs" part.
:::::::::::::::::::For the purposes of this discussion, the key observation Penslar makes is a meta-statement about existence of major controversies regarding the "essence of the Zionist project". In particular, he points out two key questions/dimensions, one of which is directly related to the "as few Arabs" claim - {{tq|"... is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land"}} - which is why I quoted this part and not the second one, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
:::::::::::::::::::So it's not a matter of "bits of quotes that we like", but of relevance to the topic being discussed. ] (]) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::I have said what I wanted to say. ] (]) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::I already cited that in an earlier debate about colonialism (see the archives). ] (]) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::This doesn't really tell us much. Plenty of colonial projects said that they would bring benefits to the natives. And the fact that Palestine had not been decided on at this point also does not mean much. The project required demographic homogeneity (Shafir: {{tq|The goal of Zionism was to colonize Palestine and establish homogeneous Jewish settlements while suppressing Palestinian national aspirations.}}) which depended on the removal of the native population, regardless of its location. ] (]) 16:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that the "benefits" is the weaker part of Karsh's critique, and, in any case, as I said above, Penslar makes a much more thorough argument against interpreting this diary entry as evidence of Herzl's support for "as few Arab as possible" narrative. ] (]) 16:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I think Masalha's treatment of this entry captures the main point well (as an early reference to the idea):
::::::::::{{tq2|The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat . An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem”—the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land” and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.}} ] (]) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::yes, this is pretty much how Penslar describes this thesis, as promoted in "anti-Zionist propaganda and ... recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective".
:::::::::::but then the bulk of this article is dedicated to the question of whether this interpretation of a single diary entry is indeed justified, and he provides several examples contesting such interpretation and pointing to evolution of Herzl's views, concluding with (emphasis mine):
:::::::::::{{tq2|By 1901 Herzl had come to believe that in the interests of state building '''some''' native landowners might need to be coaxed to cede their property and move elsewhere. But this charter, drawn up after years of negotiation and politicking both within the Zionist movement and among the crowned heads of Europe, is '''a far cry from the program for total expropriation jotted down in the late spring of 1895, before Herzl had even effectively formulated a Zionist program'''.}} ] (]) 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::That can be read as saying that his thought (albeit less forceful) continued through 1901? ] (]) 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think that would be inaccurate, because the difference between "some" and "all" (or even "most") is a categorical one, it's not just a difference of degree. ] (]) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Putting it all together, Penslar acknowledges that most scholarly references to the diary entry are part of a discussion of the origins of "transfer" in Zionist thought. My understanding is that he doesn't think much weight should be given to that entry. So it's his assessment against most scholarly references. ] (]) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::On this particular question - it is, indeed, his (and Karsh's) assessment against proponents of the "as few Arabs as possible" narrative.
:::::::::::::But if we look at the discussion about this narrative as a whole, and not only the question of importance (or lack of) of this particular diary entry - there is a multitude of scholarly voices contesting this narrative (again, see the table above) ] (]) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::A private diary from the 1890s definitely isn't the place where mainstream Zionist positions were publicly articulated for the 1900s to 1940s period. Again, it's clear there is no scholarly consensus for "as few Arabs as possible" being the broad Zionist position, particularly in this period, so we just need to agree a form of wording to replace it, e.g. "with a Jewish majority". ] (]) 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't agree (lots of sources reference it) and it will need a new RFC for that once the current one is dealt with. ] (]) 15:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Lots of sources reference it doesn’t mean it’s taken as a good gauge of mainstream Zionist opinion for all subsequent decades. ] (]) 04:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I agree with Bob, but good look finding a consensus for an alternative text, or even a consensus to make any change. Despite I think a good argument being made above, we appear to still not be winning over the hearts and minds on this. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Imo, we need to move away from the list (of those historians who agree with me) mentality and look for more meta type discussions, after all this is primarily a history article so those should exist. I realise the historiography is fraught and polarized so then we should reflect that but we should do it properly, at least to the extent possible. ] (]) 11:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree that meta-level discussions would be extremely valuable, but apart from and , mentioned above, I haven't encountered any other attempts to provide a balanced bird-eye view of the topic. ] (]) 15:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The question is bound up with the idea of transfer. If we take The British Mandate in Palestine A Centenary Volume, 1920–2020 Ed by Michael J Cohen then
::::::::::There is a contribution by Hillel Cohen, 9. Zionism as a blessing to the Arabs: History of an argument presented as "in contrast to the Zionist approach that focused on the Jewish people only, and believed that it was better to evacuate (“transfer”) the Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a homogenous Jewish state. Whereas the idea of transferring the Arabs has been discussed at length in the literature by supporters and opponents, 1", where the "1" is footnoted to these four:
::::::::::Israel Shahak, A history of the concept of ‘transfer’ in Zionism, Journal of Palestine Studies, 18/3, 1989, pp. 22–37;
::::::::::Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians:The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948, Washington DC: Institute for Palestinian Studies, 1992;
::::::::::Chaim Simons, A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895–1947, Gengis Khan Publishers, Internet edition 2004;
::::::::::Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 39–64
::::::::::Well we have Masalha and Morris in our Transfer section of the article (along with Gorny, Finkelstein, Ben Ami and Flapan) but I don't see the other two, nor in Dancing Owl list either, perhaps there is a reason for that. So there is part confirmation for our sourcing and a path to perhaps seek out more.
::::::::::We should try to see if there are more such reference which pick out suitable sourcing on the issue of transfer in order to confirm that our sourcing constitutes a representative sampling. ] (]) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::So far I think only a single source (Karsh) denies the desirability of a "as few Arabs as possible" and we have a whole list saying that mainstream Zionism did indeed want "as few Arabs as possible." And Penslar says that there is a debate about the '''essence''' of Zionism: is it "inclusive or separatist?" While some authors cited do describe "as few Arabs as possible" as a fundamental, or essential aspect of the Zionist "ethos" (Ben-Ami's word), our statement is about the goals of Zionism, not necessarily about it's '''essence'''. ] (]) 18:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::For some reason, you keep ignoring what Penslar says immediately after "inclusive or separatist":<br/>{{tq2|"open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?}}."determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land" is exactly the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the spectrum, and it's the only one that is being reflected in the lead currently, whereas the "open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine" view is being completely ignored. ] (]) 07:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I agree, and it's splitting hairs to claim the ''essence'' of Zionism is completely a different animal from the ''ethos'' of Zionism. Penslar clearly regards this as an issue and not a settled question. I also don't think Penslar and Karsh are standing alone. Well, Penslar's more in the middle, and Karsh on the conservative side. I'll offer some more quotes from in late 1930s: {{tq|Evidently there was no way to divide Palestine without leaving a substantial Arab minority within Jewish borders...}} p.207, and late 40s {{tq|summer of 1947, the Zionists had been explicit and emphatic in their assurances that the Arab minority of a projected Jewish state would enjoy full civil, national, and cultural rights}} p. 382, and from about Jabotinsky (p.530) {{tq|Revisionism recognised that there would be a substantial Arab minority in Palestine even after Jews became the majority.}} Or , (p.138) {{tq|Demographic issues worried Zionist leaders greatly after the UN partition plan left the Jewish state with an Arab minority of 400,000 – nearly 40 per cent of its population. The 1948 war mitigated those worries only somewhat. Three-quarters of the Arabs in question fled or were chased from areas designated for the Jewish state; several hundred thousand Arab residents of the additional regions Israel added in the course of repelling the invading armies became refugees as well. Nevertheless, 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the armistice, and international pressure for repatriating the refugees was considerable. The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested that partition be accompanied by a negotiated ‘exchange of populations’....Still, the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.}}... , p.66: {{tq|challenge to Zionism in the new state was resolved by a formal recognition of the equal rights of the Arab minority in Israel in the Declaration of Independence, combined with the imposition of military rule over Arabs in Israel}}... p.462, speaking of recent times {{tq|The demographic growth of the Arab minority in Israel, which in the year 2000 numbered about 900,000, heightens its self-confidence. Paradoxically this growing self-confidence is evidence that Israeli Arabs are internalizing the Israeli democratic ethos, which enables them to use their numbers to achieve rights and equality. ... In addition government allocations to the Arab sector for education, development, and industrial projects are far lower than those for the Jewish sector. Discrimination is slowly but surely diminishing, and among Jews there is growing recognition of the need to prevent discrimination in the future. But the prospect of civil equality peace, war, and indecision in the future does not satisfy the Arab public, and a prominent sector of its elites demands a basic change in the identity of the state as a condition for them to accept it. The definition opposite to a "Jewish and democratic state" is, as suggested earlier, ‘‘a state of all its citizens’’—that is, a state that is neutral with respect to nationality and ethnicity, whose citizenship will be solely secular-Israeli. Within the framework of such a citizenship, the entire population would be subject to a single standard in the immigration laws. In fact this would be "a state of all its nationalities," since the Arabs demand recognition as a national group, partnership in decisions pertaining to them, regional autonomy, and equal status for the Arabic language. As an interim stage, the Arabs of Israel seek recognition as a minority with intrinsic minority rights, such as recognition of their organization as a national organization, their leaders’ right to represent them on the national stage, and cultural and educational autonomy. ...The Israeli Arabs see themselves as citizens of the state, and as such eligible for all the rights that status gives. But they do not recognize the Jewish state per se as their state, as representing them too. ...the Israeli Arabs bitterly oppose suggestions regarding repartition of the country, including transfer of Arab-populated areas on the Israeli side of the Green Line to the PA in return for the West Bank settlements; they accuse the Israelis of racism. The political, economic, and social instability of Palestinian society compared with Israeli democracy (despite all its shortcomings)...}} Also checkout the chapter "Zionist Thinkers and the “Arab Question" of about Zionism not being a monolith: {{tq|The alternative approach to the Arab question was what Gorny calls the “altruistic-integrationist” one. Here, the realization of Zionism is predicated upon the Jewish capacity to integrate into the Orient. Yitzhak Epstein (1863–1943) is regarded as a major proponent of this position. In 1907, he published an essay entitled “The Hidden Question,” in which he addressed what he saw as the crucial problem of Zionism, namely whether it was able or willing to integrate into the region. He criticized the prevalent Zionist approach of blocking out the Arab question and advocated instead for its active integration into Zionism. Epstein believed this to be the right course for the Zionist objective, from the moral as well as the realpolitik point of view. A favorable reception of the Jews by the Palestinians would benefit both. It would mean progress for the latter while the Jews would be given a homeland. He saw the shared Semitic origins of both peoples as a basis for such cooperation and actually considered it counterpro- ductive to Zionist goals that the new immigrants to Palestine take a colonialist or repressive stance. Furthermore, Epstein didn’t think that the Arab nationalism of the early twentieth century was necessarily an adversary of Jewish nationalism. Rather, he endorsed a policy geared towards balance and compromise with the objective of advancing the national development of the Arabs, which would be in the interests of Zionism as well}}. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 08:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Im not distinguishing between ethos and essence. I'm saying that for example Ben-Ami characterizes the desire for minimum arabs to be part of the essence of zionism. Other authors describe Zionism as wanting as few arabs as possible, but do not describe that as part of the essence of Zionism. ] (]) 08:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::But some Zionists thought that the Arab minority would remain and integrate. For example, Amar-Dahl: {{tq|In the utopian novel The Old New Land (Altneuland, 1902), in which Herzl sketched his ideas of the new Jewish society in Eretz Israel, the author does ded-icate several pages to the Arabs who are already living in that region. But the main viewing directionof these passages remains fixated on the firm belief in the positive effects that a Jewish settlement would have on the development of the country, and thus presents a fixed conception that the Jewish presence would elevate the living standard of the Arab population. As such, Herzl thought that they would be grateful to Zionism}} ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 08:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Of course you can pick out statements and writings from zionist leadership along these lines. But here we are talking about the movement as a whole. At times when the movement was struggling or its success less clear, it was more open to compromise; that doesn't mean that the movement '''wanted''' to compromise. For example, recall that it was the arguments put forward against transfer were primarily on the basis of its practicality; Shapira: {{tq|The mainstream viewed it as a good thing that one could, if need be, do without.}} I'm not saying that Shapira is the ultimate authority on this issue, what I'm saying is that the movement wanted one thing but felt it had to settle for another.
::::::::::::::::So the desirability of transfer was certainly there. And we have a wide range of scholars who state "as few arabs" explicitly when describing zionism as a whole: off the top of my head, Shlaim, Slater, Ben-Ami, Masalha. The presence of Ben-Ami in this list is a strong indicator that this is in fact a mainstream view. ] (]) 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Since this whole dispute concerns the question of '''if and when''' population transfer was considered by the Zionist mainstream to be one of Zionism's core goals, the relevant meta-level discussion would be one that explores different views on this "if and when" question in a neutral and balanced way.
:::::::::::An article starting with unqualified assertion that Zionist approach was "focused on the Jewish people only, and believed that it was better to evacuate (“transfer”) the Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a homogenous Jewish state." is nowhere near that and is just another example of "the list (of those historians who agree with me) mentality" I thought we were trying to avoid. ] (]) 07:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::As a sidenote, I find the following passage from the "Editor's introduction" to the volume you quoted from quite illuminating:
:::::::::::{{tq2|The second ‘absentee’ is Ilan Pappé, the Israeli expat who has become something of a popular cult figure, arguably the chief advocate of the Palestinian Arab cause on European University campuses. '''His absence here is due to his having crossed the clear line between academic integrity and propaganda'''. Fifteen years ago, he wrote:<br> ''My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and preposterous.''}}
:::::::::::This could be relevant in context of our previous discussion about BESTSOURCES, given the fact that Pappe is being quoted above both directly and indirectly (via Rouhana&Sabbagh-Khoury 2014, p. 6, and Lentin 2010, p. 7). ] (]) 08:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::If you want to discuss bestsources again, best open a new section. Getting back to the transfer issue, we have Morris and Masalha sort of confirmed as being good sources on this subject and can we please find other sources that cite them and/or anyone else for this topic, individual quotes from individual historians are not that useful, there are hundreds of them. We need a list and then we can see what that looks like when we run it past what we think are our best sources. ] (]) 10:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


:It is alarming that editors have so-far succeeded in pushing edits that paint with a brush that portrays the most extreme extensions of Zionism as integral to it. keep In mind: people like Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, and Elijah Cummings identified with Zionism, which does not pare with how Zionism is now being portrayed in this article. 10:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
== Zionist symbols and modernizing of Jews ==
::Idk what this is supposed to be about but it is unsourced personal opinion afaics and has nothing to do with the subject under discussion here.] (]) 10:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)


If I just pick up raw data from semanticscholar:
"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."


Masalha - h-index 9, 42 publications, 335 citations, 19 influential
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"


Morris - 15/87/1449/45
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.


Those two are also cited by Zureik 19/102/1304/37
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.


(cf Karsh 3/10/24/2 Penslar 10/86/458/11) ] (]) 10:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
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.


Slater (12/91/448/13) Mythologies without End pp 46-51 cites:
I suggest we revert this removal. ] (]) 16:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Morris, "A New Exodus for the Middle East?" This is a summary of the voluminous archival evidence developed by Morris in a number of his major works, including Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited and Righteous Victims. Other major works on transfer include Shlaim, Israel and Palestine, especially 54–61; Shahak, "A History of the Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionism"; Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; and Flapan, Birth, especially 103–6. See also the frank appraisal of Shlomo Ben-Ami, a Labor Party activist and minister of Internal Security and then foreign minister of Israel, who wrote, "The idea of population transfers had a long and solid pedigree in Zionist thought” (Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"). A number of Palestinian writers have discussed the concept of transfer in Zionist thought—and action. The most important is Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians.

Another mention for Shahak there. ] (]) 11:18, 22 December 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, <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Yadgar |first=Yaacov |last2=Hadad |first2=Noam |date=2023-05-04 |title=A post-secular interpretation of religious nationalism: the case of Religious-Zionism |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2021.1957297 |journal=Journal of Political Ideologies |language=en |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=238–255 |doi=10.1080/13569317.2021.1957297 |issn=1356-9317}}</ref>{{tq|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? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::From section "Zionism, Jewish Religion, and Secularism": {{tq|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, {{tq|"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." ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|"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. ] (]) 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 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." ] (]) 18:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I still object to the framing and its inclusion in the lead for the reasons I already stated. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
<!--
-->
{{reflist-talk}} {{reflist-talk}}


== Page needed == == Back to Dec 4 version ==

I object to {{u|Qualiesin}}'s Dec 4 edit at ]. This single edit made changes to almost every section of this article, and in total, added 4,206 bytes, but had the inaccurate edit summary {{tqq|added links, templates, citations, cleanup}}.

This edit made significant POV changes (e.g., changing "Palestinian" to "Arab", changing "colonization" to "settlement"), and it removed some sourced information and replaced with citation tags. It also made some helpful changes, e.g., fixing typos, but there is no way to revert the bad changes and keep the good ones without going through the entire damn article line by line. Further, Qualiesin, aside from the inaccurate edit summary, offered no explanation of these changes either before or after making them, for a week now, until ], where they admitted that the intent of their edit was to change the article's POV. Since that edit, most of what I've seen on this article consists of cleaning up that edit, or edit warring over changes. To me, this is an unacceptable way to collaborate on an article. This is ] editing, and it's disruptive.

If Qualiesin want's to make changes to the whole page, they should do it in pieces, maybe section by section or paragraph by paragraph, so that objected-to changes can be reverted without reverting the whole thing. Edit summaries must be accurate and should be descriptive.

I understand I've likely wiped out some good-faith changes that happened between Dec 4 and today. I apologize for that, and will be happy to investigate the history and restore good edits, just let me know which ones I should be looking at, or feel free to just restore them if anyone prefers. (I'm not sure which are changes to Qualiesin's version, and which are changes to unrelated content, but I'm happy to look further if someone wants.)

I almost never wipe out dates worth of changes with a revert to lgv like this, but I thought this situation warranted that extreme measure. Hope y'all agree. ] (]) 17:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:Would you mind reviewing the section "remained forever elusive" as you've complicated the situation with those changes (immediatley above). Or please just restore the edits that aren't controversial to you. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, looking now. ] (]) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::OK, I looked, with an eye to restoring the Dec 11 (most-recent before my revert) version of the "Race and genetics" and no. One of the very POV changes that Qualiesin made in that Dec 4 edit was to add the line "it is now proven that all Jewish ethnic groups share ancestral genetic ties". That was removed ], and ], violating the consensus required restriction on this page. I object to Qualiesin's changes to that section, and to your re-reinstatement of those changes. Per the CR restriction, obtain consensus before reinstating. ] (]) 17:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I didn't realize that line was only added by Qualiesin on Dec 4, but you undid quite a few other changes. Other than that line, I think the other changes should be looked at. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I see you added some stuff that Stephen removed, and Stephen added some stuff that you removed while reinstating what you added. So under CR, both of those additions stay out until there is consensus. Unless I missed something in those edits? ] (]) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think maybe you should look at your own diff versus the immediately prior revision and consider restoring edits you ''don't'' consider controversial regardless of their author. Many people made edits in the last week, and your diff shows things like removing page numbers. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK, I went through ] and restored the changes I don't object to. Lmk if I missed anything, or if anyone has any questions about what my objection was to a particular change. ] (]) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, that looks a bit better. I can assume that anything you didn't restore was an objection.
:::::::You missed two typos: {{tq|thetime for moral scruples or guilt feelings towards the dispossessed Arab population. This is how a Brit-Shalom Ihud, non-Zionist member of theJewish Agency}}, and you left in the anti-semitism with dash, which is contrary to MOS, you also changed the seealso of ] which has been moved. Could you self-revert those reverts?
:::::::and two more typos: {{tq| m ilitary force or diplomacy... The Talmud (BT Ketubot, 111a) relates the three oaths sworn on the eve of the dispersal of what remained of the people of Israel to the fourcorners}} and is there any specific objection to the attribution of El Haj and McGonigle in that section? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:"there is no way to revert the bad changes and keep the good ones without going through the entire damn article line by line"
:Funny, you seem to be telling me to do exactly that. Why is it imperative that I do that but you don't have to?
:"If Qualiesin want's to make changes to the whole page, they should do it in pieces, maybe section by section or paragraph by paragraph"
:] (]) 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::Because "added links, templates, citations, cleanup" attached to a raft of significant changes suggests something. ] (]) 17:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:*Because per ], the person making new additions to a page must get consensus for them; if there are substantial objections, and the issue is that it's a massive edit with some good parts and some bad parts, this ultimately does shift the burden of doing the legwork to separate the two onto the person proposing a massive change, at least provided people can articulate their objections. Massive sweeping changes on controversial articles are harder to get consensus for, that's just how it is; breaking them down makes it easier. --] (]) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::@], because you ''caused that work to be necessary''.
::It looks like you are very new to ]s. You may have made those changes thinking this article was like most others you end up at: if you see a change that needs to be made, you go right ahead and make that change. If anyone objects, they'll undo it and you'll discuss. It's different at contentious topics in general, and this article in particular is being extremely heavily edited right now. That meant that by the time people even realized you'd made those edits and then waited while you delayed coming in here to discuss, there'd been dozens of intervening edits. When you make a mess, you really should be willing to clean it up.
::I'd suggest that if you want to work at this article, you read this entire talk page first. It's being heavily discussed right now, for the same reason that likely brought you here in the first place. In general reading the talk page first is a good idea when editing any contentious topic. ] (]) 14:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

== Revert of text still being discussed at RfC ==

I reverted some edits made yesterday and early today (initially I didn't go far back enough so had to self-revert and revert again). Some of these edits changed the text under discussion in the RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zionism#RFC_about_a_recently_added_claim_about_Zionism

Other edits added in lots of new material which hadn't been discussed. I have no opinion on the text itself, as I'd need to check the sources, etc, but it looked like it would be considered controversial (or at least not uncontroversial). If there is agreement that I have made a mistake in this, someone ping me and I will self-revert (again) if necessary ] (]) 10:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== KronosAlight additions ==

{{To|KronosAlight}}<br/>
(1) When did Herzl " Jewish assimilation as a failed attempt to avoid their inevitable genocide"?<br/>
(2) How did the US ] "limit Jewish migration to Palestine"?<br/>
(3) How many Jews emigrated to Palestine during WWII compared to the quota set by the White Paper?<br/>
I see your edits have been reverted. Now check the notice at the top of this page about obtaining confirmative consensus before repeating them. {{u|Pyramids09}}, that means you too. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:These were the edits I mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zionism#c-Lewisguile-20241215100100-Revert_of_text_still_being_discussed_at_RfC I realised they were quite extensive and covered the text currently under RfC. ] (]) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:1) Theodor Herzl, Letters and Journals (Jerusalem: Mizpa, 1928), p. 129., among many other places in his writings and publications.
:2) Clearly a typo. It limited Jewish immigration to the US, leaving Jews with few options to escape the intensifying anti-Jewish violence across Europe. This Quota Act was in effect during the Holocaust.
:3) Interesting question, you should look it up and find an answer. ] (]) 11:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:: 1) I know that citation even with the same punctuation. It refers to a speech that Herzl was planning to deliver to Lord Rothschild asking for a billion francs. Full text in Herzl's diary entry for June 13, 1895. It doesn't mention assimilation. Herzl asserted that the Rothschilds had such vast wealth ("Ihr Kredit ist enorm, monströs. Ihr Kredit betrügt viele Milliarden.") that they would soon have to liquidate their assets and what better beneficiary than Zionism? It was a typical Herzl fantasy that as usual didn't happen. Herzl was concerned about the dangers of growing antisemitism, including violence, but the claim that he foresaw the Holocaust is pure mythology. Incidentally, in this speech he expresses preference for Argentina over Palestine.
:: 3) I know the answer already, but it was you who wrote something relying on it in the article so I wondered what your source was. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

== El-Haj 2 ==

@] pointed out to me on my talk page that the quote to El Haj isn't even an accurate summation of her views. I agree. It should be revised. El Haj "{{tq|isn't saying that there will never be proof of shared genetics among Jews. Instead, she points out that, at the time, even when the science wasn't there yet to prove it, it was treated as a guaranteed truth}}" (quoting BB) and this is a much more nuanced claim than the present article text. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:Do you have a citation to El Haj rather than another editor? Or maybe some secondary and tertiary sources who reflect on what El Haj means? That would be helpful for reaching speedy consensus on what to replace the quote with. ] (]) 09:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::The full quote can be read on and I agree that this is about something in history, not current. She talks about the Ostrer stuff on . It points out the research was widely acceptd and also says that Zoosman-Diskin was dismissed or widely ignored. This has only accelerated since then. Roughly what I'd want to do is add something from or one of the other review or summaries (like Balter 2010, even though old) and attribute whatever critical El Haj quote. We could also use who summarizes both, or something like one of these ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's not just El-Haj, you have Weitzmann, as well, apart from Falk and McGonigle, all saying much the same sort of thing, that genetics is not the be all and end all. So bashing El-Haj, which seems to be a popular sport, has it's limits. ] (]) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::First of all, that doesn't address that the current material in the article isn't even an accurate summary of El-Haj. Regarding the other sources,
::::*it's true that McGonigle is also critical of "genomic citizenship" and "biologization of Jewish culture and historical narrative, but he doesn't deny that there are markers of Jewish ethnicity in DNA. In fact he's critical of the use of DNA tests to determine Jewishness but doesn't deny that they can. He's concerned more with the politics, not in claiming that genetic evidence of Jewishness is "elusive."
::::*As I mentioned earlier, Falk is outdated. He also doesn't say what you are claiming he says. Falk also admits that there is a Middle Eastern component to Jewish ancestry: {{tq|findings support the hypothesis that posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries}}
::::*Weitzman also doesn't support your argument. Weitzman 2017 on p. 275: {{tq|I am not a geneticist and cannot claim any expertise...}} p. 308: {{tq|El-Haj has convinced many readers that modern Jewish genetics research is a twenty-first-century race science...To accept the critique of genetics as a revived form of race science, there are a lot of things one has to downplay or ignore...}} p.314 {{tq|I have read many reviews of Abu El-Haj's work, but scarcely any have been written by geneticists themselves, perhaps a sign that they do not take her argument seriously or are not even aware of it}}
::::*Yarudumian also references the studies, and has a nuanced critique that doesn't support what you claim, writing: {{talkquote|Population genetics research into this question has done much to clarify the related- ness of Jewish individuals and groups, but also fostered its own series of conflicts where geography and chronology are concerned. Of the numerous and varied studies published since the 1950s, some number of researchers have interpreted the genetic data as showing that Jewish people constitute a mostly homogeneous community that emerged from Hebrew-speaking tribes of the Levant, with or without limited European and North African admixture (Behar et al. 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2010; Hammer et al. 2000, 2009; Livshits et al. 1991; Ostrer and Skorecki 2013; Rootsi et al. 2013; Shen et al. 2004; Skorecki et al. 1997). Other researchers are more circumspect in their conclusions concerning a specific geographic origin or sim- ply have not been directly concerned with the issue, focusing instead on genetic ad- mixture between Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern men (Hammer et al. 2000), within Ashkenazi Jews (e.g., Behar et al. 2004a; Carmi 2014; Listman et al. 2010; Need et al. 2009), and between Jewish populations (Behar et al. 2010; Bray et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010). Certain genome-wide stud- ies have yielded a view of Jewish populations as being tightly clustered and reasonably distinct from neighboring populations (Behar et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012), while very recent research into admixture history (Xue et al. 2017) has further re- vealed the complexity of Jewish (in this case, Ashkenazi) population history. Various other studies offer further valuable insights into the genetic composition of contempo- rary Jewish communities (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2003, 2004b, 2006, 2013; Feder et al. 2007; Haber et al. 2013; Hammer et al. 2000, 2009; Karlin et al. 1979; Kopelman et al. 2009; Livshits et al. 1991; Muhsam 1964; Nebel et al. 2001, 2005; Olshen et al. 2008; Ostrer and Skorecki 2013; Seldin et al. 2006; Shen et al. 2004; Thomas et al. 1998)..these findings suggest a common ancestry for Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews, the analysis also revealed support for an Italian source in the autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis, thus suggesting a southern European origin.....The most compelling evidence to date of a mosaic ancestry for contemporary Jews comes from the work of Xue et al. (2017). Their admixture analysis suggested a 70% European origin (and within this, 55% Southern Europe, 10% Eastern Europe, 5% Western Europe) and a 30% “Levantine” component in Jewish populations.}} These sources don't support the language that Jewish DNA evidence is "forever elusive." In fact, Yarudumian supports the idea of Middle Eastern heritage and has a nuanced take on whether Jewish ancestry is a mosaic versus more homogeneous, but doesn't in any way support the current claim of "elusiveness."
::::''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 20:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have some different quotes. ] (]) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::But surely you admit that Weitzman is not in El-Haj's camp, he threw a bit of shade at her currency even though he's sympathetic to some of what she says, but it can't be read as a full-scale endorsement. Yardumian doesn't mention El-Haj at all, unless I missed it, and he does like Xue. Yardumian is skeptical and critical, and I'd be happy to use him for some things. But he also isn't a geneticist nor is Schurr his co-author. Both are anthropologists. Anyway, I know there are definitely quotes in there that are skeptical, and that could be part of balancing the POVs and writing a balanced view of what disagreements there are in this field. But again, this is anthropologists adding nuance to a genetic field. And as mentioned, Yardumian likes Xue and Ostrer likes Xue, so what's the problem with Xue? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As I said, I'm not specifically referring to El-Haj bashing, just the general conclusions, whether by geneticists or not. So, for example, Weitzman
:::::::"The Jewish Genetic Narrative - The same may well be true of what genetics can tell us about the origin of the Jews. Genetic history is a developing field, and like most science, a self-correcting one, and perhaps someday, scientists will be able to resolve the ambiguities we have noted here. But even then, geneticists will always need to rely on non-genetic evidence to make any historical sense of the data—written texts, oral traditions, and interviews with people about where their ancestors come from. It is impossible to turn the testimony of DNA into a definitive account of the past. The process of assemblage, dot-connecting, and interpretation means there will also always be some degree of imagination involved in the construction of genetic history, and choices to make about which story to believe." ] (]) 09:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I don't really see how that Weizman supports El-Haj except vaguely, I don't have any particular objection to including that though. It doesn't directly address anything that was at issue in my view. At any rate, since I added some material to ], , per your suggestion/request, can we balance it on this page now? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Of those three additions, two of them are from 2010 supporting Ostrer/Behar even before the 2013 work. And the third one is just Ostrer confirming himself.
:::::::::Properly, all we should be doing is picking up the lead of the Racial conceptions article as a summary for here. ] (]) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Would you care to proffer a version, then? Would it replace or amend the current text sourced to El-Haj? Why don't you go first. I'm not wedded to the specific text. If we agree that the present text is imbalanced, that'd be progress. Roughly, the point is that Zionists wanted genetic confirmation of their traditional history, and in the 1930s a lot of science was tinged with problematic ideas. Today, though, we know that ethnicity is a more flexible concept than "race." There's no biological explanation of "white," but there are genetic markers that can tell me someone is Cajun. Right? Or wrong? Geneticists like Ostrer and Xue balance and add context to the view expressed by El-Haj currently ("biological self-definition"..."forever elusive" which is about history, not present-day) which ignores modern developments suitable for the general overview on Zionism. Modern research suggests a shared Jewish ancestry, though of course Jewish ethnicity is more than just that.... This counters Abu El-Haj's claim of a purely ideological pursuit; she is an anthropologist, so her expertise on the topic is bounded. Using her quote alone and unattributed may give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. She is a controversial voice in the field who has met with considerable controversy and criticism, such as her interpretation of archeology as well. I can offer more critical sources, but you said you wanted to move on from that. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Maybe it seems not to you but to me the Weitzmann para and the El-Haj elusive thing are the same thing using different words but leaving that aside, is there any reason that we cannot just use the lead of ] for the section here, which, given the earlier kerfuffle over the title, should probably just be renamed as I suggested at ] to Racial conceptions of Jewish identity? {{re|Fiveby}}? ] (]) 12:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== "of no moral or historical significance" ==
Can someone explain to me when a page is needed on a citation? I thought it would only be required on controversial or surprising claims and my understanding from WP policy is that we dont typically need page numbers. I'm fine to add page numbers on the locations where the pn template was added, but I'm trying to understand what the reasoning is behind adding so many of these tags. ] (]) 16:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


This quote is in para 2 of the "Beliefs" section. Is it possible to say who we are quoting. I can't see if it's from an author of one of the two secondary sources cited, or if it's a quote from an actual historical Zionist. ] (]) 15:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Customary to give page numbers, afaik, I usually do. ] (]) 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's best practice, ], and, precisely because there is so much bad or sloppy editing in the IP area, the principle should always be that of meticulousness. That is why I use the SFN template so often, because it is the neatest way to provide also the pagination so every addition can be verified. Sometimes, that can't be done if say google books doesn't give you the page, but that is overcome by providing a link to that page or a page range close to it. Without the page no., one is left to go to a library and read the whole book cited to track down the specific passage in question. It is not only a courtesy to readers, but an affirmation by serious editors of their commitment to rigour. ] (]) 16:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::got it, that's fair, thanks everyone. It might take me a couple days to get around to adding them. ] (]) 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::That was my project for the existing missing page #'s. Your other work seems more important. And BTW <nowiki>sfn</nowiki> will not work inside another <nowiki><ref></nowiki> such as multiref or other list, has to be <nowiki>{{harvnb}}</nowiki>. ](]) 18:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Have I been throwing around sfn inside ref? My mistake, I'll try to use harvnb in those cases ] (]) 18:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Didn't notice if you did, just noticed the footnotes disappeared when i tried to use sfn. But don't worry about cleaning things up, just ping when done. ](]) 19:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Consider that others are trying to verify and follow the work. It's only common courtesy to provide page numbers. If it's taking several days to add them for you, it'll be even longer for people less familiar with the quoted portions to verify. Please just add page numbers or chapter locations for everything that isn't a short journal article. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 18:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Chapter locations are too much of a page spread to be useful, esp. in the form pp23.47, (esp.)p.45. ] (]) 19:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The difficulty is that I usually only have access to the epub versions which dont have page numbers. ] (]) 19:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Mark <s>"edition=epub"</s> "type=epub" (])? Can look in a pdf or print later if someone has access. ](]) 19:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That could work, or, just find the text, and search it in the Google Books or TWL version to find what page it's on. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


:A quick find search in both of those sources doesn't produce that phrase. {{Re|DMH223344}} added it . ] (]) 15:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== Emphasis on "colonization" in first sentence ==
:It's from Gorny p 251:
:{{tq2|the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance.}}
:We could say something like:
:{{tq2|The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that Jews had a historical right to the land which outweighed the rights of the Arabs. According to Israeli historian of Zionist ideology Yosef Gorny, in the Zionist perspective, the Arab right to Palestine was "of no moral or historical significance."}} ] (]) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::Or just use the last sentence of the wording you suggested. ] (]) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks everyone. Agree with Lewisguile. ] (]) 14:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Uganda/territorialism and statehood in lead ==
Describing Zionism as "colonization" in the first sentence is editorializing and not neutral. The term carries a strong negative connotation and does not fully capture the motivations behind the Zionist movement, particularly its emphasis on the return to an ancestral homeland in response to anti-Semitism and persecution in Europe. While the article should acknowledge the perspectives of critics who view Zionism through a colonial lens, the current wording risks appearing overly biased. I would like to suggest revising the language to reflect the diversity of views on Zionism and ensure a more balanced presentation. ] (]) 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


Historically, as we make very clear in the body, initially Zionism focused on a Jewish national home which only later fully cohered on a location in Palestine (definitively from 1905) and only much later still cohered in the demand for statehood (formally adopted only in 1942, although probably a majority position for a little while before then). This important point doesn't currently register in the lead, and I think it needs to. I will probably shortly make an attempt at this, but wanted to raise it here, in case my view isn't a consensus one. ] (]) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:This and other matters are already under discussion above (with the benefit of sources, rather than opinion). ] (]) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:: Yes, thanks. For the benefit of anyone else who may consider to comment, it's in section ]. ] (]) 19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)


:That's two things (or three if we count temporality as a separate thing), the location (I agree with 1905) and desire for a state. The latter must date from Herzl, no? As I said before this Jewish national home idea does not seem to me what Zionists wanted, except in the sense that's what the British (said they) wanted to hear, rather than "state". ] (]) 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== FAQ? ==
::Yes, two/three things. Herzl did imagine a Jewish state, but the movement as a whole was concerned with settlement before statehood and many (e.g. Ahad Ha'am) were not at all in favour of a state. I think that's clear from the body, but not reflected in the lead, where I think it would merit just one max two sentence. ] (]) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's there already in the first sentence: {{tq|Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history.}} I'm not sure devoting even more space to it is ] when it's already so unwieldy. At best, you could add a footnote after "homeland for the Jewish people" or "Jewish state" to explain it evolved over time? But the lede isn't supposed to convey every nuance, and this is a largely academic point for most readers, since there ''is'' a Jewish state. ] (]) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::This first sentence precisely ''doesn't'' allow for the nuance I'm arguing we need later in the lead. It's proper the first sentence is simple and generalising, but I think that later in the lead we need to say that (a) initially it didn't need to be Palestine (Argentina and "Uganda" were considered) and (b) initially it was not always conceived as a state. ] (]) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::The lede doesn't need that level of nuance. (a) and (b) belong in the body. ] (]) 20:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::The first sentence doesn't need that level of nuance, but the lead does, as it's not minor. (a) and (b) get significant space in the body now, as they are significant points in Zionist history, so should be briefly reflected in the lead. ] (]) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:A closely related topic that I was thinking about lately is the evolution of the "national home" idea throughout the pre-1948 period, before a consensus about demand for statehood was reached, that is not reflected in the article at all. There have been been some major controversies within Zionist movement regarding different possibilities - ranging from limited autonomy to various federal models - but currently those are not mentioned in the article, even in passing.
:This maybe too much details to be mentioned in the lead, but it should definitely be discussed in the body. ] (]) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


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? ] (]) 20:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:By 'colonization' the article lead is following our best sources, the article body, and most ]. 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. ](]) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:We need a FAQ on how to respond to , taking ur name in vain, {{Re|DMH223344}}. Never mind, its the JP, what would you expect? ] (]) 10:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Accurate article to be fair. ] (]) 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, ]. 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 Misplaced Pages article.
:::Then there's the part where they say: "On July 3, the first paragraph read "... ..." As of Monday, the first line reads, "... "..." That's also wrong. On July 3, ]. It was only taken out on July 3 in ] by a now-blocked ], 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: {{tqq|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. ] (]) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::And another thing: JPost doesn't report that ] (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 ] (1992) called Zionism "colonial" ''thirty years ago''. They don't report that ] (2007), who disputes that it's "colonialism," nevertheless calls it "colonization." They don't report that Zionists created institutions with names like "]" and "]". Because none of that would fit their narrative that these claims are only made by Palestinians and anti-Zionists. ] (]) 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 today. But the use by historians today of course does. ](]) 21:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::100% agree, it'd be ] if it was just based on use by early Zionists, it's the modern historian sources that make it ]-compliant. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)


I want to circle back around to this "homeland for the Jewish people" thing, at the article ], it says "The first official use of the phrase "national home for the Jewish people" was in the Balfour Declaration". It "A '''homeland for the Jewish people''' is an idea rooted in ], ], and ]" but I just removed that as unsourced. We have , which is what I think this expression was meant to cover. Bob's "concerned with settlement" may be a better phrasing if we can root out some sourcing for that. ] (]) 17:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== Details in Lead ==


:Actually, the Basel program already employed a very similar terminology - "a home in Palestine for the Jewish people". ] (]) 22:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I removed some details from the lead which I thought were too low level for the lead. (A first step would be to include this information in the body at least, but we all know wikiwarriors prefer to only edit/read the lead)
::I can go with that, it ties in with the existing lead and it should be, suitably sourced, in the article body, I can't see it, maybe I missed it. What I said about the other phrase, and it's linking in the first sentence of the lead, still stands tho, that's misleading and refers to something else. Maybe we should be linking to ]. ] (]) 23:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I'm happy with some version of this. (The is helpful. The British hedged their bets with ambiguous phrasing. The political Zionists, on whom Quigley focuses, aspired to a state and saw it within reach, but used the same ambiguous phrasing to hedge ''their'' bets too, only becoming explicit in 1942. is very good on this too. Meanwhile, other factions of Zionism had different aspirations. But that's detail for the lead.) ] (]) 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Muslim support ==
Here is the edit which reverts my deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zionism&curid=34484&diff=1252758875&oldid=1252756272


The quote "Muslims who have publicly defended Zionism include ], Islamic thinker and reformer<ref>{{cite web |title=Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Official Website – Part of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies |url=http://www.tawfikhamid.com |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100702164726/http://www.tawfikhamid.com/ |archive-date=July 2, 2010 |access-date=June 3, 2010 |publisher=Tawfikhamid.com}}</ref> and former member of ], an Islamist militant group that is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union<ref>{{cite web |date=July 26, 2024 |title=COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2024/2056 |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/2056/oj |publisher=Publications Office of the European Union}}</ref> and United Kingdom,<ref>{{cite web |date=April 26, 2024 |title=Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror-groups-or-organisations--2/proscribed-terrorist-groups-or-organisations-accessible-version#list-of-proscribed-international-terrorist-groups |website=Gov.uk}}</ref>" falsely implies a connection between Hamid's support for Israel and (former) membership in an Islamist terrorist organization, and fails to mention that he left the group and actively opposes it. This is information in the lede of his own article. ] (]) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
* the number of pogroms is way too detailed for the lead
* I dont see how details about passports are leadworthy
* The MV Struma attack? From this statement it's not even clear that this ship was targeted because of the presence of jewish individuals (let alone zionists). Definitely not lead worthy


I suggest we remove this content from the lead. ] (]) 20:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Also, the information about Druze should be spun off into its own section and expanded, as they do not consider themselves Muslims, and to my knowledge neither do most Muslims. ] (]) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


:Oh, yeah, they should not be in the Muslim section. -- ] (]) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:The MV Struma line is inexplicable, for sure not leadworthy. I'm neutral on the other two. ] ] 21:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's worth noting that in the ] discussion, there were edits to this section that were reverted, though not discussed. See this diff , which broke out a section of <nowiki>=== Druze support ===</nowiki>. It was reverted by Levivich and as he indicated in that thread, that was him disputing those edits, so maybe he should subsantiate a reason because per "Consensus required," those changes are now in dispute and cannot be restored. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{yo|KronosAlight}} {{tq|Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page}}. ] fails that so you should self revert.
:::They said ''"I understand '''I've likely wiped out some good-faith changes''' that happened between Dec 4 and today. I apologize for that, and will be happy to investigate the history and restore good edits, just let me know which ones I should be looking at, '''or feel free to just restore them''' if anyone prefers."'' (emphasis mine).
:The Struma thing, on top on not being lead worthy, is also not mentioned in the body. It should be removed solely for that reason. - ] (]) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:You think WW2 and the Holocaust are too low-level to include in the lede? ] (]) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC) :::As such, there should be no issue in breaking the section off again as no one is specifically disputing it. ] (]) 00:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Read the rest of the discussion, I already asked them to restore those they didn't object to, and they clarified that they were disputing the rest. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::They said ''"Lmk if I missed anything"'' & never ''"clarified that they were disputing the rest"''. You replied that you ''"assume that anything you didn't restore was an objection"'', but they never actually replied in the affirmative.
:::::It doesn't matter though, what I'm saying is that we don't need to make a mountain out of mole hill here as it was just an oversight of an issue we can easily fix & Levivich already said we can feel free to restore them anyway. ] (]) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::OK, go ahead then. If there weren't a consensus required restriction on this page, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But if it's a blockable offense to restore such content, I think we err on the side of caution. It's true that Levivich didn't answer me in that thread. I asked for an explanation or a rationale for not attributing El Haj. However as I said, I took it as a dispute. However, given that you, Cdjp, Qualiesin, and I agree it should be fixed, perhaps that is a suitable consensus anyway. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 00:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Separated out. -- ] (]) 14:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:42, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zionism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Restrictions placed: 2024-08-13

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Misplaced Pages policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Misplaced Pages are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleZionism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2003Featured article candidatePromoted
November 10, 2004Featured article reviewDemoted
July 26, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIsrael Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Section sizes
Section size for Zionism (57 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 24,540 24,540
Terminology 4,384 4,384
Beliefs 15 51,152
Claim to a Jewish demographic majority and a Jewish state in Palestine 9,669 23,299
The concept of "transfer" 9,455 9,455
Zionism, antisemitism and an "existential need" for self-determination 4,175 4,175
Race and genetics 14,682 14,682
Conquest of labor 3,187 3,187
Negation of the life in the Diaspora 1,616 6,115
Zionism and secular Jewish identity 4,499 4,499
Revival of the Hebrew language 3,854 3,854
History 80 101,551
Historical and religious background 6,424 6,424
Forerunners of Zionism 5,633 5,633
Establishment of the Zionist movement 4,441 34,475
Jewish nationalism and emancipation 3,619 3,619
Theodor Herzl and the birth of modern political Zionism 7,415 7,415
Success and stumbles in Russia 6,020 6,020
Territories considered 12,980 12,980
Early Zionist settlement 4,267 5,553
The Second Aliyah 1,286 1,286
The Balfour Declaration and World War I 2,896 2,896
The British Mandate and development of the Zionist quasi-state 1,992 7,317
British policies and the development of Zionist institutions 5,325 5,325
Zionist policies and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt 3,409 8,176
The Peel Commission transfer proposal 4,767 4,767
Nazism, World War II and the Holocaust 9,353 9,353
End of the Mandate and expulsion of the Palestinians 7,728 9,651
Hebraization of names 1,923 1,923
Post-World War II 9,935 9,935
Religious Zionism and the Six-Day War 2,058 2,058
Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 15,711 15,711
Types 465 19,277
Labor Zionism 4,873 4,873
General Zionism and Liberal Zionism 5,979 5,979
Revisionist Zionism 5,534 5,534
Religious Zionism 2,276 2,276
Other currents 150 150
Non-Jewish support 950 18,192
Christian support 10,431 10,431
Muslim support 2,826 2,826
Druze support 1,390 1,390
Hindu support 2,595 2,595
Anti-Zionism 8,491 54,547
Catholic Church and Zionism 3,814 3,814
Characterization as colonialist and racist 29,886 29,886
Haredi Judaism and Zionism 5,208 5,208
Anti-Zionism or antisemitism 7,148 7,148
Zionism and colonialism 11,998 16,111
Zionism as settler colonialism 4,113 4,113
Violence and criticism 77 77
See also 411 411
Notes 47 47
References 30 28,074
Works cited 28,044 28,044
Further reading 2,877 2,877
External links 1,605 1,605
Total 338,556 338,556
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
High traffic

On 16 September 2024, Zionism was linked from Twitter, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Does this sentence violate NPOV and should it be removed from the lead and the body?

"Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism)

Please specify the RFCbefore discussions, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Note that the text is preceded in the article lead by the following hidden comment "The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change." This hidden text was added by an admin as noted at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 38#Full protection at Zionism where RFC opener discussed this question previously. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes an admin labeled this sentence as having consensus. That decision was made only after a few days of discussion with only a few editors weighing in on the topic.
This issue has been discussed heavily on the talk page with no resolution. You actually suggested creating a RFC to discuss it , and bringing in a bunch more voices on whether or not this sentence violates NPOV seems very appropriate. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I posted this and I strongly support removing it. 'Consensus' was rushed through without waiting a reasonable amount of time for comment and it has a huge number of issues:
1) It presents opinions as if they were fact
2) It presents opinions from authors who are hostile towards Zionists as if their views on Zionism were fact
3) Synth issues, combining things like "Zionist leaders" or "some zionists" into "Zionists"
4) Stripping important context away like "by 1948" to imply this was true of all Zionists throughout all of history
5) Cherry picking when an author says something which agrees with this claim, but ignoring when the same author contradicts.
I've only reviewed the very reference in depth depth, but here are some of the problems.
In the into to his book, Manna is pretty clear that he's hostile toward Zionists:
""This author hopes that the dis-comfort that this book causes to Zionist and pro-Zionist readers will drive them to seek out the truth ...""
The claim which was put into the article has the time frame was stripped from it:
"...in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"
In the same book the author say that some history "refutes" the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing, but this is ignored:
"the history of the Palestinians who remained in the Galilee both attests to the existence of a high-level policy of ethnic cleansing at times and refutes that policy at other times."
The second source Khalidi is presented as an opinion elsewhere in the article, but somehow in just this one place is presented as fact. I didn't review all of the other sources, these first two seem like more than enough reason to remove this sentence from the lead and body of the article.
This sentence seems to have some many issues it doesn't seem possible to fix it. It should be removed. Then it can be replaced relying on the 'best sources' which are being collectively compiled. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is currently sourced as follows Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources

    • Manna 2022, pp. 2 ("the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state"), 4 ("in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"), and 33 ("The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers.") harvnb error: no target: CITEREFManna2022 (help);
    • Khalidi 2020, p. 76: "The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium—a majority Arab country—into a new state that had a substantial Jewish majority. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKhalidi2020 (help);
    • Slater 2020, pp. 49 ("There were three arguments for the moral acceptability of some form of transfer. The main one—certainly for the Zionists but not only for them—was the alleged necessity of establishing a secure and stable Jewish state in as much of Palestine as was feasible, which was understood to require a large Jewish majority."), 81 ("From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state"), 87 ("The Zionist movement in general and David Ben-Gurion in particular had long sought to establish a Jewish state in all of “Palestine,” which in their view included the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria."), and 92 ("As Israeli historian Shlomo Sand wrote: 'During every round of the national conflict over Palestine, which is the longest running conflict of its kind in the modern era, Zionism has tried to appropriate additional territory.'") harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSlater2020 (help);
    • Segev 2019, p. 418, "the Zionist dream from the start—maximum territory, minimum Arabs" harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSegev2019 (help);
    • Cohen 2017, p. 78, "As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCohen2017 (help);
    • Lustick & Berkman 2017, pp. 47–48, "As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). Ipso facto, this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLustickBerkman2017 (help);
    • Stanislawski 2017, p. 65, "The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFStanislawski2017 (help)
    • Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014, p. 6, "It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement—certainly to the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion, that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... Following Wolfe, we argue that the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRouhanaSabbagh-Khoury2014 (help);
    • Engel 2013, pp. 96 ("From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine ..."), 121 ("... the ZO sought ways to expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive ... Haganah undertook to ensconce small groups of Jews in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights ... their leaders had hoped for more expansive borders ..."), and 138 ("The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ in 1948: non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal. Israel’s leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947–48 ... the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.") harvnb error: no target: CITEREFEngel2013 (help)
    • Masalha 2012, p. 38, "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period the demographic and land policies of the Zionist Yishuv in Palestine continued to evolve. But its demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' (Masalha 1992, 1997, 2000)." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMasalha2012 (help);
    • Lentin 2010, p. 7, "'the Zionist leadership was always determined to increase the Jewish space ... Both land purchases in and around the villages, and military preparations, were all designed to dispossess the Palestinians from the area of the future Jewish state' (Pappe 2008: 94)." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLentin2010 (help);
    • Shlaim 2009, p. 56, "That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShlaim2009 (help);
    • Pappé 2006, p. 250, "In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPappé2006 (help);
    • Morris 2004, p. 588, "But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority." harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMorris2004 (help)

yes I've read through the hidden text and the visible text. The claim that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" should be removed to restore NPOV. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Which hidden text? Bitspectator ⛩️ 03:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Some lists required expanding. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Allthemilescombined1 I'm not sure what this response is supposed to mean, so I'll echo @Bitspectator's question in hopes of understanding. What do you mean when you say that you've "read through the hidden text"? What "hidden text" are you referring to? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
One example is: Note that the text is preceded in the article lead by the following hidden comment "The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change." This hidden text was added by an admin as noted at User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish/Archive 38#Full protection at Zionism where RFC opener discussed this question previously.) 18:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC) Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
LLM generated arguments and taking the bait. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Relying solely on sources that portray Zionism as aiming to minimize the Arab presence risks cherry-picking and oversimplifying a complex historical movement. While some scholars emphasize demographic goals, many prominent historians, including Benny Morris, Anita Shapira, Walter Laqueur, and Shlomo Avineri, highlight the diversity within Zionism. These historians show that Zionist leaders also pursued peaceful coexistence, economic cooperation, and cultural revival. Ignoring these perspectives skews the narrative and fails to meet Misplaced Pages's standards of neutrality and balance. A comprehensive view requires incorporating the full spectrum of scholarly interpretations.
1. Benny Morris
In Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001, Benny Morris discusses Zionist leaders’ views on coexistence:

“From early on, the Zionist leadership sought ways to coexist with the Arab population. They acknowledged the Arabs' attachment to the land but believed that a demographic Jewish majority was necessary for self-determination. This did not preclude peaceful relations with the Arab population.” Source: Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–2001. Vintage Books, 2001, pp. 45–47.

----
2. Anita Shapira
In Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948, Anita Shapira explores the transition in Zionist strategies:

“Initially, the Zionist movement sought peaceful coexistence, with an emphasis on agricultural development and cultural revival. The shift toward a more militant stance was a response to increasing hostility and rejection by the Arab leadership.” Source: Shapira, Anita. Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948. Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 118–120.

----
3. Walter Laqueur
Walter Laqueur, in A History of Zionism, highlights the diversity of Zionist attitudes:

“Not all Zionist leaders viewed the Arab population as an obstacle. Many believed in the possibility of coexistence and sought alliances with moderate Arab leaders. The idea of a shared future was integral to some streams of Zionist thought.” Source: Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism. Schocken Books, 2003, p. 78.

----
4. Shlomo Avineri
In The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, Shlomo Avineri discusses Herzl’s inclusive vision:

“Herzl envisioned the Jewish state not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews and a place where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed economic development would benefit all inhabitants of Palestine.” Source: Avineri, Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. Basic Books, 1981, pp. 126–128.

----
5. Itamar Rabinovich
In The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948, Rabinovich critiques one-sided interpretations:

“The Zionist leadership was divided over how to deal with the Arab population. While some leaders emphasized demographic dominance, others promoted coexistence and even federation with the Arabs.” Source: Rabinovich, Itamar. The War for Palestine: Rewriting the History of 1948. Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 34–36.

----
These sources illustrate that while some Zionist leaders prioritized creating a Jewish majority, others emphasized peaceful coexistence and collaboration with the Arab population. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
What diverse sources! Levivich (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
These sources make it clear that the Zionist leaders and thinkers had different opinions about this topic. The sentence in question presents opinions as fact and violates WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
C'mon Alaexis. Look at the dates of the sources. Look at who's writing them. You know this doesn't represent modern scholarship. And let's not enable the obvious socks please with "I agree" statements. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
No responsible editor can miss that these sources don't even come close to outweighing the 12+ modern authors in the citations. We've got to stop playing these bullshit games. Levivich (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich Regarding those 12 modern authors in the citations, should their views be included in the article as opinion or as fact?
Start with the first source. Manna says he hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort, so it certainly appears he has anti-Zionist bias. Can you explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? Bob drobbs (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Levivich. I understand your concerns, but I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the sources I presented do not represent valuable scholarship or that they are outdated.
On the Sources' Dates and Relevance:
The sources I referenced—Laqueur, Morris, and others—remain foundational to the historiography of Zionism. While some are not "modern" in the strictest sense, their contributions are widely cited and continue to influence contemporary scholarship. Moreover, more recent works, such as Anita Shapira’s Israel: A History (2012) and Shlomo Avineri’s Herzl's Vision (2014), build on these foundational sources and offer nuanced insights:
  • Anita Shapira emphasizes that Zionism's primary goal was self-determination, noting, "The goal of Zionism was not to displace Arabs but to create a refuge for Jews. While demographic concerns influenced policy, many Zionist leaders sought coexistence with the Arab population, particularly in the early stages of the movement" (Israel: A History, p. 102).
  • Shlomo Avineri clarifies that Herzl envisioned a model of mutual benefit, writing, "Herzl’s vision was one of mutual benefit and coexistence. He believed that economic development and modernization would serve both Jews and Arabs, rather than aiming to marginalize or exclude the Arab population" (Herzl's Vision, p. 147).
These works demonstrate that scholarship on Zionism is diverse, and earlier foundational texts continue to inform modern interpretations.
Balancing Modern and Foundational Sources:
While recent sources contribute new perspectives, Misplaced Pages's policies emphasize representing a range of views, including foundational works. Modern interpretations are essential, but they do not "outweigh" or negate the contributions of earlier, seminal scholars. Excluding these works risks skewing the historiographical balance.
Neutrality and Avoiding Cherry-Picking:
The current lead risks over-relying on critical perspectives from modern authors like Khalidi and Pappé, which frame Zionism as a colonialist movement. My intention in referencing sources such as Shapira and Avineri is to ensure balance and to reflect the diversity of Zionist motivations—self-determination, cultural revival, and responses to antisemitism—alongside its contested aspects.
Avoiding Personal Criticism:
I encourage us to focus on the substance of the sources and their interpretations rather than implying bad faith or dismissing arguments as "games." Constructive engagement helps ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages's neutrality and verifiability standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@Boutboul Apologies, but despite your citations, I seem to be having issues finding these quotes (It's probably on me, but I'd like to clarify regardless).
“From early on, the Zionist leadership sought ways to coexist with the Arab population. They acknowledged the Arabs' attachment to the land but believed that a demographic Jewish majority was necessary for self-determination. This did not preclude peaceful relations with the Arab population.”
I can't find a version of Anita Shapira's Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948 online, so I can't comment there.
“Not all Zionist leaders viewed the Arab population as an obstacle. Many believed in the possibility of coexistence and sought alliances with moderate Arab leaders. The idea of a shared future was integral to some streams of Zionist thought.”
“Herzl envisioned the Jewish state not as a colonial outpost but as a refuge for Jews and a place where Jews and Arabs could coexist peacefully. He believed economic development would benefit all inhabitants of Palestine.”
“The Zionist leadership was divided over how to deal with the Arab population. While some leaders emphasized demographic dominance, others promoted coexistence and even federation with the Arabs.” Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Regarding these 12 sources, how many (if any) should be treated as if their views are factual vs. given as opinion?
Again, starting with Manna, in the intro to his book he says hopes his book will cause Zionists discomfort. He certainly appears to have an anti-Zionist bias. Maybe he should be included as an opinion, but can anyone explain why his views should be included in the article as if they were factual? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
1. If we exclude anti-Zionists like Manna, does that mean we exclude pro-Zionists like Morris, too? 2. Fact/opinion is a false dichotomy. We state opinions in Wikivoice when they're mainstream opinions (eg Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players of all time). Levivich (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
From the references, do you think that Morris presents the mainstream opinion here?
"underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority"
The article has an entire section on "demographic majority", and I suspect that if we were to use the best sources on the topic, instead of a collection of biased sources synthensized into nonsense, we'd see the mainstream opinion is that Zionists, certainly by 1948, wanted a clear demographic majority, not necessarily "as few Palestinians as possible". Bob drobbs (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Responded on your talk page. Levivich (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
No. Levivich lays it out well. If we wanted to quibble, we could opt for something like At least by 1948, at the beginning of the sentence. But that would probably require a footnote to further explain what we mean by that and give the range of dates given by experts. At the moment the wording implies that anyway without the debate over when exactly it is/was/becomes true. Lewisguile (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Lacks impartial tone. While it's literally true that Zionists wanted to have a Jewish majority, and were concerned about the risk of a growing Arab minority as a potential threat due to the risk of conflict between the peoples and the clear antipathy between the peoples, not without plenty of history already, the phrasing continues to be awkward. The idea of "as few Arabs as possible" is not the clearest way to explain "the largest feasible majority Jewish state." It creates an implication that Zionists perhaps wanted that number to be 0, but we know that not to be the case. "Lowest possible" is not the best summary of the sources. I think we can do a better job of explaining that Zionists sought to create a Jewish majority state, without implying that expulsion was an express goal of Zionism. Andre🚐 06:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages says:
    • as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible
    The cited sources say:
    • maximum territory, minimum Arabs - Segev
    • maximum land and minimum Arabs - Masalha
    • the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible - Shlaim
    • as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible - Pappé
    • as few Arabs as possible ... the smallest possible number of Palestinians ... fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers - Manna
    • as much of Palestine as was feasible ... a large Jewish majority ... as few Arabs as possible ... a Jewish state in all of “Palestine,” ... appropriate additional territory - Slater
    • increase the Jewish population of Palestine ... expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive ... in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights ... more expansive borders ... the smallest possible minorities ... ‘Jewish’ ... by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants ... non-Jews ... numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal ... as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible - Engel
    • increase the Jewish space ... dispossess the Palestinians - Lentin
    • a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible - Cohen
    • as few Arabs as possible - Stanislawski
    • getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... demographic elimination - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
    • transformed most of Palestine from ... a majority Arab country—into ... a substantial Jewish majority ... the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas ... and the theft of Palestinian land and property ... There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority ... Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land. - Khalidi
    • on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions ... an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions - Lustick & Berkman
    • displacement of Arabs ... to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority. - Morris
    Misplaced Pages is using the same language as the cited sources. Levivich (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    IMPARTIAL: Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. I'm not disputing the facts, just the tone. You'll note that many of the best sources refer to the "majority" and "minority" language, which is different from how the article does. Andre🚐 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • yes no it does seem to be the case, so this looks very much like a blue sky situation, their own pronouncements stated they wanted a Jewish State (hell Israel is even called that now, sometimes).We have WP:FALSEBALANCE for a reason. So yes we can say this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven: The way the RFC is phrased requires a No if you think the sentence should be kept? Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks I think the problem was trying to word "it is not neutral but does not violate NPOV, as it is what is said by zionists". It is almost an Ish question. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC as it fails to neutrally discuss the sources that support the statement and instead editorializes about the assumed politics of just one of the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what issues you see with rfc which is just a question. But one of the many issues, is that the text engages in a SYTH of different claims, and each case seems to cherry pick whatever paints the most number of Zionists to look as bad as possible.
    As a few examples, in the reference Morris says "overwhelming Jewish majority" but the text says "as few Palestinians as possible" Shlaim says "Most Zionist leaders" but the text just says "Zionists".
    Looking at this same set of references someone could have also written "Most Zionist leaders wanted a demographic majority". Bob drobbs (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you might write that, I wouldn't. Selfstudier (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Not really, when we (and RS) say "Zionists" or "Zionism" we mean the mainstream movement and its leadership. DMH223344 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages says:
    • Zionists ...
    The cited sources say:
    • the Zionist leadership ... Zionists of all inclinations ... The Zionists - Manna
    • the Zionists ... all the major leaders ... The Zionist movement in general ... Zionism - Slater
    • the Zionist movement ... the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion ... the Zionist project ... the Zionist movement - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
    • Zionist ideology ... Zionist praxis - Morris
    • the core of Zionism - Pappé
    • the Zionist dream - Segev
    • the Zionist Yishuv - Masalha
    • the Israeli desire - Stanislawski
    • Ben-Gurion ... 'Our ...' ... Zionism - Lustick & Berkman
    • political Zionism - Khalidi
    • Zionism ... the ZO ... Haganah ... their leaders ... Israel ... the state’s leaders ... most Zionists ... Zionist imaginations ... the bulk of the Zionist leadership ... Israel’s leaders ... Israel ... the state - Engel
    • many ... Zionist leaders and activists - Cohen
    • the Zionist leadership - Lentin
    • most Zionist leaders - Shlaim
    The word "Zionists" (or "Zionism") is the right word to summarize those sources. Levivich (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    The RfC was constructed, and advertised, non-neutrally. It's a bad RfC. Simonm223 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. This is not biased wording, since it is in marked agreement with the pertinent sourcing. I don't have a substantial objection to rewording it somehow anyway, but this present wording is not actually "broken" at all. I also agree that this was not really a proper RfC because WP:RFCBEFORE wasn't followed and the question posed is not neutrally phrased. But the horse is already out of the barn with the level of input so far, so we might as well proceed (especially since the evidence presented contradicts the RfC opener's apparent position against this language being used; that is, the non-neutrality of the OP has had no effect except perhaps short-circuiting their own proposal).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a really badly formed RfC but I would say that the sentence, especially in the first para, is problematic. This is the comment I just wrote in what I guess is now the RFCBEFORE discussion, a couple of sections up this page: None of the 13 (actually fewer, as Sand and Engel aren't used for this point) sources are unreliable, although they are not all as strong as they could be. However, the key point is that in relation to this quote, many are talking about very specific moments in Zionist history (i.e. the Nakba and maybe the period leading up to it) and/or about some or many Zionist leaders (specifically the political Zionists in the case of Khalidi or of the Labour Zionists of Ben Gurion's generation in the case of Lustick and Berkman and Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury), and not about Zionism in general. A couple describe it as the esoteric, inherent or secret logic of Zionism rather than its explicit policy (Rouhana and Sabbagh-Khoury, Pappe, Morris, Lentin). So the only sources here that come close to saying this was generally true are Segev (we quote him as saying this is the Zionist dream from the start but I've not got the book and the google snippet is too small to see the context) and Slater (but he is a weaker source, not a historian, let alone of Zionism, who frames his book as a contrarian revision of what we know). BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think this is really the key problem with the current phrasing - it totally removes the context that is present in at least in some of the references and generalizes their claims to Zionism as a whole since its very inception.
    The overgeneralization also leads to ignoring the RSs that contradict this claim, if the chronology is taken into account - e.g., Rubin (2018). "Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine", that talks about Jabotinsky's initial opposition to the idea of population transfer of Palestinian Arabs (i.e., the " as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part) and his change of heart around 1939. DancingOwl (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    The lead is a summary. Specifically, it is a summary of the mainstream Zionist movement with some brief coverage of dissident's within the movement. We summarize in the same way that RS do. You want the lead to cover jabotinsky's change in positions in the lead? That's obviously undue for the lead. DMH223344 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    The summary should summarise accurately. If it says "all Zionists" when the sources say "some Zionists" (or even "most Zionists") then that's not accurate. If it says "Zionism want x" when the sources say "in the 1930s Zionists wanted x" then that's not accurate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    The disputed content states "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" (Emphasis mine). Wanted, past tense, & as Levivich showed above, that is reliably sourced to cover the mainstream movements at the time. There will always be outliers in every category, but outliers are generally removed from summaries for succinctness, then described later in the more detailed analysis.
    We could have a separate line describing these outliers &/or that in modern times, some movements have diverged from the original mainstream, but that doesn't contradict the current line in question. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    it doesnt say "all zionists" DMH223344 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No/Bad RFC - discussion has been had before, also no RFCBEFORE done and RFC is poorly formatted overall. I think SMcCandlish describes it best. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No - of the 14 sources are cited:
    1. All were published within the last 20 years
    2. All written by experts in the field (11 historians, 2 political scientists, 1 sociologist), including Palestinians and Israelis, left-of-center and right-of-center
    3. 10 are published by academic presses, 2 by "leftist" presses (Zed, Verso), 2 by mainstream publishers (Farrar, Oneworld)
    4. 1 expressly says all Zionists; 10 say "Zionists," "Zionist movement", "Zionism", or "Zionist activists"; 2 say Zionist leaders; 1 says "political Zionism" (see 2nd set of quotes I posted above)
    5. 10/14 convey the idea of maximum land
    6. 7/14 convey maximum Jews
    7. 10/14 convey minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)
    8. 12/14 juxtapose land and demographics (see 1st set of quotes above)
    9. 11/14 say "always", "from the start", "inherent" or similar (see third set of quotes below)
Other words could be used to express the same meaning, of course, but WP:NPOV means the article should say that Zionism sought maximum territory with minimum Arabs. Levivich (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ETA Levivich (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..
No, those are two different claims - "maximum Jews" implies maximizing Jewish immigration, "minimum Arabs" implies population transfer of Palestinian Arabs - those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means. DancingOwl (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Do please source that opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I will look for relevant sources, though I'm curious - what would you consider to be a source for "...minimum Arabs (which is just another way of saying maximum Jews)..."? DancingOwl (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
those are two distinct goals achieved using completely different means is what I would like to see sourced. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes,I understand - I just asked whether you think that the opposite claim conflating those two goals also needs to be sourced, and if it does - what would be the best source for that. DancingOwl (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, we already have sources doing that but no sources doing what you suggest so I am asking for some. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
You can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration. For just one example of a source saying this, here's Benny Morris:

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

Levivich (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Morris doesn't mention Jewish immigration here, but rather links the idea of transfer to Arab opposition to the very existence of Jewish state. DancingOwl (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, here's Morris in Birth (aka "Morris 2004", one of the 14 citations for the sentence under discussion in this RFC), which has an entire chapter (ch. 2) about 'transfer', and which specifically talks about Jewish immigration (bold added):
Pages 40-41:

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

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

Page 43:

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

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

Page 45:

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

Pages 59-60:

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

* * *

But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure.

Is that enough to establish that Morris says that Zionists believed "transfer" of Arabs was necessary to make room for Jews, that it was an inherent and inevitable part of Zionism? He wrote an entire chapter proving this point. It's one of the things Morris is famous for. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Not quite - in all but one quote above the necessity of transfer is explained by Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state:
p. 41:

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

which shows that the idea of population transfer was far from being a consensus among Zionist leadership.
on p. 59 Morris once again talks about

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

DancingOwl (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"In other words, according to Morris, the idea of transfer wasn't some "built-in" feature of Zionist ideology" is synth. Morris literally says: "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" DMH223344 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, "built-in" wasn't the best characterization and I should've used a different word - my point is that according to Morris the "inevitability" of transfer was a result of Arab hostility, rather some a priori ideology, and that it was a reaction, not a pre-planned action.
See the full passage, from which the "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism" quote was taken:

My feeling is that the transfer thinking and near-consensus that emerged in the 1930s and early 1940s was not tantamount to preplanning and did not issue in the production of a policy or master-plan of expulsion; the Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion. But transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure."

DancingOwl (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"rather than some a priori ideology" what is this supposed to mean? That "transfer" was purely a practical solution, rather than an ideological one?
Morris:

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

Indeed Arabs were hostile towards a movement which was "intent on politically, or even physically, dispossessing" them. What you're saying is that if the Arabs had accepted their dispossession, then "transfer" would not have been a consideration of the Zionist movement? DMH223344 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The RFC is not about whether there was Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state Selfstudier (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I know - I brough up this point in response to the claim that, according to Morris, "you can't have Jewish immigration without Arab emigration", while the actual quotes above show he links the need for Arab emigration to Arab opposition to the existence of Jewish state, not to Jewish immigration. DancingOwl (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No I am keeping it short, since other editors have already argued about this above and in older discussions. This topic appears to have already reached consensus not too long ago. The content also seems to be very adequately sourced. Piccco (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd like to remind editors here of recent additions to WP:CT/A-I, specifically "Editors limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion – all participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion." - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
    FWIW, there was some discussion of not including quoted material in the word count limit. I tend to agree. @ScottishFinnishRadish, was this your understanding of the final outcome there? Valereee (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    This probably needs an ARCA (or wrap it up in the current case). At any rate, it seems unreasonable to include refs/quotes. Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    There's also this. I don't think anyone has to worry about quoted sources putting them over the limit. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that it isn't necessary to convince everyone in a discussion, just convince enough people to establish consensus. If consensus clearly favors your position there's really no need to go back and forth with someone who's likely never going to agree with you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm generally sympathetic to the idea of rewording the lead, including the second part of that sentence. But I really don't see here any substantiated, good justification for it. Actually, the excellent comments left by Levivich have made me more in favor of keeping the current wording. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The sourcing is clear-cut, high-quality, and covers authors writing from diverse perspectives; nor has anyone actually presented anything contradicting it to substantiate the idea that it's even controversial. The sources make it clear that it is simply not controversial to state that a core component of Zionism has historically been to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel at any cost, including keeping the Arab population to a minimum. Some aspects of the topic are esoteric or complex, but this one is extremely basic and uncontroversial - hence why it was so easy to find broad, high-quality sourcing for it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, on net. Some issues have been well explained by Andre above. Additionally, this sentence, like others, makes a sweeping and politically contentious claim but fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time - for example, do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel? The sentence implies that they do, despite this being a completely novel claim as far as I can tell. Pointing to sources about historical Zionism isn't enough to address this issue since this isn't a purely historical subject. If it applies to the time period prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, it should say so and the lead should then say how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel. Crossroads 22:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
    fails to give context indicating what time period this applies to and doesn't mention change over time - Because the sources say it didn't change over time:
    • as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century (Morris 2002) and inherent in Zionist ideology ... in Zionist praxis from the start of the enterprise ... during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement (Morris 2004)
    • The history of Zionism, from the earliest days to the present - Shlaim
    • always - Lentin
    • From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period ... always - Masalha
    • From the outset of the Zionist movement ... During every round of the national conflict over Palestine, which is the longest running conflict of its kind in the modern era - Slater
    • From the outset - Engel
    • from its inception - Khalidi
    • from the start - Segev
    • for years - Cohen
    • an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury
    • the core of Zionism - Pappe
    • Lustick & Berkman are discussing pre-state Zionism specifically
    • Stanislawski is discussing 1948 specifically
    • Manna's book is about early Israel (1948-1956) specifically
    The Misplaced Pages article says Zionists wanted, past tense, not "want", present tense, but the sources support the meaning of "always" or "from the beginning", except for 3 that are talking about specific time periods (from the beginning to 1948, in 1948, and during the early Israeli state 1948-1956). The other 11 says "always" or "from the start" or "inherent" in the very idea or similar. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
    A list consisting mostly of one-to-four word quotes is less than convincing that all the relevant sources are indeed imputing this POV to all of Israel's history and all factions of Zionism today. Again: do modern-day Zionists, or all factions thereof, seek the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel? The sentence implies that they do. And I still have yet to see a policy-based justification for the article failing to include how modern-day Zionist factions relate to Arab people/Palestinians within and without Israel and how they relate to the proposed solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict. You've clearly read a lot about this topic, so I ask directly: Why is this not being included? Crossroads 22:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    The statement is in past tense, so no it does not imply that. DMH223344 (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    It is immediately followed by a statement that Zionism is the state ideology of Israel, which is a present fact, so yes, it does imply that. Especially when there remains no mention of any subsequent change. Crossroads 01:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    But that isn't the right conclusion to make at all, especially considering that the next sentence starts with "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948," DMH223344 (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes - the current phrasing is problematic in several respects:
  1. Unlike the wide consensus that Zionists wanted to achieve significant Jewish majority, the claim about "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" is controversial and is contested, for example, by Morris in context of 1948 war.
  2. The use of past tense and sentence's placement before "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948" implies it supposed to be a general description of mainstream Zionism from its inception till 1948. However, it ignores major difference in attitude between different Zionist fractions (e.g., Jabotinsky's pre-1939 vehement objection to the idea of population transfer), as well as between earlier proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation and later pragmatic approach formed in reaction to Arab violent opposition to the very existence of Jewish state.
  3. The qualifier "as much/few... as possible" does a lot of heavy lifting here, by masking the major differences mentioned above, and by allowing to dismiss every evidence of attitudes inconsistent with any part of the current phrasing by saying "well, that's what X considered to be possible". So, while formally true, the phrasing is misleading on substantial level.
Sources

  1. Gorny, Yosef (1987). Zionism and the Arabs, 1882–1948: A Study of Ideology. p. 2. Thus, the desire for a Jewish majority was the key issue in the implementation of Zionism...
  2. Morris, Benny (1999). Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881–1999. p. 682. Zionism had always looked to the day when a Jewish majority would enable the movement to gain control over the country...
  3. Ben-Ami, Shlomo (2007). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace. pp. 22–23. Zionism is both a struggle for land and a demographic race; in essence, the aspiration for a territory with a Jewish majority...
  4. Finkelstein, Norman G. (2003). Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict. p. 7. Within the Zionist ideological consensus there coexisted three relatively distinct tendencies—political Zionism, labor Zionism and cultural Zionism. Each was wedded to the demand for a Jewish majority, but not for entirely the same reasons.
  5. Morris, Benny (1991). "Response to Finkelstein and Masalha". Journal of Palestine Studies. 21 (1): 98–114. doi:10.2307/2537368. ISSN 0377-919X. Why is it, then - if a policy of expulsion was in place and being implemented - that more than half of the pocket's inhabitants, many of them Muslims, were left in place? Even in (Muslim) villages where atrocities had been committed - Majd al Kurum, Bi'na, Deir al Assad-the inhabitants were not driven out. Why is it - if there was an "overt" policy of expulsion, "executed with ruthless efficiency," according to Finkelstein - that Northern Front Command's brigades failed to order out onto the roads the (Muslim) villagers of Arrabe, Deir Khanam, Sakhnin, and so on?
  6. Benny Morris (January 21, 2019). "Gideon Levy Is Wrong About the Past, the Present, and I Believe the Future as Well". Haaretz. ...there was no policy of "expulsion of the Arabs," and so some 160,000 Arabs remained, about one-fifth of the country's total population.
  7. Rubin, Gil S. (2018). "Vladimir Jabotinsky and Population Transfers between Eastern Europe and Palestine". The Historical Journal. 62 (2): 1–23. When a paper misquoted Jabotinsky as speaking in favour of the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine, Jabotinsky quickly sent a letter of correction to the editor. 'I did not say those words or any words that could be interpreted along these lines.' 'My opinion', Jabotinsky emphasized, is the contrary 'that if anyone tried to push the Arabs out of Palestine, all or a part of them – he would be doing, first of all, something immoral and – impossible'.
  8. "Resolution Passed At The 12th Zionist Congress, Proposal For An Arab-jewish Entente, Carlsbad, 4 December 1921". Documents on Palestine, Volume 1 (until 1947) (PDF). pp. 97–98. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 Jul 2024. We do thereby reaffirm our desire to attain a durable understanding which shall enable the Arab and Jewish peoples to live together in Palestine on terms of mutual respect and co-operate in making the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which will assure to each of these peoples an undisturbed national development.
  9. Gorny, Yosef (2006), From Binational Society to Jewish State, Brill, ISBN 978-90-474-1161-1
  10. Morris, Benny (2003). The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited. Cambridge Middle East Studies (2 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-521-81120-0. The need for transfer became more acute with the increase in violent Arab opposition to the Zionist enterprise during the 1920s and 1930s. The violence demonstrated that a disaffected, hostile Arab majority or large minority would inevitably struggle against the very existence of the Jewish state.

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

I'm not sure what the purpose of your first four citations are. No one here is disputing their desire for a Jewish majority. Your citations , , and are all to Morris, with the one most explicitly making the argument you're making being from 33 years ago. I have no idea what the purpose of is. Because "the need for transfer became more acute" in the 1920s, they didn't actually want as few Arabs as possible? I'm not sure what you want us to be looking at in . and are primary sources.
This is completely incomparable to Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001000-AndreJustAndre-20241201062000 and Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001500-Bob_drobbs-20241201171200. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The purpose of my first four citations is to show that the phrasing "wanted a Jewish majority" would be much more NPOV-compliant than the current one
  • Regarding the thesis that there haven't been any pre-planned coordinated campaign to leave "as few Arabs as possible", Morris is far from being the only one making this claim - here another example from Efraim Karsh.
  • shows that the idea of transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership before late 1920s - Morris explicitly talks about

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

    and states that:

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

In other words, while the theoretical idea of minimizing the number of Arabs through population transfer was floated by some Zionists for some time, it only began to be seriously discussed by Zionist leadership and reached a consensual status in the 1930s.
  • and are not primary sources
DancingOwl (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Morris is far from being the only one making this claim

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

here another example from Efraim Karsh

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

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

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

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

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

and are not primary sources

I didn't say was. I said and were. is a direct quote from Jabotinsky with no commentary other than a straightforward description of the context the quote was said in.
I'm not interested in continuing this conversation unless you can provide an alternate wording citing secondary BESTSOURCES on Zionism in which they dispute the points the current wording is making, and it gets anywhere to the same level as Talk:Zionism#c-Levivich-20241202001000-AndreJustAndre-20241201062000. If you or anyone else can do that I will !vote yes. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

The most non-NPOV part is "as few Arabs as possible" - I'll do my best to put together a list of RSs that talk about "Jewish majority" and yet refute the claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-1948 period - hopefully will have the time to do it over the weekend. DancingOwl (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly what I, and I think some others, are looking for. That would be appreciated. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Just finished compiling the list, along with analysis of the currently used sources - due to the length constraints, I posted it as a separate topic:
Talk:Zionism#"as few Arabs as possible" - sources contesting this framing + analysis of the existing sources DancingOwl (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I will !vote Yes to reward you for this effort. I have some criticisms of what you've written, which I will leave in that thread, but I'm happy to keep the door open to a rewording. Bitspectator ⛩️ 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No, not as a matter of policy, but it may be best to reword anyway. Misplaced Pages is a website anyone can edit, and readers, knowing this, are likely to see such an accusatory claim in the lede as dubious. What may avert this is to move this language to the body, where it can be backed up with all the sourcing justifying it, and soften the tone in the corresponding lede sentence. ByVarying | talk 03:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    This sentence already appears verbatim in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section, in addition to the lead DancingOwl (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    so? TarnishedPath 15:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    @ByVarying suggested to move the current sentence to the body and rewrite the lede sentence - I just pointed out that the current sentence already appears verbatim in the body, in the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section. DancingOwl (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    We could change what's in the body so as to more properly reflect the whole bunch of sources saying this one way or another and leave the lead as the summary, if you like. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm currently preparing an in-depth overview of the currently cited sources, showing that they DON'T support the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the current phrasing. In addition, I collected a list of RS, which haven't been cited yet and that contest this claim - I need a bit more time to write it up in a organized and readable form - it should be ready by tomorrow.
    Hopefully, it will convince you and the others that both the lead and the "Role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict" section need to be rephrased, and I do agree that that section could be the right place to elaborate about the controversy and the different POVs. DancingOwl (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No the sentence is supported by the best sources, from authors having differing viewpoints. No one has presented sources with sufficient weight to contradict the sources used which support the sentence. Per WP:DUE, "neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. TarnishedPath 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Selfstudier, @XDanielx, @Levivich, @DMH223344, @Dan Murphy, @Nishidani, @Jeppiz, @Theleekycauldron, @Mawer10, @IOHANNVSVERVS and @nableezy as editors who were involved in the discussion at Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Revert where that sentence was discussed. TarnishedPath 07:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm not sure if the same weight should be given to sources who are Zionist and sources who are anti-Zionist within the ideological definition of the movement. From a personal experience, the majority of the people I know are Zionists, and have in fact asked me as an editor to remove that blood libel (I received about 16 different requests, an amount I've never encountered before). None of them want to have as few Palestinians as possible in Israel, but Misplaced Pages says they do. I told them Misplaced Pages turned into a weapon for spreading propaganda and there's nothing I can do about it. Bar Harel (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Moreover, you have plenty of news articles spawning just about this sentence claiming it is a provocative propaganda. I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are written by Zionists. How often do you have news articles spawning about "facts" in Misplaced Pages being non NPOV propaganda? At minimum it is highly controversial. But it's fine, Misplaced Pages knows better about Zionists than what the Zionists believe in, so carry on. Bar Harel (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Sensationalist reporting in the press doesn't dictate how we interpret our policies. TarnishedPath 10:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    No, but if you have heavy reporting in numerous reliable sources, it means that maybe our statements are not as mainstream as we claim they are. Discounting so many press reports and adding only the sources supporting one theory can be seen as POV-pushing. More so when it is brought at the opening paragraph as the actual definition. Bar Harel (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Those "reliable sources" haven't presented any evidence to the contrary either, just a lot of noise. Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what evidence is expected, that Zionism as an ideology does not strive for as few Palestinians as possible? If there are 10 papers over 130 years of the existence of the Zionist movement claiming such a thing, majority of them not by Zionists whatsoever, I highly doubt you'll find a research article claiming the opposite.
    In essence, a researcher can state that Zionists enjoy eating hamburgers. You will not find any research stating that Zionism has nothing to do with hamburgers. Does that make his statement true because there's no opposition? Bar Harel (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    These aren't 10 papers from the last 130 years, these are 14 books from the last 20 years written by the world's leading experts on the history of Zionism. You really think your Zionist friends know more than Benny Morris, Hillel Cohen, Tom Segev, and Avi Shlaim (and 10 others) about what happened in Israel before 1948? Levivich (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    +1 Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    Seems like some were refuted below, and their quotes were actually WP:CHERRYPICKed, while the rest of the text stated the opposite. Bar Harel (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    We go with the best sources, not noise in what is often sensationalist reporting. TarnishedPath 12:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    So today's news media is more likely to write complimentary things about Zionism than the well-researched RS (e.g., academic books of history) used in this article. The latter are still better sources. ByVarying | talk 17:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. The statement is well sourced and other sources can easily be added if needed. It literally took me seconds to find these reliable sources:

The objective of Zionism was and remains the exclusive control of historic Palestine through incremental removal of the Palestinians, replacing them with Jewish settlements.


From its inception the Zionist movement and ideology has been colonial and eliminationist in its essence aimed at the removal of the indigenous population and replacement of Palestinians with the exogenous colonial settler population from Europe.

M.Bitton (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I highly doubt it took you seconds to find these "reliable sources". Your second link is a journal from Kazakhstan ("Journal of oriental studies") that is not ranked or cited on any journal ranking system I have searched in, including SJR, JCR, and can't be found on Google Scholars either. Basically I couldn't have found it even if I wanted. In fact, not only it's not listed or cited anywhere, but if you'll go to the journal's main page it claims that they're listed on citefactor, but when you click the link they take you to a different journal of experimental biology claiming that it's the same journal. I don't know how you found that gem... Bar Harel (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
It did take seconds to find the first, I just forgot to adjust the statement for the second source that I added minutes later.
it claims that they're listed on citefactor they are.
can't be found on Google Scholars it's there. Search for "The historical-ideological roots of the Zionist-Israeli settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestine" and you'll find it. Here's the journal's editorial team (if you're interested) and a list of books and papers that have been published by Gabit Zhumatay and indexed by Google Scholar.
Obviously, both sources are solid RS. M.Bitton (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The citefactor link is still a different journal and Google Scholar is well-known to be nonselective in what "journals" it includes, such as predatory journals. (e.g. ) Crossroads 20:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I repeat: the two sources are solid RS and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this. M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm usually very accurate with what I write. Please show me the journal ranking in Google scholars. Bar Harel (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
So am I, and no, I don't need to prove anything to you. I said what I needed to say. If you still feel that the sources are unreliable, then WP:RSN is that way. Best of luck to you. M.Bitton (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No The latest claim based on sourcing produced well after this RFC began appear to be directed principally at excising the phrase "as few Arabs as possible" on the grounds that it would be more NPOV to say that "a state with a significant Jewish majority" was what Zionism/Zionistts wanted. It is difficult to see how in all the circumstances a significant Jewish majority could be obtained without Arab displacement and in fact this is what has actually occurred (and continues to occur for that matter). Can the wording of the lead be improved in regard to issues of temporality, perhaps but the RFC question addresses the removal of an entire sentence well supported in high quality sourcing. A subsequent RFC with less ambitious goals might produce a different outcome. Selfstudier (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Meh. The sentence tries to cram too much into a few words. I would stretch it out a little. After thinking for at least 30 seconds: "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land as possible and a substantial Jewish majority. The latter was to be achieved by massive Jewish immigration, removal of Palestinian Arabs, or both." I left out "as many Jews as possible" because almost all the early Zionists were selective in the type of Jew they wanted in the first generations. See Muscular Judaism for a hint of that large literature. Zero 13:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    +1. I think this phrasing both reads well & presents a proper level of nuance. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a great alternative. DMH223344 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's definitely better than the current phrasing - I'd suggest to add a word "partial" before "removal", because otherwise it can be read as implying "complete removal". DancingOwl (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The phrase is "removal of Palestinian Arabs," not "removal of 'the Palestinian Arabs." DMH223344 (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I know, but if even someone as intelligent as Eduard Said managed to misquote "a land without a people for a people without a land" and turn it into "without people", there is a considerable chance some readers will similarly misinterpret the suggested phrasing. DancingOwl (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    The extent of the desired transfer varied between Zionists, so it is better to not insert words that imply an extent. As DMH wrote, the absence of "the" already indicates that "all" is not implied. It doesn't refer to "the Jews" either. Zero 00:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Right, the best we can do is to be precise and clear. Trying, in addition, to be robust to possible misinterpretations due to misreading the sentence will guarantee we make no progress. DMH223344 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tag on Race and Genetics section

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

That tag along with multiple others was added by Qualiesin with no meaningful explanation in their first and only edit to this article or its talk page. This feels like drive-by tagging of one of Misplaced Pages's most contentious articles, Qualiesin. Can you please discuss? Valereee (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I am simply trying to restore some semblance of NPOV to this article that has become a vehicle for strongly biased views. Qualiesin (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Aight, @Qualiesin. Well, for the record, drive-by tagging is seldom helpful anywhere, and in a CTOP even less so, and at one of the project's most contentious articles it's almost inexcusable from an editor with 20K edits over five years. Please consider in future actually reading discussions and participating instead of dropping tags with no meaningful explanation onto CTOP articles where you have had zero talk page participation. That's disruptive on its face. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Is this supposed to make me want to participate in these discussions? Knowing that my edits will be functionally ineffective and reverted, unless I wade through tens of thousands of words of argument? Qualiesin (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Qualiesin, I do understand how daunting it is. It totally sucks that so many article talks in contentious topics -- and at this article in particular, one of the most contentious on the entire site -- are so difficult to keep up with, but doing so is important if you want to contribute in any meaningful way and also if you want to avoid being disruptive to the process of other editors trying to do so.
The point of reading the talk page of a highly contentious article before editing the article directly (or opening a new talk page section) is to get yourself up to speed, in order to avoid being disruptive to the process because you're unfamiliar with sourcing/previous discussions.
Editors here can see you're an experienced editor in general, with multiple article creations, so you probably understand sourcing and multiple other policies well. You would quite likely be valuable here. We do want you to participate. But if you aren't willing to familiarize yourself with sources and previous discussions, your contributions are likely to be unproductive at best and disruptive at worst. Does it suck that means a daunting amount of reading? Yes. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it is unbalanced as too focused on genetics but This re-conceptualization of Jewishness... is really important. It's a nation for a people. Maybe too focused on a particular present debate/look at 'people'? Need Nishidani's input here i think. Might look better as part of "Jewish nationalism and emancipation"? Article seems light on 'nationalism'. fiveby(zero) 15:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Originally the main Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism was titled Zionism, race and genetics but here we still have that (in effect), maybe retitle the section "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity". Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Not that the issue is not important today and also for earlier conceptions, just reads odd and i don't think a novice reader would be able to understand the section. fiveby(zero) 15:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Also don't think a reader has been provided with enough to understand the McGonigle quote at this point in the article. Really covering a lot of ground with that quote. As i recall he is a sociologist looking at current use of genetics for conceptions of peoples? Probably not a best source for covering all that ground. fiveby(zero) 15:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"as few Arabs as possible" - sources contesting this framing + analysis of the existing sources

Following the "RFC about a recently added claim about Zionism" discussion above, I carried out a thorough analysis of the sources allegedly supporting current phrasing, and also compiled a list of sources contesting the claim that Zionists wanted "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".

Due to the length constraints, I post this as a separate topic, rather than a response in the RFC discussion:

The current phrasing is "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". - the use of past tense and sentence's placement before "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948..." implies that this is supposed to be a general description of mainstream Zionist core goals before 1948.

However, as I show below, about half of the sources quoted DON'T support the claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core Zionist goal since its inception till 1948, and several sources were quoted in a way that omits critical context or even completely distort actual author's position.

  • For example, in Cohen 2017, p.78, the following quote is used:

"As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years."


But immediately after that the author says:

"However, in the post–World War II political context, the Zionist leadership was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state and its declared position was that it would enjoy civil equality, collective rights, and the allocation of resources as outlined by the UN Partition Plan."


Moreover, on p. 73 he adds:

“ the Zionist leadership seriously considered following the guidelines stipulated by the Partition Plan and to enable the existence of a large Arab minority within the Jewish state”


on p. 75:

“Some historians, such as Ilan Pappé (2006) and Nur Masalha (1992), claim that the Zionist movement from the very beginning sought to expel Arabs from the Jewish national homeland, and that in 1948 the Jewish military forces followed an existing plan to implement this goal. One source that Pappé (2006) uses to support this argument in his book is a widespread survey of the Arab villages undertaken by the Haganah’s intelligence services between the end of the 1930s and the eve of the 1948 war. This does not, in my opinion, constitute an irrefutable evidence base, as armies are known to prepare contingency plans for worst-case scenarios without intending to implement them unless forced to do so. I would argue that the Zionist leadership had considered several possible scenarios and that an all-out war was only one of them. More important to our discussion is the fact that at the same time, the Jewish Agency prepared for the contingency of a large Arab minority and explored ways to integrate it into the future state. This is the conclusion we can draw from documents that are much less known to both the general public and historians; I will present them here briefly.”


and on p. 77:

“In my view, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the Zionist leadership prepared itself – among other options – for a peaceful implementation of the partition resolution and for the existence of a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state. Moreover, in such a scenario, there were elements within the Jewish leadership who pushed toward improving Arab conditions and Arab-Jewish relations in the new state."


That is, Cohen is contesting the quoted claims made by Masalha and Morris, not agreeing with them, as the truncated quotation tries to imply.
  • The quote from Pappé 2006, p. 250 actually refers to the “Realignment plan” promoted by Ehud Olmert in 2006, not to pre-1948 Zionism goals (the truncated quote used in the reference is in italic):

“Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, knows that if Israel decides to stay in the Occupied Territories and its inhabitants become officially part of Israel’s population, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within fifteen years. Thus he has opted for what he calls hitkansut, Hebrew for convergence’ or, better, ‘ingathering’, a policy that aims at annexing large parts of the West Bank, but at the same time leaves several populous Palestinian areas outside direct Israeli control. In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.”

  • in Manna 2022, p.2, the quote is taken from the part that says:

"It is clear that “non-expulsion” in northern Palestine was not arbitrary, but was the result of high-level orders and policy on the part of the Israeli leadership. Saying this does not contradict the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state, since the exception due to special reasons and circumstances proves the rule.”

In other words, the statement is made specifically in the context of 1947-48 war and not as a general characterization of Zionist goals.

The same applies to the second quote from Manna 2022, p. 4:

"in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians"

as well as the third quote from p. 33:

To spur Palestinians to leave their cities and villages was an objective that the Jewish side implemented as part of the Zionist operation to uproot and occupy. The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers. The argument between so-called extremists and moderates was not about fundamental differences, but rather a question of the timing and evaluation of the negative consequences of some terrorist activities carried out by Jewish organizations. Indeed, at the end of December 1947 there were several attacks on Arab villages in the middle of the country, particularly in the vicinity of major cities where there were concentrations of Jews.

and also to the quote from Stanislawski 2017, p. 65:

"...on the Israeli side there has been in recent years a dramatic revision of the interpretation of 1948, acknowledging that Palestinians had indeed been expelled from various parts of the country... ...what happened in Israel was a combination of forced expulsions, panicked flight, and utter chaos. The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony.

  • Several of the sources talk about "Jewish majority/Arab minority", not "as few Arabs as possible" (claiming that the two are equivalent would be a clear wp:synth):
Khalidi 2020, p. 76:

"The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium — a majority Arab country — into a new state that had a substantial Jewish majority. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land.";


Lustick & Berkman 2017, pp. 47–48:

"As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). Ipso facto, this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."

  • Similarly, Engel 2013 talks about "desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine" and explicitly says that until the late 1930s, that is for most of the pre-1948 period, most Zionists just wanted "Jewish majority", not “as few Arabs as possible”, and the change only came following a suggestion coming from the Peel Commission:
p. 96:

"From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine

p. 138:

"The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ in 1948: non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal. Israel’s leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947–48 ... the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.")

  • Finally, while Morris 2004, p. 588, does say in the conclusion section:

"But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority."

a more careful reading of the book shows that his position is much more nuanced and that, in his view, this "underlying thrust of the ideology" only turned into an actual goal/"want" in the 1930s, that is in the second half of the pre-state period , and it only happened in response to external factors or initiatives:

p. 44:

“Hence, if during the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century Zionist advocacy of transfer was uninsistent, low-key and occasional, by the early 1930s a full-throated near-consensus in support of the idea began to emerge among the movement’s leaders. Each major bout of Arab violence triggered renewed Zionist interest in a transfer solution.”

p. 59:

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

This, along with the fact that even when discussing "transfer", Morris still speaks in terms of "majority/minority" and never talks about "as few Arabs as possible/minimum Arabs" or any equivalent, shows that framing his position as support for the claim that Zionist core goal was "as few Arabs as possible" would be SYNTH.


Now, before I move to additional sources that not currently mentioned in the article and that refute the "as few Arabs as possible" claim, I just want to point out that two of the quoted sources - Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014, p. 6, and Lentin 2010, p. 7 - are actually citations from Pappé 2006 and a Hebrew article published by Pappé in 2008, respectively, hence they are, in fact, tertiary sources, and given the complex and controversial nature of this issue, shouldn't have been used in this context, as per WP:DONTUSETERTIARY.

Now, here are several additional sources that refute the "as few Arabs as possible" framing:

p. 232 (context: pre-WWI proposals of “limited population transfer”):

“...the idea of a population transfer was never official Zionist policy. Ben Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs they would not make use of it. Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialisation of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture…”

p. 191:

“The extent to which the Zionists advanced the idea of population transfers during World War II is much disputed in the secondary literature. Palestinian authors such as Nur Masalha and advocates of “new history” in Israel have supported the argument that the Zionists had a master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the start. There is little evidence to support this claim.”

p. 573:

“In spite of its realistic base we see a two-fold weakness in Morris’s thesis. First, it goes back to Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, as the supposed creator of the idea of transfer. In reality, like everybody else in European politics in his day, Herzl was ignorant of the existence of Arab nationalism. At one point he noted briefly that transfer of the poor native population was possible for economic reasons, only to reject it a little later…
Until the Royal Commission, better known as the Peel Commission of 1937, proposed the partition solution, with its corollary of population transfer, the Zionist decision-making agenda was preoccupied with one theme: the consolidation of power in terms of demography, economics and culture, leaving the military responsibility to the British authorities. Since the British government adopted the transfer idea only for a short period of time, the Zionists, too, shelved it, adopting the other British option – partition."

P. 574-575:

“...one must conclude that it was the partition plan that was at the top on the Zionist agenda, and not transfer, even though both plans were inspired by the Peel Commission…

… ‘The fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions’. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of ‘operative ideology’ not of ‘fundamental ideology’. Arab ethnic cleansing was therefore not more than an option of last resort in the event of war."

P. 584

“Morris’s concept of transfer of the Arabs as the focus of Zionist decision making has no basis in political reality. “

pp. 179-180

“The commission investigated the possibility of voluntary populations and land exchanges and the prospects of finding solutions for those who would be moved and reached the conclusion that it is "impossible to assume that the minority problem will be solved by a voluntary transfer of population." Incidentally, the commission also concluded that the Jews opposed forced transfer. Transfer as a concrete political possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report - it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the United Nations partition plan of 1947. Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past.”

“The truth is that, far from seeking to dispossess the Palestinian Arabs as claimed by Mr. Segev, the Zionist movement had always been amenable to the existence of a substantial Arab minority in the prospective Jewish state. No less than Ze’ev Jabotinsky, founder of the faction that was the forebear of today’s Likud Party, voiced his readiness (in a famous 1923 essay) “to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.” And if this was the position of the more “militant” faction of the Jewish national movement, small wonder that mainstream Zionism took for granted the full equality of the Arab minority in the prospective Jewish state… Ignoring these facts altogether, Mr. Segev accuses Ben-Gurion of using the partition resolution as a springboard for implementing the age-old “Zionist dream” of “maximum territory, minimum Arabs,” though he brings no evidence for this supposed behavior beyond a small number of statements that are either taken out of context or simply distorted or misrepresented.”

“...the recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British mandate and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record, and one that is completely at odds with the anti-Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day. They reveal … that the claim of premeditated dispossession is not only baseless but the inverse of the truth; and that far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who, from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival which culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place, for the simple reason that the Zionist movement was amenable both to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state on an equal footing, and to the two-state solution, raised for the first time in 1937 by a British commission of inquiry and reiterated by the partition resolution.”

p. 161

“Pro-Palestinian researchers present Plan D as the draft of a preplanned, total population transfer of the Arabs of Palestine. But as the plan text shows, while it did order commanders to destroy villages and expel the inhabitants if they resisted, it also instructed commanders to leave them where they were if they did not resist, while ensuring Jewish control of the village. There is a great difference between an order for total expulsion and a selective order, which assumes that Arab villages will be able to live in peace in the Jewish state."

To summarize, only about half of the currently used sources claim that "as few Arabs as possible" was a core goal of Zionism movement throughout the pre-1948 period and several of them actually refute this claim. In addition, there are multiple RS - some of which I listed above - that contest this claim.

This makes the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the current phrasing non-NPOV-compliant, and careful examination of the sources shows that a much more accurate reflection of the academic consensus would be to say "a state with a significant Jewish majority". DancingOwl (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. There are 12 sources for the statement: Manna, Khalidi, Slater, Cohen, Lustick & Berkman, Stanislawski, Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury, Engel, Masalha, Lentin, Pappé, Morris. You are attempting to illustrate that about half of these sources don't actually support "as few Arabs as possible". I'll go through each.
Cohen:
You use was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state as evidence that they didn't want as few Arabs as possible. I don't quite buy this, because I interpret "as few Arabs as possible" as meaning as few Arabs as possible . That they reluctantly accepted some doesn't contradict that for me.
The p. 73 quote is about something they seriously considered, implying that this wasn't their main line of thought, not what they really wanted. This is actually validated by the p. 75 quote you share: the Jewish Agency prepared for the contingency of a large Arab minority. Contingency? It seems like they didn't want it. Same point for the p. 77 quote.
So, I think the Cohen quote of As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years is accurate. I don't see how he is "contesting" Masalha and Morris. I think Cohen supports "as few Arabs as possible".
Pappé:
I think you're right. "as few Arabs as possible" is about before the establishment of the state of Israel, this quote is imprecise and could be about modern Zionism. I don't think this should be used.
Manna:
I'm not seeing how p. 2 says the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible is only about 1947-48. In p. 4 in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians doesn't imply to me that it wasn't the main opinion pre-1948, just that it became unanimous in 1948. And even if Manna was saying that the idea only came about in 1948, I don't think it couldn't be used to justify "as few Arabs as possible", which is about the period up to the establishment of the state of Israel. The primary expulsions took place in 1948, and Israel was founded in 1948.
I don't see your argument with p. 33: The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers... Indeed, at the end of December 1947. Okay, this just means they had the objective in 1947. So? I think Manna supports "as few Arabs as possible".
Stanislawski:
Again, you're just saying that Zionists wanted as few Arabs as possible in 1948, therefore they couldn't have wanted that before 1948? It doesn't say that. I think Stanislawski supports "as few Arabs as possible".
Khalidi:
Agreed, I don't think this should be used. "Majority" is not strong enough IMO.
Lustick & Berkman:
Agreed, I don't think this should be used. "Minority" is not strong enough IMO.
Engel:
This one is mixed. I think it can probably be used to support "as many Jews as possible", but it doesn't support "as few Arabs as possible". The p. 138 quote again brings up the issue of when expulsion became the consensus idea. It concedes that eventually it did. This is interesting, but really doesn't refute that Zionists wanted "as few Arabs as possible". I guess there could be a rewording to include this nuance, but I'm not sure if it's necessary.
Morris:
Again, the timing issue. See above. I do think displacement of Arabs from Palestine cannot be used support "as few Arabs as possible", but overwhelming Jewish majority is enough to support "as many Jews as possible" IMO.
Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury and Lentin:
I don't think these are tertiary just because they cite Pappé. I'm not sure if Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury is a BESTSOURCE though.
---
I will need a little bit more time to go though the new sources you brought. But to address your thesis:

a much more accurate reflection of the academic consensus would be to say "a state with a significant Jewish majority"

I don't see that. Your proposed new statement is weaker than Morris' overwhelming Jewish majority, and Morris clearly leans a certain way on this. And it replaces the part about Arabs with nothing, even though there are not yet addressed BESTSOURCES clearly saying it (Slater, Segev, Shlaim), in addition to Cohen, Manna, and Stanislawski, which I don't think you have nullified. I really do appreciate the effort though. This is a great thing for Misplaced Pages to have. Bitspectator ⛩️ 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback - looking forward for your comments regarding the newly added sources.
Regarding the chronology - I think the question of if and when the idea of transfer became more or less consensual within Zionist leadership is key in context of a correct phrasing in the lead, because the lead should reflect the core Zionist goals - what Heller refers to as "‘fundamental ideology" - throughout the whole of the pre-state period. If this idea was adopted only towards the end of the period, and if - as Heller describes it - it was only "operational", rather than "fundamental" - then this might be too specific to be mentioned in the lead, let alone in the opening paragraph, and should rather be deferred to the body. DancingOwl (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a very detailed analysis. Based on this, I think "significant Jewish majority" would be a better framing. Andre🚐 19:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Crossroads 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bitspectator: I'm curious as to your and others' views of temporal sourcing of statements in Wikivoice: If some sources say this was the case from the beginning until the present (Morris, Shlaim, Lentin, Slater), some say from the beginning without specifying an end date (Engel, Khalidi, Segev, Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury), two say from the start until the creation of Israel (Masalha, Lustick & Berkman), one says "for years" without being more specific (Cohen), one says in 1948 (Stanislawski), one says in the first decade after the creation of Israel (Manna), and one says it's the "core of Zionism" until the present day (Pappe)... don't these, taken together, support the idea of "always"? Especially when not a single source says anything like "...until time period X, when it changed"? Levivich (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it matters for the lead. But you should clarify whether those temporalities are for "as many Jews as possible" or are for "as few Arabs as possible". I think @DancingOwl's arguments about this just relate to "as few Arabs as possible". Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you've put into this. This is conflating the notion of political consensus with the notion of desirability. To be clear, within the Zionist movement, the arguments made against transfer were made primarily on a practical basis, not because transfer was not desirable. The only quote put forward which denies the desirability of "as few Arabs" is Karsh 2019, a book review.

a more careful reading of the book shows that his position is much more nuanced and that, in his view, this "underlying thrust of the ideology" only turned into an actual goal/"want" in the 1930s, that is in the second half of the pre-state period , and it only happened in response to external factors or initiatives

This is synth, since morris does not say anything about the "want" developing in the 30s, only that the political consensus became strong during this period. The "external factors" are in this case fundamental to the situation which comes with, as Morris says, the zionist goal of "politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs." That's why transfer was "transfer was inevitable and inbuilt into Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a ‘Jewish’ state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population; and because this aim automatically produced resistance among the Arabs which, in turn, persuaded the Yishuv’s leaders that a hostile Arab majority or large minority could not remain in place if a Jewish state was to arise or safely endure" DMH223344 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we're painting all Zionists with too broad of a brush. We know that many Zionists including Herzl had dismissive views toward the Arabs and were OK with a transfer - though they often thought the transfer would happen through economic means, for example. Others didn't consider the Arab inhabitants or thought there weren't many, and still others did know about them but thought they would welcome them. Consider Bregman 2002. While not one of the absolute best sources, it's a decent enough source and I happened across this passage while perusing it on p.3. (and p.1 Palestine was in fact a barren, rocky, neglected and inhospitable land with malaria-infested swamps.) The passage on p.3: scrutinizing the speeches and writings of Zionist leaders of the late nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, one comes to the inevitable conclusion that some of the Zionist leaders did truly believe that Palestine was derelict and empty – ‘A land without a people waiting for a people without a land’. This, it is worth noting, was not an unusual thought, for some early Zionists suffered from the common Eurocentric illusion that ‘territories outside Europe were in a state of political vacuum’. But there were also Zionists who did realize that an Arab community existed in Palestine – working the land, bringing up children, living and dying – however, they took it for granted that the native Arabs would welcome the new arrivals, whose zeal and skill and, of course, money would help develop the barren land for the benefit of all of its inhabitants. Andre🚐 01:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Again, this doesn't say anything about the desirability of "as few Arabs as possible" DMH223344 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is conflating the notion of political consensus with the notion of desirability.

This is a fair point, but it, in turn, leads to several additional questions:
  1. Is the lead the right place to make this distinction?
  2. If it is, shouldn't we also make a distinction between what Heller refers to as operative vs fundamental ideologies:
'The fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions'. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of 'operative ideology' not of 'fundamental ideology'.
and let the lead describe fundamental ideology, while deferring the discussion of the operative ideology to the relevant section(s) in the body?

The only quote put forward which denies the desirability of "as few Arabs" is Karsh 2019, a book review

I've just added one more source that makes this point, and I also have a few more that talk about opposition to the idea on moral grounds - will hopefully have the time to add them tomorrow.

The "external factors" are in this case fundamental to the situation which comes with, as Morris says, the zionist goal of "politically, or even physically, dispossessing and supplanting the Arabs."

This is, indeed, how Morris describes this, but other sources - e.g. Gorny (2006) that I added today - offer a different perspective, and several other RS discussed above consider "as few Arabs as possible"/"transfer" ideas to be secondary in Zionist thinking. At the very least raises the question of whether discussing it in the opening paragraph is justified, as per MOS:LEADREL. DancingOwl (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Here's an additional source that provides an important perspective on Zionist ideology, in particular, in its fundamental approach towards Jewish-Arab relationships and Zionist demographic goals, and also clearly contradicts the "as few Arabs as possible" framing:
Gorny, Yosef (2006). From Binational Society to Jewish State: Federal Concepts in Zionist Political Thought, 1920-1990, and the Jewish People. BRILL.
Two key points:
  • Zionism's goals included both Jewish majority and cooperation with Arabs
P. 6-7:

“Therefore, national values such as return to the soil, Jewish labor, the renaissance of Hebrew culture, and the aspiration to a Jewish majority became political fundamentals in Zionism...
Zionist policy from Herzl’s time to the establishment of the State of Israel had three dimensions…
The second dimension, the intercommunal, included Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine in all their senses. In an attempt to work out joint arrangements, if only partial and provisional, that would allow them to coexist with the Arab population of the country, the Zionists aspired to cooperation in municipal government, an arrangement for relations between Jewish and Arab labor organizations, general agrarian reform, and other matters.
The third dimension was reflected in the Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs, who were embroiled in struggle for the same piece of land. By the very fact of having such plans, the movement signaled its intention to replace side-by-side existence with coexistence. It is in this sense that Zionist policy was informed by a Utopian element tempered by political realism, a policy that recognized its limits as a national force and, usually, knew how to exploit political opportunities that the era created.
At first glance, our remarks here point to a material clash between the Utopian inclination and the pragmatic consideration in Zionist policy. It is not so. The entire intent of this study is to note that the Utopian element in Zionist policy was neither a marginal and unimportant appendage nor an artificial embellishment with which politicians could adorn themselves. In fact, it was a structural and intrinsic feature of the policy. It was embedded in the policymakers’ personalities; it played a role in long-term plans for the regularization of Jewish-Arab relations; it influenced the aspiration to align the political solutions with Jews’ and Arabs’ national ideals and rights; and it served as a moral yardstick for use in distinguishing between permissible and forbidden ways and means of prosecuting the armed conflict. It was this characteristic that gave the movement and its leaders the strength to cling to a political vision that clashed with the existing conditions.
Viewed from this perspective, the Zionist reality was charged with Utopian meaning. It is for this reason that I define the relationship between reality and vision as “Utopian realism.” This seeming oxymoron, in my opinion, is one of the keys to understanding Zionism as a national idea and as a social and political doctrine that fulfilled itself.


p. 11:

“I use the term “Zionist consensus” to denote the ideological common denominator among all Zionist Movement intellectual currents and political entities, which disagreed severely on all other topics. The consensus was made up of four basic principles: an unbreakable bond between the Jewish nation and the Eretz Israel; a Jewish majority in Eretz Israel; changing the socioeconomic structure of the Jewish people as part of a comprehensive national effort; and the revival of the Hebrew language and culture.“


  • Zionists viewed Jewish emigration as the primary vehicle for obtaining Jewish majority
p. 33:

“From the Jewish standpoint, the onset of the Fourth Aliya heralded the emergence of the Zionist Movement from the crisis that had engulfed it at the end of the Third Aliya. The Jewish masses that began to reach Palestine instilled hope, for the first time after the Balfour Declaration, of the possibility of attaining a Jewish majority in Palestine.”


p. 65:

“For Ben-Gurion, in contrast, the Fifth Aliya—which infused Zionism with new hope and made the Jewish majority a realistic goal — was a basis for a broad-based federal settlement between Jews and Arabs at both the local and the regional levels.”


Also, the words 'transfer/transferring,' in the sense of 'population transfer,' are mentioned only four times, and only in passing, and one of the four instances actually refers to Jewish immigration. On the other hand, actual long-term plans assumed continued growth of Arab population - for example, see description of Jabotinsky’s 1940 constitution proposal that talks about Arab minority of two million (twice its size in 1940).
p. 102:

“In his background remarks to the proposal, Jabotinsky based himself solely on examples of federative regimes that had passed the test of political durability and met human and social moral standards. He disputed the argument that the Arabs of Palestine would become a nationally oppressed group after they became a minority of two million amid five million Jews, as his proposal envisaged.”


  DancingOwl (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of that book of Gorny's, but here is a relevant quote from his 87 book in the context of discussing the Zionist conception of the Arab question:

It was generally accepted among Zionists that the eventual solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Arabs by force, because of their obduracy, which precluded negotiations and compromise for the foreseeable future.

Also, I'm familiar with Gorny's other writing on Zionist utopia, and his definition of "utopia" is certainly not "utopia, an ideal commonwealth whose inhabitants exist under seemingly perfect conditions.":

I am aware that utopias are not ideal regimes even when their intentions are the best, and that they are not free of totalitarian tendencies, which can lead at times to excessive and even abhorrent oppression of individuals. Zionist utopias have not escaped this flaw.

Lastly, these quotes are also not claiming that "as few Arabs" was not desired by the movement. DMH223344 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of that book of Gorny's, but here is a relevant quote from his 87 book in the context of discussing the Zionist conception of the Arab question:
"It was generally accepted among Zionists that the eventual solution, whether a Jewish state in all of Palestine, partition, or an international protectorate, would have to be imposed on the Arabs by force, because of their obduracy, which precluded negotiations and compromise for the foreseeable future.
When the war ended, and the full truth became evident, the Zionists clung to what remained of their political expectations: a Jewish state in a , divided Palestine."

The sentence preceding this quote is "When the war ended, and the full truth became evident, the Zionists clung to what remained of their political expectations: a Jewish state in a , divided Palestine.", that is the quote describes the Zionist attitude at specific point int time, after WWII.
 

Lastly, these quotes are also not claiming that "as few Arabs" was not desired by the movement.

The first quote talks about coexistence and cooperation and the last one talks about doubling of Arab population - the exact opposite "as few Arabs as possible".
  DancingOwl (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The first quote talks about coexistence and cooperation and the last one talks about doubling of Arab population - the exact opposite "as few Arabs as possible".

That's definitely not the same as wanting the opposite of "as few Arabs as possible". Did the Zionists accept an Arab minority, of course, did they want it? Also no. They specifically wanted as few as possible, as shown by the long list of quotes cited by the claim in the article. DMH223344 (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Only 2 of the sources - Slater and Shlaim - talk about "wanting" as few Arabs as possible.
To that we can add Stanislawski that uses the word "desire" and Segev, who talks about "dream". DancingOwl (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure any of the sources give different temporalities for the two; they say the temporality, they say the actor/subject, and then they say one, two, or three out of "more land/many Jews/few Arabs". Here's a table:

Source time who "as much land" "as many Jews" "as few Arabs"
Manna 2022 doesn't specify "The Zionists", "Zionists of all inclinations", "the Zionist leadership" "more land in the hands of the settlers" "as few Arabs as possible", "the smallest possible number of Palestinians", "fewer Arabs in the country"
Khalidi 2020 "from its inception" "political Zionism" "seizures of land", "theft of Palestinian land and property" "a substantial Jewish majority" "systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas"
Slater 2020 "From the outset of the Zionist movement ... During every round of the national conflict over Palestine" "the Zionists", "Zionism", "The Zionist movement in general", "all the major leaders" "as much of Palestine as was feasible", "a Jewish state in all of 'Palestine'", "appropriate additional territory" "a large Jewish majority" "as few Arabs as possible"
Segev 2019 "from the start" "the Zionist dream" "maximum territory" "minimum Arabs"
Cohen 2017 "for years" "many ", "Zionist leaders and activists" "without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible"
Lustick & Berkman 2017 doesn't specify "Zionism", "Ben-Gurion" "on both sides of the Jordan River" "not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" "an Arab minority in Palestine"
Stanislawski 2017 1948 "the Israeli desire" "as few Arabs as possible"
Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014 "an inherent component ... since the founding of the Zionist movement" "the Zionist movement", "the Zionist project", "the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion" "getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible ... demographic elimination"
Engel 2013 "From the outset" "most Zionists", "Zionist imaginations", "Zionism", "the ZO", "Israel", "the state", "their leaders", "the state’s leaders", "the bulk of the Zionist leadership", "Israel’s leaders", "Haganah" "expand the territory a partitioned Jewish state might eventually receive", "in parts of Palestine formerly beyond their sights", "more expansive borders" "increase the Jewish population of Palestine", "‘Jewish’ ... by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants", "as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible" "the smallest possible minorities", "non-Jews ... numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal"
Masalha 2012 "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period" "the Zionist Yishuv" "maximum land" "minimum Arabs"
Lentin 2010 "always" "the Zionist leadership" "increase the Jewish space" "dispossess the Palestinians"
Shlaim 2009 "from the earliest days to the present" "most Zionist leaders" "the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine" "with as few Arabs inside it as possible"
Pappe 2006 "the core of Zionism" "Zionism" "as much of Palestine as possible" "with as few Palestinians as possible"
Morris 2004 "inherent ... from the start of the enterprise" (Morris 2002: "as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century") "Zionist ideology", "Zionist praxis" Morris 2001: "Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" "an overwhelming Jewish majority", "massive Jewish immigration" "massive displacement of Arabs", "instantaneously emptying the land so that it could absorb the prospective refugees from Europe"

I agree this could be expanded with more nuance in the body; it already is, but could of course be further expanded. Levivich (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points here. I am confused about some of these readings though.
First sources:
Are you sure that you have not reversed the intended "exception" and "rule" in the Manna p. 2 quote? I think more context is needed there about the "non-expulsion" in northern Palestine. I don't see how the other Manna quotes contradict the current wording in the article.
—
I also don't understand why Stanislawski 2017 p. 65 is supposed to help your argument. It's hard to see how that characterization of Israeli desires for the future state can be read to apply only to the "heat of the moment" of 1948.
—
For the sources supporting that "as few Arabs as possible" arose late in the pre-1948 period, what change in the wording of the article do these warrant? After all, if you're conceding that this was policy after sometime around then, that would mean it was policy from the beginning of the existence of the State of Israel.
New sources:
I had thought that the sentence in the lede was saying Zionists wanted as small an Arab minority as possible in whatever territory the state was to encompass. So Heller 2006, talking about "partitioning" the former mandate into a Jewish part and an Arab part, doesn't contradict that. ByVarying | talk 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

For the sources supporting that "as few Arabs as possible" arose late in the pre-1948 period, what change in the wording of the article do these warrant? After all, if you're conceding that this was policy after sometime around then, that would mean it was policy from the beginning of the existence of the State of Israel.

The lead section, and the opening paragraph, in particular, should provide a general description of the Zionism ideology as a whole, and not just its realization during a particular period. And since the sentence in question is formulated in past tense and appears immediately before "Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948...", it is implied that this is supposed to be a general description of the core goals of Zionism since its inception and till 1948.
However, if those ideas became mainstream only towards the end of the pre-1948 period, this means that framing is as a general characteristic of the Zionism throughout that period would be inaccurate and misleading.
I hope this clarifies the point I was trying to make.

I had thought that the sentence in the lede was saying Zionists wanted as small an Arab minority as possible in whatever territory the state was to encompass. So Heller 2006, talking about "partitioning" the former mandate into a Jewish part and an Arab part, doesn't contradict that.

Heller makes several important points:
1) First, he makes a critical distinction between ‘operative ideology’ and ‘fundamental ideology’, and argues that that both transfer and partition were expressions of the former. And the lead should be focused on the fundamental ideology, described by Heller as "the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas", and the discussion of operative ideology, that is the specific ways in which those "final goals and grand vistas" were realized in practice, should be deferred to the body.
2) Second, he -as well as several other sources I quoted above - disputes the framing of "transfer" (which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim) as the focus of Zionist decision making. Which means that even as "operative ideology" the transfer thinking wasn't as prominent in his view, as Morris and several other authors currently quoted in the article, claim it to be. So, again, while this is something that could be discussed in the body, the opening paragraphs is not the right place for this discussion. DancingOwl (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, since the discussed sentence is a synthesis of numerous statements dispersed across the cited sources, putting partial quotes in the table is misleading, because this obscures the different contexts to which those quotes belong - for example, several quoted temporal statements refer to the "as much land" part, but not to the "as few Arabs" part etc.

In order to get a clear understanding of what the sources are REALLY saying, one needs to look at the full quotes - I've prepared a table that does exactly that, while focusing on the two more controversial claims - "as many Jews" and "as few Arabs".

In the second part of the table I also put several additional sources that offer a significantly different perspective on those claims:

Source full quote time "as many Jews" "as few Arabs"
Manna 2022 P.2; ” It is clear that “non-expulsion” in northern Palestine was not arbitrary, but was the result of high-level orders and policy on the part of the Israeli leadership. Saying this does not contradict the principal objective of the Zionist leadership to keep as few Arabs as possible in the Jewish state, since the exception due to special reasons and circumstances proves the rule.”

P.4 “That is what also happened in the 1948 war, when it became clear that the objective that enjoyed the unanimous support of Zionists of all inclinations was to establish a Jewish state with the smallest possible number of Palestinians.”

p. 33 "To spur Palestinians to leave their cities and villages was an objective that the Jewish side implemented as part of the Zionist operation to uproot and occupy. The Zionists had two cherished objectives: fewer Arabs in the country and more land in the hands of the settlers"

1947-1948 not mentioned checkY
Khalidi 2020 p. 75:

"The Nakba represented a watershed in the history of Palestine and the Middle East. It transformed most of Palestine from what it had been for well over a millennium—a majority Arab country—into a new state that had a substantial Jewish majority. This transformation was the result of two processes: the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Arab-inhabited areas of the country seized during the war; and the theft of Palestinian land and property left behind by the refugees as well as much of that owned by those Arabs who remained in Israel. There would have been no other way to achieve a Jewish majority, the explicit aim of political Zionism from its inception. Nor would it have been possible to dominate the country without the seizures of land."

  • "from its inception" refers to the goal of achieving Jewish majority
  • "ethnic cleansing" refers to 1948
 ☒N

the goal is formulated as "(substantial) Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"

☒N

no mention of "as few Arabs" (deducing it from "ethnic cleansing" is SYNTH)

Slater 2020 p. 49

"There were three arguments for the moral acceptability of some form of transfer. The main one—certainly for the Zionists but not only for them—was the alleged necessity of establishing a secure and stable Jewish state in as much of Palestine as was feasible, which was understood to require a large Jewish majority."), p. 81 ("From the outset of the Zionist movement all the major leaders wanted as few Arabs as possible in a Jewish state")

From the outset of the Zionist movement ☒N

the goal is formulated as "large Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"

checkY
Segev 2019 p. 418, "the Zionist dream from the start—maximum territory, minimum Arabs"; "from the start" not mentioned checkY
Cohen 2017 P. 75: “Some historians, such as Ilan Pappé (2006) and Nur Masalha (1992), claim that the Zionist movement from the very beginning sought to expel Arabs from the Jewish national homeland, and that in 1948 the Jewish military forces followed an existing plan to implement this goal. One source that Pappé (2006) uses to support this argument in his book is a widespread survey of the Arab villages undertaken by the Haganah’s intelligence services between the end of the 1930s and the eve of the 1948 war. This does not, in my opinion, constitute an irrefutable evidence base, as armies are known to prepare contingency plans for worst-case scenarios without intending to implement them unless forced to do so. I would argue that the Zionist leadership had considered several possible scenarios and that an all-out war was only one of them."

P. 77: “In my view, it would not be unrealistic to deduce that the Zionist leadership prepared itself – among other options – for a peaceful implementation of the partition resolution and for the existence of a significant Arab minority in the Jewish state. Moreover, in such a scenario, there were elements within the Jewish leadership who pushed toward improving Arab conditions and Arab– Jewish relations in the new state. Such an analysis would become even more plausible if we consider a parallel committee that was established by the Yishuv leadership to deal with the Jewish settlements situated in areas designated to be incorporated into the Arab state. This view should not come as a surprise, as it goes hand in hand with what remained official Zionist policy for years. In 1943, i.e., after the Jewish Agency had adopted the idea of a Jewish state as an urgent political demand, Ben-Gurion said that the Zionist aspiration was to reach a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel in the shortest period possible."

p. 78 "One should bear in mind, though, that the democratic, equality-oriented, inclusive position was not the only one considered by Zionist activists. As was suggested by Masalha (1992), Morris (1987), and other scholars, many preferred a state without Arabs or with as small a minority as possible, and plans for population transfers were considered by Zionist leaders and activists for years. However, in the post–World War II political context, the Zionist leadership was prepared to accept (though not happily) a large Arab minority in the Jewish state and its declared position was that it would enjoy civil equality, collective rights, and the allocation of resources as outlined by the UN Partition Plan"

"from the very beginning" and "for years" are not Cohen's own claims, but are attributed to Pappe/Masalha/Morris, and most of the article is dedicated to critically assessing their claims ☒N

the goal is formulated as "Jewish majority", not "as many Jews"

Question?

Cohen disputes Pappe/Masalha claims about existing plan to expel. He does recognize the fact the having a large Arab minority was not "ideal', as far as Zionist leadership was concerned, but at the same time points out preparations for existence of such large minority.

Lustick & Berkman 2017 pp. 47–48, "As Ben-Gurion told one Palestinian leader in the early 1930s, 'Our final goal is the independence of the Jewish people in Palestine, on both sides of the Jordan River, not as a minority, but as a community numbering millions" (Teveth 1985:130). Ipso facto, this meant Zionism's success would produce an Arab minority in Palestine, no matter what its geographical dimensions."; early 1930s ☒N

the goal is formulated as majority "numbering millions", not "as many Jews as possible"

☒N

"Arab minority", not "as few Arabs as possible"

Stanislawski 2017 p. 65, "The upper classes of Palestinian society quickly fled the fight to places of safety within the Arab world and outside of it; the lower classes were caught between the Israeli desire to have as few Arabs as possible remaining in their new state and the Palestinians’ desire to remain on the lands they regarded as their ancient national patrimony." 1948 not mentioned checkY
Rouhana & Sabbagh-Khoury 2014 p. 6, ""It was obvious to most approaches within the Zionist movement—certainly to the mainstream as represented by Labor Zionism and its leadership headed by Ben Gurion, that a Jewish state would entail getting rid of as many of the Palestinian inhabitants of the land as possible,³³”... (33. Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.) ...

Following Wolfe, we argue that the logic of demographic elimination is an inherent component of the Zionist project as a settler-colonial project, although it has taken different manifestations since the founding of the Zionist movement.";

not specified

("inherent component" doesn't provide a clear indication regarding temporality)

not mentioned checkY Question?

the authors quote Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source

Engel 2013 p. 96 "From the outset Zionism had been the activity of a loose coalition of individuals and groups united by a common desire to increase the Jewish population of Palestine ..."),

p. 138 "To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested ... to leave both the Jewish state and Arab Palestine with the smallest possible minorities. That suggestion had fired Zionist imaginations; now it was possible to think of a future state as ‘Jewish’ not only by international recognition of the right of Jews to dominate its government but by the inclinations of virtually all of its inhabitants. Such was how the bulk of the Zionist leadership understood the optimal ‘Jewish state’ in 1948: non-Jews (especially Arabs) might live in it and enjoy all rights of citizenship, but their numbers should be small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal…")

Explicitly considers two distinct periods - before and after the Peel Commission (1937) ☒N Before the Peel Commission the goal was "any majority, no matter how slim".


checkY By 1948 - "virtually all of its inhabitants" 		☒N Before the Peel Commission the goal was just minority


checkY The Peel Commission proposed "smallest possible minorities"


checkY 1948 - " small enough compared to the Jewish population that their impact on public life would be minimal"
Masalha 2012 p. 38, "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period the demographic and land policies of the Zionist Yishuv in Palestine continued to evolve. But its demographic and land battles with the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine were always a battle for 'maximum land and minimum Arabs' "From the late nineteenth century and throughout the Mandatory period" not mentioned "minimum Arabs"checkY
Lentin 2010 p. 7, "'the Zionist leadership was always determined to increase the Jewish space ... Both land purchases in and around the villages, and military preparations, were all designed to dispossess the Palestinians from the area of the future Jewish state' (Pappe 2008: 94)."; "always" not mentioned checkY Question?

the author is not a historian, but a sociologist and the claims are direct quotes from Pappe, hence in context of this claim should be viewed as tertiary source

Shlaim 2009 p. 56, "That most Zionist leaders wanted the largest possible Jewish state in Palestine with as few Arabs inside it as possible is hardly open to question."; not mentioned checkY
Pappe 2006 p. 250: “Ehud Olmert, now prime minister, knows that if Israel decides to stay in the Occupied Territories and its inhabitants become officially part of Israel’s population, Palestinians will outnumber Jews within fifteen years. Thus he has opted for what he calls hitkansut, Hebrew for ‘convergence’ or, better, ‘ingathering’, a policy that aims at annexing large parts of the West Bank, but at the same time leaves several populous Palestinian areas outside direct Israeli control. In other words, hitkansut is the core of Zionism in a slightly different garb: to take over as much of Palestine as possible with as few Palestinians as possible.” ☒N

talks about “Realignment plan” promoted by Ehud Olmert in 2006 - not relevant to the discussion of the pre-1948 period

Morris 2004 p. 588, "But 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 piecemeal eviction of tenant farmers, albeit in relatively small numbers, during the first five decades of Zionist land purchase and settlement naturally stemmed from, and in a sense hinted at, the underlying thrust of the ideology, which was to turn an Arab-populated land into a State with an overwhelming Jewish majority"

p. 44: “Hence, if during the last decades of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century Zionist advocacy of transfer was uninsistent, low-key and occasional, by the early 1930s a full-throated near-consensus in support of the idea began to emerge among the movement’s leaders. Each major bout of Arab violence triggered renewed Zionist interest in a transfer solution.”

p. 59: “The bouts of Zionist reflection about and espousal of transfer usually came not out of the blue but in response to external factors or initiatives: In the early 1930s, Zionist meditation on the idea of transfer was a by-product of Arab violence and the frustration of efforts to persuade the British to allow Zionist settlement in Transjordan; in the late 1930s, it was triggered by the Arab revolt and the Peel Commission’s recommendation to transfer the Arab population out of the area designated for Jewish statehood;”

"inherent" or "underlying thrust"≠ explicit "want", therefore temporality of "want" is not defined in the currently used quote

On the other hand, two additional quotes from p. 44 and p. 59 point to early 1930s as the time when such explicit near-consensual "want" began to form

☒N

the goal is formulated as "overwhelming Jewish majority", not "as many Jews as possible"

☒N

- "piecemeal eviction" or "displacement" ≠ "as few Arabs as possible" - claiming they are equivalent would be SYNTH.

Additional sources
Morris 2009 p. 351 " the idea of transfer was never adopted as part of the Zionist movement's platform, nor as part of the programme or platform of any of the main Zionist parties, not in the nineteenth century and not in the twentieth century. And, in general, the Zionist leaders looked to massive Jewish immigration, primarily from Russia and Europe, as the means of establishing and then assuring a Jewish majority in Palestine or whatever part of it was to be earmarked for Jewish statehood. until 1929 ☒N

the goal is formulated as "a Jewish majority"

☒N

Jewish majority was expected to be established through massive Jewish immigration, not "transfer"

Laqueur 2009 p. 232: “...the idea of a population transfer was never official Zionist policy. Ben Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs they would not make use of it. Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialisation of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of agriculture…” pre-WWI period ☒N

mainstream rejection of transfer proposals

"sufficient room in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs"

Ther 2014 p. 191: “The extent to which the Zionists advanced the idea of population transfers during World War II is much disputed in the secondary literature. Palestinian authors such as Nur Masalha and advocates of “new history” in Israel have supported the argument that the Zionists had a master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine from the start. There is little evidence to support this claim.” WWII Question?

This source casts doubt on the claims about "master plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine", which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim

Heller 2006 p. 573: “In spite of its realistic base we see a two-fold weakness in Morris’s thesis. First, it goes back to Herzl, the founding father of political Zionism, as the supposed creator of the idea of transfer. In reality, like everybody else in European politics in his day, Herzl was ignorant of the existence of Arab nationalism. At one point he noted briefly that transfer of the poor native population was possible for economic reasons, only to reject it a little later…"

P. 574-575: “...one must conclude that it was the partition plan that was at the top on the Zionist agenda, and not transfer, even though both plans were inspired by the Peel Commission…

‘The fundamental dimension refers to the principles which determine the final goals and grand vistas in which the ideology is to be realized, while the operative dimension concerns the principles which guide concrete political actions’. I argue that both transfer and partition were expressions of ‘operative ideology’ not of ‘fundamental ideology’. Arab ethnic cleansing was therefore not more than an option of last resort in the event of war."

P. 584 “Morris’s concept of transfer of the Arabs as the focus of Zionist decision making has no basis in political reality. “

☒N

Heller disputes the framing of "transfer" (which is closely related to the "as few Arabs as possible" claim) as one of Zionist core goals

Galnoor 1995. pp. 179-180 “The commission investigated the possibility of voluntary populations and land exchanges and the prospects of finding solutions for those who would be moved and reached the conclusion that it is "impossible to assume that the minority problem will be solved by a voluntary transfer of population." Incidentally, the commission also concluded that the Jews opposed forced transfer. Transfer as a concrete political possibility never exceeded the bounds of the 1937 royal commission report - it was born and buried there. It was not even mentioned in the United Nations partition plan of 1947. Had transfer not been included in the Peel commission report, it would not have been placed on the political agenda of the Zionist movement, even though the idea itself had been mentioned occasionally in the past.” ☒N

According to Galnor, transfer wasn't seriously considered by Zionist leadership either before Peel Commission's proposal or after it, and it wasn't an inherent part of mainstream Zionist thinking.

Karsh 2010 p. 5: “...the recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British mandate and Israel’s early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the “new historians,” paint a much more definitive picture of the historical record, and one that is completely at odds with the anti-Israel caricature that is so often the order of the day. They reveal … that the claim of premeditated dispossession is not only baseless but the inverse of the truth; and that far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, it was Palestinian Arab leaders who, from the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival which culminated in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution. Had these leaders, and their counterparts in the neighboring Arab states, accepted the resolution, there would have been no war and no dislocation in the first place, for the simple reason that the Zionist movement was amenable both to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state on an equal footing, and to the two-state solution, raised for the first time in 1937 by a British commission of inquiry and reiterated by the partition resolution.” ☒N

"the Zionist movement was amenable ...to the existence of a substantial non-Jewish minority in the prospective Jewish state "

Gorny 2006 p. 6: “Therefore, national values such as return to the soil, Jewish labor, the renaissance of Hebrew culture, and the aspiration to a Jewish majority became political fundamentals in Zionism...

Zionist policy from Herzl’s time to the establishment of the State of Israel had three dimensions… The second dimension, the intercommunal, included Jewish-Arab relations in Palestine in all their senses. In an attempt to work out joint arrangements, if only partial and provisional, that would allow them to coexist with the Arab population of the country, the Zionists aspired to cooperation in municipal government, an arrangement for relations between Jewish and Arab labor organizations, general agrarian reform, and other matters.

The third dimension was reflected in the Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs, who were embroiled in struggle for the same piece of land. By the very fact of having such plans, the movement signaled its intention to replace side-by-side existence with coexistence." p. 102: “In his background remarks to the proposal, Jabotinsky based himself solely on examples of federative regimes that had passed the test of political durability and met human and social moral standards. He disputed the argument that the Arabs of Palestine would become a nationally oppressed group after they became a minority of two million amid five million Jews, as his proposal envisaged.” (description of Jabotinsky’s 1940 constitution proposal)

☒N

"aspiration to a Jewish majority"

☒N

"the Zionists aspired to cooperation" "Zionist Movement’s political plans and its ideas for the shaping of fair and enlightened relations between Jews and Arabs"

constitution proposal envisioning two million Arabs in future state - double their number in 1940, when the proposal was written

Rubin 2019 p. 497: "Jabotinsky’s commitment to minority rights in Europe also shaped his outlook on the future of Palestine. From 1917 until the outbreak of the Second World War, Jabotinsky envisioned a majority Jewish state in Palestine with elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority. This vision was premised on a major moral leap that characterized many Zionist leaders – conceiving of Palestine’s Arab majority as a future minority subject to minority protections"

p. 506 "...Jabotinsky also rejected the plan on moral grounds, fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine. Jabotinsky underscored this point in several letters and speeches from 1937..."

p. 508 "Zionist leaders had mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine during the First World War"

Jabotinsky's position until the outbreak of WWII ☒N

"a majority Jewish state"

☒N

"elaborate guarantees for the protection of the Arab minority"

"fiercely opposing the idea of transferring the Arab population from Palestine"

"mocked Zangwill’s proposal for the expulsion of Arabs from Palestine"

Penslar 2023 p. 67 "There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?..." ☒N

points out that the narrative of "as few Arabs as possible" is just one side of the scholarly debate about Zionism and is far from being a consensus

As can be seen from the table, several of the existing sources don't support the "as many Jews, as few Arabs as possible" framing, and some of them support it only as description of a particular period, rather than a core Zionist goal throughout the pre-state period.

And the additional sources either dispute the "as few Arabs" part entirely, or at least acknowledge that there is no scholarly consensus about it. DancingOwl (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Levivich, i really like thinking about your table, am renaming columns and adding lots more. I am also deleting the "more Jews" and "fewer Arabs" columns tho and don't agree with the table's intent.

The result of the ideology and praxis, the movement, was not only moving Jewish people in but also moving Palestinian people out. "fewer Arabs" needs said somehow and prominently in the lead. I don't think there is any real question here except how to say it. fiveby(zero) 13:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

well, actually, if you consider the totality of different RS - like the ones described in the table above - it becomes clear that there is no consensus on this question.
There is a very wide spectrum of opinions, ranging from the claim that Zionists wanted to expel Arabs from the very start, through the views that this was considered only during particular periods in response to Arab violence and were never one of the Zionist core goals, and to the claims that from the early days of Zionism and till establishment of Israel Zionist were looking for ways to peacefully coexist with Arabs in Palestine.
The current phrasing only represents one extreme end of this spectrum, hence clearly violating the NPOV principle, so the question is what is the appropriate weight that the "fewer Arabs" thesis should receive in this article - in particular, whether it should be addressed in the lead at all, and if it should - what phrasing would reflect the spectrum of opinions in a most balanced way. DancingOwl (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think DancingOwl has shown a reasonable enough doubt that we need to reflect minority and alternate POVs and address the lack of an impartial tone. Andre🚐 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

claims that from the early days of Zionism and till establishment of Israel Zionist were looking for ways to peacefully coexist with Arabs in Palestine.

This is not the opposite end of the claim that Zionists wanted to expel Arabs from the very start. DMH223344 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that this claim is the opposite of the "always wanted to expel" claim, but that there is a spectrum of opinions and this claim is on the other end of the spectrum.
Or did you mean to say that you'd define the other end of the spectrum differently? DancingOwl (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
My point is that the movement planning for existing alongside an Arab minority does not mean that they did not want as small a minority as possible. The two are not mutually exclusive in any sense. DMH223344 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
They are not mutually exclusive, if you interpret the "as few Arabs as possible" claim as a neutral statement about preferences, rather than a core goal determining the policy.
However, if you consider it in context and look at the sentence in its entirety, it's a clear expression of the "separatism/expropriation" end of the spectrum that Penslar talks about in the last quote in the table, and the other end of the spectrum is not represented at all. DancingOwl (talk) 05:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Certainly Zionism was not open to arab self-determination in Palestine at the expense of Jewish self-determination. No one argues that. And neither does Penslar actually argue that the mainstream Zionism perspective was that Arabs and Jews could have self-determination in Palestine. In Zionism, Palestine is for the Jews, and the Arabs can be at most inhabitants without national rights. DMH223344 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
What you are describing is not "the mainstream Zionist perspective", but mainly Jabotinsky's views, and even his views evolved with time - for example, in the early 1920s he proposed a Jewish-Arab federative state. As a sidenote, for most of his life Jabotinsky's also vehemently opposed the idea of population transfer (i.e., "as few Arabs as possible") and only changed his position after the WWII broke out.
As to the rest of the Zionist movement, several models of bi-national or federalist state have been considered throughout the pre-1948 period (including several variants proposed by Ben Gurion) - Gorny describes them at length in his 2006 book and also gives an short overview here.
Also, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "actually argue that the mainstream Zionism perspective was that Arabs and Jews could have self-determination in Palestine", given the fact that most of Zionist leaders accepted the partition principle proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937, as well as the UN Partition Plan in 1947. DancingOwl (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure? Finkelstein:

The cultural Zionist Ahad Ha’am was (in Gorny’s words) ‘firm in his insistence that both peoples in Palestine be treated justly’, but he ‘saw the historical rights of the Jews outweighing the Arabs’ residential rights in Palestine’ (pp. 103–4). Max Nordau declared that Palestine was the ‘legal and historical inheritance’ of the Jewish nation, ‘of which they were robbed 1900 years ago by the Roman aggressors’; the Palestinian Arabs had only ‘possession rights’ (p. 157). Jabotinsky asserted that since the Arab nation incorporated ‘large stretches of land’, it would be an ‘act of justice’ to requisition Palestine ‘in order to make a home for a wandering people’; the Palestinian Arabs would still have a place to call their own, indeed, any of fully nine countries to the east and west of the Suez (pp. 166, 168–9). In Ben-Gurion’s view, Palestine had a ‘national’ significance for Jews and thus ‘belonged’ to them; in contrast, Palestinian Arabs, as constituents of the great Arab nation, regarded not Palestine, but Iraq, Syria and the Arabian peninsula as their ‘historical’ homeland – Palestine was of only ‘individual’ importance to them, the locale where they happened to dwell presently. The Jewish people were therefore entitled to concentrate in Palestine whereas the Palestinian Arab community should enjoy merely those rights redounding on residents (pp. 210–12, 217–18).16

As for Jabotinsky, he was well within the mainstream Zionist movement (and Gorny treats him and his revisionists that way):

As a member of the Zionist Executive in 1921-3, he soon discovered that what divided him from his col­leagues in the Zionist leadership was not political differences, but mainly his style of political action

It's well established that partition was accepted to enable the eventual control of all of Palestine. Morris on the Peel commission partition principle:

But leaders like Ben-Gurion, while saying yes, continued to entertain in their hearts the vision of “the Whole Land of Israel” (“Greater Israel,” as it was later to be called). Ben-Gurion repeatedly declared (though not in front of the British) that the ministate London was offering would serve merely as the springboard for future Jewish conquest of the whole land: Palestine was to be taken over in stages.

DMH223344 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this all supports the existing wording too. Lewisguile (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure. (sorry for the delayed response - turned out that the text below, which I thought I published already, remained in drafts).
For example take the passage about Ahad Ha’am that Finkelstein is quoting from Gorny - the next sentence in Gorny's books is:

But his further claim that continued Jewish national existence depended on the creation of a Jewish majority in Palestine did not conflict with the Arab demand for justice. Moreover, in insisting on ‘historical rights’, Ahad Ha'Am was implying the superiority of spiritual aspirations over material existence.

and just before that, on pages 101-102, Gorny says:

We have seen that Ahad Ha'Am’s general outlook was based on the following principles: special political status for the Jews in Palestine as a small minority within the Arab population; recognition of the need to find ways of achieving peaceful co-operation with the Arabs;...
... He pointed to the fact that the phrase ‘building a national home in Palestine’ was not a mere question of semantics. The Government did not in fact intend to hand over all of Palestine to the Jews. It had guaranteed to respect the rights of the local population and hence its insistence that the granting of rights to the Jews did not annul the rights of other residents. We noted above Ahad Ha'Am’s emphatic demand that Weizmann stress the historical right of the Jews to Palestine. Here he attempts to explain the significance of this concept under prevailing conditions. ‘The historical right of a people to a country settled by others’, he explains, ‘means only one thing: the right to return to settle in the land of their fathers, to cultivate it and to develop its potential uninterruptedly.’ This right is not only theoretical but also practical, because it helps the returning people to withstand the opposition of the local population...
‘But’, Ahad Ha'Am cautions, ‘this historical right does not abolish the right of the other residents of the country, who have enjoyed the real right to reside and labour in the country for generations past. This country is their national home as well and they too have the right to develop their national powers to the best of their ability.’ The conclusion is unequivocal. ‘This situation renders Palestine the joint home of various peoples, each endeavouring to build its national home there.’

In other words, the sentence quoted by Finkestein doesn't mean that Ahad Ha’am thought 'historical rights' of the Jews negate Arabs' rights for self-determination, but only that they grants the Jews the right to build their national home in Palestine, side by side with Arabs, despite Arab opposition.
Similarly, the full quote about Nordau says:

The Jewish people, Nordau believed, had received international recognition as a nation, and this implied ‘the right to Jewish possession of their legal and historical inheritance, the land of their fathers, of which they were robbed 1900 years ago by the Roman aggressors’. His conclusion was that the term ‘national home’ could have only one meaning: ‘an autonomous Jewish state in Palestine, and nothing else’. As a positivist, he was aware, however, that if the ‘historical right’ was to become ‘historical reality’, some forceful ‘historic deed’ was required, i.e. mass Jewish immigration, accompanied by vast capital investment. As long as the Jews constituted the minority, their moral and historical proprietorship was in question. As for the Arabs of Palestine, they had ‘possession rights’ to Palestine, and their existence attested to the fact that they were a separate national and anthropological entity.

So the meaning of the full passage is exactly opposite to how Finkelstein tries to frame it using out-of-context truncated quotes - Gorny saya here that, for Nordau, the rights of Arabs of Palestine were self-evident, stemming from their very existence in this land as "a separate national and anthropological entity", whereas the right of the Jews, on the other hand, "was in question", as long as they remained a minority in Palestine.
In other words, for Nordau, "historical rights" were not superior to "possession rights", but on the contrary - the former were nothing more than a potentiality, while the latter was the real thing, and Arabs already had it as given, while Jews still had to "earn" it.
With Jabotinsky, again, Finkelstein misrepresents what Gorny is actually saying.
Here is the full quote from p. 167:

Requisition of an area of land from a nation with large stretches of territory in order to make a home for a wandering people is an act of justice, and if the land-owning nation does not wish to cede it (and this is completely natural) it must be compelled. A sacred truth, for whose realization the use of force is essential, does not cease thereby to be a sacred truth. This is the basis of our stand on Arab opposition; and we shall talk of a settlement only when they are ready to discuss it.

Now, notice what Gorny says just before that, on page 166:

To control Palestine through military might did not inevitably imply a perpetual struggle between the two peoples. According to Jabotinsky’s dialectical approach, the reverse was true. He was not suggesting that it was impossible to arrive at a settlement: ‘ What is impossible is voluntary agreement’, because ‘as long as there lingers in the heart of the Arabs even the faintest hope that they may succeed in ridding themselves of us, there are no blandishments or promises in the world which have the power to persuade them to renounce their hope — precisely because they are not a mob, but a living nation.’ Only when the wave of adamant opposition was shattered against the ‘iron wall’ would moderate response and more practical and measured elements come to the fore. When these forces took up the reins of power, the road would be open to negotiations based on mutual concessions, respect for the rights of the local population, and protection of this population from discrimination and dispossession.

and also what he says on p. 168:

In the political context, however, such indifference could not be maintained, because he was well aware that they were a permanent element in Palestine, and regarded their expulsion from the country as ‘totally unthinkable’. Thus, any solution of the Arab problem must be based on recognition of their national rights, and not only of their civil rights.

If you read this in its entirety, it becomes clear that Jabotinsky doesn't talk about dispossession of Palestinian Arabs or denial of their national rights, but about standing firm against Arab denial of Jewish national rights.
Finkelstein's presentation of Ben-Gurion's views is similarly full of omissions and distortions. For example, Finkelstein's implication that Palestine "belonged" to Jews and not to Arabs is directly contradicted by what Gorny says on p. 210, in the beginning of the passage on which Finkelstein allegedly bases his claims:

This plan was based on several underlying assumptions: (a) ‘Palestine belongs to the Jewish people and to the Arabs who reside therein’.

Moreover Gorny continues:

Ben-Gurion sought to establish a constitutional regime in Palestine in which Jews and Arabs as individuals and as communities would enjoy equal rights. It would be based on the principle that neither people had the right to dominate the other. ‘It is essential to establish just relations between Jews and Arabs, irrespective of majority-minority relations. It must at all times guarantee to both peoples the possibility of undisturbed development and full national independence, in such fashion that at no time will Arabs rule Jews or Jews Arabs.

The passage about "Iraq, Syria and the Arabian peninsula", which Finkelstein misattributes to Ben-Gurion, in fact belongs to Moshe Beilinson, who said (p. 214):

"...The Arab community is not the sole proprietor of this country. It also belongs to the Jewish people, as their homeland...
...the Jewish people should not be deprived of their right to existence because of the need to guarantee the right to self-determination of the Arab inhabitants of the country ... There is a fundamental and decisive difference between the situation of the Arabs as a nation and that of the Jews as a nation. Palestine is not needed by the Arabs from the national point of view. They are bound to other centres. There, in Syria, in Iraq, in the ; Arabian Peninsula lies the homeland of the Arab people.

In other words, the context here is, once again, assertion of Jewish right to build a national home in Palestine, not a denial of Palestinian Arabs' rights.
Finally, here's the full passage about Jewish people's right "to concentrate in Palestine" (p. 218):

Palestine was important to the Jews as a nation and to the Arabs as individuals, and hence the right of the Jewish people to concentrate in Palestine, a right which was not due to the Arabs. This idea of inequality of status was partially amended in his constitutional plan through the self-administration he proposed, aimed at ensuring political equality for the Arab majority (which would some day become a minority).

Here again, Gorny talks about political equality for Arabs, contrary to what Finkelstein tries to imply using a truncated quote. DancingOwl (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
None of that contradicts that the Zionist perspective was that the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance. (Gorny's words) DMH223344 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Once again, you omit critical context:
1. Gorny is not making a general statement about Zionism, but talks specifically about Beilinson
2. The passage refers specifically to partition discussions following the Peel Commission proposal
3. The next paragraph reads:

Despite his gloomy, even tragic perception of the situation, Beilinson called for public avowal that the future Jewish state would grant the Arabs full equal political status through a constitutional regime based on parity.

DancingOwl (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
No he's not talking specifically about Beilinson, that's why the paragraph I quoted from starts with This was perhaps the ultimate expression of the theory of the necessity of force, accepted by most trends of Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
So this discussion applies to Zionism as a whole, not just Beilinson. DMH223344 (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Let's look at the full quote:

Two months after violence erupted (and shortly before his death), Beilinson asked:
Till when? Till when is the Zionist movement condemned to fight and to struggle for its existence? Until the might of the Jewish people in their own land will, a priori, spell defeat for any adversary who attacks us; until the most ardent and most daring within the enemy camp, wherever they may I be, realize that there is no means of breaking the spirit of the Jewish people in their own land, for theirs is a living need and a living truth and there is no alternative but to accept them. This is the meaning of the struggle.
This was perhaps the ultimate expression of the theory of the necessity of force, accepted by most trends of Zionism. It was accompanied by the assumption that the struggle of the Jewish people, for Palestine was a question of basic survival, ’while for the Arab people, whatever their motives, the fight is not a question of life or I death’. Consequently, the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance. These remarks were based on belief in moral relativity in historical development, but their dangerous implications were tempered by Beilinson’s social democratic value system.
Despite his gloomy, even tragic perception of the situation, Beilinson called for public avowal that the future Jewish state would grant the Arabs full equal political status through a constitutional regime based on parity.

So while the sentence about "the necessity of force" does refer to Zionist views after the Arab Revolt in general, the part about "moral or historical significance" that you quoted initially is a Gorny's paraphrase of Beilinson's words he quoted earlier.
More importantly, as the last quoted sentence shows, this view didn't entail a negation of Arabs' political rights, but only an insistence on assertion of Jewish right to self-determination, despite violent Arab resistance.
This distinction is critical and, as I showed earlier, it also applies to all the passages that Finkelstein selectively quotes from Gorny - when you look at the full passages, it becomes clear that the discussion was never about negating Arab's right to self-determination, but about Jews also having the same right. DancingOwl (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Beilinson's quote does not even mention the arabs, so how could it be a paraphrase? DMH223344 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
He wrote this two month after the Arab revolt broke out - whom do you think he refers to by "adversary who attacks us"? DancingOwl (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Also note that the comment about "full equal political status" is based on the assumption that the Arabs would be a small minority. DMH223344 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
What in Gorny's text suggests that Beilinson was making this assumption as a pre-requisite for equal political status? DancingOwl (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
On parity:
The intention was to guarantee the civil status of the Arabs in the light of the future expansion of the Jewish population and to consolidate the national rights of the Jews in the face of the existing Arab majority. DMH223344 (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
And along those same lines, Ben-Gurion advocated a bi-national regime in which the Jewish people would have ownership rights over Palestine and the Arab community would have the right to reside therein DMH223344 (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
We were talking about Beilinson's ideas regarding parity - but the first quote is about Weizmann, the second - about Ben-Gurion, so it doesn't address my question. DancingOwl (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about Zionism as a whole. The leadership of the movement and its mainstream ideology. DMH223344 (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I know you do, but in order to analyze their positions in a meaningful way, we need to look at each of them in context, taking into account the evolution of their views.
Mixing quotes referring to different leaders at different time periods obscures important controversies within the Zionist movement, as well as the evolution of both the personal views of the leaders and of the general consensus. DancingOwl (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
We can make a section in the article about all the arguments Zionists had with each other (and when they had them). Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion of editors rather than content

The DancingOwl account only got started on Nov. 4, 2024. Top 10 editors to this talk page, measured in bytes:

Levivich, 14.9%. AndreJustAndre, 14.5%. Nishidani, 14%. Selfstudier, 11.5%. BrandonYusufToropov, 11.2%. Jayjg, 8.6%. DancingOwl, 7.2%. DMH223344, 7.1%. 1.122.113.194, 6%. Vegan416, 5%.

I'm not even mad. This is frankly amazing. (On the substance, the DancingOwl account is wrong. Very, very wrong.)Dan Murphy (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1. I started a year ago
2. Not sure what conclusions need to be drawn, in your view, from the fact that I made two large edits with thorough analysis of the referenced sources
3. Will be happy to hear which part of what I wrote is "very, very wrong" DancingOwl (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The DancingOwl account's first edit to this talk page was not a year ago. It was on November 4 2024.. You appear to believe a blizzard of edits and swamping the talk page is the way to victory. But there are no gold stars for the prolix. You should give it a rest.
Any suggestion that it was not an existential issue for Zionists/Zionism to drastically limit the Arab/Palestinian population in Israel is nonsense, as the scholarly literature shows.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
There's a difference between the obvious cross-interests and animosity versus "as few as possible." This wording really suggests that Zionists were out to make that number 0, and we know that's not true. If they did want it to be 0 it would be by now presumably. Yet the Arab population of Israel is about 20% or over 2 million people. In 1948, that was like 150,000, so if Israel wants that number to be as low as possible, they're very bad at this aim. Andre🚐 20:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Not to get too FORUMy, but this kind of argument should also consider the pre-Zionism demography. If the Zionist movement reduced the Arab population in what would become Israel from (say) 95% to 20%, the 20% means something different. Bitspectator ⛩️ 21:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Not FORUMy, a good point. Bickerton Klausner has diagrams of the land ownership changes. We know that the total population was changing and the relative populations of Arabs and Jews were changing. AFAIK, there were always many more Arabs, and the Jewish population small but increasing enough that it causes unrest. Actually, I was just reading Bregman and it talks about this somewhere in the first 4 or 5 pages. The number was changing because both groups were moving around prior to any of the formal displacement writ large, which was a discontinuous break. Andre🚐 21:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I like DancingOwl's comments. Bitspectator ⛩️ 20:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks DancingOwl (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The table I published earlier shows that the scholarly literature contains a very wide range of perspectives in this question.
You are welcome to address my argument on its merits, instead of taking the ad hominem route. DancingOwl (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, the Dan Murphy account's contribution is snarky and unhelpful. Andre🚐 22:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
An interesting read: “Karsh has a point,” Morris wrote to The Times Literary Supplement. “My treatment of transfer thinking before 1948 was, indeed, superficial.” He also acknowledged my refutation of his misinterpretation of an important speech made by David Ben-Gurion on December 3, 1947: " is probably right in rejecting the ‘transfer interpretation’ I suggested in The Birth to a sentence in that speech.”13 He also admitted elsewhere that “Karsh appears to be correct in charging that I ‘stretched’ the evidence to make my point.”14 Andre🚐 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Having spent some time reading all of the evidence presented here, I am very convinced that we cannot say in our voice that "Zionists wanted ...as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" especially in the very start of the lead. It is a gross over-generalisation that is at odds with the complex reality. We simply can't say "Xs wanted Y" if a significant non-fringe part of the literature says that's not true and if most of the sources say something like "Some Xs wanted Y" or "In some periods most Xs wanted Y". It is also clear to me that enough editors have the same view such that there is no longer a consensus for including this in the lead, so it should be removed.
Personally, I think the proposed alternative "with a Jewish majority" works well and is supported by the literature, so I hope we can get consensus for adding that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

We simply can't say "Xs wanted Y" if a significant non-fringe part of the literature says that's not true

Which BESTSOURCES say that it's not true?

I think the proposed alternative "with a Jewish majority" works well

Why would the compromise be weaker than Morris' overwhelming Jewish majority? Bitspectator ⛩️ 14:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Which BESTSOURCES say that it's not true?

Did you have a chance to look at the table of sources I published a few days ago?

Why would the compromise be weaker than Morris' overwhelming Jewish majority?

Morris uses this phrase as description of what he calls "underlying thrust of the ideology", which is substantially different from explicit goal/want. And if you look at all the BESTSOURCES listed in the table, you can see that most of them use similar descriptions of the goals/wants only with regard to the later part of the pre-1948 period (mostly forties and late thirties). DancingOwl (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I saw the table. The basic problem is that there is a difference between a source making a weaker claim ("Jewish majority") and a source saying "as many" is not true. For the latter I only see Karsh, and Laqueur, who qualifies it as a pre-WWI position. The Laqueur book was also originally written in 1972. Bitspectator ⛩️ 15:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The basic problem is that there is a difference between a source making a weaker claim ("Jewish majority") and a source saying "as many" is not true

You are absolutely right about the difference, but explicit refutal is not required in order to show that the current phrasing is not the best reflection of the scholarly consensus.
If the statement in the lead makes a certain - very strong - claim, it needs to be supported by a clear consensus among ALL the BESTSOURCES, not just some of them. And if we have an alternative phrasing that is supported by a larger number of explicit quotes from BESTSOURCES, then the second phrasing is clearly preferable, as far as NPOV is concerned. DancingOwl (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The tables above very clearly show that there are BESTSOURCES saying it's not true. There simply isn't a scholarly consensus for "as few Arabs as possible"; there IS a scholarly consensus for "a Jewish majority". I could live with "overwhelming Jewish majority" as closer to the scholarly consensus but it still exceeds it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Penslars Herzl and the Palestinian Arabs: Myth and Counter-Myth, Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, 24:1, 65-77, DOI: 10.1080/13531040500040263 is interesting:
"Intriguingly, very few scholars writing from a Zionist perspective have engaged Herzl’s diary entry of 12 June 1895, in which he writes:
We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly. The property owners may believe that they are cheating us, selling to us at more than worth. But nothing will be sold back to them.
This text, we shall see, is central to anti-Zionist propaganda and even to respectable recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective. But it is not addressed in any of the standard biographies of Herzl5 and in most literature by Israeli scholars on early Zionism’s approach to the Arabs." Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
ibid, p. 70:

...The association between Herzl and transfer is not limited to polemics but has recently crept into the work of serious historians such as Lockman, who claims that Herzl’s diary entry specifically envisioned “dispossessing and displacing Palestine’s Arab peasantry,” although in fact at that time Herzl had not determined the location of the Jewish state...

Stewart admits that at the time of the writing of these passages Herzl was unsure where the Jewish state would be established and believes he was leaning towards Latin America...

p. 71-72:

Consider Herzl’s rationale for opposing in May 1903 the proposal, made by the Zionist opposition that favored immediate settlement activity, to purchase lands in the Jezreel Valley made available for sale by the Sursuk family. He displayed not only principled opposition to “infiltration” but also conviction that, according to his first biographer, Adolf Friedmann, “Poor Arab farmers must not be driven off their land.” Two months previously, after visiting the pyramids near Cairo, Herzl jotted in his diary that “the misery of the fellahin by the road is indescribable. I resolve to think of the fellahin too, once I have the power.” This statement could be easily dismissed as yet another puerile fantasy of power and control, but if one is going to approach the diaries in a fundamentally skeptical fashion, consistency should be maintained regardless of the orientation of the entry in question.

p. 74:

By 1901 Herzl had come to believe that in the interests of state building some native landowners might need to be coaxed to cede their property and move elsewhere. But this charter, drawn up after years of negotiation and politicking both within the Zionist movement and among the crowned heads of Europe, is a far cry from the program for total expropriation jotted down in the late spring of 1895, before Herzl had even effectively formulated a Zionist program.

DancingOwl (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Morris goes into it as well, linking it to transfer. Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
And Karsh goes to great lengths criticizing the fact that Morris also omitted critical context:

Morris’s only ‘evidence’ for this claim is a truncated paragraph from Herzl’s 12 June 1895 diary entry, which had been a feature of Palestinian propaganda for decades prior to its ‘discovery’ by Morris. But this entry is not enough to support such a claim, given contradictory evidence. There was no trace of such a belief in either Herzl’s famous political treatise The Jewish State (1896) or his 1902 Zionist novel Altneuland (Old-New Land). Nor for that matter is there any allusion to ‘transfer’ in Herzl’s public writings, private correspondence, or his speeches and political and diplomatic discussions. Morris simply discards the canon of Herzl’s life’s work in favour of a single, isolated quote.
But what did Herzl actually write in his diary? Here is the complete text, with the passages omitted by Morris in italics:

When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly ...
It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honour, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example ... Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas , we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us..

By omitting the opening sentence, Morris hides the fact that Herzl viewed Jewish settlement as beneficial to the indigenous population and that he did not conceive of the new Jewish entity as comprising this country in its entirety. This is further underscored by Herzl’s confinement of the envisaged expropriation of private property to ‘the estates assigned to us’ – another fact omitted by Morris. Any discussion of relocation was clearly limited to the specific lands assigned to the Jews, rather to the entire territory. Had Herzl envisaged the mass expulsion of the population, as claimed by Morris, there would have been no need to discuss its position in the Jewish entity.
Most importantly, Herzl’s diary entry makes no mention of either Arabs or Palestine, and for good reason. A careful reading of Herzl’s diary entries for June 1895 reveals that he considered Argentina, rather than Palestine, to be the future site of Jewish resettlement...
‘I am assuming that we shall go to Argentina’, Herzl recorded in his diary on 13 June. ... Indeed, as vividly illustrated by Herzl’s diary entries during the same month, all political and diplomatic activities for the creation of the future Jewish state, including the question of the land and its settlement, were conceived in the Latin American context...
In short, Morris based his arguments on a red herring. He not only misrepresents a quote to distort its original meaning, but he ignores the context, which had nothing to do with Palestine or Arabs.

DancingOwl (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Uh huh, I'm sticking with best sources tho, I can pull up any number of sources if we open it up to Karsh type sourcing (ie polemical). Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
1. Karsh is a professional historian and "Israel Affairs" is a peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor & Francis - so his article definitely qualifies for inclusion in BESTSOURCES.
2. Penslar says very similar things in the paper that you yourself quoted. DancingOwl (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
No objections to using Penslar, he was on the bestsources list we drew up a while back and I am not saying that Karsh cannot be used, Idk how reliable this is but I would at least start there if I was going to look into the matter. Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I find this characterization of Karsh rather ironic, in context of the ongoing RFC about the lead: :)

"...focusing on sources which support his argument, whilst failing to engage with the full range of evidence...

DancingOwl (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
More importantly, Penslar - whom you quoted as allegedly supporting the interpretation that Herzl wanted "as few Arabs as possible" - is actually disputing this interpretation, if you look at his article in full. DancingOwl (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Then why mention Karsh at all? Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
because you mentioned Morris using the same quote DancingOwl (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
So your idea is that Karsh refutes Morris? Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
He definitely disputes Morris' interpretation, and I don't think it's our job as editors to try determine whose interpretation is "better" - we just need to take into account the fact the such a controversy among the experts exists. DancingOwl (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It depends, on what it is you want to cite Karsh for, I might not be disposed to accept what he says as due, whereas I would have much less difficulty in accepting what Morris says as being due. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
could you elaborate why you consider that Morris' thesis is due and Karsh's is not? DancingOwl (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not what I said either, I said it depends on what you want to cite Karsh for. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
whom you quoted as allegedly supporting the interpretation that Herzl wanted "as few Arabs as possible" That's not what I did, look again. Selfstudier (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
ok, perhaps I misunderstood - what was the point you wanted to make with this Penslar's quote? DancingOwl (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I will repeat a part of what I quoted already This text, we shall see, is central to anti-Zionist propaganda and even to respectable recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective. But it is not addressed in any of the standard biographies of Herzl and in most literature by Israeli scholars on early Zionism’s approach to the Arabs."
My interest lies more in this type of statement rather than (some historian) thinks (whatever they think), which is just the view of one historian. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
ok, got it - I agree that such meta-statements are important, but first of all, after making this statement, Penslar himself undertakes the task of critically addressing this quote, hence - at least partially - filling the gap he pointed to.
And second, here is another meta-statement from his 2023 book, that is highly relevant to this whole discussion:

"There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation. Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?..."

And, as I said earlier, this is the core point of my criticism of the current phrasing about 'as few Arabs as possible.' It's not that this perspective is not a valid POV held by several important scholars — it certainly is. However, it reflects just one side of the spectrum, rather than a broad scholarly consensus on the essence of the Zionist project. DancingOwl (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
And you have determined this broad scholarly consensus how, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
1. Using Penslar's definition of the two side of the spectrum
2. By examining what multiple RS belonging to different parts of the spectrum have to say about core Zionist goals regarding Jewish-Arab relationships and demographic balance (see table above). DancingOwl (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Those sources you brought earlier are only to do with the few Arabs as possible thing not the "essence of the Zionist project". Penslar (again, one historian) says of the essence, return or colonialism, perhaps it is both and how much of each is open to debate, Idk. Then two key questions...inclusive or separatist? And ME integration (the continuation that you omitted). We are not going to get very far with this if all we do is pick out bits of quotes that we like. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It's a good point, here Penslar is talking about "essence" specifically, not about whether it is and has been "inclusive or separatist." DMH223344 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
He talks about scholarly debates regarding this "essence", and then elaborates:

Two key questions run through the debate over Zionism and colonialism. First, is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land? And second, has Israel been willing to integrate into the Arab Middle East, or is it determined to dwell in isolation, buttressed by alliances and cultural ties with Western powers?"

The first of those question - ...is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land? - is directly related to the discussion we are having about the "as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part of the lead. DancingOwl (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
And the answer is? Selfstudier (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Those are the questions being discussed as part of the debate Penslar describes, and naturally each side of the debate gives a different answer to those questions. DancingOwl (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The sentence being discussed in RFC describes core Zionist goal as "create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".
My claim is that at least the "as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible" part is not a reflection of scholarly consensus, which why the table above focuses only on those two aspects, with particular emphasis on the "as few Arabs" part.
For the purposes of this discussion, the key observation Penslar makes is a meta-statement about existence of major controversies regarding the "essence of the Zionist project". In particular, he points out two key questions/dimensions, one of which is directly related to the "as few Arabs" claim - "... is Zionism inherently inclusive or separatist, open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land" - which is why I quoted this part and not the second one, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
So it's not a matter of "bits of quotes that we like", but of relevance to the topic being discussed. DancingOwl (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I have said what I wanted to say. Selfstudier (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I already cited that in an earlier debate about colonialism (see the archives). Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't really tell us much. Plenty of colonial projects said that they would bring benefits to the natives. And the fact that Palestine had not been decided on at this point also does not mean much. The project required demographic homogeneity (Shafir: The goal of Zionism was to colonize Palestine and establish homogeneous Jewish settlements while suppressing Palestinian national aspirations.) which depended on the removal of the native population, regardless of its location. DMH223344 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the "benefits" is the weaker part of Karsh's critique, and, in any case, as I said above, Penslar makes a much more thorough argument against interpreting this diary entry as evidence of Herzl's support for "as few Arab as possible" narrative. DancingOwl (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I think Masalha's treatment of this entry captures the main point well (as an early reference to the idea):

The idea that the Palestinian Arabs must find a place for themselves elsewhere was articulated early on. Indeed, the founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, provided an early reference to transfer even before he formally outlined his theory of Zionist rebirth in his Judenstat . An 1895 entry in his diary provides in embryonic form many of the elements that were to be demonstrated repeatedly in the Zionist quest for solutions to the “Arab problem”—the idea of dealing with state governments over the heads of the indigenous population, Jewish acquisition of property that would be inalienable, “Hebrew Land” and “Hebrew Labor,” and the removal of the native population.

DMH223344 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
yes, this is pretty much how Penslar describes this thesis, as promoted in "anti-Zionist propaganda and ... recent scholarship that examines Zionism from a critical perspective".
but then the bulk of this article is dedicated to the question of whether this interpretation of a single diary entry is indeed justified, and he provides several examples contesting such interpretation and pointing to evolution of Herzl's views, concluding with (emphasis mine):

By 1901 Herzl had come to believe that in the interests of state building some native landowners might need to be coaxed to cede their property and move elsewhere. But this charter, drawn up after years of negotiation and politicking both within the Zionist movement and among the crowned heads of Europe, is a far cry from the program for total expropriation jotted down in the late spring of 1895, before Herzl had even effectively formulated a Zionist program.

DancingOwl (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
That can be read as saying that his thought (albeit less forceful) continued through 1901? Selfstudier (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that would be inaccurate, because the difference between "some" and "all" (or even "most") is a categorical one, it's not just a difference of degree. DancingOwl (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting it all together, Penslar acknowledges that most scholarly references to the diary entry are part of a discussion of the origins of "transfer" in Zionist thought. My understanding is that he doesn't think much weight should be given to that entry. So it's his assessment against most scholarly references. DMH223344 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
On this particular question - it is, indeed, his (and Karsh's) assessment against proponents of the "as few Arabs as possible" narrative.
But if we look at the discussion about this narrative as a whole, and not only the question of importance (or lack of) of this particular diary entry - there is a multitude of scholarly voices contesting this narrative (again, see the table above) DancingOwl (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A private diary from the 1890s definitely isn't the place where mainstream Zionist positions were publicly articulated for the 1900s to 1940s period. Again, it's clear there is no scholarly consensus for "as few Arabs as possible" being the broad Zionist position, particularly in this period, so we just need to agree a form of wording to replace it, e.g. "with a Jewish majority". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree (lots of sources reference it) and it will need a new RFC for that once the current one is dealt with. Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Lots of sources reference it doesn’t mean it’s taken as a good gauge of mainstream Zionist opinion for all subsequent decades. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Bob, but good look finding a consensus for an alternative text, or even a consensus to make any change. Despite I think a good argument being made above, we appear to still not be winning over the hearts and minds on this. Andre🚐 04:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Imo, we need to move away from the list (of those historians who agree with me) mentality and look for more meta type discussions, after all this is primarily a history article so those should exist. I realise the historiography is fraught and polarized so then we should reflect that but we should do it properly, at least to the extent possible. Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that meta-level discussions would be extremely valuable, but apart from Heller 2006 and Penslar 2023, mentioned above, I haven't encountered any other attempts to provide a balanced bird-eye view of the topic. DancingOwl (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The question is bound up with the idea of transfer. If we take The British Mandate in Palestine A Centenary Volume, 1920–2020 Ed by Michael J Cohen then
There is a contribution by Hillel Cohen, 9. Zionism as a blessing to the Arabs: History of an argument presented as "in contrast to the Zionist approach that focused on the Jewish people only, and believed that it was better to evacuate (“transfer”) the Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a homogenous Jewish state. Whereas the idea of transferring the Arabs has been discussed at length in the literature by supporters and opponents, 1", where the "1" is footnoted to these four:
Israel Shahak, A history of the concept of ‘transfer’ in Zionism, Journal of Palestine Studies, 18/3, 1989, pp. 22–37;
Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians:The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882–1948, Washington DC: Institute for Palestinian Studies, 1992;
Chaim Simons, A Historical Survey of Proposals to Transfer Arabs from Palestine 1895–1947, Gengis Khan Publishers, Internet edition 2004;
Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 39–64
Well we have Masalha and Morris in our Transfer section of the article (along with Gorny, Finkelstein, Ben Ami and Flapan) but I don't see the other two, nor in Dancing Owl list either, perhaps there is a reason for that. So there is part confirmation for our sourcing and a path to perhaps seek out more.
We should try to see if there are more such reference which pick out suitable sourcing on the issue of transfer in order to confirm that our sourcing constitutes a representative sampling. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
So far I think only a single source (Karsh) denies the desirability of a "as few Arabs as possible" and we have a whole list saying that mainstream Zionism did indeed want "as few Arabs as possible." And Penslar says that there is a debate about the essence of Zionism: is it "inclusive or separatist?" While some authors cited do describe "as few Arabs as possible" as a fundamental, or essential aspect of the Zionist "ethos" (Ben-Ami's word), our statement is about the goals of Zionism, not necessarily about it's essence. DMH223344 (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
For some reason, you keep ignoring what Penslar says immediately after "inclusive or separatist":

"open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine, or determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land?

."determined to drive the indigenous Palestinians out of the land" is exactly the "as few Arabs as possible" part of the spectrum, and it's the only one that is being reflected in the lead currently, whereas the "open to the coterminous exercise of Jewish and Arab self-determination within historic Palestine" view is being completely ignored. DancingOwl (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree, and it's splitting hairs to claim the essence of Zionism is completely a different animal from the ethos of Zionism. Penslar clearly regards this as an issue and not a settled question. I also don't think Penslar and Karsh are standing alone. Well, Penslar's more in the middle, and Karsh on the conservative side. I'll offer some more quotes from Sachar in late 1930s: Evidently there was no way to divide Palestine without leaving a substantial Arab minority within Jewish borders... p.207, and late 40s summer of 1947, the Zionists had been explicit and emphatic in their assurances that the Arab minority of a projected Jewish state would enjoy full civil, national, and cultural rights p. 382, and from Laqueur about Jabotinsky (p.530) Revisionism recognised that there would be a substantial Arab minority in Palestine even after Jews became the majority. Or Engel, (p.138) Demographic issues worried Zionist leaders greatly after the UN partition plan left the Jewish state with an Arab minority of 400,000 – nearly 40 per cent of its population. The 1948 war mitigated those worries only somewhat. Three-quarters of the Arabs in question fled or were chased from areas designated for the Jewish state; several hundred thousand Arab residents of the additional regions Israel added in the course of repelling the invading armies became refugees as well. Nevertheless, 150,000 Arabs remained in Israel following the armistice, and international pressure for repatriating the refugees was considerable. The prospect that Israel would have only the barest Jewish majority thus loomed large in the imagination of the state’s leaders. To be sure, until the late 1930s most Zionists would have been delighted with any majority, no matter how slim; the thought that Jews in Palestine would ever be more numerous than Arabs appeared a distant vision. But in 1937 the Peel Commission had suggested that partition be accompanied by a negotiated ‘exchange of populations’....Still, the 150,000 who remained on Israeli territory seemed to many to constitute an unacceptably high proportion relative to the 650,000 Jews in the country when the state came into being. This perception not only dictated Israel’s adamant opposition to the return of Arab refugees, it reinforced the imperative to bring as many new Jewish immigrants into the country as possible, as quickly as possible, no matter how great or small their prospects for becoming the sort of ‘new Jews’ the state esteemed most.... Stanislawski, p.66: challenge to Zionism in the new state was resolved by a formal recognition of the equal rights of the Arab minority in Israel in the Declaration of Independence, combined with the imposition of military rule over Arabs in Israel... Shapira p.462, speaking of recent times The demographic growth of the Arab minority in Israel, which in the year 2000 numbered about 900,000, heightens its self-confidence. Paradoxically this growing self-confidence is evidence that Israeli Arabs are internalizing the Israeli democratic ethos, which enables them to use their numbers to achieve rights and equality. ... In addition government allocations to the Arab sector for education, development, and industrial projects are far lower than those for the Jewish sector. Discrimination is slowly but surely diminishing, and among Jews there is growing recognition of the need to prevent discrimination in the future. But the prospect of civil equality peace, war, and indecision in the future does not satisfy the Arab public, and a prominent sector of its elites demands a basic change in the identity of the state as a condition for them to accept it. The definition opposite to a "Jewish and democratic state" is, as suggested earlier, ‘‘a state of all its citizens’’—that is, a state that is neutral with respect to nationality and ethnicity, whose citizenship will be solely secular-Israeli. Within the framework of such a citizenship, the entire population would be subject to a single standard in the immigration laws. In fact this would be "a state of all its nationalities," since the Arabs demand recognition as a national group, partnership in decisions pertaining to them, regional autonomy, and equal status for the Arabic language. As an interim stage, the Arabs of Israel seek recognition as a minority with intrinsic minority rights, such as recognition of their organization as a national organization, their leaders’ right to represent them on the national stage, and cultural and educational autonomy. ...The Israeli Arabs see themselves as citizens of the state, and as such eligible for all the rights that status gives. But they do not recognize the Jewish state per se as their state, as representing them too. ...the Israeli Arabs bitterly oppose suggestions regarding repartition of the country, including transfer of Arab-populated areas on the Israeli side of the Green Line to the PA in return for the West Bank settlements; they accuse the Israelis of racism. The political, economic, and social instability of Palestinian society compared with Israeli democracy (despite all its shortcomings)... Also checkout the chapter "Zionist Thinkers and the “Arab Question" of Amar-Dahl about Zionism not being a monolith: The alternative approach to the Arab question was what Gorny calls the “altruistic-integrationist” one. Here, the realization of Zionism is predicated upon the Jewish capacity to integrate into the Orient. Yitzhak Epstein (1863–1943) is regarded as a major proponent of this position. In 1907, he published an essay entitled “The Hidden Question,” in which he addressed what he saw as the crucial problem of Zionism, namely whether it was able or willing to integrate into the region. He criticized the prevalent Zionist approach of blocking out the Arab question and advocated instead for its active integration into Zionism. Epstein believed this to be the right course for the Zionist objective, from the moral as well as the realpolitik point of view. A favorable reception of the Jews by the Palestinians would benefit both. It would mean progress for the latter while the Jews would be given a homeland. He saw the shared Semitic origins of both peoples as a basis for such cooperation and actually considered it counterpro- ductive to Zionist goals that the new immigrants to Palestine take a colonialist or repressive stance. Furthermore, Epstein didn’t think that the Arab nationalism of the early twentieth century was necessarily an adversary of Jewish nationalism. Rather, he endorsed a policy geared towards balance and compromise with the objective of advancing the national development of the Arabs, which would be in the interests of Zionism as well. Andre🚐 08:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Im not distinguishing between ethos and essence. I'm saying that for example Ben-Ami characterizes the desire for minimum arabs to be part of the essence of zionism. Other authors describe Zionism as wanting as few arabs as possible, but do not describe that as part of the essence of Zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
But some Zionists thought that the Arab minority would remain and integrate. For example, Amar-Dahl: In the utopian novel The Old New Land (Altneuland, 1902), in which Herzl sketched his ideas of the new Jewish society in Eretz Israel, the author does ded-icate several pages to the Arabs who are already living in that region. But the main viewing directionof these passages remains fixated on the firm belief in the positive effects that a Jewish settlement would have on the development of the country, and thus presents a fixed conception that the Jewish presence would elevate the living standard of the Arab population. As such, Herzl thought that they would be grateful to Zionism Andre🚐 08:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Of course you can pick out statements and writings from zionist leadership along these lines. But here we are talking about the movement as a whole. At times when the movement was struggling or its success less clear, it was more open to compromise; that doesn't mean that the movement wanted to compromise. For example, recall that it was the arguments put forward against transfer were primarily on the basis of its practicality; Shapira: The mainstream viewed it as a good thing that one could, if need be, do without. I'm not saying that Shapira is the ultimate authority on this issue, what I'm saying is that the movement wanted one thing but felt it had to settle for another.
So the desirability of transfer was certainly there. And we have a wide range of scholars who state "as few arabs" explicitly when describing zionism as a whole: off the top of my head, Shlaim, Slater, Ben-Ami, Masalha. The presence of Ben-Ami in this list is a strong indicator that this is in fact a mainstream view. DMH223344 (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Since this whole dispute concerns the question of if and when population transfer was considered by the Zionist mainstream to be one of Zionism's core goals, the relevant meta-level discussion would be one that explores different views on this "if and when" question in a neutral and balanced way.
An article starting with unqualified assertion that Zionist approach was "focused on the Jewish people only, and believed that it was better to evacuate (“transfer”) the Arabs of Palestine in order to establish a homogenous Jewish state." is nowhere near that and is just another example of "the list (of those historians who agree with me) mentality" I thought we were trying to avoid. DancingOwl (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
As a sidenote, I find the following passage from the "Editor's introduction" to the volume you quoted from quite illuminating:

The second ‘absentee’ is Ilan Pappé, the Israeli expat who has become something of a popular cult figure, arguably the chief advocate of the Palestinian Arab cause on European University campuses. His absence here is due to his having crossed the clear line between academic integrity and propaganda. Fifteen years ago, he wrote:
My bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the ‘truth’ when reconstructing past realities. I view any such construction as vain and preposterous.

This could be relevant in context of our previous discussion about BESTSOURCES, given the fact that Pappe is being quoted above both directly and indirectly (via Rouhana&Sabbagh-Khoury 2014, p. 6, and Lentin 2010, p. 7). DancingOwl (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
If you want to discuss bestsources again, best open a new section. Getting back to the transfer issue, we have Morris and Masalha sort of confirmed as being good sources on this subject and can we please find other sources that cite them and/or anyone else for this topic, individual quotes from individual historians are not that useful, there are hundreds of them. We need a list and then we can see what that looks like when we run it past what we think are our best sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
It is alarming that editors have so-far succeeded in pushing edits that paint with a brush that portrays the most extreme extensions of Zionism as integral to it. keep In mind: people like Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, and Elijah Cummings identified with Zionism, which does not pare with how Zionism is now being portrayed in this article. 10:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs)
Idk what this is supposed to be about but it is unsourced personal opinion afaics and has nothing to do with the subject under discussion here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

If I just pick up raw data from semanticscholar:

Masalha - h-index 9, 42 publications, 335 citations, 19 influential

Morris - 15/87/1449/45

Those two are also cited by Zureik 19/102/1304/37 Demography and transfer: Israel’s road to nowhere

(cf Karsh 3/10/24/2 Penslar 10/86/458/11) Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Slater (12/91/448/13) Mythologies without End pp 46-51 cites:

Morris, "A New Exodus for the Middle East?" This is a summary of the voluminous archival evidence developed by Morris in a number of his major works, including Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited and Righteous Victims. Other major works on transfer include Shlaim, Israel and Palestine, especially 54–61; Shahak, "A History of the Concept of 'Transfer' in Zionism"; Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; and Flapan, Birth, especially 103–6. See also the frank appraisal of Shlomo Ben-Ami, a Labor Party activist and minister of Internal Security and then foreign minister of Israel, who wrote, "The idea of population transfers had a long and solid pedigree in Zionist thought” (Ben-Ami, "A War to Start All Wars"). A number of Palestinian writers have discussed the concept of transfer in Zionist thought—and action. The most important is Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians.

Another mention for Shahak there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Bregman, Ahron (2002). Israel's Wars: A History Since 1947. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-415-28715-9.

Back to Dec 4 version

I object to Qualiesin's Dec 4 edit at Special:Diff/1261190407. This single edit made changes to almost every section of this article, and in total, added 4,206 bytes, but had the inaccurate edit summary added links, templates, citations, cleanup.

This edit made significant POV changes (e.g., changing "Palestinian" to "Arab", changing "colonization" to "settlement"), and it removed some sourced information and replaced with citation tags. It also made some helpful changes, e.g., fixing typos, but there is no way to revert the bad changes and keep the good ones without going through the entire damn article line by line. Further, Qualiesin, aside from the inaccurate edit summary, offered no explanation of these changes either before or after making them, for a week now, until today, where they admitted that the intent of their edit was to change the article's POV. Since that edit, most of what I've seen on this article consists of cleaning up that edit, or edit warring over changes. To me, this is an unacceptable way to collaborate on an article. This is WP:FAITACCOMPLI editing, and it's disruptive.

If Qualiesin want's to make changes to the whole page, they should do it in pieces, maybe section by section or paragraph by paragraph, so that objected-to changes can be reverted without reverting the whole thing. Edit summaries must be accurate and should be descriptive.

I understand I've likely wiped out some good-faith changes that happened between Dec 4 and today. I apologize for that, and will be happy to investigate the history and restore good edits, just let me know which ones I should be looking at, or feel free to just restore them if anyone prefers. (I'm not sure which are changes to Qualiesin's version, and which are changes to unrelated content, but I'm happy to look further if someone wants.)

I almost never wipe out dates worth of changes with a revert to lgv like this, but I thought this situation warranted that extreme measure. Hope y'all agree. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing the section "remained forever elusive" as you've complicated the situation with those changes (immediatley above). Or please just restore the edits that aren't controversial to you. Andre🚐 17:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Sure, looking now. Levivich (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I looked, with an eye to restoring the Dec 11 (most-recent before my revert) version of the "Race and genetics" and no. One of the very POV changes that Qualiesin made in that Dec 4 edit was to add the line "it is now proven that all Jewish ethnic groups share ancestral genetic ties". That was removed today, and you restored it, violating the consensus required restriction on this page. I object to Qualiesin's changes to that section, and to your re-reinstatement of those changes. Per the CR restriction, obtain consensus before reinstating. Levivich (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I didn't realize that line was only added by Qualiesin on Dec 4, but you undid quite a few other changes. Other than that line, I think the other changes should be looked at. Andre🚐 17:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I see you added some stuff that Stephen removed, and Stephen added some stuff that you removed while reinstating what you added. So under CR, both of those additions stay out until there is consensus. Unless I missed something in those edits? Levivich (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
I think maybe you should look at your own diff versus the immediately prior revision and consider restoring edits you don't consider controversial regardless of their author. Many people made edits in the last week, and your diff shows things like removing page numbers. Andre🚐 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, I went through every change between Qualiesin's Dec 4 edit and my revert and restored the changes I don't object to. Lmk if I missed anything, or if anyone has any questions about what my objection was to a particular change. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that looks a bit better. I can assume that anything you didn't restore was an objection.
You missed two typos: thetime for moral scruples or guilt feelings towards the dispossessed Arab population. This is how a Brit-Shalom Ihud, non-Zionist member of theJewish Agency, and you left in the anti-semitism with dash, which is contrary to MOS, you also changed the seealso of Zio (pejorative) which has been moved. Could you self-revert those reverts?
and two more typos: m ilitary force or diplomacy... The Talmud (BT Ketubot, 111a) relates the three oaths sworn on the eve of the dispersal of what remained of the people of Israel to the fourcorners and is there any specific objection to the attribution of El Haj and McGonigle in that section? Andre🚐 18:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
"there is no way to revert the bad changes and keep the good ones without going through the entire damn article line by line"
Funny, you seem to be telling me to do exactly that. Why is it imperative that I do that but you don't have to?
"If Qualiesin want's to make changes to the whole page, they should do it in pieces, maybe section by section or paragraph by paragraph"
Qualiesin (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Because "added links, templates, citations, cleanup" attached to a raft of significant changes suggests something. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Because per WP:ONUS, the person making new additions to a page must get consensus for them; if there are substantial objections, and the issue is that it's a massive edit with some good parts and some bad parts, this ultimately does shift the burden of doing the legwork to separate the two onto the person proposing a massive change, at least provided people can articulate their objections. Massive sweeping changes on controversial articles are harder to get consensus for, that's just how it is; breaking them down makes it easier. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@Qualiesin, because you caused that work to be necessary.
It looks like you are very new to WP:CTOPs. You may have made those changes thinking this article was like most others you end up at: if you see a change that needs to be made, you go right ahead and make that change. If anyone objects, they'll undo it and you'll discuss. It's different at contentious topics in general, and this article in particular is being extremely heavily edited right now. That meant that by the time people even realized you'd made those edits and then waited while you delayed coming in here to discuss, there'd been dozens of intervening edits. When you make a mess, you really should be willing to clean it up.
I'd suggest that if you want to work at this article, you read this entire talk page first. It's being heavily discussed right now, for the same reason that likely brought you here in the first place. In general reading the talk page first is a good idea when editing any contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Revert of text still being discussed at RfC

I reverted some edits made yesterday and early today (initially I didn't go far back enough so had to self-revert and revert again). Some of these edits changed the text under discussion in the RfC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zionism#RFC_about_a_recently_added_claim_about_Zionism

Other edits added in lots of new material which hadn't been discussed. I have no opinion on the text itself, as I'd need to check the sources, etc, but it looked like it would be considered controversial (or at least not uncontroversial). If there is agreement that I have made a mistake in this, someone ping me and I will self-revert (again) if necessary Lewisguile (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

KronosAlight additions

To editor KronosAlight:
(1) When did Herzl " Jewish assimilation as a failed attempt to avoid their inevitable genocide"?
(2) How did the US Emergency Quota Act of 1921 "limit Jewish migration to Palestine"?
(3) How many Jews emigrated to Palestine during WWII compared to the quota set by the White Paper?
I see your edits have been reverted. Now check the notice at the top of this page about obtaining confirmative consensus before repeating them. Pyramids09, that means you too. Zero 10:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

These were the edits I mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zionism#c-Lewisguile-20241215100100-Revert_of_text_still_being_discussed_at_RfC I realised they were quite extensive and covered the text currently under RfC. Lewisguile (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
1) Theodor Herzl, Letters and Journals (Jerusalem: Mizpa, 1928), p. 129., among many other places in his writings and publications.
2) Clearly a typo. It limited Jewish immigration to the US, leaving Jews with few options to escape the intensifying anti-Jewish violence across Europe. This Quota Act was in effect during the Holocaust.
3) Interesting question, you should look it up and find an answer. KronosAlight (talk) 11:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
1) I know that citation even with the same punctuation. It refers to a speech that Herzl was planning to deliver to Lord Rothschild asking for a billion francs. Full text in Herzl's diary entry for June 13, 1895. It doesn't mention assimilation. Herzl asserted that the Rothschilds had such vast wealth ("Ihr Kredit ist enorm, monströs. Ihr Kredit betrügt viele Milliarden.") that they would soon have to liquidate their assets and what better beneficiary than Zionism? It was a typical Herzl fantasy that as usual didn't happen. Herzl was concerned about the dangers of growing antisemitism, including violence, but the claim that he foresaw the Holocaust is pure mythology. Incidentally, in this speech he expresses preference for Argentina over Palestine.
3) I know the answer already, but it was you who wrote something relying on it in the article so I wondered what your source was. Zero 14:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

El-Haj 2

@Butterscotch Beluga pointed out to me on my talk page that the quote to El Haj isn't even an accurate summation of her views. I agree. It should be revised. El Haj "isn't saying that there will never be proof of shared genetics among Jews. Instead, she points out that, at the time, even when the science wasn't there yet to prove it, it was treated as a guaranteed truth" (quoting BB) and this is a much more nuanced claim than the present article text. Andre🚐 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to El Haj rather than another editor? Or maybe some secondary and tertiary sources who reflect on what El Haj means? That would be helpful for reaching speedy consensus on what to replace the quote with. Lewisguile (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The full quote can be read on p. 18 and I agree that this is about something in history, not current. She talks about the Ostrer stuff on p.123. It points out the research was widely acceptd and also says that Zoosman-Diskin was dismissed or widely ignored. This has only accelerated since then. Roughly what I'd want to do is add something from Ostrer's 2020 article or one of the other review or summaries (like Balter 2010, even though old) and attribute whatever critical El Haj quote. We could also use Kahn who summarizes both, or something like one of these Andre🚐 13:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not just El-Haj, you have Weitzmann, Yardumian as well, apart from Falk and McGonigle, all saying much the same sort of thing, that genetics is not the be all and end all. So bashing El-Haj, which seems to be a popular sport, has it's limits. Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
First of all, that doesn't address that the current material in the article isn't even an accurate summary of El-Haj. Regarding the other sources,
  • it's true that McGonigle is also critical of "genomic citizenship" and "biologization of Jewish culture and historical narrative, but he doesn't deny that there are markers of Jewish ethnicity in DNA. In fact he's critical of the use of DNA tests to determine Jewishness but doesn't deny that they can. He's concerned more with the politics, not in claiming that genetic evidence of Jewishness is "elusive."
  • As I mentioned earlier, Falk is outdated. He also doesn't say what you are claiming he says. Falk also admits that there is a Middle Eastern component to Jewish ancestry: findings support the hypothesis that posits that European Jews are comprised of Caucasus, European, and Middle Eastern ancestries
  • Weitzman also doesn't support your argument. Weitzman 2017 on p. 275: I am not a geneticist and cannot claim any expertise... p. 308: El-Haj has convinced many readers that modern Jewish genetics research is a twenty-first-century race science...To accept the critique of genetics as a revived form of race science, there are a lot of things one has to downplay or ignore... p.314 I have read many reviews of Abu El-Haj's work, but scarcely any have been written by geneticists themselves, perhaps a sign that they do not take her argument seriously or are not even aware of it
  • Yarudumian also references the studies, and has a nuanced critique that doesn't support what you claim, writing:

    Population genetics research into this question has done much to clarify the related- ness of Jewish individuals and groups, but also fostered its own series of conflicts where geography and chronology are concerned. Of the numerous and varied studies published since the 1950s, some number of researchers have interpreted the genetic data as showing that Jewish people constitute a mostly homogeneous community that emerged from Hebrew-speaking tribes of the Levant, with or without limited European and North African admixture (Behar et al. 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2006, 2010; Hammer et al. 2000, 2009; Livshits et al. 1991; Ostrer and Skorecki 2013; Rootsi et al. 2013; Shen et al. 2004; Skorecki et al. 1997). Other researchers are more circumspect in their conclusions concerning a specific geographic origin or sim- ply have not been directly concerned with the issue, focusing instead on genetic ad- mixture between Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern men (Hammer et al. 2000), within Ashkenazi Jews (e.g., Behar et al. 2004a; Carmi 2014; Listman et al. 2010; Need et al. 2009), and between Jewish populations (Behar et al. 2010; Bray et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012; Zoossmann-Diskin 2010). Certain genome-wide stud- ies have yielded a view of Jewish populations as being tightly clustered and reasonably distinct from neighboring populations (Behar et al. 2010; Campbell et al. 2012), while very recent research into admixture history (Xue et al. 2017) has further re- vealed the complexity of Jewish (in this case, Ashkenazi) population history. Various other studies offer further valuable insights into the genetic composition of contempo- rary Jewish communities (Atzmon et al. 2010; Behar et al. 2003, 2004b, 2006, 2013; Feder et al. 2007; Haber et al. 2013; Hammer et al. 2000, 2009; Karlin et al. 1979; Kopelman et al. 2009; Livshits et al. 1991; Muhsam 1964; Nebel et al. 2001, 2005; Olshen et al. 2008; Ostrer and Skorecki 2013; Seldin et al. 2006; Shen et al. 2004; Thomas et al. 1998)..these findings suggest a common ancestry for Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews, the analysis also revealed support for an Italian source in the autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) analysis, thus suggesting a southern European origin.....The most compelling evidence to date of a mosaic ancestry for contemporary Jews comes from the work of Xue et al. (2017). Their admixture analysis suggested a 70% European origin (and within this, 55% Southern Europe, 10% Eastern Europe, 5% Western Europe) and a 30% “Levantine” component in Jewish populations.

    These sources don't support the language that Jewish DNA evidence is "forever elusive." In fact, Yarudumian supports the idea of Middle Eastern heritage and has a nuanced take on whether Jewish ancestry is a mosaic versus more homogeneous, but doesn't in any way support the current claim of "elusiveness."
Andre🚐 20:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I have some different quotes. Selfstudier (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
But surely you admit that Weitzman is not in El-Haj's camp, he threw a bit of shade at her currency even though he's sympathetic to some of what she says, but it can't be read as a full-scale endorsement. Yardumian doesn't mention El-Haj at all, unless I missed it, and he does like Xue. Yardumian is skeptical and critical, and I'd be happy to use him for some things. But he also isn't a geneticist nor is Schurr his co-author. Both are anthropologists. Anyway, I know there are definitely quotes in there that are skeptical, and that could be part of balancing the POVs and writing a balanced view of what disagreements there are in this field. But again, this is anthropologists adding nuance to a genetic field. And as mentioned, Yardumian likes Xue and Ostrer likes Xue, so what's the problem with Xue? Andre🚐 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not specifically referring to El-Haj bashing, just the general conclusions, whether by geneticists or not. So, for example, Weitzman writes
"The Jewish Genetic Narrative - The same may well be true of what genetics can tell us about the origin of the Jews. Genetic history is a developing field, and like most science, a self-correcting one, and perhaps someday, scientists will be able to resolve the ambiguities we have noted here. But even then, geneticists will always need to rely on non-genetic evidence to make any historical sense of the data—written texts, oral traditions, and interviews with people about where their ancestors come from. It is impossible to turn the testimony of DNA into a definitive account of the past. The process of assemblage, dot-connecting, and interpretation means there will also always be some degree of imagination involved in the construction of genetic history, and choices to make about which story to believe." Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't really see how that Weizman supports El-Haj except vaguely, I don't have any particular objection to including that though. It doesn't directly address anything that was at issue in my view. At any rate, since I added some material to Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism, , per your suggestion/request, can we balance it on this page now? Andre🚐 21:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Of those three additions, two of them are from 2010 supporting Ostrer/Behar even before the 2013 work. And the third one is just Ostrer confirming himself.
Properly, all we should be doing is picking up the lead of the Racial conceptions article as a summary for here. Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Would you care to proffer a version, then? Would it replace or amend the current text sourced to El-Haj? Why don't you go first. I'm not wedded to the specific text. If we agree that the present text is imbalanced, that'd be progress. Roughly, the point is that Zionists wanted genetic confirmation of their traditional history, and in the 1930s a lot of science was tinged with problematic ideas. Today, though, we know that ethnicity is a more flexible concept than "race." There's no biological explanation of "white," but there are genetic markers that can tell me someone is Cajun. Right? Or wrong? Geneticists like Ostrer and Xue balance and add context to the view expressed by El-Haj currently ("biological self-definition"..."forever elusive" which is about history, not present-day) which ignores modern developments suitable for the general overview on Zionism. Modern research suggests a shared Jewish ancestry, though of course Jewish ethnicity is more than just that.... This counters Abu El-Haj's claim of a purely ideological pursuit; she is an anthropologist, so her expertise on the topic is bounded. Using her quote alone and unattributed may give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. She is a controversial voice in the field who has met with considerable controversy and criticism, such as her interpretation of archeology as well. I can offer more critical sources, but you said you wanted to move on from that. Andre🚐 02:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it seems not to you but to me the Weitzmann para and the El-Haj elusive thing are the same thing using different words but leaving that aside, is there any reason that we cannot just use the lead of Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism for the section here, which, given the earlier kerfuffle over the title, should probably just be renamed as I suggested at #Tag on Race and Genetics section to Racial conceptions of Jewish identity? @Fiveby:? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"of no moral or historical significance"

This quote is in para 2 of the "Beliefs" section. Is it possible to say who we are quoting. I can't see if it's from an author of one of the two secondary sources cited, or if it's a quote from an actual historical Zionist. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A quick find search in both of those sources doesn't produce that phrase. @DMH223344: added it here. Selfstudier (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It's from Gorny p 251:

the Jews could not permit themselves to compromise or to make significant concessions, and thus the motives of the Arabs (whether base or noble) were of no moral or historical significance.

We could say something like:

The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that Jews had a historical right to the land which outweighed the rights of the Arabs. According to Israeli historian of Zionist ideology Yosef Gorny, in the Zionist perspective, the Arab right to Palestine was "of no moral or historical significance."

DMH223344 (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Or just use the last sentence of the wording you suggested. Lewisguile (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Agree with Lewisguile. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Uganda/territorialism and statehood in lead

Historically, as we make very clear in the body, initially Zionism focused on a Jewish national home which only later fully cohered on a location in Palestine (definitively from 1905) and only much later still cohered in the demand for statehood (formally adopted only in 1942, although probably a majority position for a little while before then). This important point doesn't currently register in the lead, and I think it needs to. I will probably shortly make an attempt at this, but wanted to raise it here, in case my view isn't a consensus one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's two things (or three if we count temporality as a separate thing), the location (I agree with 1905) and desire for a state. The latter must date from Herzl, no? As I said before this Jewish national home idea does not seem to me what Zionists wanted, except in the sense that's what the British (said they) wanted to hear, rather than "state". Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, two/three things. Herzl did imagine a Jewish state, but the movement as a whole was concerned with settlement before statehood and many (e.g. Ahad Ha'am) were not at all in favour of a state. I think that's clear from the body, but not reflected in the lead, where I think it would merit just one max two sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
It's there already in the first sentence: Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. I'm not sure devoting even more space to it is WP:DUE when it's already so unwieldy. At best, you could add a footnote after "homeland for the Jewish people" or "Jewish state" to explain it evolved over time? But the lede isn't supposed to convey every nuance, and this is a largely academic point for most readers, since there is a Jewish state. Lewisguile (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This first sentence precisely doesn't allow for the nuance I'm arguing we need later in the lead. It's proper the first sentence is simple and generalising, but I think that later in the lead we need to say that (a) initially it didn't need to be Palestine (Argentina and "Uganda" were considered) and (b) initially it was not always conceived as a state. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The lede doesn't need that level of nuance. (a) and (b) belong in the body. Lewisguile (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence doesn't need that level of nuance, but the lead does, as it's not minor. (a) and (b) get significant space in the body now, as they are significant points in Zionist history, so should be briefly reflected in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A closely related topic that I was thinking about lately is the evolution of the "national home" idea throughout the pre-1948 period, before a consensus about demand for statehood was reached, that is not reflected in the article at all. There have been been some major controversies within Zionist movement regarding different possibilities - ranging from limited autonomy to various federal models - but currently those are not mentioned in the article, even in passing.
This maybe too much details to be mentioned in the lead, but it should definitely be discussed in the body. DancingOwl (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


I want to circle back around to this "homeland for the Jewish people" thing, at the article Homeland for the Jewish people, it says "The first official use of the phrase "national home for the Jewish people" was in the Balfour Declaration". It did say in the lead "A homeland for the Jewish people is an idea rooted in Jewish history, religion, and culture" but I just removed that as unsourced. We have The Jewish National Home Meant a Jewish State, which is what I think this expression was meant to cover. Bob's "concerned with settlement" may be a better phrasing if we can root out some sourcing for that. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the Basel program already employed a very similar terminology - "a home in Palestine for the Jewish people". DancingOwl (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I can go with that, it ties in with the existing lead and it should be, suitably sourced, in the article body, I can't see it, maybe I missed it. What I said about the other phrase, and it's linking in the first sentence of the lead, still stands tho, that's misleading and refers to something else. Maybe we should be linking to First Zionist Congress#Basel Program. Selfstudier (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm happy with some version of this. (The Quigley source is helpful. The British hedged their bets with ambiguous phrasing. The political Zionists, on whom Quigley focuses, aspired to a state and saw it within reach, but used the same ambiguous phrasing to hedge their bets too, only becoming explicit in 1942. Renton is very good on this too. Meanwhile, other factions of Zionism had different aspirations. But that's detail for the lead.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Muslim support

The quote "Muslims who have publicly defended Zionism include Tawfik Hamid, Islamic thinker and reformer and former member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, an Islamist militant group that is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union and United Kingdom," falsely implies a connection between Hamid's support for Israel and (former) membership in an Islamist terrorist organization, and fails to mention that he left the group and actively opposes it. This is information in the lede of his own article. Qualiesin (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Qualiesin (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the information about Druze should be spun off into its own section and expanded, as they do not consider themselves Muslims, and to my knowledge neither do most Muslims. Qualiesin (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, they should not be in the Muslim section. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
It's worth noting that in the #Back_to_Dec_4_version discussion, there were edits to this section that were reverted, though not discussed. See this diff which is a composite of 13 revisions, which broke out a section of === Druze support ===. It was reverted by Levivich and as he indicated in that thread, that was him disputing those edits, so maybe he should subsantiate a reason because per "Consensus required," those changes are now in dispute and cannot be restored. Andre🚐 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
They said "I understand I've likely wiped out some good-faith changes that happened between Dec 4 and today. I apologize for that, and will be happy to investigate the history and restore good edits, just let me know which ones I should be looking at, or feel free to just restore them if anyone prefers." (emphasis mine).
As such, there should be no issue in breaking the section off again as no one is specifically disputing it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Read the rest of the discussion, I already asked them to restore those they didn't object to, and they clarified that they were disputing the rest. Andre🚐 00:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
They said "Lmk if I missed anything" & never "clarified that they were disputing the rest". You replied that you "assume that anything you didn't restore was an objection", but they never actually replied in the affirmative.
It doesn't matter though, what I'm saying is that we don't need to make a mountain out of mole hill here as it was just an oversight of an issue we can easily fix & Levivich already said we can feel free to restore them anyway. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, go ahead then. If there weren't a consensus required restriction on this page, it wouldn't be such a big deal. But if it's a blockable offense to restore such content, I think we err on the side of caution. It's true that Levivich didn't answer me in that thread. I asked for an explanation or a rationale for not attributing El Haj. However as I said, I took it as a dispute. However, given that you, Cdjp, Qualiesin, and I agree it should be fixed, perhaps that is a suitable consensus anyway. Andre🚐 00:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Separated out. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  1. "Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Official Website – Part of the Potomac Institute of Policy Studies". Tawfikhamid.com. Archived from the original on July 2, 2010. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
  2. "COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2024/2056". Publications Office of the European Union. July 26, 2024.
  3. "Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations". Gov.uk. April 26, 2024.
Categories: