This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Levivich (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 26 November 2024 (→Supporting Sources: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:03, 26 November 2024 by Levivich (talk | contribs) (→Supporting Sources: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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:
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
|
 | 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. |
 | Zionism 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 | 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. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside Europe. With the rejection of alternative proposals for a Jewish state, it focused on the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel's national or state ideology.
As a nationalist movement and ideology, the primary goal of the Zionist movement from 1897 to 1948 was to establish the basis for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and thereafter to consolidate and maintain it. The movement itself recognized that Zionism's position, that an extraterritorial population had the strongest claim to Palestine, went against the commonly accepted interpretation of the principle of self-determination."
to
"Zionism is the belief and desire for an independent Jewish state in the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, Israel. While the Zionist movement officially began in late 19th Europe in response to rising anti-semitism, a Jewish presence has endured in the land of Israel for millennia and the desire to return to Zion—referring to both the land of Israel and Jerusalem in biblical terms—has been central to Jewish communal identity since the Romans forcibly seized the land, exiling the Jewish people nearly two thousand years ago.
Modern Zionism began in late 19th century Europe as nationalism was on the rise throughout Europe. Throughout much of history, Jews in Europe were seen as other or "Oriental" by non-Jewish Europeans. Some Jews attempted to assimilate and become more secular through the Reform Movement. However, this did not spare them from the anti-Jewish riots or pogroms that swept Europe in the 19th century. "
Reason for the edit request: The existing text is factually incorrect and has a strong anti-zionist and anti-semitic bias. Much of the article's content is inaccurate and written from an anti-semitic perspective. Zionism is not a colonialist movement as many anti-zionists believe, but it is a decolonialist movement. It is the largest landback movement in history and inspired landback movements for many indigenous tribes in North America. Please fact-check this entire article. The content of this article is extremely harmful to the Jewish people as it is now. F writer935 (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Requests to entirely rewrite the lead to have a completely different POV is not really the stuff of edit requests; it is not an uncontroversial edit. There is no consensus for these changes; discussion of changes to the lead is ongoing elsewhere on this page. When you reach WP:XC, you can join them. Levivich (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- I understand the topic is controversial, the lead must at least give both POV to the reader. The lead should match the body of the article and it is not. If you read Misplaced Pages on this topic in French, German, Deutch, Italian or Spanish none of them has such anti-zionist bias. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's also possible that those are wrong and here it is right. To assert
anti-zionist bias
, you need evidence, not just your personal opinion, I think I mentioned that already. Maybe start by considering what parts of the lead do not represent the article body and then consider what the best sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- 1. "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..."
- Critique: The term "colonization" is problematic because it simplifies Zionism as an imperial or colonial venture, which does not fully reflect the movement's goals. While Zionism did emerge in Europe, its primary purpose was not just "colonization" but rather the creation of a homeland for Jews, motivated by both a historical connection to the land and the need for refuge from persecution. The article details how Zionism was rooted in Jewish self-determination and was a response to centuries of persecution, particularly in Eastern Europe. The idea of colonization is a modern interpretation often linked to the colonial powers of the 19th century, and it does not capture the Zionist vision of re-establishing a Jewish presence in a land historically connected to the Jewish people.
- Evidence from the article: The article emphasizes Zionism’s focus on national self-determination and refuge, explaining its connection to the Jewish historical experience of exile and persecution, rather than just portraying it as a colonial project.
- Supporting Source: Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism and Shlomo Avineri's Herzl’s Vision provide insights into Zionism’s foundational goals of Jewish self-determination, distinct from colonialism.
- Critique: The term "colonization" is problematic because it simplifies Zionism as an imperial or colonial venture, which does not fully reflect the movement's goals. While Zionism did emerge in Europe, its primary purpose was not just "colonization" but rather the creation of a homeland for Jews, motivated by both a historical connection to the land and the need for refuge from persecution. The article details how Zionism was rooted in Jewish self-determination and was a response to centuries of persecution, particularly in Eastern Europe. The idea of colonization is a modern interpretation often linked to the colonial powers of the 19th century, and it does not capture the Zionist vision of re-establishing a Jewish presence in a land historically connected to the Jewish people.
- ----2. "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."
- Critique: This sentence distills Zionism into a single, reductionist goal of minimizing the Palestinian Arab population. While some Zionist factions did support population transfer, others advocated for peaceful coexistence or were focused primarily on the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jews. The article itself notes the diversity of thought within the Zionist movement, ranging from more extreme forms advocating for population exchanges (e.g., Revisionist Zionism) to those who favored coexistence (e.g., Labor Zionism). The sentence fails to acknowledge this diversity within the movement, which is important for understanding the complexity of Zionist aims.
- Evidence from the article: The article points out the existence of diverse Zionist groups, including liberal, labor, and revisionist Zionists, and how they had different views on Arab-Jewish relations.
- Supporting Source: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims discusses differing Zionist strategies regarding Palestinian Arabs, including peaceful coexistence vs. expulsion.
- Critique: This sentence distills Zionism into a single, reductionist goal of minimizing the Palestinian Arab population. While some Zionist factions did support population transfer, others advocated for peaceful coexistence or were focused primarily on the establishment of a Jewish state for the Jews. The article itself notes the diversity of thought within the Zionist movement, ranging from more extreme forms advocating for population exchanges (e.g., Revisionist Zionism) to those who favored coexistence (e.g., Labor Zionism). The sentence fails to acknowledge this diversity within the movement, which is important for understanding the complexity of Zionist aims.
- ----3. "Zionism initially emerged in Central and Eastern Europe as a secular nationalist movement in the late 19th century, in reaction to newer waves of antisemitism and in response to the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment."
- Critique: This sentence provides an incomplete explanation of Zionism’s origins. While antisemitism and the Haskalah were indeed factors, the article provides a more nuanced view by discussing the broader historical context of Jewish suffering over centuries. Zionism was not solely a reaction to modern antisemitism but was also deeply connected to the centuries of Jewish persecution in Europe, including pogroms, expulsions, and a long-standing desire for a return to the land of Israel. The sentence does not address the long-standing history of Jewish displacement and persecution, which is crucial for understanding why Zionism emerged when it did.
- Evidence from the article: The article describes the broader context of Jewish history and persecution, especially in Eastern Europe, and the development of Jewish nationalist ideas long before modern antisemitism emerged.
- Supporting Source: Shlomo Avineri's Herzl’s Vision offers an expansive historical context, including earlier Jewish nationalist movements.
- Critique: This sentence provides an incomplete explanation of Zionism’s origins. While antisemitism and the Haskalah were indeed factors, the article provides a more nuanced view by discussing the broader historical context of Jewish suffering over centuries. Zionism was not solely a reaction to modern antisemitism but was also deeply connected to the centuries of Jewish persecution in Europe, including pogroms, expulsions, and a long-standing desire for a return to the land of Israel. The sentence does not address the long-standing history of Jewish displacement and persecution, which is crucial for understanding why Zionism emerged when it did.
- ----4. "The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine during this period is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."
- Critique: The phrase "widely seen" implies that there is consensus on this point, but this is not fully supported by the article, which notes differing perspectives on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Zionist immigration undoubtedly contributed to tensions, it was part of a larger historical context, including Arab-Jewish relations before Zionism. The article mentions that the arrival of Zionist settlers played a role in the conflict but does not claim it is the sole cause, nor does it suggest a universally accepted view. More nuance is needed here.
- Evidence from the article: The article explains the conflict in more depth, acknowledging the pre-Zionist tensions between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, and how Zionist settlement was one of many factors that contributed to the conflict.
- Supporting Source: Ian J. Bickerton's Israel’s History and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict explores the multiple causes of the conflict, suggesting that Jewish immigration was part of a larger set of tensions.
- Critique: The phrase "widely seen" implies that there is consensus on this point, but this is not fully supported by the article, which notes differing perspectives on the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Zionist immigration undoubtedly contributed to tensions, it was part of a larger historical context, including Arab-Jewish relations before Zionism. The article mentions that the arrival of Zionist settlers played a role in the conflict but does not claim it is the sole cause, nor does it suggest a universally accepted view. More nuance is needed here.
- ----5. "The Zionist claim to Palestine was based on the notion that the Jews' historical right to the land outweighed that of the Arabs."
- Critique: This sentence presents the Zionist claim to Palestine as an absolute, disregarding the Palestinians' historical and emotional connection to the land. The article describes the Zionist claim as rooted in both historical connections to the land (the Jewish ancestral connection) and the modern political need for self-determination, which was central to the Zionist movement. Additionally, the article also touches on the Arab historical connection to the land, which this sentence neglects. A more balanced phrasing would reflect the competing historical claims of Jews and Arabs.
- Evidence from the article: The article discusses both Jewish and Arab historical claims to the land, noting the tension between these claims. It acknowledges that the Zionist claim was framed around the notion of Jewish self-determination, while also recognizing the longstanding Arab presence.
- Supporting Source: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims examines the competing historical narratives of Jews and Arabs in Palestine.
- Critique: This sentence presents the Zionist claim to Palestine as an absolute, disregarding the Palestinians' historical and emotional connection to the land. The article describes the Zionist claim as rooted in both historical connections to the land (the Jewish ancestral connection) and the modern political need for self-determination, which was central to the Zionist movement. Additionally, the article also touches on the Arab historical connection to the land, which this sentence neglects. A more balanced phrasing would reflect the competing historical claims of Jews and Arabs.
- ----6. "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement."
- Critique: While the sentence mentions the diversity of Zionism, it does not provide sufficient explanation of the various ideologies. For example, it does not describe the key differences between Labor Zionism (which emphasized social justice and coexistence) and Revisionist Zionism (which was more nationalistic and sometimes supported forceful measures), nor does it describe the differences between secular and religious Zionism. The article does address these distinctions, but the lead should provide more context to better explain this complexity.
- Evidence from the article: The article notes the ideological divisions within Zionism, including its various factions, but does not sufficiently elaborate in the lead about the nature of these differences.
- Supporting Source: Arthur Hertzberg's The Zionist Idea offers a detailed exploration of the various streams within Zionism, including their philosophical and political differences.
- Critique: While the sentence mentions the diversity of Zionism, it does not provide sufficient explanation of the various ideologies. For example, it does not describe the key differences between Labor Zionism (which emphasized social justice and coexistence) and Revisionist Zionism (which was more nationalistic and sometimes supported forceful measures), nor does it describe the differences between secular and religious Zionism. The article does address these distinctions, but the lead should provide more context to better explain this complexity.
- ----Each of these points in the lead fails to fully represent the complexity and nuance presented in the body of the article, often oversimplifying Zionism and failing to reflect the diversity of views within the movement. A more balanced and detailed approach would give a more accurate representation of Zionism’s multifaceted history and ideology, as discussed in the article. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- 1. "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..."
- It's also possible that those are wrong and here it is right. To assert
- I understand the topic is controversial, the lead must at least give both POV to the reader. The lead should match the body of the article and it is not. If you read Misplaced Pages on this topic in French, German, Deutch, Italian or Spanish none of them has such anti-zionist bias. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I fully agree with your point, the lead should reflect the body of the article and it is not. The body uses sources from anti-zionist and zionist sources while the lead mostly uses anti-zionist sources. It must be rewritten. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
the lead mostly uses anti-zionist sources
Which ones? And explain why they are anti-zionist, please. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)- See my answer to your previous comment. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
References
- https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antisemitism/are-all-jews-zionists/.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080010/zionism-israel-palestine.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - https://jewisheritage.org/european-routes/jews-in-europe-a-unique-story-in-space-and-time.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: 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. to
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 de-colonizationof historic Jewish land.
Recommended Citation: Ukashi, Ran (2018) "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25 : No. 1 , Article 7. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2018.1442 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol25/iss1/7
Alternative: Ilan Troen and Carol Troen Source: Israel Studies , Vol. 24, No. 2, Word Crimes; Reclaiming The Language of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Summer 2019), pp. 17-32, Indiana University Press, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.24.2.02
Alternative: https://www.hoover.org/research/jewish-roots-land-israelpalestine SECschol (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: There is no consensus for this request. Please review WP:XC. Once your account has reached extended confirmed user status, you can attempt to change consensus. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Lead paragraph wording
The opening sentence mentions Europe twice and Palestine not once, which is absurd. The second sentence oddly mentions fringe proposals ahead of Palestine. I propose to change it to this:
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, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism. Alternative locations were proposed, but rejected.
Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with your concerns generally, but I would write "through the colonization of Palestine, a region corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism". Which land does "of a land in Palestine" refer to? Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Bitspectator: Of course, my bad copyediting.
Fixed. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would prefer your suggestion to the first two sentences we have now. Bitspectator ⛩️ 13:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Bitspectator: Of course, my bad copyediting.
- As far as I can tell, the expression "homeland for the Jewish people" is of recent vintage (Balfour?), the Jewish religious connection being instead referred to as "Return to Zion". Regardless, Zionism from it's inception sought a Jewish State, at Basel, in the Declaration of Independence and politically speaking ever since. So I don't agree with that change. I am not bothered about the alternative locations bit, it could be left out altogether. As I said before, nor am I bothered by excluding "a land outside Europe". Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- In any case I am not disposed to agree to anything at all until it is explained in detail what fringe theories exist in the lead just seems like another of the frequent tag shaming attempts afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The fringe theories are that other places ("outside Europe," "alternative proposals") have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not a fringe theory and nothing in the article suggests other places have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine.
- Did you read the talk page before starting this section? There are many lead sections already, why start a new duplicative one instead of joining the discussion already in progress?
- The point you're raising is already under discussion in another section above. Same with tagging the article.
- Sadly you're not even the first person to tag the article and start a new talk page thread about something that was already being actively discussed in another thread. I never understand why people write before they read.
- Anyway, my opinion on this is same as I stated in the other sections. Levivich (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Presenting other places as more relevant to Zionism than Palestine is of course a fringe theory. And that is what the lead does by mentioning Palestine after other places and outside the opening sentence. I read the talk page, not the archives, before starting this section, and did not find your opinion on the point I raised. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- #Lede problems is literally proposing striking the same "alternative proposals for a Jewish state" language (which I agree with btw) you've raised for discussion here. The language "a region corresponding to ..." has been discussed in Archives 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 , are we just going to discuss this over and over? In between August, when you were last here, and today, there's been a bunch of work done. You're welcome to join in the discussions and work, but keeping us stuck on the same place, arguing the same few words/sentences, for months... is not helpful. Look at the RSes, especially the ones in the article and vetted on the talk page (now in the archives), propose something that incorporates other editors' feedback over the last 3 months, or support someone else's proposals. It's like Groundhog Day on this page, with people coming here to argue the same points over and over without ever reading the discussion from the last time. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The original poster in #Lede problems suggested, among other things, moving the "alternative proposals" passage down, which is also a part of my proposal, but the discussion has moved on to other subjects. And I don't dispute the wording of "a region corresponding to ...", but suggest moving it from the second sentence to the first. I'm glad we can address the order of the word Palestine in the lead without getting distracted by other topics, and that a consensus is forming for change. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Boldly made an attempt at rewording the lead . Hopefully other commenters think that this is an improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't so bad altho it seemed a bit like an attempt to keep everybody happy more than anything else. It's been reverted but fwiw, I didn't like the primarily focused on part, it should be something more like initially focused on the homeland thing (nor am I entirely convinced that Zionism was focused on that at all, I think people like the British were focused on that and Zionists just went along with it since it was progress toward a return to Zion/state.). Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- agreed, the new phrasing is misleading. DMH223344 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to address this . Obviously we're never going to have an article that's going to please everyone in every single aspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- We can change "primarily focused" to "focused". DMH223344 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to address this . Obviously we're never going to have an article that's going to please everyone in every single aspect. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- agreed, the new phrasing is misleading. DMH223344 (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think an improvement, yes Andre🚐 17:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't so bad altho it seemed a bit like an attempt to keep everybody happy more than anything else. It's been reverted but fwiw, I didn't like the primarily focused on part, it should be something more like initially focused on the homeland thing (nor am I entirely convinced that Zionism was focused on that at all, I think people like the British were focused on that and Zionists just went along with it since it was progress toward a return to Zion/state.). Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Boldly made an attempt at rewording the lead . Hopefully other commenters think that this is an improvement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- The original poster in #Lede problems suggested, among other things, moving the "alternative proposals" passage down, which is also a part of my proposal, but the discussion has moved on to other subjects. And I don't dispute the wording of "a region corresponding to ...", but suggest moving it from the second sentence to the first. I'm glad we can address the order of the word Palestine in the lead without getting distracted by other topics, and that a consensus is forming for change. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- #Lede problems is literally proposing striking the same "alternative proposals for a Jewish state" language (which I agree with btw) you've raised for discussion here. The language "a region corresponding to ..." has been discussed in Archives 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 29 , are we just going to discuss this over and over? In between August, when you were last here, and today, there's been a bunch of work done. You're welcome to join in the discussions and work, but keeping us stuck on the same place, arguing the same few words/sentences, for months... is not helpful. Look at the RSes, especially the ones in the article and vetted on the talk page (now in the archives), propose something that incorporates other editors' feedback over the last 3 months, or support someone else's proposals. It's like Groundhog Day on this page, with people coming here to argue the same points over and over without ever reading the discussion from the last time. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Presenting other places as more relevant to Zionism than Palestine is of course a fringe theory. And that is what the lead does by mentioning Palestine after other places and outside the opening sentence. I read the talk page, not the archives, before starting this section, and did not find your opinion on the point I raised. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- The fringe theories are that other places ("outside Europe," "alternative proposals") have more relevance to Zionism than Palestine. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- In any case I am not disposed to agree to anything at all until it is explained in detail what fringe theories exist in the lead just seems like another of the frequent tag shaming attempts afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of the current first sentence ending with "...of Palestine." I think "Jewish state in Palestine" is so important to any description of Zionism--such a sine qua non--that it must be in the first sentence, as it is currently. I don't think it's accurate to say that Zionism "primarily" or "mainly" focused on Palestine, because that implies there was a secondary focus on somewhere other than Palestine, as if most Zionists were focused on Palestine but there were also some other Zionists who were busy colonizing somewhere else--that's not true.
More generally, I do not think that "alternative locations" is important enough to be in the first paragraph of the lead, and maybe not even in the lead at all. We have to remember what the Uganda Scheme was in the context of Zionism's overall development. First, remember that Der Judenstaat was published in 1896--I believe this is the starting point of Zionism according to most sources. The first World Zionist Congress was the following year, 1897--this is indisputably the official start of Zionism, and the latest point at which the start of Zionism can be placed. At that 1897 Congress, they adopted the Basel Program, which said "in Palestine"--there can be no dispute that "in Palestine" was a key part of the official Zionist program from their first Congress. Plus, the word "Zion" (the name of a hill in Jerusalem) is the root of "Zionism". There really can be no doubt that Palestine was part of Zionism from the get-go.
The Uganda Scheme happened just 6 years later, in 1903. It came on the heels of various events, like the 1903 Kishinev pogrom and 1899-1902 Second Boer War, as well as problems early Zionists had with the Ottomans. It was an idea by the British and Theodor Herzl. It was proposed and rejected at the Sixth Zionist Congress. As far as I know, never before, and never again, did the Zionists ever seriously consider any place other than Palestine. So we're talking about something that happened six years after the founding of this 125-year-old movement. It was a blip, an oddity. Not a core part of what Zionism is. I don't know why this article should put so much focus on this one-time non-event, so much that it's in the first paragraph of the lead.
I'd be convinced to change my opinion if it can be shown that books about Zionism heavily focus on, or put significant attention or importance upon, the Uganda Scheme or consideration of places other than Palestine generally. I could be wrong, but I do not think this is what they say.
So I think the line "several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement" should be removed from the lead. I don't even think it's true that "several" locations were "proposed" (I think just East Africa was proposed?), and I don't know what the reference to South America is about. This Misplaced Pages article says nothing about South America being proposed, just that one historian (Penslar) thinks Herzl may have had it in mind at one point, and that is not worthy of including in the lead. Levivich (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- South America is about the Argentinan proposal as mentioned in Zionism#Territories_considered. I don't see an issue with removing reference to the alternative proposals from the first paragraph (or maybe even entirely) because at least retrospectively they seem like minor asides to the movements clear focus on Palestine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah--thank you for pointing me to that section. I think the section actually reinforces my point. Misplaced Pages says, as does the cited source, that Herzl considered places other than Palestine and East Africa (source: "Zionism's prophet, Theodor Herzl, considered Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, and the Sinai Peninsula as potential Jewish homelands."), which doesn't mean anyone else in the Zionist movement considered these places. Later in the same paragraph, Misplaced Pages says (cited to another source) that it's unclear if Herzl seriously considered the Argentina plan. That seems to directly contradict what the lead says ("several other alternative locations that were outside of Europe, such as in East Africa and South America, were proposed and rejected by the movement")... if Herzl considered these, and maybe not even seriously considered them, that doesn't support "proposed and rejected by the movement." AFAIK, and it seems like as far as Misplaced Pages/the sources say, only East Africa was proposed and rejected by the movement.
- So for this reason--that the sentence in the lead isn't supported in the body--I'm going to remove the sentence from the lead. (If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and explain why.)
- I'll note as an aside that I think even the body section on "territories considered" seems too long for this high-level summary article--though I wouldn't want to see this content removed from Misplaced Pages altogether--I wonder if the full detail should be moved to some sub-article, and a shorter summary left in its place. Levivich (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I made some changes to the first paragraph, hopefully my edit summaries were self-explanatory. Anyone should feel free to tweak/revert/whatever as you see fit. Levivich (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think your version is fine, and don't intend to make further changes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- OK, let's give that a go, see what happens. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to see some positive improvements. Nice work everyone. Andre🚐 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quickly dropping in to say I think "of Palestine" is an EGG link, since Palestine points to State of Palestine, not the linked Palestine (region). We cool switching it to "of the region of Palestine" or "of historic Palestine"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think "region of" is good Andre🚐 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW I'm not opposed to it, but to my ears, "region of X" means "in and around X" as opposed to "in X". The meaning we're going for is "inside X", as in "in a part of X" (there is some scholarly debate about whether it was really "in all of X").
- Although my real quibble is that Palestine (region) should be moved to Palestine because the thing that existed for 2,000+ years is obviously the primary topic over the thing that was declared less than 40 years ago and doesn't even really fully exist yet right now. But that would be a discussion for another page (and I don't intend on taking it up). Levivich (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Quickly dropping in to say I think "of Palestine" is an EGG link, since Palestine points to State of Palestine, not the linked Palestine (region). We cool switching it to "of the region of Palestine" or "of historic Palestine"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to see some positive improvements. Nice work everyone. Andre🚐 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
| OT Discussion of Palestine DAB |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- agreed about the phrasing. In RS the phrasing is usually "in Palestine", not "in the region of Palestine". DMH223344 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why I liked it the way it was to begin with, in different articles it is customary to specify "which" Palestine is meant and I don't really see it as an EGG. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier I didn't see the original link as an MOS:EGG either, but if it had to be changed, I prefer your choice of historic Palestine. It reads better to me personally & seems more concise then the region of Palestine.
- I will note however that your change was reverted, so I'd like to ask @האופה why they consider it a "pov term". Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Which is why I liked it the way it was to begin with, in different articles it is customary to specify "which" Palestine is meant and I don't really see it as an EGG. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- agreed about the phrasing. In RS the phrasing is usually "in Palestine", not "in the region of Palestine". DMH223344 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Include Dictionary Definition of Zionism in Lead
Opening sentence is biased and not from a neutral perspective.
Change opening sentence from:
"Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of the region of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history." to
"Zionism is a movement for the re-establishment, development, and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."
Use the definition of Zionism from the Oxford Dictionary: Zionism is "a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel."
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803133512904 SECschol (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- The opening paragraphs of a Misplaced Pages article are written according to WP:LEAD guidelines. We can't add copyrighted text from somewhere else.--♦IanMacM♦ 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! The guidelines you referenced say: should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.
- Would it be a problem to include the dictionary definition if we cite the Oxford dictionary?
- Alternatively, we could reword the definition: "Zionism is a movement dedicated to the re-establishment, growth, and safeguarding of a Jewish homeland in the region now known as Israel." and still cite the dictionary.
- I think this defintion is a more balanced and neutral definition rather than suggesting it's a "colonial project" in the first sentence of the article...a widely disputed proposition. SECschol (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- I fully agree with you Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit Lead for Clarity
Change "Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people through the colonization of the region of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history."
to
"Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel."
Helps clarify and is more concise. Original version is too wordy and complicated.
Also would recommend including as a second sentence: The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.
This is mentioned in the terminology section, but could be moved to the lead as such:
Zionism is a political and cultural movement that emerged in the late 19th century with the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine, which is today the modern state of Israel. The term "Zionism" is derived from the Hebrew word Zion, which is a biblical reference to Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. SECschol (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Why is there this section?: Zionism as settler colonialism
But not this section: Zionism as an Indigenous Rights Movement
Zionism has increasingly been understood by some scholars and activists as a movement for the recognition and rights of an indigenous people. Central to this view is the assertion that Jews, as a historically oppressed group with deep historical, cultural, and religious ties to the land of Israel, possess indigenous status within the region. This perspective highlights the long-standing Jewish presence in the land of Israel, dating back over 3,000 years, with continuous settlement and cultural development despite successive periods of exile, foreign rule, and persecution. The rise of Zionism in the late 19th century, fueled by the desire to escape rising European antisemitism and the impacts of the Holocaust, was seen by its proponents as a necessary assertion of Jewish self-determination, akin to other indigenous movements around the world fighting for the right to self-govern and protect their cultural heritage. This view aligns with international frameworks on indigenous rights, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their distinct cultural identities, languages, and connection to traditional lands. As the discourse around Zionism continues to evolve, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the understanding of Zionism as an indigenous rights movement remains a contentious but important aspect of the broader conversation on nationalism, self-determination, and the politics of the Middle East.
Source: https://www.hoover.org/research/jewish-roots-land-israelpalestine See Also: Ukashi, Ran (2018) "Zionism, Imperialism, and Indigeneity in Israel/Palestine: A Critical Analysis," Peace and Conflict Studies: Vol. 25 : No. 1 , Article 7. DOI: 10.46743/1082-7307/2018.1442 Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/pcs/vol25/iss1/7
Either delete this section in its entirety: Zionism as settler colonialism
or include the above section to provide a neutral unbiased perspective by providing both sides of the debate. SECschol (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: There is no consensus for this request. Please review WP:XC. Once your account has reached extended confirmed user status, you can attempt to change consensus. DMH223344 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- DMH223344, has this change been proposed before? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- not as far as I know, have you seen a similar proposal? DMH223344 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, so I'm curious why you'd say there's no consensus for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How will a nonec user work to establish consensus for something they are proposing? DMH223344 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- if consensus is required to fulfill an edit request, doesn't that mean we should summarily decline almost all of them? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits like fixing typos or obvious errors; see WP:EDITXY. Levivich (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Pretty much, unless they are simple and straightforward to implement. As soon as they run into paragraphs, explanations and opinion, then they usually aren't. Or those making the requests haven't read the talkpages/archives, which seems to happen a lot, especially on this page. Selfstudier (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Edit requests are for uncontroversial edits like fixing typos or obvious errors; see WP:EDITXY. Levivich (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- if consensus is required to fulfill an edit request, doesn't that mean we should summarily decline almost all of them? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- How will a nonec user work to establish consensus for something they are proposing? DMH223344 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, so I'm curious why you'd say there's no consensus for it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- not as far as I know, have you seen a similar proposal? DMH223344 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- DMH223344, has this change been proposed before? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Either delete this section in its entirety: Zionism as settler colonialism
That's not going to happen.or include the above section to provide a neutral unbiased perspective by providing both sides of the debate
Nor is this, or at least we will not be simply reflecting a view asserting that Jews are indigeneous, noting also that this is not the same thing as a contrary view to Zionism as settler colonialism. As well the author of the first source given does not appear to be an expert on Zionism while the second source given is from a person who was a PHD candidate at the time so neither of these are particularly great sources.- That said, there may be a case for more properly reflecting (a possibly adjusted) lead of Zionism as settler colonialism in this article in summary style. Note that Penslar (a best source) says (see Talk:Zionism/Archive 25#Penslar on colonialism/settler colonialism):
- "There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism. Debates about virtually every aspect of the history of Zionism and Israel boil down to clashing conceptions of the essence of the Zionist project—whether it has been one of homecoming and seeking asylum or one of colonial settlement and expropriation." and
- ""Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities, like a celestial body with an eccentric orbit around its sun." "The questions underlying this chapter, like its predecessor, are about Zionism’s most essential and salient qualities."
- Those matters can be dealt with as part of the ongoing discussions about this article by EC editors. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Penslar 2007 p. 108:
Thus far I have set Zionism against the background of colonialism, anti-colonial movements, and post-colonial states. I have argued that Zionism is not merely a subset of the first and can, like the latter two, be simplified and rendered largely congruent with European nationalism. ... for its strategic value, natural resources, or productive capabilities but rather because of what Jews believed to be historic, religious, and cultural ties to the area known to them as the Land of Israel.... Zionism was based in concepts of return, restoration, and re-inscription.
Please read the whole page of course, as I necessarily cannot quote all of it, but it is an extremely nuanced take and there are many surrounding aspects that shed light on this, I can only quote the part responsive to the point I'm making. He acknowledges the parallel to settler-colonialism such as the Puritans, but contrasts it with such: Zionists didn't see the land as a tabula rasa. See also p.111 which he points out that Israel's colonialism should be understood post-1967. Andre🚐 02:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)- Of course, there is lots of nuance but the conclusion is as I outlined in the second quote above (from Penslar in 2024 not 2007) "Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities". Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- In the section "Zionism and colonialism" Penslar's coverage of the topic is only partially addressed, I'm happy to have a discussion about what additions or changes you suggest. One aspect that is covered is that some authors frame 67 as a turning point (although penslar is not currently listed as one of those authors). Are you sure you have page 111 correct? DMH223344 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is Penslar 2007, not Penslar 2024 that I'm quoting. Andre🚐 18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, that source does not say that Zionism became a colonial movement strictly after 1967. Instead he does indeed describe Zionism as a colonial movement (p 108):
Zionism was a product of the age of imperialism; its adherents shared a number of common sensibilities with European advocates of colonial expansion in the Middle East. Yet the movement was more than a form of colonial practice.
- Which is consistent with your quote
"not merely a subset"
. Most sources would not deny that there is more to Zionism than that it is a form of colonialism, so there's no contradiction here. Penslar instead argues that Zionism is both a form of colonialism and also"there are lines of continuity between Zionism and anti-colonial political movements, just as the culture of modernizing Jewish intellectuals closely resembled that of colonial intelligentsias in twentieth-century Asia and Africa."
For Penslar:"Zionism rooted itself simultaneously in European colonialism and Afro-Asian anti-colonialism."
- There's currently a single short paragraph about the framing of Zionism as an anti-colonial movement. Penslar's perspective could fit alongside that discussion. DMH223344 (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we should draw from his newest book, which spends an entire chapter on this specific issue, rather than from his 17-year-old book. Levivich (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the subject, BTW, that paper the OP posted written by the PhD candidate does an interesting job of summarizing views on Zionism-as-settler-colonialism from some wide-ranging sources, from Penslar to Karsh. I agree with Self that the paper isn't a great RS for use in this article, but it's interesting that the conclusions of the paper are basically the same as the conclusions of Penslar (and like everybody else these days) that Zionism was settler colonialism but also had differences from other types of settler colonialism (i.e., the return-to-homeland thing). It was an interesting read. Levivich (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- He says that the Israeli state transformed into a colonial state in 1967, implying that from 1948-1967 it wasn't. He also addresses the paradox of Zionism being both de-colonial or anti-colonial and its colonial aspects, but he clearly rejects calling it "settler-colonialism" which is not the same as colonialism in general. If you read pp.108-111 in Penslar 2007 he clearly doesn't view Zionism 1948-1967 as settler-colonialism and he explicitly treats, as he does in his later work but in my opinion less on-target for this particular question, as a question and not an answer. Andre🚐 00:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is Penslar 2007, not Penslar 2024 that I'm quoting. Andre🚐 18:55, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- See Penslar 2007 p. 108:
References
- Penslar, Derek (2007-01-24). Israel in History: The Jewish State in Comparative Perspective. Routledge. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-134-14669-7.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2024
{{edit extended-protected|Zionism|answered=yes} Please change "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible." "Some historians 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." Bustthatshmutz (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
This is already being dealt with by EC editors.Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposal to Revise the Lead of the Zionism Article
Critique of the Current Lead
The current lead of the Zionism article is not fully neutral. While it addresses criticisms and controversies, it neglects to adequately summarize Zionism's historical and ideological foundations. As per Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, the lead should provide a concise and balanced overview of the topic, reserving detailed criticisms for the body of the article.
Specifically:
Lack of Context on Zionism's Origins: The lead does not provide sufficient historical background on late 19th-century European nationalism and antisemitism, which catalyzed the Zionist movement. For instance, Theodor Herzl's foundational text, Der Judenstaat (1896), framed Zionism as a response to Jewish persecution and a vision for self-determination.
Source: Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Full text available)
Source: Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel. Schocken Books, 2003.
Omission of Zionism's Ideological Diversity: The lead fails to acknowledge the diversity of thought within the movement, such as Political Zionism, Cultural Zionism, and Religious Zionism. Figures like Ahad Ha’am emphasized cultural and spiritual revival rather than a purely political state.
Source: Hertzberg, Arthur, ed. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Jewish Publication Society, 1997.
Source: Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State. BlueBridge, 2014.
Overemphasis on Controversies: The current lead gives disproportionate weight to criticisms of Zionism. While these are important, they should not dominate the introduction. Instead, the lead should summarize Zionism’s goals, historical development, and major achievements, reserving critiques for later sections.
Source: Penslar, Derek J. Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918. Indiana University Press, 1991.
Source: Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Beacon Press, 2006.
Proposed Revision
I propose the following revision for the lead:
Zionism is a nationalist and political movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the historic Land of Israel. Emerging in the late 19th century in response to rising antisemitism and European nationalism, Zionism was formalized by Theodor Herzl, whose work Der Judenstaat (1896) laid the groundwork for its political objectives. The movement evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While Zionism achieved its primary goal of a Jewish state, it remains a subject of debate, particularly concerning its impact on Palestinian Arabs and ongoing regional conflicts.
This revised lead provides:
A clear summary of Zionism’s goals and historical roots. Recognition of its diverse ideologies and streams. A neutral mention of controversies, suitable for an introduction.
Supporting Sources
Herzl, Theodor. Der Judenstaat. (Link to text)
Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.
Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism: From the French Revolution to the Establishment of the State of Israel .
Avineri, Shlomo. Herzl’s Vision: Theodor Herzl and the Foundation of the Jewish State.
Khalidi, Rashid. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood.
I invite feedback and discussion on this proposal to ensure the article meets Misplaced Pages's neutrality and reliability standards.
Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you contribute on the talk page sections already opened on this topic. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body not a summary of your personal opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, indeed the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body and the current is far to reflect the body. The topic is controversial and must reflect sources, against zionism but also Zionist, and the lead does not while the body does. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- But the lead already does summarize the origins of Zionism in the second paragraph. DMH223344 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Moral support. While I don't see that there will be consensus here today for this change, I think the proposal has a legitimate point. Currently, when I read the lead of Zionism, I read the lead in a lot of matter-of-fact, in fact extensive detail. When any detail is smoothed over to make things flow better, we encounter a dispute. At any rate, the lead is very detailed and it also doesn't really say that Zionism is quite a controversial topic with a lot of debate. That's an important part of Zionism. Not only is Zionism a highly fragmented and multifaceted group of related nationalisms, it is also the subject of heated debate with a range of vitriolic characters at the fringes as well as a heated dispute in the mainstream. An encyclopedia article about Zionism should not engage in this. It should be a very flat description of the major disputes and the major players, events, and conceptual groupings. Andre🚐 23:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your answer and moral support, I did not expect to have a consensus with my proposal but to start a debate on this lead. Would you mind drafting something? Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- What, in your perspective, (or preferably if you can provide sources) are the aspects of Zionism that are highly debated? The lead does currently mention that supporters of zionism see it as a national liberation movement and that antizionists see it as a settler colonial movement. DMH223344 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- For example, in Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 by Shapira 1999, we're talking about
the history of attitudes toward power and the use of armed force within the Zionist movement—from an early period in which most leaders espoused an ideal of peaceful settlement in Palestine, to the acceptance of force as a legitimate tool for achieving a sovereign Jewish state.
It was not agreed by all Zionists that it was necessary not to be peaceful. Andre🚐 01:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- The idea of the "defensive ethos" is an interesting one which might warrant more attention in the body at least.
- p. 126:
Was it possible to settle Palestine peacefully, or was a violent clash between Jews and Arabs inevita ble? In the 1920s, all were apparently in agreement that it was too early to arrive at any conclusive answer. For the moment, the necessity of the hour was to push ahead with settlement of the land; and the explanatory line adopted had to be based on principles of the defensive ethos. There were those who honestly believed its principles, while others accepted only a portion of its elements. And there were some who apparently viewed it as, at best, an expedient propaganda line and an important instrument for education.
- Shapira's book is full of discussion about a peaceful resolution being preferable to some in the Zionist movement, but not achievable on practical grounds (also noted by Flapan). As she says in her conclusion
"At what point did the leadership become aware that there were fallacies in the logical structure of the defensive ethos and that the Zionist movement would not be able to avoid a head-on collision with the Arab national movement?... From the very inception of Jewish colonization in Palestine, the course of ultimate confrontation was inherent in the situation."
It's interesting to follow Ben-Gurion on this point; taken from his biography (Teveth): A careful comparison of Ben-Gurion’s public and private positions leads inexorably to the conclusion that this twenty-year denial of the conflict was a calculated tactic, born of pragmatism rather than profundity of conviction. The idea that Jews and Arabs could reconcile their differences … was a delaying tactic. Once the Yishuv had gained strength, Ben-Gurion abandoned it. This belief in a compromise solution … was also a tactic, designed to win continued British support for Zionism.
- As a final note, Shapira also discusses the influence of Stalinist Russia on the Yishuv:
DMH223344 (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)In the final analysis, these expressed a tendency to respond with force to clashes with Arabs. That activism was not the product of Palestinian realities, but had been imported from the Diaspora. The young had not learned national pride in Palestine but had come there as an expression of revolt against the humiliation of the Jew. That activism derived its basic values from Russian revolutionary ide ology and practice. Those values included a refusal to acquiesce in accepting the established order of things, a faith in the ability of a small avant-garde to change the course of history, a conviction that a historical mission liberates its bearers from the restrictions of simple morality in the name of higher justice, and a legitimation of the use of force for the sake of generating the desired revolutionary change. They believed that every revolutionary ideology harbors within it the legitimation of the use of violence, since the end justifies the means. Moreover, in every revolution, the active core constitutes a minority within a majority. This scheme represented an acknowledgement of the inevitability of violence.
- I agree Shapira's argument about the inevitability of violence in Zionism is worth expanding in the body, along with Slater 2020's counter argument that Zionism didn't require violence to achieve its goals. I'm sure there are others, too (some, eg Morris, already in the article). Levivich (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- For example, in Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881-1948 by Shapira 1999, we're talking about
- Why are we using Theodor Herzl as a source here? He is considered the founding figure of Zionism, not exactly a third-party source known for fact-checking. And he died back in 1904, so we can not use him as a source for the last 120 years of bloodshed. Dimadick (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, it's a primary source, and doesn't help us figure out how to summarize secondary sources in the article. Levivich (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- The sources listed talk about colonization "in Palestine," but the proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes "Palestine" to "Land of Israel". That's less WP:NPOV, not more, just by the suggested sources themselves--without getting into why that's not a good set of sources upon which to base the lead.
- I don't think those sources or others say Herzl "formalized" Zionism, probably more like "organized" or "promoted". He died within the first decade of Zionism's existence, and some (many? most?) of the formal institutions of Zionism, like Histadrut and Haganah, were developed after he died.
- I question whether the sources describe the various types of Zionism as "diverse" or the exact opposite--homogenous--or somewhere in the middle, e.g. more alike than different. And also whether the movement "evolved to encompass diverse ideological streams," or whether the sources say it went in exactly the opposite direction: a bunch of different strands of Jewish nationalism coalesced into one thing, Political Zionism. I'm not sure whether the sources would list "political, cultural, and religious" Zionism as the three main types, or whether it would be "Liberal," "Labor" and "Revisionist" (or just one main type: political, or something else).
- The last line is particularly whitewashy. The sources accuse Zionism of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes. Such allegations (or widely-agreed facts) are not accurately summarized as a "debate" about Zionism's "impact on Palestinian Arab's."
- For these reasons, I don't think the proposed lead is an improvement. Levivich (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed response. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this discussion and clarify my rationale for the proposed changes. Let me address each of your points in turn:
- 1. "The proposed rewrite removes all mention of colonization and changes 'Palestine' to 'Land of Israel.'"
- Clarification: The intention behind using "Land of Israel" instead of "Palestine" is to reflect terminology used within Zionist ideology itself, particularly in historical texts and by figures like Theodor Herzl. However, I understand that this may appear less neutral, and I am open to retaining "Palestine" in the lead, as it is geographically and historically accurate.
- On "colonization": The term "colonization" is used in some sources, but it is not universally accepted or uncontested. Zionism was not purely a colonial movement; it was also a nationalist and self-determination movement responding to Jewish persecution. While colonization was an element of how Jewish settlement occurred, the lead should aim for a balanced description that includes the motivations and historical ties behind these efforts. For example, we could state: "through settlement efforts in Palestine," which reflects the action without the pejorative connotations.
- ----
- 2. "Herzl 'formalized' Zionism vs. 'organized' or 'promoted.'"
- Clarification: You’re correct that Herzl did not "formalize" Zionism in its entirety, as many institutions developed after his death. A more accurate phrasing could be: "Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress and laid the groundwork for Zionism as a political movement." This acknowledges his central role while recognizing the ongoing development of Zionism after his death.
- Supporting Sources: Herzl’s role as a key figure in the early Zionist movement is discussed in works like Shlomo Avineri’s Herzl’s Vision, which describes Herzl as the "founder of political Zionism" for his organizational and ideological contributions.
- ----
- 3. "Are the types of Zionism described as 'diverse' or the opposite?"
- Clarification: Zionism encompassed a range of ideological streams, which were diverse in approach but united by the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland. The lead could clarify this by stating: "Zionism encompassed various ideological approaches, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which differed in their priorities and methods but shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination." This phrasing acknowledges diversity while emphasizing shared objectives.
- On alternative categorizations (e.g., Liberal, Labor, Revisionist): These categorizations are more specific to political Zionism in the 20th century and are better suited to the body of the article. The lead should reflect broader distinctions (e.g., political, cultural, religious) that capture the ideological diversity of early Zionism.
- Supporting Sources: Arthur Hertzberg’s The Zionist Idea and Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism describe the multifaceted nature of Zionism, including cultural and religious aspects that preceded the Labor-Revisionist divide.
- ----
- 4. "The last line is whitewashy regarding allegations of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and war crimes."
- Clarification: The intention of the last line was not to downplay these allegations but to summarize a broader debate about Zionism's legacy. To address your concern, the lead could more explicitly mention these criticisms, e.g., "While some view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement, critics have accused it of contributing to the displacement of Palestinians and violations of human rights, including allegations of ethnic cleansing and colonialism." This phrasing acknowledges the severity of the allegations without overshadowing the entire lead with one perspective.
- On the "debate" framing: It is fair to revise the phrasing to avoid glossing over serious criticisms. However, the lead should also avoid adopting language that presumes consensus on these accusations, as there is substantial disagreement in scholarship and public discourse.
- Supporting Sources: Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims and Rashid Khalidi’s The Iron Cage discuss these allegations and the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- ----
- 5. "Sources and neutrality"
- Clarification: The sources cited in the proposal are widely respected in Zionism studies (e.g., Laqueur, Avineri, Hertzberg). However, I acknowledge that additional sources representing critical perspectives (e.g., Khalidi, Pappé) could be incorporated to ensure balance. The lead should aim to reflect the body of the article by presenting both the achievements and criticisms of Zionism in a neutral and proportional manner.
- ----
- Proposed Revision Based on Feedback:
- Taking your points into account, here is a revised draft of the lead:
- Zionism is a nationalist movement advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, also referred to as the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition. Emerging in Europe in the late 19th century in response to antisemitism and the challenges of assimilation, Zionism was formalized as a political movement by Theodor Herzl, who convened the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The movement encompassed diverse ideological streams, including political, cultural, and religious Zionism, which shared the common goal of Jewish self-determination.
- Zionist efforts led to significant waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine and culminated in the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. While supporters view Zionism as a legitimate nationalist movement addressing Jewish persecution, critics have accused it of colonialism, the displacement of Palestinians, and human rights violations, including allegations of ethnic cleansing. These debates remain central to discussions about Zionism's legacy and its impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- ----This version addresses your concerns about colonization, Herzl’s role, ideological diversity, and criticism, while striving for a neutral and balanced tone. Let me know your thoughts! Michael Boutboul (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just on the first point, "colonization", emphasis mine:
- Herzl, Der Judenstaat:
The Jewish Company ... has other than purely colonial tasks. ... our male colonists ... our colonists will be peaceably inclined ... the Company's colonists ... more prosperous colonists ... the peaceable voluntary departure of colonists ...
I don't understand using Der Judenstaat to argue in favor of including "Land of Israel" and excluding "colonization", when Der Judenstaat does not have the word "Israel" in it, but does have the words "colonial" and "colonists." - Laqueur, p. xxvi:
... up to 1917 the history of the Zionist movement presents no particular problems; it is the story of a somewhat eccentric movement of young idealists who met every other year at a congress and espoused various political, financial, cultural, and colonising activities.
- Hertzberg is a collection of primary-source documents by Zionists, not a history book about Zionism. It has very little historical analysis in it, mostly it's the reproduction of Zionist leaders' works. But in the introduction, p. 16, Hertzberg writes:
... what is classical in Zionism-its eschatological purpose; and what is modern-the necessarily contemporary tools of political effort, colonization, and the definition of Jewry as a nation ...
- Avineri (2008) is a biography of Herzl, not a book about Zionism, but he has lots of quotes of Herzl referring to
Jewish colony
,Zion colonies
, plus discussion of early Zionist institutions like theJewish Colonization Association
and theJewish Colonial Trust
. - Khalidi, p. xxxiv:
This enterprise was and is colonial in terms of its relationship to the indigenous Arab population of Palestine ... Zionism also served as the national movement of the nascent Israeli polity being constructed at their expense. There is no reason why both positions cannot be true: there are multiple examples of national movements, indeed nations, that were colonial in their origins ...
- Morris (2001), p. 13
Muslim attitudes to some degree affected the Zionist colonists in Palestine. They drove the colonists, at least during the early decades of Zionism ...
, pp. 38-39These Jews were not colonists in the usual sense of sons or agents of an imperial mother country, projecting its power beyond the seas and exploiting Third World natural resources. But the settlements of the First Aliyah were still colonial, with white Europeans living amid and employing a mass of relatively impoverished natives.
, or p. 61On the most basic level, Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement.
, there's more like this in that book.
- Herzl, Der Judenstaat:
- I do not think removing the word "colonization" makes the lead "a balanced description," but rather an unbalanced one that omits this key point that is in all these sources ... the sources you are bringing to this discussion, without considering other (possibly better) sources. Indeed, "colonization" was a compromise over just saying "colonial enterprise", which is what the lead used to say, and the more I read sources about this, the more I think that's probably what the lead should say. Levivich (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to address your points in detail and explain why I initially proposed modifying the language, while also clarifying that my intent is not to erase the idea of "colonization" but rather to ensure a balanced and nuanced presentation of the term in the lead.
- ----
- 1. "Colonization" in Early Zionist Writings
- You raise a valid point that early Zionist writings, including Der Judenstaat and other foundational texts, explicitly use terms like "colonists" and "colonial." Herzl himself employed this language to describe the practical settlement efforts required to establish a Jewish homeland. I do not dispute that "colonization" was part of early Zionist discourse, but I think the current lead risks oversimplifying the term without sufficient context.
- Clarification: When Herzl and early Zionist leaders used terms like "colonization," they often did so within the framework of contemporary European nationalist and developmental discourse, not necessarily as a reflection of imperialist ambitions akin to European colonial powers. For example, Herzl’s vision focused on peaceful settlement, voluntary agreements, and the development of land, rather than the exploitation of resources or subjugation of indigenous populations, which are central to many definitions of colonialism.
- Suggested Compromise: Instead of removing "colonization," the lead could clarify the term’s specific context in Zionist thought. For example:
- "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine through organized settlement and colonization efforts." This phrasing acknowledges the use of "colonization" while avoiding connotations that might inaccurately frame Zionism solely as a colonial enterprise in the imperialist sense.
- ----
- 2. Secondary Sources on Colonization
- You provide excellent examples from secondary sources, including Laqueur, Khalidi, and Morris, which highlight the colonial aspects of Zionist activities, particularly in their relationship to the indigenous Palestinian Arab population. I do not contest the inclusion of this perspective in the article, but I would argue that these sources also reflect complexity and nuance, which should be conveyed in the lead.
- Morris: While Morris acknowledges the colonial elements of Zionist settlement (e.g., "Jewish colonization meant expropriation and displacement"), he also distinguishes it from traditional European colonialism, noting that Zionism was not backed by an imperial mother country and was primarily driven by a national liberation ethos.
- Khalidi: Khalidi’s point that Zionism can simultaneously be a national movement and a colonial enterprise is a nuanced position that should inform the lead. This dual characterization could be reflected in a balanced lead, such as:
- "Zionism has been described as both a national liberation movement for Jewish self-determination and a colonial enterprise that displaced the indigenous Arab population."
- ----
- 3. Current Language in the Lead
- The current lead uses "colonization" without sufficient explanation, which could mislead readers into equating Zionism entirely with European-style colonialism. This interpretation is incomplete because Zionism also arose from unique historical circumstances, including widespread Jewish persecution, statelessness, and a historical connection to the land.
- Proposed Revision: The lead could expand on the term to capture the complexity of Zionism’s settlement efforts. For example:
- "Zionism’s efforts to establish a homeland in Palestine involved organized settlement and land acquisition, often described as colonization. These activities were influenced by European nationalist and colonial models but were also shaped by the unique context of Jewish statelessness and historical ties to the region."
- Proposed Revision: The lead could expand on the term to capture the complexity of Zionism’s settlement efforts. For example:
- This phrasing acknowledges the colonial aspect while providing context that distinguishes Zionism from traditional colonial enterprises.
- ----
- 4. Balance and Neutrality
- Your point about the importance of retaining "colonization" for balance is well-taken. My initial concern was that the term, as currently presented, risks oversimplifying Zionism’s goals and methods. However, I agree that removing it entirely would also create an imbalance. The key is to provide a nuanced explanation that reflects both the colonial aspects of Zionism and its unique characteristics as a national liberation movement.
- Addressing Neutrality: Including multiple perspectives from sources like Khalidi, Morris, Laqueur, and Avineri can ensure the lead captures the full spectrum of interpretations. For example:
- "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century, advocating for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Its efforts involved colonization and settlement activities, which have been characterized as both a national liberation movement and a colonial enterprise, particularly in their impact on the indigenous Arab population."
- Addressing Neutrality: Including multiple perspectives from sources like Khalidi, Morris, Laqueur, and Avineri can ensure the lead captures the full spectrum of interpretations. For example:
- ----
- 5. Use of Herzl as a Source
- You correctly note that Herzl’s Der Judenstaat frequently uses "colonization" and related terms. While I referenced Herzl to provide historical context for early Zionist ideas, I agree that his writings should not be the sole basis for evaluating Zionism’s methods or impact. Secondary analyses, such as those by Avineri and Laqueur, are essential for contextualizing Herzl’s language and understanding its limitations.
- ----
- Conclusion
- Thank you again for your thorough analysis and sources. I propose that we retain "colonization" in the lead but expand its context to reflect the nuances discussed here. By doing so, we can provide a balanced and accurate description that captures both the colonial and national liberation aspects of Zionism, as supported by the sources you and I have referenced. Michael Boutboul (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the third point, where does Hertzberg's book or Laqueur's book say that Zionism's "nature" is "multifaceted", or that Zionism "encompassed various ideological approaches", or anything like that? I'm not finding it. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure Engel 2013 says something like that. Andre🚐 01:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Engel 2013 doesn't seem to mention cultural Zionism at all. It barely make any mention of religious Zionism, except when discussing the post-1967 party. It talks about Labour, Revisionist, General Zionism (as do the other sources), but (like the other sources) describes those as parties, factions, etc. I don't see anything even close to saying there was a diverse, multifaceted, or wide range of Zionist ideologies, etc., just different parties/factions that had control at various times. Maybe I missed it. Levivich (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- One of the ways I know this not an accurate way to summarize Zionism, is that every source I've ever read talks about "the Zionist movement," and never "Zionist movements," or any plural like that. It's always one movement, one organization, one ideology, one group. With infighting, yes, but it's not a collection of ideologies, it's one thing. Levivich (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not conventional to refer to "Zionisms," plural, but they do talk about "streams of Zionism" in Conforti and Schlinder, and left-and right-wing factions within the Zionist movement. It's more than one group but it is generally referred to as a single ideology or movement, but I wouldn't say one organization. There are many Zionist groups and organizations. Engel 2013 discusses a wide variety of programs, ideas, aims, goals, and tactics. Andre🚐 02:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Can this or that group of Zionist disagree with something, sure, but the WZO/Basel->Jerusalem program seems pretty monolithic to me. For example see American Zionist Movement "All Zionists agree on the set of ideals and principles known as the Jerusalem Program." The philosophy is clearly expressed in the Nation State law as a legalized Jewish state within Israel and settlement as a national ideal. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is backed up by the most thorough discussion of this topic that I can think of (anecdotal, I know), the one in Penslar 2023, where he spends about 30 pages of Chapter 1 on "Taxonomy of Zionism, Old and New" (pp. 36-64). He lays out 4 "types" of Zionism from pre-WWI: Hibat Tsion, Political Zionism, Practical Zionism, and Cultural Zionism; and 4 "forms" of Zionism during Mandatory Palestine: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, General Zionism, and Religious Zionism. He writes (p. 41):
He then talks about Chaim Gans's alternative classification and 21st-century Liberal Zionism, and Gil Troy's alternative classifications. Then he lays out his own suggested new classifications of "various types of Zionism".With the exception of Religious Zionism, these forms of pre-1948 Zionism have either declined into insignificance or mutated into new forms that are substantively different from their predecessors. Accordingly, we need more capacious and inclusive categories of Zionist sensibility to include aspects of the Zionist project from its origins to our own day. Recently, some writers attempted to provide these categories ...
- Note he calls these "types," "forms," "categories of Zionist sensibility" and "aspects of the Zionist project"; he does not call these "diverse," "multifaceted," or say they are "various ideologies," a "wide variety," or anything like that. He writes (p. 43):
This isn't accurately summarized by saying that Zionism evolved into diverse ideological streams. They're not that diverse, according to Penslar, and as time went on, he says there were fewer, not more, ideological differences. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)The continued application of classic Zionist categories is problematic not only because change over time calls their relevance into question. Those in the past who identified with one Zionist camp or another were unaware of or reluctant to admit commonalities between them and their mutual influence. This was particularly the case for Labor and Revisionist Zionism during the heyday of their internecine struggles during the 1930s and 1940s. The social and economic ideologies of the two movements differed profoundly, but their goals and methods diverged more in style than substance. During the Israeli state’s first decades, Labor Zionism was still identified with the “Left” and Revisionism with the “Right,” but later in the twentieth century, with the triumph of neoliberal economic doctrines the only substantive difference between Left and Right remained the fate of the Occupied Territories and questions of Palestinian statehood. Even then, all but the most extreme positions within the Zionist Left maintained the primacy of Jewish claims to a state within most of historic Palestine and were wary of, if not downright hostile to, extensive intermixing with the Arab population. Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal.
- That is all great stuff that we should use, but there are other contrasting viewpoints or more nuance to bear. For example Engel 2013,
- p.49
the road to the Jewish state was hardly as smooth as Herzl imagined. Even after his appearance, the Zionist movement remained a coalition of disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented and numerically insignificant. In fact it incorporated three distinct streams – one concerned primarily with settling Palestine, a second with readjusting political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and a third with creating a Jewish ‘national’ culture – and it was not yet clear that all three could work together productively within a single organization,
- p.61
In 1905 the Seventh Zionist Congress shelved the matter permanently. Only then did the three principal streams in the Zionist movement – centred respectively about settlement of Palestine, reconstructing political relations between Jews and non-Jews, and creating a secular Jewish culture in Hebrew – come firmly together. However, some of the movement’s greatest stalwarts, for whom political reconstruction eclipsed the other two, broke permanently with the Organization over this issue.
- p.184-185, though not directly related to the above 2, talks about the disagreement about the relationship with the diaspora in more recent times:
The complication of Israel–diaspora relations and the intensification of multifaceted divisions within the Jewish world since the 1980s have beset the..
which ends with:disagreement on fundamentals has been a constant feature of Zionist history, and there is no reason to expect that it will be any less so in the future.
- I believe there's also relevant material in Stanislawski talking about the liberalism of Zionism:
there was a distinct liberal utopian streak in Herzl’s vision of the Jews’ state: most famously, in Der Judenstaat he called for the institution of a seven-hour workday,
, as well as touching on the controversial debates of Zionism:This raises one of the most controversial issues that have dominated debates over Zionism from Herzl’s day to the present.
And page 31:
Andre🚐 19:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Herzl’s success at the First Zionist Congress did not resolve the fundamental ideological divides within the Zionist movement. Thus, there were at least three organized groupings within the Zionist movement that differed from Herzl’s strictly “political” Zionism: First, Ahad Ha’am and his followers soon organized themselves as the “Democratic Faction,” which insisted on a cultural revolution within the Jewish community based on secular Hebrew culture, but also distrusted Herzl personally and opposed what they considered his near-dictatorial control of the movement. Secondly, already in 1899, the first socialist Zionist group was founded, which soon divided into many different groups and subgroups, often based on crucial differences such as acceptance of Marxian or so-called “utopian” socialism, support of Yiddish as well as Hebrew as the national language(s) of the Jewish people, and on solutions to the “Arab problem” in Palestine, and also—like so many other movements on the left—on far subtler disagreements in the theory of socialism. And finally, in 1902 the Mizrachi movement was founded to put forward a synthesis between Orthodox Judaism and Zionism.
- So what is your suggestion? To mention pre 1905 streams of zionism in the lead? These quotes dont tell me that Zionism had a "wide variety" of ideological streams. DMH223344 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right: Engel AFAIK doesn't say these three streams are "diverse" or "wide variety" or anything similar, and note he says the three streams converged into one early in Zionist history (1905)--this contradicts the idea that Zionism evolved into diverse ideologies, and supports the idea that it went the other way: what started as multiple streams came "firmly together" by 1905, according to Engel. This is similar to what Penslar said about post-1948: less diversity, not more, as time goes on. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- He says "
disparate groups and constituencies, ideologically fragmented
" which certainly covers "diverse," does it not? I am not arguing that there wasn't less diversity over time: there certainly was particularly with the decline of the left-wing and the rise of revivisionist Zionism. But our article doesn't focus exclusively on the modern day. Andre🚐 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- No, it does not cover "diverse." We shouldn't use a characterization like "diverse" unless the sources use that same characterization. "Disparate" does not mean "wikt:diverse." "Different" does not mean "diverse." The question to ask yourself is why aren't they using the word "diverse"? Levivich (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Disparate" alone doesn't mean diverse, but "disparate...ideologically fragmented" certainly does. Or "disagreement on fundamentals." That says diversity of ideology. Anyway, it's not true. Engel says this on p.55:
The young Zionist movement already incorporated diverse opinions about its purpose and methods,
Andre🚐 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- "Opinions about its purpose and methods" are not "ideologies." And he said they were already incorporated into Zionism early on. No objection to saying that Zionism had internal divisions, that early on there were diverse opinions about its purpose and methods, which ultimately converged around the turn of the 20th century, as Engel says, at which point there were differences in style not substance, which also disappeared (or mutated) by 1948, as Penslar says. Levivich (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Disparate" alone doesn't mean diverse, but "disparate...ideologically fragmented" certainly does. Or "disagreement on fundamentals." That says diversity of ideology. Anyway, it's not true. Engel says this on p.55:
- No, it does not cover "diverse." We shouldn't use a characterization like "diverse" unless the sources use that same characterization. "Disparate" does not mean "wikt:diverse." "Different" does not mean "diverse." The question to ask yourself is why aren't they using the word "diverse"? Levivich (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- He says "
- I am mainly arguing that the lead and the body alike should portray the many inter- or intra-Zionist debates and not portray it as a monolith. I think "disagreement on fundamentals" being a constant feature gets at the variety within Zionism, no? For example, p.180:
The religious–secular and the Israel–diaspora fissures continued to widen over the quarter century
Reading the article now we'd have little idea of the deep fissures. The quotes I've given support that in the time periods covered in the article's history of Zionism, there was disagreement about various topics, for example, what to do about Palestinians. Andre🚐 19:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- The lead and body do this already. The last paragraph of the lead is "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians." This seems like an accurate summary of, e.g., Engel and Penslar. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos" is an accurate statement nor does that appear in Engel or Penslar. Penslar thinks
Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real
. Andre🚐 19:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Divisions within Zionism between the Left and Right are real yet fluid and epiphenomenal.
, is what Penslar wrote. He also wrotetheir goals and methods diverged more in style than substance
("more in style than substance" = "wikt:epiphenomenal", aka "Being of secondary consequence to a causal chain of processes, but playing no causal role in the process of interest"). Penslar is saying their differences are real but ever-changing and they didn't much matter (didn't play a causal role in Zionism). Levivich (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I do not believe "Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos" is an accurate statement nor does that appear in Engel or Penslar. Penslar thinks
- The lead and body do this already. The last paragraph of the lead is "The Zionist mainstream has historically included liberal, labor, revisionist, and cultural Zionism, while groups like Brit Shalom and Ihud have been dissident factions within the movement. Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having in some cases adopted similar strategies to achieve their goals, such as violence or compulsory transfer to deal with the Palestinians." This seems like an accurate summary of, e.g., Engel and Penslar. Levivich (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Right: Engel AFAIK doesn't say these three streams are "diverse" or "wide variety" or anything similar, and note he says the three streams converged into one early in Zionist history (1905)--this contradicts the idea that Zionism evolved into diverse ideologies, and supports the idea that it went the other way: what started as multiple streams came "firmly together" by 1905, according to Engel. This is similar to what Penslar said about post-1948: less diversity, not more, as time goes on. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- It probably makes sense to expand somewhere in the body about Ahad Ha'am's criticism of Herzl's Zionism (ie "Jewish state" vs "state of the Jews"). DMH223344 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- So what is your suggestion? To mention pre 1905 streams of zionism in the lead? These quotes dont tell me that Zionism had a "wide variety" of ideological streams. DMH223344 (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, this is backed up by the most thorough discussion of this topic that I can think of (anecdotal, I know), the one in Penslar 2023, where he spends about 30 pages of Chapter 1 on "Taxonomy of Zionism, Old and New" (pp. 36-64). He lays out 4 "types" of Zionism from pre-WWI: Hibat Tsion, Political Zionism, Practical Zionism, and Cultural Zionism; and 4 "forms" of Zionism during Mandatory Palestine: Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, General Zionism, and Religious Zionism. He writes (p. 41):
- Can this or that group of Zionist disagree with something, sure, but the WZO/Basel->Jerusalem program seems pretty monolithic to me. For example see American Zionist Movement "All Zionists agree on the set of ideals and principles known as the Jerusalem Program." The philosophy is clearly expressed in the Nation State law as a legalized Jewish state within Israel and settlement as a national ideal. Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not conventional to refer to "Zionisms," plural, but they do talk about "streams of Zionism" in Conforti and Schlinder, and left-and right-wing factions within the Zionist movement. It's more than one group but it is generally referred to as a single ideology or movement, but I wouldn't say one organization. There are many Zionist groups and organizations. Engel 2013 discusses a wide variety of programs, ideas, aims, goals, and tactics. Andre🚐 02:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sure Engel 2013 says something like that. Andre🚐 01:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Just on the first point, "colonization", emphasis mine:
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- Top-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- B-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Palestine-related articles
- Top-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
- Articles linked from high traffic sites