Talk:Zionism/Archive 24

Round 2

Above in Round 1, we determined that nobody seems to know of any modern books about Zionism that do not describe it as colonization, although Benny Morris wrote a book review in which he said Zionism was not colonialism. The objection was raised, however, that even if this Wikipedia article should describe Zionism as colonization in the body, this description is not WP:DUE for the lead. So, let's look at how many modern books about Zionism mention colonization or colonialism in their titles. Here are some:

1. Halper, Jeff (2021). Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State. Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-4339-6.

   Nutt, S. (2019). Self-determination, Sovereignty and History: Situating Zionism in the Settler-colonial Archive. University of Exeter.

2. Masalha, Nur (2014). The Zionist Bible: Biblical Precedent, Colonialism and the Erasure of Memory. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-54464-7.
3. Masalha, Nur (2007). The Bible and Zionism: Invented Traditions, Archaeology and Post-Colonialism in Palestine-Israel. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84277-761-9.
4. Shamir, Ronen (2000). The Colonies of Law: Colonialism, Zionism and Law in Early Mandate Palestine. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63183-9.

And, more broadly, here are some books about Israel/Palestine that mention colonialism in their titles:

1. Zureik, Elia T. (2023). The Palestinians in Israel: A Study in Internal Colonialism. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-000-85711-5.
2. Greenstein, Ran (2022). Anti-Colonial Resistance in South Africa and Israel/Palestine: Identity, Nationalism, and Race. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-67075-6.
3. Rabinovich, Silvana (2022). Biblical Figures in Israel's Colonial Political Theology. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-031-03822-8.
4. Todorova, Teodora (2021). Decolonial Solidarity in Palestine-Israel: Settler Colonialism and Resistance from Within. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78699-642-8.
5. Gowans, Stephen (2019). Israel, a Beachhead in the Middle East: From European Colony to US Power Projection Platform. Baraka Books. ISBN 978-1-77186-183-0.
6. Shihade, Magid (2011). Not Just a Soccer Game: Colonialism and Conflict among Palestinians in Israel. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 978-0-8156-5111-6.

Seems WP:DUE to me. Levivich (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Halper is an anti-Zionist activist, a supporter of BDS and not a historian.

Nur Masalha, who for some reason you chose to mention twice, is a Palestinian anti-Zionist.

Ronen Shamir is a far-left anti-Zionist BDS supporter, and also not a historian.

Pluto Press, which published Halper's book, is self described as "radical", and was kicked out of its relationship with the University of Michigan because it does not peer review its publications. Zed Books, who published Masalha, is also described as "radical" by multiple sources. You are literally advocating for views of radical presses and activists who are opposed to Zionism to be in the lead of this former featured article - perhaps as far from WP:DUE as one can imagine.

Relying on these sources for the lead in Zionism is about as compelling as relying on Tucker Carlson's Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution in an article about the Ruling class, or Ann Coulter's Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America in Liberalism. I think you are actually making my point that this is a radical , non-mainstream view, or else you'd be able to come up with examples from non-partisan historians. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I listed Masalha twice because he wrote two modern books about Zionism that have colonialism in the title. (You realize this list was compiled by searching book titles for "Zionism" and "colonialism" and variations, right?) Because reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (WP:BIASEDSOURCES), your whole argument about partisan historians is moot. BTW, have you considered that anti-Zionism is the mainstream view, in the same way that anti-colonialism and anti-terrorism are mainstream views? Anyway, I look forward to reviewing your (or anyone's) list of non-partisan modern books about Zionism. Levivich (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If Masalha had written 5000 books with that word in its title published by a radical press, would that make the argument more compelling? It's still just one person, who is an ideologue opposed to Zionism.

Sources do not need to be neutral, but our presentation of view points does. And if this is the viewpoint anti-Zionists, it may belong in the article body, in a section describing the views of opponents or critics of Zionism, but no way it belongs in the defintion of Zionism as the 2nd or 3rd lead sentence.

By way of analogy, or comparison - Marx wrote quite a few books with "Capitalism" in the title, but we don't use his views on Capitalism in the lead paragraph of Capitalism - we mention his views in the body. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Still looking for any alternative views, tho, seems to be a shortage of those. Until we see them, then the sourced views are NPOV. Selfstudier (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The alternative view is what was in the article for years, before the recent POV-push: "Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition".

Should I compile a list of books with both Zionism and Jewish in the title? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV doesn't mean neutral between anti-Zionism and pro-Zionism, it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. "Proportionately" means in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (WP:DUE). So if the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, then that's what Wikipedia's going to say in WP:WIKIVOICE. And if the mainstream view is that Zionism's colonial character was/is a significant aspect of Zionism, then that's what Wikipedia's going to say in the lead.

And I'm not sure why you'd compile a list of books about Zionism with Jewish in the title, since this article already says "Jewish" in the lead.

To Self's point, though, as much fun as this back-and-forth is, your arguments are easily contradicted by quoting from Wikipedia policy pages, so unless your next reply is a list of modern books about Zionism, you're wasting your time.

BTW, of course our article about Capitalism mentions Marx's views in the lead: it links to Capitalist mode of production (Marxist theory). (It also mentions the views of Engels, linking to state capitalism.) The reason why? Because the mainstream view is that those are significant aspects of capitalism. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, you'd be able to produce books by Zionists or "neutral" authors saying that, instead of the list of anti-Zionists ideologues you compiled.

Do you seriously not see the difference between linking to the Marxist theory of production (through a pipe that says y"The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century established capitalism as a dominant mode of production,") and saying "Capitalism is a system that alienates the masses" or "Capitalism will eventually destroy itself", per Marx, in the 2nd sentence of the lead? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good catch -- the lead of capitalism didn't mention any of the criticisms of capitalism, and so was not in line with WP:NPOV (I fixed it). If the mainstream view is that Zionism was colonialism or colonization, you'd be able to produce books by Zionists ..., lol, there are lots of examples of Zionists saying Zionism is colonialism. After all, they gave their organizations names like Jewish Colonisation Association and Palestine Jewish Colonization Association, and their bank was called the Jewish Colonial Trust. Do you want me to quote from Herzl's diary as well? Again, I look forward to reviewing your list of modern books about Zionism by "neutral" authors. Levivich (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, there are multiple meaning of colonization - the one meant by Zionists naming their organizations "colonial association" is similar to the meaning of "colonisation of Mars" - we are going to create new communities - colonies - in the new land.

And if you wanted to do something similar to what you just did in Capitalism here - add a paragraph at the end of the lead describing the views of anti-Zionists , and saying that they see it a a colonial movement, that would be fine. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source (preferably about Zionism) that talks about these supposed multiple meanings of "colonization"? (Also, seriously man, Palestine is not another planet or a "new land," it was already inhabited, unlike Mars. As far as we know.) Or, for the third time, do you have any sources of what you call "neutral" or "non-partisan" modern books about Zionism? Levivich (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I already addressed you Mars complaint, and I understand why it irks you - because it precisely shows that the world "colonization" is commonly used to refer to a situation where no one is exploited, contrary to the POV that you desperately want to push into this article. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is that it's actually a bad analogy because there were people there. The analogy doesn't work. In any case I don't see any work referring to the colonization of palestine as the "non-negative" kind of colonization which you are referring to, if there is indeed such a concept outside the context of uninhabited areas. DMH223344 (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

...and also unless you have a source making this distinction between Zionist/Martian colonialism and other kinds of colonialism, it's WP:OR anyway. Levivich (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Original research refers to article content, not to page discussions.

Perhaps this point sailed over your head, but the Mars example is precisely one case of the multiple meanings of colonialism you asked for, made glaringly obvious by the fact that there were no other people there to exploit.

But if you want other examples, you can look at the German Templer colonies in Palestine. Somehow I don't see a similar determination to call the Templer movement a "colonial project". Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about article content :-) So no, we don't write article content based on WP:OR, such as an editor's opinion that Zionist/Templer/Martian colonization is different from other types of colonization. BTW, you know the Templer article talks about colonies, right? Like at Templer#Templer colonies. If you're just objecting to "colonial project" and not to other forms of the word (e.g. colony, colonization, colonial, etc.), then we're done here, because this article doesn't say "colonial project" anymore. Levivich (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

No we are not. I am not suggesting we write anything like "there are multiple meaning of colonization" in the article, whcih would be impermissible OR. I am just explaining why we shouldn't write 'Zionism is a colonial project" in the article, and giving my reasoning, which is perfectly acceptable.

And yes of course I know the Templer article talks about colonies- that is precisely the point! That's the reason I brought it up, as another example of the use of 'colonization' (alongside the Martian one) which does not imply a 'colonial project' predicated on exploitation of inferior cultures. The Templers established colonies, but there are no POV-pushers seeking to call the Templer movement a "colonial project" (in the first paragraph of the lead of the Templer article, no less!) - which is just another example of how people can talk about colonies, about establishing colonies, and even describing their inhabitants as "colonists", without coming to the conclusion that they all belonged to a "colonial project".

Similarly, this article can say that Zionists established colonies, it can say they called their organizations "The Colonial Trust" etc.. - but just like the Templer article doesn't call it a colonial project or a movement founded to colonize Palestine in the lead, so should this article avoid that. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that the colonization of an empty land, such as Mars, does not involve exploitation of inferior cultures. What I am saying in response is: the colonization of Palestine is not analogous to the colonization of Mars because Palestine was not an empty land like Mars. The colonization of Palestine involved the exploitation of cultures viewed as inferior by the colonists, which is why "colonization" is a perfectly apt description of Zionism.

The reason this Wikipedia article should say that Zionism was a movement founded to colonize Palestine in the lead is because Zionism was a movement founded to colonize Palestine. From the quote of Labor Zionist historian Shlomo Ben-Ami, below, "Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlement in the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent national cause. An enterprise of national liberation and human emancipation that was forced to use the tools of colonial penetration ...".

Because the sources say Zionism was a colonial enterprise, literally the words "colonization" and "enterprise" are in that quote, and because what Ben-Ami is conveying is the mainstream view of Zionism, this Wikipedia article should say the same thing. Because, as Ben-Ami writes, Zionism "was a schizophrenic movement, which suffered from an irreconcilable incongruity between its liberating message and the offensive practices it used to advance it," equating Zionism's "homeland" ("liberating") message and it's colonialism ("offensive practices"), and because that's the mainstream view, this Wikipedia should also equate Zionism's "homeland" message with it's colonialist practices. In other words, if we say in the lead that Zionism was a movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, for WP:NPOV reasons, we must also say that it was a colonial movement. A colonial enterprise. Or a colonial project, if you will. If you won't, there are other variations that would be fine. What's not fine is omitting the colonial part. Levivich (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Did the Templer colonies involve the exploitation of cultures viewed as inferior by the colonists? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How the hell should I know? Levivich (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You can read the article about them in this encyclopedia, or elsewhere. I'll wait. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What I see here in a meantime is undue weight for academic figures with former careers in politics, usually left-side politics, I think we should look for teritary sources from major publications that try to define Zionism in contemporary, non-politicized neutral terms. Galamore (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest sources, although Wikipedia articles are built on secondary sources not tertiary. Tertiary might help though. Don't forget to make sure they're modern sources, nobody is going to care about a fifty year old encyclopedia article. Levivich (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

https://www.amazon.com/Desert-Sands-Golden-Oranges-Settlement-ebook/dp/B0791MFD6S Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a self-published book. You are really bad at this. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few sources listed here - Templers_(Radical_Pietist_sect), feel free to peruse any or all of them , if you are actually i terted in Templer history and want to educate yourself a bit, rather than in scoring technical points in this debate. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

From Shlomo Ben-Ami, who is of course a zionist:

Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlementin the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent nationalcause. An enterprise of national liberation and human emancipation thatwas forced to use the tools of colonial penetration, it was a schizophrenicmovement, which suffered from an irreconcilable incongruity between itsliberating message and the offensive practices it used to advance it. Thecultivation of a righteous self-image and the ethos of the few against themany, the heroic David facing the brutal, bestial Arab Goliath, was oneway Zionism pretended to reconcile its contradictions.

DMH223344 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Nur Masalha is Palestinian (just as Benny Morris is Israeli) and an excellent scholar.

On the other hand, lots of the texts here are a long way short of "best sources", despite Levivich's compelling argument for using such. For instance, Nutt is a PhD thesis, and Gowan is a very fringe non-academic writer, and several are published by radical non-academic presses (such as Zed and Pluto) whose lists mix critical scholarship with activist polemic. Would be better to highlight the actual best sources, and ideally those that are about Zionism at its most general level rather than e.g. about very specific aspects of recent Israeli history. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right about Nutt -- my bad, I just saw University of Exeter and missed that it's a PhD thesis not a book. I've struck that above.

I don't know anything about Gowan but Baraka Books seems like a mainstream publisher; I'm not seeing any reason to discount them (although I know nothing about them besides what's on their website)

As for Zed Books and Pluto Press, take that to WP:RSN if you want to make the case that they are not reliable mainstream publishers. Being progressive doesn't mean they're unreliable, and there are lots and lots of high-quality sources from mainstream scholars published by those two outlets (like Nur Masalha, who is, despite common protestations, a highly-respected, highly-cited scholar in this field). Remember: bias is not unreliability.

I agree with you, though, that this list is not a list of WP:BESTSOURCES for this article -- there are better sources than the ones listed -- but it is a list of RS (modern books about Zionism) with colonial in their titles. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Even a casual search throws up a multiplicity of suitable sourcing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

E.g., 50,000 Google Scholar results for zionism colonialism. Those won't all be relevant or reliable sources, of course, but still, the order of magnitude speaks for itself. 77 in their titles, and that's without checking variations like "Zionist" and "colonization." Levivich (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is not that Masalha is a Palestinian, but that he is an anti-Zionist, just like Halper or Shamir. This is an attempt to use the view of anit-Zionists (Israeli, Palestinians or others) to define Zionism. We don't use Hayek or von Mises to define Keynesian economics in the lead of that article, and we shouldn't rely on anti-Zionists to define Zionism in the lead here. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you missed the comments about best sources, do try and bring some, sometime. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've brought several already, only to be met with repeated goalpost moving, by people offering up PhD theses they have clearly never read, by people they have never previously heard of, as "best sources", based on the fact that they had both the words "Zionism" and "colonialism" in the title. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It does indeed seem like we are in agreement that "colonialism" is the right word to use. Should we now open up a discussion about the use of "colonial project" in the lead? DMH223344 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

From the conclusion of Righteous Victims:

Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement.

From Ben-Ami (page 3 of his book):

Zionism was also a movement of conquest, colonisation and settlement in the service of a just and righteous but also self-indulgent national cause.

From Anita Shapira (the conclusion of Land and Power):

One of its (pre­sumably singular) characteristic features stemmed from the fact that it was a national liberation movement that was destined to function as a movement pro­moting settlement in a country of colonization. This incongruity between the lib­erating and progressive message internally and the aggressive message externally acted as a central factor in the shaping of self-images and norms—and, in the end, also patterns of action—in the Zionist movement. Zionist psychology was molded by the conflicting parameters of a national liberation movement and a movement of European colonization in a Middle Eastern country.The Zionist movement was a decided latecomer on the colonial scene: Move­ments of colonization by Europeans were common up to the late nineteenth cen­tury.

All three of these historians are Zionist, and Shapira herself is a traditionalist historian, no less. Of course plenty of non-zionist historians also describe Zionism in similar terms. The word choice here is "movement" rather than "project", but I don't think there is actually a difference between the two in this context. DMH223344 (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Where did you see we are in agreement that colonialism is the right word? I'm totally against it, and from recent edits I see I'm not alone. Galamore (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're against it, what matters are reliable sources. They all say this, as we've well proven here. You and the other accounts hitting undo doesn't mean there isn't consensus. You and the others can say you're against it all you want, but without any sources backing up your view, and in the face of so many directly contradicting it, your opinions simply aren't relevant. Levivich (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They don't "all say this". and in fact we have first-rate, academic reliable sources (e.g. Morris) who say the exact opposite.

Your dismissive attitude here and your forum-like rants below about "seeing the last gasps of Zionism" suggest that you are probably too emotionally invested to be editing here. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Morris's book review makes one. I'm still waiting for a second example. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Hell I gave you a freebie second example with Karsh. How about a third? Levivich (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Still playing this game? Try Einat Wilf. And then ask for a fourth, and a fifth, ad nauseum Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Give me a quote and a citation, I'm not going to go searching for it. Levivich (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"To portray Israel as the outcome of the Holocaust is to engage in Zionism Denial. It robs the Jews of their agency, their history, their historical connection to the land of Israel and their yearning to return to it. It erases all that was dreamt, written, done and achieved by the Zionists before World War II. It turns Israel into a colonial project of guilty Europeans rather than a national liberation project of an indigenous people reclaiming their homeland. In remembering the Holocaust, " Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Peer reviewed, was it? Jeez. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

And the goal posts move yet again. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Einat Wilf. That your best shot at WP:BESTSOURCES? A 2 page polemic? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

JFC she's not even an academic? Levivich (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Einat Wolf is an appalling source. To quote Kentucky Rain, citing her is as compelling as relying on Tucker Carlson in an article about conservatism. She's a pundit not a scholar. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This *also* doesn't say that Zionism is not colonialism. It just says that it's not *purely* a project of "guilty Europeans". In any case, there are plenty of sources that describe Zionism as both a colonial project and a nationalist movement (see Ben-Ami and Khalidi). DMH223344 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

And yes of course a fourth and a fifth and more. There are like 10+ sources on this page saying colonialism, so bring 10+ citations saying otherwise. 3 won't cut it anyway. But we're not even at 3 yet. Levivich (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

From an anti-Zionist: "To this day, Zionist apologists 50 (and Kimmerling himself to start with) argue that Zionism was not a colonial project because it was not predicated on the exploitation of Arab labor. 51 This is essentially correct. That is why Zionism was not colonial in an abstract sense, and certainly not a case of metropolitan colonialism. That is also why, precisely because it was from a very early stage exclusive of native labor, the Zionist project was a typical pure settler colony, with its own distinctive trajectory."

How long we play this game? Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is still waiting for you to catch on/up. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Seriously man, get on the level. Modern books about Zionism. I posted 10+ books that have "colonial" in their titles. Believe, there are 10 more where it's not in the titles but it's in there prominently just the same. Books by scholars published by academic or mainstream publishers written in the 21st century.

If you want to start talking about papers instead of books, I can show you hundreds of peer reviewed papers in academic journals about Zionism and colonialism. That's why we look at books instead, papers is too big of a pile.

This is not "moving goalpoasts," we have standards here, it's WP:BESTSOURCES. Meet them or move along. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This quote doesnt even say that Zionism is not colonialism DMH223344 (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This isn't hard, find and bring sources that support your position, that's it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Righteous Victims is Morris' respected work. His opinions in later book reviews are certainly not representative of his work as a "first rate scholar". He says exactly: "Zionism was a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement.". DMH223344 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I dont even get how this is in dispute, its a newer thing for Zionists to disclaim any notion that it was/is a colonial enterprise. But even early Zionists were very clear on their goals and the language they used for it was colonization. nableezy - 13:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a natural response to all the recent scholarship about settler-colonialism. Because once you concede it's colonialism, you really have to concede it's settler colonialism, so the only way to fight that is to take the position that it's not colonialism (because you can't dispute the settler part). And if they concede it's settler colonialism, then they look like the bad guy. Even more so than they already do. Six months after the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust and they're facing a united security council, allegations of genocide being taken seriously by the West, and the very real prospect of ICC arrest warrants. The return of left-wing parties to power is just one election away, and settlement dismantlement will soon follow. We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism, and like in other topic areas, what's happening in the real world is being mirrored on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

'the return of left-wing parties'. That sounds like the sighting of a dodo, and if so, the Smithsonian should be alerted.Nishidani (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Golan's new heights? Levivich (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Golan, um, golem? He's on record as saying, commendably, the unsayable but . . it's simple: good sentiments and even good ideas will never get sufficient leverage in our political systems to achieve any significant structural change. This is true in particular also of Israel where pure psephological analysis of the makeup of electoral constituencies, and their conflicting interests, together with demographic forecasts, mean a 64 majority in the Knesset for anything identifiably 'left' is unachievable. In 2022, they were scrounging desperately for 7% of votes. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"return to power" may have been a slight overstatement, perhaps more accurately, a "return to relevancy" 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

History is jealous of its prerogatives, and dislikes, with a vengeance, being upstaged by miracles.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but this isn’t supposed to be about how people feel, it’s supposed to be about what the sources say. This effort to just ignore the sources here makes no sense in a Wikipedia supposedly governed by rules that force us to discuss the sources and not our feelings. nableezy - 15:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Tbh I'm just too lazy to collect the diffs for another round of sock sweeping, and I'm guessing everyone else is, too. Levivich (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Golf season >>>> diff collecting. nableezy - 15:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't happen if WP:NOTHERE was taken as seriously as 1RR violations and salty language. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Levivich: - time for round 3? Decide what wording to include? starship.paint (RUN) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think so. For my part, I'm fine with the wording as is, but open to alternatives. Levivich (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of term 'colonization' in opening sentence / definition

The inclusion of the word 'colonization' in the lead is being edit warred over [see here] and needs to be discussed.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zionism#Colonial_project?

We eventually agreed on the use of "colonial", but did not reach a complete agreement on the terminology "colonial project".

Consensus is definitely to use "colonization" here. DMH223344 (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

If sometime in the future a peace agreement will be achieved in which the Israeli settlements in the west bank will be evacuated (like happened in Gaza in 2005) and the descendants of Palestinian refugees will come from abroad to live where the settlements were in Gaza and the West Bank, will you call this process "colonization"? Vegan416 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a highly relevant question. We try to understand if the word colonization is the best word to use here. Comparing to analogies can help clarify the issue. Vegan416 (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We should be citing and relying on RS for that, not our own reasoning. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

::The repeated movement and rejection of this content clearly demonstrate the opposite, that there is no consensus for the usage of colonization, especially not in the first . If you believe otherwise, you must be defining consensus in a completely different manner, which has nothing to do with how Wikipedia defines it. Actually, it appears that most editors oppose the use of 'colonization' in this context, and we should adhere to WP:ONUS. 916crdshn (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We can have an RFC on the question, since the matter is clearly supported in multiple scholarly sources, I expect that such an RFC will find in favor of including "colonization" in some form, regardless of whether some editors object on no grounds whatever, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Otoh, if the issue is the wording/ where it goes in the article, then that can be discussed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, allow me to call out the elephant in the room; the three/four editors slightly above 500 edits who have consecutively removed it multiple times. I am assuming good faith so far, but this observation is certainly worth noting. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I would expect someone who assumes good faith to assume good faith. O.maximov (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC) sock strike

Agreed, there is no consensus for this. Agree with the WP:ONUS. O.maximov (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) sock strike

The consensus is in the sources which provide multiple examples, from Herzl onwards, of Zionist descriptions of what they intended doing as 'colonization'. It is not a consensus to play a numbers game to remove strongly sourced text. That is called WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the founding father of Zionism thought it the appropriate term, then it remains such for an historical article.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus, on Wikipedia, involves an "effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise," to that we can add WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. " ... HaOfa (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note that this discussion is not only about the suitability of the term "colonization" to Zionism in general, but mainly to the question if it's DUE in the first sentence/definition. So the fact that there are RS that use this term would not be enough to justify its inclusion in the first sentence, unless it can be shown that a majority of RS use this term within their one sentence leading definition of Zionism (that is among those sources who have such a definition). Vegan416 (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Come now. If the use of the word 'colonization' repeatedly occurs in the writings of the core, founding figures of Zionism, as a political project, as a theory, as a technique of restructuring Palestine, and as a economic practice, and if, as is the case, this is invariably noted in the major secondary sources, then waffle about WP:Undue is totally out of place. No policy flagwaving please. Explain why the words of Theodor Herzl, Arthur Ruppin, Franz Oppenheimer, Berl Katznelson and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, not to speak of the way Jewish newspapers pitched this term to their broad audiences (Weizmann Outlines Plan for Colonization of 250,000 Jews in Palestine Within Five Years Jewish Telegraphic Agency 30 June 1933) are 'undue'.Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The founding figures of Zionism said many things about Zionism. We cannot put all of them into a one sentence leading definition. So we have to decide which of the many things they said about Zionism should be included into a one sentence leading definition. And the best way to do it without introducing prejudice (or maybe even OR) is to follow the standard of the majority of sources in their definition. Vegan416 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Listen. Editors do not take authorial precedence over specialized sources. I have provided numerous sources to back up what I wrote. It is not a serious argument to just talk around the evidence by expressing your 'impressions', 'personal views', feelings, as you have done now twice. I asked you to come up with solid textual support, and you come back opinionizing. That kind of response is meaningless for the purposes of composing an encyclopedic article based on scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything at all about my 'impressions', 'personal views', feelings in this discussion, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you are confusing me with someone else. Anyway, when I'll have more time in the next few days I do plan to collect many RS that contain short definitions of Zionism, and check if the majority of them include reference to colonization or not. I'll keep you posted. Vegan416 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please reread your own comments. There is nothing in them other than your impressions about the topic. You were given extensive verbal evidence, and simply walked right past it, to make more remarks and claims or, in one case, a hypèothetical analogy. None of this is material to the question.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

please give an example of me talking about my impressions in this discussion. Vegan416 (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The founding figures of Zionism said many things about Zionism. We cannot put all of them into a one sentence leading definition.

This is waffle, your opinion or impression, and unfocused. What evidence does another third party have that you are intimately familiar with the multiplicity of things said about Zionism by Zionists, to the point that you can assert with a sense of authority that this element is being unfairly singled out? What are the many other things these Zionists said about Zionism? Name them? Otherwise, it's empty argufying, leaving fellow editors with nothing to get their teeth into.Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and there are many verifiable things that could go into the first sentence. An obvious candidate would be just a basic definition of Zionism, which generally doesn't mention colonialism. Do you have an argument for why such a prominent mention of colonialism improves the article relative to that? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani, Being a Zionist myself I am of course by definition "intimately familiar with the multiplicity of things said about Zionism by Zionists" :-) For example that Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people, that Zionism is the fulfillment of the hopes of generations of Jews to return to their ancient homeland, that Zionism is a movement for establishing a Jewish state, that Zionism is to free the Jews from the persecutions of the exile, that Zionism is a movement of decolonization of the Land of Israel from the Arabs, etc. etc..

But having said all that, please note that nowhere in this discussion did I claim "with a sense of authority that this element is being unfairly singled out". I just raised the possibility that it is being unfairly singled out, and promised to check this in the mext few days by examining short definitions/descriptions of Zionism in many RS. This would resolve the question. Just be patient. This kind of discussion is not resolved in one day. But if you can't wait you can visit this link to see the progress of my work, and even contribute sources of your own (so long as you don't mess with the format) Vegan416 (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If I want to know what Catholicism is, or Islam is, or Chinese communism is, I don't ask what believers in those systems think also because when I have done so, my general impression is that very few are 'intimately familiar with' the history of their belief-system. Your odd premise is that because you are a Zionist, you must know all about Zionism. All you have given me are schoolbook phrases, the most curious one of which is the last:

that Zionism is a movement of decolonization of the Land of Israel from the Arabs

I.e., that the settlement of whites in Australia was 'a movement of decolonization of Terra Australis from the aborigines.

Nothing surprises me anymore, but I admire your boldness in allowing that Zionism is premised on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population.

I don't read sandboxes. If I am unfamiliar with something, I read the relevant scholarship on the topic.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I responded to most of your argument here elsewhere, so I'll just comment here about your last lines - do you deny that the Arabs colonized Palestine in the 7th century? And with that I'll end this discussion, before we get accused of bludg. I'll return here after I'll finish my collection of RS. Vegan416 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's what we need to see, I might take a look around myself as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That reads:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

I.e. it is neither here nor there for the present issue, since the matter of colonialism is not some rare incidental element in one or two sources, but something diffusely attested in virtually every major formative figure for early Zionism. Nishidani (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is that pointing to reliable sources is not a complete argument, since it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for us to include some information. There has to be an argument for why including some information improves the article.

Clearly references to colonization should be mentioned somewhere, but why emphasize it in the very first sentence? Why is that better than a first sentence that sticks to a simple factual definition of Zionism?

One downside of mentioning colonization in the very first sentence is that there's no space to elaborate on who called it that and why, or how the connotations of the word have evolved, etc. Mentioning it further down would leave more room for a nuanced discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument about due weight, not ONUS, which is clearly met. I would suggest we haul out a few modern sources and see what they say and where they put it, go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone objecting here ever read the founding documents of Zionism? I have the eerie impression this is like discussing the origins of Christianity with people who haven't read the New Testament. Anyone can download and read in a few hours Herzl's Altneuland and verify for themselves that 'colonization' is the default term there (die Kolonisation des Landes/Neue Gesellschaft für die Kolonisierung von Palästina etc.etc.). It is quite pointless gnawing at the bone of policy to decide for inclusion or not, if editors simply don't know much about the topic.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your entire argument here is irrelevant since this article is not about the "founding documents of Zionism" it is about "Zionism", i.e. about the entire phenomenon from it's birth (and even before that for background) until now. So concentrating about the "founding documents of Zionism" in the one-sentence leading definition may itself be undue, even if proved that the concept of colonization was the most important concept in those "founding documents" (which you definitely didn't so far).

To use your analogy of Christianity. The first sentence in the article about it says: "Christianity (/ˌkrɪst(ʃ)iˈænɪti/) is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. It is the world's largest and most widespread religion with roughly 2.4 billion followers, comprising around 31.2% of the world population". It doesn't mention the Trinity, or the Resurrection, or the Virgin birth of Jesus, despite their importance in some of the "founding documents of Christianity". Vegan416 (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mention to Trinity, the resurrection and the Virgin Birth, because they were not constitutive elements of the foundation of Christianity, but doctrinal positions assumed centuries later.

"Christianity (/ˌkrɪst(ʃ)iˈænɪti/) is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

I.e. it puts into relief that Christianity is based on the teachings of an historical figure, just as out text does. Analogically

Zionism is a (Jewish) ideology based on a movement founded by Theodore Herzl to establish by colonization a Jewish state in Palestine.

The founding documents of Zionism are what define its aim and scope. No one is arguing that the whole article is about its foundation, so that is a strawman response. Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on what defines the "aim and scope" and "constitutive elements" of Zionism are not interesting. As I said we'll to scan the RS to see what their majority thinks should go into the definition sentence. Bye for now. Vegan416 (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Totally undue weight on colonization in this definition, and Zionism was founded BEFORE Herzl. If anything:

Zionism is a (Jewish) ideology aiming for the re-establishment and consolidation of a Jewish homeland/state in the Land of Israel.

Which it did, and still does, through various means. HaOfa (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if ONUS has been met, but that's a separate question about a separate aspect of WP:VNOT. My point is that no argument has been offered for why highlighting this information here would improve [the] article, i.e. why it's better than a simple factual definition as the first sentence. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

No argument has been given why omitting what was a core motivation and aim of Zionism, i.e.

The Zionist idea provided a base on which all humanitarian Jewish effort could unite. Jewish communities everywhere colonized their own poor in Palestine, and thus relieved themselves of these dependents. Their method was cheaper than the former planless sending of wanderers to some foreign land or other.Theodor Herzl, Altneuland, p.134

Not appropriate to this article. Note that this aspect of Zionism, of transporting Eastern Jews out of Europe, Herzl more or less pitches this, of getting rid of them as a burden on assimilated Jews, gets very little traction in the fairytale version we meet so often.Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

That's funny. You do realize that you are quoting a work of fiction, and not a historical description of what was core motivation and aim of Zionism either primary source or secondary source? Anyway, you are attacking a strawman. Nobody said that this is not appropriate for the article. The discussion here is only whether it is appropriate in the opening definition. So stop wasting our time. Vegan416 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use the royal we ('our time') since the page is not yours, and it is offensive to suggest by its use that the those who disagree with you are wasting everybody else's time (actually they appear to be, given the fact that none of the factual evidence produced has been addressed by all those who dislike the term 'colonization' in the face of the unanimity of Zionism's foundations that this was what they intended to do).

You are not familiar, again, with the literature on Altneuzeit. In it Herzl intended to use his fiction to persuade Jewish sceptics of the feasibility of his proposal and the epigraph states:'wenn ihr wollt, ist es kein Märchen' which acknowledges that the work is a fiction which, if one really wants its vision to be realized, is no 'fairy tale'. He chose, if you read the secondary literature, the novel as a vehicle to promote Zionism.

In any case, you have openly declared that, as a Zionist, you subscribe to the idea that Palestine must be decolonized of its Arabs, an admission which, apart from its total unfamiliarity with the scholarly literature on the 7th century transformation, suggests your contributions here are ideologically impelled, rather than based on a careful assessment of evidence. There is nothing wrong with being a Zionist. A good many of our finest books on the I/P have been written by them, but no author among those historians who write competent studies, underwrites the idea that Arabs are invaders and should be expelled. For that kind of antifactual extremism automatically would make anything such a Zionist might write suspect, and the same goes for editors who look only for anything that might underwrite their beliefs.Nishidani (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's stay on topic. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Nishidani, this is a lie. But as I really don't want to be accused of bludg, I put my full response to your false claim here. If you want you can reply there. Vegan416 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted in another section about and was told the discussion had "moved on" but it looks like it just moved to another section. imo, "colonization" is inherently unsuitable for the ledes. I'm not going to copy and paste the whole comment here but this is the most important part of it: "This article is broader in its coverage than to simply dismiss Zionism and its history as settler colonialism (a separate article)."

For example, Moshe Sharett is documented by Ruth Gavison as having proposed population transfers like the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. This isn't within the meaning of "colonization". I' m sorry if it isn't obvious but I don't think enough people were interested in moving to Israel. Ben Azura (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You can both have a colonial outlook and propose ethnic cleansing schemes at the same time? What's mutually exclusive there? We know that ethnic cleansing was baked into Zionism. Even Benny Morris has stated as much. That's what the Nakba was all about. Unapologetic ethnic cleansing is v. colonial. Almost classic! Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion about the use of "colonialism" rather than "settler colonialism". Of course it *is* settler colonialism (it is the settler variety as opposed to the franchise variety of colonialism), but the term "settler-colonialism" has become associated with what Wolfe described as the fundamental logic of elimination of the native--so people will of course have complaints about that association. DMH223344 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned cultural zionism in your other comment. As benny morris described it was "ultimately marginal" DMH223344 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Benny Morris, primarily an expert on the 1948 Independence War, is not necessarily an authority on the history and development of Zionism. HaOfa (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources. Also recall that it had 100-200 supporters. Flapan: Brit Shalom had no popular base nor a political organisation and had neither the intent nor ambition to create them. Gorny describes Brit Shalom as outside the zionist consensus. DMH223344 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

People here need to stop with the original research and cite reliable sources. This is not something for Wikipedia editors to debate or to determine. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

While we waitin on Vegan's sources, I will kick off with this one, A Century of Settler Colonialism in Palestine: Zionism's Entangled Project. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This has zero relevance to the issue, you are totally confusing Zionism as settler colonialism, the fringe theory that compares Zionism to Settler colonialism, with Colonization, a term used in former times to refer to the establishment and development of settlements, in the Zionist case, agricultural moshavot. HaOfa (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Fringe? Since when? Show me a source saying it is fringe. Selfstudier (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if fringe is the right term, but based on what I'm collecting now it does seem to be a minority view. Vegan416 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

But a significant one, righty? Pretty sure I can source that, in fact I think I did already somewhere, just can't recall where. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That depends how you define significant... Anyway you'll see soon what I mean. Vegan416 (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case it's still colonialism, can't really dispute the settler part of it, they still doin that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Believe me, I have read numerous books on the matter. Yes, the Zionist movements promoted the construction of moshavot, which can be termed colonies (hence colonization). However, people here are conflating it with other terms and overlooking the fact that Zionism encouraged many things beyond building moshavot: mass aliyah, the use of Hebrew, the establishment of political institutions, lobbying international powers to support a Jewish state, and more. I completely oppose the use of the term colonization in the first paragraph. HaOfa (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

However, all these other things you list are aspects of colonization! They are exactly why "colonization" is more correct than just "settlement". Zero^talk 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Historically, colonization referred to settling, constructing settlements, and developing them. Today, the term often implies people sent by a foreign entity to take over another land, which doesn't align with Zionism according to neutral and mainstream scholarship. Jews originally come from Israel, specifically Judea, and the diaspora has always been in relation to Palestine and Jerusalem, ... doesn't sound too foreign to me.

To sum up, in its former usage, colonization describes only some aspects of Zionism, and in its contemporary usage, it usually refers to imperial colonialism, which is a fringe theory in the case of Zionism, totally irrelevant to the first presentation of the article, and already appears down below in the fourth paragraph. HaOfa (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl: "Colonization can therefore continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population." ... "Without colonization, Zionism is nothing but a castle in the air." Iskandar323 (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Please strike this comment or provide RS to support these quotes. I believe the first quote is in fact Ze'ev Jabotinsky not Herzl. Not sure about the second one, but not appropriate to cite information based on a non-reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

True. It does appear that I let the internet prank me. That'll teach me to leave Google scholar and take a shortcut. The first does appear to be Jabotinsky. Can't match the second up. Mea culpa. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a distinction between an aim and the means of attaining that aim, which is partly lost in this conversation. The aim of Zionism was a Jewish polity in Palestine. The means was the colonization of Palestine, which included not just establishing settlements but also establishing the trappings of statehood. Both things need to be described. The means can be described without using the word "colonization", but it isn't possible to describe it without using words having the same meaning as colonization. Since practically every Zionist source was perfectly happy to call it colonization I don't see why we shouldn't. Zero^talk 05:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Round 3

Colleagues, please do not POV push. Please come to an agreement here before adding statements that are only mentioned by select scientists and please do attribute them. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, why have you deleted archive links and changed ref names in your most recent revert? Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. It was returned to the prior state before the unegreed change. The archive links can be added using bot in one click. Let me do it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Since a minority of editors are attempting to enforce their POV against a majority and based on the discussion above I have tagged the article accordingly. Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the tag. In the same time please note that POV is usually considered not based on amount of editors but is based on the facts that such editors provide and RS. The majority is not always right. When there is a consensus there should be an agreement to make the change to have a new consensus. And not is 10 people come and force the change it becomes the new consensus. Until there is a decision we should keep the original state of the article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I've restored it to its previous state, which reflects the best scholarly sources and early zionist self-description/self-definition.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your change. Please self revert until there is an agreement. The opinion of colonization is clearly a minority. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That is currently what a majority of editors agree with, tho. If you do not agree, an RFC is an option for determining consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not done RFC before. Majority based on count of registered accounts that promote one point which they like and not based on analysis of sources that describe that point? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In an RFC, one asks a neutrally phrased question such as "Should (some content) be in the article" and then editors will give arguments and sources in support or opposition. Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Dan Murphy: - your added sources and content have to be in the body too. starship.paint (RUN) 14:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

  You may do it on his behalf. He did only about 30 edits since 2021 so might not have time to do so. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• 1. Has anyone read those articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6? Do you still believe that Israel is a colony and why?
  

2. Do you believe that the opinion in such articles can't be present in the article? If so, why? With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

They are either opinion articles or non-independent sources, both of which don't belong to the article. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In order:

1. op-ed by a Zionist blogger
2. op-ed by an undergraduate student
3. letter to the editor by a professor of Greek and Latin languages
4. self-published think thank article by an Israeli military and government official
5. a newspaper article that is not about Zionism
6. editorial by Canadian Jewish News

I honestly can't believe an admin on another wiki would even suggest that these are WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss: Don't you think that adding it to led without any explanation is improper? As, for example, Yoav Gelber states that "Economic theories of colonialism and sociological theories of migration movements are also inadequate when applied to the Zionist experience". Next, there is an interesting work of Yoav Peled which can be read here. You can also check the work of Dore Gold here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

OK, those are actual WP:RS! Let's look at them.

Yoav Gelber's chapter in this book:

• The foreward to the book, written by Sari Nusseibeh, begins with this line: It cannot escape the notice of the reader of this volume that there is an imbalance in the presentations in favour of Israeli scholars. As the editor notes, Palestinian scholars on the whole did not feel inclined to participate.
• Other chapters in the book talk about Zionism as colonialism. For example:
  • p. 139, in Chapter 8 by Avraham Sela: Zionism’s colonial-settler nature and unhidden intention to establish a Jewish state over Palestine depicted the Zionist enterprise as a formidable threat to the Arab-Muslim nature of Palestine.
  • p. 159, in Chapter 9 by Hillel Cohen: Herzl used this theory as a tool to ignoring the claims of al-Khalidi, and pretended to know better than the Jerusalemite leader what were the needs of his community and his country. In this he followed the path of Western colonialism in general.
    • p. 161, H. Cohen quotes a Zionist banker, ... when I visit one of our colonies .... Later on the same page, H. Cohen quotes Ze'ev Jabotinsky's The Iron Wall: ... the realisation of Zionism in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him ...
    • p. 168, in his conclusion, H. Cohen writes As with colonial projects elsewhere, this argument had its factual value also in the unique Zionist case.
  • p. 190, Chapter 11 by Kenneth W. Stein, mentions the 1891 Palestine Colonization Association and the 1899 Jewish Colonial Trust (not mentioned: the 1924 Palestine Jewish Colonization Association)
• Yoav Gelber's Chapter 13 does, indeed, argue that Zionism is not colonialism. But in making this argument, Gelber is arguing against the mainstream view. He acknowledges this. These are the people who, acccording to Yoav Gelber in this chapter, believe that Zionism is colonialism:
  • Palestinian Arabs (p. 220)
  • Israel-baiters (p. 222)
  • Public discourse in the West and Israel since the 1960s (p. 222)
  • French, Jewish, and Arab intellectuals, including Maxime Rodinson and Eric Hobsbawm who contributed to a "massive volume" published in June 1967 in Les Temps modernes (p. 222)
  • Palestinian radicals (p. 222)
  • some Israeli academics (p. 222)
  • The first Palestine Arab Congress in 1919 (p. 223)
  • Rashid Khalidi (p. 223)
  • Baruch Kimmerling (p. 223)
  • Arabs of Palestine (they were not yet ‘Palestinians’) in the 1930s and 40s, However, colonialism was at that time legitimate and their arguments did not attract attention or inspire sympathy. (p. 223)
  • Since the late 1970s, however, anti-colonialist arguments fell on receptive ears, particularly in Western Europe that was haunted by post-colonial guilt feelings. (p. 223)
  • Edward Said (p. 223)
  • Israeli post-Zionists of all creeds (p. 224)
  • Ilan Pappe (p. 224)
  • Jewish communists (p. 224)
  • Palestinian communists (p. 224)
  • Matzpen (p. 224)
  • Israel Beer (p. 224)
  • Uri Avneri (p. 224)
  • Aharon Cohen (p. 224)
  • Eliezer Bauer (p. 224)
  • former Israelis, American, and French Jewish activists of the New Left in the late 1970s (p. 224)
  • several new historians and critical sociologists since the late 1980s (p. 224)
  • Shlomo Sand (p. 225)
  • Yehuda Shenhav (p. 225)
  • Hanan Chever (p. 225)
  • Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin (p. 226)
  • David N. Myers (p. 228)
  • Derek Penslar (p. 229)

By arguing against the mainstream view, Gelber's chapter supports the assertion that it is the mainstream view.

As for Yoav Peled's chapter, he is arguing that Zionism is colonialism. The chapter ends with these two sentences: As I have shown in this chapter, the attempts to use the historical specificity of Zionism in order to argue that it does not fit the colonial-settler model do not stand up to historical scrutiny. Not only that, the insistence on denying the colonial-settler nature of Zionism obscures for the opponents of the colonial thesis major areas of the reality in contemporary Israel as well.

Dore Gold's paper, putting aside that Gold was an Israeli government official and the paper is self-published by his think tank, he still admits that "Zionism is colonialism" is the mainstream view, and like Gelber, he argues against it. Page 84: The argument that Israel is a colonialist entity is often marshaled to undermine the Jewish state’s very legitimacy ... The theme has certainly permeated Western academia, almost uncritically. For decades, it has been employed against Israel in one international forum after another. Page 87: Nevertheless, in recent years, the effort to portray Israel as a colonialist entity has expanded.

So, we can count Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, and Dore Gold, as three scholars who argue that Zionism is not colonialism. On the other side are dozens of scholars; that's what makes it the mainstream view. Levivich (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for taking time a look. I also must admit that I was quite surprised how the paradigm has shifted. The last time I have read about this topic was over a few decades ago and then such representation was much less common. When I checked the sources today I can see that minority and majority here have drastically shifted for some reason. So, I do admit this part. And it was a surprise to me, to be honest. In the same time my original point remains the same. I do not think that we should just add an entirely new concept to the first sentence in the lead without providing an explanation as at least the sources which I have found show that it's meaning is not similar to how average people define the term colonization. We should check how scholars who thinks it's that colonialism define this therm and if they share the same definition. So far I din't get such understanding. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that. Yes, it has absolutely shifted in the last couple decades (in the 21st century), part of the reason in this topic area I am always saying that we should use 21st-century sources and not 20th-century sources (hence, WP:AGEMATTERS). In the words of WP:NPOV policy, there is a "significant minority viewpoint" that Zionism is not colonialism, and this viewpoint can be seen in the works of modern (21st-century) scholars such as Morris, Gelber, and Gold. And I certainly think this viewpoint should be given in the Zionism article. An example is Nakba, where we say it's ethnic cleansing, we say that's the majority viewpoint, but we also say that there is a significant minority viewpoint that it is not ethnic cleansing, and we give as examples of this viewpoint Morris and Gelber (among others). This Zionism article should do the same. And yes, there is a difference between, for example, "colonialism" and "settler colonialism," not all kinds of colonialism are the same, and I agree this is a distinction that the article should also clarify. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You all kind of miss that the topic here is about the use of term 'colonization' in the opening sentence / definition, which is different from the question you are discussing (though of course related to it). I'll expand on this tomorrow with sources. Vegan416 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do. We will appreciate it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Admitting was easy. Seeing and realizing the difference was not. :) Another issue is that various sources call that Israel had Settler Colonialism and Lorenzo Veracini claims (1 2) that "Settler Colonialism is not Colonialism". Which adds to the confusion and reinforces my point that the therm must be properly defined. I also got today a book of this person and two more to see their view on the subject. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Specifically talks about economic theories so not really relevant here. The rest seems fringe, although I haven't read what is in them yet. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

A very fine example here of why I (and many others) do very little editing here anymore. An account throws an out of context source on the talk page and, in effect, says "I win." Then a more diligent editor does the reading and responds at length and in detail, something that takes many multiples of the time and effort expended by the original poster. Then poster number one responds "The last time I have read about this topic was over a few decades ago" and says they were expressing their expectations of what the scholarship has found. And round and round it goes. To my mind, this behavior - either out of ignorance or deliberate bad faith - is the real incivility problem.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

• There are multiple reliable sources in which Zionists are shown as describing what they intended on doing as being 'colonization'. We should follow the very best sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy argument. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Round 4: Should the term colonization/colonialism be used in the opening-sentence/lead-section? A Survey of 21st century Encyclopedias

The discussion here is not about whether we have to include in the article the debate on whether Zionism is "colonialist"/"colonizing". I don't think there is really any objection against describing this debate in the article. The discussion here is whether Zionism should be described as "colonialist"/ "colonizing" in the first defining sentence or in the lead section at all, in wikivoice. This is mainly a question of DUE and NPOV. I present here a policy-based argument against including this description in the lead.

Here is a relevant policy statement from Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." Tertiary sources are defined there as "publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources."

So I decided to look at encyclopedias articles whose title is Zionism. Following the policy point that "some tertiary sources are more reliable than others" I used only encyclopedias published by reputable punishers, and also almost all (if not all) of the editors and writers are scholars in relevant fields. Also, following Levivich opinion that only 21st century sources should be used in this discussion, I used only encyclopedia editions that were first published in the 21st century. I collected about 30 such encyclopedias.

The results are pretty clear. The vast majority of encyclopedias do not describe Zionism as "colonialist"/"colonizing" in the first defining sentence or in their lead section at all. It seems clear that most of the scholars that edited and wrote those encyclopedia articles think that the description of Zionism as "colonialist"/"colonizing" is either wrong, or disputable, or simply just not important enough to make the head-lines. I think Wikipedia should follow this majority.

Comments:

1. The encyclopedias are ordered by publication date of the edition that is used. This is of course not an exhaustive list of all possibly relevant encyclopedias in the 21st century. There were encyclopedias that were not accessible to me at all, and its very likely there are others that I missed entirely in my searches. However I believe this presents a significant portion, maybe even the majority of relevant encyclopedias that have an article about Zionism. So I think it's unlikely that the results would change significantly when more encyclopedias are found (and anyone is of course free to look for more).
2. I provided links to most of the sources. There were a few that I found offline in my library. For these I supplied the text of the first paragraph in the footnotes. Images can be sent on demand.
3. With regard to opening defining sentence (see MOS:FIRST) specifically it might be useful to also look at reputable dictionaries, which are the experts in defining subjects in one sentence. Looking at 6 of the leading online dictionaries (1 2 3 4 5 6) we find that none of them mentions colonization/colonialism in its definition of Zionism.Vegan416 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe sign your work? I will certainly have a look at this but you should understand the Zionism as settler colonialism has independent notability so at a minimum, it is a significant view and therefore lead worthy, although precisely where in the lead could be a subject for discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  The fact that we have an article of the form "X as Y" doesn't necessarily mean that the article on X should mention Y in the lead section. For example the idea that Allah was a lunar deity in pre-Muslim times is deemed sufficiently notable to have an article Allah as a lunar deity, yet it is not mentioned in the lead section of the article on Allah. Vegan416 (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's for the editors there to sort out, I am interested in this article right here. Selfstudier (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any policy that says that if we have an article of the form "X as Y" then the article on X must mention Y in the lead section? Vegan416 (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is a policy that says "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" in the WP:LEAD. WP:NPOV requires article coverage of "significant viewpoints" and WP:WEIGHT determines how much of what goes where. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  And this is my suggestion (based on policy recommendation) how to try asses what are deemed as important points for the lead. Vegan416 (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  Erm, because that's a hoax! Iskandar323 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this together. I think it's a worthwhile approach but it needs some refinement. For one thing, 10+ years is old. For another, I don't think this collection is really representative of the encyclopedias we want to be looking at. For example: Encyclopedia of the First World War? That's not really on topic. And forget Britannica altogether (and dictionaries). For another thing, I'm not sure these are entirely accurate. Wiley's Encyclopedia of Political Thought entry does indeed mention colonialism (see WP:TWL link: ). Where are the Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc., encyclopedias? The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy encyclopedia entry, to take one example, mentions colonialism in the first paragraph: TWL link. Cambridge's History of Socialism, Volume II, has an entry called "Socialism, Zionism, and Settler Colonialism in Israel/Palestine". Cambridge's History of Judaism encyclopedia has an entry on "Zionism and its Critics" that talks about colonialism. I just quickly searched the Cambridge TWL collection to find these. I'm sure Oxford and Harvard and so on all have encyclopedias that cover Zionism. Finally, I don't think the first paragraph of encyclopedia articles is in any way analogous to the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article. What Wikipedia calls its "lead" is essentially the length of an entire encyclopedia entry in a print encyclopedia. We should see if it's mentioned anywhere in these encyclopedia entries, and yes look at how prominently and what's attributed vs. said in the publication's voice, but not cut it off at "first paragraph." And we should really be focusing on last 5-10 years, there's plenty to look at within that time frame. Tertiary sources are always going to lag behind secondary sources, but they can still provide useful information about WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT. Levivich (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I share Levivich's concerns, especially about dictionaries and more generally, well, for lack of a better term, selection effects. I have very slow internet at the moment (our dsl craps out during heatwaves) so don't have the time to go through all of these that are online. But I managed to click through on the first offering, Encyclopedia of the Palestinians. While it's true that the first 95 word paragraph does not mention colonialism, the second graph (without using the word "colonialism") describes very clearly a colonial project.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But it doesn't use the word "colonialism" so you argument here is WP:SYNTH Vegan416 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not synth since other more recent sources do in fact use this term. DMH223344 (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

First thanks for pointing me to WP:TWL I didn't know we had a free access to Wiley online and other resources. That's great. I'll explore those in the next few days. I disagree with most of the arguments you raised, but I don't have time to write at length. I'll just comment on your claim that "What Wikipedia calls its lead is essentially the length of an entire encyclopedia entry in a print encyclopedia". That's absolutely untrue for many (if not most) of the Encyclopedias in this list. Also I used 2 cut offs, at 1 paragraphs and at 4 paragraphs (which is the size of the lead here). Vegan416 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich Now I have some time to expand a little about the points I disagree with. First, the date cutoff you wish to set now seems a bit like you are moving the goal posts, after you had in previous discussions agreed to any 21st century book. Second, you say that "Encyclopedia of the First World War" is not relevant to Zionism, although this was the war that moved Palestine from the hands of a largely anti-Zionist empire to the the hands of a largely pro-Zionist empire, and thus enabled the Balfour declaration etc. And then you bring yourself Cambridge's History of Socialism as if this is more relevant to Zionism than WW1. Third, as I already noted, I think that comparing the lead-section/4-first-paragraphs of these encyclopedias to the lead section in Wikipedia is very valid.

I do agree that there is a value in looking for "colonialism" etc. in the rest of the articles beyond the lead section. Though it won't be directly related to the specific question we discuss here (i.e. what to include in the lead), it can be helpful in assessing the wider question of how common is this view. So I'll add another column to the table. I'll also add a count of the words in each lead and article (or estimation where there is no electronic text) since it seems you have completely wrong ideas on this.

I will also continue on adding sources from the TWL which you revealed to me, and maybe I'll find more elsewhere. I will work on it on my sandbox and not here, because editing an existing table in source mode is a typing nightmare for me. I'll import that table back here when finished. Maybe to a Round 5 section. However since I have some commitments in real life I'll take a wikipedia break until the weekend, which means the updated table will be ready only sometime next week. Vegan416 (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You want to talk about arbitrary cut-offs, you're advocating for looking at the first four paragraphs of encyclopedia articles on the basis that Wikipedia leads are four paragraphs long. :-D I mean that's just stupid. Let's drop the "four paragraphs" criteria.

Yes, I argue for 21st-century, in response to people bringing 20th-century. But really, I generally argue for last-5-years in this topic area.

Here are some (not all) of the books published in the 2020s (last 4.5 years) with the word "Zionism" in their titles:

1. Cohen, Netta (2024). New Under the Sun: Early Zionist Encounters with the Climate in Palestine. Univ of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-39723-1.
2. Fleisch, Eric (2024). Checkbook Zionism: Philanthropy and Power in the Israel-Diaspora Relationship. Rutgers University Press. doi:10.36019/9781978819986. ISBN 978-1-9788-1998-6.
3. Inbari, Motti; Bumin, Kirill (2024). Christian Zionism in the Twenty-First Century: American Evangelical Opinion on Israel. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-764930-5.
4. Etkes, Immanuel (2023). The Invention of a Tradition: The Messianic Zionism of the Gaon of Vilna. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-3709-2.
5. Forriol, Mari Carmen (2023). Development of the Roadmap of Political Zionism in the State of Israel. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-5275-1260-3.
6. Hever, Hannan (2023). Hasidism, Haskalah, Zionism. University of Pennsylvania Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv30dxxs8. ISBN 978-1-5128-2508-4.
7. Penslar, Derek J. (2023). Zionism: An Emotional State. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7611-4.
8. Stanislawski, Michael (2023). Zionism and the Fin de Siecle: Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-93575-4.
9. Blackmer, Corinne E. (2022). Queering Anti-Zionism: Academic Freedom, LGBTQ Intellectuals, and Israel/Palestine Campus Activism. Wayne State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8143-5000-3.
10. Knorr, Brooke (2022). American Biblical Archaeology and Zionism. Routledge. doi:10.4324/b22935. ISBN 978-1-003-29629-4.
11. Peretz, Dekel (2022). Zionism and Cosmopolitanism: Franz Oppenheimer and the Dream of a Jewish Future in Germany and Palestine. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-072643-5.
12. Baji, Tomohito (2021). The International Thought of Alfred Zimmern: Classicism, Zionism and the Shadow of Commonwealth. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-66214-1.
13. Farmer, Esther; Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack; Sills, Sarah (2021). A Land With a People: Palestinians and Jews Confront Zionism. NYU Press. ISBN 978-1-58367-931-9.
14. Halper, Jeff; Naser-Najjab, Nadia (2021). Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State. Pluto Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv1dm8d20. ISBN 978-0-7453-4339-6. JSTOR j.ctv1dm8d20.
15. Halperin, Liora R. (2021). The Oldest Guard: Forging the Zionist Settler Past. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-1-5036-2871-7.
16. Lewis, Donald M. (2021). A Short History of Christian Zionism: From the Reformation to the Twenty-First Century. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-0-8308-4698-6.
17. Reynold, Nick (2021). The 1945–1952 British Government's Opposition to Zionism and the Emergent State of Israel. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-7936-2926-5.
18. Rich, Cynthia Holder (2021). Christian Zionism in Africa. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-9787-1174-7.
19. Sizer, Stephen (2021). Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon?. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-6667-3150-7.
20. Tarquini, Alessandra (2021). The European Left and the Jewish Question, 1848-1992: Between Zionism and Antisemitism. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-56662-3.
21. Zipperstein, Steven E. (2021). Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism and the Law: 1939-1948. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-48438-0.
22. Goldwater, Raymond (2020). Pioneers of Religious Zionism: Rabbis Alkalai, Kalischer, Mohliver, Reines, Kook and Maimon. Urim Publications. ISBN 978-965-524-343-7.
23. Landes, Richard (2020). Salem on the Thames: Moral Panic, Anti-Zionism, and the Triumph of Hate Speech at Connecticut College. Academic Studies PRess. ISBN 978-1-64469-370-4.
24. Levit, Daphna (2020). Wrestling with Zionism: Jewish Voices of Dissent. Interlink Publishing Group Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-62371-949-4.
25. Shoham, Hizky (2020). Carnival in Tel Aviv: Purim and the Celebration of Urban Zionism. Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2175qt0. ISBN 978-1-64469-328-5. JSTOR j.ctv2175qt0.

These are not all the books, or even all the academic books, about Zionism published in the last 4.5 years. The point is: it's a lot of books, just in the last 5 years. So if you read an encyclopedia from 10, 15, 20 years ago, that encyclopedia is going to miss 50-100 or more of the most recent academic books about Zionism (and hundreds more journal articles). In other words: out of date. That's not true for all topic areas, but in this topic area -- the I/P conflict, one of the most-studied, most-written-about topics of all topics -- WP:AGEMATTERS, like it really matters, because there is so much being published on this topic, all the time. 10-, 15-, 20-year-old encyclopedia articles are going to be out of date in this topic area. Levivich (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

1. No. The cutoff of 4 paragraphs (or other clearly marked lead section if there is such marking, e.g. section titles in the article) is not stupid or arbitrary at all. It is exactly right, because we are after all dealing with the question what should be in the lead section of an encyclopedia article that has 4 paragraphs in the lead! Anyway what is your suggestion? That we have no cutoff at all and give a sentence that appears in the last paragraph of a 100 paragraphs article the same weight as a sentence that appears in the first paragraph? Or should we record for each such appearance the number of the paragraph (or word) it is in and then calculate some sort of average?

2. I am fully aware of the deluge of books and journal articles about Zionism and related issues. That's exactly why I suggested using encyclopedias. In order to make assessment of this deluge at least barely manageable. I believe that's also part of the idea behind the Wikipedia policy I quoted above. That's why we go to tertiary sources.

3. However I would argue that this deluge of books doesn't necessarily adds much new significant historical knowledge. I believe that most of it is repetition of things already discovered in the past, or dealing with minutia, or just political hype. I mean can you point me to some major paradigm-changing discovery that was made regarding the history of Zionism in the last 15 or even 25 years? I mean something that can really change a person view of the question whether Zionism is or isn’t colonialism? Vegan416 (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Think you are on a sticky wicket here, first off this about the 4 paras is just baloney, you can't compare random tertiaries with WP. Age does matter, that's the whole point of research, new insights and whether those insights make any headway among the scholarly community. Penslar is top drawer, how can one argue against him? Whatever way you cut it, it's a significant view and perhaps controversy as well, means it's in the lead, the only question is where. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Your sentence "Penslar is top drawer, how can one argue against him?" is quite telling. It seems you are trying to make here an argument ex cathedra. But the truth is Penslar is just one historian out of many, and there are other historians who argue against him. Vegan416 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And none that agree with him? Don't think so. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Did I say that? Vegan416 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

"One historian out of many"? I guess so, except he's the one who was the inaugural Stanley Lewis Chair of Israel Studies at the University of Oxford, so he's more like "one historian out of very few" who have reached that level. Levivich (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet there are other historians who argue with him. In the humanities we shouldn't believe in papal infallibility. Vegan416 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

So far, we've identified three historians who'd argue with him about whether Zionism was some variety of colonialism. Levivich (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I was about to go off when I saw a notification about this new response of yours. So I would say just that your search methods are apparently not so good... I have now in a few minutes found several more names Tuvia Friling, Robert Eisen, Dov Waxman. I let you fill the details as I really have to go. Vegan416 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

We're now up to six scholars who dispute that Zionism is colonialism--seems like a significant minority viewpoint! Of course, these dissenters also recognize that the view of Zionism as colonialism is so common as to be almost taken for granted, especially in academia. But don't take it from me, take it from Dov Waxman:

The most persistent, and perhaps most common, criticism of Zionism is that it is another instance of European colonialism ... Indeed in left-wing circles in Western societies, and especially on university campuses and in academia, it has become not only fashionable, but almost taken for granted, to view Zionism as synonymous with colonialism.
— Waxman, Dov (2019). "Was Zionism a form of colonialism?". The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-062535-1.

Levivich (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot the qualifier "in left wing circles"... Vegan416 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

While you may wish to shift the goalposts because the scholarship does not support the counter-assertion, no one is obliged to go along with you. Age matters. Source quality matters. Recent, high-quality academic sources beat crusty old general encyclopedias. As for whether there has been a paradigm shift? Ours is not too reason why. Though maybe it's not a what, but a who – say one politician who has made it his mission of the past two decades to ignore the UN, flout international law and expand illegal settlements. Maybe it's just the sheer unsubtly of Israel's colonial ambitions on the West Bank these days that made the scales fall from at least the eyes of subject specialists. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't shift any goal-posts. The discussion where I started this was about whether this issue should be mentioned at the top of the article or not. Vegan416 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Please check the publication date of Wolfe's "Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native". Yes there have indeed been dramatic changes in how we understand these historical movements, even in the past 20 years. DMH223344 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Jinx! Levivich (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean can you point me to some major paradigm-changing discovery that was made regarding the history of Zionism in the last 15 or even 25 years? Um, two come to mind: (1) The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), and (2) same year, Patrick Wolfe's seminal paper about settler colonialism, often credited with launching the entire field of settler colonial studies (though Wolfe himself disagreed with that accolade), in which he describes Zionism as settler colonialism. In round 3--yesterday--we discussed how the paradigm has shifted over the last 20 years. These two things are examples of that. Levivich (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I asked for discoveries. Not for book names. Can you say what significant historical facts these 2 books revealed that were not known before 2006? Also even taking your claim at face value that would be an argument for putting the cutoff at 2010 not at 2020. Anyway I really have to take a break until the weekend. So last observation before I sign off. I made a search in TWL for "zionism" & "colonialism" in the last 5 years and got ~2000 results. It is impossible (within a reasonable time) to scan all these articles to assess how many of them support this claim, how many object to it, and how many say that this is not an important question. That's why we need to refer to encyclopedias, whose number is much smaller, to make the problem at least barely manageable.

And now I sign off. Over and out. Vegan416 (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

BTW, one of those 25 titles jumped out at me: Derek Penslar's book about Zionism published just last year. Sure enough, Chapter 2 is called "Zionism as Colonialism." "There is a deep divide, however, between scholars who do and do not conceive of Zionism as a variety of colonialism," Penslar writes. Then he traces the history: "Palestnian characterizations of Zionism as a form of European colonialism date to the 1920s ... During the 1960s, associations between Zionism and colonialism gained global currency." He then explores Zionism as settler colonialism in some depth. His conclusion to the chapter begins with: "Our comparative examination of colonial indigenization places Zionism within a settler-colonial matrix while allowing for its particularities, like a celestial body within an eccentric orbit around its sun." Levivich (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To join in the commentary from @Levivich:

Encyclopedias included in original table

1. Encyclopedia of the Palestinians -- refers to Jews moving to the area as settlers in the entry.
2. Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict -- refers to Jewish colonies in Palestine in the first 4 paragraphs.
3. Encyclopedia of Race And Racism -- entry refers to Jewish settlers throughout the establishment of Israel.
4. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, -- Vegan claims that while colonialism occurs in the first paragraph it "doesn't appear to refer to Zionism", but I would argue it places Zionism within the global complex of colonialism. The entry the later mentions how while many Zionists understood themselves as anticolonialists, Zionism is often viewed as at odds with decolonial liberation.
5. International Encyclopedia of Political Science -- calls Zionism a settler movement, in reference to Palestinians in the first paragraph, and then has 3 paragraphs dedicated to Zionism as a colonial process in their own subsection of the entry.
6. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements -- talks of Jewish settlers in the entry.
7. Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion -- talks of Jewish settlers in the entry.
8. The Encyclopedia of Political Thought -- the entry discusses the view of Zionism as colonialism.
9. Middle East Conflicts from Ancient Egypt to the 21st Century: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection -- refers to Jewish settlers in the first 4 paragraphs. Continues to discuss settlers through the entry.

Other encyclopedias

1. Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. 2003. Vol. 2. p. 644 -- refers to Zionism as colonial in it's first 4 paragraphs.
2. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. 2015. p. 16685 -- the entry "Zionism, History of" refers to Zionism as a project of colonization.
3. The Palgrave Encyclopedia Of Imperialism And Anti-Imperialism. Palgrave Macmillan. 2021. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. p. 2917 -- the entry deals with Zionism as an expression of imperialism, but provides the synonyms colonialism and settler colonialism
4. Encyclopedia of Western Colonialism since 1450. Macmillan Reference. 2007. -- Does not have an entry on Zionism, but has resistance to Zionism in the entry on Anticolonialism.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Settlers/settlement is not necessarily colonialism.
2. With regard to mentions beyond first 4 paras I have already started to expand the table in my sandbox to include that. Hopefully will be finished this week.
3. I'll add the new encyclopedias you found to the list, as well as some others I may found.

Vegan416 (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

• Red herring. Encyclopedias are not necessarily written by experts and can often be out of date. They aren't necessarily the sources that are best for showing due weight. I definitely think colonialism should be mentioned in the article lead. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly why I supplied the names and links of the editors and writers of these articles. You can check for yourself that almost all of them are scholars in relevant fields. Vegan416 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• There are any number of methods one can use to obtain a negative result or the result one desires. The one above has terms of definition so stringently restrictive thathe method will tend to produce the desired result. Namely, (a)the source must be an encyclopedia (b) the subject must be Zionism (c) the only relevant evidence is from the first paragraph in the lead (d) the word to find in that para must be 'colonization' (e) if not in para one, then it must be in para 2 or thereabouts.

• Frankly this looks bizarrely idiosyncratic as a heuristic methodology, designed to elicit a negative result. I happen to have been commissioned to write the entry for a topic related to nationalism for a French encyclopedia. I've just checked it, and the first and second paragraphs nowhere mention what becomes the kernal of what the title alludes to. The first deals with the amplitude of the literature, the second with the historic background, and only then does on start to get to the topic's core itself.
• The justification for this unique procedure, which I've never seen anywhere else, is that using tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight'. But the thrust of the RS policy is that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.
• The secondary sources of recent times state and document overwhelmingly that colonization is intrinsic to Zionism. They do so because the Zionist founders used the language of colonialism throughout for the first half century, from Herzl to Ben-Gurion. They did so because, as rational men, they knew that in 1896, when they proposed to create a Jewish majority state in Palestine, the population was 95% Muslim-Christian, and that Zionism could only achieve its ends by massive colonization (Herzl recruited from the outset Otto Warburg because as a co-founder of the Kolonialwirtschaftliches Komitee (German Committee for Colonial Economy his expertise was thought crucial for introducing colonialist models of technocracy into Zionism).
• This open acceptance that Zionist mass colonization required, to work, comparative study of the English and German varieties, wasn't problematic until after 1945, when the wave of decolonializations began. It was then that Israel switched to a non-colonial idiom, one of 'national liberation', esp. in the 50s, to woo backing from those African states in international fora on the basis of an asserted kinship as one of their kind, a people occupied by an imperial colonial power (Great britain) whose shackles the Jews had thrown off. For the details see Yotam Gidron's Israel in Africa: Security, Migration, Interstate Politics, Zed Books. 2020 ISBN 978-1-786-99505-6). While paradigms change over time, the last two decades have witnessed the recursion of scholars to the language of Zionism's formative period, which is colonial. What type of colonialism best fits it is controversial. Colonialism is a category, with subsets like (a) settler-colonialism (b) exploitation colonialism, (c) surrogate colonialism, and (d) internal colonialism (the last again forms a class with a subset, namely sponsored colonization, e.g. Sri Lanka’s replacement of Tamils by Sinhalese people in part directed influenced by the Israeli model of sponsoring settlements in the West Bank).
• In short, the method is defective, tertiary sources like encyclopedias are ancillary to the secondary literature, and, as Levivich notes, the most recent decades show the colonial paradigm ascendent, something difficult to deny given the neo-colonization thrust of Israel's post-67 occupation of the West Bank where colonial and colonizing designs are ongoing.Nishidani (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

While it's not dispositive, I do think this is a useful signal. We are not obligated to follow other encyclopedias, but deviating from a large majority of them should give us pause and cause us to reconsider arguments about due weight.

That said, my main concern is about using "colonization" in an oversimplified statement in wikivoice; I would be less concerned about a more nuanced discussion farther down in the lede. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, there's been numerous sourcing provided above by Levivich and others which demonstrates that that the settler colonialism is entirely notable as used to describe Zionism and can be thought of as a defining characteristic of Zionism. Per MOS:INTRO it should be in the lead at the very least and given how much of a identifying feature it is of Zionism it should preferably be in the first sentence per MOS:FIRST. Question: Why does this discussion keep getting split into new sections? TarnishedPath^talk 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are lots of ways to describe Zionism though; what makes this one better than the alternatives? And if this is indeed the best (most succinct, informative, neutral, etc) way to describe it, why aren't other encyclopedias using this description? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I've mostly been the one slicing this discussion off into separate sections. Makes it easier to read on mobile (and I think on desktop too but that's prob a matter of personal preference). Anyone should feel free to refactor if they think it should be arranged differently. Levivich (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Encyclopaedias are tertiary and are not ideal sources anyway. As presented by other editors, there dozens of RS describing Zionism as at least colonialism if not outright settler colonialism and this of course is due for mention in the lede and particularly in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph currently describes "what", the establishment of a Jewish state; "where", in Palestine; and "how" is evidently missing. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I was recently surprised to discover that Shapira uses the term "colonization" to describe Zionist activity in Palestine throughout "Land and Power". Here is a quote where she almost describes it as a colonial project: In the 1920s, nobody was certain that this interesting project—Jewish colonization in Palestine—would, indeed, survive.

It's really only Karsh who argues that it is not colonialism; here is his argument (which is really very weak and relies on a fringe narrative): https://www.google.com/books/edition/Israel_Israel_s_transition_from_communit/z9pGwAEACAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=colonialism%20is%20by%20definition DMH223344 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Karsh also writes that the literature has by and large subscribed to the image of Zionism as colonialist. Yet another dissenter explicitly stating what the mainstream view is. Levivich (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course we must remember that what is contested is the use of 'colonization' in the lead, and not 'colonialism'. Colonialism is the category, as I said, and it would be highly arguable that just branding Zionism as one more instance of, synonymous with, that broad category, served any useful purpose. All varieties of colonialism (its subsets) share what Marc Ferro described in writing that 'Colonization is associated with the occupation of a foreign land, with its being brought under cultivation, with the settlement of colonists. (Marc Ferro, Colonization: A Global History, Routledge. (1997) 2005 ISBN 978-0-203-99258-6 p.1) That Zionism 'colonized' Palestinine is beyond dispute. How it did that, in its own distinctive fashion, is a matter of contention (The parallel is with Apartheid). That began as a term for specifically what South Africa's white government enacted. Analogies often skewed interpretations of Israel, despite a certain cogency in the comparison. Therafter 'apartheid' became the generic category, of which South Africa, Israel, Burma, etc., formed distinctive variants, as subsets, so that one could, theoretically, no longer assume pure identity, even mutatis mutandis, between the subspecies). though in the literature the paradigm of Settler colonialism (I haven't read that wiki article however) is the closest fit. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the distinction you're making between the use of "colonization" and "colonialism" in this context. How could a movement use colonization, but not be considered colonialist (or a form of colonialism)? DMH223344 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Colonialism historically involved the exploitation of resources and labor from the colonized territory for the benefit of the colonizing power, alongside the imposition of the colonizer's culture, values, and norms on the indigenous population. Zionism does not follow this pattern. Mawer10 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't? Really!? Show your work, account "Mawer10."Dan Murphy (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

We go with what the very best sources say, not editor's ideas about what things mean. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For good measure, from Land and Power (Shapira): Zionist psychology was molded by the conflicting parameters of a national liberation movement and a movement of European colonization in a Middle Eastern country. Karsh's perspective on the nature of Zionism is more fringe than I originally thought. DMH223344 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

And from the paperback edition of Shafir's Land, Labor and the Origins:

Anita Shapira, in a special 1995 issue of History and Memory devoted to Israeli historiography, acknowledges that the use of the colonial model in studying Israel "is both legitimate and desirable," since "defining a movement as settlement-colonialism may well help to clarify the relations between the settling nation and the native one." As she points out, such an admission would not have been forthcoming in the past.

DMH223344 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Just commenting, but I just note from the lead itself there's also other mentions of Zionism as "colonisation" in the last paragraph.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@DMH223344. If you did not grasp the distinction I made, it's my fault. I'll bullet it in précis. What is contested is the lead that states:

Zionism is an ethnic or ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe

Marc Ferro was quoted to define 'colonization'. 'the occupation of a foreign land, with its being brought under cultivation, with the settlement of colonists.' Marc Ferro Colonization: A Global History, Routledge (1997) 2005 978-0-203-99258-6 p. 1.

• Colonialism is a generic category having several subsets or elements (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) etc., which all illustrate the principle of taking over a foreign land/territory and populating it with imported labour. The more familiar forms are
• (a) Settler-colonialism (b) exploitation colonialism, (c) Surrogate Colonialism, (d) Internal colonialism and (e) sponsored colonization.
• Colonialism therefore is the class, whose subsets are (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) constitute the elements of that class. The edit-warriors here contest the word 'colonization' which they assume is synonymous with the class (Colonialism), rather than being its primary definition. (a)(b)(c) (d) and (e) can be linked and differentiated to each other by Venn diagrams, showing properties that are common and those that are different. None of them alone tell one what Colonialism essentially is. Anymore than a single species can define thegenus to which it belongs, to change metaphors.

Let me illustrate by the latest example of this confusion.

Colonialism historically involved the exploitation of resources and labor from the colonized territory for the benefit of the colonizing power, alongside the imposition of the colonizer's culture, values, and norms on the indigenous population. Zionism does not follow this pattern. Mawer10

Here Mawer defines the class Colonialism in terms of just one of its operative modes, by citing features that apply to one or two of the several types and stating this is what Colonialism is. It fails at first sight because one variety at least, the form Colonialism took in Australia, did not exploit the labour of the indigenous population, nor impose on them 'colonizer's culture, values, and norms'. Rather, it marginalized genocidally the indigenous population and imported convicts en masse from the metropolis to establish its extractive labour force. And neither the convicts nor the aboriginals were inculcated with british culture, norms and values'

There are many varieties of colonialism, as said, and one cannot muddle the concept by defining it variously in terms of the definition for one of its several constituent elements. One cannot define a genus by one of its species. That is why we write 'colonization' rather than 'Colonialism'. Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is a statement from Chaim Weizmann of what he meant by colonization and how it compared to other examples:

"our colonization in Palestine compares not unfavourably with similar work done by other nations of infinitely greater experience and in more encouraging circumstances. To the quality of our settlers and of their work we have ample and authoritative testimony. And over and above agricultural settlement, we have created in Palestine all the essentials of nationhood. The organism is not yet fully grown, but the embryo is complete. We have our language, our land, our peasants and work-people, our intellectuals; from the smallest cottage or farm right up to the Hebrew University on Mount Scopus, everything is our own achievement. By what that achievement is and by what it is to be, we shall be judged in the eyes of the world."

Chaim Weizmann, address to the Jewish Agency, 7 Dec 1931. The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, Series B, Volume II, p5.) Zero^talk 14:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Proud of their colonization! And they have their peasants! Jolly good. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Careful about the tone there, dear Iskander.However one prefers to read the history (my views are known), pride in what Zionism was achieving - an unimaginable and improbable exercise in building a state from the ground up where Jews could be Jews freed of the shackles and uncertainties of a history of subordination- was a most natural human response. One should never underestimate the affective power of such an intense perception, relief at, in purely internal terms, having apparently crawled out of the nightmare of the past. A number of prescient historians and thinkers understood quite early what would be the obverse corollary of this miracle, a death-certificate for the people Zionism would displace ineluctably, effectively transferring onto Palestinians as their future fate the whilom destiny that befell Jews - diaspora, immiseration, contempt as an ethnically opprobrious outgroup incapable of anything but terrorism (as 'Jews' had been ostracized and stigmatized as incapable of anything but shady money dealing). But that was so thoroughly removed from the general awareness of most Zionists that we can hardly blame them for this formative euphoria. The identitarian trauma we are witnessing, not so much in Israel as abroad, has destroyed that pride. But, as editors who must try to borrow a lesson from the historian's craft, we should abstain from feelings of Schadenfreude or mockery. Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

And yet the Lord-of-the-Manor-esque pomp and satisfaction at having the "peasants and work-people" ensconsed is very deridable and condescending classism. This is long past the era of Marx. Chaim, like his political fellows, should have chosen his words more carefully. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy is correct, though your point does have a certain cogency. Weizman there is like an urbane very highly placed member of a metropolitan elite, asked by kin in Europe to help do something about a nomadic tribe of their desperate co-religionists. Lords of the Manor would evict their tenants, and deny they had any claim upon the land they worked, other than paying rent to its proper owner. The creation of a 'peasantry' ('mechanical people' in the Italian idiom) had, for Zionists, nothing of the negative connotations it had for the Christian upper classes. It meant providing masses of Jews denied for a millennium access to land and agriculture, the possibility to rehabilitate their lives as petty tradesmen, middle men, schnoorers etc., by the discipline of physical labour infused with a sense of historical redemption. Lords of the Manor would never have undertaken any such mission for their poor. Like Herzl's diaries, Weizman's letters make for unsettling reading. But it is not what he did for immigrant Jews (the source of pride) that shows the man he was: it is what he did when members of the al-Banna, with some 24 sq.kilometres of prime citrus land under cultivation around Ashkelon, turned to him (he had been a neighbour and good friend of Khalil al-Banna) to intercede in 1947-48 and keep them out of the war (as people traditionally on very good terms with Jews). Weizman ignored them, and they lost everything. A core wealth-producing and labour-intense Arab economy was smashed, and the looted territory turned over to immigrants. Weizman and co., were 'proud' they had looked after 'their own' impoverished class. It's less lord-of-the manorly than those Catholics-turned-Protestants under Henry VIII, who became Lords of their Bad Manors by dispossessing their Catholics friends and neighbours to harvest the riches that accrued to them by extending, under royal patronage, their lands. Those men then dispossessed the peasantry over the following centuries, with no sense of obligation to anyone but themselves. Class is still a valid category for me, but for decades we have seen it trumped by ethnocratic values, and the populist leaders who promote the latter do so in the name of securing a future for their poor, even if this is at the cost of obliterating and immiserating those unfortunates who do not pertain to their favoured ethnic group. It is a provincial pride, that sustains itself by erasing all awareness of collateral damage to the chosen outgroup. (one consequence of Weizman's turning his back on his Arab neighbours was Abu Nidal, but he couldn't have foreseen anything so drastic as that. Those generations were temperamentally/culturally different from the criminal hucksters and opportunistic religious caterpillars who proliferate prominently these days. Sorry for the niggle.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich, I don't expect anyone to search diligently for sources that contradict their opinion. While this is the ideal of science and scholarship, we are all human beings and people who never succumb to confirmation bias are very rare indeed. But saying that you have "identified" only X scholars that oppose your view when you have seen more than that, is a different matter. Here is an interesting observation in this regard:

On 18:45, 9 July 2024 you claimed in this discussion that "So far, we've identified three historians" that would argue against the idea that Zionism is some form of colonialism. Later on 21:03, 9 July 2024 after I presented additional 3 scholars, you said "We're now up to six scholars who dispute that Zionism is colonialism". However from your comments in the recent AE discussion about Nishidani’s aggressive behavior we can see that in the days immediately before you made that "3/6 scholars" comments, you have been closely monitoring the articles Settler colonialism and Zionism as settler colonialism. Yet, somehow you "missed" the fact that these articles contain the opinions of several more scholars critical of the idea that Zionism is Colonialism (beyond those mentioned so far in the discussion here): Tom Segev, Ilan Troen, Yuval shany, Jeffrey C. Alexander and Moses Lissak. In fact, some of these names and their opinions appear in two diffs that you yourself brought into that AE discussion on 15:58, 8 July 2024! One titled "adding content for context, opposing views for npov", the other titled "you have removed sourced material without explanation." Vegan416 (talk) 10:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing prevents yourself from bringing sources, wherever they may be found and no matter who found them. Go with that and everything will be fine. If you have some behavioral issue to discuss with another editor that would usually be a matter for that editor's talk page in the first instance. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

With a 2 minutes search in google and just lookin at the wikipedia articles for (Zionism as) Settler colonialism I have already brought the number of critical scholars in this discussion from 3 to 11. And there are of course more that I'll bring here later as time permits. Vegan416 (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

you have been closely monitoring the articles Settler colonialism and Zionism as settler colonialism 😂 I don't closely monitor any articles. Also, I didn't say that I have identified. Also also, I said "colonialism," not "settler colonialism." Levivich (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

LOL. So the diffs you brought with the critical opinions that you "missed" just fell on you from heaven without you looking for them or looking at them... And your trying to distinguish here between "colonialism" and "settler colonialism" is funny because that whole discussion was in the context of Penslar discussion of "settler colonialism". Anyway, here are 3 more critical names that I found in the last few minutes:

Fania Oz-Salzberger (https://momentmag.com/a-guide-to-zionism-in-hard-times/): What about colonialism? Despite its pioneers’ European origins, Zionism is not, and never was, a colonialist project.

Ruth Ginio (https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/r1azjsska|): This is not a situation of colonialism according to its historical definition, but rather a situation of two conflicting nations sharing the same territory.

Avi Bareli (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13531040108576162): The Colonialist School creates, then, a historical fiction which it calls "Zionism," but which is not really Zionism.

More will come when I have more time to search later. Bye for now. Vegan416 (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

without you looking for them or looking at them 😂😂 You have correctly deduced that I looked for and at them. your trying to distinguish here between "colonialism" and "settler colonialism" is funny Is it also funny when scholars distinguish between the two, or just when I do it?

I do appreciate you bringing sources though, that's what we're here for. Our count is up to 9, although maybe more like 8.5 because Ginio wavers. (And that Bareli article is kind of old for this topic, as we've discussed earlier.)

By the way, remember when I said "modern academic books about Zionism"? That was to filter the pile of sources, so we weren't going at this forever. You're bringing in journal articles, op-eds, and newspaper interviews. You do realize that if we open up the search to include those non-book sources, it also opens the flood gates to the pro-colonialist sources, right? If I can find 10 books saying it's colonialism, I'll be able to find 100 journal articles and probably 1,000 interviews and op-eds. So be careful. 9 is still a very small number, especially if you're searching op-eds and interviews.

More will come when I have more time to search later. No rush. Levivich (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich 1. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that you admit now that you had looked at the diffs, and when you said that "so far we have identified 3/6" you were aware of the existence of more scholars that had criticized the colonial description of Zionism in general (not only specific "variants" of colonialism). And your excuse for this misrepresentation is that you said "we" instead of "I". Pardon me, but this excuse looks like sophistry.

2. You also had your math confused. Actually so far we have mentioned in this discussion 15 scholars who are critical of the "colonial" interpretation (11 of whom were brought by me). Nor is there any wavering in Ginio’s interview. Nor did Bareli change his mind since 2001, if anything he became more emphatic about it. Anyway very soon I'll post (in “round 5” section) a list that completes this number to 50.

3. The 50 scholars I’ll soon post are quoted from a variety of sources: Academic books, academic journal articles, opinion pieces and interviews etc. Please note that I am counting here 50 different relevant scholars and not articles by just any person, and as Selfstudier said once – if a scholar writes something related to his fields, he is considered a RS even if he wrote it on toilet paper. Anyway, if you believe you can bring here quotes from 1000 different relevant scholars that had written in favor of the “colonialist” view, in similar sources to the ones I used, then by all means feel free to do that. As for me, although I have more leads like these, I don’t intend to continue in this line in the near future, because I want to go back to working on my main argument here, i.e. the “Encyclopedias project”. Vegan416 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Is this you trying to trap me in some kind of bullshit? Stop pinging me, we're done. I'm not down for another Vegan bludgeoning. Levivich (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Round 5 regarding the (post-)colonialist interpretation of Zionism

Several editors in previous discussion seem to have wished to create the impression that the number of 21st scholars that are critical of the "(post) Colonial" interpretation of Zionism is only a single digit number (one going even as far as calling it a "fringe" view). To completely debunk this false impression that may have been created I bring here a list of 50 relevant 21st century scholars who are critical of the "(post) Colonial" interpretation of Zionism (most of whom wrote about it in the last 5 years). I actually have more leads like these but I got tired of exploring them and writing them nicely, so I decided to stop at a nice round number. Having made my point here, I don’t intend to continue in this line of randomly collecting scholar opinions in the near future, because I want to go back to working on my more systematic approach here, i.e. the “Encyclopedias project”. News on that will probably come next week on "Round 6".

Vegan416 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it to be 10 rounds? Points decision? Wonder if I can produce a source table twice as big as that one? Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

As many rounds as it take till we reach a consensus decision. We might even have an RFC if we cannot reach it. But at this early exploratory stage it is still early to even decide what the options is such an RFC would be. And I think that I probably could produce a source table twice as big as that one, but as I said I don't intend to work on this soon, as I want to concentrate on the systematic Encyclopedias approach. Vegan416 (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 Yoav Gelber is an interesting inclusion, considering he has repeatedly stated that Zionism as colonialism is the mainstream view in the literature, and the view of Zionism as not colonial is a minority view. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from its irrelevancy, for we have been discussing the use of 'colonization' as an appropriate term in the lead, and there is no other word available to explain what we mean when a programme was undertaken to create a Jewish majority, via immigration, in a country that was 95% Arab, and there is no way to get round the documented fact that the Zionist leadership described this, from 1896 to at least 1948, as colonization, this is a very mixed bag, most of it expressing summarily opinions by Zionists dismissing the settler colonial thesis of Colonialism studies, by challenging the adequacy of the latter general concept, poorly defined. One would expect this in any faith-based belief system. I'm going through these but your very first should be removed. I particularly enjoyed the link to Benny Morris, the son of a Belfast immigrant who, in a book review of the Palestinian historian, Rashid Khalidi, discredits a scion of the Khalidi family with its millenial roots in Palestine for his views about colonialism, because he was for a time, a spokesman for the PLO, in 1980s. And because he quotes a definition of colonialism that is no longer in use, in order to rebut it. That is the quality of most of the evidence here (sniping shots from Zionist (nothing wrong with that, but it is an emotional commitment) scholars who, en passant express their distaste for the term which they fail to adequately define, and are mainly concerned with the politics of the debate, and not the merits of the theory. I'll give details when I get the time.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

And that Chaim Gans quote... the very next sentence is: "It might have been justified, as I think it was in fact, to propose solving the European Jewish problem by establishing a Jewish colony in Palestine." Somehow that next sentence didn't make it into the table.

Elsewhere in the piece, he draws a distinction between other Western colonialism and Israel, writing that while Western countries moved away from their colonialist roots over time, Israel moved in the opposite direction. Levivich (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cdjp1 actually, Gelber was one of the only three three scholars in this list that I didn't find myself but rather copied from the discussion that happened here before I got involved, and where it was established that Gelber opposes the colonialist view vehemently. So I didn't really look much into his writings. So tell me where did he say what you attribute to him? Vegan416 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 his chapter in Cohen's The British Manadate of Palestine to begin with. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I looked at this chapter (I assume it is identical to this, I couldn't find an accessible version of the book itself either in Google Books or TWL) and didn't find anywhere that he claims that the colonialist view is the majority view. Can you refer me to the sentences where he says that? Vegan416 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yoav Gelber. Nope. He edited the book and you attribute to him an anonymous sentence in the abstract attached to it. It is bad practice to just google without reading the source.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Benny Morris, a book review. It defines en passant colonialism as

Colonialism is commonly defined as the policy and practice of an imperial power acquiring political control over another country, settling it with its sons

Palestine wasn't settled by British Jews during the British Mandate, ergo. . . Zionism was not colonialist. Go figure. Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Dore Gold has a scholarly background, though he is predominantly a political polemicist on behalf of the state. It qualifies as an example of a scholarly Zionist challenge to the thesis of colonialism, though it betrays no knowledge of the literature Levivich and others have cited for use over the past few decades. Its historical references are limp, like citing the fringe conclusions (of Moshe Gil's otherwise impressive book) for 'indigenousness', such that Jews and Samaritans (i.e. non Jews) constituted the demographic majority at the time of the Arab conquest, which he sees as causing the wilting of a Jewish majority. That is nonsense, schoolbook legend. No one would deny that there was a continuous Jewish (and Christian, Samaritan, and I might add, Arab) population from antiquity to modern times. But at the time of Zionism, those indigenous Jewish communities constituted 5% of the Palestinian population, and Gold's argument is that Palestinians had no claim to the kind of indigenousness Jewish immigrants descended from 2000 years of ostensible diaspora could claim, and had no right to brand the massive, guided immigration project flooding their country under British auspices, as 'colonialist'. It's a defensive screed with a highly partisan reading of just a few key points, but nowhere addresses the scholarship, something we are looking for. Nonetheless it qualifies as an Israeli RS challenge to the mainstream view.Nishidani (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Tuvia Friling. Israeli scholar. A very curious article which considers this is an Infra-Israeli debate (Zionism-Post Zionism). Almost all the sources predate the emergence of the studies on settler colonialism which only flourished after that date. Useless.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  This is actually false claim. The concept of settler colonialism was invented in the 20th century and all the sources are from the 21st century. Even the so called "seminal" work of Wolfe is from 2006 and almost all of the sources with 2-3 exceptions are from after 2006 (including Frilling). And quite a few of them specifically address the concept of settler colonialism. In fact the majority of sources are from the last 5 years just as Levivich loves... Vegan416 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  the sources of the friling article are mostly from before 2000 DMH223344 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. It seems I misunderstood Nishidani. I thought he was talking about the sources in the table. But if he talks about the sources referred by Friling then isn't he not going into the realm of OR here? I mean starting to analyze the content of expert opinions and arguing with them based on your own personal judgement looks strongly like OR (not to mention the personal arguments he raised against Benny Morris, which are not valid arguments even as OR). Vegan416 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Robert Eisen. Your link doesn't work, at least for me. Eisen is a professor of Judaic studies, and at The Peace and Violence of Judaism: From the Bible to Modern Zionism Oxford University Press 2011 ISBN 978-0-199-79240-5 p.165 he makes the remark you cite. It is an obiter dictum, like all the other armchair or piazza opinions about the conflict on that one page (Jewish violence in Palestine/Israel occurred because they (Jews) were fighting for their lives, (meaning the Palestinians weren't fighting for their livelihoods?)) . Worthless. An opinion isn't significant because a scholar entertains it, but is so when that scholar shows a thorough familiarity with that topic.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Dov Waxman, Are you familiar wtih Waxman's work? That didn't sound like him, and in the next page after the link, he says there is some truth to the settler colonial interpretation.'In this respect the Zionist project was similar to colonial p0roject undertaken by European settlers' etc.Nishidani (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Efraim Karsh In that screed, he thinks Mahmood Abbas should underwrite the balfour Declaration, and drops the remark you cite. He thinks there is no such thing as an occupation. He is a scholar, but his views are all fringe, if not, even among mainstream scholars, often an embarrassment.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Tom Segev. A fine historian, but a personal opinion stated in an email to Jennifer Schuessler writing for the New York Times is evidence for nothing other than his 'take' for which he gives no evidence. I for one would like to see the statistics for the various aliyot from the early 1900s onwards, showing that they were all refugees.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Ilan Troen. he is a scholar and RS. He has very eccentric views, mind you, and apparently believes Maxime Rodinson converted to Islam and ergo went on to develop a theory of Israel as 'settler-colonial' (actually were he familiar with Rodinson, he would have mentioned that that extraordinary man later modified his views, stating that the 'settler colonial' side did not work to render Israel or Israelis inauthentic, but that is another story. So this is an RS from an Israeli scholar who rebuffs, without addressing the scholarship (he mentions Patrick Wolfe only in passing. The remark you quote makes the wild and false caricature of the relevant scholarship, were it applied to the settler-colonial thesis, that it is 'without evidence or argument,' is meaningless, because that literature is all about evidence and argument. Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yuval Shany, a scholar of international law, disagrees with Rashid Khalidi, who is an historian, and is cited by Roger Cohen in a NYTs op.ed to that effect, and notably you omit what follows:'Israel’s settlement of the occupied West Bank since 1967 is another story. Professor Shany and many liberal Israelis acknowledge marked colonial characteristics: a dominant power sending a half-million settlers into an area through force, accompanied by expropriation, control of the economy and daily humiliation of Palestinians that left little or no room for independent statehood.' I.e.for Shany, post 1967 Israel acts in the territories as a colonial-settler state, which, in his view, it wasn't through the Mandatory Palestine period.Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Jeffrey C. Alexander is a distinguished sociologist, who, when asked by Roger Cohen, his opinion, '(colonialism) connects Jews to the very white European colonizers who murdered them by the millions.' That's a nice piece of rhetoric: you have to be white to be a colonizer (tell that to the Tibetans, or Rohingya). The missing premise is 'Jews are not white'. Then Nazis were white colonizers. nazis caused the Holocaust. Therefore, to associate Israel with colonialism is, one must presume, to imply that they are Nazis. This is all very remarkable, no doubt citable, in any course of logic as a text to tease out a meaning where no logical order is observable, but it is totally unengaged with the scholarship-Nishidani (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
• Moses Lissak barrel-scraping.
• Ruth Ginio. Idem. To assert that there is no evidentiary basis for a claim, when it constitutes a robust field of scholarly studies, means this is just an off-the-cuff assertion, neither here nor there, in a Ynet article.Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
• Fania Oz-Salzberger An historian so RS relevant. But it is an opion patched up with Zionist memes and dumbed down soundbites:'Zionism is not, and never was, a colonialist project. Jews had lived in the Land of Israel/Palestine in unbroken continuity ever since the Roman Empire sent most of their brethren to exile.' It is quite extraordinary that an historian can sum up diasporic history by arguing that it was the Roman Empire which sent 'most of their brethren in exile'. The demographics tell us that more than half of the Jews in the Ist century (before 70 CE) were beyond the confines of Palestine, and by choice. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting extremely disruptive, the constantly moving conversations from one place to another. How could one possible publicize the discussion at a project or noticeboard when it moves less than a week later. I'm going to try and refactor some of this. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I give up for the moment because my browser keeps crashing trying to move round 4. Can someone please try and move part 4 between 3 and 5. I think there are other threads that need refactored as well. TarnishedPath^talk 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Ps, @Cdjp1, @Levivich, @Nishidani, @Selfstudier and @Vegan416. The conversation is up here now. TarnishedPath^talk 14:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I moved Part 4. Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that was getting seriously frustrating. TarnishedPath^talk 15:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

almost all of these don't actual dispute that Zionism was colonial or used colonial methods. Instead, they dispute stronger (or different) claims, for example:

• that zionism is/was *only* a colonial movement
• that zionism is specifically a settler colonial movement
• that Jews moving to israel after 1948 are settlers
• that the colonial framework is more suited than the nationalist framework
• that is was a european form of colonialism
• that it came from an imperial power
• that colonialism is bad
• that israel is "the last bastion of colonialism"

DMH223344 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

What is left of "colonialism" if you remove all of these claims? Vegan416 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

like i said, these are all either stronger claims than "zionism is a colonial project" or different claims entirely. DMH223344 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Not really. These are many of the defining characteristics of the claim that Zionism was colonialist project. Also your characterization of the actual claims made in many of these sources is not actually accurate. Vegan416 (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani 1. All your original-research arguments and ad-hominem attacks on the experts in the table are irrelevant to the point I made. As I explained in the beginning, the point of this table was to refute the notion that the opposition to the “colonialist” interpretation of Zionism is a fringe view. The table proves that this view is (at least) not fringe, and no amount of your OR and personal attacks on these scholars can change that fact.

2.     It is also interesting to note that your arrogant and condescending attitude (which led you into trouble in the past) is not reserved only to us humble wiki editors who disagree with you, but also to well-known scholars who disagree with you. It is particularly inappropriate in this case since the people in the table are recognized scholars in relevant fields, whereas you are NOT.

3.     Although most of your claims are in the realm of OR, or irrelevant personal attacks, they cannot be left unanswered. I’ll make a few answers here, and a few on my discussion page here, so that we won’t be accused of bluding here with off-topic and OR discussions.

3.     Regarding Benny Morris’s argument that Zionism is not colonialism. His argument looks like a valid argument. I would also add to it, that not only didn’t Britain send any British citizens (Jews or non-Jews) to settle in the Land of Israel, but in fact it didn’t send any person to settle there. The Jews who chose to immigrate to Palestine (mostly from Eastern and Central Europe and some from the Middle East) did this of their own initiative, and sometimes, particularly in the later period of the mandate, did this against the will of Britain. The Arabs who immigrated to Palestine during that time also did it of their own initiative. Your saying “go figure” doesn’t disprove that fact.

4.     Regarding Dov Waxman. Your comment “it doesn’t sound like him” shows unwillingness on your side to face the truth. He stated explicitly his opinion black on white in this recent book that the Zionist settlers were not European colonialists. The fact that in this book he also admits that there were some aspects in which Zionism is similar to colonialism doesn’t change his conclusion. You can point to many similarities between any 2 things in the world, while claiming that despite those similarities they are still not the same thing, because there are also many differences between them. As an analogy I can mention the current scholarly debate about whether the Hamas are the new Nazis. Some scholars say that while there are definitely aspects of Hamas ideology and practices that are similar to those of the Nazis, Hamas cannot be described as Nazis because there are also differences between them.

5.     Regarding Tom Segev. Tom Segev is definitely one of the leading experts on the history of Zionism, and you are not in a position to argue with experts. This is not what we do here. If you think that Segev made a factual error then bring a reliable source that proves that. Also you have misrepresented what he said. He didn’t say that all immigrants were refugees. Only that most of them were. Just to illustrate very shortly about the Alyahs from 1900 to 1948: The second Aliyah was triggered by the antisemitic pogroms in Tsarist Russia. The third Aliyah was influenced by the civil war in Russia and the antisemitic pogroms that accompanied it. The fourth Aliyah was triggered by what was perceived as economic and political discrimination against the Jews in Poland (via taxation, numerus clausus laws etc.). The fifth Aliyah was triggered by Hitler’s rise to power in Germany. The post WW2 Aliyah was of Holocaust survivors.

Just this. 'Refugee' means 'a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution. It does not refer to anyone making a rational calculation to leave their home(lands) for better prospects elsewhere because the dominant culture is hostile to them. The nearly 3 million Ashkenazi who left eastern Europe for the United States (1880-1914 thereabouts) did not do so as 'refugees'. Certainly, Ukrainian Jews fleeing Symon Petliura's genocidal thugstate who came to Palestine, did so as refugees. NJo need to reply Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

6.     As I said the rest of the answer will appear here. I’ll notify you whenever I add something there. Just as a last point here I would like to see evidence for your claim that Troen had said that Rodinson converted to Islam.

7.     I thank you for some technical comments about links that I will correct soon in the table. Vegan416 (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not 'original research', but simply knowing the topic well enough to be evaluate at sight who said what and whether it's a tenable proposition or not. All but two of those names are familiar to me, and almost nothing there has any relevance to the gravamen of our analysis. It's just a ring-around-the-rosie dance of one-liner defensive memes attached to various scholars. Look. I understand the deep attachment Israelis have to their land, the pride etc. And that there is a tendency get nervous/upset at scholarship which makes the received picture of the establishment of the state far more complex, worrisome than most are born up to realize. But pride or fensiveness has no place here. I say that as someone who hails from among the first families to colonize Melbourne, raised to sing The Wild Colonial Boy, and who noticed from early youth how unacceptable to Australian pride in their country any allusion to the dark underside of its establishment was. In the last 2 generations, the pride persists but no longer under any illusions about what really happened to the indigenous people we displaced. This happens in all countries, Israel is no exception. People, even high educated liberals, get nervous, until scholarship's c onclusions filter down into popular perceptions. One anecdote to underline this diffuse ignorance among the highly educated of the whole story. A TAU mathematician had to, as part of his IDF service, be present during the routine beatings that Palestinian prisoners undergo to make them grasp through brutalization who's the boss. He refrained from putting the boot in, and just observed. He noted that the prisoner who received the greatest number of thrashings was the quietest of that category, but more importantly, when he helped the ward up one day from the floor, that his identification number consisted of two Amicable numbers. The became acquainted. Some time later, the Palestinian said Israeli Jews were immigrants into his land. The mathematician corrected him:'No, to the contrary. You Arabs are the settlers here. This is our land.'

Given your response I won't procede with details on each of those entries. It's pointless pointing out how what is patently irrelevant is being churned out to demand a fifth, sixth, seventh, re-examination of an issue already resolved. You think views via emails and phone calls, or occasional remarks giving one's point of view, qualified or not, are proof of something other than the fact that people with degrees have opinions on everything. Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Nishidani

1. ROFL. Assuming that you know "the topic well enough to decide on you own, without reference to sources, what's "a tenable proposition or not", against the opinion of real scholars in the field, is the essence of bad original research and pretense.
2. Your false characterization of all the sources as "one-liner defensive memes" shows that you didn't even bother to read many of them, which discuss the issue at depth, and that you didn't try at all to answer any of the arguments that you did read (e.g. Morris, Waxman, Friling). You also didn't bring here any sources to refute those scholars. As far as I can see all you did here was only to make unsourced ad-hominem attacks ("He has very eccentric views"), tell unverified anecdotes, and make pseudo-psychological claims about the motives of these scholars. You have to understand that we have no "illusions about what really happened" to the Palestinians. But this has nothing to do with the question of Colonialism. There are simply many good arguments why Zionism doesn't fit the definition of any of the varieties of Colonialism.
3. Speaking of your unverified anecdotes, I see that despite my request you still didn't provide evidence for your claim that Troen said that Rodinson converted to Islam. If you can't supply reliable evidence, you need to delete this remark or be in violation of BLP. Do you want to get into trouble again? You know I would never make a complaint to AE about this kind of things, but others may be collecting evidence against you...
4. As for your refugee remark above I should think that the pogroms in Tsarist Russia in the years 1903-1906, and the threats and treatment of the Jews by the Nazis since 1933, and the holocaust of course, definitely answer the definition of "persecution".
5. My main conclusion from this exchange is that I have to write a systematic summary of all the scholarly arguments (historical, sociological, linguistic etc.) why Zionism doesn't fit the definition of Colonialism (each argument with references to the reliable secondary sources that make it in this table and other sources, so it won't be OR). This is probably more important (and certainly more interesting to write) than the Encyclopedias project, so I'll concentrate on that first.
6. And now I have to take a break again for a few days. See you again sometime next week.

Vegan416 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

My unverified anecdotes (when not personal) all come from IP RS). If one reads comprehensively these things will be familiar, and hardly require sourcing on talk pages, as opposed to articles. You think it a BLP violation to mention an absurd insinuation about Maxime Rodinson, one of the finest minds of his generation, made by S. Ilan Troen? Well, when you cited him as RS, I immediately recalled reading some years ago his polemical pamphlet Countering the BDS Colonial Settler Narrative, Academic Engagement Network April 2018, where he asserted that Rodinson had converted to Islam, I think adding something like ('though through a Communist lens') whatever that means. He states that on p.7. That remark suggested to me Troen doesn't know anything about Rodinson other than the usual clichés that try, not to address his scholarship, but merely sow suspicions about his politics. Therefore I don't take him seriously.

It's not enough to google info one desires to find. One must at least have a sufficient familiarity with the field, the scholars, their background and record, to evaluate what google throws up. Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

You can keep writing walls of text (very bad habit you have there) and try to bludgeon your POV through but its just not going to work, you are not even making a dent in the pile of scholarship calling this (settler) colonialism. Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

And Nishidani didn't even make a dent in the pile of scholarship which says it isn't... Vegan416 (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Vegan416 Thank you, this is a great summary. Given the expansive scholarly debate on the definition of colonialism and whether Zionism fits within any of these definitions, I suggest we change the lead to

Zionism is an ethnic or ethno-cultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the settlement of a specific territory.

A mention that Zionism has been described by some scholars as colonialism, with a wikilink to Zionism as settler colonialism, would be sufficient. Amayorov (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern Zionism is essentially about ensuring the continued existence of Israel as a state where Jews can exercise self-determination and about the survival of Jewish identity and culture. However, throughout this discussion, Zionism seems to be treated as something from the past (which ended in 1948) or as something in the present that is responsible for the occupation, apartheid, and colonialism in the West Bank and Gaza, even though not all people who identify with Zionism support these practices.

Zionism is a political movement that was initiated in the late 19th century with the aim of actualizing the Jewish sense of peoplehood in a physical nation, leading to the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. Zionism today informs many Jews’ continued support and commitment to Israel.

Zionism is a variety of Jewish nationalism. It claims that Jews constitute a nation whose survival, both physical and cultural, requires its return to the Jews’ ancestral home in the Land of Israel. Pre-1948 Zionism was more than a nationalist movement: it was a revolutionary project to remake the Jewish people. Zionism’s origins lay in a confluence of factors: physical persecution of East European Jewry, Jewish assimilation in the West, and a Hebrew cultural revival that rejected or transformed traditional Jewish religiosity.

Mawer10 (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool, still haven't agreed on what Zionism is. Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I picked the Schama interview in The Jewish Chronicle because it was the last entry in that wall of <waves hands uselessly>. He is clearly arguing against the mainstream view of Israeli colonization. It comes down to "the vast majority of people are wrong."Dan Murphy (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You have yet to prove that this is the view of the vast majority of scholars. So far nobody here did that.. Vegan416 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

To the contrary, you have to show why Zionist literature from the outset is crammed with references to its colonial plans for Palestine, and why even scholars of great stature like Schama (who has yet to complete the third volume of his magnum opus covering this period, despite a lapse of 7 years) refuse to take the overwhelming documentary evidence from 1896 to 1948 at its word.Nishidani (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The process by which the meaning of the words are defined is not an exact science, this topic falls within the realm of social sciences so it is not surprising that there is some debate about the meaning of the term. But the basic definition of the term has not changed. Mawer10 (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually philology/glottology is a very exact (and exacting) science, and the subbranch of sociolinguistics equally subscribes to scientific methodology.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I was compiling a list of definitions surrounding Zionism, but after seeing that Vegan416 already provided 50 sources basically debunking that Zionism is a colonialist movement, I don't understand why that claim hasn't already been removed from the lead as WP:UNDUE. Walls of text filled with personal opinions and original research are also not helping. It may be time for a RFC. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

  A list collated by a now topic-banned user is your guiding star? That's extremely confidence-inspiring. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"already provided 50 sources basically debunking that Zionism is a colonialist movement." No he didn't, no those sources do not "debunk" the established fact of the colonial underpinnings of Zionism. Please do not misrepresent sources. The claim that others are relying solely on personal opinion in this instance is very cute, though. Dan Murphy (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Guiding star"? "very cute"? Sorry, but I will only entertain feedback that WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

So is that you saying you are unfamiliar with the concept of cherrypicking and how it works? As well as that merely aggregating sources with quotes deemed to be amenable to a certain POV does not in fact determine anything about weight or NPOV without similarly and thoroughly evaluating a wider selection of sources representing all POVs? The simple act of collating a single, POV list is meaningless other than to demonstrate that a POV exists; not that the POV has particular weight or is NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC Workshop: WP:DUE definition of Zionism in the lead

A RFC may be necessary to resolve the above discussion. There should be some agreement about options that are WP:DUE.

• Option 1 (presently in the lead): Zionism ^[a] is an ethno-cultural nationalist^{[1][fn 1]} movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe.^[4][5][6][7]

• Option 2: Zionism is a nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed at the re-establishment of a national estate in what it considers Jewish homeland. [source list]

What other options could we consider? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

that Vegan416 already provided 50 sources basically debunking that Zionism is a colonialist movement Then if I bring 100 saying it is then that will debunk your interpretation of Vegan416 sources? Just checking.

Why not ask the question outright? Should the description of Zionism in the lead include reference to colonialism and/or settler colonialism? Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. Giving a list of options can be constraining. Better just to put the question as "Should the description of Zionism in the lead include reference to colonialism/colonisation?". TarnishedPath^talk 11:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

How are these the only 2 options?

Zionism is thousands of years old. It didn't begin or emerge in the late 19th century. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hwhat? nableezy - 08:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What fresh OR dreamscape is this? That will be in exactly 0 RS. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Opposed to reworking the first sentence of the lead when this article has been receiving so much offwiki attention. Let's work on the body, then we can easily summarize the body into the lead.

Second, there are loads of uninformed editors suddenly interested in this page. It's a waste of everyone's time to engage in the same discussions that could be addressed if everyone who edited here read literally the first chapter of any book on zionism. DMH223344 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

In the alternative, I think adding the word controversial/controversially (sourced) might resolve the issue here without an RFC, unless of course, you just want the reference gone altogether, in which case ignore this suggestion.Selfstudier (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a pointless RfC. Vegan, now permabanned, tried to repeatedly recast the question in order to sow doubt on the established fact that colonization was a core feature of Zionism. Each reframing was rebutted. The last was a mess, easy to rebut but extremely time consuming. There must be a limit to how simple issues can be contested endlessly through new recourses, RfCs etc. Yes, I know. There's no limit, but the RS now recognize what Zionist leaders openly avowed for half a century, that the project to use immigration to establish a majoritarian Jewish state in Palestine was colonial, and was designed and implemented by taking as models the colonial experience of European nations. We cannot rewrite history according to the princiople of political correctness, as that is defined by the state in question, which is now uncomfortable with its past as described by modern scholarship. Nishidani (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

At some point up is down, black is white gaslighting like this needs to be shut down. Indulging the blizzard of bullshit on zionism and colonialism with an "rfc" crafted to favor an outcome at odds with scholarship is not the way to do it.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only interested in WP:EVALUATE and WP:DUE. Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You're not going to be demonstrably interested in WP:DUE until you show similar signs of interest in sources representing POVs other than present in more than a handful of sources. The current selection of sources you have presented numbers 11, most of them more than a decade old. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We may as well make an RfC alone the lines:'Should Zionism be described in the lead as engaging in colonization when for the first half century that is how it described itself, as a colonial project?' Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier suggested fairly similar above and I agree. TarnishedPath^talk 08:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

But, if one accepts this point, (and it is hard to deny) why after extenuating denials, do we make an RfC. Basically because one editor refused to accept that evidence, was permabanned, and someone else stepped up to represent their viewpoint. Endless talk is okay, I guess, but the amount of effort expended on challenging a talkpage consensus just keeps distracting us from improving the article.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bit of theme of relatively new editors, with relatively low edit counts, showing up to argue against the consensus version. You are right to an extent about the usefulness of and RFC given consensus is abundantly clear. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• If there is a consensus already, then I'll WP:DTS. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
• @ABHammad, @האופה reminding you of this very long discussion in which consensus is fairly clear especially when disregarding the views of topic banned or blocked editors. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Reminding editors that pretty much all the discussions below have been covered in this massively long discussion. Pinging @Andrevan, @Dan Murphy, @DMH223344, @Dimadick, @Selfstudier. @Levivich, @Raskolnikov.Rev, @Stephan rostie. TarnishedPath^talk 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I definitely see huge problems with the option 1. First, it uses the term "colonization", which is an obviously loaded term with multiple meanings. Usage of vaguely defined terms that have obviously negative connotation is an intellectually dishonest trick, and it should be avoided. Furthermore, the link redirects to Colonization, which explicitly refers to colonialism. That is wrong and misleading. We know at least two different phenomenae that can be described as colonization: ancient Phoenician or Greek expansion and XIX-XX era colonialism. In the first case, a group of of Phoenicians or Greeks established a new settlement on some new territory, and this new settlement developed into a new state, which was totally independent from its parent city-state. Thus, Carthage was a colony of Tyre, and Syracuse was a colony of Corinth, but both those cities were totally independent states. Of course, both of them formed as a result of colonization, but that colonization was totally different from what we currently see under colonization. A new era colonization is inherently linked to the term "colonialism", which implies the existence of two different entities: a colony and a Metropole, and the former is controlled by the latter. Did Zionists plan to colonize some foreign territories and keep them under an external control as some subordinated land? Obviously, no. They planned to establish a new independent state there (which, as they believed, was supposed to be a continuation, or a successor, of the ancient Jewish state). However, they never planned to convert any land into a colony in a modern meaning of this term. Therefore, although it is correct that "colonization" is a term that can be found in some boors, it is absolutely not obvious to me that this term refers to the modern colonialism. And it would be absolutely correct to say that the option 1 distorts the sources it is ostensibly based on and contradicts to what other sources say. In addition, what does "colonization of a land outside of Europe" means in that context? Although formally correct (Zionists did plan to establish a new colony outside of Europe, although it was supposed to be a "Phoenician-style" colony, i.e. a new independent state), this statement is redundantly broad and, therefore, misleading. Zionists never planned any territorial expansion similar to what French or British empire did, their sphere of interest was a very concrete patch of land: Palestine, a former territory of ancient Judea. I am not an expert in this field, and I wouldn't be surprised if some source says otherwise, but a commonly accepted point of view seems to be that territorial ambitions of Zionists have always been limited with a "canonical territory" of ancient Judea. The potion 1 is misleading and factually incorrect, it violates our core policies, NPOV and NOR. If this sentence stays, I am going to put NPOV and NOR tags on the section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, the next sentence is also incorrect and misleading. It says:

"With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine"

This sentence created a false impression that the rejection was a result of some discussion among Zionists, however, the link redirects us to several unrelated projects that existed before the Zionist movement started, or to some totally unrelated projects (like Soviet or Nazi projects), which were initiated after the Zionists had already selected Palestine as their goal.

I think the idea to split the very concrete statement into two factually incorrect and misleading sentences is very bad. All of that must be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that "alternate proposals for a Jewish state links to an article doesn't mean the sentence must refer to each and every proposal listed in the article. Let's not assume readers are stupid. Anyone who reads the linked to article can figure out which examples listed are relevant to the sentence. If you seriously think this is an issue wr can pipe the link so it points to Uganda Scheme or Jewish Territorial Organization instead though proposals for a Jewish state also lists other options proposed by Herzl and early Zionists. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah no objection to removing the link. If anything, it does somewhat imply that the "proposals for a Jewish state" article is about Zionist proposals. I wouldn't think the reader would be confused by this, but apparently at least one is. I wouldn't pipe it to Uganda because Uganda wasn't the only one. I don't think we have an article about Zionist proposed alternatives to Palestine. Levivich (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting speech...and completely source free. Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What part of that "speech" needs to be supported by a source? That Carthage was a colony of Tyre? That Jewish Autonomous Oblast was established after Balfour Declaration?

And, keep in mind that conclusions about violation of NPOV or NOR are made based on the analysis of existing sources, and they do not require new sources. If you don't know our policy, please, read it.

If you have any reasonable objections, please, present them. Otherwise, please, don't waste our time.

Concretely, I would like to see the proof of three things:

First, the sources that explicitly describe Zionism as colonialism (in the same sense as French, British or Russian colonialism).

Second, a proof that the above view is a majority view (I believe I don't have to explain what does it means, per our policy).

Third, the proof that all proposals for a Jewish state were discussed among the Zionists first, and the decision to focus on the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine was made after all other proposals were explicitly rejected by Zionists.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The lead says "colonization" not "colonialism." Levivich (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Not "colonization", but "colonization", with a direct reference to colonialism. We all perfectly know that the idea of Zionism was to (re)establish a Jewish state, which was seen by them as a successor of the ancient Judea. Technically, that meant to establish a Jewish colony, but "colony" means a Carthage-type colony not, e.g. British India type colony. Since a modern reader understands "colonization" mostly as "the XIX-century-style colonization of Africa or Asia by Western nations", this wording sends the message it is not supposed to send, and, therefore, is deliberately misleading. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it's the same word used in the sources, even the traditionalist or Zionist historians say "colonization." Some also say "colonial," but others distinguish between "colonization" and "colonialism," and reject "colonialism," but not "colonization." That's why the lead says "colonization" in wikivoice (it used to say "colonial" but we changed it after discussion some months ago). Levivich (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Quite a contrary, just read what the link says:

"Colonization (British English: colonisation) is a process of establishing control over foreign territories or peoples for the purpose of exploitation and possibly settlement, setting up coloniality and often colonies, commonly pursued and maintained by colonialism."

As you see it explicitly refers to colonialism, and directly imply Zionists were colonialists (in the same way as British imperialists). Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Do I really need to write "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"? Levivich (talk) 01:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

If a link to colonization de facto redirects to colonialism, that means the whole sentence implies Zionism was colonialism (concretely, XIX-XX style colonialism).

If the sentence can be understood as Zionism was a XIX-XX century colonialism (and we all agree that it was not, unless we accept the idea of the world Jewish conspiracy), that means the wording is misleading, and it should be fixed. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't all agree it was not, that's for sure. Many if not most scholars say it was colonialism; others say it was colonization but not colonialism. There is nothing wrong with the linked article; it defines colonization and qualifies "setting up" coloniality, "often" colonies, "commonly" colonialism, but not always, which strikes me as correct. I don't see anything misleading about that, it doesn't say colonization equals colonialism. But all that said, I don't think it needs to be linked anyway. Levivich (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think mostly, with the point being made by Paul Siebert. NPOV also means not implying something substantially non-neutral. Zionism did indeed have colonization, ie the establishment of colonies, mainly agricultural ones through land purchasing prior to the outbreak of war, which should be contrasted with colonialism as it's generally thought of in the historical imagination. It's an oversight in the current text along with the other concerns that were raised, it plays into a narrative that is mainly critical of Zionism, as opposed to balancing that narrative with less critical ones. Andre🚐 01:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I see no problem with the word "colonization" if it is being used in a proper context (like "colonization of Mars", i.e. establishment of new settlements on some unpopulated or low populated territory). But the current wording implies something else. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You can write a book about Zionism and not use that word :-P But we summarize what the books say, and they say "colonization," so we use the word, even if we personally don't think it's the right word. Levivich (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we just summarise what the books say, but we should do that correctly. In this case, I am not sure you've done your job correctly.

In connection to that, can you prove (without cherry picking) that

The books say that Zionism was a form of colonialism (because the current wording implies that)?

Majority of books describe creation of the Jewish state was a XIX century style colonization?

The sentence is written in such a way that the meaning of the word "colonization" can be understood more like "Carthage-type colonization", not "British-style colonization"?

Paul Siebert (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

OK here's some:

• Benny Morris "the colonizing Zionist influx into Palestine"
• Mordechai Bar-On: "Zionism, in many ways, was a unique colonial phenomenon"
• Yoav Gelber paraphrasing Nahum Sokolow: "In the mid-nineteenth century, it took the form of a small-scale, philanthropic, colonizing endeavour"
• Gelber again: "Ya‘acov Shavit studied the social and colonization ideology of the Zionist revisionist movement"
• Gelber in his own voice: "the colonizing enterprise"
• Gelber, making the colonization/colonial distinction: "Palestinian scholars have been joined by Israeli revisionist sociologists, jurists, geographers, and historians in an attempt to prove Zionism’s colonialist (as distinct from colonizing) nature"
• Draft:Yossi Ben-Artzi discussing Ran Aaronsohn: "Aaronsohn has compared Jewish settlement in Eretz-Israel with colonialism, which is one of the main criticisms leveled at Zionism by critical historians and sociologists, who have drawn analogies with South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and so on. Aaronsohn distinguishes between colonization and colonialism, both of which derive from the word colony and, to his mind, have been confused."

Those are all from Making Israel edited by Morris, which User:Chilltherevolutionist posted on my talk page the other day (he needs 403 more edits before he can say "you're welcome"), and I've only gone through half that book.

Here, a month ago, I quoted Anita Shapira describing Zionism as "colonization" and "colonial".

Here's a link to my comment on this page in June where I listed the people who Gelber identified as saying that Zionism is colonialism. It's a long list.

We've really been over this quite thoroughly these last few months. Now there is no doubt there are scholars who expressly say it's not colonialism -- Gelber is an example -- but do you have any scholars who say it was not colonization? Levivich (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Levivich! Please, do me a favor, no not pretend you are sillier than you are in reality. I believe we both agree that modern Israel was a result of colonization of the territory of British Palestine by Jewish settlers, so the word "colonization" and "colony" must appear in the article. The problem is not in that.

As I already explained (and I doubt you may disagree with that), the word "colonization" has dual meaning, one of them is pretty neutral, and another one has very negative connotations, because it is linked with the word "colonialism" (btw, contrary to your assertion, although Wikipedia does make some distinction between colonization and colonialism, the former is linked with the latter, so it has negative connotations too). In connection to that, the question is as follows: does the current wording clearly explains that the term "colonization" in a context of Zionism refers to the "ancient Greek style" colonization (new settlements without a metropole), not to XIX-century style colonization ("colonies as a tool for oppression of local people by a metroplole")?

Clearly, the answer is "no": a new reader will quickly see the word "colonization", and the immediate conclusion they will draw will be "Zionism = colonialism = imperialism", and that is exactly what some modern leftists are claiming.

Meanwhile, even the sources provided by you do not support it. Bar-On says about Zionist colonisation as some "unique colonial phenomenon", Gerber speaks about " a small-scale, philanthropic, colonizing endeavour". Furthermore, Aaronsohn and Gerber distinguish between "colonization" and "colonialism" (and especially, they criticise attempts to draw analogies between colonization of Africa and colonization of Palestine).

What conclusion can be drawn from your sources? That, whereas the term "colonization" is used by all of them, most sources provided by you carefully distinguish between Jewish "colonization" and "colonialism" (a.k.a. imperialism).

In connection to that, the current wording cherry-picks the term, but totally obfuscates its meaning in the context of Jewish colonization of Palestine. I would way, the wording is deliberately misleading, and it reflects modern anti-Israel sentiments. We may agree or disagree with what modern Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon, but that should not affect our vision of history of Palestine.

Again, the quotes provided by you clearly demonstrate that the sources have been distorted and misused (the term was cherry-picked, but the author's ideas were ignored). The only way to fix it would be to restore the old wording (creation of the Jewish state in Palestine), ad to move the word "colonization" (along with necessary reservations and explanations) to the next sentence. Similarly, a discussion of the geographical issues (where the Jewish state was initially proposed to establish) should be moved closer to the middle of the lead (it has only a historical interest and is not really important). Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I find this comment as confusing, PS, as you do the specific text you take exception to. It's hard to reply because of likely edit conflicts as opne flies off into the tangent of oblasts. But I will try to in bulleted form here as time allowsNishidani (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Generally the humongous threads on this over the last months have witnessed a clash between extensive RS evidence from recent scholarship, and antipathy by many editors to the idea, in those RS, that Zionism can be approached in terms of colonialism, colonization. This in the face of the fact that the model of colonialism was the default one in early Zionism, and it referred in particular to the German examples per central planning authorities /figures like Otto Warburg and Arthur Ruppin. It is very understandable that many editors, Zionists included, find the term reprehensible, derogatory and personally offensive. I'm Australian and do not consider myself a colonist, as opposed to being a descendant of colonists, just as Israelis of the second generation onwards are not fairly described as colonists (unless they are settlers, which most are not). There are also cultural ideological considerations: the term 'colonization/colonialism' dropped from official favour from the 1950s when the founding fathers' usage became an embarrassment in the new state, which was diplomatically and geostrategically forming alliances with the third world's emerging post-colonial states, and the idea of national liberation movements was exchanged for it.The concept came back into analytic currency for its heuristic utility in the last three decades, with the rise of settler colonial studies, in the wake of the overwhelming evidence that Israel, a metropole, was engaged in extensive settlements of territory beyond its informal, internationally recognized borders, in lands proper to another contiguous people, in daughter colony settlements, very much along the classical pattern though with important differences.Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Now to the meat of your arguments.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The gravamen of your argument is, I think, flawed by a common error, that of taking a complex term, defining it only in one of its meanings then denying its wider referential cogency. In many of our recent wiki debates, not only on this page, editors are falling into this same mistake. Rather than simply, as our remit obliges us to do, taken the overall consensus or thrust of RS to define the appropriatness of a term in this or that specific historical context, they quarrel without much source support, for taking a general term in a highly specific reading, and then denying its relevance to, in this case, Israel.

Take the histories of the concepts of Feudalism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism, Genocide, Holocaust, Oriental Despotism, etc.etc. They all arose, and provided thought with powerful instruments, to make historical comparisons, or claim the existence of some general principle. Feudalism as a concept arose to explain certain continuities in European medieval countries, and then was applied more broadly to non-European contexts: fascism denominated the specific form taken by Italy as a response to modernism, and then was extended to apply to many other countries. Initially, much of these applicative extensions proved cogent and productive of insights, but, as each specific analogy was subjected to closer scrutiny, differences emerged to the point that, certainly with feudalism, the idea began to be challenged and weakened by claims it was a Eurocentric construct. The same occurred with fascism – whose analytic power was undermined by its careless adoption as a term of abuse in facile stereotyping, though the later studies of Robert Paxton retrieved its value as a master concept in the analysis of a repetitive type, with variations, of rightwing populist polities. In the present case, the same applies.

• To take one major form of imperial colonialism as the defining concept of modern colonization, that between metropole and the its daughter extensions in foreign countries is to ignore the range of distinctions in the analysis of this varied phenomenon in recent decades.

• (a)Did Zionists plan to colonize some foreign territories and keep them under an external control as some subordinated land? Obviously, no.

One might equally write

(b)Did Zionists plan to colonize some foreign territories and keep them available for the use of an external community as land subordinated to the exigencies of world Jewry? Obviously, yes.’

One could also add that a core thrust of early Zionism was to establish a colony under the protection of a foreign imperial power: without the assent and patronage of the regional dominus, first the Ottoman Empire, and then the British Empire, the project could not advance towards the establishment of a Jewish homeland. So, in this variant, the ‘external control’ of your classic definition would be twofold: (a) the supportive aegis of an Ottoman/British Empire to sanction a protectorate/colony for a minority whose organized presence among the natives it looked favourably upon (b) and the directive agency of official Jewish planning, financial, economic bodies in the diaspora.

I don’t subscribe to b. I merely provide the analogy to show the ineffectiveness of trying to argue within a very restrictive definition. It gets us nowhere.

• You allow that ‘some boors’ (I like that Freudian lapse!) mentioned colonization – namely, that there are very strong indications in the technical literature of the last three decades that the Zionist language of the first half century which described the state project under construction. But your restrictive use of the word leads you to claim there is no evidence of colonialism in this (one) modern sense. You may believe that, but the relevant RS state the opposite, and certainly the phenomenon of Israeli settlements after 1967, pursued relentlessly by a state in Palestinian territories for 57 years, leaves comparativists - those who work in settler colonial studies- with little wriggle room to deny the obvious – that Zionism is certainly now a colonizing power in practice, much as its forefathers conceived it under different conditions.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a great explanation of the main issue with the lead now, and I think it must change (you described the issue with colonization in the best way one could do). I'm afraid I'm also in agreement with your suggestion that the wording is deliberately misleading. But currently the article is not only misleading but is also false. How can anyone claim that Zionism sought to colonize land outside Europe before deciding on Palestine as its destination? The word 'Zion' is literally in the movement's name... Galamore (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert I agree with your comments and would like to add that the current framing was introduced without reaching a real consensus. I believe the best course of action is to restore the original description, which was more aligned with how sources generally describe Zionism and less misleading/wrong, and allow those seeking to change it to start an RfC to gather input from the wider community. ABHammad (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert I agree with your comments and would like to add that the current framing was introduced without reaching a real consensus. I believe the best course of action is to restore the original description, which was more aligned with how sources generally describe Zionism and less misleading/wrong, and allow those seeking to change it to start an RfC to gather input from the wider community. ABHammad (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

It's no use rehashing what has already been discussed in this section once (that's why it is called RFC Workshop). Anyone is welcome to start an RFC at any point but things have moved on already, we are investigating best sources to try and collaboratively deal with the recurrent issues. Selfstudier (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia also distinguishes between colonization and colonialism. Levivich (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This sentence created a false impression that the rejection was a result of some discussion among Zionists ... like at the World Zionist Congresses? Levivich (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. How can we seriously imply that the idea to create Jewish Autonomous Oblast (1928) was rejected at the World Zionist Congresses (1897)? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Where does the lead imply that? Levivich (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The text says:

"With the rejection of alternate proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine..."

which means that Zionists switched to Palestine after the idea of Jewish Autonomous Oblast or Madagascar project were rejected by them. However, we all know that Jewish settlers started to arrive from Europe to Palestine long before 1928. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that sentence says after rejecting alternate Zionist proposals for a Jewish state, it eventually focused on Palestine. It doesn't mean after rejecting every alternate proposal ever made by anyone ever, it focused on Palestine. You do realize the Jewish Autonomous Oblast was not a Zionist idea, but an alternative to Zionism, right? That's from outside Zionism. The sentence is referring to things like the Uganda Scheme, which was rejected at the Sixth Zionist Congress. There were other, less famous proposals besides Uganda. Jewish Autonomous Oblast was not one of them; that was a Soviet thing. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast was rather an anti-Zionist than Zionist idea. But that is absolutely not clear from the text. It is awkward and misleading. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 is WP:SYNTH. Definitions should be near word for word from a source.
  • Merriam Webster: Zionism is an international movement for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel.
  • Cambridge dictionary: a political movement that had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel.
  • Dictionary.com: a worldwide Jewish movement that resulted in the establishment and development of the state of Israel and that now supports the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

I prefer Cambridge's.

Kowal2701 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries are not best sources, we won't be using them. Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

And we've already been over this. Please read the page before making a comment. Levivich (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cambridge one is a good basis that seems in line with most of the sources. I'm not sure though I understand if we're aiming to start an RfC with option 1 and option 2 or if we want to rephrase option 2 first. Galamore (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We are not actually starting an RFC afaik, the proposal in this section did not proceed and matters have moved on since. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

"that seems in line with most of the sources" - which sources? Levivich (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tertiary-source fallacy. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, +1. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Strawman argument. I don't think it's fallacious to go to dictionaries for definitions. Of course we can still scrutinise them. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Dictionaries are useful on occasion, just not this occasion. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

We're listing WP:BESTSOURCES elsewhere on this page; you're welcome to contribute to that discussion, please don't waste our time by quoting dictionaries. Levivich (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Sources don’t tend to include definitions, either because it’s unnecessary, or to avoid reductionism. If it’s a WP:CIR issue I’m happy to step away, but I think there’s some merit to using the Cambridge definition (mirrored by OR ) as a base and use the best sources to put meat on the bone and make it high level. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure which end to begin with on that statement. First, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't define words either. Second, if the sources didn't define a word, Wikipedia wouldn't define it either, purely because Wikipedia summarizes what the sources say. But aside from all that, what do you mean, "Sources don’t tend to include definitions"? What sources are you reading? Have you read any of the (many, many) sources posted and quoted all over this page? Which of those don't say what Zionism is? Levivich (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, I'd suggest that if you want to start contributing here, you read the talk page first. All 13 discussions are current discussions. Valereee (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• This quote comes from p.27 of the book I recommended above. You are cherrypicking, and then bludgeoning not reading the full quote in context. He was worried that public admissions that Zionism wanted to transfer Arabs off their land were ill-advised, even while, behind the scenes, he was manoeuvring to do precisely that. (pp.31ff.)

On the 6 March 1930

• Weizmann elaborated on the idea of transferring the Palestinian population to Transjordan and Iraq during a meeting with Lord Passfield (Sidney Webb), the colonial secretary.p.32

Weizmann, for instance, who presided over Zionist activities in the west, maintained in 1931 that the Zionists’ public' insistence on creating a majority in Palestine could be interpreted by the world “as an attempt to expel the Arabs from Palestine”-this at the very time when he was actively promoting his plan of transferring the Arabs to neighboring states

• When asked by Ruppin about the Palestinian Arabs, Weizmann replied: “The British told us that there are there some hundred thousands negroes [Kushim] and for those there is no value.”p.6

• Retrospectively he clarified what he asked the Brits to do about those ‘negroes

• ’For my part, as a life-long Zionist. 1 never had any doubt that the creation of a National Home for the Jews must result in the establishment of the State of Israel and that the consequences of this must be faced. 1 thought, and said long ago, that a steadily increasing immigration of Jews from all over the world to a country the size of Wales, without great natural resources, was quite unrealistic unless accompanied by some resettlement of the Arab population. This could, and should, have been carried out between thirty and forty years ago by the British government, on lavish lines, when they had both the power and the money to do it. How, otherwise, could they hope to implement the pledges they had given? P.16

• Weizmann's assessment, even prior to the British conquest of Palestine, that the Palestinians “could be bought off" their land “or suppressed with a little firmness"-in essence, that they were a negligible factor posing no obstacle to Zionist or British plans p.17

• It is important to note that for Ben-Gurion, as for Weizmann and Shertok, the evacuation of the Palestinian Arabs, or at least most of them, to Transjordan and other neighboring countries was an essential prerequisite for accepting the Peel Commission's partition plan or, for that matter, any other partition of Palestine p.66

So kindly desist from this bludgeoning.Nishidani (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Masalha is not the most objective source, but yes Weizmann entertained ideas about voluntary transfer. There is no evidence of him or Herzl having maximalist objectives of "as much land and as few Arabs as possible", though. Herzl barely entertained ideas of transfer beyond a diary entry. You didn't mention Brit Shalom, which is the more black-and-white case of Zionists who are glaringly misrepresented by the content in question. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

"Masalha is not the most objective source" What makes you say that? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

His views are well-known, I don't think we need to get into it here. He's a reliable source for plain facts, but the broader narratives he advances are not neutral ones. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Objectivity is subjective, and Masalha is a reliable source, which is what counts here. Benny Morris isn't "objective" either, we use Zionist Israeli historians all over the place here. That isnt one of the criteria for reliability though. nableezy - 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Brit Shalom was of course "marginal" (Shapira and Morris use this term). Goldberg puts the number of supporters at 200. Gorny places Brit Shalom outside the Zionist consensus; in his analysis he still speaks of "Zionism" even if some Brit Shalom members had different views or tactics. DMH223344 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

When I was flipping through Shapira 1992 (Land and Power ), some of it jumped out at me given recent discussions:

p. viii: Indeed, the principal facts are generally known: the Jewish colonization of Palestine ...

p. 107: The early days of British rule had spawned hopes and plans about Jewish settlement, systematic and rational, that would ultimately lead to Jewish colonization throughout the length and breadth of Palestine.

p. 131: In the 1920s, nobody was certain that this interesting project—Jewish colonization in Palestine—would, indeed, survive.

p. 355:

In many respects, Zionism was unique as a national movement. One of its (presumably singular) characteristic features stemmed from the fact that it was a national liberation movement that was destined to function as a movement promoting settlement in a country of colonization. This incongruity between the liberating and progressive message internally and the aggressive message externally acted as a central factor in the shaping of self-images and norms—and, in the end, also patterns of action—in the Zionist movement. Zionist psychology was molded by the conflicting parameters of a national liberation movement and a movement of European colonization in a Middle Eastern country.

The Zionist movement was a decided latecomer on the colonial scene: Movements of colonization by Europeans were common up to the late nineteenth century ... The Zionist movement (in particular, its socialist variant) viewed itself as belonging to the forces striving for a better world and could not accept the fact that the framework of its activity was determined by the contours of a country of colonization.

p. 357: In retrospect, the Jewish-Arab confrontation in Palestine takes on the dimensions of Greek tragedy. From the very inception of Jewish colonization in Palestine, the course of ultimate confrontation was inherent in the situation.

Levivich (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your point is that Shapira uses the term colonization? This would seem to belong in a different discussion. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor whose actions started this discussion has been blocked as a likely sock of Icewiz. Refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. TarnishedPath^talk 03:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)